Welcome.
Take a tour. Enjoy some free sample content.
How it works
Free Video: CLP Video No. 287: Home Game Bart Reviews His Splashy At $1-$3 Deep Part 2
Free Podcast: CLP Podcast No. 54: Time Warp And Turn Value
DPP #43 15-25-35.
The Clubber
Posts: 110Member
Link to the content
http://www.crushlivepoker.com/podcasts/15-25-35
So the premise of revising the 10 / 20 / 30 rules on effective stacks for pocket pairs, suited connectors, and suited aces is that the player pool is getting better at folding overpairs when facing aggression. The logic goes that since they aren't paying off when we make our hand, we need them to pay off bigger to compensate for the lower frequency.
However, can't we take the same premise - players are getting better folding big pairs - and instead draw the conclusion that we should be increasing our bluffing frequency since our expectation of fold equity is greater than it used to be?
http://www.crushlivepoker.com/podcasts/15-25-35
So the premise of revising the 10 / 20 / 30 rules on effective stacks for pocket pairs, suited connectors, and suited aces is that the player pool is getting better at folding overpairs when facing aggression. The logic goes that since they aren't paying off when we make our hand, we need them to pay off bigger to compensate for the lower frequency.
However, can't we take the same premise - players are getting better folding big pairs - and instead draw the conclusion that we should be increasing our bluffing frequency since our expectation of fold equity is greater than it used to be?
Comments
The problem is that the player pool has gotten significantly better, so you need to be a soul-crusher if you want to play loosely against Villains who are not deep-stacked. It is not simply because people fold over pairs correctly. They also do some other things better too. All those things reduce the profitability of speculative hands.
Since you mentioned that the player pool as a while is getting better and speculative hands are becoming less profitable, I am curious how you would define a proper strategy when approaching a game full of unknowns where (obviously) you cannot rely on your past history? Would you focus strictly on a TAG game plan and bet/folding and raise/folding value hands and remove the smaller sc's from your range completely? Would you worry about building an image or just let the cards do that for you as they are dealt? I realize how broad this question is...
I don't worry about building an image. If a good opportunity comes up for me to run a profitable bluff, then I will run a bluff. If a good opportunity comes up to get maximum value with a disguised speculative hand, then I will go for maximum value. There is no need for me to "create an image." Once the table starts to perceive me to have a certain image, then I just make sure to understand my perceived image, so that I can exploit my perceived image.
Should we go 25 or 35x rules for the Axs ?
Bart
I know that you dont play online NL cash game a lot but what do you think of the 15-25-35 rule for low stacke FR online game ?
The game dont play the same. for example: usually the raises are smaller preflop online so can we still applied the rule ?
Thank
With that said, Do you still think this guideline is mostly applicable live and not online because the "other factors" are way different from live to online ?
Btw, just finished to listen all the podcasts and videos that you did in the past years, I really like the way you explain stuff. I really enjoy your podcast with David Tuchman where you explain how we should not only be poker smart but street smart at the table.
Usually the skill level of players online is a lot more mathematical and greater than thei live counterparts. That couple with more aggression in the form of squeezing preflop make it very difficult to call with sc and gsc no matter how deep you are.
I am thinking about the ranging problem at the end of the podcast, the one where HJ opens, hero flats on the button with 97s, and the flop comes down 9 8 6 :r: Villain bets hero raises, and villain raises to 1K, with 2K behind, 600 to call, and the total pot including the villain's 3-bet is 1750.
We are told that in the first case the villain is a very good player.
In Bart's own answer to the problem he says that the very good player is never bet/3-betting with anything less than a set, probably 99 or 88.
This is where i scratch my head and go "Whuuhhh?" Bart's villain has taken a line that leaves their hand very well defined, all value and no bluff, and this makes the decision of whether or not to shove an easy one.
It seems to me that in three-betting sets in this spot and nothing else, the villain is turning their hand face-up. A value three-betting range should be balanced by a three-bet bluffing range.
Looking with Flopzilla at likely HJ opening ranges and seeing how they connect with a 986r board, it would make sense to me if the villain were to balance the four combos of 99 and 88 with some bluff combos, and the best candidates to me seem to be JTs and QTs. That's eight combos total, which might be the right amount to balance the four combos of made hands. They have slight showdown value but a fair amount of equity if called, and they block hero's possible straight draws. (I say "might" because flop spots are difficult to evaluate when there is action on later streets to be considered. My own sense is the right number of bluff combos is going to be larger than four and less than eight.)
Our own hand isn't a hand in a vacuum, of course. We have our own continuing range, broken down into calls, raise/folds, raise/calls, and raise/jams. I'm not prepared to say which of these four 97s would fall into. I don't think the argument "we might get the villain to fold JJ or TT" is hugely compelling on its own, without looking at our overall range.
It would be interesting for someone with a solver to look at the situation.