Radical experiment, randomised bets... am I nuts?

[SavagePenguin]

I wouldn't recommend Negreanu's small ball technique for a new poker player. Negreanu makes excellent use of it because he is adept post-flop. Negreanu can pick up reads and push weaker players off hands, or get the maximum value when he does hit.

I think a new player is going to run into a lot of trouble when their 9/7s flops top pair, or other tricky situations.

I'd recommend that someone start out playing fairly TAG, and once they have the feel for it and are comfortable post-flop, loosen up their game.

That is, stay out of trouble, but once you understand the situations a lot more, play the trickier (IE more dangerous) hands.

 

[Pascal-lf]

If it's randomized, surely you are going to lose the same amount in the long run with losing hands as you win from winning hands so you'll just B/E (minus rake)?

 

[Poof]

You need to figure out who does (like Pooffy Fooffy, ha ha snap!) and exploit them.

OMG Piss Off!!!
I am trying to get better at that btw, lol

And I don't want to see "F$^*% MORON!!!" in the chat when I shove over you and take your chips for trying to bluff me

 

[CistaCista]

Thanks for all the comments!

I agree with everyone that my randomising technique has little effect whatsoever on the levels I am playing - the lowest possible level
This is simply because players at low level do not respond to varied play.

I am continuing to randomise a few decisions on flop and turn - where it doesn't harm me. I will keep the tool in my repertoire.

Meanwhile, the small ball strategy - which wasn't the topic of my thread - seems to works fine for me, and this will remain my strategy for now.
Some have said that it is not good for a new player, but I think it depends on what range size you are working with. And playing small ball does not mean I cannot make juicy value bets, at least I try to.

 

[TPC]

OMG Piss Off!!!
I am trying to get better at that btw, lol

And I don't want to see "F$^*% MORON!!!" in the chat when I shove over you and take your chips for trying to bluff me

I never bluff you

Ha ha, I was wondering if you would see that or not. Well played by me

 

[Stu_Ungar]

Thanks for all the comments!

I agree with everyone that my randomising technique has little effect whatsoever on the levels I am playing - the lowest possible level
This is simply because players at low level do not respond to varied play.

I am continuing to randomise a few decisions on flop and turn - where it doesn't harm me. I will keep the tool in my repertoire.

Meanwhile, the small ball strategy - which wasn't the topic of my thread - seems to works fine for me, and this will remain my strategy for now.
Some have said that it is not good for a new player, but I think it depends on what range size you are working with. And playing small ball does not mean I cannot make juicy value bets, at least I try to.

Why randomise a decision when you can take the most +ev line?

In any situation there is one line which is yeilds highest EV. That line should be the line you take. When "randomising" you are choosing between a few possible lines, but only one is correct.

Randomisation is all about disguising your hand / postflop tendencies.

As your opponents will usually not be able to know the correct line, nor correctly read your hand by the line you take, what is the advantage of sometimes taking inferior lines?

All you are doing is reducing your own winrate.

 

[TPC]

Hey, welcome back Stu! Where ya been?

 

[Stu_Ungar]

Hey, welcome back Stu! Where ya been?

Had a lot on.

My grandmother died at the ripe old age of 99. So was pretty cut up about that.

 

[tbdbitl]

Why randomise a decision when you can take the most +ev line?

Randomisation is all about disguising your hand / postflop tendencies.

Was your intent to answer your own question in your own reply?

I can see how this would keep you from getting in the habit of c-betting everytime or a high percentage. So that you become more aware of how often you are doing things. But, If you flop a set and there is a flush and straight draw on the board, I hope you wouldn't check because that's what your randomizer tells you to do.

 

[tbdbitl]

Was your intent to answer your own question in your own reply?

No tb, maybe stu was saying that by taking the Ev line each time that it would provide the randomization needed to disguise your hand.

I swear you are a little too psychotic sometimes tb.

 

[Stu_Ungar]

Was your intent to answer your own question in your own reply?

Do you think your opponents are playing so well that yo need to disguise your hand?

 

[TPC]

Had a lot on.

My grandmother died at the ripe old age of 99. So was pretty cut up about that.

Sorry to hear that. May she rest in peace.

 

[Stu_Ungar]

No tb, maybe stu was saying that by taking the Ev line each time that it would provide the randomization needed to disguise your hand.

I swear you are a little too psychotic sometimes tb.

No

I was saying that by randomising your actions you are forcing yourself to take lines which are lower EV than if you took the optimal line.

This in turn lowers your winrate as your winrate is really the sum of the ev of the lines you take.

So what is the advantage of taking a lower than optimal line against an opponent who will not be able to read your hand correctly when taking the optimal line?

 

[CistaCista]

So what is the advantage of taking a lower than optimal line against an opponent who will not be able to read your hand correctly when taking the optimal line?

None, as others have already said. There is only an advantage if variation in your game screws up your opposition's reading of your strategy.

A small update: my bankroll has today for the first time surpassed 10 USD, so I am a happy panda! I never deposit anything, so the bankroll comes from freerolls. I have not yet made profit on 2NL, but it seems to be that players on 2NL are often playing worse than the ones that reach final tables in freerolls, so I am optimistic.

 

[TPC]

None, as others have already said. There is only an advantage if variation in your game screws up your opposition's reading of your strategy.

A small update: my bankroll has today for the first time surpassed 10 USD, so I am a happy panda! I never deposit anything, so the bankroll comes from freerolls. I have not yet made profit on 2NL, but it seems to be that players on 2NL are often playing worse than the ones that reach final tables in freerolls, so I am optimistic.

One $10 isn't a bankroll.

Two, could it be that you're not profiting at 2nl because you insist on playing small ball?

 

[CistaCista]

could it be that you're not profiting at 2nl because you insist on playing small ball?

I am agreeing on that. Against these players it could maybe be more profitable to play more tight and just get value from when I hit the sets etc. So with that in mind I often make compromises on the small ball strategy (play smaller range and go for more value on bets).

But as you also say I haven't got a proper bankroll yet, I have just been checking out what 2NL is like, and winning some and losing some.

 

[Stu_Ungar]

None, as others have already said. There is only an advantage if variation in your game screws up your opposition's reading of your strategy.

A small update: my bankroll has today for the first time surpassed 10 USD, so I am a happy panda! I never deposit anything, so the bankroll comes from freerolls. I have not yet made profit on 2NL, but it seems to be that players on 2NL are often playing worse than the ones that reach final tables in freerolls, so I am optimistic.

If you are playing 2NL and players at this level are good enough that you can screw up your opponents reading of your strategy by randomising your actions, then you should quit now; there is no money left to be made in poker.


Randomising is a crude form of range balancing which is not required until you approach 1KNL.

You are reducing your own winrate. This is not something you need or should be doing

 

[fletchdad]

Had a lot on.

My grandmother died at the ripe old age of 99. So was pretty cut up about that.

Sorry in advance for the derail.

Good to see you back Stu. Sorry to hear about your Grandmother.

/end of derail.

 

[doops]

If you are experimenting with this to get more comfortable with bluffing, that's cool. I just hope you have a huge bankroll to cover your losses.

The rest of us just see doom and gloom in this experiment. But if you have a limited term goal for yourself, fine.

I remember that when I first started loosening up (from super-tight nit), it was very uncomfortable. But I knew I needed to widen my range -- waiting for an hour for AA which then gets me a small pot wasn't doing the trick. Doing the Ferguson preflop challenge in the FT Academy helped me also see the value of LP raises, which also helped me get comfortable with such stuff.

But, while Negreanu does well (presumably) with his small ball thing, his play requires other players of equal depth. And while his range is wider than most people, he doesn't hang on to hands without potential. His point is to see flops cheaply with hands that could become monsters. And then to outplay the other guys after the flop -- or fold. Read his book.

 

[CistaCista]

If you are experimenting with this to get more comfortable with bluffing, that's cool. I just hope you have a huge bankroll to cover your losses.

Yes this is it exactly! The randomising experiment has made me more comfortable with bluffing, and given me the opportunity to study how opposition reacts to different ways I am playing hands.

I don't have any bankroll and therefore I have no losses. I have been playing freerolls, I never deposit, and now I am playing 2NL with the money from the freerolls.

 

[Stu_Ungar]

Yes this is it exactly! The randomising experiment has made me more comfortable with bluffing, and given me the opportunity to study how opposition reacts to different ways I am playing hands.

I don't have any bankroll and therefore I have no losses. I have been playing freerolls, I never deposit, and now I am playing 2NL with the money from the freerolls.

Do not bluff

The single biggest mistake all the way up to mid stakes is that players call too much.

Most of the time you think you bluffed you find that in reality you folded out a hand you were flipping with at showdown.

If the biggest mistake is calling too much then we simply bet for value expecting to get called by worse.


Ill tell you now how they react to how you play hands differently. They call when they have a hand or a draw and they fold when they dont. Oh and they raise the nuts.

 

[CistaCista]

If the biggest mistake is calling too much then we simply bet for value expecting to get called by worse.

New update!
I have been using my newfound riches on FTP 2NL for a couple of days, and what happened? Just as everyone said, small ball is not working well on this level. I have to say, my impression is that 2NL players are worse than players in the latter third of most freerolls.

So I have been losing too much, because they will not stop calling! I have to put my small ball strategy on vacation for now. No more playing small suited cards, connectors, or Kx! (ouch! Did he REALLY play kings?)

I will play TAG on the 2NL from now on, but still some small balling in freerolls.

I still do some randomisations, but only when I have the goods and decide on slow playing or not. When I don't have a hand I don't do randomised bluffs, hopefully I some day arrive at midlevels and can do more experimenting against better players.

 

[CistaCista]

PS

...but rest assured that when I get access to the CC freerolls, home of the most uber-skilled players of the cosmos, I am going to small ball your eyes out

 

[CistaCista]

Update! I have been playing with my $9 for five days on FTP 2NL now, 2 and now 3 tables at a time. It's been a long struggle towards realising that no, you cannot play a sizeable range at the micros

Most of the money is gone now, and I am reducing myself to the bare-bone strategy. From now on I only play premium hands, down to A10, (maybe KQ KJ QJ), and pairs down to around 88. Everything else I will fold, I promise!

It's been hard for me to throw away the playstyle I really like and I hope to be able to use it again later

I am also in doubt about the tables, as I said in another post today I have been playing 6-max 2NL because I could often get a pot with Ax and small pairs. That didn't add up though.

So now that I will play so few hands, is it better to shift to full ring so the blinds do not eat too much of my dwindling stacks?

 

[CistaCista]

Oh boy, just when I had finally become totally tight and disciplined I ran in to some bad beats with my last $2. When I flopped the nut flush my opponent - who had KK and was in for anything - caught a house on the turn
2 minutes later I took another big hit at another table and that was about it for me on FTP 2NL this time around.

Back to the freerolls! I have a couple of bucks on Stars and some other sites, but not really enough to do damage. Lesson learned, and thanks for listening!