Goto page 1, 2, 3  Next View previous topic :: View next topic  
MM
Site Admin


Joined: 17 Jan 2005
Posts: 1740
Location: Hendon

PostPosted: Mon Jan 26, 2009 5:03 pm
View user's profile Send private message Add User to Ignore List Reply with quote
There's a new article by Carl Sampson published on the website:
Finding the Proper You
Alex B
Straight Flush


Joined: 25 Apr 2005
Posts: 2856
Location: London

PostPosted: Mon Jan 26, 2009 6:19 pm
View user's profile Send private message Add User to Ignore List Reply with quote
This mentions something I had been thinking about when adjusting from online 6-max to live 9 or 10 handed games...

The issue is whether the games are identical whenever 3/4 people have folded in front of you.

Logically the only difference I can come up is the card-removal effects slightly changing the quality of the remaining hands, but I doubt that is significant.

So it should be basically the same, but intuitively I don't think it is.

So I'm either missing something logical, or there is no difference and its an illusion, or there is a difference but its caused only be the psychology of the players still to act.

At the moment I think it might be just the last thing, but possibly muddied up by the weird-loose-passive-nitty way that offline players tend to play - i.e. if those same 5 players sat at a 6 seat table, then the adjustments would be incomparable to an online 6 max game as well. Its like some sort of unconscious 'collusion' caused by group-think at a 10 seat table, that keeps the average showdown standards higher than they ought to be.

Anyone got any other thoughts on that?
The Dean
Straight Flush


Joined: 01 Feb 2007
Posts: 3209
Location: with position on you

PostPosted: Mon Jan 26, 2009 8:30 pm
View user's profile Send private message Add User to Ignore List Reply with quote
Alex B wrote:
This mentions something I had been thinking about when adjusting from online 6-max to live 9 or 10 handed games...

The issue is whether the games are identical whenever 3/4 people have folded in front of you.

Logically the only difference I can come up is the card-removal effects slightly changing the quality of the remaining hands, but I doubt that is significant.

So it should be basically the same, but intuitively I don't think it is.

So I'm either missing something logical, or there is no difference and its an illusion, or there is a difference but its caused only be the psychology of the players still to act.

At the moment I think it might be just the last thing, but possibly muddied up by the weird-loose-passive-nitty way that offline players tend to play - i.e. if those same 5 players sat at a 6 seat table, then the adjustments would be incomparable to an online 6 max game as well. Its like some sort of unconscious 'collusion' caused by group-think at a 10 seat table, that keeps the average showdown standards higher than they ought to be.

Anyone got any other thoughts on that?




IMO, there are clear differences in thinking between a player who deliberately selects full-ring games when they have the option to choose both and I think that this fact is highly significant.

If you go into a public cardroom then the number of tables may be limited and with it game selection. So when an aggressive player plays full ring or a tight full ring game player sits in a six handed game then they may be doing so through lack of choice.

But on many large sites then this no longer applies and players gravitate to environments in which they personally feel the most comfortable. But they take their entire MO and philosophy with them and this thus creates a totally different situation when the first four players have folded to a six max game as the mentality, attitude towards risks, ranges, overall philosophy etc of the remaining players is dramatically different.

Actually Alex, I think that it at least merits very serious consideration for a very successful six max cash game player like yourself to look at situations where you are playing full-ring games in which players are either sitting out or seats are vacant. A full-ring game with two empty seats and two players sitting out would IMO play far different than a six max game and is something that could potentially be far more profitable to a skilled six max player in BB/100 than a normal six-max game. I dont have any statistics to back that up but thats how I feel about that at this time.

Thoughts appreciated


The Dean
www.cakepoker.com/thedean
www.pokersharkpool.com
The Dean
Straight Flush


Joined: 01 Feb 2007
Posts: 3209
Location: with position on you

PostPosted: Mon Jan 26, 2009 8:45 pm
View user's profile Send private message Add User to Ignore List Reply with quote
As an add on, another reason why players choose full-ring is that they want low blind pressure and that equates to time and time means that they can pick and choose their points of confrontation.

They dont want to attack the blinds too much, they dont want to defend their blinds too much.....in short they dont want to do anything too much as this means committment. There are literally millions upon millions of risk averse people playing poker who play because the game is fantastically seductive in its nature but it doesnt mean that they want to open up.

You have to enter into many complex situations with regards committing money with substantially less than the nuts as a six max player and this does not sit well with most people (as Galfond said)


The Dean
www.cakepoker.com/thedean
www.pokersharkpool.com
The Dean
Straight Flush


Joined: 01 Feb 2007
Posts: 3209
Location: with position on you

PostPosted: Mon Jan 26, 2009 8:53 pm
View user's profile Send private message Add User to Ignore List Reply with quote
As another add on..... I would imagine that the effects may not be as pronounced in live games as it is online for the reasons that I mentioned in my original reply.


The Dean
www.cakepoker.com/thedean
www.pokersharkpool.com
evelyn
Quads


Joined: 16 Mar 2007
Posts: 2123

PostPosted: Tue Jan 27, 2009 12:58 pm
View user's profile Send private message Add User to Ignore List Reply with quote
I don't agree with the general presumption that FR players play the HJ to BB positions poorly and are thus easy meat for 6 max players.
The Dean
Straight Flush


Joined: 01 Feb 2007
Posts: 3209
Location: with position on you

PostPosted: Tue Jan 27, 2009 1:58 pm
View user's profile Send private message Add User to Ignore List Reply with quote
evelyn wrote:
I don't agree with the general presumption that FR players play the HJ to BB positions poorly and are thus easy meat for 6 max players.



Who mentioned easy meat and playing poorly???? I play full-ring myself so I know what FR players are capable of and I would hope that I wouldnt be easy meat for any six max player in a FR game.

But not all FR players adjust when a game gets shorter, this isnt my opinion......just a fact.


The Dean
www.cakepoker.com/thedean
www.pokersharkpool.com
The Dean
Straight Flush


Joined: 01 Feb 2007
Posts: 3209
Location: with position on you

PostPosted: Tue Jan 27, 2009 2:06 pm
View user's profile Send private message Add User to Ignore List Reply with quote
Just fishing around for ideas for my next article, would anyone be interested in discusing FR game concepts and hands????


The Dean
www.cakepoker.com/thedean
www.pokersharkpool.com
balloo
Full House


Joined: 15 Sep 2003
Posts: 1195

PostPosted: Wed Jan 28, 2009 4:58 pm
View user's profile Send private message Add User to Ignore List Reply with quote
I havent posted here for a while but I was linked to some of your recent articles by a friend of mine.

This most recent one caught my attention as did a few others. I think you make a lot of assumptions in this article that are not necessarily correct. I agree that players play differently in a full ring game, for the most part they play very tight and this continues into the later seats and around the button. The majority of the edge an aggressive player will have in these games is by taking liberties around the button, cut of and hi-jack.

Already in this hand he had made a pot sized raise so this already reduces the amount of flexibility that you have left in the hand if you want to avoid getting pot committed.

I dont understand this. You have close to the top of your range from that position. You should be looking at ways to build as big a pot as possible against most of the hands your up against.

Both blinds calling is a problem on two fronts, its another player to get through to win the pot and also it has now escalated the pot even more with the addition of extra money.

Why would you not welcome both blinds coming along for the ride when you have as strong a hand as QQ in this seat?

The big blind decided to slow-play their hand which I think was a mistake but in this instance our hero did his work for him. I would have bet something less on the flop which would have given me more flexibility to bet a lesser amount on the turn or even missed out the turn betting round completely by checking it back effectively making it a three street hand.

How else should the BB play this hand on such a dry board against clearly a strong holding? Why would you ever check back the turn here?

You can see the thinking here and our hero was trying to protect the apparent vulnerability of his hand. But there is a balance that needs to be found between protecting your hand and getting pot committed.

Protect his hand against what exactly? Its a very dry board and it should be a spot where he is looking to maximise his profit. You are definitely looking far too much at results in this situation.

The player in this hand played the hand well outside of the oversized flop bet in my opinion. Against some players this is certainly a river fold but I would have to know his history and be playing really well to make it myself.
The Dean
Straight Flush


Joined: 01 Feb 2007
Posts: 3209
Location: with position on you

PostPosted: Wed Jan 28, 2009 8:20 pm
View user's profile Send private message Add User to Ignore List Reply with quote
balloo wrote:
I havent posted here for a while but I was linked to some of your recent articles by a friend of mine.

This most recent one caught my attention as did a few others. I think you make a lot of assumptions in this article that are not necessarily correct. I agree that players play differently in a full ring game, for the most part they play very tight and this continues into the later seats and around the button. The majority of the edge an aggressive player will have in these games is by taking liberties around the button, cut of and hi-jack.

Already in this hand he had made a pot sized raise so this already reduces the amount of flexibility that you have left in the hand if you want to avoid getting pot committed.

I dont understand this. You have close to the top of your range from that position. You should be looking at ways to build as big a pot as possible against most of the hands your up against.

Both blinds calling is a problem on two fronts, its another player to get through to win the pot and also it has now escalated the pot even more with the addition of extra money.

Why would you not welcome both blinds coming along for the ride when you have as strong a hand as QQ in this seat?

The big blind decided to slow-play their hand which I think was a mistake but in this instance our hero did his work for him. I would have bet something less on the flop which would have given me more flexibility to bet a lesser amount on the turn or even missed out the turn betting round completely by checking it back effectively making it a three street hand.

How else should the BB play this hand on such a dry board against clearly a strong holding? Why would you ever check back the turn here?

You can see the thinking here and our hero was trying to protect the apparent vulnerability of his hand. But there is a balance that needs to be found between protecting your hand and getting pot committed.

Protect his hand against what exactly? Its a very dry board and it should be a spot where he is looking to maximise his profit. You are definitely looking far too much at results in this situation.

The player in this hand played the hand well outside of the oversized flop bet in my opinion. Against some players this is certainly a river fold but I would have to know his history and be playing really well to make it myself.




Time doesnt permit me to reply to the whole of that but if you are seriously looking to escalate a pot big time in full-ring NLHE with QQ without flop improvment then you are not going to fair well in this form of poker as you are building a big pot with a hand that simply cannot stand that kind of escalation without improvement.

If you doubt what I say......try reading Harrington on Cash vol 1 and 2 or get advice from someone else who plays FR well. Seems to me that you are thinking like a six max player.

If you dont understand how a hand loses flexibility when it has already raised and the geometric escalation of pots then once again....see above paragraph or maybe you consider yourself superior to Harrington. You can debate the intricacies of each action till the cows come home, the point of the article was about styles fitting certain people and not to nit pick over a hand ffs.

Just HOW BIG do you want the pot to get with unimproved queens?????


The Dean
www.cakepoker.com/thedean
www.pokersharkpool.com
the shiver
LMS Champion


Joined: 02 Nov 2006
Posts: 1591

PostPosted: Wed Jan 28, 2009 8:50 pm
View user's profile Send private message Add User to Ignore List Reply with quote
Carl,
ive been playing FR for around 18 months at similar levels to the hand you mentioned in your article. Generally be it rightly or wrongly (wrongly according to Harrington) this hand plays out as stated probably 90 -95% of the time albeit player orientated. To a point where its nearly standard.Even player orientated the QQ would probably know hes beat on the river here but pot odds dictate hes gotta know his opponent pretty well to not put out a crying call. Even breaking the hand down on each street to control pot size from the QQ, im just stating that the QQ generally from what ive seen over 18 months (as i stated be it rightly or wrongly )does his spuds here from what ive seen with my own eyes
_________________
It was one of the privileges of my poker life to watch Barny win his bracelet, putting on a master class in front of an audience who would have run onto the stage and carried him over the ****ing line if thats what it was going to take. There is bracelets and there is bracelets. This was one of the very special ones...Padraig Parkinson
ThechipLeadV
Smart-Arse


Joined: 17 Aug 2006
Posts: 6276

PostPosted: Wed Jan 28, 2009 9:41 pm
View user's profile Send private message Add User to Ignore List Reply with quote
calm down carl
balloo
Full House


Joined: 15 Sep 2003
Posts: 1195

PostPosted: Wed Jan 28, 2009 11:40 pm
View user's profile Send private message Add User to Ignore List Reply with quote
The Dean wrote:



Time doesnt permit me to reply to the whole of that but if you are seriously looking to escalate a pot big time in full-ring NLHE with QQ without flop improvment then you are not going to fair well in this form of poker as you are building a big pot with a hand that simply cannot stand that kind of escalation without improvement.


You are suggesting that QQ cannot win a big pot without improvement?

Come on Carl, are you actually serious?

Quote:
If you doubt what I say......try reading Harrington on Cash vol 1 and 2 or get advice from someone else who plays FR well. Seems to me that you are thinking like a six max player.


You know I play 6 max mainly, but you have not countered any of the points I have made regarding QQ being a perfectly strong holding in the situation you gave.

Quote:
You can debate the intricacies of each action till the cows come home, the point of the article was about styles fitting certain people and not to nit pick over a hand ffs.


I just read the article and posted my comments. I picked up on the hand because I felt your analysis was wrong.

For the record, I dont think I am better than Harrington.
Niceguy
Banned


Joined: 22 Nov 2008
Posts: 217
Location: London baby!!

PostPosted: Thu Jan 29, 2009 12:41 am
View user's profile Send private message Add User to Ignore List Reply with quote
Having only briefly read this, I like Carls point. I think a standard bet of 2/3 of the pot on the flop should usually find out where you are. There was no flush draw and with the blinds calling you can probably take them for hands such as maybe ak, aq suited, but more likely small pocket pairs. With that board if you get any action it really looks like a flopped set, unless they have a garbage hand like a9, 9-10 etc when they should really pass due to your overpair.

The only time I would probably build a big pot here with QQ is when my opponent is a complete fish or extremely loose. If they are lucky enough to flop a set then I am going to lose money. If they are fairly standard or I have no prior information, I would probably bet 2/3 of the pot on the flop, check turn (as there was no flush draw or otherwise I would bet) and deff fold the river....even if I am getting 3-1.

Deff do not like the slowplaying of the set. Much easier to win a big pot by leading out. As it turns out, if the set lead out on the flop with a sizeable bet, check raised the turn (if the initial raiser only flat called the flop), he might have won a lot more.
Moo
Quads


Joined: 01 Mar 2005
Posts: 1613
Location: @ The Profit Centre

PostPosted: Thu Jan 29, 2009 1:31 am
View user's profile Send private message Add User to Ignore List Reply with quote
I must admit the turn bet does seem intuitively correct but now I'm not so sure. I can't really think of many losing hands that would call it (JJ, TT, A9 ? but one might expect some or all of these to have check-raised the flop) nor many winning hands that would fold (in fact, I can't think of any!) Furthermore, we can't really be worried about the flush draw, unless perhaps it was something like T9h or 98h.
_________________
It matters more when there's money on it.
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Hendon Mob Forum Index -> Mob Poker Forum All times are GMT
Goto page 1, 2, 3  Next
Page 1 of 3

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum