![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Every so often I succumb, and I head back to the 2+2 forum to read discussions on low- and mid-stakes no limit.
To be fair, the quality of debate has improved as the average age of the readership has gone up. Many of the posters there who are now in their late 20s are real "old hands", who look down on the 21-year old posters with haggard ennui. These days, anyone who came into Poker because they saw Rounders when it was first released, is a veteran.
But the sheer lack of logic propounded by most posters when there is a fairly simple question still never ceases to amaze. The general line, I suspect, is that "this is what I do, and I am going to find the arguments which prove that I am right". A second, thankfully less common line these days, is "Anyone who thinks that a raise/call/fold (delete as required) is correct here is an idiot".
And so, I started reading a thread because it covered a fairly interesting topic, and was posted by a guy who said, quite honestly, "I have a difficulty in this situation".
Suppose that you are on the button with AJo, and you raise to the now standard 3x (we'll call that $6 and the stacks $200 apiece). Small blind appears to be reraising rather more often than he should be. He once again reraises to $22. What's best?
At this point, the respondents split into two factions -- flat call in position and outplay postflop, or reraise.
Although both sides claim that they came to the conclusion because of the argument, nearly all the posters obviously came to the conclusion first, and then found arguments to justify it.
My favourite logically flawed argument is the famous "your opponent can't make a mistake" line. In effect, this claims that if you reraise with AJo, small blind will fold all hands worse and reraise all hands better, as if by magic. Why is this line flawed? Because it doesn't work like that. Opponents always "might" make a mistake, and the line "you have efectively turned your cards face up" is nonsense. When pressured, the propounder then retreats to "the vast majority" of opponents. But, in fact, propounder just likes the idea of cold-calling and outplaying postflop. Indeed, whenever you see someone put the line "your opponent can't make a mistake" into their argument, you can easily ignore the rest of their text.
But the "it's best to reraise" line gives of equally flawed arguments.
So, let's look at it more from a general point of view, and see what these opposing arguments really mean.
To do so, you have to enter a slightly advanced bit of poker theory (for the layman), which basically splits hands into three types:
So, clearly the most important thing to consider here is opponent's range. You know that he has been reraising a bit more than he should have, but you still have to make a rough estimate.
If the arguers disagree about the range, they might agree with the four-bet/don't four-bet/sometimes four-bet split, but disagree where AJo falls in that line.
Alternatively, opposing arguers might agree on SB's range, but disagree on the points where a reraise for value becomes a "don't reraise".
This normally boils down to the argument of how much you value being in position.
If you don't know what two opposing sides are actually disagreeing about, it's hard to come to a conclusion on who is coming up with the right solution. In effect, we don't even know what the real question is.
All of which is dry stuff -- and, therefore, not likely to get anyone on 2+2 excited.
One poster made the excellent counterpoint to the "you should flat call here" argument, stating, very sensibly I thought" that to just write "outplay post-flop" is easier said than done. The "flat-call" line basically consists of the view that because you have position, you are likely to win more money than you would win by reraising. EG Jxx flops vs AK, Axx flops vs AT or A9s (and more, if you want to widen opponent's range). However, none of the proponents actually do any number-crunching, or say how often you should shove any flop. This is unsurprising, because to number-crunch the flat-call here requires buckets of assumptions and buckets of calculations.
In favour of the reraisers' line is that it's easier to calculate. You could almost prove that it was profitable to four-bet here. Unfortunately, as another wise poster pointed out, that doesn't win the argument, because it's quite possible that a flat-call is even more profitable.
Personally, against this kind of small-blind opponent who I think is getting cheeky, I quite like the four-bet. I read right through this thread, without success, looking for someone to make a couple of points that I thought relevant.
(1) A flat-call might be more profitable, but it means that you will pay rake.
(2) A flat-call might be more profitable on a hand-by-hand basis, but, if it requires a tricky decision, that might make it less profitable on a minute-by-minute basis.
That second point strikes me as one which is covered far too little. Suppose you had an EV on the hand of +$16 if you reraised, and +$22 if you cold-called. But suppose the former hand took an average of 30 seconds, while the latter took an average of 1 minute.
If all your hands followed this scenario, you would be making $2,200 per 100 hands by flat-calling, and $1,600 per 100 hands by reraising. So, ldo, a flat-call is obviously better, right?
Wrong. Because the four-bet would mean that you get through 120 hands an hour, while the latter would get you through just 60 hands an hour. That means the four-bet generates winnings of $1,920 per hour, while the latter generates just $1,100 per hour.
This final point is mysteriously under-mentioned in the current poker canon. Compare a period of "very tight" play (say, 2pm to 3pm on Party), with a period of "very loose" play (say, 7am to 8am on a Saturday morning on Stars).
My average table-earn at Party would be in the region of, say, $2 a hundred, while my average earn on Stars would be $4 a hundred. Similarly, the Party rakeback generation would be low, perhaps just a dollar a hundred, while on Stars it would be a couple of bucks a hundred. So, the Saturday morning looks far more profitable.
But looks can be deceiving.
Because on the Party tight session (six-tabling), I'd be clicking through about 520 hands an hour, while on the Stars loose-fest, it would be about 350 hands an hour.
The looser the game, the fewer the hands per hour.
This brings the Party EV to $11 an hour in play and $5.20 in rakeback, while the Stars would be $14 an hour in winnings and $7 an hour in rakeback. Instead of the $3 vs $6 that you see when you look at the per-hundred performance, we now have a $16.20 vs $21 difference when you look at the per-hour performance.
When you think about it, this brings much of the "fish-hunting" strategy into question. For a start, hunting good tables takes time. And tight regulars are much easier to find than loose occasionals. If I am winning half a cent a hand of player X, and 0.75 cents a hand against player Y, I'd still rather play against player X if that table was getting through twice as many hands per hour.
This argument isn't even new. The complete drunk at the Bricks & Mortar table is a nightmare -- not because he won't lose his money (he will) but because he slows down the game so much that your hourly expected rate is reduced.
Anyhoo, to return to my AJo point, I tend to reraise/fold here (maybe in a 1-to-2 ratio against a cheeky opponent) for the simple reason that I want hands to end as soon as possible, so I can get on to the next one. And I'm paying less attention to my "per hand" win, and more attention to my "per hour" win. Because, in a sense, winning rate per 100 is a bit like Sklansky dollars. An hour is an hour, but 100 hands could be 10 minutes or 90 minutes. As such a "win rate per hundred" is, in a sense, meaningless.
________________________
To be fair, the quality of debate has improved as the average age of the readership has gone up. Many of the posters there who are now in their late 20s are real "old hands", who look down on the 21-year old posters with haggard ennui. These days, anyone who came into Poker because they saw Rounders when it was first released, is a veteran.
But the sheer lack of logic propounded by most posters when there is a fairly simple question still never ceases to amaze. The general line, I suspect, is that "this is what I do, and I am going to find the arguments which prove that I am right". A second, thankfully less common line these days, is "Anyone who thinks that a raise/call/fold (delete as required) is correct here is an idiot".
And so, I started reading a thread because it covered a fairly interesting topic, and was posted by a guy who said, quite honestly, "I have a difficulty in this situation".
Suppose that you are on the button with AJo, and you raise to the now standard 3x (we'll call that $6 and the stacks $200 apiece). Small blind appears to be reraising rather more often than he should be. He once again reraises to $22. What's best?
At this point, the respondents split into two factions -- flat call in position and outplay postflop, or reraise.
Although both sides claim that they came to the conclusion because of the argument, nearly all the posters obviously came to the conclusion first, and then found arguments to justify it.
My favourite logically flawed argument is the famous "your opponent can't make a mistake" line. In effect, this claims that if you reraise with AJo, small blind will fold all hands worse and reraise all hands better, as if by magic. Why is this line flawed? Because it doesn't work like that. Opponents always "might" make a mistake, and the line "you have efectively turned your cards face up" is nonsense. When pressured, the propounder then retreats to "the vast majority" of opponents. But, in fact, propounder just likes the idea of cold-calling and outplaying postflop. Indeed, whenever you see someone put the line "your opponent can't make a mistake" into their argument, you can easily ignore the rest of their text.
But the "it's best to reraise" line gives of equally flawed arguments.
So, let's look at it more from a general point of view, and see what these opposing arguments really mean.
To do so, you have to enter a slightly advanced bit of poker theory (for the layman), which basically splits hands into three types:
(a) "four-bet for value, you are still probably best, even given opponent's three-bet" (e.g. AKs).
(b) "any four-bet makes it easier for opponent to play correctly" (e.g., AJo) and
(c) "your hand is now definitely worse, even given the fact that you are in position, so you should four-bet or (more often) fold" (e.g. T8s).
So, clearly the most important thing to consider here is opponent's range. You know that he has been reraising a bit more than he should have, but you still have to make a rough estimate.
If the arguers disagree about the range, they might agree with the four-bet/don't four-bet/sometimes four-bet split, but disagree where AJo falls in that line.
Alternatively, opposing arguers might agree on SB's range, but disagree on the points where a reraise for value becomes a "don't reraise".
This normally boils down to the argument of how much you value being in position.
If you don't know what two opposing sides are actually disagreeing about, it's hard to come to a conclusion on who is coming up with the right solution. In effect, we don't even know what the real question is.
All of which is dry stuff -- and, therefore, not likely to get anyone on 2+2 excited.
One poster made the excellent counterpoint to the "you should flat call here" argument, stating, very sensibly I thought" that to just write "outplay post-flop" is easier said than done. The "flat-call" line basically consists of the view that because you have position, you are likely to win more money than you would win by reraising. EG Jxx flops vs AK, Axx flops vs AT or A9s (and more, if you want to widen opponent's range). However, none of the proponents actually do any number-crunching, or say how often you should shove any flop. This is unsurprising, because to number-crunch the flat-call here requires buckets of assumptions and buckets of calculations.
In favour of the reraisers' line is that it's easier to calculate. You could almost prove that it was profitable to four-bet here. Unfortunately, as another wise poster pointed out, that doesn't win the argument, because it's quite possible that a flat-call is even more profitable.
Personally, against this kind of small-blind opponent who I think is getting cheeky, I quite like the four-bet. I read right through this thread, without success, looking for someone to make a couple of points that I thought relevant.
(1) A flat-call might be more profitable, but it means that you will pay rake.
(2) A flat-call might be more profitable on a hand-by-hand basis, but, if it requires a tricky decision, that might make it less profitable on a minute-by-minute basis.
That second point strikes me as one which is covered far too little. Suppose you had an EV on the hand of +$16 if you reraised, and +$22 if you cold-called. But suppose the former hand took an average of 30 seconds, while the latter took an average of 1 minute.
If all your hands followed this scenario, you would be making $2,200 per 100 hands by flat-calling, and $1,600 per 100 hands by reraising. So, ldo, a flat-call is obviously better, right?
Wrong. Because the four-bet would mean that you get through 120 hands an hour, while the latter would get you through just 60 hands an hour. That means the four-bet generates winnings of $1,920 per hour, while the latter generates just $1,100 per hour.
This final point is mysteriously under-mentioned in the current poker canon. Compare a period of "very tight" play (say, 2pm to 3pm on Party), with a period of "very loose" play (say, 7am to 8am on a Saturday morning on Stars).
My average table-earn at Party would be in the region of, say, $2 a hundred, while my average earn on Stars would be $4 a hundred. Similarly, the Party rakeback generation would be low, perhaps just a dollar a hundred, while on Stars it would be a couple of bucks a hundred. So, the Saturday morning looks far more profitable.
But looks can be deceiving.
Because on the Party tight session (six-tabling), I'd be clicking through about 520 hands an hour, while on the Stars loose-fest, it would be about 350 hands an hour.
The looser the game, the fewer the hands per hour.
This brings the Party EV to $11 an hour in play and $5.20 in rakeback, while the Stars would be $14 an hour in winnings and $7 an hour in rakeback. Instead of the $3 vs $6 that you see when you look at the per-hundred performance, we now have a $16.20 vs $21 difference when you look at the per-hour performance.
When you think about it, this brings much of the "fish-hunting" strategy into question. For a start, hunting good tables takes time. And tight regulars are much easier to find than loose occasionals. If I am winning half a cent a hand of player X, and 0.75 cents a hand against player Y, I'd still rather play against player X if that table was getting through twice as many hands per hour.
This argument isn't even new. The complete drunk at the Bricks & Mortar table is a nightmare -- not because he won't lose his money (he will) but because he slows down the game so much that your hourly expected rate is reduced.
Anyhoo, to return to my AJo point, I tend to reraise/fold here (maybe in a 1-to-2 ratio against a cheeky opponent) for the simple reason that I want hands to end as soon as possible, so I can get on to the next one. And I'm paying less attention to my "per hand" win, and more attention to my "per hour" win. Because, in a sense, winning rate per 100 is a bit like Sklansky dollars. An hour is an hour, but 100 hands could be 10 minutes or 90 minutes. As such a "win rate per hundred" is, in a sense, meaningless.
________________________
