did you consider going for a check raise bluff on the turn? Posted by GGGGCCCC
Hi GC,
No, I'd be more likely to check/raise the turn if I had an Ace.
I do agree, that in general people don't check/raise as a bluff often enough (something I've also heard Neil Channing say)
However, in this circumstance, in case he has got a hand, I don't want the bet size to be overly inflated, to minimise the potential chip loss. So I preferred the more conventional 2nd barrell, but I like the imaginative thinking. :=)
These kind of simple hands are the ones that occur most frequently, but people overlook most often because they aren't big pots, I think for a lot of people looking to improve its useful to give these kind of hands more attention.
This hand is interesting and the mixed reception is also interesting.
I think a massive factor here is this: 'Blinds 75/150 Ante 25'
There's already 450 chips out there to add to our stack and with a tight image I think it could be justified opening here.
Whilst our hand doesn't play particularly well postflop, it has a king which makes other players having kings less likely and so are slightly more likely to have variations of hands with low cards, i.e hands that just fold. If we are going to open the hand it has to be with the idea of applying pressure postflop on certain boards.
Some comments have said 'I would much prefer opening with x hand', and these comments are valid. However the hand we have is K3o and we need to decide if we can play this hand profitably based on the information we have. With the notes we have on villain as floaty, and a scary card for a good portion of villain's flop calling range (9x, 77, etc) I think the turn is a mandatory barrel, if we are going to play this hand.
I would personally be in team fold preflop, but I think there's more validity in opening it then some have suggested in their responses, although everybody is entitled to their opinion :-) Discussing hands like this is always good. I like forward to more hands.
These kind of simple hands are the ones that occur most frequently, but people overlook most often because they aren't big pots, I think for a lot of people looking to improve its useful to give these kind of hands more attention. This hand is interesting and the mixed reception is also interesting. I think a massive factor here is this: ' Blinds 75/150 Ante 25' There's already 450 chips out there to add to our stack and with a tight image I think it could be justified opening here. Whilst our hand doesn't play particularly well postflop, it has a king which makes other players having kings less likely and so are slightly more likely to have variations of hands with low cards, i.e hands that just fold. If we are going to open the hand it has to be with the idea of applying pressure postflop on certain boards. Some comments have said 'I would much prefer opening with x hand', and these comments are valid. However the hand we have is K3o and we need to decide if we can play this hand profitably based on the information we have. With the notes we have on villain as floaty, and a scary card for a good portion of villain's flop calling range (9x, 77, etc) I think the turn is a mandatory barrel, if we are going to play this hand. I would personally be in team fold preflop, but I think there's more validity in opening it then some have suggested in their responses, although everybody is entitled to their opinion :-) Discussing hands like this is always good. I like forward to more hands. Posted by FeelGroggy
Thanks Danny, for a very insightful, well measured, open minded and rational response.
I know I can always count on that from you. Good lad!
It's been quite a journey already, this thread. I'm only on the second hand! :=)
In Response to Re: StayOrGo UKPC Hand Review: SECOND HAND NOW REVEALED : Thanks Danny, for a very insightful, well measured, open minded and rational response. I know I can always count on that from you. Good lad! It's been quite a journey already, this thread. I'm only on the second hand! :=) Posted by StayOrGo
Rational's my middle name, apart from when I'm running bad on poker then sky is clearly rigged against me ;-)
In Response to Re: StayOrGo UKPC Hand Review: SECOND HAND NOW REVEALED : Hi Mark, Hands like these always get a plethora of views from various people. To some people raising with such hands is just a no-no, to others it's routine, and to some it's, ok now and again. It's impossible to justify actions to all camps, which is why my "plays" will always receive mixed reviews. My request of people, is to not look at things as wholely Good or wholely Bad, but to consider plays with an open mind (even if it seems completely bizaar to you) I would love to be able to justify to every individual, why I think something is +ev, but will never be able to convince all. So I just offer my opinion/thoughts and people can dismiss it or consider it as they see fit. Thanks for the feedback. Cheers, G Posted by StayOrGo
I would agree with pretty much everything you stated above. Hope you don't take it as a criticism, just my take on that particular hand. As I mentioned at the bottom of my post, you had been playing the table and watching the opponent for a while so you were in a better position to judge.
Very good of you to put yourself out there and post these. I know we will all have different takes on it though and have differing opinions and any different suggestions deviating from the line taken, by myself at least, are purely for the point of discussion and certainly not intended to criticise.
In Response to Re: StayOrGo UKPC Hand Review: SECOND HAND NOW REVEALED : I would agree with pretty much everything you stated above. Hope you don't take it as a criticism, just my take on that particular hand. As I mentioned at the bottom of my post, you had been playing the table and watching the opponent for a while so you were in a better position to judge. Very good of you to put yourself out there and post these. I know we will all have different takes on it though and have differing opinions and any different suggestions deviating from the line taken, by myself at least, are purely for the point of discussion and certainly not intended to criticise. Posted by markycash
Understood Mark, no problem, and apologies, if I appear at all defensive regarding my opinions. Some plays I feel more sure about that others (in my minds eye), so I am less likely to be convinced that it was "wrong". This being one of those. I do try my best to put the ego to one side, but it sometimes creeps back in :=)
I am very happy to receive your thoughts/feedback.
Love this!! What a guy - to open up your game and thought process in its entirety! Fair play to you Graham - love the responses this far and think they are so well balanced and as you said, just hand two!
Love this!! What a guy - to open up your game and thought process in its entirety! Fair play to you Graham - love the responses this far and think they are so well balanced and as you said, just hand two! Posted by Nuggy962
Good stuff, glad your are finding it interesting/useful Nuggy :=)
Hi all. It's worth pointing out that I often deviate from the conventional line. So my plays will get much critiscm from the masses. It doesn't mean my plays are "right " nor does it mean they are "wrong". IMO we should move away from "good", "bad", "right", "wrong " and look at the golden mean of the broader benefits and drawbacks. This will require an open-minded approach and a willingness to consider other options that may not be the conventional one. Cheers, G Posted by StayOrGo
This is something I would agree with (to a degree) - Many players seem to think there is only one way to play certain spots and that anything else is bad - they are stuck in that mind-set too.
Obviously there are some spots though where there is clearly a wrong decision. eg. Opening 72o UTG will almost always be a mistake.
I'm interested to what you think about my suggestion about varying your raise size pre for this spot you had. Looking forward to hand 3
In Response to Re: StayOrGo UKPC Hand Review: SECOND HAND NOW REVEALED : This is something I would agree with (to a degree) - Many players seem to think there is only one way to play certain spots and that anything else is bad - they are stuck in that mind-set too. Obviously there are some spots though where there is clearly a wrong decision. eg. Opening 72o UTG will almost always be a mistake. I'm interested to what you think about my suggestion about varying your raise size pre for this spot you had. Looking forward to hand 3 Posted by F_Ivanovic
Hi Ivan, for reasons I mentioned before I very rarely vary my pre flop raise size, regardless of what my hand is. (I sometimes vary it based on table position, but not on hand strength/type). For example I might 2.2x it as standard UTG and 2.4x it as standard on the button. That is NOT to say I NEVER do it, but rarely, and I wouldn't personally consider it in this situation. I feel that good players will soon start to recognise what certain raise sizes can mean, if you adopt this strategy.
I do understand however, the point you are trying to make.
I think this is an interesting thread and hope it continues. I do think the whole discussion of 'right' and 'wrong' plays is interesting and is something I want to touch on. I don't think it's a stretch to consider poker a mathematical game, and as such each possible situation does in fact have an optimal response. So, if this is the case, then there is a right and wrong: wrong being whatever isn't the highest EV decision. If you know all of the ingredients of an opponents line: opening range, betting range, checking range, frequencies, and then how often they are likely to deviate, then I don't think we can really argue that there isn't an optimal response, and therefore a wrong play.
However, this is of course impossible to know. We can't know everything. But still, with the information that we can reasonably acquire, there should still be an optimal response, right? It still isn't simple by any stretch of the imagination to do, but if we think villain does X, then it is possible to know Y is the optimal response, rather than Z. So, perhaps what you're arguing is 'we think differently, so there is no right or wrong', and while that's true, we do think differently, it doesn't mean there's not a right play, if we agree that 'right' simply means the move that results in the most profit.
Let's say for a second that AI plays poker perfectly against itself, like PokerSnowie, then that AI is always making a perfect decision. It is always maximising its EV. Just because we are limited, as humans, in our thought process and deliberate action taking, it doesn't mean there isn't an EV that's highest, and therefore right, in every single spot imaginable. Perhaps it's better to think of decisions on a spectrum, rather than right and wrong, because I do agree that right and wrong kind of undermines the complexity of poker.
Cliffs: Every single poker spot has an optimal response, and therefore there is a right and wrong move. However, it's impossible for humans to always respond optimally.
I think this is an interesting thread and hope it continues. I do think the whole discussion of 'right' and 'wrong' plays is interesting though. I don't think it's a stretch to consider poker a mathematical game, and as such each possible situation does in fact have an optimal response. So, if this is the case, then there is a right and wrong: wrong being whatever isn't the highest EV decision. If you know all of the ingredients of an opponents line: opening range, betting range, checking range, frequencies, and then how often they are likely to deviate, then I don't think we can really argue that there isn't an optimal response, and therefore a wrong play. However, this is of course impossible to know. We can't know everything. But still, with the information that we can reasonably aquire, there should still be an optimal response, right? It still isn't simple by any stretch of the imagination to do, but if we think villain does X, then it is possible to know Y is the optimal response, rather than Z. So, perhaps what you're arguing is 'we think differently, so there is no right or wrong', and while that's true, we do think differently, it doesn't mean there's not a right play, if we agree that 'right' simply means the move that results in the most profit. Let's say for a second that AI plays poker perfectly against itself, like PokerSnowie, then that AI is always making a perfect decision. It is always maximising its EV. Just because we are limited, as humans, in our thought process and deliberate action taking, it doesn't mean there isn't an EV that's highest, and therefore right, in every single spot imaginable. Perhaps it's better to think of decisions on a spectrum, rather than right and wrong, because I do agree that right and wrong kind of undermines the complexity of poker. One of my favourite quotes "In theory there is no difference between theory and practice, but in practice there's a great deal of difference" Cliffs: Every single poker spot has an optimal response, and therefore there is a right and wrong move. However, it's impossible for humans to always respond optimally. Thoughts? Posted by percival09
Hi percival. I take your point. You kind of alluded to where I am coming from, by stating that it impossible for humans to know your following statement as fact
"If you know all of the ingredients of an opponents line: opening range, betting range, checking range, frequencies, and then how often they are likely to deviate" Also you need to add that they are human and won't always follow a set pattern and how do you guage how often they'll deviate and when.
Incidentally, at the moment, and it will probably remain so, computers can't play optimally in NLHE against humans, giving an idea of the complexity involved. I do believe that recently a Computer has been able to play Fixed Limit Holdem optimally, but not NLHE. Lets hope it remains that way, otherwise online poker is finished.
Anyhow, most decisions there is a clear +ev action, but with decisions that get contested by very competent players, this is often not the case. Also, when playing live, there are subliminal msgs. I study my opponents in a very mindful way, not necessarily trying to get reads. But, lets just say for example, that I might have a "GUT" reaction, that is based on something I saw, even though I can't say what I saw. How do you factor that into these complex scenarios. The answer imo, is that you can't. Even in online play, I may make a call, because of a perceived "timing tell". These nuances are what make our wonderful world of poker so complex and in a way "artful" not just scientific. Holdem Manager, strap line is aptly "The Art and Science of Poker"
I hope this goes some way to answering you question. Anyhow, on to hand 3 now, enjoy!
It still isn't simple by any stretch of the imagination to do, but if we think villain does X, then it is possible to know Y is the optimal response, rather than Z.
I appreciate the sentiments but I think to over-mathematicalise (that cannot be a word surely) things in this way can blind those pondering a hand to the many nuanced aspects that should be considered.
For example... Your above equation does hold true but has many layers. If we know the opponent will do 'X' which therefore means 'Y' is the correct play rather than 'Z', well that is all great. The point it gets tricky is when the opponent knows you think he will do 'X' so you will opt for 'Y' rather than 'Z' and therefore he opts to do 'A'. Now if you are smart you will incorporate this into your thought process (basically pondering your own table image and how your actions are being perceived) and can therefore round the equation back to 'you know your opponent will do 'X'... But then if your opponent is smart he will know this and opt to do 'B'. Then we have to consider if your opponent is thinking on this level and doing 'A' or 'B' or if he is just doing 'X'.
There are just so many layers that it is hard to reduce poker to the simple equation above (hence there are not as of yet an army of Phil Ivey/Daniel Negreanu/whoever bots crushing poker on the internet). If bots were made that followed the perceived 'optimal' mathematical line in every hand they 'may' do okay at lower stakes but at high stakes versus the best players they would be destroyed.
It is also hard to factor in things like whether the opponent is steaming from losing a previous hand etc.
I appreciate both responses. I would like to take the discussion further but I feel it's a slight derail. I don't really want to turn the thread too far away from its original purpose, so I'll depart. If another thread on the topic arises then I'll post there. Thx
For each situation, I agree with you that there will be a way you can play a specific spot optimally in a vacuum. However, we don't always play in a vacuum and so making some sub-optimal decision at a specific point in the hand will sometimes:
a) enable you to gain greater value later on in the hand
but most importantly, it will help with your range in a spot and allow you to profit more in future hands in similar spots.
Lets take a simple pre-flop example where CO raises and you are OTB with KK. The optimal play here is surely to 3b. But it might not be optimal to 3b it 100% of the time, but rather 80%. When we just flat, SB, BB and CO will percieve our range to be weak. SB or BB might be tempted to squeeze in this spot. In future situations if SB/BB know we are capable of flatting strong hands OTB they might be less likely to squeeze - enabling us to profitably flat more hands that we would like to play OTB.
Phil Galfond is obsessed with balance and when watching some his videos, he constantly makes the point that there's very few situations he gets in where he would always do X or always do Y and I think he's right with that.
However, for situations where you are in a relative vacuum (eg. Early in a ive tournaments with unknowns or after table move) then we can throw balance out the window - and as such only focus on the optimal play to do most often. Even low stakes online we can largely ignore balance for the most part. Obviously we want to be balanced with some aspects, but there are many situations where it doesn't matter you are balanced since your opponent just isn't going to be exploiting that fact.
Comments
Very good of you to put yourself out there and post these. I know we will all have different takes on it though and have differing opinions and any different suggestions deviating from the line taken, by myself at least, are purely for the point of discussion and certainly not intended to criticise.
Loving the thread and looking forward to the subsequent hands, some excellent discussion!
Obviously there are some spots though where there is clearly a wrong decision. eg. Opening 72o UTG will almost always be a mistake.
I'm interested to what you think about my suggestion about varying your raise size pre for this spot you had. Looking forward to hand 3
However, this is of course impossible to know. We can't know everything. But still, with the information that we can reasonably acquire, there should still be an optimal response, right? It still isn't simple by any stretch of the imagination to do, but if we think villain does X, then it is possible to know Y is the optimal response, rather than Z. So, perhaps what you're arguing is 'we think differently, so there is no right or wrong', and while that's true, we do think differently, it doesn't mean there's not a right play, if we agree that 'right' simply means the move that results in the most profit.
Cliffs: Every single poker spot has an optimal response, and therefore there is a right and wrong move. However, it's impossible for humans to always respond optimally.
For example... Your above equation does hold true but has many layers. If we know the opponent will do 'X' which therefore means 'Y' is the correct play rather than 'Z', well that is all great. The point it gets tricky is when the opponent knows you think he will do 'X' so you will opt for 'Y' rather than 'Z' and therefore he opts to do 'A'. Now if you are smart you will incorporate this into your thought process (basically pondering your own table image and how your actions are being perceived) and can therefore round the equation back to 'you know your opponent will do 'X'... But then if your opponent is smart he will know this and opt to do 'B'. Then we have to consider if your opponent is thinking on this level and doing 'A' or 'B' or if he is just doing 'X'.
There are just so many layers that it is hard to reduce poker to the simple equation above (hence there are not as of yet an army of Phil Ivey/Daniel Negreanu/whoever bots crushing poker on the internet). If bots were made that followed the perceived 'optimal' mathematical line in every hand they 'may' do okay at lower stakes but at high stakes versus the best players they would be destroyed.
It is also hard to factor in things like whether the opponent is steaming from losing a previous hand etc.
a) enable you to gain greater value later on in the hand
Phil Galfond is obsessed with balance and when watching some his videos, he constantly makes the point that there's very few situations he gets in where he would always do X or always do Y and I think he's right with that.
However, for situations where you are in a relative vacuum (eg. Early in a ive tournaments with unknowns or after table move) then we can throw balance out the window - and as such only focus on the optimal play to do most often. Even low stakes online we can largely ignore balance for the most part. Obviously we want to be balanced with some aspects, but there are many situations where it doesn't matter you are balanced since your opponent just isn't going to be exploiting that fact.