re: Poker & $100 NLHE 6-max: tripling fish
Originally Posted by hackmeplz
lol are you being serious right now? This is literally the exact logic I could use to argue to only play based on our own cards:
"All the hands they could have are the same... continue on and enlighten us"
There is a range of opponents based on known info just as there is a range of hands each opponent in the range of opponents could have.
I think if we iterate over the possible opponents (weighted by probability obv) based on OP's reads and within each opponent iterated over the range of hands they could have, that the sum of the ev's of tripling would be the best. You may disagree and that'd be valid I could easily be wrong there, but at least phrase it that way instead of "lol it's pointless to analyze hands against unknowns and you should just play like a dumb nit until you know exactly how he plays".
OP has no reads, but he's sure he's a fish. Does that add extra info to our decision process, of course. No one is not saying that. What myself and others are pointing out is that because of that info, and the propensity for fish to not fold, without further reads like... "he plays big pots with marginal hands", "can't fold 3rd pair", "always calls with draws", etc... tripling is not the best option because with a read of "he's a fish", most fish
tend to lose where the fold button is. And that's what we're trying to do correct? Get our opponent to fold?
As you move up stakes, the "fish" are much much different, and their tendencies change based on several factors, not just that they can't fold and that they play too many hands.
I'd advise if you disagree with someone in the future, you try and do it with more grace. I know it's the internet, but your post comes off like a punk kid.