Negative EV plays to establish an image

#1 21st June 2009, 12:43 AM

As I've been progressing as a poker player I've been trying to learn to play all of the different "gears" of the game.

When I first started out, I mostly played a "by the book" tight-aggressive style. When I came to California - my style wasn't working in the local card houses anymore (and they are TOUGH).

So, for the last 4 months or so I've been cultivating a new style, where I essentially play way too many hands and to the "untrained eye" come off as a total donkey. Of course, I eventually make a nut hand and end up stacking off some non-believer.

I've been trying to work our the math behind my betting structure where my pattern isn't too predictable when I'm bluffing or betting a weak hand such that my big hands can still get paid well when I actually have it. Generally, I try to bet anywhere from 1/3 to 2/3 of the pot on my "image plays", and 2/3-1.5 the pot when I actually have it.

Overall I found that I'll generally bleed probably 20-30BB's per hour when using this style while card-dead - some bluffs succeed, but if it's a decent table people will generally catch me. However, when my 47off finally flops the nut strait, I will take down a pot that's anywhere from 50-200BB's. Another benefit of this style is that it generally gets other players to make mistakes - they will all start to trap me, and eventually let me catch up then pay me off.

In general, this style is very hard to quantify properly and I believe it's more of an art than a science to pull off right, but I wanted to see what others had to say about the "action" style of play, in which you try to establish yourself as a maniac to get paid on a big vs. the traditional by-the-book tight-aggressive style.

Anyhow, I wanted to see what others here had to say about this strategy. Discuss.

#2 21st June 2009, 1:50 AM

I have never got to know any seasoned poker ham who could play wild and reckless long enough to get the table to believe he is a Donkey, just as a secret cover to set up the game to pay him off later. They each in truth were wild and reckless more often than not in their regular play. They love controling the table, scaring the tight players, stealing the pot and they love the stress of upsetting the game. It is an expensive way to make money and when they are having an unlucky streak there arn't enough scared players out there to repllinish their bank roll.

That said, I think it is a great tool to have in your box, but only if you can put it down as easy as taking off a mask, if it really is not you. I am an admirer if you can and would love to know more of how you see yourself as player when you are not playing the Donkey.

Play like it Matters

#3 21st June 2009, 4:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eugenius

As I've been progressing as a poker player I've been trying to learn to play all of the different "gears" of the game.

When I first started out, I mostly played a "by the book" tight-aggressive style. When I came to California - my style wasn't working in the local card houses anymore (and they are TOUGH).

So, for the last 4 months or so I've been cultivating a new style, where I essentially play way too many hands and to the "untrained eye" come off as a total donkey. Of course, I eventually make a nut hand and end up stacking off some non-believer.

Making the nuts is too rare an event to base your playing style on.

I've been trying to work our the math behind my betting structure where my pattern isn't too predictable when I'm bluffing or betting a weak hand such that my big hands can still get paid well when I actually have it. Generally, I try to bet anywhere from 1/3 to 2/3 of the pot on my "image plays", and 2/3-1.5 the pot when I actually have it.

Re-read this paragraph and find the contradiction.

Overall I found that I'll generally bleed probably 20-30BB's per hour when using this style while card-dead - some bluffs succeed, but if it's a decent table people will generally catch me.

Bluffing is a skill that requires superior hand reading skills, and is extremely situational.

However, when my 47off finally flops the nut strait, I will take down a pot that's anywhere from 50-200BB's. Another benefit of this style is that it generally gets other players to make mistakes - they will all start to trap me, and eventually let me catch up then pay me off.

This is good - inciting other players to make mistakes makes sense. But if you're counting on "catching up", I'm guessing you may be making mistakes in putting money in the pot without odds.

In general, this style is very hard to quantify properly and I believe it's more of an art than a science to pull off right, but I wanted to see what others had to say about the "action" style of play, in which you try to establish yourself as a maniac to get paid on a big vs. the traditional by-the-book tight-aggressive style.

This sounds like LAG. "Maniac" is also a description of a playing style (extreme LAG - also called "lagtard") that is very exploitable.

Anyhow, I wanted to see what others here had to say about this strategy. Discuss.

You're sort of describing a LAG style, but imo there are some very serious flaws in the way you're thinking about it.

A good LAG can be mistaken for a donkey by someone who doesn't understand the style of play. Playing LAG is much more difficult than playing TAG, because you end up relying on your hand reading/people reading/situational skills more than on the strength of your cards.

Most pots in NLHE ring games do not go to showdown. If you don't have to showdown, your actual hand doesn't matter - if you do have to showdown, your hand does matter. So, if I'm being aggressive and someone wants to go to showdown and I don't want to, what should I do? If I don't want to go to showdown, is the situation appropriate to convince the other player that going to sd is a bad idea (i.e., is the board wet or dry? does it have an A? is villain likely to be still in the hand without connecting with the board? what draws are out there and what are the chances they'll hit by the river? what are villain's tendencies in spots like this?)...

Search "small ball", "LAG" for more info.

#4 21st June 2009, 4:57 AM

I've done a lot of reading on small-ball and a LAG style - I guess I just didn't use the official terminology.

And yes, I would say that the style I am cultivating is a combination of small ball with some of my own twists on it.

I do have very good reading skills and am able to make a lot of "sick calls"/reads as I play (live).

I was always a profitable player, but overall my performance went up significantly in after I went with a LAG approach rather than my initial TAG style. Of course, every table is a bit different and often it's a matter of using the right gear for the right game.

There are definitely some holes I want to be able to plug up, though.

The biggest issue I have with my new approach is that my style often makes people loosen up their standards against me and take a stand with a marginal hand. However, sometime when I make a strong hand (ie, bottom 2 pair or top-pair bottom pair), if I'm up against a stronger hand, it's harder for me to know where I'm at. More often than not I'll catch someone who falls in love with a big pocket pair and will give me way too much action with their AA or KK - but when I run into the set or the higher two pair it's a lot harder for me to figure out where I'm at.

#5 21st June 2009, 12:51 PM

You need to track your results over a period of time before you know if the style is profitable or not.

A LAG style has a lot more variance... the swings are bigger.

It is possible that your current style is a LR losing style but the variance means that right now you show a profit.

It may be a LR winning style.. but you need to log at least 30k hands before really deciding.

#6 21st June 2009, 8:56 PM

Unfortunately it's somewhat hard for me to quantify the new style since I am mostly a live player. I log all of my session results (time played, net profit, etc.), but not on the individual hand level.

And it is definitely a high-swing style. I recall one recent session where during the course of 15 hours I swung to -$1000 to +$800.

Still, over the last 4 months that I've been using the style my results are pretty decent... Right now I'm winning at an 8 BB/hour win rate in the last 4 months.

#7 21st June 2009, 9:18 PM

Well using the 30k hands as a minimum (many people will say that you need more like 100k).

Live play is around 30 hands per hour.

So 1000 hrs or 67 15 hour sessions.

For you to clock that up in 4 months, you must be playing a 15hr session every other day for 4 months.

I think you will have to keep tracking your results for some time to come before you can really answer the question 'are the changes I have made increasing or decreasing my profitability'

Similar Threads for: Texas Hold'em Poker > Negative EV plays to establish an image
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
How many rounds before you establish your table image?	jj48fan	Cash Games	6	15th June 2009 5:43 PM
In poker, image matters.	telmoresgate	Cash Games	15	23rd February 2008 4:43 PM
Metagame vs EV plays	ChuckTs	Cash Games	11	12th September 2007 5:12 PM
table image	nateofdeath	Cash Games	4	30th July 2005 4:26 AM

Play Texas Hold'em Online Poker \| Negative EV plays to establish an image
Full Tilt Poker accepts US players. Use Full Tilt Poker referral code CC600 for a $600 bonus and to play online poker with the pro's.	PokerStars is one of the best places to play poker online that accepts US players. Use PokerStars marketing code CARDSCHAT for a $600 bonus.