Change the way you play

John ValentineJohn Valentine Red Chipper Posts: 48 ✭✭
edited August 28 in General Concepts
I haven't done this, but I have considered it. You win a large pot, double up or more. The cards seem to be coming your way. Do you change the way you are playing?. Expand your range at all positions. I'm not saying that you go from a tag type player to a lag player. Just do you take a few chances when OOP? Or such.

Comments

  • NinjahNinjah Red Chipper Posts: 1,136 ✭✭✭✭
    Leaving range construction without a valid reason (such as exploiting a tendency of another player) is an easy way to light money on fire.
  • CrodigglyCrodiggly SF Bay AreaRed Chipper Posts: 27 ✭✭
    What would be the theory behind doing that? You shouldn't treat your current stack as a your scorecard for the day. Those chips can leave just as fast as they showed up.

    You could make an argument for changing ranges given your deeper stack, assuming the other stacks at the table are also bigger. Your 400BB strategy should be different from your 100BB strategy, etc. But if you're making changes because "the cards seem to be coming your way," you're in dangerous territory.
  • TheGameKatTheGameKat Posts: 2,402 -
    There are some superstitious opponents who will notice someone is winning and decide not to get into pots with them, but using that possibility as the basis of a strategy adjustment strikes me as mostly an opportunity to level yourself into a mistake.
    Moderation In Moderation
  • persuadeopersuadeo Red Chipper, Table Captain Posts: 4,095 ✭✭✭✭✭
    To play the other side, all sorts of coaches and players and mental game folks think you should play more when you are winning and less when you are losing, as you are more likely to be making sharper decisions and be at your best. It's not a stretch to go from that to playing more hands; in fact it pretty much logically flows from there, if you accept the premise.
  • John ValentineJohn Valentine Red Chipper Posts: 48 ✭✭
    Ok. I know some of my questions may seem foolish, but I'm trying to learn. And who else do I ask?
  • blindraiseblindraise Red Chipper Posts: 210 ✭✭
    You can do whatever you want. If you want to stick to a suggested range, good on you. If you wanna include 72o in your range, hey more power to you. You will learn through experience what you can and cant do, and you'll be the sole judge of most your experiences.
  • jeffncjeffnc Red Chipper Posts: 4,749 ✭✭✭✭✭
    blindraise wrote: »
    YYou will learn through experience what you can and cant do, and you'll be the sole judge of most your experiences.

    I think it's a mixed bag - you can learn some things, and other things - well the scenario and number of hands you'll play are small enough that you probably can't learn all you need. Just like you can't really learn to play blackjack by simply playing - it required the simulations on computer to quantify it.

    It's true that you'll be the sole judge of most of your experiences though.

  • TheGameKatTheGameKat Posts: 2,402 -
    blindraise wrote: »
    You can do whatever you want. If you want to stick to a suggested range, good on you. If you wanna include 72o in your range, hey more power to you. You will learn through experience what you can and cant do, and you'll be the sole judge of most your experiences.

    Hmmm. Part of the philosophy of RCP is that we help people learn from the experience of others, thereby saving time and money. I guess it's one of those journey versus destination things.
    Moderation In Moderation
  • jeffncjeffnc Red Chipper Posts: 4,749 ✭✭✭✭✭
    I think strategy changes, if any, will be dictated more by how you are perceived (usually irrationally) by your opponents, rather than by anything supported by the math. You may well find some people folding more to you, since you're "running good". Or you may find some people playing looser, to have a chance at your stack. I once played with a guy who would often fold if one or two players limped to him, but if someone raised, he would then call (with the exact same cards). He just "smelled blood", meaning the pot was big enough to interest him now, even with weak cards.
  • blindraiseblindraise Red Chipper Posts: 210 ✭✭
    jeffnc wrote: »
    I think it's a mixed bag - you can learn some things, and other things - well the scenario and number of hands you'll play are small enough that you probably can't learn all you need. Just like you can't really learn to play blackjack by simply playing - it required the simulations on computer to quantify it.

    It's true that you'll be the sole judge of most of your experiences though.

    If you're trying to play mathematically sound then the answer to this question is simply "no," but I've seen guys go on heaters because of their momentum (other players perceptions, as you noted).

    Nobody wants to play against the guy who "always wins."

    In can be in these moments you learn precisely what (not) to do.

    That said, its usually best to stick to lessons learned from others.

    But blindly following advice can bring about complacency; how does the game progress if everybody remains in line?
  • jeffncjeffnc Red Chipper Posts: 4,749 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited August 29
    Well that wasn't what I meant exactly. I guess we're closer to GTO solutions than we were a couple years ago, even if not there yet. Even then, a GTO solution is not the same as an O solution if you know what I mean. It's a lot easier with a game of blackjack because you're not really playing against a person with a dynamic strategy - you're simply playing against a strict play chart (you're the only one with choices, not the dealer). So it's easy to show the correct strategy in blackjack with a computer simulation. (The reason there are different card counting strategies is for ease of human play, not because a computer couldn't figure out the optimal strategy.)

    So we can't really do the same thing with poker, but by combining all our shared wisdom and experience, we can come pretty close. This isn't the same thing as "blindly following advice", or "everybody remaining in line".
  • TheGrindersCookbookTheGrindersCookbook Merrimack, NHRed Chipper Posts: 79 ✭✭
    If I am understanding what you are asking correctly, I think my personal experience has been that my range gets a little wider when I am winning and I am more inclined to call in marginal spots that I would not necessarily do if I was losing. I am not talking about going bananas here, but if I am losing, I will probably let 77 go to a 3-bet from a TAG. However, if I am winning, I just may call in this spot. Obviously this isn't a science, it is just an example.
  • jeffncjeffnc Red Chipper Posts: 4,749 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Considering the fact that none of really know if we're playing optimally or not, then making small changes won't change our bottom line, as far as we know. If we're making changes that we really think are -EV then that's a different thing. But I doubt we can know if going from playing 19% of hands to 21% of hands is going to change anything for better or worse, all else being equal.
  • blindraiseblindraise Red Chipper Posts: 210 ✭✭
    couldnt have said better^
  • EazzyEazzy Red Chipper Posts: 970 ✭✭✭✭
    Bart Hanson used to talk about tightening up you c bets when things have been going wrong.

    He argues that players see you as unlocky. And thus call lighter.

    He likes to score his image from 1 to 10...and score tne flop from 1 to 10....if the two numbers dont add to 10 or better he does not cbet...

Leave a Comment

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