Tied Up Too Tight

[peterbirks]

Part of the problem with my style of play is that, when things start going wrong, and people start check-raising your continuation bets or check-raising you on the turn (needless to say you have missed both times) is that "they are on to me; they are trying a resteal". And, at $5-$10 and above, there might be an element of truth in this line of thought (although less than some people think).

However, I have discovered through many episodes of such experiences that my opponents are not "on to me". They are simply hitting the flop with tedious frequency. If I carry on playing in exactly the same way (rather than falling into the trap of aggressively three-betting the turn with AK-high), then all of a sudden everyone is folding to my continuation bets and the garden is rosy once again.

Absinthetics wrote a very interesting post on a particular type of $5-$10-and-above strategy that is a small development of the style that I have developed. Since he said that this was a style that completely threw him, and he couldn't work out how to beat it, I was somewhat pleased.

The difference between the strategy he talks about (it's a kind of passive-aggressive algorithm) at $$5-$10 and at $2-$4 is that you do not have to call down with ropy hands so often, because your opponents will be trying it on less often (or, at the times I play, hardly at all). However, at $15-$30, the style he talks about is probably the predominant winning style.

It comes back to the scissors-paper-stone argument. If you are against this kind of player and he raises your big blind again, and you have AJ off and you know that there is a good chance that you arein front, but you are out of position, how do you play it?

What you really want is for a few other players to three-bet him a bit more often, or for a few other players to limp with monsters, thus discouraging the broad range of hands with which this player raises. But, there is no school of fish at this level. There's just a large number of other players saying: "You catch him out". And so the prisoner's dilemma works in favour of this kind of player.


I'll come back to this absinthetics post at a future date, because it's a bery interesting one for current online play. Anyone who tried it in a standard loose-fest would get killed. It only works when the majority of players are relatively competent and tight-aggressive and when a significant number of them are multitabling and do not want to go to war. The best way to play this kind of guy is to either sit on his left and go to war, or to sit on his right and limp with Aces or Kings.

+++

Of other posters, Double As pondered the pointlessness of tournaments. I have wondered myself why such an obviously good player insists on playing satellites and the like when he could just win the money in the cash game and pony up the entry that way.

And Terrence Chan is talking about the difficulties of Heads Up play. 400 hands per hour at total focus? Or 200 hands per hour with a bit of time to surf the web or chat with friends via IM? It's a tough one. I've found 4-tabling less tiring the more I have played it this month. 400 hands in 90 minuites was leaving me knackered a week or so ago, but now I'm into the rhythm of it. The fact that I am currently winning fuck-all is a minor irritation.

+++++

And finally a big Up for Virgin, who might run the worst software in the UK, but know how to handle regularplayers. A live freeroll next Friday at the Kensington Roof Gardens. Free buffet, a chance to meet other players, sounds like fun. B there or B square....




+++++

A few other players have been questioning what is going on in their poker playing li

Comments

[geoffchall.livejournal.com]

..fe?

..gament?

[peterbirks.livejournal.com]

Whoops, what happened there?

lives....

Oh, I know. I just left a hanging sentence from an earlier bit, then went back to it and started again, without realizing that I had left the sentence a couple of lines down. That's what happens when you write when you are tired (i.e., all the time, in my case...)

Oh well, it's one way to get responses.

PJ

Getting Checkraised

[(Anonymous)]

Hi Peter,

A part of any winning style, is being properly aggressive, and not just mindlessly so in all spots, even headsup and even in position. The fact is that once someone has called the flop they have something. Now it might not be much, as in bottom pair plus an overcard or a draw, but it is something. So when the turn brings you nothing to help, you simply have to be willing to check behind most often with hands like AK that has whiffed the board so far. But the key, especially with regulars, is that you are also checking behind with moderately good hands as well when the board texture is such that giving a free card can't hurt too much.

Besides not giving too much action to hands that beat you, this also takes away the steal play by tricky OOP players who checkraise the turn with bottom pair or a draw and then lead to any river. And it gives you the steal play of raising their river bets occasionally when you still have nothing but don't rate them to either.

Being too aggressive in many spots is a leak, as is being too passive or being a calling station with bad hands. Better players will take countermeasures, including checkraising, and you have to adapt in turn.

BluffTHIS!


P.S. As a general comment, assuming you are able to do so, it would be helpful if you could link to posts you mention like that of absinthetics, as it is unclear whether it is a post in reply to one of yours in this journal, or on another site.

Re: Getting Checkraised

[peterbirks.livejournal.com]

Provided I have a big hand (i.e. an overpair) often enough, a continuation bet on the turn with AK has its merits. I tend to continue or not on the turn depending on my opponent and on the texture of the flop (and the texture of the turn card!).

I suspect that we might have slightly different styles here in terms of limit, and your line (checking behind with the likely leading hands as well provided opponent is likely to have, say, five outs or less) is certainly less risky and has merits. Provided the check does not broadcast "AK!" then you keep the opponent guessing. My line is more "always bet with something that's winning because I will sometimes be betting with something that's losing" whereas you lean towards the line of "always check with something that's losing because sometimes I will be checking with something that's winning". (This is not an entirely accurate summary, I admit, but you probably see what I mean).

I do look very carefully at the success rates of various styles and I discovered that the continuation with AK a majority of the time tended to pay off better than the check behind. However, I'll admit that this line did not the occasional semi-slow-play of the check behind when opponent had little chance of ourdrawing me. I have to assume that I am occasionally forcing out hands that are beating me (say, 77 on a board of QT8) but who are convinced by my bet on the turn but not by my bet on the flop.

I think that your check behind when opponent has few outs and might be foooled into thinking that he is winning is a nice line in pot limit and no limit. I'm not so convinced about its merits in Limit, but it's an interesting style variation that I might throw into the mix one afternoon a week, just to keep the few opponents who are paying attention on their toes.

Have a look at the absinthetics post and tell me what you think of this passive-aggressive algorithm, because I think that at 5-10 or 10-20 (day time play, Party Poker or Pokerstars) it would be very effective.

I didn't post the actual link in because I was a long way into the post and I only had one window open, and i was a bit rushed. Oh, and it's gold dust :-)

http://www.absinthetics.com/blog/2006/06/01/the-suicide-pact-part-ii-malice-aforethought/

PJ

Re: absinthetics

[peterbirks.livejournal.com]

Of course, Bluff, you could have just Googled the word "absinthetics". :-)

PJ

Re: absinthetics

[(Anonymous)]

LOL. Well we lazy blog readers expect to have our links spoon fed to us :).

I read that post and it was interesting. You should use google as well with advanced search on the 2+2 site and bring up several long and interesting past threads on "DERB" (Don't Ever Run Bad) if you haven't seen them in the past. This is regarding a lag slovenian player, rumored to be connected with Izmet Fekali and his cohorts, who tore up the 30/60 for a stretch and played in a style that absinth gives, especially IIRC really going to war on the turn. It is the same type of style targeted at tight players on tight tables who fold too much, and the loose ones on the same tables who are lured into giving too much action and paying off when DERB actually has a hand.

Those were some very long threads but they make for interesting reading.

Bluff

Re: Getting Checkraised

[(Anonymous)]

Notice that I advocated also checking behind with some made hands so as not to tip that you have overcards and have as yet missed. I think continuing to bet on the turn has more merit on drawing boards where you can often check behind on the river and win with ace high. Regarding whether that check behind will work often in limit (in no limit it is used for pot control with good hands that don't wish to be checkraised or forced to call a bigger river bet by virtue of an escalated pot), is directly related to how often you check good but not great hands behind like TP weak kick and some 2 pairs/sets as well. Then you can more often be able to raise their river bets made with a weak pair and expect them to fold, esepcially if a draw is completed and you represent having taken a free card on the turn and made it yourself on the river. Of course this works with tighter observant players and not your general calling stations.

Bluff