C-Betting 100% to induce giant mistakes and because FUN

245

Comments

  • tripletiretripletire Red Chipper Posts: 322 ✭✭✭
    jeffnc wrote: »
    tripletire wrote: »
    This is too much now, you cannot assume that every time a chess teacher says e4 is superior and explains why, that he won't be able to back it up for later on in the game

    That was neither stated, assumed nor implied. I think you missed my point.


    I may be making assumptions about your assumptions in a defensive pattern. Much love for the patience as we wade through some complex stuff.

    My assumption is that you're assuming that the 1/3 cbet strategy users do not know their plans for later in the hand. I think that's wrong now, and will wrap up what you're getting at:

    Don't use oversimplified and vacuum based strategies if you will be lost or mistake prone on a later street.

    I can get behind that basically always.
  • The MuleThe Mule Red Chipper Posts: 772 ✭✭✭
    Unexploitable is not equivalent to optimal, and not giving our opponent an autoprofit bet on the flop does not mean a strategy is unexploitable.

    I expect this strategy will leave a lot of money on the table as stacks get deeper.

    @ScandalMongering Zama can you please elaborate on which flops you won’t use this strategy on ?
    Can you also please talk about how/if you you alter the strategy based on stacks sizes ?
  • Adam WheelerAdam Wheeler Red Chipper Posts: 2,636 ✭✭✭✭
    edited March 30
    tripletire wrote: »
    The assumption that @Adam Wheeler and most others here will be under is that we will see opponents adjust to us at any realistic frequency. This is the main reason why I'll usually include "in online games" when I'm talking about the merits of this large strategy simplification, because only a small percentage of the player pool will care enough about you to adjust to you.

    Fear of not knowing a counter-response to the counter responses to your strategy should not be the main deterrent from a strategy anyways. Especially when your strategy still profits largely, even if you are leaking small EV as 1 in 10 opponents exploits you.

    What you miss here is that your tactics is built around you're assumption of the opponent response not the other way around. It has always been the case.

    "Why are you CBing that wide and with such a high frequency?"

    "Because the opponent folds a ton. So when I fire, I'm expecting him to folds a lot."

    This shows you that you're actions are based upon the assumed reaction of the opponent.

    But when he calls, knowing why or not doesn't matter for him, he adjust. It's a non-anticipated response so you need to adjust going further in the hand. It is simply part of the dynamic process.

    This is precisely what I'm saying in my first post and many others after me touched upon this. Although the 100% CB strategy is designed to exploit a big par of the players pool who folds too much/don't defend enough it doesn't guarantee a +EV strategy for Hero specially if he don't understand the follow up. Poker isn't a street by street game looked through a lense, it's a full runout game where you need to anticipate what's coming and then design your actions consequently.
  • Adam WheelerAdam Wheeler Red Chipper Posts: 2,636 ✭✭✭✭
    edited March 30
    By the way it is exploitable.

    Just lock your CB range into PIO and run te sims. You'll see that the opponent response will be to raise his range almost as the same wideness as you're CB range, and the wideness will depend on the proportion of nuts hands you'll have in your CB range.

    Svan, what you seem to miss is that the 100% CB strategy IS an exploit. When you use an exploit your are obviously exploitable. Then if the opponent adjust with the best exploit to your exploit and you adjust with the best exploit to his exploit (adjustment) etc. it should take around 5 levels before you come back to the starting point where you'll CB the same range and the loop start again, where every levels will gives you essentially the same EV. So if this loop would be repeated to infinity you would be in fact in a Nash Equilibrium Process because the small changes to the best exploit for both players would give a worst EV result.
  • The MuleThe Mule Red Chipper Posts: 772 ✭✭✭
    Poker is not a one-street game. You are taking a weak range to the Turn, and often will no longer have a range advantage. It is not worth a lot if your Flop play is "unexploitable" if your strategy results in you making errors that are exploitable later in the hand when the pot is larger.

    As stacks get deeper then our strategy will need to get complex at some stage. Simplifying the flop at the expense of increasing the degree of complication on later streets might make sense on some boards, I'd be very surprised if it was the case the majority of the time. The Flop seems like the natural street to employ a complex strategy, given we have the widest and mergedest range, and given the compounding effect of bet sizes.
  • Adam WheelerAdam Wheeler Red Chipper Posts: 2,636 ✭✭✭✭
    Svan, I'll proof it to you with PIO just stay tune.
  • jeffncjeffnc Red Chipper Posts: 4,267 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Also, for people who are saying this is so obviously exploitable, can you then explain why it's the default strategy of many strong mid-stakes and high-stakes players against each other?

    One plausible explanation for that, assuming that it were exploitable (and I'm not commenting on that), is again the chess analogy. While e4 is the single most popular opening move amongst good players, it is not the highest performing one. How that condition exists is up for debate.

    I'm tending to agree with the idea that this is not a fully fleshed out strategy, but more an attempt to "solve" poker simply by choosing a "good" early move in the decision tree. That's certainly a plausible idea in an attempt for best overall strategy, but there's no proof of it. Even if it were true, it's plausible that it could make someone play worse overall, even if it's the "best" early move in general.

    And then there is still the possibility that it is not in fact best in the overall strategy. Perhaps some players are "strong" in spite of it rather than because of it. Or perhaps it leads them into points further down the decision tree where they can now exploit their opponents. Or maybe the "strong" players break even with each other (for various reasons) and this flop strategy is actually an advantage against weaker players who don't understand how to play against it, and the strong players make all their profits against weak players. I really don't know, but I do know it's complicated.
  • SullySully Red Chipper Posts: 719 ✭✭✭

    2) The 100% CB strategy isn't designed to "exploit anyone." It's a common, standard bet size and strategy across most online mid-stakes professionals and above, not because of population, but because it's considered mathematically best practice.

    3) Of course it guarantees a +EV strategy. It's not an opinion, it's just reading the numbers on the model. Models can predict the in-position player's EV with both mixed strategies and depolarized strategies.

    If the player pool is playing the same unexploitable strategy with the same ranges, who is making the money and how can it be +EV for a player over the long run?

  • The MuleThe Mule Red Chipper Posts: 772 ✭✭✭
    edited March 30
    jeffnc wrote: »
    That's certainly a plausible idea in an attempt for best overall strategy, but there's no proof of it.

    Why do you say there's no proof or fleshed out strategy when it's a GTO solution? There's a comprehensive turn and river strategy right there.

    To be clear, this is not a GTO solution. Again, unexploitable does not mean optimal.
  • MidnightFoxMidnightFox Red Chipper Posts: 321 ✭✭✭
    edited March 30
    When you C-bet 100% of the time IP, and your opponent can count on this because you’re not mixing it up, you are giving up position.

    Your opponent can, and should check to you 100% of the time, and wait for you to risk more money with all of your range. Now your opponent has position on you even though technically OOP, because he gets to act after you have bet 100% with a weak range(unless you are playing an an inappropriately tight CO range, PRE). He gets to see if the flop helps his hand, while you volunteer more money as a gift in the dark to his better hands, and he never has to fear you checking-back, which means he is never punished for leading-out OOP to prevent you from realizing.

    If your opponents are hamstrung by this tactic of yours it’s because they are weak players, who don’t understand betting. You are of course opening-up yourself to check-raise-bluffs by doing this, and as was pointed out with the chess analyogy, you have to explain what to do with different parts of your range after you get check-raised.

    And how can you say that you should always C-bet? What is the range of the player who called you? Your play is terrible against a range that is tight and is self-aware of this and that your range is weak.
    :Jd :Tc
  • MidnightFoxMidnightFox Red Chipper Posts: 321 ✭✭✭
    edited March 30
    And once you get check-raised you are now the one with the difficult decision tree that you were trying to avoid in the first place.

    So this is just delusion if you think you have done something more than run-over/psych-out weak players. You haven’t found poker’s silver bullet. And the fact that you fear an opponent that plays this way, shows that you are still part of the group think in your realm.
  • NinjahNinjah Red Chipper Posts: 1,080 ✭✭✭✭
    Sully wrote: »
    If the player pool is playing the same unexploitable strategy with the same ranges, who is making the money and how can it be +EV for a player over the long run?

    1) I think this thread is a great example of why poker will never reach that point, no? Hard data won't change stubborn minds, which I have to admit is great for my bottom line. FORUM PASSIVE AGGRESSION. <3

    2) I'd say many players who are really good with multi-sized depolarized ranges aren't itching to play each other. When playing heads-up, if a reg playing this style sits me, I'll usually sit out. He probably thinks I'm the spot. :(

    3) Like all strategies, this one involves a huge amount of study, but no matter what, it's less study than mixed strategies because you have smaller decision tree. There's always money to be made in poker simply out-studying people.


    I'd be willing to bet that if you sat down and tried this strategy against said forum posters, you wouldn't have a bankroll left in the end.
  • MidnightFoxMidnightFox Red Chipper Posts: 321 ✭✭✭
    edited March 30
    This is also why a little bit of solver knowledge is a dangerous thing. It takes a very sharp mind to know how to properly integrate solver experiments into a holistic understanding of the game with sanity and without self-delusion.
    @persuadeo —was this part of what you were getting at?
  • persuadeopersuadeo Red Chipper, Table Captain Posts: 3,538 ✭✭✭✭✭
    I'd give him a chance, just as he should be more fair and see that asking questions is not a form of passive aggression.

    Keeping a wide range (one can go even smaller depending on how many combinations he wants to carry), then overleveraging the turn is indeed all the rage and has a lot of advantages versus opponents with misconstructed ranges and a tendency to bluffcatch. By staying small, he gains a lot of EV on the flop without exposing the weaker parts of his range which won't continue in his turn construction - that low cost is what helps avoid him being exploited by raises. Notice the near but not truly polarized turn construction in his example which will punish all the underpairs that make wrong assumptions about his turn strategy.
  • MidnightFoxMidnightFox Red Chipper Posts: 321 ✭✭✭
    edited March 30
    The Mule wrote: »
    Poker is not a one-street game. You are taking a weak range to the Turn, and often will no longer have a range advantage. It is not worth a lot if your Flop play is "unexploitable" if your strategy results in you making errors that are exploitable later in the hand when the pot is larger.

    As stacks get deeper then our strategy will need to get complex at some stage. Simplifying the flop at the expense of increasing the degree of complication on later streets might make sense on some boards, I'd be very surprised if it was the case the majority of the time. The Flop seems like the natural street to employ a complex strategy, given we have the widest and mergedest range, and given the compounding effect of bet sizes.
    I just have to say it, cause the “pro advice” button wasn’t enough:

    This is brilliant. I’m glad this thread happened, because if so, I wouldn’t have read this ^^^^
  • MidnightFoxMidnightFox Red Chipper Posts: 321 ✭✭✭
    edited March 30
    What I think might be the biggest takeaway from this thread is that there's a much, much bigger world out there in terms of theoretical material to cover, and just because you see something new, doesn't mean it's bad. In fact, I bet for the overwhelming majority of this thread, 1/3 psb cbet is MUCH more +EV than a mixed bet/check strategy with only a few coaching lessons with how to use PIO.
    I do plenty of non-standard plays like limp/3-bet a merged range, or bet almost every flop 1/2 pot against super-weak players who would call 1/3 pot.

    But I don’t confuse any 1 of these plays with some kind of unbeatable strategy. They all are tailor-designed to put my particular opponents in the most uncomfortable spots.

    And this strategy of yours doesn’t put me in any kind of tough spot. I’m facing your whole range at a cheap price in a small pot; who cares? You are known for making Turn overbets? Bring it on. The very notion that this is supposed to be difficult to play against is mass-delusion. That this is to be feared is just the current group-think in certain circles.

    In truth, It’s just another line.

Leave a Comment

BoldItalicStrikethroughOrdered listUnordered list
Emoji
Image
Align leftAlign centerAlign rightToggle HTML viewToggle full pageToggle lights
Drop image/file