...It's a tough concept at first, but you'll definitely understand it well with a little time and practice.
...and by paying table tuition.
I'm playing the $2
party poker SNG's and transitioning into the $5 games..(double or nothing and PKO's mainly) and this section must be instinctive but there seems to be more "at play."
My question(s) concern a reference I made regarding Arrow and Nakumura and to a degree Prisoner's dilemma where "coalitions" seem to form relative to stacks and expected bet sizes from the chip leaders (card ranges are irrelevant to the chip leaders on the attack). I've noticed that some bets by the leaders are tailored to the aggression level of their intended victim. Of the spectrum of bet ranges initiated by the leaders can I:
1. Quantitatively assess the aggression factor of a target via bet sizing, number of times the target was engaged or not AND would this give a quantitative "read" on the leaders? When I see more than one larger chip stack falling into a certain "bet consensus" during early and mid game (assuming the larger stacks are taking odds and EV into account since they aren't winning by luck alone), can PT4 detect and validate this perception?
2. In the late game, it seems that smaller stacks are more willing to attack larger stacks as an ensemble especially when a weakness is perceived..ie. a large chip loss whatever the reason and card range reads seem more important to everyone again. I've put out larger bets against mid-range aggressive players with smaller stacks (regardless of pot odds and EV) just to entice more aggressive players to tangle with one another and wipe each other out.
Is this a valid trade-off?
I've been on the giving and receiving end of being a chip bully and seething victim in the above mentioned game structures. Are the above points valid or am I imagining things. If these points are valid then at what stake level, from low moving upwards, do these tactics become invalid?
In a few games, certain chip bullies would raise the blinds but only call mine and other times (especially after some aggressive re-raising and winning sporadic
hands) the table would fold around to me...is everyone ignoring pot odds and EV or is it a coalition/emotional thing that is occurring where self-preservation has taken hold because of who was taken out and how?
When I've been knocked out of a game should I continue to observe it to see if there is any distinctive response to my absence? Other than being involved in a Replay game on
poker stars is there any other way to record games (or find them on other sites) with cards exposed after I've been knocked out? I'm curious to see if there is any detectable transition in game play on the part of the remaining players relative to my being there and not everything else being equal.
