Study Group: Polished Poker Vol. II Workbook

[Figaroo2]

That eagle which thought it was a chicken had some serious blocks...
We are in training to be that eagle in the sky....

 

[mottotom27]

*The chicken eagle.*
There was a chicken farmer who was a very keen rock climber. One day, climbing a particularly challenging rock face, he came upon a a large nest and in the nest were three large eggs. Eagle eggs.
He knew it was distinctly unethical, and even undoubtedly illegal, but temptation got the better of him and he discreetly put one of the eagle eggs in his rucksack, checking first that the mother eagle wasn’t around. Then he continued his climb, drove home, and put the eagle egg in the hen house.
That night the mother hen sat on the huge egg, the proudest chicken you ever saw.
In the fullness of time the egg hatched and the baby eagling emerged. It looked around and saw the mother hen. “Mama!” it squawked.
And so it was that the eagle grew up with its brother and sister chicks. It learned to do all the things that chickens do: clucking and cackling, scratching in the dirt for grits and worms, flapping its wings furiously, and flying a few feet into the air before crashing to the earth in a pile of dust and feathers. And believing above all things that it was totally and absolutely a chicken.
One day late in its life, the eagle-who-thought-he-was-a-chicken happened to look up at the sky. High overhead, soaring majestically on the thermal currents, flying effortlessly with scarcely a beat of its powerful wings, was an eagle.
“What’s that?” said the eagle in awe to his farmyard neighbour. “It’s magnificent. So much power and grace. Poetry in motion.”
“That’s an eagle,” said the chicken. “That’s the King of Birds. It’s a bird of the air. But we, we’re only chickens, we’re birds of the earth.”
And so it was that the eagle lived and died a chicken; because that’s all it believed it was.

i've never heard that story before, thanks for sharing

 

[John A]

So do you think everyone is about ready to move on to the next chapter?

The goals chapter is going to mostly be a personal decision to hold yourself accountable, and recognize the blocks you may be running into. Then finding some method to move past them. I tried to present a method and approach I've found helpful. I think we all know this isn't easy, or we'd all be little Jesus' or Buddha's. If there's ever anything you come across that you want to discuss in private, please don't hesitate to PM me. If you want to share it here, please do. Otherwise, we're going to move forward...

 

[Figaroo2]

I'm starting to realise the blocks in my game are mainly aggression related. I'm very comfortable with hand reading and analysis away from the table but struggle in real time whilst playing.
The only winning session I've had in a week was when another player hooked up on team viewer and watched me play. This really helped me focus and stopped me being lazy at the table. When a marginal 3bet or squeeze spot arose I took it rather than just waiting for clear obvious spots.
Some of the passivity also comes from not being a master of recognizing my equity in real time at the table. I think I need some more work on the equity trainer. This feels like the next few months are going to be important if im going to achieve my potential at this game. Everything feels so close to coming together but mastery remains elusive.

 

[rhombus]

Some of the passivity also comes from not being a master of recognizing my equity in real time at the table. I think I need some more work on the equity trainer. This feels like the next few months are going to be important if im going to achieve my potential at this game. Everything feels so close to coming together but mastery remains elusive.

With regards to equity I'm ok against a hand to almost immediate calculate equity but struggle against a range, i.e.

Flop T75 I have 89 and opponent very tight shows me AA i know i have 8 outs and possibly running outs e.g. 88 99 89 so about 34%

Against a range is it possible to calcualte at the table ???


The last part, I feel similar in that the knowledge is there but so may chunks of information and trying to piece them together, abit like the Morecambe and Wise sketch with Andre Previn "I'm playing all the right notes, but not necessarily in the right order" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-zHBN45fbo8

 

[rhombus]

Not sure to post this here or in PP1 thread
going through the Out of Norm Lines questions

3. Lead Small Over Bet: This works well on paired boards, or hands where you have a lot of backdoor outs. You get your opponent to define their hand a little more, and then make them make a difficult turn decision by slightly over betting the turn. Most people don't have to deal with overbets often, so unless they have a big hand, usually opponents will give up.

then underneath there is an example, is the example for the 3 lead small Over Bet or a donk Lead. Im unsure about the 4 Out of Line options and which is which even though i managed to get the 2 questions right LOL

 

[Fknife]

Against a range is it possible to calcualte at the table ???

There is a well known method called TUPAC, which can actually give quite good equity approximations if you pull it off fast enough at the table [1] [2]

(Sorry to "interrupt"; I was quietly following this thread for quite some time actually.)

 

[Figaroo2]

Not sure to post this here or in PP1 thread
going through the Out of Norm Lines questions
3. Lead Small Over Bet: This works well on paired boards, or hands where you have a lot of backdoor outs. You get your opponent to define their hand a little more, and then make them make a difficult turn decision by slightly over betting the turn. Most people don't have to deal with overbets often, so unless they have a big hand, usually opponents will give up.

Yeah it's not clear i have been using these lines for quite while now and have some observations.
Firstly the lead out on the turn definitely works against regs and you don't need to overbet to get the result. I've never seen anyone use the play against me even at 25nl. So mostly the reg will sit there bemused as to what the bet means and then they usually fold. I have found anecdotally that overbetting sometimes gets you looked up out of curiosity, whereas if you make it value looking 80-85% of the pot they think im happy to be called and they let it go. I think you do need some decent equity as the pot is getting larger than it would be on the flop lead out. I will see if I find a few examples.
The key is to make the play when the flop is low and ragged and hits the perceived callers range whilst missing the openers high card range.
You can lead out on the flop with anything really if the texture is suitable.. Im sure John will put me right if this isn't correct. In fact other than shoves I can't remember seeing any overbetting even full pot isn't that common at the moment

 

[John A]

Yeah it's not clear i have been using these lines for quite while now and have some observations.
Firstly the lead out on the turn definitely works against regs and you don't need to overbet to get the result. I've never seen anyone use the play against me even at 25nl. So mostly the reg will sit there bemused as to what the bet means and then they usually fold. I have found anecdotally that overbetting sometimes gets you looked up out of curiosity, whereas if you make it value looking 80-85% of the pot they think im happy to be called and they let it go. I think you do need some decent equity as the pot is getting larger than it would be on the flop lead out. I will see if I find a few examples.
The key is to make the play when the flop is low and ragged and hits the perceived callers range whilst missing the openers high card range.
You can lead out on the flop with anything really if the texture is suitable.. Im sure John will put me right if this isn't correct. In fact other than shoves I can't remember seeing any overbetting even full pot isn't that common at the moment

To rhombus - what line you take OOP is going to largely be based on your ~ hand equity and flop texture. I try and provide some example. Obviously you're not going to want to take a c/c and lead line on a draw heavy board with A high.

The amazing thing is, these lines work very well. I've used them for the past 11 years very effectively. Some of them, people still, to this very day, don't think will work. There's a lot of odd memes in the poker community that are dead wrong. It's funny that they survive so long. Some eventually die out, but there's a lot like leading into your opponent on the turn, that people think won't work... but it does.

 

[rhombus]

To rhombus - what line you take OOP is going to largely be based on your ~ hand equity and flop texture. I try and provide some example. Obviously you're not going to want to take a c/c and lead line on a draw heavy board with A high.

The amazing thing is, these lines work very well. I've used them for the past 11 years very effectively. Some of them, people still, to this very day, don't think will work. There's a lot of odd memes in the poker community that are dead wrong. It's funny that they survive so long. Some eventually die out, but there's a lot like leading into your opponent on the turn, that people think won't work... but it does.

So when it says Lead small overbet. Does it mean Lead Flop(donk) then overbet most turns as in pictuer below

 

[rhombus]

There is a well known method called TUPAC, which can actually give quite good equity approximations if you pull it off fast enough at the table [1] [2]

(Sorry to "interrupt"; I was quietly following this thread for quite some time actually.)

thanks for the links and no need to apologise join in

 

[John A]

So when it says Lead small overbet. Does it mean Lead Flop(donk) then overbet most turns as in pictuer below

Correcto.

 

[rhombus]

On Question 1 for Chapter 6 it ask for 5% range. I got different answer to the book.

When I checked it gives different ranges for when you click on individual hands to when you enter a range or click on the +

Initially I typed 5% and got 88+ but when you click on hands its TT+. If I then click on 99 and 88 Range goes to 5.9%

 

[Figaroo2]

I have noticed this as well Rhom

 

[John A]

Ya thanks... I assume it's rounding up in that situation for some reason. I'll have to ask the developer.

 

[John A]

fyi, I was looking at this and pokerstove does the same thing also for some reason. I think I know why, but just confirming with the developer.

 

[rhombus]

fyi, I was looking at this and pokerstove does the same thing also for some reason. I think I know why, but just confirming with the developer.

is it anything to do with the suits, when I typed 5% it showed hands below. Strangely when i clicked on AQo and unticked one of the combos it went from 5.0 to 5.8 and then continuded to go down as i unticked each combo until it went down to 5% as all combos were unticked

 

[John A]

No, it's because it's doing 2 different calculations to come up with what should be top 5% versus total combos (if you click). I know how to resolve it... just interesting it's been done this way across multiple tools (I saw it on another online calc too). It makes sense, but there's a way to correct it. Ty.

 

[Figaroo2]

Fold equity
How can we ever really judge what percentage of the time someone is going to fold to a shove?
Which HUD stats can help us judge this?
Presumably related to how often they go to showdown. nervous lol.

Question 3, pg. 34: You're involved in a hand where you believe your opponent has 65% equity. There's currently $60 in the pot, and you have $90 remaining. If you shoved, how often would your opponent need to fold in order for it to be a break-even play?

Not being particularly math orientated, I can't even begin to work this out now, let alone at the table. .
My math never got this far.I have peeked at the answer and its still gobbledegook tbh
Is there a technique for quick approximation?

 

[rhombus]

Fold equity
How can we ever really judge what percentage of the time someone is going to fold to a shove?
Which HUD stats can help us judge this?
Presumably related to how often they go to showdown. nervous lol.

Question 3, pg. 34: You're involved in a hand where you believe your opponent has 65% equity. There's currently $60 in the pot, and you have $90 remaining. If you shoved, how often would your opponent need to fold in order for it to be a break-even play?

Not being particularly math orientated, I can't even begin to work this out now, let alone at the table. .
My math never got this far.I have peeked at the answer and its still gobbledegook tbh
Is there a technique for quick approximation?

When I went through the Fold Equity questions I got the first two right, but when I got to question 3 I didnt even attempt a guess because I also didnt have a clue on this one

 

[Fknife]

Question 3, pg. 34: You're involved in a hand where you believe your opponent has 65% equity. There's currently $60 in the pot, and you have $90 remaining. If you shoved, how often would your opponent need to fold in order for it to be a break-even play?

60%?

 

[Figaroo2]

Err no actually guys you are both way off the answer shown in the work book!!
Before I even looked at the answer I noticed that as we only need to swing the equity 15% down from 65% to 50% before its breakeven so surely he doesn't have to fold that often for this to work I thought just as a guess it would be less than 20% and I was right it is less than that....Do you guys want to try again??!! lol

 

[Fknife]

Err no actually guys you are both way off the answer shown in the work book!!
Before I even looked at the answer I noticed that as we only need to swing the equity 15% down from 65% to 50% before its breakeven so surely he doesn't have to fold that often for this to work I thought just as a guess it would be less than 20% and I was right it is less than that....Do you guys want to try again??!! lol

Well, you can disregard my answer because I wasnt paying attention and just assumed we have no pot equity when called (sorry about that). @HooDooKoo's approach seems ok but shouldnt we be losing -90 when called (instead of -150; we dont 'own' the pot)?

 

[rhombus]

Err no actually guys you are both way off the answer shown in the work book!!
Before I even looked at the answer I noticed that as we only need to swing the equity 15% down from 65% to 50% before its breakeven so surely he doesn't have to fold that often for this to work I thought just as a guess it would be less than 20% and I was right it is less than that....Do you guys want to try again??!! lol

maybe a clue needed as we did have multiple choice

o 9% o 14% o 35% o 23%

 

[Fknife]

maybe a clue needed as we did have multiple choice

o 9% o 14% o 35% o 23%

X * $60 + (1 - X) * (0.35 * $150) + (1 - X) * (0.65 * -$90) = 0

says: 9.09%