Ask a MSNLer

Hey,

I just joined this community, to get better acquainted with everyone I thought it would be cool if we just did a simple Q&A.

My name is Ryan and I play 5/10-25/50, 6m and HU, though lately mostly HU. I started playing about 18 months ago at .1/.25, and man alot has happened since then. Right now I'm hanging out in vegas just relaxing with my boys.


I also wrote a 6m book and posted it on 2p2, http://s3.amazonaws.com/ryanfee/2p2pdf.pdf
That should be a working link

Anyway just trying to get to know people and hopefully get some cool discussion going, so ask away!

Did you join LP to discuss poker strategy, or to have others interview you?

This thread doesn't belong in Medium Stakes poker either, probably Main Poker or General.

Do you have an 18 month graph? That would be cool to look at .

why would it be +ev to have a good shortstack on your left?

I could see how it could be less -ev than a good fullstack but ideally wouldn't you always want position.

if you have a ss on your left you can't open as wide or ur gonna get rolled by resteals

thanks for linking that book though

Grots guide on roids

must be a sweet book

link dont work

link works for me

thx for the book
ill read

btw i assume u mean NL5000 with 25/50
SO why call that medium stakes = LOL ?

Hello ppl


Worship me!

On July 15 2008 14:47 thundza wrote: Did you join LP to discuss poker strategy, or to have others interview you? This thread doesn't belong in Medium Stakes poker either, probably Main Poker or General. Do you have an 18 month graph? That would be cool to look at .

Poker strat, 2p2 is dead to me =P

Sorry I'm new to these forums.

Sorry, I've lost a bunch of hardrives, I'll post this month later tonight after dinner.

On July 15 2008 14:52 traxamillion wrote: why would it be +ev to have a good shortstack on your left? I could see how it could be less -ev than a good fullstack but ideally wouldn't you always want position. if you have a ss on your left you can't open as wide or ur gonna get rolled by resteals

Thats really a relative question, if the alternative is a huge fish then clearly the fish would be best. I would prefer to have a short stacker to my left, much more so than a reg, the reg will reraise you and take pots IP vs you and make your life a hell, the short stacker will make your life a math problem.

And yeah basically just play TAG instead of LAG with them to ur left.

On July 15 2008 17:13 PplusAD wrote: link works for me thx for the book ill read btw i assume u mean NL5000 with 25/50 SO why call that medium stakes = LOL ?

I play mostly 5/10, or rather my game selection is fluid based on game quality, simply 5/10 is better most often.


All: Sorry if this seems like an ego trip thread, I just wanted to become a part of LP and I figured the best way to do so was try and offer some knowledge, but if you don't wanna ask some constructive questions please keep your comments to yourself.

On July 15 2008 17:47 tokeweed wrote: that link has a trojan that steals your passwords!

=(

if it isnt working try

ryanfee.com

thx 4 the link ryan.

I've read that whole book by now and I will say it is the most thorough guide to NL Holdem i have seen.

I definitely picked up on some things in that guide

I think i have been c/folding on the turn after cbetting too much

thanks again

fees! welcome to LP, I liked your book

welcome to liquid poker!:-D

wow i just glanced at your book

i can't wait to read it

!!! thank you!! <333333

(welcome to LP!! <33)

OH also

what program did you use to make your guide?

That was a nice read, thanks for posting. (The book)

Thank you very much for the book. Welcome to LP!

On July 15 2008 20:26 Day[9] wrote: OH also what program did you use to make your guide?

no idea my friend set it up for me

Thanks for the strategy guide, just skimmed through fast, but I already found some points and discussions I really liked.

my friend who is getting into poker was looking for something exactly like this, thanks for posting.

awesome
welcome to LP

What a nice way to start off :D I'll definitely read it, thanks.

will def read that book. thanks for sharing and welcome to LP

welcome to LP!

I havent read the whole guide but it def looks good from what Ive read so far, thx :D

On July 15 2008 18:13 traxamillion wrote: I've read that whole book by now and I will say it is the most thorough guide to NL Holdem i have seen. I definitely picked up on some things in that guide I think i have been c/folding on the turn after cbetting too much thanks again

QFT
very nice work
great guide

On July 15 2008 14:58 traxamillion wrote: Grots guide on roids

have you really read it? its nothing like grots guide

are you the poster fees from 2p2? Thanks for the book it's a good read

nice book

everyone should have to write a book before being accepted into LP community =p

Welcome.

Oh and the flaming is standard for LP,if you were a girl it would be tits or GTFO.

Thats our way of saying Hi.

from .10-.25 to 5-10/25-50 in 18 months sickkk
awesome guide by the way thanks
2+2 article

On July 16 2008 06:54 PoorUser wrote: everyone should have to write a book before being accepted into LP community =p

lead by example?

tyvm

On July 15 2008 17:46 Ryan FEe wrote: 2p2 is dead to me =P

Why do you say that? (I'm not a member of 2p2 community, just curious.)

On July 16 2008 09:32 Roald wrote: Show nested quote + On July 16 2008 06:54 PoorUser wrote: everyone should have to write a book before being accepted into LP community =p lead by example?

yeah teach us how to read souls

coz 2p2 is retarded

welcome, really nice book!

On July 15 2008 14:52 traxamillion wrote: why would it be +ev to have a good shortstack on your left? I could see how it could be less -ev than a good fullstack but ideally wouldn't you always want position. if you have a ss on your left you can't open as wide or ur gonna get rolled by resteals

i believe that having the short stacks on your left is better as pots you will be playing out of position wont be deep and therefore you cant get outplayed as much when oop - much less skill envolved when the effective stacks are shorter

I usually hate fees but I love this guy

can I translate your book to portuguese?

welcome to LP!

lol ty 4 the book im going to read it!

Good read so far.

Hi ryan - welcome to LP, u'll find its much more friendly than 2+2.

-thac

On July 16 2008 11:10 Raidern wrote: can I translate your book to portuguese? welcome to LP!

Sure that'd be really cool


All: TY for the warm welcome, v tired of assholes on 2p2 =(

who are you on pokerstars?

I'm pretty positive there is a really high number of asshole to non asshole @ lp so whatever

it's just our tough love learn and don't fuck up again style or something.

we have a very funny rofl thread with a ROFL in it !

well Loco it is similar only in that it is instruction on how to play nlhe and that is kind of the joke i was trying to make.

Content wise they are obviously totally different

On July 16 2008 11:10 Raidern wrote: can I translate your book to portuguese? welcome to LP!

can i translate ur book to spanish?

I read your book before I started my return to poker, and it made me want to play 6max. I especially like the health section, because that is a big thing people overlook. anyway I just posted a question on 6max NL stats before I saw your post here. I guess you'd probably be one of the more qualified people to ask so if you have time here is my post...

http://www.liquidpoker.net/poker-forum/519632/6_Max_NL_Stats_Question.html

On July 16 2008 11:47 Ryan FEe wrote: v tired of assholes on 2p2 =(

that is why i am here and probably many others. their loss is our gain. WELCOME!

On July 16 2008 11:30 Trey wrote: Hi ryan - welcome to LP, u'll find its much more friendly than 2+2. -thac

Yeah like sida is much more friendly than cancer.

Welcome to LP, an from what I've read on reactions so far, I'll have to pick up your book first thing tomorrow !!

On July 16 2008 13:27 Baal wrote: Show nested quote + On July 16 2008 11:10 Raidern wrote: can I translate your book to portuguese? welcome to LP! can i translate ur book to spanish?

dont you mean mexican

good read for the book. welcome to LP

On July 16 2008 11:47 Ryan FEe wrote: Show nested quote + On July 16 2008 11:10 Raidern wrote: can I translate your book to portuguese? welcome to LP! Sure that'd be really cool All: TY for the warm welcome, v tired of assholes on 2p2 =(

ppl here are only assholes to microstakes players and suck up to med/hi ones, so i really strongly feel you're gonna love it here haha

On July 16 2008 13:27 Baal wrote: Show nested quote + On July 16 2008 11:10 Raidern wrote: can I translate your book to portuguese? welcome to LP! can i translate ur book to spanish?

Sure, you will post it in the spanish LP forum?

read a few pages and seems like a great read. will pick up the rest tomorrow and hope the winrate goes up immediately. thanks for posting this

On July 16 2008 21:19 Ryan FEe wrote: Show nested quote + On July 16 2008 13:27 Baal wrote:   On July 16 2008 11:10 Raidern wrote: can I translate your book to portuguese? welcome to LP! can i translate ur book to spanish? Sure, you will post it in the spanish LP forum?

yep

On July 16 2008 21:53 Baal wrote: Show nested quote + On July 16 2008 21:19 Ryan FEe wrote:   On July 16 2008 13:27 Baal wrote:   On July 16 2008 11:10 Raidern wrote: can I translate your book to portuguese? welcome to LP! can i translate ur book to spanish? Sure, you will post it in the spanish LP forum? yep

Baal..? d2 imo?

On July 16 2008 15:48 Bigbobm wrote: Show nested quote + On July 16 2008 13:27 Baal wrote:   On July 16 2008 11:10 Raidern wrote: can I translate your book to portuguese? welcome to LP! can i translate ur book to spanish? dont you mean mexican

lol that was the first thing i though 8D

now about the poster welcome to LP

On July 17 2008 01:04 Ryan FEe wrote: Show nested quote + On July 16 2008 21:53 Baal wrote:   On July 16 2008 21:19 Ryan FEe wrote:   On July 16 2008 13:27 Baal wrote:   On July 16 2008 11:10 Raidern wrote: can I translate your book to portuguese? welcome to LP! can i translate ur book to spanish? Sure, you will post it in the spanish LP forum? yep Baal..? d2 imo?

nope i use this nick name even before D1.

thats pretty cool Ryan its nice to see someone like u joining this community

Im surprised so many people didnt read his work yet. I read it about 2 months ago and I think it's awesome. Thanks for sharing and nice to see you joined LP

what kind of bankroll management did you use/start with?

did you have lots of trouble at any particular stake/site?

welcome btw..!

now all we need is the same style guide for full ring, although i imagine its virtually the same with slightly modified hand ranges.

Hello and welcome to LP .

do u play starcraft... ?

welcome and im looking forward in reading your book, just skimmed through a few pages and it looks really complete and well detailed, im also the no1 bw player on this site

On July 18 2008 20:12 TT1 wrote: welcome and im looking forward in reading your book, just skimmed through a few pages and it looks really complete and well detailed, im also the no1 maphacker on this site

fixed

great read. now videos plzzzzz. sry im selfish

printed your book so i can read during commute

On July 18 2008 22:24 MayZerG wrote: Show nested quote + On July 18 2008 20:12 TT1 wrote: welcome and im looking forward in reading your book, just skimmed through a few pages and it looks really complete and well detailed, im also the no1 maphacker on this site fixed

thanks for fixing it i was telling myself i wrote something wrong

no problem

next guide myth mtt guide gogo

lol your avatar in 2+2 looks like annette15 doing some rapshit

I just finished reading your book ...good advice sir

"Don't you ever squeeze AQ or JJ or TT unless you are going to call a shove/shove
over a 4bet. You are actually throwing money onto an ignited grill if you do this." - I never thought about that and i now see this is a hole in my game

On July 19 2008 03:56 ChromaX wrote: I just finished reading your book ...good advice sir "Don't you ever squeeze AQ or JJ or TT unless you are going to call a shove/shove over a 4bet. You are actually throwing money onto an ignited grill if you do this." - I never thought about that and i now see this is a hole in my game

Thanks for the book.
Do you think you can explain this a little more?

very awesome guide, i enjoyed it

On July 19 2008 09:52 goodguysm wrote: Show nested quote + On July 19 2008 03:56 ChromaX wrote: I just finished reading your book ...good advice sir "Don't you ever squeeze AQ or JJ or TT unless you are going to call a shove/shove over a 4bet. You are actually throwing money onto an ignited grill if you do this." - I never thought about that and i now see this is a hole in my game Thanks for the book. Do you think you can explain this a little more?

Because you are throwing away the postflop value of the hand by turning it into a bluff obv.

I just finished reading your book. It was great. Thank you.

However, I didn't fully understand double barreling Kxx boards. Let's say you cbet K86r flop. Turn is J-A. Is it bad to fire a second barrel here?

link doesn't work for me;/
can any1 upload it somewhere else?
thx yo

ryanfee.com

On August 11 2008 13:07 hockey4433 wrote: ryanfee.com

wtf u bump to post something that is already posted -_-

its prolly rnballsack

On August 11 2008 14:47 FrinkX wrote: its prolly rnballsack

rofl

On July 19 2008 10:15 SakiSaki wrote: Show nested quote + On July 19 2008 09:52 goodguysm wrote:   On July 19 2008 03:56 ChromaX wrote: I just finished reading your book ...good advice sir "Don't you ever squeeze AQ or JJ or TT unless you are going to call a shove/shove over a 4bet. You are actually throwing money onto an ignited grill if you do this." - I never thought about that and i now see this is a hole in my game Thanks for the book. Do you think you can explain this a little more? Because you are throwing away the postflop value of the hand by turning it into a bluff obv.

turning a hand that is already somewhat good into a bluff is totally fine if your bluff has huge success but your call has moderate success

sometimes you just can't do shit by flatting so you gotta just bluff with a hand that is somewhat fine anyway. ryan's advice hinges on the assumption that there isn't an extreme gap between your opponents' opening hands and their shoving hands. consider the following:

fullring game, utg+2 is a somewhat loose opener but extreme nit against 3bets (or, at least, he's a nit against YOUR squeezes because he thinks [for whatever reason] that you're a nit). 3 people call and they are all very straightforward weak fish who would have 3bet with their monsters. you're in the SB with AQo. AQo is only marginally better than 72o if you flat, but a squeeze with any hand is going to show monster profit

so you squeeze with AQ (or JJ or TT) with absolutely no intention of getting it in against the original raiser, but possibly rarely getting it in against one of the random fish callers if he has like 50bb and decides to shove (since you are pretty sure he doesn't have AK or JJ+ from the start)

it's extremely important to turn hands that have decent hu strength into bluffs to prevent massively multiway flops in fullring, especially when you're in the blinds. but in those spots you are squeeze bluffing with pretty much any 2 assuming you have a tight image.

On July 19 2008 11:19 RockingBastard wrote: I just finished reading your book. It was great. Thank you. However, I didn't fully understand double barreling Kxx boards. Let's say you cbet K86r flop. Turn is J-A. Is it bad to fire a second barrel here?

always depends on tons of stuff. sometimes it can be bad to cbet a Kxx board in the first place. sometimes it's great to cbet but horrible to double barrel. sometimes it's great to cbet AND double barrel. finally, sometimes it's good to triple barrel.

just depends on preflop range, flop calling range, turn calling range, river calling range, the run-out of the board texture, and opponent's bluffing frequency. and ALL of this stuff (except the board texture) depends on your history, the pot size, the exact ranks of "x" and "x", the drawiness of the board, the cards in your hand (because they can eliminate some of the cards in his range), etc.

by FAR the best thing to think about is not a list of questions like

"how do i play ace high flops?"
"how do i play an ace on the turn when the flop is low?"
"how do i play coordinated boards oop?"

etc.

it's EXTREMELY superior to ask yourself, instead

"what are the dependencies of the answers to all my questions?"

because the answer is ALWAYS

"opponent(s)' possible responses to your action, his/their range(s) for each response, and your possible re-response, in addition to the rest of the cards that can land"

which means you should focus on improving your reads, both of narrow and of wide ranges. for instance, if you can't tell which fish are much more likely to have middle cards than high cards, and vice versa, then you need to focus on that read more. because when you know the answer to that question, you can cbet the flop with nearly 100% success (or check with nearly 100% correctness)

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 ??

nice bump, I completely missed this thread back when it started. I like the book a lot, thanks ryan.

side note:
myth for president 2012

Very solid read!

solid advice myth regarding squeezing with medium-strength hands

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.

On August 13 2008 01:01 Jelle wrote: Show nested quote + 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

well yes of course we have to educate those who are inexperienced based on our own experience

but the inexperienced HAVE to learn the proper theory immediately, and then we (the experienced) can quite easily show them the input. "here's the equation you need in order to make the correct decision EVERY time." now, here's some examples of common situations where i have provided for you the most likely inputs into that equation. over time, you'll get a good sense for what those inputs will be in all the situations where you have experience.

i think it's extremely self-destructive for a beginner to learn that basic premise without first having the theory. there's a HUGE difference between learning the SINGLE important theory, then being handed a list of applications and examples, and merely learning a list of rules and guidelines to follow.

when you get a list of rules and guidelines, you don't bend them and tweak them and study their nuances so that you're correct every time. when you learn that there's a singular, underlying theory and that the "rules" are really just "examples," you'll keep coming back to the original problem and re-doing it, finding more and more solutions with slightly different inputs. and that's the proper way to learn.

On August 13 2008 08:12 Kilay wrote: 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

you are 100% correct here. MANY people just learn a whole lot of general tips, rules, etc. and they just grind constantly with little questioning of what truly makes their style profitable. so, the minute you put them in a different environment, it's almost like they can't even play the game anymore. that's why it's laughable and hilarious how awful most internet 6-max players are when you drop them into a live, deepstacked, FR game.

here's a really good example. i was sitting in a 5/10 game at bellagio with like 200-300 BB or something during april. there were ALL fish, me, and adam001 at the table. the fish were limping every hand, and i was raising to like 10x or 12x the BB, just grabbing a huge amount of chips and slinging them into the pot. the fish kept calling and spewing over and over and over. and still adam asked me, "why are you raising so big?" everyone knows i respect adam's online 6max game a ton and i think he plays really well, but this is simply a matter of him never questioning the basic stuff he learned about poker, when those basics are only applicable in a very specific type of game. clearly i was raising huge because i was getting paid off, but he couldn't see beyond the simple fact that i wasn't raising the way internet players always do, which is to open 4x + 1 BB for each limper. this "rule" is one of the FIRST ones you learn, and it's an absolutely HORRIBLE rule to learn because it's EXTREMELY bad for your progress. if you never even considered WHY 4x + 1BB for each limper is recommended, then you'll never realize when 10x + 1bb for each limper is better, or when minraising is better, or when limping is better.

and that's just the way you play when you open the pot with your hole cards preflop, which is really really really simple.

i mean, if you can't play appropriately on THAT action, because you've never contemplated the proper theory, then i hope for your sake that the games remain really REALLY soft in the next year, because you're pretty far off track with your poker learning.

Hmm, I have a little question about that last part. When do you know you are done learning the theory (or at least, basically done) and you basically just have to tweak your ranges (depending on more game dynamics and so on) from there. I mean, I think or at least, I hope I got some grip on the general game theory but can you recommend any spot where I can take all the modern game theory up and make sure I got all or at least most of the fundamentals down.

See, today I learned something new about applying the concept you explained to post-flop play after 3-betting/squeezing in a certain spot. Now I always kind of knew the theory behind it, or at least, that every action you take need a certain degree of succes, either it be a bet for value or as a bluff. Still I kind of got something new out of it and it kind of remembered why 8+ tabling and taking robotic decisions isn't going to help your game get better much and you shouldn't think about decisions as they are in a box and as guidelines but think abot the underlying mathematics.

On August 12 2008 21:59 [vital]Myth wrote: Show nested quote + 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.

Rofl I don't think you even read what I said since your response shows little comprehension. Do I have to spell it out that I am talking about the very 1st few times someone is introduced to the game of poker? You tell them basics and random crap then if they show more interest in poker you go deeper. Try to be a bigger dick next time...

there's only 1 formula you will ever need to know for the theory. yes, just one.

EV = sum (net $ due to all possible actions) / # of all possible actions

now, it's EXTREMELY daunting to actually do this entire calculation, for almost any situation, but luckily we can cut a lot of corners and use some very general assumptions to make it easier. BUT the bottom line is this:

(a) suppose i have AK and it is folded to me preflop. i'm on the button. what's the best play, folding, calling, raising to R1, raising to R2, ..., or raising to Rn?
(b) when you fold, there is only one net $: 0
(c) when you call, there are lots of net $: there's one for each different possible result when the SB folds, BB checks, and then BB check/folds the flop. there's also a myriad of different situations in which the SB raises, the BB folds, and you are forced to make another decision. and so on and so forth. the number of possible results is probably in the millions.
(d) when you raise to R1, there are lots of net $: again, millions of possible results
(e) ... (n+4) when you raise to R2 - Rn, there are lots of net $: again, millions of possible results for each other amount you can raise to, except all-in or nearly all-in where the results become quite few.

fortunately we have some very simple tools and logic to very quickly wipe out lots of the brute-force work of making all these millions of calculations. first, pokerstove is available to divide these "millions" by some number that is often in the thousands, for many examples of such a problem, because instead of US having to manually WRITE OUT each board that can come, pokerstove will tell us relevant % numbers for ALL the boards that can come, in the blink of an eye. furthermore, we know that in poker some boards are identical - A75 rainbow and A85 rainbow are going to have nearly 100% exactly the same results. so we can also consider large GROUPS of results that are either exactly or nearly the same, which AGAIN divides our problem of "millions" of results by some number typically between 10 and 100.

and now we have a problem where, in its most complicated form, will still require a few thousand calculations from us if we are actually going to solve the problem with complete certainty.

however, we know that we typically do not have the required information to solve the problem in its entirety. we don't know all of the hands our opponent can have, nor how he will play each of those hands. but we still have the framework for the problem.

good players are always looking at poker this way, even people who are very bad at arithmetic and never really learn about equity and pokerstove and all that jazz. take pooruser for example. if you said...steve, what's my equity against this range? he probably wouldn't have a good answer. but when you hear his explanation of a hand, he is doing very careful work to deduce what hand(s) his opponent can have, how he will play each of those hands, and which (out of thousands) of lines is most profitable for him.

nobody is doing complete work approaching poker this way, because everyone has too little information. but everyone who actually gets it IS thinking about it like this. you don't have to have a lot of "numbers" in your head to be doing proper math. the single formula i described above has several components - your bet size (0 or [minimum, allin]), your opponent's hand(s), all the combinations and orders of board cards, future decisions, and net results. you can be extremely good at knowing your opponent's hand(s), understanding what difference the board cards make, understanding the effects of future decisions, and thereby knowing what size to bet...without ever having a perspective on "equity" or "pot odds" at all -.-

so you can be really good at the fundamental math without ever even thinking about equity or pot odds, without ever doing the type of math you typically see on forums

On August 13 2008 12:12 Highcard wrote: Show nested quote + On August 12 2008 21:59 [vital]Myth wrote:   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. Rofl I don't think you even read what I said since your response shows little comprehension. Do I have to spell it out that I am talking about the very 1st few times someone is introduced to the game of poker? You tell them basics and random crap then if they show more interest in poker you go deeper. Try to be a bigger dick next time...

the reason i just flat-out tell people not to listen to you at all is because you keep flapping your e-lips about "numbers" when you actually have no clue what i'm talking about.

read my above post. if you think i am "trying to throw numbers at it" then you just don't really have a good understanding of poker theory.

the only "numbers" in the theory i am talking about (unsimplified theory, with no assumptions)

are net results and number of results. EVERYONE can do a single simple average. EVERYONE. if i asked somebody to look at a long list of $ amounts, and a number that says how long the list is, they wouldn't feel at all like i was "throwing numbers at them"

that said, i am definitely trying to throw millions of "if __, then __" statements at it

also

does this make sense? that ALL of basic, true, unsimplified poker math is nothing but ONE simple average? all you do is come up with a list of $ amounts and divide by the number of items in that list, that's ALL. it's just an average

all the more complex math that you think about as "poker math" is just a fancy way of making it easier to get that average.

How can you accuse myth of only using numbers? look at those bulks of text he spammed, you get dizzy just by glancing at it.

Wow, this discussion continuously let's me see new things. I always thought in lanes, you know... Like you have varietes of actions but some actions are defined as bad. Don't limp, basically don't minraise or never overbet the river for 2x pot since you don't come across those actions a whole lot. But the reason those actions are defined as bad is not because they actually are bad but, are generally bad in the online games nowadays since a lot of other options yield a much higher EV. In other situations and dynamics some of those options not common seen in the online game become a very good option and may be, in some spots, be the option that will yield you the most EV.

I feel like I need to give a big thank you to Myth, I think I've learned from reading your posts than from any pokerbooks I read and probably all the Cardrunner video's I've seen. I think, every limit I climb from where I am today, half of it is thanks to you hehe and think it's awesome what you are doing for everybody in this community that want to learn. I really hope you continue doing what I've seen you do since the day I joined LP.net.

(^_________^) thank you, i'm very flattered

i love to teach and i'm happy to be helping

someone needs to compile all of Myth's posts and make a book imo

On August 12 2008 11:46 Jelle wrote: 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

blasphemy, playing solid poker is the most important part of winning at any stake

On August 13 2008 00:49 [vital]Myth wrote: Show nested quote + 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

Yes it is i only say you are wrong the way you see those calculations for example in the last conversation we had, you believe that when betting, people call with X% of the range and fold the rest ALWAYS, you also said that people dont fold X hand sometimes and call sometimes, that is not true, people call and fold the same hand depending many factors like history, flow, how much they hate you, their current mood, if they are winning or loosing etc etc etc, those things, so yeah, he folds trash, he calls with strong hands but that middle range is not perfectly defined as u said it is, he will fold or call depending on many factors that are very hard to put in numbers but just attempts of approximation.

Also you say when a player is thinking about calling a bluff its exactly the same if he snap calls u in a fraction of a second or that he takes to the last second to call (having the same hand), the equity is the same in the end however in the first scenario (insta-call) it shows that he never considered to fold to ur bluff, he "knew" you were bluffing, or he didnt know better or whatever, clearly sign that your tought on your FE with the bluff is 100% mistaken, your read is terrible if u bluff there, however if the player goes mad thinking what to do and calls in the last second of his timebank, he seriously tought about folding, he neraly folds, something convinced him in the end to call and you say its the same as if he snap called, but that is not true, it means your READ that this player might fold with a bet there is definitelly less wrong than if he snap calls, so even if the equity was the same, the difference is that on example 1 your read is very off and in hand 2 your read is much closer to the truth.

Oh and for the record i dont have mad respect for your game either, i think your ability to play is far exceeded by your ability to theorize and teach.

HU grudgematch asap baal vs myth

On August 13 2008 17:44 Baal wrote: i think your ability to play is far exceeded by your ability to theorize and teach.

that's definitely true

and you are making a huge general statement about me ("myth can't see beyond the equity equation") based on one argument we had about one specific hand.

like i told you on msn, when you already know what the guy has and he only has one particular hand, but you think he folds it and he doesn't fold it, then it's irrelevant whether he took his whole timebank. i don't think i made myself very clear. i never said that people play their whole range exactly the same 100% of the time. of course sometimes people will fold middle hands but other times call with those same hands. being on tilt is a primary and EXTREMELY clear example to support that idea. what i DID say is that if you misjudge what mindset they are in (e.g. you think they are going to fold to you right now, but they aren't), then that's your fault (with the minor exception of like...them all of a sudden being tilty due to something that happened on other tables you didn't see).

i definitely argue that i think YOU are responsible for knowing how somebody will play the hands in their range RIGHT NOW, and if you don't know that then you can make mistakes.

i also think that EVER having the particular read that pis.toto would want to fold JJ to you in that hand you played is bad, because of who he is and who you are. so yeah, in the hand you played i think it's meaningless that pis.toto used his whole timebank before calling, because you should NEVER think he folds JJ there

but if it was some sick nit who just decided to tilt all of a sudden then whatever who cares. i like your play against like...teddyKGB (i think), even if he does bank/call with JJ, because i think it's a lot more feasible that KGB might be in the mood to fold JJ there and if he does call you can legitimately be like O_O. but against pis.toto if you are EVER surprised to see a call with JJ then lol

furthermore, you, by saying "myth can't see beyond the equity equation"

are really misleading a lot of beginners when you KNOW that i am 100% correct when i make the claim that every poker-math decision is really just calculating an average.

the goal is to have the highest possible avg and exploitation is a part of that, it's accepted and there's no need to generate paragraphs off tangent to explain something that everybody already understands to one degree or another

let's see the hand :D

(although having a laggy/spewtard image and trying to get toto to fold JACKS sounds like it could be ugly )

On August 13 2008 18:22 sawseech wrote: that everybody already understands to one degree or another

i'm beginning to think i have to disagree

although i guess in baal's defense the 2 best poker players i know have never done an explicit EV calculation in their entire life

Submitted by : Baalim

PokerStars Game #19190609383: Hold'em No Limit ($3/$6) - 2008/07/29 - 07:17:12 (ET)
Table 'Kalyke' 6-max Seat #1 is the button
Seat 1: ExB1983 ($1162.90 in chips)
Seat 2: Hero ($982.45 in chips)
Seat 3: PiS.ToTo ($864.05 in chips)
Seat 4: sizzlinbetta ($600 in chips)
Seat 5: funfect39 ($619.50 in chips)
Seat 6: needfood ($609 in chips)
Hero : posts small blind $3
PiS.ToTo: posts big blind $6

Holecards(Odds)
Dealt to Hero
sizzlinbetta: folds
funfect39: folds
needfood: folds
ExB1983: raises $12 to $18
Hero : raises $46 to $64
PiS.ToTo: calls $58
ExB1983: calls $46

Flop(Odds) (Pot : $192.00)

   
Hero : bets $110
PiS.ToTo: calls $110
ExB1983: folds

Turn(Odds) (Pot : $412.00)

   
Hero : bets $150
PiS.ToTo: raises $150 to $300
Hero : raises $508.45 to $808.45 and is all-in
PiS.ToTo: calls $390.05 and is all-in
Uncalled bet ($118.40) returned to Hero

River (Pot : $1,792.10)

   

Showdown
Hero : shows (high card Ace)
PiS.ToTo: shows (a pair of Jacks)
PiS.ToTo collected $1789.10 from pot
Hero said, "oh"

Summary
Total pot $1792.10 | Rake $3
Board  
Seat 1: ExB1983 (button) folded on the Flop
Seat 2: Hero (small blind) showed and lost with high card Ace
Seat 3: PiS.ToTo (big blind) showed and won ($1789.10) with a pair of Jacks
Seat 4: sizzlinbetta folded before Flop (didn't bet)
Seat 5: funfect39 folded before Flop (didn't bet)
Seat 6: needfood folded before Flop (didn't bet)

although in myth's defense if asked they could probably do it more accurately than anyone i know

On August 13 2008 18:34 RiKD wrote: although i guess in baal's defense the 2 best poker players i know have never done an explicit EV calculation in their entire life

if neither of them is pooruser, then i don't think he has either

in fact a lot of the best players haven't. but they are def NOT playing by a set of rules like "don't squeeze with AQ if you don't plan to call a shove." they are playing with logic that knows when it's ok to squeeze/fold with AQ and when it's not