Some No Limit thoughts
Mar. 12th, 2007 02:21 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
peterbirksA play I have seen a few times in NL tournaments when the stacks are still relatively deep is to defend the Big Blind to a single raise from a steadyish player in, say, MP2, when the big blind has something like A4o.
The thinking is that, if opponent has something like AK and the flop comes AJ4 rainbow, or AJ4 with two of a suit, then the defender has a good opportunity to take the steadyish player for all of his money, or at least a good proportion of it.
So, my question is, what would you, as an MP2 player, do against this kind of cunning Big Blind defender?
One option is to make your raise big enough not to price in the Big blind defence. This has the added bonus of causing moans all round about "Internet players".
So, to bring it back to the Big Blind. How big does that raise have to be before you do not feel that this defence is worthwhile?
Let's suppose the blinds are $50-$100 and you both have $5,000 in front of you. Now, if I am in the Big Blind in this situation, and MP2 makes a mini-raise, I will call. If he goes all-in, I will fold. That gives me my parameters. But at what point do I become indifferent to calling or folding? And what reasoning should I apply to come to that conclusion?
(I know that there are many many other play-possibilities to consider here. I'm just trying to isolate this particular play.)
First we need to know steadyish player's standard-raising range in MP2. Let's say AJs, AQ, AK, any pair 8s or better. We could add in a 5% chance of complete randomness, but that only confuses things. If included, it would increase the level of the raise we would call with by a fraction.
That gives us 36 hands which are Ace-high, and 42 that are a pair.
Now, this is where the problems arise. How do these big blind defenders play the various flop possibilities? And how likely is the steadyish player to lose all his money if the dream of A-x-4 hits the board?
Our maximum gain if defending is $5000 minus the amount of the raise. Assuming that we break even on flops of Axx and a certain proportion of paint flops, and that we lose our calling money (on average) on all other flops, how big a raise pre-flop are we prepared to tolerate?
Well, not as much as 10% of the stack, surely. You just won't hit the dream flop often enough to compensate for the hands you have to give up. So, 5xBB is too much. And we've established that a mini-raise (2xBB, giving odds of 25-1) is too little.
So, where do players thinking of calling such a raise become indifferent? Curiously, my own instinct in this particular situation is at about 3.5 x the BB: i.e., the "standard raise". That gives me odds of just under 20-1.
So, if I am the raiser in this situation and I think that the Big Blind can outplay me post-flop, I really want to raise more than he will tolerate. If he calls, then, never mind, I've not given him the satisfactory odds (Of course, there are many other pssibilities at the point that I make the raise, so this scenario has to be considered a subset of all other scenarios when deciding how much I am going to raise).
Contrarily, if I think that I can outplay the Big Blind post-flop (in this particular scenario), then I want to price him in.
This brings me to the point where a well-known tournament player went through a no limit tournament only making mini-raises. On being asked why he did this, he said "what makes you think I wanted my opponents to fold pre-flop?". Felicia Lee once made a similar point, but in reverse. She said something like "if you are up against better players, make your pre-flop raises big. If they can outplay you post-flop, at least make it expensive for them to do so".
++++++++++
I worked from home today after selflessly putting in five office days last week. This gave me the opportunity to play some lunchtime limit. Or it would have, if there had been any games available.
I had to resort to $1-$2 on Party, only to see a known $5-$10 player there. A bot? It appears that some of these Russian Federation players will happily sit in the highest stakes ring games they can find (up to about $5-$10) until they reach their 12-table limit.
I was getting ready to say that $1-$2 games are the equivalent of $2-$4 games a year or so, but this distorted things even more. In fact the games were not like any games that I played a year or so ago. Lots of three-betting from the blinds in heads-up situations both pre-flop and on the flop. Hands being bet (and call down) on very thin values. I'm sorry, is this $1-$2 ring, or $10-$20 6-handed?
++++++++++++
There was a question on 2+2 recently (let's ignore the latest Brandi hilarity -- I really hope she is at my table when I am in LV in a couple of weeks) about what percentage of any players playing cash online at any time were likely to be 2+2ers.
The replies were illuminating. One assumption was that 2+2ers probably played 20 times as many hands a week on average than did non 2+2ers. Another respondent, I was pleased to say, took up my line of "faux-bots", referring top them as HUD bots. Nice to see that this concept wasn't just the product of my own warped mind.
The guess was that about half your opponents are likely to be 2+2ers (lower at small stakes, much higher at high stakes, obviously). If you add in bots, real or perceived, that probably means, even in the broadest definition, that the percentage of fish to sharks is now down to 10% to 20%. Tough times.
And Ultimate have, damnit, made it even easier for the HUD bots, by allowing infinite "callback" of hand histories. Fuck it. Do I want to play under conditions where most of my opponents will have my complete playing record? Should I buy my larger hard drive now and just go with the flow?
Clearly the software upgrade that only allowed 4 hand histories a time was the product of a coder who had no idea what most serious players want. Now they've put the software under the control of a guy who looks like he has Win Holdem installed at home :-)
_____________
The thinking is that, if opponent has something like AK and the flop comes AJ4 rainbow, or AJ4 with two of a suit, then the defender has a good opportunity to take the steadyish player for all of his money, or at least a good proportion of it.
So, my question is, what would you, as an MP2 player, do against this kind of cunning Big Blind defender?
One option is to make your raise big enough not to price in the Big blind defence. This has the added bonus of causing moans all round about "Internet players".
So, to bring it back to the Big Blind. How big does that raise have to be before you do not feel that this defence is worthwhile?
Let's suppose the blinds are $50-$100 and you both have $5,000 in front of you. Now, if I am in the Big Blind in this situation, and MP2 makes a mini-raise, I will call. If he goes all-in, I will fold. That gives me my parameters. But at what point do I become indifferent to calling or folding? And what reasoning should I apply to come to that conclusion?
(I know that there are many many other play-possibilities to consider here. I'm just trying to isolate this particular play.)
First we need to know steadyish player's standard-raising range in MP2. Let's say AJs, AQ, AK, any pair 8s or better. We could add in a 5% chance of complete randomness, but that only confuses things. If included, it would increase the level of the raise we would call with by a fraction.
That gives us 36 hands which are Ace-high, and 42 that are a pair.
Now, this is where the problems arise. How do these big blind defenders play the various flop possibilities? And how likely is the steadyish player to lose all his money if the dream of A-x-4 hits the board?
Our maximum gain if defending is $5000 minus the amount of the raise. Assuming that we break even on flops of Axx and a certain proportion of paint flops, and that we lose our calling money (on average) on all other flops, how big a raise pre-flop are we prepared to tolerate?
Well, not as much as 10% of the stack, surely. You just won't hit the dream flop often enough to compensate for the hands you have to give up. So, 5xBB is too much. And we've established that a mini-raise (2xBB, giving odds of 25-1) is too little.
So, where do players thinking of calling such a raise become indifferent? Curiously, my own instinct in this particular situation is at about 3.5 x the BB: i.e., the "standard raise". That gives me odds of just under 20-1.
So, if I am the raiser in this situation and I think that the Big Blind can outplay me post-flop, I really want to raise more than he will tolerate. If he calls, then, never mind, I've not given him the satisfactory odds (Of course, there are many other pssibilities at the point that I make the raise, so this scenario has to be considered a subset of all other scenarios when deciding how much I am going to raise).
Contrarily, if I think that I can outplay the Big Blind post-flop (in this particular scenario), then I want to price him in.
This brings me to the point where a well-known tournament player went through a no limit tournament only making mini-raises. On being asked why he did this, he said "what makes you think I wanted my opponents to fold pre-flop?". Felicia Lee once made a similar point, but in reverse. She said something like "if you are up against better players, make your pre-flop raises big. If they can outplay you post-flop, at least make it expensive for them to do so".
++++++++++
I worked from home today after selflessly putting in five office days last week. This gave me the opportunity to play some lunchtime limit. Or it would have, if there had been any games available.
I had to resort to $1-$2 on Party, only to see a known $5-$10 player there. A bot? It appears that some of these Russian Federation players will happily sit in the highest stakes ring games they can find (up to about $5-$10) until they reach their 12-table limit.
I was getting ready to say that $1-$2 games are the equivalent of $2-$4 games a year or so, but this distorted things even more. In fact the games were not like any games that I played a year or so ago. Lots of three-betting from the blinds in heads-up situations both pre-flop and on the flop. Hands being bet (and call down) on very thin values. I'm sorry, is this $1-$2 ring, or $10-$20 6-handed?
++++++++++++
There was a question on 2+2 recently (let's ignore the latest Brandi hilarity -- I really hope she is at my table when I am in LV in a couple of weeks) about what percentage of any players playing cash online at any time were likely to be 2+2ers.
The replies were illuminating. One assumption was that 2+2ers probably played 20 times as many hands a week on average than did non 2+2ers. Another respondent, I was pleased to say, took up my line of "faux-bots", referring top them as HUD bots. Nice to see that this concept wasn't just the product of my own warped mind.
The guess was that about half your opponents are likely to be 2+2ers (lower at small stakes, much higher at high stakes, obviously). If you add in bots, real or perceived, that probably means, even in the broadest definition, that the percentage of fish to sharks is now down to 10% to 20%. Tough times.
And Ultimate have, damnit, made it even easier for the HUD bots, by allowing infinite "callback" of hand histories. Fuck it. Do I want to play under conditions where most of my opponents will have my complete playing record? Should I buy my larger hard drive now and just go with the flow?
Clearly the software upgrade that only allowed 4 hand histories a time was the product of a coder who had no idea what most serious players want. Now they've put the software under the control of a guy who looks like he has Win Holdem installed at home :-)
_____________
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
Rake back on Playtech network
Date: 2007-03-13 07:31 am (UTC)You asked in a previous post about these, thought i'd reply here
You can get 30% r/b if you set up an account via blondepoker skin of Playtech. Seems to be plenty of traffic at low to medium limits HE last night now 99% of Tribecca has migrated.
Redsimon
Re: Rake back on Playtech network
Date: 2007-03-13 11:13 am (UTC)Yes, I noticed an increase in the number of low limit ring games ($1-$2, with some 6-max at $2-$4, but no ring games) last night compared with a few weeks ago. There was also one $5-$10 game when I got home (rather late), but I was too tired to watch it to see the quality of theplay.
Do I just go to the blondepoker site for the rb?
PJ
Re: Rake back on Playtech network
Date: 2007-03-13 07:23 pm (UTC)Simon
Re: Rake back on Playtech network
Date: 2007-03-13 07:32 pm (UTC)PJ
Re: Rake back on Playtech network
Date: 2007-03-13 08:50 pm (UTC)I know where you can get 35% RB at an iPoker skin, if you are interested. Just reply to this and I'll let you know.
Michael
Re: Rake back on Playtech network
Date: 2007-03-14 04:20 pm (UTC)Send me an e-mail mate. I won't be opening it up until I'm back from LV, anyway.
Pete
Re: Rake back on Playtech network
Date: 2007-03-14 06:46 pm (UTC)Good luck in Vegas. If you are staying at the Flamingo, you'll see the evil empire (Harrah's) has now claimed the Barbary Coast and renamed it "Bill's Gambling Palace" or something of the sort. I'm sure they will find a way to screw up the good, cheap food at the Barbary.
Michael
2+2'ers
Date: 2007-03-13 05:12 pm (UTC)Re: 2+2'ers
Date: 2007-03-13 07:31 pm (UTC)However, I think that on average, 2+2ers are better than non 2+2ers, if only because they have shown a wilingness to make an effort.
Then again, given that they tend to play more tables, perhaps this mitigates against them playing as well as they are capable on any one particular table.
PJ
no subject
Date: 2007-03-13 10:12 pm (UTC)The whole of this post seems to assume that defending the BB with deep stacks and A4o is "right"...I am not sure why you would think so. I'm pretty sure it's wrong.
gl
bdd
no subject
Date: 2007-03-13 11:46 pm (UTC)Suppose you have $50,000 in chips and the blinds are $20-$40, and MP2 raises to $80. Are you folding here? I certainly wouldn't.
However, if opponent raises all-in, I would fold.
Therefore, at some point you reach a point of "indifference".
I don't see how you can refer to the rightness or wrongness of a call withoug reference to the size of the raise or the depth of the stacks. You seemn to be stating that a call is "wrong", full stop.
I can't agree with that. Logically, therefore, if for some small raise, a call is right because of the implied odds, then at some point the defender becomes indifferent.
PJ
no subject
Date: 2007-03-14 11:20 am (UTC)gl
bdd
no subject
Date: 2007-03-14 04:37 pm (UTC)Correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem to be assigning a far greater value to position in NL than I would have done. And I'd be interested to know how great that value was.
I owe debt to Chen & Ankenman here, but I think that the "clairvoyant" method is very useful.
If we make the holder of A4 clairvoyant, the blinds 20-40 and the stacks 5000, how big a raise would make you indifferent to calling or folding:
a) in the Big Blind?
b) on the Button?
My back of a fag packet thoughts on this would be that I'd take a raise to about 300, in either position. But you may be different.
The question you then have to ask is, how clairvoyant is A4o in reality? Now, that's a judgemental assessment. And much of it depends on how well you can read your opponent (perfect read = clairvoyant), how accurate is your assessment of his range, how well he can read you, and, presumably a number of other factors I haven't thought of.
But I think that in any situation where a steady player makes a raise and you make a call, your "clairvoyance" is greater than 0 and less than 1. The lower the level of clairvoyance you assign to your hand (let's just think theoretically here, rather than talking about a particular hand), the lower the level of raise you are prepared to tolerate.
Also, the greater the emphasis you place on the advantage of position, the greater the difference between the raise you will tolerate on the button, and the level of raise you will tolerate in the Big Blind.
Now, it seems to me that if you can categorize these numbers (and, no, I don't know how), you could come up with some kind of system that assigns certain situations with "levels of clairvoyance" (between 0 and 1) and "importance of position" between 0 and 1.
In real life, you would never have values of 0 or 1 (unless your opponent exposed his hand to you).
In fact, that's an interesting thought experiment. Suppose in the scenario I mentioned above, the raiser had accidentally exposed his cards to you and you saw that he had Ace-jack suited. What level of a raise would you tolerate now with A4o (neither of them your opponent's suit), with the stacks at 5000 and the blinds at 20-40?
PJ
no subject
Date: 2007-03-14 10:53 pm (UTC)I think the danger of the Chen et al approach is to turn situations into some abstraction of reality when the reality itself has some straightforward answers. In any NL game, your objective is to stack your foe, or at least massively maximise your win. I am talking here about simple practicality and not the EV, equity, soft $ stuff :) This is so much easier in position that it must be to a "powers to" kind of difference. Of course the flip side of minimising those losing situations is also true in position. Now the reason this isn't so apparent in "Normal" tournement play is that you simply never have to worry about playing all the streets and blinds are such a proportion of your stack that they must be defended. But this isn't what we were talking about. NL cash games, and their analogy, abeit rare in tourney play, are all about position.
I just looked at a sample of 120k hands. I made 3 times as much on the button and the CO than UTG and middle.