A poker conversation
Sep. 24th, 2006 09:43 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
peterbirksI don't often pimp Law School Dropout (LSDO)'s blog (http://zbasic.com/pokerblog.html), mainly because he writes so much common sense (and plays Limit to boot) that I am worried people out there might read it, take note, and promptly use the knowledge to beat the shit out of me at my own game. Which wouldn't do at all.
However, in the interests of public service and maintaining some vague belief in karma, I suppose that mentioning it twice a year or so isn't too bad.
In the most recent post, LSDO looks at the mind of Andy Beal, and notes that "So much of our culture reminds us to "look before we leap" (and god knows I see enough of the risk-averse mindset among my law school peers), but I can't help but find it fascinating that so many of the world's most successful people claim that it was their willingness to diverge from that well-worn mantra that laid the foundation for all of their eventual success".
LSDO was referring to Andy Beal's early foray into real estate, when, he now admits, he knew absolutely nothing about real estate.
What this quote fails to point out is that the world's most successful people usually diverged from the risk-averse strategy (e.g., dropping out of college to start a software firm, or a dotcom operation) but that an awfully large number of bright people who diverged from the risk-averse stratecy failed. We see the successes (Beal, Gates, the guys at Google) and forget about the failures. But, the old mantra applies. If you are going to divert from the "look before you leap" strategy, you need to be not just good, abut you also need to be lucky.
+++++++
LSDO also writes an interesting article about blind defence. I don't want to go too far into specifics here, but what he writes touches on a strategy that I have been trying for the past month or so that is proving successful in decreasing my level of loss in the small blind (to remarkable effect on Full Tilt, by the way).
However, in general terms, LSDO compares two strategies in the Big Blind (one entails reraising pre-flop, one entails calling pre-flop and check-raising the flop).
"Consider this: in each of the above scenarios, you’re expending 4 small bets, right? But think about the very different messages you’re sending with each line:"
Never mind what the messages are, because the interesting point here is the theory of the language of poker.
All betting in poker is, in a way, a "conversation". However, it's a conversation with a very limited vocabulary where both sides might not be telling the truth and some parties might not be listening. In a way, this is what makes the short-handed high-stakes games somewhat "boring" (apart from the huge sums of money at stake). As Three-Bet pointed out, the betting at these levels runs along the lines of.
(Raise) = "I have Aces"
(Reraise) = "I don't think so, because I have Aces"
(Four-bet) = "No you don't, because I really have Aces"
(call) = "I'd five-bet you if I could, because I have Aces"
Flop = 7s 6d 3h
(Bet) = "I have Aces"
Well, you get the picture.
Now, at lower levels, the conversations get more interesting, because the quality of your opponents varies enormously.
Take our hypothetical Mr Donkey, a kind of level zero player, of whom there are still a few about. When you raise, you aren't having a conversation. You are making a statement, but he isn't listening. He is just looking at his hand and is playing that in his own sweet way.
Now, let's take Mr semi-donkey, at level one. This guy is hearing you. He hears you say that you have a hand. But he looks down and sees KQoff or the like, and he just cannot lay this down. He is hearing, but he isn't listening. So he calls. Now, this guy is also not having a conversation. You are saying things to him, but his call means very little. This is one reason why these players can be hard to play against online, because their calls mean (I have something, but I'm not sure how good it is against your hand). Playing this kind of player live is much easier, because their non-verbal communication gives away so much more than their actions through betting.
Once we move to level two, some serious conversation takes place. Your opponent might be a weak-tight donkey. Here the conversation tends to run along the following lines.
You:(Raise) "I have Aces"
WTD: (Defends Big blind): "I have two cards that are good if they hit a flop"
Flop = 7s 3d 2d
WTD: Check
You: (Bet): "I have Aces".
WTD: (Fold) "Oh, do you? OK."
Or your opponent might be a loose aggressive player.
You: (Raise) "I have Aces"
LAG (behind you) (Reraise) "I have Aces"
You: (Call): "You said that last hand, and the hand before that."
Flop 7c 6d 2h
You: (Check): "Go on, tell me you have Aces:"
LAG: (Bet) "I have Aces"
You (Call): "Really? Well, let's see."
Turn: 7h
You: (Check) "Still got Aces?"
LAG: (Bet) "No, I've changed my mind. I have Ace-Seven suited"
You: (Call) "Really? I wish you would make up your mind."
River: Td
You: (Check) "Still got Ace-Seven Suited?"
LAG: (Bet) "Hold on. Nope. it's nine-eight suited. My mistake".
You: (Call) "really. Let's see".
LAG shows Ace six of spades for a pair of sixes
You Show Jh Js for a pair of Jacks. You win pot.
By not check-raising at any point, you have made the LAG suffer the same way that you suffer against Mr Semi-Donkey. You are refusing to engage him in a conversation. LAGs hate this, because they are often good at picking up on clues. It's one reason that LAGs lose more online than they do live. They have fewer clues to pick up on.
Now, what about our TAG, the $3-$6 tight aggressive player? This is where your language skills come into play, because now we have a player who is listening to you, and he knows that you are listening to him (or, after a while, he will). Here the conversations can get very interesting, and it is here (not in the play it by rote hands we see above) that your extra edge has to come into play.
Although a dollar is a dollar, there is still more aesthetic satisfaction obtainable from out-thinking a TAG. What does his flat-call of your raise pre-flop mean? What does his reraise mean?
If he defends his blind, what does a check-raise mean on an unco-ordinated board? What does it mean on a board such as 882? What does it mean on a board of AKJ two clubs? Note that in all these cases the hand that you hold is of less relevance than it is against Mr Donkey or Mr semi-donkey. What is more important is the hand that your opponent holds, because he is listening to what you say (through your bets). Your aim is to convince him that you have him beaten (when you don't) and to have him think that you are beaten (when you are not). And you only have three types of bet available at each stage. This, indeed, is where limit can be fun.
Note that all these instances have been heads-up. I wonder if some of my problem in multi-wayers is that I have a difficulty in juggling the "messages" I want to put across (and also in misinterpreting the dual messages being sent)? If it's heads-up there is one conversation, but if it's four-way, there are six conversations. I might want to say one thing to one player, but a different thing to another player. One player might be paying attention, while the other might be watching porn on the DVD. I think that, at the lower levels, I should go into some kind of lock-down mode which is either to shout "I have flopped top set!!!" (i.e. reraise) or "I don't care about what you are saying to each other. I can't hear you!! I can't hear you!!!" (i.e. Call).
The good thing about $3-$6 and $2-$4 is that most of the "good" players who stay at these stakes are multi-tabling. That means that their plays tend to be consistent. If they did something with AA such as limped under-the-gun a couple of times, but you notice that with every other hand they have either raised or folded, then there is a good chance that when you meet that player at a later date and he limps under the gun, that he has Aces. And if he raises, then he doesn't. This is a useful thing to know if you have QQ or KK.
Now, what about what I'll call the level 4 player? This guy is not just listening to you, but he remembers your previous conversations. He knows what you said, and he knows what you meant. He will adapt to that.
Fortunately, you don't get many players like this at $3-$6 and below. If they are that good they will either move up in stakes, or increase the number of tables at which they are playing (better to be a level 3 player at four $3-$6 tables than a level 4 player at two $3-$6 tables). But at the $15-$30 to $50-$100 levels, this must be the major worry.
Paradoxically, it gets less of a worry as you move further up, or when you play at the very high-level heads-up stakes.
"I have Aces..."
However, in the interests of public service and maintaining some vague belief in karma, I suppose that mentioning it twice a year or so isn't too bad.
In the most recent post, LSDO looks at the mind of Andy Beal, and notes that "So much of our culture reminds us to "look before we leap" (and god knows I see enough of the risk-averse mindset among my law school peers), but I can't help but find it fascinating that so many of the world's most successful people claim that it was their willingness to diverge from that well-worn mantra that laid the foundation for all of their eventual success".
LSDO was referring to Andy Beal's early foray into real estate, when, he now admits, he knew absolutely nothing about real estate.
What this quote fails to point out is that the world's most successful people usually diverged from the risk-averse strategy (e.g., dropping out of college to start a software firm, or a dotcom operation) but that an awfully large number of bright people who diverged from the risk-averse stratecy failed. We see the successes (Beal, Gates, the guys at Google) and forget about the failures. But, the old mantra applies. If you are going to divert from the "look before you leap" strategy, you need to be not just good, abut you also need to be lucky.
+++++++
LSDO also writes an interesting article about blind defence. I don't want to go too far into specifics here, but what he writes touches on a strategy that I have been trying for the past month or so that is proving successful in decreasing my level of loss in the small blind (to remarkable effect on Full Tilt, by the way).
However, in general terms, LSDO compares two strategies in the Big Blind (one entails reraising pre-flop, one entails calling pre-flop and check-raising the flop).
"Consider this: in each of the above scenarios, you’re expending 4 small bets, right? But think about the very different messages you’re sending with each line:"
Never mind what the messages are, because the interesting point here is the theory of the language of poker.
All betting in poker is, in a way, a "conversation". However, it's a conversation with a very limited vocabulary where both sides might not be telling the truth and some parties might not be listening. In a way, this is what makes the short-handed high-stakes games somewhat "boring" (apart from the huge sums of money at stake). As Three-Bet pointed out, the betting at these levels runs along the lines of.
(Raise) = "I have Aces"
(Reraise) = "I don't think so, because I have Aces"
(Four-bet) = "No you don't, because I really have Aces"
(call) = "I'd five-bet you if I could, because I have Aces"
Flop = 7s 6d 3h
(Bet) = "I have Aces"
Well, you get the picture.
Now, at lower levels, the conversations get more interesting, because the quality of your opponents varies enormously.
Take our hypothetical Mr Donkey, a kind of level zero player, of whom there are still a few about. When you raise, you aren't having a conversation. You are making a statement, but he isn't listening. He is just looking at his hand and is playing that in his own sweet way.
Now, let's take Mr semi-donkey, at level one. This guy is hearing you. He hears you say that you have a hand. But he looks down and sees KQoff or the like, and he just cannot lay this down. He is hearing, but he isn't listening. So he calls. Now, this guy is also not having a conversation. You are saying things to him, but his call means very little. This is one reason why these players can be hard to play against online, because their calls mean (I have something, but I'm not sure how good it is against your hand). Playing this kind of player live is much easier, because their non-verbal communication gives away so much more than their actions through betting.
Once we move to level two, some serious conversation takes place. Your opponent might be a weak-tight donkey. Here the conversation tends to run along the following lines.
You:(Raise) "I have Aces"
WTD: (Defends Big blind): "I have two cards that are good if they hit a flop"
Flop = 7s 3d 2d
WTD: Check
You: (Bet): "I have Aces".
WTD: (Fold) "Oh, do you? OK."
Or your opponent might be a loose aggressive player.
You: (Raise) "I have Aces"
LAG (behind you) (Reraise) "I have Aces"
You: (Call): "You said that last hand, and the hand before that."
Flop 7c 6d 2h
You: (Check): "Go on, tell me you have Aces:"
LAG: (Bet) "I have Aces"
You (Call): "Really? Well, let's see."
Turn: 7h
You: (Check) "Still got Aces?"
LAG: (Bet) "No, I've changed my mind. I have Ace-Seven suited"
You: (Call) "Really? I wish you would make up your mind."
River: Td
You: (Check) "Still got Ace-Seven Suited?"
LAG: (Bet) "Hold on. Nope. it's nine-eight suited. My mistake".
You: (Call) "really. Let's see".
LAG shows Ace six of spades for a pair of sixes
You Show Jh Js for a pair of Jacks. You win pot.
By not check-raising at any point, you have made the LAG suffer the same way that you suffer against Mr Semi-Donkey. You are refusing to engage him in a conversation. LAGs hate this, because they are often good at picking up on clues. It's one reason that LAGs lose more online than they do live. They have fewer clues to pick up on.
Now, what about our TAG, the $3-$6 tight aggressive player? This is where your language skills come into play, because now we have a player who is listening to you, and he knows that you are listening to him (or, after a while, he will). Here the conversations can get very interesting, and it is here (not in the play it by rote hands we see above) that your extra edge has to come into play.
Although a dollar is a dollar, there is still more aesthetic satisfaction obtainable from out-thinking a TAG. What does his flat-call of your raise pre-flop mean? What does his reraise mean?
If he defends his blind, what does a check-raise mean on an unco-ordinated board? What does it mean on a board such as 882? What does it mean on a board of AKJ two clubs? Note that in all these cases the hand that you hold is of less relevance than it is against Mr Donkey or Mr semi-donkey. What is more important is the hand that your opponent holds, because he is listening to what you say (through your bets). Your aim is to convince him that you have him beaten (when you don't) and to have him think that you are beaten (when you are not). And you only have three types of bet available at each stage. This, indeed, is where limit can be fun.
Note that all these instances have been heads-up. I wonder if some of my problem in multi-wayers is that I have a difficulty in juggling the "messages" I want to put across (and also in misinterpreting the dual messages being sent)? If it's heads-up there is one conversation, but if it's four-way, there are six conversations. I might want to say one thing to one player, but a different thing to another player. One player might be paying attention, while the other might be watching porn on the DVD. I think that, at the lower levels, I should go into some kind of lock-down mode which is either to shout "I have flopped top set!!!" (i.e. reraise) or "I don't care about what you are saying to each other. I can't hear you!! I can't hear you!!!" (i.e. Call).
The good thing about $3-$6 and $2-$4 is that most of the "good" players who stay at these stakes are multi-tabling. That means that their plays tend to be consistent. If they did something with AA such as limped under-the-gun a couple of times, but you notice that with every other hand they have either raised or folded, then there is a good chance that when you meet that player at a later date and he limps under the gun, that he has Aces. And if he raises, then he doesn't. This is a useful thing to know if you have QQ or KK.
Now, what about what I'll call the level 4 player? This guy is not just listening to you, but he remembers your previous conversations. He knows what you said, and he knows what you meant. He will adapt to that.
Fortunately, you don't get many players like this at $3-$6 and below. If they are that good they will either move up in stakes, or increase the number of tables at which they are playing (better to be a level 3 player at four $3-$6 tables than a level 4 player at two $3-$6 tables). But at the $15-$30 to $50-$100 levels, this must be the major worry.
Paradoxically, it gets less of a worry as you move further up, or when you play at the very high-level heads-up stakes.
"I have Aces..."
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2006-09-25 02:29 am (UTC)Heh. This sounds like a page from "Fooled By Randomness"
no subject
Date: 2006-09-25 09:12 am (UTC)At level 3, I had a hard job convincing my missus that I was watching DVD porn to try and get into the mindset of a 3/6 semi-donkey online poker player....
I think typically in the past I have thought that you have "upgraded" most players at least a full level over what they are truly worth.
no subject
Date: 2006-09-25 10:01 am (UTC)It's a common fault amongst players, and one of which perhaps I am more guilty than most, that you tend to think that other players are thinking the same way as you. I have to force myself to realize the following.
Loose-passive players are convinced you are a shark and that you might be bluffing, so they call you with second pair. But if they raise, they are not "making a move". They actually have a hand.
LAGs are convinced you are thinking like them and that you might be bluffing, so they reraise with naff-all.
WTDs are convinced you have the nuts if you bet, because they never bet without the nuts. If they call you, they mean business. They don't have second pair, they aren't making a move.
TAGs are the only ones where you have to "think one step further down the line".
PJ
no subject
Date: 2006-09-25 10:09 am (UTC)"I have him as a WTD but he has just 3-bet me on the flop - perhaps he is LAG". Or perhaps, he just decided to do something different, someone else did that a few gands back and it looked kinda fun.
no subject
Date: 2006-09-25 10:50 am (UTC)Once you spot them, you just play your hand against some kind of default. I tend to just call these players down, with the occasional raise for value on the river if the board looks unhelpful for the opponent.
PJ
no subject
Date: 2006-09-26 10:50 pm (UTC)It always surprises me when I stumble upon something this aware and accurate about general poker strategy. Looking forward to reading more of your thoughts.