|
 |
mrpav.com   Canada. Oct 10 2008 05:18. Posts 1982 | | |
| | On October 10 2008 00:31 Siro wrote:
stop playing so many tables and learn how to actually play, then you wont ask these questions |
 |
|
| My skin is the same colour as my black gun - nolan | |
|
|
 |
milkman   United States. Oct 10 2008 05:47. Posts 2718 | | | |
|
| If my kids end up as dumb as ChoboPokeR_r im going to drowned them in the bathtub. | |
|
|
 |
Sheitan   Canada. Oct 10 2008 10:33. Posts 3710 | | |
Only play AA/KK and small pps to hit a set then go all in on flop, i heard that's what Ferguson advised to be a solid winning player |
|
| NeillyAA: theres no way in hell im going to spend 1 second on anything below nl200 for now on , therefore aggressive shots. | |
|
|
 |
dUUd_   Estonia. Oct 10 2008 13:13. Posts 145 | | |
limpcall any PP other than AA and if u hit set, shove flop, if not,fold it. |
|
|
 |
Baal   Mexico. Oct 10 2008 13:38. Posts 18742 | | | |
|
| DCal Zone: DIE YOU LIQUID POKER CLOWNS | |
|
|
 |
r3v   Brasil. Oct 10 2008 23:24. Posts 29 | | |
| | On October 10 2008 01:22 napalm wrote:
that 16/14 you talking about is extremely exploitable by good players |
No, I think you are used to seeing only heads up games in wich a very good player is against each other...
In a 6 max game that has no fish, and everyone is playing to win money, the game will become VERY tight, and from my
experience as a pro 6max player I can estimate that it is around 16/14 stats..
Of course all the biggest winners in the 6game are looser than that, but I never said OPTIMAL meant winning the most money...
In game theory, the term "optimal" means you play in a defensive way in wich your opponent cannot exploit you even if he is the
best player in the world... If you play against exploitable opponents, it will be more lucrative to play looser than the equilibrium of course,
hence regulars at 6max usually are about 21/19, but if you take away the fish and put only thinking players who play the optimal defensive
strategy, you cannot improve your winnings by loosening up. Sorry if I cant elaborate more on the subject... read Mathmatics of poker and talk with
David Sklansky on 2p2 he seems to be very good at the theoretical perspective of the game. |
| |
|
|
 |
TalentedTom   Canada. Oct 10 2008 23:34. Posts 9938 | | |
| | On October 10 2008 13:38 Baal wrote:
nice sample size there |
if your 1 tabling thats 8 months worth of hands |
|
| A Handicapped parking sign does not signify that this spot is for handicapped people. It is actually in fact a warning, that the spot belongs to Chuck Norris and that you will be handicapped if you park there. | |
|
|
 |
tokeweed   Philippines. Oct 11 2008 00:16. Posts 2143 | | |
| | On October 10 2008 23:24 r3v wrote:
Show nested quote +
On October 10 2008 01:22 napalm wrote:
that 16/14 you talking about is extremely exploitable by good players |
No, I think you are used to seeing only heads up games in wich a very good player is against each other...
In a 6 max game that has no fish, and everyone is playing to win money, the game will become VERY tight, and from my
experience as a pro 6max player I can estimate that it is around 16/14 stats..
Of course all the biggest winners in the 6game are looser than that, but I never said OPTIMAL meant winning the most money...
In game theory, the term "optimal" means you play in a defensive way in wich your opponent cannot exploit you even if he is the
best player in the world... If you play against exploitable opponents, it will be more lucrative to play looser than the equilibrium of course,
hence regulars at 6max usually are about 21/19, but if you take away the fish and put only thinking players who play the optimal defensive
strategy, you cannot improve your winnings by loosening up. Sorry if I cant elaborate more on the subject... read Mathmatics of poker and talk with
David Sklansky on 2p2 he seems to be very good at the theoretical perspective of the game.
|
ok say you play a tighter-optimal-defensive strategy. you'd still be c-betting some flops even if you don't hit right? then check/folding most turns, that is still exploitable as your opponents can float. then let's say you stop c-betting flops you don't hit, this is still exploitable as your opponents can bet bet bet when you check.
i think the only way this can be optimal is when all the other players at the table are playing the same way but more passive than you.
|
| |
|
|
 |
whamm!   Philippines. Oct 11 2008 01:47. Posts 2023 | | |
how about bb sb folds %? what should i be shooting for here? |
|
| FR is not poker, which is prolly why i love it so much lol | |
|
|
 |
tokeweed   Philippines. Oct 11 2008 01:51. Posts 2143 | | |
around 80ish for both, i already told you irl, wtf. |
| |
|
|
 |
Ket   United Kingdom. Oct 11 2008 02:25. Posts 6311 | | |
| | On October 11 2008 00:16 tokeweed wrote:
Show nested quote +
On October 10 2008 23:24 r3v wrote:
| | On October 10 2008 01:22 napalm wrote:
that 16/14 you talking about is extremely exploitable by good players |
No, I think you are used to seeing only heads up games in wich a very good player is against each other...
In a 6 max game that has no fish, and everyone is playing to win money, the game will become VERY tight, and from my
experience as a pro 6max player I can estimate that it is around 16/14 stats..
Of course all the biggest winners in the 6game are looser than that, but I never said OPTIMAL meant winning the most money...
In game theory, the term "optimal" means you play in a defensive way in wich your opponent cannot exploit you even if he is the
best player in the world... If you play against exploitable opponents, it will be more lucrative to play looser than the equilibrium of course,
hence regulars at 6max usually are about 21/19, but if you take away the fish and put only thinking players who play the optimal defensive
strategy, you cannot improve your winnings by loosening up. Sorry if I cant elaborate more on the subject... read Mathmatics of poker and talk with
David Sklansky on 2p2 he seems to be very good at the theoretical perspective of the game.
|
ok say you play a tighter-optimal-defensive strategy. you'd still be c-betting some flops even if you don't hit right? then check/folding most turns, that is still exploitable as your opponents can float. then let's say you stop c-betting flops you don't hit, this is still exploitable as your opponents can bet bet bet when you check.
i think the only way this can be optimal is when all the other players at the table are playing the same way but more passive than you.
|
youre not understanding it at all. your example is not GTO (game theory optimal) play. all your ranges for all your actions would be perfectly balanced between various value hands and bluffs so that you cannot be exploited in any spot. you are cbetting just enough flops with bluffs to balance all the good hands you cbet so that they cannot profitably bluffraise you (i.e. they cant show profit because you dont have too many bluffs). also you also sometimes check flop and trap with good hands just enough so that they cannot profitably go bet-bet-bet when you check. it would be exploitable and not GTO for you to only check flops you miss. you would sometimes second barrel turn with big hands and just enough bluffs so its balanced and unexploitable. and you sometimes check fold turn with hands youre giving up with and you check enough good hands so its balanced so that they cannot exploit you by auto-betting turn when you cbet flop check turn. etc etc etc the examples go on, but with perfect GTO play the point is your range and frequencies are perfectly balanced for every single action so that your play cannot be exploited.
also in response to your question earlier, no there is no existing perfect GTO strategy for nlh and plo because the problem is way too complex. If there was, poker would be called a solved game. Poker is not a solved game and neither are games like chess or go. Examples of solved games are tic tac toe and connect 4. But that's not to say you can't come up with some approximations of unexploitable play in nlh (i.e. solutions to simplified abstracted models of the full problem). Infact a friend of mine whos a very good player constantly works super hard and puts countless hours into working on theory to come up with an approximation of GTO 6max nlhe play
just read or flick through bill chen's book if you wanna know more |
|
| in order to move higher and shine brighter you use other mens dreams as stepping stones | Last edit: 11/10/2008 02:26 |
|
|
 |
tokeweed   Philippines. Oct 11 2008 02:47. Posts 2143 | | |
ok, got it. thanks for explaining it well. |
| |
|
|
 |
ChromaX   Bulgaria. Oct 11 2008 09:04. Posts 262 | | |
hmm so w%@showdown should be like 52-58 and mine is like 49-50 hmmm and i'm still running with 11bb/100 over 40k hands playing 28/22/4? is that low % because of me making too many and too marginal thin valuebets and bluffs? can some ppl with experience talk about this or at least share their won at showdown % here |
|
| AA is only a pair MUPPET - the guy who cracked my AA calling AI pf with QJ | |
|
|
 |
Maynard!   United States. Oct 11 2008 09:16. Posts 629 | | |
Your optimal VPIP and Preflop raise should be somewhere around 35/30. Why is it so high? Because in an optimal world you're sitting with 5 60/1 players. |
|
| You can call me Aaron Burr from the way I drop Hamiltons | |
|
|
 |
Twisted   Netherlands. Oct 11 2008 11:29. Posts 7217 | | |
| | On October 11 2008 09:04 ChromaX wrote:
hmm so w%@showdown should be like 52-58 and mine is like 49-50 hmmm and i'm still running with 11bb/100 over 40k hands playing 28/22/4? is that low % because of me making too many and too marginal thin valuebets and bluffs? can some ppl with experience talk about this or at least share their won at showdown % here |
win at showdown around 50 is fine. |
|
|
 |
Ket   United Kingdom. Oct 11 2008 11:35. Posts 6311 | | |
yeah only a super tight straightforward player at fullring would have won at showdown close to as high as 58. i think my won at showdown % is like 48 for this year, but i am not having a very good year at all. low 50s is pretty standard i think |
|
| in order to move higher and shine brighter you use other mens dreams as stepping stones | |
|
|
 |
r3v   Brasil. Oct 11 2008 20:00. Posts 29 | | | |
| |
|
|
 |
Sennpu   Canada. Oct 12 2008 09:19. Posts 1286 | | |
i am
50~ vpip
40~ pfr
=o with a decent winning rate 4-7 ptbb average |
|
| then she ask me my qualities n bad qualities. so i tell her truth and she kinda laugh at me lol. then i ask her for hers and she gtg. i think it going ok. -Floofy | |
|
|
 |
tiemyshoe   United States. Oct 12 2008 19:18. Posts 245 | | |
| | On October 11 2008 00:16 tokeweed wrote:
Show nested quote +
On October 10 2008 23:24 r3v wrote:
| | On October 10 2008 01:22 napalm wrote:
that 16/14 you talking about is extremely exploitable by good players |
No, I think you are used to seeing only heads up games in wich a very good player is against each other...
In a 6 max game that has no fish, and everyone is playing to win money, the game will become VERY tight, and from my
experience as a pro 6max player I can estimate that it is around 16/14 stats..
Of course all the biggest winners in the 6game are looser than that, but I never said OPTIMAL meant winning the most money...
In game theory, the term "optimal" means you play in a defensive way in wich your opponent cannot exploit you even if he is the
best player in the world... If you play against exploitable opponents, it will be more lucrative to play looser than the equilibrium of course,
hence regulars at 6max usually are about 21/19, but if you take away the fish and put only thinking players who play the optimal defensive
strategy, you cannot improve your winnings by loosening up. Sorry if I cant elaborate more on the subject... read Mathmatics of poker and talk with
David Sklansky on 2p2 he seems to be very good at the theoretical perspective of the game.
|
ok say you play a tighter-optimal-defensive strategy. you'd still be c-betting some flops even if you don't hit right? then check/folding most turns, that is still exploitable as your opponents can float. then let's say you stop c-betting flops you don't hit, this is still exploitable as your opponents can bet bet bet when you check.
i think the only way this can be optimal is when all the other players at the table are playing the same way but more passive than you.
|
why would you be check folding most turns |
|
|
|

|