![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
The Coast Is Always Changing
Nov. 10th, 2006 12:43 pmI'm going in to see the dental surgeon (I mean, like, proper surgeon, who does operations and things) this afternoon. I wonder if they'll charge me £150 just to say hello?
++++++++
Spurred by Jamie's recommendation, I picked up Sklansky's Theory of Poker again. I've read it many times, so I knew roughly what I was looking for. There on page 67 was the piece on "the value of deception", which might perhaps better be subtitled (and its frequent lack of value).
I think that I was out of kilter here, and I suspect that I have gone back a bit too far the other way in the past couple of days, not using deception in head-to-head post-flop situations where I might have gained more by being less aggressive and more deceptive on the flop. It's difficult to play counter to your instincts many many times an hour. It's more tiring, and you have to think more. I've stopped worrying about my pauses "giving it away". Damn it, if the pause does, so be it.
I think that I have checked a few missed flops against defending blinds when I should have bet flop and turn, and my "touch" isn't so strong playing flops this way. It might have a higher EV, but if it isn't instinctive, you are bound to give some of that EV away on marginal errors.
Anyhoo, the whole point is about when deception on the flop is good and when it is bad. "Deception" is a broad church. Continuation bets are deception, calls instead of raises are deception, raises to get a free card on the turn are deception. Because the flop is the last betting round before bets double, you probably see more deception from all players (weak as well as strong) on the flop than anywhere else.
Now, if I take that as a starting point, I can work on it. If weak players are using a lot of deception on the flop, then it may well be higher EV to use relatively less. That's the easy part. The hard part is, when to use the lesser proportion of deception that you will still be using.
I am sure that Sklansky has written somewhere about Razz where he says that you should check in a certain situation on fourth street, even though you are fairly sure that you are ahead, but I can't find the damn thing.
No matter, it follows the general line that if you bet on fourth street, you give your opponent odds on fifth and sixth street if two bricks drop on fifth street.
Now, this is a line that I've always been uncomfortable with (hence the paradox that I was subsconsciously using it in Hold'em), but I've had difficulty finding a flaw in the line. Now I think I've got it.
The point is associated with Caro's line that there is an easy way to maximise the number of pots that you win. Just play every pot to showdown.
In the Sklansky case, the line is "you make money when your opponents make mistakes. If your opponent never makes a mistake, you will never be able to beat him. Therefore (and here is the non-sequitur) you should give your opponent as many opportunities to make mistakes as possible"
So, let's go back to my Hold'em situation where if I give my opponent an opportunity to make a mistake, and he makes that mistake, I have an EV of +4. If I give him the opportunity to make the mistake and he does not make a mistake, I have an EV of +2, and if I do not give him the opportunity to make a mistake, I have an EV of +3. If my opponent always declines to make the error on the turn (calling when he does not have the odds), then I am better off by playing in such a manner that he can't make the mistake (i.e, by increasing the size of the pot on the flop).
Ah-hah, the Sklansky acolyte might respond, then how are you going to make money off this guy if he never makes a mistake?
To which, sharp as a Japanese cook's knife, you respond. "It doesn't matter that you don't give him the opportunity to make a mistake on this hand. He will make mistakes elsewhere, at other times. In fact, trying to manipulate your opponent into making mistakes where you lose EV if he declines to make that mistake is an error at whatever level you play. Because at higher levels your opponent is less likely to fall into the trap, while at lower levels your opponent will be making quite enough mistakes off his own back, without you risking EV by getting him to make more. The hand we are talking about just happens to be one where you will both play optimally."
( a couple of limit hands plus the AK poser from yesterday )
++++++++
Spurred by Jamie's recommendation, I picked up Sklansky's Theory of Poker again. I've read it many times, so I knew roughly what I was looking for. There on page 67 was the piece on "the value of deception", which might perhaps better be subtitled (and its frequent lack of value).
I think that I was out of kilter here, and I suspect that I have gone back a bit too far the other way in the past couple of days, not using deception in head-to-head post-flop situations where I might have gained more by being less aggressive and more deceptive on the flop. It's difficult to play counter to your instincts many many times an hour. It's more tiring, and you have to think more. I've stopped worrying about my pauses "giving it away". Damn it, if the pause does, so be it.
I think that I have checked a few missed flops against defending blinds when I should have bet flop and turn, and my "touch" isn't so strong playing flops this way. It might have a higher EV, but if it isn't instinctive, you are bound to give some of that EV away on marginal errors.
Anyhoo, the whole point is about when deception on the flop is good and when it is bad. "Deception" is a broad church. Continuation bets are deception, calls instead of raises are deception, raises to get a free card on the turn are deception. Because the flop is the last betting round before bets double, you probably see more deception from all players (weak as well as strong) on the flop than anywhere else.
Now, if I take that as a starting point, I can work on it. If weak players are using a lot of deception on the flop, then it may well be higher EV to use relatively less. That's the easy part. The hard part is, when to use the lesser proportion of deception that you will still be using.
I am sure that Sklansky has written somewhere about Razz where he says that you should check in a certain situation on fourth street, even though you are fairly sure that you are ahead, but I can't find the damn thing.
No matter, it follows the general line that if you bet on fourth street, you give your opponent odds on fifth and sixth street if two bricks drop on fifth street.
Now, this is a line that I've always been uncomfortable with (hence the paradox that I was subsconsciously using it in Hold'em), but I've had difficulty finding a flaw in the line. Now I think I've got it.
The point is associated with Caro's line that there is an easy way to maximise the number of pots that you win. Just play every pot to showdown.
In the Sklansky case, the line is "you make money when your opponents make mistakes. If your opponent never makes a mistake, you will never be able to beat him. Therefore (and here is the non-sequitur) you should give your opponent as many opportunities to make mistakes as possible"
So, let's go back to my Hold'em situation where if I give my opponent an opportunity to make a mistake, and he makes that mistake, I have an EV of +4. If I give him the opportunity to make the mistake and he does not make a mistake, I have an EV of +2, and if I do not give him the opportunity to make a mistake, I have an EV of +3. If my opponent always declines to make the error on the turn (calling when he does not have the odds), then I am better off by playing in such a manner that he can't make the mistake (i.e, by increasing the size of the pot on the flop).
Ah-hah, the Sklansky acolyte might respond, then how are you going to make money off this guy if he never makes a mistake?
To which, sharp as a Japanese cook's knife, you respond. "It doesn't matter that you don't give him the opportunity to make a mistake on this hand. He will make mistakes elsewhere, at other times. In fact, trying to manipulate your opponent into making mistakes where you lose EV if he declines to make that mistake is an error at whatever level you play. Because at higher levels your opponent is less likely to fall into the trap, while at lower levels your opponent will be making quite enough mistakes off his own back, without you risking EV by getting him to make more. The hand we are talking about just happens to be one where you will both play optimally."
( a couple of limit hands plus the AK poser from yesterday )
