$1000 NLHE STT: Not sure of my play here. Felt confident at the time, but now....

[CupOfSalt]

$1000 NLHE STT: Not sure of my play here. Felt confident at the time, but now....

pokerstars - Hold'em Tournament - $15/30 Blinds - 4 Players
Hand Converter by Pokerhand.org

belisa1111 (CO): $795
storozhila87 (BTN): $5,155
cupofsalt (SB): $6,025
Chalamiah (BB): $1,525

Pre-flop: Dealt to cupofsalt K♠ 2♠
(2 folds), cupofsalt calls $15, Chalamiah raises to $60, cupofsalt calls $30

Flop: ($120) J♣ 2♦ 3♥ (2 Players)
cupofsalt bets $90, Chalamiah raises to $1,465 and is all-in, cupofsalt calls $1,375

Turn: ($3,050) 8♠ (2 Players)

River: ($3,050) 4♦ (2 Players)

cupofsalt Showed K♠ 2♠
Chalamiah Showed Q♠ A♥
cupofsalt wins $3,050 with a pair of Deuces



See... this just adds to my skepticism of "theoretical strategy"...

The reason I called him was because of his "timing tells"... I just feel so stupid putting it like that. The way the hand played out in real-time is so different post-text-record.

The fact is, I'm most always not wrong.... it's a "gut feeling" or maybe it's just years of experience dealing live, actual poker.... That's just the way I feel.





I honestly believe there HAS to be a balance between actual experience and "theoretical experience".... Sometimes I see things (as a professional poker dealer) live that just doesn't correlate with "theoretical strategic poker" and I know whats going on because I've seen thousand upon thousands of hands.

Oh well... that's just my experience....



See... this just adds to my skepticism of "theoretical strategy"...

The reason I called him was because of his "timing tells"... I just feel so stupid putting it like that. The way the hand played out in real-time is so different post-text-record.

The fact is, I'm most always not wrong.... it's a "gut feeling" or maybe it's just years of experience dealing live, actual poker.... That's just the way I feel.





I honestly believe there HAS to be a balance between actual experience and "theoretical experience".... Sometimes I see things (as a professional poker dealer) live that just doesn't correlate with "theoretical strategic poker" and I know whats going on because I've seen thousand upon thousands of hands.

Oh well... that's just my experience....

 

[ConDeck]

Tells may have helped post flop and noone can provide an analysis of tell based plays...

As for the preflop... calling is AWFUL here! Stop it! I can be on board raising this hand however....

Why do you not just deposit and play for real $?

You will learn much faster...

 

[CupOfSalt]

Tells may have helped post flop and noone can provide an analysis of tell based plays...

As for the preflop... calling is AWFUL here! Stop it! I can be on board raising this hand however....

Why do you not just deposit and play for real $?

You will learn much faster...

REALLY? You think this is an awful call pre-flop? IF our stack sizes were even I would agree with you... Not given the details I provided.

And I literally CAN'T deposit Real $$$ because I am in NY!~! United States! Otherwise I would!

And you say learn... Yet, I have been playing for over 10 years! I'm a professional dealer, dude! I'm not sure what gives you the impression that I'm in experienced... I just prefer to learn from the internet guys perspective and therefore always seek knowledge, because like I said my edge is live and I lack experience in "theoretical, strategic-based poker". That being said, I also stated my issue with thinking that way (the idea that your opponent is playing as good as you are [almost perfectly, given internet strategy]).

 

[ConDeck]

I am referring to your original call from the small blind, yes this is bad play!

Being a dealer for ten years does not mean you do not need to learn... Everyone needs to learn... You will not learn how to play optimally playing play money, that is what I meant. However as you have no other choice I understand.

 

[CupOfSalt]

I am referring to your original call from the small blind, yes this is bad play!

Being a dealer for ten years does not mean you do not need to learn... Everyone needs to learn... You will not learn how to play optimally playing play money, that is what I meant. However as you have no other choice I understand.

No, see you're not understanding what I AM SAYING...

Playing optimally assumes that the other player is playing optimally... And (especially) live, that's almost NEVER THE CASE (given the stakes I listed).

That's my issue with "theoretical strategically-perfect poker".


If you have a wild nut job (especially an inexperienced player) on your hands, playing "optimally" is going to cripple you. ASK ME HOW I KNOW. It's the same reason why Phil Laak sucks against pros but crushes amateurs.

 

[ConDeck]

No, see you're not understanding what I AM SAYING...

Playing optimally assumes that the other player is playing optimally... And (especially) live, that's almost NEVER THE CASE (given the stakes I listed).

That's my issue with "theoretical strategically-perfect poker".


If you have a wild nut job (especially an inexperienced player) on your hands, playing "optimally" is going to cripple you. ASK ME HOW I KNOW. It's the same reason why Phil Laak sucks against pros but crushes amateurs.

Your suggesting that playing optimally is rigid... Optimal play varies by ooponent...

Playing optimally will never cripple you, by definition it is the most profitable way to play at any given time....

If two players are both playing optimally then neither player is ever going to win or lose money. Poker is a game of mistakes, he who makes the least (ie. plays optimally) will always win! Therefore you always want to be playing people that are NOT playing optimally.

I think you are far to results orientated n both your thinking and play... You need to get a better grasp of the concept of the game. Live play, especially at the lower limits, is far softer than online poker... If you cannot beat live play by playing optimally.... then quite obviously you are not playing optimally...

 

[CupOfSalt]

Your suggesting that playing optimally is rigid... Optimal play varies by ooponent...

Playing optimally will never cripple you, by definition it is the most profitable way to play at any given time....

If two players are both playing optimally then neither player is ever going to win or lose money. Poker is a game of mistakes, he who makes the least (ie. plays optimally) will always win! Therefore you always want to be playing people that are NOT playing optimally.

I think you are far to results orientated n both your thinking and play... You need to get a better grasp of the concept of the game. Live play, especially at the lower limits, is far softer than online poker... If you cannot beat live play by playing optimally.... then quite obviously you are not playing optimally...

That's EXACTLY what I'm saying....

You can only play "optimally" IF you think your opponent is playing optimally. Otherwise this GTO strategy goes out the fukkin window.

 

[ConDeck]

That's EXACTLY what I'm saying....

You can only play "optimally" IF you think your opponent is playing optimally. Otherwise this GTO strategy goes out the fukkin window.

That is the complete opposite of what I am saying... you are wrong! I cannot put it any simpler....

Playing optimally can only ever be the best way to play by definition. Optimal play is not rigid...

Learn more, come back to this....


I am not referring to GTO here either... In GTO terms we would be playing the optimal exploitative strategy... This gets closer to GTO the better our opponent gets but is not the same thing.

Optimal just means making the best decision at any one time, long term (not short term).

Eg.

You are dealt 25s UTG, you open to 3x, get 3b by the BTN to 10bb. You call and the flop comes A72r. Opp bets 2/3rd pot, you call. Turn Tx. Opp bets 2/3rd pot, you call. River 2x. Opp shoves, you call and win with 222AT against opp AAKT7.

Your decision was correct short term, however long term you lose ALOT of money in this spot.

Did you win? Yes... was this optimal? NO!

The optimal play is folding this preflop. Anyone who disagrees is playing sub optimally and will lose money long term in this spot.

This is nothing to do with GTO, just the best decision long term.

The optimal play is ALWAYS the best action.

 

[CupOfSalt]

That is the complete opposite of what I am saying... you are wrong! I cannot put it any simpler....

Playing optimally can only ever be the best way to play by definition. Optimal play is not rigid...

Learn more, come back to this....


I am not referring to GTO here either... In GTO terms we would be playing the optimal exploitative strategy... This gets closer to GTO the better our opponent gets but is not the same thing.

Optimal just means making the best decision at any one time, long term (not short term).

Eg.

You are dealt 25s UTG, you open to 3x, get 3b by the BTN to 10bb. You call and the flop comes A72r. Opp bets 2/3rd pot, you call. Turn Tx. Opp bets 2/3rd pot, you call. River 2x. Opp shoves, you call and win with 222AT against opp AAKT7.

Your decision was correct short term, however long term you lose ALOT of money in this spot.

Did you win? Yes... was this optimal? NO!

The optimal play is folding this preflop. Anyone who disagrees is playing sub optimally and will lose money long term in this spot.

This is nothing to do with GTO, just the best decision long term.

The optimal play is ALWAYS the best action.

Maybe I'm playing more than just stats then... Don't know what else to say.

What I can say is that "playing optimally" assumes that your opponent is playing a certain way. That's literally ALL I can say as a rebuttal. If your opponent is a bad player, a maniac, or a moron, then playing 'optimally' literally goes out the window.

 

[WiZZiM]

That's EXACTLY what I'm saying....

You can only play "optimally" IF you think your opponent is playing optimally. Otherwise this GTO strategy goes out the fukkin window.

Playing "optimally" is just a fancy way of saying "this is our best decision to make the most money"


SO even if we have a choice of 2 bad decisions, picking the best one of those two decisions is the "optimal" choice.
It's got nothing to do with GTO, which is basically an equilibrium theory developed for very high SNG, where the players are all very good and no real edge can be made.

But you are basically just using optimal in the wrong context.

To play optimally, we need a little math, and to know something about villians range, Now if you play games like you do, people will show up with all sorts of random crap, but knowing players will tend to go all in with nothing or pairs is just info to use so you can make the best "optimal" decision you have.

Fwiw, you should basically never be using GTO or NASH eqilibrium in low level SNGs/MTTs because like you say, it's a waste of time if the other player isn't doing it also.

In reference to your A4 hand you posted in the other thread, the thing you have to remember is that

1. you are playing play money games, in real money this type of thing happens way less, because money is on the line..

2. low level cash games like you deal in play very much like low level/play money games, there are good players, sure, but for the most part its players that just limp/spew stacks off for no other reason than they are having fun/drunk or whatever.

3. watching hands and playing hands are two differant things, and before you can really trust your "gut feeling" you really need to have played hundreds of thousands of hands, the more you play the better your "gut feeling" is. It's basically just becoming subconsciously competent, and it's the same in any job/industry it's basically being able to do things without thinking about them much.

 

[CupOfSalt]

Playing "optimally" is just a fancy way of saying "this is our best decision to make the most money"


SO even if we have a choice of 2 bad decisions, picking the best one of those two decisions is the "optimal" choice.
It's got nothing to do with GTO, which is basically an equilibrium theory developed for very high SNG, where the players are all very good and no real edge can be made.

But you are basically just using optimal in the wrong context.

To play optimally, we need a little math, and to know something about villians range, Now if you play games like you do, people will show up with all sorts of random crap, but knowing players will tend to go all in with nothing or pairs is just info to use so you can make the best "optimal" decision you have.

Fwiw, you should basically never be using GTO or NASH eqilibrium in low level SNGs/MTTs because like you say, it's a waste of time if the other player isn't doing it also.

In reference to your A4 hand you posted in the other thread, the thing you have to remember is that

1. you are playing play money games, in real money this type of thing happens way less, because money is on the line..

2. low level cash games like you deal in play very much like low level/play money games, there are good players, sure, but for the most part its players that just limp/spew stacks off for no other reason than they are having fun/drunk or whatever.

3. watching hands and playing hands are two differant things, and before you can really trust your "gut feeling" you really need to have played hundreds of thousands of hands, the more you play the better your "gut feeling" is. It's basically just becoming subconsciously competent, and it's the same in any job/industry it's basically being able to do things without thinking about them much.

You honestly sound like an online-only player.... Don't know what else to say but live play I've seen some absolutely RIDICULOUS BULLSHIT at the limits I disclosed.

 

[WiZZiM]

Maybe I'm playing more than just stats then... Don't know what else to say.

What I can say is that "playing optimally" assumes that your opponent is playing a certain way. That's literally ALL I can say as a rebuttal. If your opponent is a bad player, a maniac, or a moron, then playing 'optimally' literally goes out the window.

It assumes a range of hands that your opponant plays. That comes from experiance and being able to put them on ranges. When i play really low level SNGs i rarely put people on ranges, why would i bother? I just play my cards in a way which maximises my equity from strong hands and limits my losses with others, because you don't really have to do anything fancy to beat them.

Stats are just a way to give you an idea of what a player might be thinking. It's fine to say a player is 15/2, but actually putting yourself in their shoes and working out how they might approach the game is way more beneficial.

Playing optiamally vs a bad player is exactly the same as playing vs good player, expect vs a bad player, i don't typically range players much preflop, and i work on exploiting their tendancies, whereas a good player, you can range them more and know that they can only have xyz range in a particular spot.

But it's the same thing, you just adjust the level of thinking to the games you play, but you are ALWAYS lookign to play optimally.

 

[ConDeck]

Maybe I'm playing more than just stats then... Don't know what else to say.

What I can say is that "playing optimally" assumes that your opponent is playing a certain way. That's literally ALL I can say as a rebuttal. If your opponent is a bad player, a maniac, or a moron, then playing 'optimally' literally goes out the window.

So the way to combat plays like that is to play like a maniac or a moron then?

WRONG again!

 

[WVHillbilly]

Again no analysis is needed for a player with your amazing abilities of intuition. You just make plays based on your vast knowledge gained as a dealer that no one here could possibly understand. Based on these facts, I say well played sir!

 

[WiZZiM]

You honestly sound like an online-only player.... Don't know what else to say but live play I've seen some absolutely RIDICULOUS BULLSHIT at the limits I disclosed.

Played tons of both, actually.

 

[CupOfSalt]

It assumes a range of hands that your opponant plays. That comes from experiance and being able to put them on ranges. When i play really low level SNGs i rarely put people on ranges, why would i bother? I just play my cards in a way which maximises my equity from strong hands and limits my losses with others, because you don't really have to do anything fancy to beat them.

Stats are just a way to give you an idea of what a player might be thinking. It's fine to say a player is 15/2, but actually putting yourself in their shoes and working out how they might approach the game is way more beneficial.

Playing optiamally vs a bad player is exactly the same as playing vs good player, expect vs a bad player, i don't typically range players much preflop, and i work on exploiting their tendancies, whereas a good player, you can range them more and know that they can only have xyz range in a particular spot.

But it's the same thing, you just adjust the level of thinking to the games you play, but you are ALWAYS lookign to play optimally.

lol.. Don't know what to say. Everything makes sense. Maybe I'm just better at playing against 'bad' players....

Again no analysis is needed for a player with your amazing abilities of intuition. You just make plays based on your vast knowledge gained as a dealer that no one here could possibly understand. Based on these facts, I say well played sir!

That's not what I'm saying, sir....

So the way to combat plays like that is to play like a maniac or a moron then?

WRONG again!

Remind me where I said that...

 

[WVHillbilly]

That's not what I'm saying, sir....

Well, I gotta tell you, it sure as **** sounds like it.

 

[WVHillbilly]

Remind me where I said that...

You didn't need to say it, you played it.

 

[ConDeck]

You honestly sound like an online-only player.... Don't know what else to say but live play I've seen some absolutely RIDICULOUS BULLSHIT at the limits I disclosed.

Why do you bother to post here asking for advice/opinions when you are not willing to take on board what people are telling you? They are giving up their own time to try and assist you in improving your game!

Or are you here as an authority on the game with your superior skill level to show others how to crush, oh wait, play money?

 

[WiZZiM]

he doesn't have to take on the advice, can't we just have a discussion without all the bs guys?

He actually has a point, but he has no idea how to express that point.

 

[CupOfSalt]

Why do you bother to post here asking for advice/opinions when you are not willing to take on board what people are telling you? They are giving up their own time to try and assist you in improving your game!

Or are you here as an authority on the game with your superior skill level to show others how to crush, oh wait, play money?

Nope. Absolutely not. Some threads (both cash and tournament) I agree - some I don't.

I'm here to discuss. And widen my knowledge and experience. Even if I don't agree, reading the opinions and I say OPINIONS because thats what they are (myself included) - expands my capacity for winning.

he doesn't have to take on the advice, can't we just have a discussion without all the bs guys?

He actually has a point, but he has no idea how to express that point.

LOL I agree.. And I've said this in multiple threads. I win consistently live but I just can't seem to win consistently online. I'm not sure exactly why but that's what is going on... Hence my aptness to post my questionable or losing online hands here....

 

[ConDeck]

he doesn't have to take on the advice, can't we just have a discussion without all the bs guys?

He actually has a point, but he has no idea how to express that point.

Ok perhaps "take on board" was the wrong words to use, but consider it at least...

I love discussion, thats the main reason I use this forum... running on little sleep and perhaps was a little short, sometimes find it hard to try to help people that don't seem to want to be helped, despite asking for it...

Also I in no way consider myself an authority on this stuff, but some stuff has just been proven time and time again over long periods of time...

 

[CupOfSalt]

Ok perhaps "take on board" was the wrong words to use, but consider it at least...

I love discussion, thats the main reason I use this forum... running on little sleep and perhaps was a little short, sometimes find it hard to try to help people that don't seem to want to be helped, despite asking for it...

Also I in no way consider myself an authority on this stuff, but some stuff has just been proven time and time again over long periods of time...

I agree with you...

But, as I literally put it in my OP... "The reason I called him was because of his "timing tells"... I just feel so stupid putting it like that. The way the hand played out in real-time is so different post-text-record."

 

[ConDeck]

LOL I agree.. And I've said this in multiple threads. I win consistently live but I just can't seem to win consistently online. I'm not sure exactly why but that's what is going on... Hence my aptness to post my questionable or losing online hands here....

This I can empathise with completely.... I was a winning player live for quite some time, transitioned to online to discover I was a losing player. I had to work hard at my game and realised I knew very little. I am now, after a lot of hard work and studying, a winning online player and my live game has increased substantially too.

 

[WiZZiM]

Yeah i agree, but he's right in saying our opinions are just opinions. We would have to write a book to prove we are actually correct, from a math and logic point of view. But i'm pretty sure people have already done that, lol.

The thing is you want to know where you are getting your advice from. So players who have proven to win money long term in poker you should listen to far more than someone who has not proven that. You certainly should NOT listen to everyone on this forum or any forum. Pick and choose who you get advice from, and you should always be seeking players who you think are better at poker than you are. As good as this place is, i did most of my learning/getting my ass kicked in skype groups.