Ask a MSNLer - Page 6

On August 11 2008 17:35 Kilay wrote: Can anyone help me out with a particular part of this guide Ryan wrote ?? I was reading on page 16 where he says that you should swueeze a lot when you can IP and obviously lessen it OOP (which I totally understand) but beneath that part he says that it's not a good idea to just fire a c-bet in 3-bet pots unless you are planning on shoving or c/r'ing the turn or the villain will always fold his air here and him calling/shoving will mean you are always beat. Now I find this part very confusing (as it already says in the guide) and was also wondering if this particuarly applies when you squeezed and got called being IP or OOP or maybe even both. Can someone please give me some more information on that ??

it's a very incomplete thought (i didn't read it myself so maybe it's just lost in the transcription here).

but think about it this way: you 3bet and got called. opponent has a range of {X1X2, Y1Y2, ..., Z1Z2}, whatever you think his range is. you want to bluff by c-betting 75% of the pot. this needs to work a minimum of 43% of the time (assuming you have pretty much no hope of winning the pot unless he folds). as long as more than 43% of his range is folding, you should c-bet. that's just really simple abc arithmetic that you HAVE to be familiar with and it's the only thing you know for certain.

THIS is what should be in a book, NOT a rule-of-thumb type of guideline. to determine whether a cbet is correct in ANY situation, you just choose the amount you want to bet, figure out the minimum success frequency, adjust it for the possibility that you might still win the hand later somehow, and then calculate whether a sufficient % of the opponent's range is folding. that is ALWAYS true. all YOU have to do is give him a range, that's IT

if you don't think you're good at assigning ranges to people's hands, then like i said, work on your hand reading

Hey myth how did you get to be so comfortable with the arithmetics of poker? Books, articles?

On August 12 2008 09:08 Ja hunta wrote: Hey myth how did you get to be so comfortable with the arithmetics of poker? Books, articles?

Azn.

Really, dunno, thanks for all of the knowledge though Myth (and Ryan).

Well myth, though your math is sound and everything, this is a beginners guide for starting out in low stakes 6-max and I think giving general rules of thumb is good. People arnt going to grasp all advanced mathematical concepts at the same time and they have to start out somewhere.

What you are talking about is more fitting for a advanced guide to low/midstakes players and a great way to continue learning about how good poker players think. For someone just starting out I find nothing wrong with just getting some basic rules to play by while you get experience.

risking 0.75 to win 1

lose once = -75
win once = +1

lose 1.333 times = -1
win once = +1

1.333+1 = 2.3333

1 / 2.3333 = 0.428

therefore you have to win 42.8% of the time u cbet 75% of pot

wow it really works, last time i tried to do this maths i included preflop money and worked it out to be 80% required success rate, im going to cbet basically every hand now, unlikely theres a situation where they wont fold at least 42% of the time

agreed with sakisaki and I think LP should stop linking to my old guides they worked long ago but each limit is much harder to beat now including the micro limits and I don't think my old advice (basicly to nit it super hard at full ring) is guaranteed to make people win anymore.. I kind of feel bad about it srsly

this thing is clearly superior in and you guys should ask the author to use it instead

On August 12 2008 09:23 SakiSaki wrote: Well myth, though your math is sound and everything, this is a beginners guide for starting out in low stakes 6-max and I think giving general rules of thumb is good. People arnt going to grasp all advanced mathematical concepts at the same time and they have to start out somewhere. What you are talking about is more fitting for a advanced guide to low/midstakes players and a great way to continue learning about how good poker players think. For someone just starting out I find nothing wrong with just getting some basic rules to play by while you get experience.

lol i really think people should start out by learning what's correct, not what is wrong and will only give them convictions that will be difficult to overcome once they want to get their heads out of their asses and start actually THINKING

no insult to you, i just don't think there's any excuse for being dumb just because you're a beginner. if i can explain the correct theory that will answer ALL of your questions in the span of ONE forum post, you're probably a LOT better off just reading that post over and over and over again than you are reading some book that will tell you all kinds of things that are only correct under a very specific set of circumstances

what i'm trying to say is, i don't understand how the MOST BASIC theory that even exists to explain poker doesn't belong in a "beginners'" guide

the hard part is the range assignment, the easy part is the arithmetic

poker 101 is knowing some really simple math
advanced poker 312 is range assignment in midstakes 6max games -.-

well that's how it is if i'm making the classes, i don't see why it should be the other way around

On August 12 2008 09:08 Ja hunta wrote: Hey myth how did you get to be so comfortable with the arithmetics of poker? Books, articles?

no you just do the math

personally i don't think it's that hard, but i dunno i've been decent at math throughout my life so maybe it's kinda tough

anyway just do the math and get some practice, even if it's tough at first it should become easy after a while

On August 12 2008 12:15 [vital]Myth wrote: the hard part is the range assignment, the easy part is the arithmetic poker 101 is knowing some really simple math advanced poker 312 is range assignment in midstakes 6max games -.- well that's how it is if i'm making the classes, i don't see why it should be the other way around

I guess it depends on what kind of person you are. I would never have learned much of anything about poker if I started banging my head against math stuff about ranges and whatnot. For me, getting some general guidelines as to how I should play and from there gain experience and become a better hand reader was the way for me.

I rarely, if ever, use math when I think about or play poker. All my plays are a result of experince and intuition. Sure, I sometimes control my intuition with some math when im uncerain and I do understand the math behind most "plays" in poker but I never really make moves based of off math. I make intuitional moves that are mathematicly sound, but thats not the same thing.

Im trying to teach my kid brother to play poker a little bit, and I would never dream of showing him equity calculations and range suggestions just yet. He is still in the stage where I just give him some general guidlines, he plays and I can fill him in on concepts as he goes along and stumble on dificult spots.


Oh, and for anyone who is horny for poker math, check out wiltontils mathematics off poker series on deucescracked. Its really good and its something I will definitely show to my brother as he progresses.

I completely agree with saki here, myth why are you trying to take something simple and throw numbers at it. Yes for some numbers seem more logical and fluid in terms of explanation, especially a game built around x factors and probability but the majority of people do not think that way. As a means to ease someone into a game such as poker, bombarding them in a beginners type guide with numbers will not be the best method to keep their attention, it will scare them away.

On August 12 2008 21:37 Highcard wrote: I completely agree with saki here, myth why are you trying to take something simple and throw numbers at it. Yes for some numbers seem more logical and fluid in terms of explanation, especially a game built around x factors and probability but the majority of people do not think that way. As a means to ease someone into a game such as poker, bombarding them in a beginners type guide with numbers will not be the best method to keep their attention, it will scare them away.

omg, wow

please, to any novices reading this thread, realize i have a green star and people like this have red X's for a reason.

yea guys learn to make sick reads and bluffs then learn the math

wtf is wrong with u all

lol i love the cheez cat

I think you both are right, i believe math is extremely basic and should be taught early, but i also think Myth sometimes cant see beyond the equity ecuation, but thats how myth sees and plays poker.

On August 12 2008 22:51 Baal wrote: lol i love the cheez cat I think you both are right, i believe math is extremely basic and should be taught early, but i also think Myth sometimes cant see beyond the equity ecuation, but thats how myth sees and plays poker.

so baal, what's another way to look at poker.................?

lol if you actually think that poker is not 100% calculations based on equity, ranges, and actions...then i seriously have no clue what to say. i mean i don't have a ton of respect for your game baal, but if you actually don't understand what poker even IS then i'll be shocked

On August 12 2008 12:14 [vital]Myth wrote: what i'm trying to say is, i don't understand how the MOST BASIC theory that even exists to explain poker doesn't belong in a "beginners'" guide

it's because the most basic theory requires you to have good judgement that comes from experience (which beginners by definition don't have) in order to use it

it's not that we think beginners are "stupid", it's just that it's impossible for them to assign a range of hands to someone (how the hell can you do that when you've never played a hand in ur life?)

so there should be a phase (however short) where people just droid it up and botgrind using specific guidelines even though that kinda sucks and isn't what they should be doing afterwards

Hmm... I am thinking about what Jelle just said and I think about the guidelines sometimes people are given to start out playing poker. True, usually they can make you a profitable player upto some level because those fixed rules aren't usually having major exploitable leaks and are very well made for exploiting the usual fish. But when you really want to get to becoming a poker player you need to get experience and understanding in order to accurately formulate a range for every single individual player. For example, may it be a regular or a fish since ranges are so totally different for everyone. Fish can play 50/5/1 and still have loads of possible ranges including or excluding all kinds of hands. I think you can learn a cookiecutter range for these fish but eventually they all are different from each other and I guess that's where experience comes in and especially the showdowns you saw proving the weight of certain hand types in somebody's range.

I don't know... I might just be rambling random crap here but I hope it makes sense and maybe even is kind of right or whatever. I do think that this is a very good discussion and think it's awesome how Myth answered my question the way he did since that's going to make you UNDERSTAND poker a lot more. I am nowhere near saying I'm a genius or whatever on poker but I am here to learn as much as I can on the game as it fascinates me. I also believe that there are just so many people are having a profitable style at level X that they are playing yet don't understand a single bit of what they are doing mathematically explained. I am not sure since I'm still on the edge of the low stakes but I think there should be people around winning at the higher mid stakes that still don't know all that much of the mathematics of poker. Even though I heard about lots of changes in the games from 3 years back or whatever to know I think there is still shit loads that can be done to improve as a poker player even by the best of the best.

Not trying to offend anyone that feels targetted by my post since it's nowhere near directed at anyone. Just the thoughts that came up to me after reading the latest posts.