The Red Tornado wrote:

traderdave wrote:Nicely played.

Ironically, it seems as though his big mistake was raising in 1st position. To my ultra-amateur poker mind, that tells me that he has a high pocket pair or two high cards (that raise seems too high for a medium pair or for an Ax). In your position, I'd still rather not see the 7s on the flop but his 1st position raise of 4 times the BB gives you relative confidence that he doesn't have A7 ready to crush you.

Or am I just blowing smoke?

It was only 6 handed, so he was risking a bunch of limpers with his Kings unless he raised and Im sure he didnt want that. Most online players dont seem to care about position, which is fine by me.

Online is certainly a different animal than live. I definitely prefer playing live.

traderdave wrote:Nicely played.

Ironically, it seems as though his big mistake was raising in 1st position. To my ultra-amateur poker mind, that tells me that he has a high pocket pair or two high cards (that raise seems too high for a medium pair or for an Ax). In your position, I'd still rather not see the 7s on the flop but his 1st position raise of 4 times the BB gives you relative confidence that he doesn't have A7 ready to crush you.

Or am I just blowing smoke?

Not raising would be a bigger mistake especially on a 6 handed table. If the table was very aggressive and there was a good chance someone would raise behind his limp so he could reraise, that's not bad. But when you have a big pair you want to get a lot of money into the middle of the table.

His biggest mistake was having KK at a very unlucky time.

seke2 wrote:

traderdave wrote:Nicely played.

Ironically, it seems as though his big mistake was raising in 1st position. To my ultra-amateur poker mind, that tells me that he has a high pocket pair or two high cards (that raise seems too high for a medium pair or for an Ax). In your position, I'd still rather not see the 7s on the flop but his 1st position raise of 4 times the BB gives you relative confidence that he doesn't have A7 ready to crush you.

Or am I just blowing smoke?

Not raising would be a bigger mistake especially on a 6 handed table. If the table was very aggressive and there was a good chance someone would raise behind his limp so he could reraise, that's not bad. But when you have a big pair you want to get a lot of money into the middle of the table.

His biggest mistake was having KK at a very unlucky time.

For sure, he may have been a touch too aggressive, but he wasnt out of his mind.

seke2 wrote:But when you have a big pair you want to get a lot of money into the middle of the table.

I agree with and completely understand that comment but that is where some of my confusion is coming from. I would think that a 4x raise in 1st position would have exactly the opposite effect, i.e. it would, and did, chase everybody out of the hand. In fact, if Brian didn't have pocket aces, he might've folded too leaving the guy winning only the blinds with pocket Ks.

Dan Harrington, of course, disagrees with me saying you should raise with a big pair in any position. He specifically says that slow playing a high pair is a theoretical mistake (although I'm not sure a 2x raise would be considered slow playing).

traderdave wrote: In fact, if Brian didn't have pocket aces, he might've folded too leaving the guy winning only the blinds with pocket Ks.

and that's a bad thing?

I guess I'm crazy, but if I just win the blinds with a big pocket pair, most of the time I'm happy with that result.

Beth Shak from Bryn Mawr got 2nd in a 3K NL Holdem event at the WSOP. Not bad. John Hennigan is obviously the best from around here, but what other pros are from here? I know Ivey is from AC but I guess Jersey can claim him.

pacino wrote:Beth Shak from Bryn Mawr got 2nd in a 3K NL Holdem event at the WSOP. Not bad. John Hennigan is obviously the best from around here, but what other pros are from here? I know Ivey is from AC but I guess Jersey can claim him.

William Chen is from the area, LaFayette Hill. There's a guy who's been featured twice on ESPN at the US Poker open that also owns a restaurant in Newtown (cant remember his name). Annie Duke spent a chunk of her life at UPenn and Eric Seidel has family in this area as well. (There's a longshot chance that he may come to a charity poker event that my buddy Eric is running)

Won a $60/18-man on Stars 2 days ago for a nice $396 prize. No cashes in a bunch (5?) of $27/45-man tournaments over the last few days too though.

Im disappointed in you

The Red Tornado wrote:Im disappointed in you

i'm not, and that matters more.

Im no longer important in your life?

The Red Tornado wrote:Im no longer important in your life?

you're only important in the ~5 mins after you bust me by calling my pushes with your baby pairs.

seke2 wrote:

The Red Tornado wrote:Im no longer important in your life?

you're only important in the ~5 mins after you bust me by calling my pushes with your baby pairs.

wah wah wah wah


mmmmm...your money smells so good....mmmmmm

allright, this might go over some of your heads a bit but i figured i'd crosspost this here. feel free to discuss. or ask questions if you don't understand things. this is a strategy post i made today on twoplustwo...



I was contemplating adjustments I've made in my game over the last year and a half. I think it might be a good topic for a larger discussion about changes we're all seeing at the tables and how we're adjusting to these changes as the "average" opponent has more poker knowledge.

I also recently read Beyond Tells by James McKenna. I thought it was a mediocre poker book (but I think I did get some good ideas for live poker tells stuff). But one thing it really hammered in was the concept of life scripts. I think "scripting" is a great way to refer to how many people play poker. Essentially, they have a set of knowledge. They use that knowledge in certain fairly predictable ways. So often, we are faced with having to make decisions in a readless environment because we're playing online, moving frequently from table to table, against opponents we've never seen before. And yet we still need to try to come up with some idea of what script our opponent might be following to make a decision.

In doing that, I think a key element is understanding the perspective of the "average" player following the "average" script. Pretty often you won't know enough about an opponent to do anything other than assume he's an "average" opponent and play accordingly.

For the first few years of the poker boom, the average player didn't do too much that was earth shattering. Most of them raised good hands, regardless of position. They folded bad hands, regardless of position. They didn't reraise without a monster. They didn't really get cbetting, position, or any of the other more even moderately advanced concepts.

However, I believe this has really changed over the last few years. Many people have read a book or two. Or they are at least aware of the existence of poker forums like twoplustwo or p5's.

Thus a new profile of the "average" player is needed. This is going to vary a lot based on stakes and whatnot, but I'm just going to shoot for your typical mid-low buyin online player, playing $10-$50 type events since I think that's what most of us are playing and certainly where I have the most experience.

Also, I think these concepts/adjustments are good to keep in mind as you move up in stakes, as the average opponent at higher stake levels will be incorporating a few more of these elements into their script--or will good enough that they are not following a script.


Cbetting
This used to be something so many players didn't do/adjust to. Now, I think the typical player has this in their script. I don't think the typical player necessarily knows when they should and shouldn't cbet (based on board texture or stack size or number of opponents or whatever), but most of them have figured out that they are "supposed" to bet the flop if they raise preflop. To a lesser extent, I think people also have realized that often times, when someone else cbets, it does not necessarily represent strength.

Adjustment: Pretty obvious, but you should more often raise a flop bet from a preflop raiser, especially in situations that "dictate" a cbet (heads up pot, blind defense, etc.). Check planning to C/R, check/call the flop and lead the turn, etc. Find spots where you think it's unlikely the PFR connected with the flop and win a few extra bets.

People may also call/raise your cbets much more liberally than they did in the past, but I think this happens to a lesser extent. Accordingly, more often you might check a flop with a mediocre/good hand that you think is best, hoping to get to showdown cheaply because you can't stand a raise. I suppose you could cbet more often with very strong but well concealed hands because you're more often going to get raised by people who think you are "just cbetting."


Position
The average player is more aware of the concept of position. A lot of players understand the idea that they should be raising wider in late position than in early position. I think this mostly shows up in players open-raising in late position more often.

Adjustment: If you aren't restealing, you need to read about it, learn it, love it, and live it. It's so profitable. Yes, more people may know what you're doing now when you resteal, but it doesn't mean they still won't raise any 2 on the button just because they have position and their script is telling them to raise wide on the button because position is good.


Restealing
This one has become more common, but not nearly as much as the first two. Restealing light is no longer a special trick of better players. Especially restealing by moving all-in on a mid-sized stack from the SB or BB over a raise from CO or BU.

Adjustment: One of the big moves that's been popular on the forums as an adjustment against restealing is open-limping in LP. Especially with hands that really want to see a flop because it will throw opponents out of their script. They may just check instead of pushing because you have thrown them "out of whack" with your limp and they're worried you're holding a monster because you did not follow the script they expected you to follow. At the least, they may not raise nearly as wide because they are worried you might be strong, and thus you can fold to their raises with less worry that you're making a mistake (and lose less chips when you have hands that you wouldn't call a raise with). Also, you might push when you are a little deeper because you like the strength of your hand but don't feel you could necessarily call a resteal.


Limper Punishing
Punishing limpers with a big raise. This is probably less prevalent than the others, but I've seen a lot more people incorporating this move. I think this is something that is rapidly gaining a foothold in the "typical" player's repetoire.

Adjustment:
I'm not going to make this adjustment quite as easily because I think this knowledge is not quite as prevalent in the "average" player, but once I think someone on my table has this ability, I'm cutting my open-limping and limping-behind with speculative hands pretty drastically. At other times, I might limp a strong hand sometimes because I think someone is going to try and punish me and I can induce that action. Essentially, I'm trying to trigger their script.


To me, the mark of a strong player is the one that can move in and out of different styles as appropriate to the point that they aren't really scripted at all. The fundamental key to reaching that point is understanding why you are doing certain things. If you know you're supposed to cbet after you raise preflop, but can't coherently explain why certain flops/situations/stack sizes are more or less favorable for cbetting, then you're just following a script and you need to work on understanding the concept in order to move to the next level.


In any case, I obviously found this idea of scripting to be pretty interesting and I think there's probably more that could be added to this topic. So I open this for discussion. Agree? Disagree? What other "advanced" moves do you think are being becoming common knowledge? Is isolation common knowledge? Bubble exploitation? What other adjustments are you making?

seke2 wrote:
Cbetting

Adjustment: Pretty obvious, but you should more often raise a flop bet from a preflop raiser, especially in situations that "dictate" a cbet (heads up pot, blind defense, etc.). Check planning to C/R, check/call the flop and lead the turn, etc. Find spots where you think it's unlikely the PFR connected with the flop and win a few extra bets.

Maybe I'm shell-shocked lately, but whenever I reraise what seems to be a cbet I'm getting pushed back quite alot. The crazy part is when I do look them up they arent strong as I thought they'd be and seem to understand that I'm trying to steal their cbet. It's almost becoming an allin fest in the 10 dollar tourneys with people calling with AT on a flop like 6 J 4. It's crazy.

I guess my main point is that all of this maneuvering, whether it's thru position or cbetting or stealing, is becoming highly aggressive and I think when that happens the odds tend to start favoring weaker players because it starts to become more about luck than skill. Whenever I hear interviews with the pros, I always hear them talk about how they win lots of the small pots and how important that is. This rising aggression seems to be the opposite.

The Red Tornado wrote:I guess my main point is that all of this maneuvering, whether it's thru position or cbetting or stealing, is becoming highly aggressive and I think when that happens the odds tend to start favoring weaker players because it starts to become more about luck than skill. Whenever I hear interviews with the pros, I always hear them talk about how they win lots of the small pots and how important that is. This rising aggression seems to be the opposite.

Most of those pros you are talking about are also opening a MUCH wider range than most good internet players. This is largely because people tend to play a bit tighter live than they do online, especially when a known pro is raising. Thus, the pros have to win a ton of small pots because they're too "scary" to get a lot of action to just play tight and wait until they have strong hands.

In any case, more aggression does not "favor" weaker players although it does add variance the game. But calculated, well-applied aggression is very favorable for aggressive players.

And the point of my post was not to say "be more aggressive" ... if anything, it's about exploring what "predictable" means nowadays and learning how to exploit predictability.

Like I said, Im shellshocked lately, whenever I'm aggressive in the "right" spot I find myself up against a monster.

The Red Tornado wrote:Like I said, Im shellshocked lately, whenever I'm aggressive in the "right" spot I find myself up against a monster.

then stop being results oriented i guess? if you think they're good spots, then they probably are, you don't suck

seke2 wrote:

The Red Tornado wrote:Like I said, Im shellshocked lately, whenever I'm aggressive in the "right" spot I find myself up against a monster.

then stop being results oriented i guess? if you think they're good spots, then they probably are, you don't suck

easier said than done