Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Not a fan of how Quiz#921 was played.

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Not a fan of how Quiz#921 was played.

    Matt raises UTG+2 with AJo an he gets two callers. The flop is J65 with 65 of diamonds. He checks. I do not like that check at all. I want to protect my hand and not give my opponents the opportunity to draw out on me.

    The turn is an Ah, giving Matt top two. I would be betting full pot here or more than full pot, hoping to take the hand down right there. What is the villain continuing with if you bet pot or more? Ax, KQ, K10 of diamonds? If the villain had 87d, Jxd, I expect he would have bet the flop. If he doesn't have one of those hands, I don't see him calling a large turn bet.

    The river is 7d Matt leads, gets raised and calls. The villain rolls A8d. I think this whole hand was played poorly.

    This is why you cannot strictly play GTO. It is better to book a win than turn a winning hand into a loser. I understand he lost, but the villain did not have to have Ax of diamonds. If he does not have Axd, it is possible to get him off his hand on the turn because then he really needs to hit is flush to win or if he had it, a gut shot. You could deny him proper odds to draw. Just my opinion and I am sure others do not feel the same.

    Thanks!

    P.S. Remember the object in poker is always, always to win money. Not to play GTO, exploitative or any other strategy perfectly.
    Last edited by NJpokermike36; 04-10-2021, 09:01 PM.

  • #2
    'we don't get alot of folds and therefore not incentivsed to bluff, they should overfold.'

    But if they should overfold, we should bluff and should bet? Alot of bad cards could come on the turn, how does flop check raising help?

    why does Affleck think KTs KQs should bet flop?
    Last edited by sumdimfarc; 04-11-2021, 03:54 AM.

    Comment


    • #3
      I feel like sometimes Lex is the only one who plays close to my style of range or thought process. The quiz's get strange sometimes as I'm asked to delve into the mind of a weird play I would never make and I end up scoring 22/40 for playing fundamentally sound poker.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Googleplex View Post
        I feel like sometimes Lex is the only one who plays close to my style of range or thought process. The quiz's get strange sometimes as I'm asked to delve into the mind of a weird play I would never make and I end up scoring 22/40 for playing fundamentally sound poker.
        I like Lex a lot too. I also enjoy Evan as well.

        Thanks!

        Comment


        • #5
          Lexi Gavin is my least favorite. wow! I am huge fan of Faraz Jakka now in addition to Jonathan Little and Alex Fritzgerald.

          Comment


          • #6
            I think the site and overall program would benefit if JL made a rule that all tests by one pro have to be taken by another pro. If the second pro doesn't get a "perfect" score, this should tell you something. Either one of them is "Wrong!" or something isn't clear-cut enough to be scored as right or wrong. There's no point testing on opinion or style. I think quite a few of the quizzes would not stand up to this scrutiny.

            Comment


            • #7
              This site already has the most entry level / stuff ( why I don't like Lexi Gavin's quizzes in the first place ) It would be harmful to bend over backwards further. Because let us be frank, if you knew what is good for you/ your game, you would not be here.
              Last edited by sumdimfarc; 04-12-2021, 08:42 PM.

              Comment


              • #8
                I think this quiz is a perfect example of only worrying about GTO strategy. GTO has it's place along with tells, exploitative, TAG, LAG and other strategies, but none of them should be played exclusively and without taking other factors into consideration.

                I feel GTO works better in tourneys than in cash games and you will use more of an exploitative strategy in cash games.

                Thanks!

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by sumdimfarc View Post
                  This site already has the most entry level / stuff ( why I don't like Lexi Gavin's quizzes in the first place ) It would be harmful to bend over backwards further. Because let us be frank, if you knew what is good for you/ your game, you would not be here.
                  I actually like Lexi's quizzes for the exact reason you don't. I found them to be the most comprehensive and easy to follow the line she takes. It makes sense to me. I feel she takes the same line in all of her videos, where some of the other pros are all over the place. But to each his own and you need to learn from whomever you are most comfortable with.

                  Thanks

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by NJpokermike36 View Post
                    Thanks!

                    P.S. Remember the object in poker is always, always to win money. Not to play GTO, exploitative or any other strategy perfectly.
                    The object in poker is to win equity. The money follows the equity. Poker can never be resolved to the actions on a single result. Here, this hand he lost this pot. But did he win equity with his line?

                    Your line may have won this hand. But does winning this hand the way you prescribe win more equity or do you sacrifice equity to make sure you win the pot?

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by jjpregler View Post

                      The object in poker is to win equity. The money follows the equity. Poker can never be resolved to the actions on a single result. Here, this hand he lost this pot. But did he win equity with his line?

                      Your line may have won this hand. But does winning this hand the way you prescribe win more equity or do you sacrifice equity to make sure you win the pot?
                      Do you sacrifice more money to win equity? You are a GTO player and that is what you rely on. I play to win the pot in front of me. I play GTO when I think it works and other strategies when I think they work better.

                      Thanks!

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Sometimes playing to win the pot in front of you sacrifices equity. With your mindset, I don't know if I can convince you how they are different and winning equity mindset is superior than winning this individual pot.

                        So I am just going to leave it with this:

                        The goal in poker is to win equity, not win pots. Sometimes you can win pots and sacrifice equity and that is a negative outcome. However players will not see that because they "won the pot."

                        Consider this, If you are dealt AA with 100BB stack. If you open shove 100BBs you will win the pot more often. But you are sacrificing equity by doing so.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          And you believe you should play GTO at 2NL. You Don't need to convince me. You are one of those players who thinks GTO is the Holy Grail in every spot, it isn't. Some of the biggest winners in todays game don't play GTO. No point in wasting my time to try to explain that to you.

                          Thanks!

                          The goal in poker is to win money. Pots or equity does not put food on the table.
                          Last edited by NJpokermike36; 04-13-2021, 12:51 PM.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            I want to know how flop check raising helps, when all 2, 3, 4 , 7 , 8, 9 , K, Q plus all diamonds are potentially bad.

                            Comment


                            • Dilly
                              Dilly commented
                              Editing a comment
                              Check raising decreases the SPR, which decreases our positional disadvantage. Plus when we check our entire range then have reasonable calling range and a polarized raising range it becomes much more difficult to make us over-fold, again decreases our positional disadvantage. We're going to have some diamond draws in our check raising range so while a diamond is terrible for our exact hand it's not the worst thing for our range. 2 and 3 are basically bricks. 7 and 8 aren't really bad either, they aren't calling a check raise super often with 97s 86s. Same thing with K and Q, they turn some 2 pair, but we also turn sets on those cards.

                            • sumdimfarc
                              sumdimfarc commented
                              Editing a comment
                              Are you really good enough to check raise that flop 3 way with flush draw and play turn with increased positional disadvantage? If you aim to jam turn with AJ, you're giving implied odds.

                          • #15
                            NJpokermike36 It's not just a matter of GTO v exploitative play. A lot of your comments seem focused around winning this exact hand, but the point is this hand doesn't exist in a vacuum, how you play this spot is going to influence how future spots play. In a 5/10 game against an average reg, we can't assume he just isn't paying attention so we can't get entirely out of line. That being said I agree with some of your points but for different reasons.

                            On the flop - I prefer a bet here. In general I like checking range OOP as the PFR and developing a robust check raise strategy as Matt suggested, but here I think most average regs are on the passive side, and fish also tend to be on the passive side, I don't think we can count on our opponents betting often enough when checked too. In addition I think even against one relatively compressed range and one wider splashy range, we have a decent enough range advantage to want to have a betting range, and we're also able to bet and still have a defendable checking range.


                            It's not about not giving the opponent the chance to draw, there's nothing we can do to prevent the villains from drawing. No FD is folding this flop. No OESD is folding this flop. Overcards hh aren't folding. All the draws with good equity aren't folding, and the ones with poor equity we would rather let them bluff than fold. But I do like having a betting range here, I think we're just leaving value on the table by checking range because they aren't taking stabs often enough.

                            On the turn -- you completely lost me here. "I would be betting full pot here or more than full pot, hoping to take the hand down right there...I don't see him calling a large bet." We do not want Villain to fold here. We have top 2 in a spot where villain's range is almost 100% capped to hands worse than our hand. Given Matt is checking his entire range on the flop, we also have, AA AK AQ JJ 77 66 ...we have a ton of hands that want to bet for value here. I would be sizing up to 100%-120% pot here, but definitely not to make them fold. We want to get value from worse AX, and if they also call with the flush draws, that's amazing. Even the best combo draws only have 15 outs, 30% of the time they get there and we lose, 70% of the time we print money.

                            River - not a lead because he's the aggressor on the previous street. But I think bet fold is the correct line here. Worse 2 pair will call a 33% pot bet, all else will fold, flushes will raise, and I think this spot is basically never bluffed so should be an easy fold to the river.

                            In live cash games we can definitely get out of line, but we can't play each hand to only win that hand. In this particular spot I do agree with your flop strategy, but not all spots are like this. For examples:
                            • Say we open CO and B calls, flop comes 9s8s7d. We have a range disadvantage here, and are OOP we almost definitely need to check our entire range here. What happens if we bet with all the hands that want to bet for value and protection?

                            Our checking range becomes indefensible. Sure if we bet with all our TP we get value and charge Villain to draw against us, but 48% of the time we check and that entire range is made to fold by the river. And if a thinking villain sees us betting all our top pair they 1. know our checking range is weak 2. know we are playing relatively straightforward, we become extremely exploitable. If we're going to be disregarding how the ranges interact in favor of just playing our exact hand, we need significant info that VIllain can't/won't adjust to that.

                            What if we defend BB v an LJ open, and we raised the hands that intuitively want to raise for value:


                            In this situation if we raise our sets and good TP, we have to raise a bunch of really junky draws otherwise we're completely face up, and something like 60% of our range is almost definitely going to fold by the river. But if we call with our entire continuing range, we can develop a sound check call and check raise strategy on the turn if we turn some premium hands and stronger draws which we often will, this board can't get much dryer.

                            TLDR: It's not a question of GTO v playing our exact hand and only caring about winning this pot. We always need to consider how our entire range plays. I think you're 100% right that at live cash we need to be making significant deviations, but we do that by understanding the optimal strategy, than adjusting based on specific observed mistakes.

                            Comment


                            • #16
                              Dilly I understand and that wasn't really my point. My point is that you need to make sure you realize your equity. What is Matt's equity on the river? 0. If you do not realize your equity and make money, it doesn't matter what strategy you follow, you will be broke and out of poker. There needs to be a balance and that is all I am saying.

                              Review the quizzes and you will see other pros in very similar spots, talking about how they have to protect their hand and equity. That is no different here and Matt played this hand poorly.

                              Thanks!

                              Comment


                              • #17
                                On the turn -- you completely lost me here. "I would be betting full pot here or more than full pot, hoping to take the hand down right there...I don't see him calling a large bet." We do not want Villain to fold here. We have top 2 in a spot where villain's range is almost 100% capped to hands worse than our hand. Given Matt is checking his entire range on the flop, we also have, AA AK AQ JJ 77 66 ...we have a ton of hands that want to bet for value here. I would be sizing up to 100%-120% pot here, but definitely not to make them fold. We want to get value from worse AX, and if they also call with the flush draws, that's amazing. Even the best combo draws only have 15 outs, 30% of the time they get there and we lose, 70% of the time we print money.
                                I absolutely want the villain to fold here and if he doesn't, I want to get the maximum money in now because if he is on a draw and misses, he is not putting anything in on the river.

                                Look at it this way. If I lead the flop for say, half to three quarters, I get more money in the pot when I have the best hand. I am also building a nice pot. On the turn, I would bet pot or over so I could protect my equity and realize it by getting the villain to fold. If he won't then I want to extract the maximum amount of money from him while I still have a lot of equity.

                                Given the way the hand was played, I don't think he has Jx, 98 or 65 of diamonds, because I think he would have bet those hands on the flop. So when I make two pair and I bet full or more than full pot, it is very hard for the villain to continue unless he has Ax of diamonds, which in this case he did. So losing to Ax of diamonds is unfortunately but I know I could have not done anything more to win the pot. But in my mind, losing to something other than Ax is inexcusable because I let him get there. I do not see him calling bigger flop and turn bets without Ax.

                                If the hand was played my way, you still win more money than you do if you play it Matt's way. He calls a larger flop bet, folds the turn, or calls a larger flop and turn bet and folds the river when he misses. Do I lose more money when the villain makes his hand? Yes, but I also will extra money by getting the villain to fold the turn.

                                Thanks!

                                Comment


                                • NJpokermike36
                                  NJpokermike36 commented
                                  Editing a comment
                                  Dilly, while I have only been here a short time, I have come to respect your opinion greatly. Yes I think this is a spot we have to agree to disagree.

                                  I would be happy to deny the villain his equity on the turn and take the pot down right there. If not, I want to charge him so he is not getting the right odds to call and calling would be a mathematical error. If I could deny a villain the 19% equity he has in the pot, I will gain in the long run. By denying him the ability to profitably see the river, we deny his equity and we gain from all the times he would call and hit.

                                  Thanks!
                                  Last edited by NJpokermike36; 04-14-2021, 04:06 PM.

                                • Dilly
                                  Dilly commented
                                  Editing a comment
                                  NJpokermike36 No worries, everybody isn't going to agree all the time

                                • NJpokermike36
                                  NJpokermike36 commented
                                  Editing a comment
                                  Glad to hear it Dilly!!! I guess the truth is on the turn I am indifferent. I am happy if he folds and happy if he calls because I am a huge favorite.

                                  Thanks!

                              • #18
                                I was just about to make a response to this in exactly the way that Dilly just responded. But now I can make it more concise and not do all the hard work in the range analyzer. Thanks Dilly.

                                All in all, this is a flop where you don't particularly have a strong range advantage, meaning the range equities are pretty close to 33%/33%33% in this spot. Yo do not have a nut advantage either. In fact, the callers may have more of the small suited connectors that you do not have.

                                In poker there is a concept of multi-layered thinking process. Generally, as a player gets better, he moves up the ladder in thought process levels.

                                Level 1 poker is when a player thinks about their hands only.

                                Level 2 poker is when a player thinks about his hand versus his opponent's range of hands.

                                Level 3 poker is when a player thinks about his range of hands versus his opponents range of hands. Professional players play at this level. This is where we should all strive to play.

                                When you consider this hand on level 2, yes your thoughts make sense. But once you consider the hand on a higher level thought process, some of the answers change, because now you are considering how your whole range will play against your opponents range.

                                On the flop Matt checks. Level 2 thinking is to protect your hand. Level 3 thinking is to protect your range. If you look at Dilly's flop range, you see there are a ton of hands being checked. He bets AJ there and so do I most likely. But Matt's thinking has to do with keeping this hand in the checking range to protect his checking range. When you are checking often you should keep in some value hands to protect your range.

                                Me personally, I probably check JJ AA and maybe KK to protect my checking range. The choice of hands is different but the thought process is identical.

                                However, some professionals are reverting to a strategy of checking 100% in high checking spots. I don't personally do this yet as I am not convinced it is better. However, each day the number of pros reverting to this seems to be growing, so there must be some merit to this thought process.

                                When I talk about the line protecting the equity realization of the whole range this is what I meant. By protecting your checking range, it gives your whole range more equity. Not just this particular hand. Yes, he lost this particular hand with this line, but to a professional, that's not a horrible outcome if his decisions would have made more money overall with his entire range.

                                When you just play each individual hand for its own value on a level 2 thought process, yes you make more money for the smaller group of hands in the value range. But the rest of your range loses more.
                                Last edited by jjpregler; 04-15-2021, 07:14 AM.

                                Comment


                                • NJpokermike36
                                  NJpokermike36 commented
                                  Editing a comment
                                  My feeling on you JJ is you are an ... (moderator edit) Don't tell me what level I am thinking on. Go back and look at lots of other coaching videos and you will see other coaches taking a different line in basically the same situations. Again you think GTO is everything and it isn't. Turning a winning hand into a loser to protect your future hands, your calling and checking ranges, does not make sense in every situation.

                                  BTW, GTO only works if your opponent is thinking at those levels as well. If they aren't you thinking about your whole range their whole range, the guy on table 6's whole range, you will out think yourself and I have seen plenty of ... (moderator edit) like you do that.

                                  By checking the flop, you make the turn bet smaller, which means it is more likely the villain will continue with his draw.

                                  Every time you lose in a situation like this, what do you say; "Oh I ran into the top of his range and there was nothing I could do". Bullshit. If you bet the flop and turn aggressively, the villain has a hard time continuing without Ax of diamonds, because we already agreed he would have be the flop with Jx or 89 of diamonds.

                                  Every time you can get your opponent to forfeit his equity by folding, you win.

                                  Thanks!
                                  Last edited by jjpregler; 04-17-2021, 06:25 AM.

                                • jjpregler
                                  jjpregler commented
                                  Editing a comment
                                  First off, if I said anything to offend you, I sincerely apologize. I did not mean to offend you in any way. I am mildly autistic and sometimes I don't understand how my manner of communication affects people. (If you ever watched Big Bang, think Sheldon). I have tons of info but don't always know the PC way to divulge that info.

                                  I spend hours on the forum each day trying to help players improve. I have been spending time to answer your questions to help you improve. I am not trying to belittle you at all. But I don't believe in sugar coating my answers. When I coach students, I am straight forward in my comments. Also, many paid coaches will not answer forum posts for free. They usually want a fee for each hour they spend in a forum.

                                  Second, I never said GTO is the end all be all. GTO is just the starting point where exploitation begins. But in Matt's hand he was not playing a small stakes game, so it has to be played on a higher level poker. That is what I tried to convey.

                                  Range protection of your checking is not a GTO thing. It was thought of long before GTO. GTO is only now showing players the right frequencies for range protection.

                                  By pointing out the multiple thinking levels was not meant as a jab towards you. The problem with any endeavor where we are trying to learn is that we do not know what we do not know. I was not going to make the assumption that you knew all the layers of thinking that goes into poker. That is why I put that information in the thread. Not to belittle you in anyway, but to impart information that maybe you did not know.

                                  Again my apologies and I hope we can move forward as part of the community together trying to help everyone improve.
                                  Last edited by jjpregler; 04-17-2021, 06:35 AM.

                                • jjpregler
                                  jjpregler commented
                                  Editing a comment
                                  But please, whether you forgive me or not, refrain from calling any one on the forum names. It is a violation of our rules and I am a moderator, so I cannot allow you to do that. I edited the pertinent parts, but I did not flag you in the admin panel.
                                  Last edited by jjpregler; 04-17-2021, 06:27 AM.

                              • #19
                                money doesn't follow ev. Maybe mike got a point.

                                Comment


                                • jjpregler
                                  jjpregler commented
                                  Editing a comment
                                  Over the long term, it does.

                                • sumdimfarc
                                  sumdimfarc commented
                                  Editing a comment
                                  you have long run money or time? maybe AI
                              Working...
                              X