Vegass Handddss

[Whollyflush]

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.

this is right, when your playing fish you need to focus on playing exploitably as possible, you only need a sembelence of balance in online games against regs. Playing in Vegas is alot different to online games, so i think its safest to presume people aren't world-beaters until proven otherwise. Almost all the biggest online winners still playing very exploitably (folding lots to 3bets/never 4bet bluffing) but its a war of attrition whereby you only take there 2 or 2.5x raise. They crush because they make few big mistakes for stacks by spewing.

[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.

this is right, when your playing fish you need to focus on playing exploitably as possible, you only need a sembelence of balance in online games against regs. Playing in Vegas is alot different to online games, so i think its safest to presume people aren't world-beaters until proven otherwise. Almost all the biggest online winners still playing very exploitably (folding lots to 3bets/never 4bet bluffing) but its a war of attrition whereby you only take there 2 or 2.5x raise. They crush because they make few big mistakes for stacks by spewing.

I don't disagree with what you are saying per se. I just see it slightly differently.

It is not enough to think "I'll assume he is a fish, so I will raise with my trips because that is the best way to stack a fish". Because it would not only depend on him being a fish, it would also depend on what type of fish he is. Against some fish BY FAR the best line would be to flat the flop. This would be the case if they are at all aggressive - in fact against these guys you might choose to flat in spots that you'd normally raise with against most players. I know I'm not explaining it properly... what I mean is that if we don't know what a guy's tendencies are then taking an 'exploitative line' is just as likely to backfire on us as it is to work for us.

Now fair enough we can take a generic exploitative line based on how we feel an 'average unknown player' will react. And then we just take our lumps if we end up sometimes owning ourselves by doing so. But there are two points to note on this:

1. Dan specifically said he was readless. Although I have played a huge amount of live poker, I have never played in Vegas and do not know how the average regular tends to play. Which leads me to the second point...

2. I have no reason to think that raising here is exploitatively better than flatting (which would be described as 'deliberately under-repping our hand' or 'trapping' if we did it for exploitative reasons). As I said in other posts, we are still likely to stack an overpair if we flat. Yet we are also likely to maximise against bluffs when he has whiffed overs but tries to barrel us off what probably looks to him like a 66-JJ type of hand.

[Honeybadger]

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

Fair do's backatya

[SuuPRlim]

$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.

i was talking about my hand where the shallowist effective stack was over 300big blinds

[smashedagain]

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

<3 

fyp andy....any  dtd this wekend. not seen you in a while and wanted a look at your watch

[Honeybadger]

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

<3

Hi Andy

[pleno1]

at what stakes should we stop thinking the player in seat 4 is a fish?

[DMorgan]

Stuuuuuuuuuu

Well now that you've outed yourself i'll just flame you on facebook instead

btw in the 54s hand the opener has 110 bigs not 60

But anyway, I see where you're coming from but imo these reasons for taking non-exploitable lines are a leak that is common in players that play live a ton. You seem to be looking for the line that gets villain to put in the greatest number of bets when really you should be looking at what makes you the most money.

Yes if we flat the flop then we keep him in the pot with his bluffs that are drawing dead but we don't even know that he's going to fire again and even if we did, its still going to be tough to get him to put another $1010 into the $210 pot with 2 streets to come with a worse hand. However if we raise the flop and he calls (which I believed he would very often, hence why I did it) then on the turn we have a $450 with $850 stacks behind so he can get it in a lot lighter - actually now we crush his get-it-in range really hard because at that point he's not folding a jack and he's still not folding overpairs.

I absolutely agree with Flushy that if for example you're only taking lines which you would also credibly take as bluffs, only value betting in spots where you would feasibly have a bluffing range etc then you're losing huge value. You've played a ton live, how many times have you been called in spots where you're never ever bluffing? The answer is probably yeah, loads, so why not do it more often?

[Honeybadger]

Stuuuuuuuuuu

Well now that you've outed yourself i'll just flame you on facebook instead

Feel free pal

btw in the 54s hand the opener has 110 bigs not 60

Yes I knew this, it is pleno1 who has got the hhs confused. I did however at first mistakenly think you were HU on the flop.

But anyway, I see where you're coming from but imo these reasons for taking non-exploitable lines are a leak that is common in players that play live a ton. You seem to be looking for the line that gets villain to put in the greatest number of bets when really you should be looking at what makes you the most money.

I don't think I have this leak too badly. I think the vast majority of my play is highly exploitative, probably more so than most others. I could be wrong though. Either way, I know my theory too. I definitely am not trying to get the most discrete bets out of villain, I am seeking to maximise my EV. Sometimes this means that you run the risk of failing to stack villain on some bad board run outs, but maximising EV does not necessarily mean playing so that you get his stack as often as possible. You know this of course. To be honest though pal, I would often raise myself in this spot against many opponents. But, just to remind you, you specified that you were readless. So I started by focussing on theory... and only went on to explain how the GTO line can still work to get good value out of our hand when pressed further.

Yes if we flat the flop then we keep him in the pot with his bluffs that are drawing dead but we don't even know that he's going to fire again and even if we did, its still going to be tough to get him to put another $1010 into the $210 pot with 2 streets to come with a worse hand. However if we raise the flop and he calls (which I believed he would very often, hence why I did it) then on the turn we have a $450 with $850 stacks behind so he can get it in a lot lighter - actually now we crush his get-it-in range really hard because at that point he's not folding a jack and he's still not folding overpairs.

But remember that he is not likely to be folding these hands on most turns/rivers either if we just flat.

I absolutely agree with Flushy that if for example you're only taking lines which you would also credibly take as bluffs, only value betting in spots where you would feasibly have a bluffing range etc then you're losing huge value. You've played a ton live, how many times have you been called in spots where you're never ever bluffing? The answer is probably yeah, loads, so why not do it more often?

I completely agree with this too! Dude... you've played with me before right?! I am the boring, old, predictable rock who 'sits and waits for Aces'! I have been called in spots where I am never bluffing so often it is untrue... which is ridiculous really considering my, shall we say, 'snug image'

[SuuPRlim]

I think what we all need to remember is one of the fundamental points of live poker is that pretty much every hand is played in a vacuum, with seemingly unimportant, even bizzarre stuff can have a huge inpact on how you play a specfic hand, and this makes it so hard to analyse in written format, I know myself I often dont think too much of lines like "he looked tilted" 2he'd just lost a pot" "i'd lost a big pot and looked like I was tilting" etc but they are hugely relevant and sometimes a spot crops up where you just think something, I have loads of spots where something just strikes me about a hand, I don't really know exactly what it is most of the time but from all my experience playing live cash games and the endless more information you have available to you, I find myself making non-stnd plays/calls/raises etc but something about the way the hand has gone down and the way the game is flowing makes me feel like its the best play.

and I'm right about stuff a pretty high% of the time.

[DMorgan]

Was going to post a few days ago along the lines that dave just did. The games here play a fair bit differently to the games in the UK and actually posting hands for the purpose of analysis is pretty fruitless when actually there are far more factors at play than could be articulated

Being 'readless' is still actually quite a lot of information, just not necessarily enough individual points to give a clear picture. Even in the first few hands we know what the guy has been saying, how much he bought in for, what colour players card he has (indicating whether he's a punter in the pit or not), what he's wearing, how old he is, how he handles his chips, what he's drinking, if he's been playing at another table previously and the list goes on and on.

[Honeybadger]

I completely agree with Dave and Dan's posts above ^^

[SuuPRlim]

having said all this there is still plenty of analysis to be done on live hands are bizarre spots tend to cropup more often and basic fundamentals are if anything way more imortant, like the A8 hand for example, what i wanted peoples thoughts on was the turn raise, and wether people would be more inclined to call the trn donk, call the river bet, or call turn raise river, or raise turn bet river or even if anyone would consider raising turn and chking back the river. I genuinely had little real idea of what a turn donk ment, although i remember being under the impression at the time this was more to be a made hand than a semi-bluff with this player, the only REALsemibluff, he also wasnt really the type to "float" oop either so could prolly give him credit for some sort of something OTF, is my hand strong enough to raise or do i effectivley have a super strong bluff catcher....even tho he could defo vb worse

[pleno1]

at what stakes should we stop thinking the player in seat 4 is a fish?

[DMorgan]

25/50 maybe higher