$100 NLHE 6-max: tripling fish

[acky100]

Of course in general terms, doing stuff IP is better you're right,and to answer why i chose this spot is just how i approach every spot, i try not to make any play without analysing whethers its going to show profit or not. I dont try and win every pot with A high for what its worth i just try and take as many +EV spots that i can find/work into my game and it doesn't always work, some do, some dont, some are very debateable (like this one i guess as its getting so much hate) but you are right, i try to make everything a calculated risk. and this is no different - I'm wagering an amount on the river that means i need him to fold around 45% of the time for me to make money, in my head i think this probably means i have to make him fold Qx and its probably fine. I go over the hand later and realise that this probably is the case however, its probably not great assuming fish will always fold Qx here cause not all of them will, i am confident on my read of the 100nl population that the average unknown fish i play leans towards being a weak fish who will fold Qx here opposed to the spewy fish who will call down with 3rd pair here, but yeah this isnt gonna work everytime i just think now ive seen his range broken down that he is folding 50%+ of the time. The only reason this spot isnt an exact science is because we dont know how weak or spewy said fish is, most spots in poker though, are pretty solved when you break down hands, or if they're not they're an educated guess, which is already on the way to winning at poker because most people dont even try to make educated guesses.

 

[Deco]

I fold pre. I check/fold the flop. I check fold the turn or bet bigger. I check fold the river.

Sure the above is nitty but we're up against an unknown we can't give a range to, we hold a marginal hand, and we're out of position.

 

[Deco]

The thing I dislike most is the turn bet sizing. A fishy player will not think "he's setting me up for stacks this must be a value bet" he will think "that's a small bet I cawl". Almost his entire range will come along.

The river is a nasty spot this blind play without ranges or reads has taken us. I'm check/folding as if he's a fish he can potentially call with any pair, if hes a tagfish aq/kq aren't going anywhere. Were only folding out draws we beat and the occasional 5x,6x from a fishes range. If villain floats Broadway's were really screwed.

 

[Beanfacekilla]

Of course in general terms, doing stuff IP is better you're right,and to answer why i chose this spot is just how i approach every spot, i try not to make any play without analysing whethers its going to show profit or not. I dont try and win every pot with A high for what its worth i just try and take as many +EV spots that i can find/work into my game and it doesn't always work, some do, some dont, some are very debateable (like this one i guess as its getting so much hate) but you are right, i try to make everything a calculated risk. and this is no different - I'm wagering an amount on the river that means i need him to fold around 45% of the time for me to make money, in my head i think this probably means i have to make him fold Qx and its probably fine. I go over the hand later and realise that this probably is the case however, its probably not great assuming fish will always fold Qx here cause not all of them will, i am confident on my read of the 100nl population that the average unknown fish i play leans towards being a weak fish who will fold Qx here opposed to the spewy fish who will call down with 3rd pair here, but yeah this isnt gonna work everytime i just think now ive seen his range broken down that he is folding 50%+ of the time. The only reason this spot isnt an exact science is because we dont know how weak or spewy said fish is, most spots in poker though, are pretty solved when you break down hands, or if they're not they're an educated guess, which is already on the way to winning at poker because most people dont even try to make educated guesses.

Oh ok. I don't know the theory like that. I am pretty decent at reading people, and my gut is almost always accurate, in live play. Online is totally not my game. I only play online occasionally.

I think about it more simply, I ask myself: does the opponent want me to fold? Does he want a call? Does the way they played so far make sense? How did that card help them? Why are they betting this way? Etc. Etc.




Live play is full of fishies that have no clue how to play post-flop. I am sure I am not that great of a player online, but at the cardroom, I do just fine.

That is all.

 

[John A]

yeah the bold bit is what im not happy with. Actually think a turn bet is semi reasonable but dont really like it either unless we know how fishy he is, if hes really fishy i think its just a bet 1 or bet 3 spot, i can see a turn bet being good when he doesnt have a lot of Qx to outweigh the few middling pp's he might fold (cause i think there is no way he folds Qx to one bet). Still, i dont think my line was the nut worst spew like everyone is making out, he does fold a lot of hands to that river bet so if its anywhere near spew, its borderline spew/borderline fine

He's going to call most of the time with Qx on the turn, but there's enough combined equity in your hand to profitably fold out other mid pairs he's calling the flop with but folding to a second barrel AND your have a nutted gutshot that makes a lot of second best hands that will call a river shove if he calls and you hit.

 

[hackmeplz]

Quick summary: When you start making assumptions without reads it usually doesn't turn out well. So given the lack of information I'd prefer barreling the turn bigger and getting Qx and under pairs to fold out. I think tripling w/o good info on average is spew. You are basically hoping.

This is pretty wrong and makes no sense whatsoever. We're not hoping anything, we know he's a fish and whether we know it or not there is a range of hands he can have and actions he will take with this range. There is a distribution of hands/actions the average person takes given our reads (that he's a fish), and this can be used to determine the best course of action to take. So you can try to disagree and say that the average fish will call Qx or will have Kx+ a lot (both of which I disagree with, but at least it'd be something we could discuss), but saying things like "making assumptions without reads usually doesn't turn out well" or "you are basically hoping" is just pretty awful logic.

 

[John A]

This is pretty wrong and makes no sense whatsoever. We're not hoping anything, we know he's a fish and whether we know it or not there is a range of hands he can have and actions he will take with this range. There is a distribution of hands/actions the average person takes given our reads (that he's a fish), and this can be used to determine the best course of action to take. So you can try to disagree and say that the average fish will call Qx or will have Kx+ a lot (both of which I disagree with, but at least it'd be something we could discuss), but saying things like "making assumptions without reads usually doesn't turn out well" or "you are basically hoping" is just pretty awful logic.

You're right, it's awful logic, makes no sense at all... stupid me.

All fish are the same... continue on and enlighten us.

 

[hackmeplz]

All fish are the same... continue on and enlighten us.

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".

 

[youregoodmate]

Dont see how you could get a fish at 100nl lmao, and based on playing 1 table lmfao....

Most decent regs will be wasting their time playing 1 table. If theyre profitable then multitabling is an obvious option.

Also you get fish at every stake, even at 400000000000000000000000000000000000000nl

 

[John A]

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.

 

[hackmeplz]

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?

Fair point, I still think the average fish is more afraid of losing their stack. It's obviously hard to assign ranges but in general I don't think very many fish like risking their entire stack with 2nd pair. Of course there are some fish who just sorta snapcall with 22 here.

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've played several million hands of 100nl+, I have decent experience playing with fish at those levels. But my point was if we don't know any of those factors, we can treat someone where the only read we have is "fish" as an average fish at those stakes. So what % of fish in the 100nl player pool, given that they have a better hand (we'd also have to factor in for the times he bluffs river and we have to fold, too lazy to do that math right now though) will fold? If it's more than 45% or w/e odds we're giving ourselves on the bluff, we should shove. If not we should ch/f. I think he has enough random pairs, gutshots that rivered 9, weaker Qx hands that will fold to make up for the times he has Kx, calls Qx, and calls weaker hands. Again I could be wrong but I'm just trying to show that we can try to figure out the average of an entire population without knowing anything else.

For example say you go to a random American voter and ask who they voted for last election. If we know nothing else we would be correct in saying Obama. Then we find out we're in Texas and it changes to Romney. We don't need to know their race, gender, political affiliation, income, or anything else. All of that information would let us make a more accurate prediction, but we have a decision to make and want to make the most +ev decision. In that case you use the information you do have and average the rest of the factors. That's what we need to do here.

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.

I apologize, that was not my intent. That said, I was a bit tilted by the way you responded, especially given your undertitle. Seeing "you are basically hoping" just tilted me a bit and made me think either:

1. you're a random fish and everyone here is reading it thinking it must be legit advice because you're a coach
2. you knew better but were over-simplifying something and other people reading it would try to apply the over-simplification.

I'm convinced it's closer to #2 given your other responses. I apologize for coming off dickish I'm not the best at handling my image on the internet.

 

[John A]

Fair point, I still think the average fish is more afraid of losing their stack. It's obviously hard to assign ranges but in general I don't think very many fish like risking their entire stack with 2nd pair. Of course there are some fish who just sorta snapcall with 22 here.

At 400nl+, I'd agree more. At 100nl, where absolute value of what the fish is playing with is still not very much, I wouldn't agree as much. We can agree to disagree.

I've played several million hands of 100nl+, I have decent experience playing with fish at those levels. But my point was if we don't know any of those factors, we can treat someone where the only read we have is "fish" as an average fish at those stakes. So what % of fish in the 100nl player pool, given that they have a better hand (we'd also have to factor in for the times he bluffs river and we have to fold, too lazy to do that math right now though) will fold? If it's more than 45% or w/e odds we're giving ourselves on the bluff, we should shove. If not we should ch/f. I think he has enough random pairs, gutshots that rivered 9, weaker Qx hands that will fold to make up for the times he has Kx, calls Qx, and calls weaker hands. Again I could be wrong but I'm just trying to show that we can try to figure out the average of an entire population without knowing anything else.

Again, knowing our opponent is a fish is useful info. I would be value betting the turn and river much thinner, not calling down as light, etc... I think you rushed to try and devalue my opinion because I own a poker site without fully looking at why myself and others are advocating against tripling a fish without better information. There's many things we would do and play our hand differently with this information, but I don't think it's smart to be getting your whole stack in against anyone without knowing their tendencies better.

For example say you go to a random American voter and ask who they voted for last election. If we know nothing else we would be correct in saying Obama. Then we find out we're in Texas and it changes to Romney. We don't need to know their race, gender, political affiliation, income, or anything else. All of that information would let us make a more accurate prediction, but we have a decision to make and want to make the most +ev decision. In that case you use the information you do have and average the rest of the factors. That's what we need to do here.

Thanks for the probability lesson.

I apologize, that was not my intent. That said, I was a bit tilted by the way you responded, especially given your undertitle. Seeing "you are basically hoping" just tilted me a bit and made me think either:

1. you're a random fish and everyone here is reading it thinking it must be legit advice because you're a coach
2. you knew better but were over-simplifying something and other people reading it would try to apply the over-simplification.

I'm convinced it's closer to #2 given your other responses. I apologize for coming off dickish I'm not the best at handling my image on the internet.

Gee, thanks. Closer to #2, but probably some #1 still. I've played poker long enough (I'm 39) and against the best players in the world to know young poker ego when I see it. You didn't even have to post this above for me to know why you came off in an attack mode and so dickish. I'd try giving people a little more credit first though. Disagreeing and having differing opinions is fine. Even if you think someone is a bad coach or whatever, having a little more respect will get you a long way in life.

 

[youregoodmate]

You're right, it's awful logic, makes no sense at all... stupid me.

All fish are the same... continue on and enlighten us.

Sarcasm is above 'punk kid' is it?

I think this shows a bigger lack of respect.

Edit: Especially after hackme has apologised, calling him 'dickish' and saying he has a lack of respect is pretty hypocritical.

 

[frozensprx]

This actually seems too aggressive, in my opinion. When he called your 3bet and then called the flop I would most likely either give up or slow down drastically. Because he could've been simply raising his button, but he also could've woken up with a real hand and just sat back as you barreled your whole stack. If he had a Q he is unlikely to fold to only 1 overcard and if he had J10 then he got there on the river with the straight. Although it is possible you could get him to fold a queen with such aggression on the river, This seems like a -EV play in the long run because he has already committed over half his stack when you shove the river and since you claim he is a fish then he will rarely be folding even if he has a strong inclination that he is beat.

 

[John A]

Sarcasm is above 'punk kid' is it?

I think this shows a bigger lack of respect.

Edit: Especially after hackme has apologised, calling him 'dickish' and saying he has a lack of respect is pretty hypocritical.

Why are you chiming in? This is after his post, which was pretty ridiculous, and he called himself dickish. I am using his words. I didn't call him a punk kid. Re-read what he wrote first.

I never talk that way to people on here ever, but I don't sit by and allow people to talk that way to me. I don't put up with it in real life or on the internet. Respect is earned and if someone disrespects me they haven't earned my respect in return.

 

[youregoodmate]

Why are you chiming in? This is after his post, which was pretty ridiculous, and he called himself dickish. I am using his words. Re-read what he wrote first.

I never talk that way to people on here ever, but I don't sit by and allow people to talk that way to me. I don't put up with it in real life or on the internet.

Im chiming in because its a public forum. The way I read it he said your logic is wrong, you came back with a sarcastic comment which annoys him and then further criticise after he has apologised. My argument is not that he is innocent (not getting involved in that), just that you were guilty of the same things you accused him of. As a neutral (I dont know you or him) thats the way it has all come across.

 

[vanquish]

i have the weirdest boner right now

 

[youregoodmate]

i have the weirdest boner right now

Straight up?

 

[John A]

Im chiming in because its a public forum. The way I read it he said your logic is wrong, you came back with a sarcastic comment which annoys him and then further criticise after he has apologised. My argument is not that he is innocent (not getting involved in that), just that you were guilty of the same things you accused him of. As a neutral (I dont know you or him) thats the way it has all come across.

Fun.

We are dealing with an analysis of a game using logic, reason and perception (among other things). If someone was in a conversation with you while you were discussing your position and view of a situation in X game, and that person proceded to tell you that "This is pretty wrong and makes no sense whatsoever", and "just pretty awful logic." is that respectful conversation? No. Respectful adults don't converse like that.

Further, I know why someone proceeds in the manner. I'm not new to it. Young poker player Y has big ego, sees someone is a poker coach, wants to discredit poker coach because he knows better than him. He even admitted that. Is that respectful? No.

I don't respect people who don't respect me. Sorry you have a problem with that, but I don't see why you need to chime in honestly. Done with this thread.

 

[AlfieAA]

have to giggle at all the seriousness on here some times.....get a gf and stfu

 

[acky100]

look what i started! sorry.

The real question is... who would win in a 1 v 1?

 

[Beanfacekilla]

Goof grief.

 

[youregoodmate]

Haha Im just cranky! No sleep and an exam looming

 

[jbbb]

I fold pre.

Whaaaaaat? Three handed to a button raise?

 

[Deco]

Whaaaaaat? Three handed to a button raise?

We're never going to be making an absolute killing with AT here (In fact I rarely flat this vs most regs unless they minraise). I feel it's +EV to nit up when against unknowns out of position as are ability to hand read is diminished.

I'm not even going to have a 3bet bluffing range in this spot.