Vegass Handddss

[pleno1]

fold pre, raise flop biggish.

[SuuPRlim]

Now if you gave specific reasons why you thought you could turn a profit flatting with A8o here then that would be different. Having a good read on/control over the CO is one reason (as long as it is not just a case of saying something non-specific like "oh I think I can outplay this guy postflop"), 'knowing' that neither blind is squeezing due to some live tell would be another, as would having psychological ascendancy/momentum on a table. This might allow you to adjust your range and play A8o for a profit. But, without any specific reason to adjust, your default should be to either 3bet or fold (3betting would be game flow/image dependent), regardless of being 300bb deep. In general, a big leak of a lot of many otherwise good players is that they call raises with far too many hands (or at least the wrong sort of hands). Partly this is through not quite understanding the true relative strength/playability of certain hands. And partly it is to do with having a little too much confidence in their ability to make up for sloppy preflop hand selection through outplaying the field postflop.

one of the best reasons for flatting in THESE games is that you drag the blinds in with 78o J8o T6o, etc etc and your IP, very deep vs weaker players, not to mention how "honestly" these pots tend to play, i.e. the opener is c/f AJ on T63 and the blinds are c/calling 45s on T85, not to mention the USA way of c-betting any board with an ACE on it as the PFR and giving up once called, every player of the 3 in this hand would fit into that category so we win a bet when we flop an ace most of the time.

dont get me wrong, I dont flat here 100% i fold a decent % and 3bet decently often as well, but in an "honest" pretty passive 4handed lineup like this one I don't think I'd ever feel like we weren't gonna make decent $'s peeling here.

Im pretty tight preflop, much tighter than this conversation suggests, and there have been numerous 4handed spots where I'm folding ATo.
$80 is a totally stnd open in these games, $80 or $100 is a stnd open.

[Royal Flush]

Re Dan's 54s hand...

Fold preflop. I know you'll hate this advice, and it's no biggy so whatever.

Flop... just flat the cbet. You should probably not have a raising range on this flop from a theory point of view, and since you are readless there is no reason to depart from theory.

Turn is weird because villain has taken a fishy out-of-tempo line. We don't have any idea what this line means from him, whether it is a ridiculous bluff or if he's simply hit the Jack after calling with overs and/or a FD and is betting cos he now has a pair. I'd probably flat since stack sizes are good for this. But I'd be calling any river.

Why on earth would we fold pre?

Why should we not have a raising range on the flop? This makes no sense, we are in vegas playing live cash lets forget the 'theory point of view' and lets work out how to stack a tourist when we flop 3 of 1 rank.

[Honeybadger]

Why on earth would we fold pre?

Why should we not have a raising range on the flop? This makes no sense, we are in vegas playing live cash lets forget the 'theory point of view' and lets work out how to stack a tourist when we flop 3 of 1 rank.

We fold pre because it is not profitable to call. If we had a read on opponent then this might be different. But without a read this hand is slightly too weak to make money imo.

As regards having a raising range on this flop... actually I had misread the hh and thought it was HU on the flop not 3 handed. This changes things a little, but it is not really the point you were making - you weren't disputing theory, you were more saying "forget theory, concentrate on trying to stack the fish". So I will discuss this point (rather than the theory of why we should flat our entire continuing range on low paired flops as the preflop caller vs an EP raiser). The key thing is that it was stipulated by Dan that he was completely readless. So why do we assume villain is a tourist/fish? I guess it is a philosophy thing - I tend to assume that a player is competent until I have at least some evidence to suggest otherwise, and thus I try to balance my ranges against them until I have at least an initial read. Now maybe your philosophy is different, perhaps your default assumption is that a player is bad until proven otherwise. And thus you take generic exploitative lines against them right away. I think this is a fine way to approach things too, and I know you're not the only good player who starts off by assuming all opponents are bad until proven otherwise.

The thing is, whether the opponent turns out to be good, mediocre or terrible... we don't yet know anything about his specific tendencies and frequencies. If he is indeed bad, we don't know in what way he is bad. That's why we should follow theory. Yes, perhaps this opponent will turn out to be a complete non-believer who will call us all the way down with any pair or Ace high if we raise this flop (in which case we would be delighted to have raised the flop). On the other hand, for all we know this opponent might play super scared vs a raise on this type of flop and fold overpairs - but might make zero equity barrels on all 3 streets as a bluff if we simply flat him (in which case we'd be delighted to have flatted). The point is that we don't know what our opponent's tendencies/imbalances are so we play in the most balanced manner possible to ensure that we make at least some g-bucks unless our opponent is as balanced as we are.

[pleno1]

$5/$10

Villain 2 (MP) $600
Hero (SB) $covers
Villain 1 (BB) $1k

one of the best reasons for flatting in THESE games is that you drag the blinds in with 78o J8o T6o, etc etc and your IP, very deep vs weaker players,

We really aren't so deep though?, 60 bigs effective with opening raiser and 100bigs against a potential bb who comes along (who btw can also dominate us with lots of flush and better 4's and 5's if we are looking at it that way.

Because we sholdn't have a raising range here and becuase the guy is new to the table if we decide to raise I prefer a big raise to try and make it look like we are trying to ifnd out where we are at or/and give him some illusion that he has fold equity and decent pot equity with overs, whilst still making him either jam/fold any overpairs 66+ which we will usually jam I guess. Because we dont know his tendancies though perhaps flatting is better. We could even take a c/call lead line to try to induce some light spew.

[Honeybadger]

... not to mention how "honestly" these pots tend to play, i.e. the opener is c/f AJ on T63 and the blinds are c/calling 45s on T85, not to mention the USA way of c-betting any board with an ACE on it as the PFR and giving up once called, every player of the 3 in this hand would fit into that category so we win a bet when we flop an ace most of the time.

Ok, well this is a read that you can work with... But you realise that you don't need an Ace in your hand to win the pot on many Axx flops if your opponent's are honest one-and-done types on Ace high boards? You can float a TON of flops without having hit the Ace and win most of the time when they give up on the turn if your read on how these guys play is correct. I'd generally try to have a backdoor flush draw when doing this, which is one reason why I'd much prefer to have semi interesting suited cards rather than a rag offsuit Ace.

dont get me wrong, I dont flat here 100% i fold a decent % and 3bet decently often as well, but in an "honest" pretty passive 4handed lineup like this one I don't think I'd ever feel like we weren't gonna make decent $'s peeling here.

Each live game does have it's own particular texture and flow. And obviously only you know exactly how the game is playing right at that current moment. So if you genuinely feel that you can make a profit in some way by flatting preflop here, then that is fine... it is you that is sat in the game, you that is aware of how the players are playing, what image you have etc etc. There are likely a gazillion subtle variables that you couldn't even put into words that could lead you to be able to play A8o for a profit right here right now, whereas you might not be able to play it profitably in ten minutes time. That is part of the problem with posting live poker hands of course. Responders can only give general advice based on the most obvious variables, and can't take into account all the tiny little things that can sometimes add up to swing a decision the other way.

The only further thing I would say is to warn again against a general tendency shared by so many 'good players' - which is that they are often far too loose preflop. The main way this manifests itself is that these players tend to call 3bets oop far too often. They also open in EP far too loosely. And they call raises with the wrong sort of hands (this is the point I am making re this hand). Maybe in this particular hand you were right to flat, due to any number of subtle variables. But just be aware that you may share this tendency of being a little over-optimistic about what hands can be played profitably preflop.

[DMorgan]

I guess it is a philosophy thing - I tend to assume that a player is competent until I have at least some evidence to suggest otherwise, and thus I try to balance my ranges against them until I have at least an initial read. Now maybe your philosophy is different, perhaps your default assumption is that a player is bad until proven otherwise. And thus you take generic exploitative lines against them right away. I think this is a fine way to approach things too, and I know you're not the only good player who starts off by assuming all opponents are bad until proven otherwise.

This is a huuuuuuge leak in every form of the game imo. Especially live. I don't know who you are or how much experience you have playing live cash but the assumption that everyone is pretty bad until they show you otherwise is the best line and its not even close imo.


When playing readless you should just go with that your experience tells you that the population tendencies are and play vs those. This is a live cash game in Vegas, an unknown player raises UTG+1 and cbets pretty big - he's unlikely to be bet/folding this flop. As Dave mentioned with his A8 hand - most people play pretty honest so I expect him to have a hand when he cbets this flop a big %age of the time and people don't like folding so I just want to make sure all the money goes in.

The game theory stuff sounds cool but when you're playing  no more than 150 hands with a random live player theres really no need to overthink these hands vs the vast majority of people. It usually just results in joke spew or big loss of value vs fish that have no idea that couldn't even spell game theory optimality let alone apply it.

It might sound simplistic but thats what the population tendencies are so just taking the most exploitative lines is gunna be the best play almost always.

[pleno1]

This is a huuuuuuge leak in every form of the game imo. Especially live. I don't know who you are or how much experience you have playing live cash but the assumption that everyone is pretty bad until they show you otherwise is the best line and its not even close imo.

Definitely +1

The game theory stuff sounds cool but when you're playing  no more than 150 hands with a random live player theres really no need to overthink these hands vs the vast majority of people. It usually just results in joke spew or big loss of value vs fish that have no idea that couldn't even spell game theory optimality let alone apply it.

It might sound simplistic but thats what the population tendencies are so just taking the most exploitative lines is gunna be the best play almost always.

But I guess this means we should fold the 5 high oop pre to a 60bb stack open

[Honeybadger]

This is a huuuuuuge leak in every form of the game imo. Especially live. I don't know who you are or how much experience you have playing live cash but the assumption that everyone is pretty bad until they show you otherwise is the best line and its not even close imo.

Hi Dan. You do know me. I am Stuart Barnett.

I completely see your POV by the way, I just don't quite agree with it. It is a difference in approach that is all. One of the reasons I like to give players more credit than they perhaps deserve is because I feel that one of the biggest leaks amongst good poker players is arrogance and overestimating their own abilities in relation to their opponents. And it is something that I have as a natural fault too. So I go out of my way to show my opponents respect. Sometimes this might mean I make a small FTOP mistake that I wouldn't have done if I'd have just operated on the assumption that "he is crap at poker". On the other hand it helps me maintain humility and prevents me getting carried away thinking "what a massive edge I have" and thus playing hands badly through hubris.

Even if you are right (which you may well be!!), I don't think it is a huuuuuuge leak. The reason is because usually I would have at least an initial read on a player right away. It may well be only something like "he is young and looks like an online hotshot... he probably plays a bit aggressively" or "he is old and grumpy looking... he probably has something good when he bets big" or "this guy just looks like he is in stubborn mode right now and isn't folding" or whatever. It's not a great read, nor would it be guaranteed to be correct - but I might well modify my play massively just based on that read to take a generic exploitative approach vs his presumed player type. But you gave no read at all - not even a read on how the 'average player' seems to play in this game over in Vegas - so what can I do but talk about things in theoretical terms? As you know, I have played a ton live... but I have never been to Vegas so don't know how the games play there.

When playing readless you should just go with that your experience tells you that the population tendencies are and play vs those. This is a live cash game in Vegas, an unknown player raises UTG+1 and cbets pretty big - he's unlikely to be bet/folding this flop. As Dave mentioned with his A8 hand - most people play pretty honest so I expect him to have a hand when he cbets this flop a big %age of the time and people don't like folding so I just want to make sure all the money goes in.

The game theory stuff sounds cool but when you're playing  no more than 150 hands with a random live player theres really no need to overthink these hands vs the vast majority of people. It usually just results in joke spew or big loss of value vs fish that have no idea that couldn't even spell game theory optimality let alone apply it.

It might sound simplistic but thats what the population tendencies are so just taking the most exploitative lines is gunna be the best play almost always.

I see things slightly differently to you, that's all. If indeed your read that he has a strong hand (a big pair I assume) is correct then he's likely going to bet the turn too. Yes you need to fade a few flush cards of course. But what if you have got it wrong this time and he has nothing at all... well then you do best to maximise against his bluffs by repping a weak hand that he might try barrel you off. What you lose out on when a flush comes and you fail to stack an overpair you can gain back by getting him to continue bluffing when he has nothing (and in fact this is when you might be glad if a flush card comes since he could try to rep it, esp if he has one of the suit in his hand...).

Now who knows what he'll think when you raise the flop. He might think any of the following:
"wtf, this guy is not repping anything... I'll 3bet him as a bluff"
"oh no, he must have a 4 or a big pair. I'll fold my 77"
"I have AA. I don't want him to hit a flush. I am all-in."
"Why do I never hit with AK? I fold"

Since you say you have no read you have no idea what level he is thinking on and how he will react. So if you try to make an exploitative play it might work out... but it might just as easily work against you.

That's the reason for taking the theoretical line when you have no reads at all. It works out well in both ways. First it means you cannot be 'accidentally exploited' because you have balanced your ranges properly. Obviously this is not especially important in live poker, but it is a nice little extra bonus. Second - and this is the important one - most of the theoretical lines do more than just defend you... they also allow you to get the correct balance between getting value from your hands by betting/raising and getting value from bluff catching. For example, as I have said above, flatting the flop here maximises against bluffs as well as still making it likely that you will stack a big pair. Remember, if he has a big pair he will bet the turn again almost always (just got to fade the flush which might lose you your action!). Yes you will probably stack a big pair if you raise the flop. But you will probably stack a big pair anyway on most board run outs.

[Royal Flush]

I got to this line 'the most balanced manner possible' and just forgot everything else you posted in your reply. If you are playing a perfectly balanced game in a live cash game you are making some monumental errors, forget all that poker tracker aggression factor tosh or whatever it is these crazy kids call it and focus on the game in hand.

[Honeybadger]

I got to this line 'the most balanced manner possible' and just forgot everything else you posted in your reply. If you are playing a perfectly balanced game in a live cash game you are making some monumental errors, forget all that poker tracker aggression factor tosh or whatever it is these crazy kids call it and focus on the game in hand.

Well that's a polite, friendly and constructive response. Thanks for that. Nice guy.

[Royal Flush]

Well tell me why we should focus on playing a balanced game in a live cash game with people we've never played before? On the surface it seems to be a good way of destroying our hourly rate but maybe there is something i have missed?

[titaniumbean]

Hider mr Barnett, post moaarr!!!! :-)

<3

[Honeybadger]

Well tell me why we should focus on playing a balanced game in a live cash game with people we've never played before? On the surface it seems to be a good way of destroying our hourly rate but maybe there is something i have missed?

I tried to explain this in a post above, but I don't think you'd have read it when you made your last response. Here is the relevant bit:

Since you say you have no read you have no idea what level he is thinking on and how he will react. So if you try to make an exploitative play it might work out... but it might just as easily work against you.

That's the reason for taking the theoretical line when you have no reads at all. It works out well in both ways. First it means you cannot be 'accidentally exploited' because you have balanced your ranges properly. Obviously this is not especially important in live poker, but it is a nice little extra bonus. Second - and this is the important one - most of the theoretical lines do more than just defend you... they also allow you to get the correct balance between getting value from your hands by betting/raising and getting value from bluff catching. For example, as I have said above, flatting the flop here maximises against bluffs as well as still making it likely that you will stack a big pair. Remember, if he has a big pair he will bet the turn again almost always (just got to fade the flush which might lose you your action!). Yes you will probably stack a big pair if you raise the flop. But you will probably stack a big pair anyway on most board run outs.

You may disagree with me. And I may be completely wrong. It would not be the first time.

As I also mentioned in the same post (not quoted), I don't worry too much about balance/GTO play either during live play. Because it is usually possible to get some sort of read on an opponent even if he has only been at the table for a few minutes. It might just be the way he dresses, or it might be some sort of spider-sense live tell thing that gives you a feeling whether he is weak or strong in a particular hand etc. Usually you only need to know where the line is so you can deliberately stray from that line to exploit an opponent. But if I don't have ANY read at all then I do not have any reason to depart from the GTO line. Fortunately the GTO lines still make money for us provided our opponent is unbalanced (unlike for example a GTO line in roshambo, which can only break even). Obviously not as much money as an exploitative line would, but how can you exploit if you don't know what you are meant to be exploiting? As I said, perhaps your opponent is the type to aggressively barrel all 3 streets as a bluff but can make some overly tight folds early in a hand when oop - in this case taking a line to 'exploit' would actually lead to his tendency to fold too much exploiting us!

Basically, Dan went out of his way to specify that he was readless. So I took this at face value and started talking theory.

Peace and love to you brother.

[Royal Flush]

Fair do's i read it as read-less on a $5-$10 random in Las Vegas so ascribed him a playing style