Pain Thresholds Part 2

Christian SotoChristian Soto RCP Coach Posts: 2,195 ✭✭✭✭
edited September 2015 in Live Poker Hands
Hey guys,

I want to reintroduce the concept of Pain Thresholds. I made a forum video before where I presented the concept, and what it entails. As expected, I got a little resistance since the actions required are not the norm. If you haven't watched the first one or want to re-watch here is the link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_3WZeXMjcm4

I asked Berkey to join me in a video discussion on an array of topics which will be released in 3 parts for our members starting next month. To end the discussion I asked him about pain thresholds and his answer was intriguing. I suggest you watch the video all the way through as the content is gold, especially midway.

[video]

*This piece won't be in the video series. I removed it, with no editing, and wanted to post here as soon as possible.
«1

Comments

  • Renato_LRenato_L Red Chipper Posts: 190
    good stuff. thanks Christian. Did I understand Matt correctly though, he's not necessarily advocating a TAG style, he's almost advocating a loosish "action" style?
  • Christian SotoChristian Soto RCP Coach Posts: 2,195 ✭✭✭✭
    Yeah you got it right. The style is not TAG-ish. Definitely we want to be giving action.
    The skill is in how you give this action. :-)
  • ChipXtractorChipXtractor Red Chipper Posts: 1,192 ✭✭✭✭
    Absolute Gold. Thank you Christian and Matt.
  • Christian SotoChristian Soto RCP Coach Posts: 2,195 ✭✭✭✭
    Absolute Gold. Thank you Christian and Matt.

    Thanks man!
  • berkey11berkey11 Red Chipper Posts: 17
    Hi Guy,

    Hope you enjoy the vid(s). I know what I spoke on in this vid may have come off as an attack against TAGs, but that certainly wasn't the point I was trying to convey. Fact is if you're good there is a ton of money to be made as a TAG, frankly that's true of any talented player who implements a winning strategy, regardless of style classifications. What I was trying to convey is that in order to be a factor in any of the big bet variations of poker, it's crucial that our aggression, specifically our bluff frequency, is high enough to keep our opponents uncomfortable. The way to ensure that is line work and bet manipulation. TAGs naturally don't adapt well under those conditions so that's why they got throw under the bus a bit.

    Anyway if there are any questions, video related or otherwise (poker/nonpoker related) I'd be happy to answer them here. Also I misspoke when directing to the 2+2 thread, it is DGAF and the link to the post I referenced is here:
    http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/117/m ... v-1167630/

    Best of luck
  • Doug HullDoug Hull RCP Coach Posts: 1,867 -
    Berkey,

    Glad to see you here. Really enjoyed the videos you and Soto have put out there.

    Soto and I talk a lot and the whole idea of game dynamic and generating action is super important. As my image and dynamic is evolving I am seeing the differences at the table.

    Last night, a nitty guy to my left pretty much started calling a lot of my pre-flop raises. He later floated me two streets with Ace high on a flopped King high dry board. I knew I could start value betting a lot wider than would be normal in TAG vs Nit situations.
    Co-founder Red Chip Poker,
    Author Poker Plays You Can Use
    Author Poker Workbook for Math Geeks
  • jeffncjeffnc Red Chipper Posts: 5,001 ✭✭✭✭✭
    OK, it seems to me the issue here is "how to teach TAGs to play a more profitable style".

    I'll assume TAG means a winning, solid TAG player. TAGs don't play tight because it's fun. Playing tight is boring. They play tight because winning is fun, and tight is how they know how to win. They understand the math of tight. But a TAG can understand and play anything that can be quantified, so that's really your challenge as teachers.

    TAGs don't really have a desire to "always have the best hand". They just have a desire for the math to come out right. If a TAG has to call an all-in bet on the turn for $20 into a $120 pot with a flush draw to the nuts, he will call every time, knowing that he's probably going to lose. They will always take AA at 33% in a 6 way pot (playability notwithstanding, as mentioned in the video.) TAGs play +EV for the situations they know and understand. If they should play in more situations, they simply need to understand how that's +EV for them. They don't need to "have the best of it" in this hand, as long as they understand how they're going to get the best of it in the long run. But they won't (and shouldn't) just start splashing around willy nilly.

    So if you want to change how a TAG plays, you basically have 2 options: quantify the effects you're talking about, or convince the TAG that it doesn't need to be quantified. The second will be more difficult, but if you can find a way, more power to you! :) Finding a way to quantify will be more convincing, assuming that is even possible.

    Example: $2/5 game after 4 limpers, raise KJo to $60. It's true that A) we're losing value by folding dominated hands. It's also true that B) we're going to pick up $27 a fair amount of the time and we're also gaining some value by folding some dominating hands. All you need to do is quantify for the TAG how B > A, including long term image when called, etc. etc. Not very easy to do though.

    So at the end of the day, you guys are essentially doing the same thing a TAG is doing - you're playing +EV poker. As you say, your "gambling" is "very calculated, of course", and "we're very much in control of our own decisions", and consciously making small mistakes "to gain EV" down the road. At the beginning of the video, similar language was used to constructively criticize typical TAG thought, but those quotes actually sound very much like TAG-speak if you think about it!

    So as you see the challenge isn't to change the way a TAG fundamentally thinks, the challenge is simply to expand the situations a TAG can understand to be +EV, and most likely this means finding a way to quantify those "gambling" spots. After all, you wouldn't play that way either if it wasn't +EV. The question is how you know it to be +EV - how to pick those spots. It's to quantify in some way "the fundamental misunderstanding of game flow, table dynamics and image".

    By the way, this is the process that "Poker Plays You Can Use" began, which is what originally drew me to this site.
  • jeffncjeffnc Red Chipper Posts: 5,001 ✭✭✭✭✭
    There is an interesting quote in that 2+2 link: "I’m only playing deepstacked structures now... it is correct/optimal to play TAG in 100 bb cap games imo".
  • berkey11berkey11 Red Chipper Posts: 17
    Doug Hull wrote:
    Berkey,

    Glad to see you here. Really enjoyed the videos you and Soto have put out there.

    Soto and I talk a lot and the whole idea of game dynamic and generating action is super important. As my image and dynamic is evolving I am seeing the differences at the table.

    Last night, a nitty guy to my left pretty much started calling a lot of my pre-flop raises. He later floated me two streets with Ace high on a flopped King high dry board. I knew I could start value betting a lot wider than would be normal in TAG vs Nit situations.

    Yes, this. It's a reactionary game, opponents have little choice but to adjust and it's something most are pretty terrible at.
  • Christian SotoChristian Soto RCP Coach Posts: 2,195 ✭✭✭✭
    jeffnc wrote:
    There is an interesting quote in that 2+2 link: "I’m only playing deepstacked structures now... it is correct/optimal to play TAG in 100 bb cap games imo".

    In shallow games it's more about playing correct pre-flop. Post-Flop becomes very simple.
  • persuadeopersuadeo Red Chipper Posts: 4,308 ✭✭✭✭✭
    As much as Christian has promoted this style, a style I border on in games where I am very comfortable, such as 2/5 and under, I'd like to see him employ it in one of his low stakes footage videos, where he has employed more standard betting decisions and we don't get to observe pain thresholds being tested. This would be very helpful.
  • jeffncjeffnc Red Chipper Posts: 5,001 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Part of the problem with lower stakes is that you don't get to determine the stack depth. Not only is there a cap on the buy in almost always, but you're playing against everyone else's stack even if you buy in for the max, or double up. Only occasionally will there be clashes between deep stacks.

    I'm actually kind of confused right now. I didn't realize a lot of these suggestions applied to deep stacks only. In my games, if you wanna give action it's gotta be 100BB deep and sometimes less.
  • Wiki_LeaksWiki_Leaks Red Chipper Posts: 564 ✭✭✭
    This video is amazing. Thanks for the video both christian and berkey.

    What ive come to realize is that in this context it doesnt necessarily matter what the other stacks are. Even if YOU just have piles of chips you can impliment these strategies and your table image impact becomes soo strong.

    sometimes ill just openly talk about how many backdoor draws ive hit in the past week or how many sets ive flushed out on recently. It legit affects peoples psyche. The best is when villains recollect how you sucked out on them in front of the whole table. People love to talk about how unlucky they are, but for my image its been better to do the opposite.
  • persuadeopersuadeo Red Chipper Posts: 4,308 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Wiki_Leaks wrote:
    sometimes ill just openly talk about how many backdoor draws ive hit in the past week or how many sets ive flushed out on recently.

    awesome... psychological ascendency ftw
  • berkey11berkey11 Red Chipper Posts: 17
    jeffnc wrote:
    There is an interesting quote in that 2+2 link: "I’m only playing deepstacked structures now... it is correct/optimal to play TAG in 100 bb cap games imo".
    This is absolutely true, the shallower the stacks the more simplified the spots. However, edges also greatly lessen and bottom lines flatten out.
  • berkey11berkey11 Red Chipper Posts: 17
    Sorry I've been slow to reply, I've opened it numerous times but haven't had time to sit down and formulate a reasonable response...

    Since Jeff wrote the better part of a thesis, I'll address his points first :)
  • Christian SotoChristian Soto RCP Coach Posts: 2,195 ✭✭✭✭
    persuadeo wrote:
    As much as Christian has promoted this style, a style I border on in games where I am very comfortable, such as 2/5 and under, I'd like to see him employ it in one of his low stakes footage videos, where he has employed more standard betting decisions and we don't get to observe pain thresholds being tested. This would be very helpful.

    It's a little tough with 100BB online, but when I used to stream we played a game where I was only able to open 4x or more preflop and bet POT or more Postflop.
    I can do that in a video again.
  • Christian SotoChristian Soto RCP Coach Posts: 2,195 ✭✭✭✭
    Wiki_Leaks wrote:
    This video is amazing. Thanks for the video both christian and berkey.

    Thanks! And No problem!
  • berkey11berkey11 Red Chipper Posts: 17
    Before I begin let me preface this by saying I really appreciate Jeff for challenging a concept rather than just assuming whatever I say must be correct. This is probably the most important aspect, aside from honest self critique, into becoming a world class pro. That being said allow me to defend my stance...
    I was going to quote portions of the post, but it bounces around too much. Bear with my length as I try to streamline this debate.

    So I think we've miscommunicated the point of the discussion right off the bat. There is no issue. Nothing needs fixing. The discussion centered around an earlier debate as to what is more important when choosing a raise size (example $2/$5 4 limps to button with :Ks:Jh . Standard $20-$30 raise or is $50-$100 better?):
    Allowing dominated hands to continue(emphasis on our card value) or applying max pressure on passive players(emphasis on position, image, field narrowing). Let's be very clear off the bat that stack sizes are incredibly important as depth provides maneuverability and thus card value becomes significantly less important. That being said, even if we are in a shallow, capped game where the emphasis should be on card value, opening to $20, $25, $30 or even $35 with KJo over a bunch of limps is simply a losing play. I'll pass this scenario off to Splitsuit as I have a lot of respect for his TAG, shallow style of play. Perhaps he can show me the light, but in my experience you're lighting that preflop raise on fire.

    Now to the reason this turned into a TAG vs LAG debate. Most of what Jeff was arguing was misguided in the sense that he stated the things TAGs do well, but the reality is those qualities lie within any winning player regardless of style. The big difference between TAG and LAG is image. Because the TAG is mostly inactive, his raises inherently hold more weight and thus his assumption is that his opponents threshold of pain is much lower than it really is. The LAG is extremely active and can do a funny thing to game flow. Through an image mirrored in gambling, his opponents' thresholds gradually increase in an attempt to keep up. You've all seen it happen in a much less calculated manner. A drunk sits down, doubles up quickly and now is completely changing the game. He's opening to $50 cold at $2/$5 and suddenly the game is playing much larger. Suddenly putting in $50 with 65s in order to tangle with this tipsy fool isn't as bad of a play as it would be otherwise. Reality: it's worse. As gamble increases skill and maneuverability decrease. Fit or fold becomes the new norm and suddenly 8 pros are sitting around hoping to be the benefactor of boozeyMcGee's inevitable misstep...
    Now what if you could play like the drunk, only calculated.

    I'm not calling for a death to TAGs or for everyone to fall off the wagon. But what I hoped to convey is that a lot of value is being left behind by playing standard and ignoring the multifaceted levels that come with live poker. It is a competition after all, challenge your opponents and pay attention to how they react.

    To all the TAGs understand that your strategy is heavily rooted in value and minimally rooted in bluffing. If you're aware of your image and perceive your opponents' thresholds to be lower against you than against others, bet according to their general threshold anyway. You'll earn more. Their calling frequency will hover around the same, but you'll be earning x% more where x = difference between what you thought was their threshold of pain and what was actually their THOP.

    Lastly I want to touch on the idea of quantifying everything. This is game theory 101, two plays are available and both have an EV. We can have a healthy debate without having to show our work throughEV calculations. Game theory would be impossible to study if we spent all our time trying to quantify every tiny edge, not to mention most calculations are rooted in estimations and/or assumptions. Understanding that there are multiple ways to play a scenario profitably will keep debates alive; choosing the proper line that applies to the specific strategy you've developed rather than what appears to be the most profitable play in a vacuum will be what definitively ends all debate.
  • jeffncjeffnc Red Chipper Posts: 5,001 ✭✭✭✭✭
    berkey11 wrote:
    Lastly I want to touch on the idea of quantifying everything. This is game theory 101, two plays are available and both have an EV. We can have a healthy debate without having to show our work throughEV calculations. Game theory would be impossible to study if we spent all our time trying to quantify every tiny edge, not to mention most calculations are rooted in estimations and/or assumptions.

    Thanks berkey! You also wrote a lot, so I'll reply/ask about different pieces over the next couple days. This looks like it could be a really good thread.

    With regard to quantifying everything, I 100% understand and agree with the above. What I was trying to say was not so much that everything should be quantified. What I was trying to say was what I believe to be a flaw of most TAGs.

    Think about it this way. This is approximate and not completely accurate, but it will do for now. Let's say there are roughly 2 types of decisions poker players make - A) those that are quantifiable, and B) those that are more based on "feel", or concept based, or loose theory (or whatever you want to call it), and require fuzzy assumptions. (For example, bluffing always requires a fuzzy guess related to fold equity, as opposed to the easily calculated odds of drawing to a flush.)

    I'm assuming some of the decisions in both groups will be +EV.

    TAGs tend to make the quantifiable-based decisions (A), LAGs tend to make all those (although sometimes with less rigor) as well as the looser, less quantifiable ones (B). The TAG is less comfortable with the group B decisions, and therefore chooses to fold them away rather than deal with the discomfort and the unknown.

    So part of the challenge (I submit) is to either somehow quantify group B (as I said, this might not even be possible), or to teach the TAG that not everything can/should be quantified, and get them out of their comfort zone and start playing situations even if you can't pin a % EV on it. I'm trying to get at why TAGs fold and how they think. They are definitely not folding for fun! They are folding because the situation is fuzzy and unknown given their current skill set, and probably unquantifiable. Life's tough TAGs, deal with it.... but, here's how....
  • jeffncjeffnc Red Chipper Posts: 5,001 ✭✭✭✭✭
    jeffnc wrote:
    So part of the challenge (I submit) is to either somehow quantify group B (as I said, this might not even be possible), or to teach the TAG that not everything can/should be quantified, and get them out of their comfort zone and start playing situations even if you can't pin a % EV on it.

    I mean an exact EV. Most TAGs still will think essentially "quantifiably" as opposed to loose "feel". A good example is bluffing. All players know bluffs work some percentage of the time, but no one knows exactly how often, and with what varying bet sizes. This is as opposed to the cold, hard numbers of a flush draw. It's usually enough to say "betting half the pot, this bluff only needs to work 1/3 of the time to break even, and villain will definitely fold more than that in this spot", even if we don't know the real numbers. So to teach the concepts of game flow, table dynamics and image, you will probably need to explain in some way the value of those things, and the cost of achieving them.
  • jeffncjeffnc Red Chipper Posts: 5,001 ✭✭✭✭✭
    berkey11 wrote:
    The discussion centered around an earlier debate as to what is more important when choosing a raise size (example $2/$5 4 limps to button with :Ks:Jh . Standard $20-$30 raise or is $50-$100 better?):
    Allowing dominated hands to continue(emphasis on our card value) or applying max pressure on passive players(emphasis on position, image, field narrowing). Let's be very clear off the bat that stack sizes are incredibly important as depth provides maneuverability and thus card value becomes significantly less important.

    This is pretty important information. As far as I know, this thread is the first time this has been mentioned. Here's the original post
    viewtopic.php?f=10&t=1271

    No mention of effective stack sizes anywhere, and incredibly, as far as I can tell, none of us asked either! Shame on us I guess. But getting back to the point, I really had no idea 100BB was considered short stacked in the context of this discussion.

    So let me make sure I understand. You're talking about a pretty broad topic here, which is basically turning a TAG into a good LAG. Are you saying the overall strategy you're recommending, i.e. looser play based on table dynamics, image, etc is based upon having certain minimum effective stacks, and if so, about what stack sizes are we talking about?
  • jeffncjeffnc Red Chipper Posts: 5,001 ✭✭✭✭✭
    berkey11 wrote:
    But what I hoped to convey is that a lot of value is being left behind by playing standard and ignoring the multifaceted levels that come with live poker.

    Oh, I believe that big time. I know because I used to be a STAG (and frankly I'm barely out of the woods now, but at least I'm moving in the right direction!) I used to play in a wild, gambly, boozy 2/5 game that played huge. I watched the crazy players throw chips around with abandon, while I waited patiently for aces and sets. But, I was frustrated and unsatisfied with winnings that seemed smaller than the losses of the bad players (I think too much of their money was going to the other bad players who just happened to be lucky that particular night). After awhile I left almost every night with the vague feeling that I was leaving a lot of money on the table. I just couldn't figure out how to get to it without opening myself up to the same bad play.

    I knew the basic math, but I wanted to know the less tangible stuff.
  • berkey11berkey11 Red Chipper Posts: 17
    I truly regret using TAG as a qualifier for this topic. Fact is very few players are truly TAG. Splitsuit is TAG, Soto when I first met him was a TAG. They are strong knowledgable players who have a crisp strategy that involve picking very selective high equity spots. The group I was referencing under my labeling of a TAG was the masses. The tight is right, stay out of trouble, I'm not here to gamble crew. They make up the masses, the group that are breakeven to slight winners.
    jeffnc wrote:
    So part of the challenge (I submit) is to either somehow quantify group B (as I said, this might not even be possible), or to teach the TAG that not everything can/should be quantified, and get them out of their comfort zone and start playing situations even if you can't pin a % EV on it.

    I mean an exact EV. Most TAGs still will think essentially "quantifiably" as opposed to loose "feel". A good example is bluffing. All players know bluffs work some percentage of the time, but no one knows exactly how often, and with what varying bet sizes. This is as opposed to the cold, hard numbers of a flush draw. It's usually enough to say "betting half the pot, this bluff only needs to work 1/3 of the time to break even, and villain will definitely fold more than that in this spot", even if we don't know the real numbers. So to teach the concepts of game flow, table dynamics and image, you will probably need to explain in some way the value of those things, and the cost of achieving them.

    Jeff really made this point shine through to me by continually using direct EV situations, i.e. calculating proper price to draw, vs abstract EV spots such as determining fold equity when bluffing. The difference between these spots isn't that one is more quantifiable than the other, it's that one is more easily quantified. The players referenced above are simply level 1 thinkers, they understand the mechanics of the game but haven't aquired the knowledge/skill to go beyond their card value.

    As you grow as a player you solve more concepts. Fold equity is an absolutely quantifiable estimation. Easy example: Sb opens 2.25x, we're in the bb with 10bbs and want to estimate our fold equity with a shove. Assuming the opener calls correctly, we know the pot will be laying him ~1.4-1 on a call. Therefore, he should be calling w/a range that is about a 3-2 dog against our shove range. Once we determine his range we can then determine how often we're getting called (i.e. what % of his opening range is calling), then according the price we're laying by shoving we can bluff appropriately. These calculations can get a bit sticky, but fortunately/unfortunately these spots have been solved by the online gurus out there. http://www.pushfoldcharts.com/fullring/

    Using tools like nash push/fold charts, cardrunners EV calculator, Pokerstove, etc. it becomes feasible to run the quantifiable equity for each decision along the decision tree. The bigger point I was trying to make is that it's more important to understand how each decision effects our overall strategy rather than trying to make the optimal decision each step along the way. So giving up a little by making a slightly negative EV call pre in order to out play someone post needs to be a part of your overall strategy in order to justify, thus the skill must be there. Just as conversely, consciously deciding to only make +EV plays needs to be the embodyment of a level 1, ABC strategy.
  • SplitSuitSplitSuit RCP Coach Posts: 4,069 -
    berkey11 wrote:
    I'll pass this scenario off to Splitsuit as I have a lot of respect for his TAG, shallow style of play. Perhaps he can show me the light, but in my experience you're lighting that preflop raise on fire.

    Thanks a lot Berk...that's a huge compliment coming from you. And I agree that raising to just 5-7bb there is terrible and creates a terrible situation...
    📑 Grab my custom poker spreadsheet pack right now.
    📘 Start the Preflop & Math Poker Workbook today.
  • berkey11berkey11 Red Chipper Posts: 17
    Renato_L wrote:
    good stuff. thanks Christian. Did I understand Matt correctly though, he's not necessarily advocating a TAG style, he's almost advocating a loosish "action" style?

    I personally think it's the toughest style to play and to play against. I think giving action is good business. Game selection becomes less important and opportunities present themselves as people enjoy having an action catalyst in a game. It's just very difficult to walk that fine line between calculated spew and fish.
  • jeffncjeffnc Red Chipper Posts: 5,001 ✭✭✭✭✭
    berkey11 wrote:
    So giving up a little by making a slightly negative EV call pre in order to out play someone post needs to be a part of your overall strategy in order to justify, thus the skill must be there. Just as conversely, consciously deciding to only make +EV plays needs to be the embodyment of a level 1, ABC strategy.

    Yeah, there are different levels. First level would be current street decision making only.

    Next is multi-street. Give up some EV preflop to hopefully get some postflop. Or postflop, do the pot odds and implied odds together make it profitable? Some TAGs are good at pot odds, have a harder time with estimating implied odds.

    I think it was Ed Miller who drove home this point for me several years ago in some article. For example you have 87s on the button and a UTG player raises. Maybe there's one caller. You cannot really call this hand based on value alone. To call, you have to know you can win the pot postflop by floating/bluffing/whatever some percentage of the time.

    I would call these "intra-hand" decisions. Level 2 crosses streets, but not hands.

    The next level is "inter-hand" decisions. I think these are the ones that most TAGs have the most trouble with, and as a teacher are probably the most difficult to teach. This is where table dynamics and image come into play, concepts that many TAGs have a harder time with - harder to quantify. In other words, to what extent does a losing overall play on this hand improve my botton line for the rest of this session?
  • berkey11berkey11 Red Chipper Posts: 17
    persuadeo wrote:
    As much as Christian has promoted this style, a style I border on in games where I am very comfortable, such as 2/5 and under, I'd like to see him employ it in one of his low stakes footage videos, where he has employed more standard betting decisions and we don't get to observe pain thresholds being tested. This would be very helpful.

    Very doable the lower the cap the sooner we reach the pain threshold in the decision tree. So in small stakes 100bb cap, we'd attempt to put our opponent to a decision for his stack either pre or on the flop. The nuts and bolts of it, take action that range narrows and once we find a capped range, exploit.
  • berkey11berkey11 Red Chipper Posts: 17
    jeffnc wrote:
    berkey11 wrote:
    So giving up a little by making a slightly negative EV call pre in order to out play someone post needs to be a part of your overall strategy in order to justify, thus the skill must be there. Just as conversely, consciously deciding to only make +EV plays needs to be the embodyment of a level 1, ABC strategy.

    Yeah, there are different levels. First level would be current street decision making only.

    Next is multi-street. Give up some EV preflop to hopefully get some postflop. Or postflop, do the pot odds and implied odds together make it profitable? Some TAGs are good at pot odds, have a harder time with estimating implied odds.

    I think it was Ed Miller who drove home this point for me several years ago in some article. For example you have 87s on the button and a UTG player raises. Maybe there's one caller. You cannot really call this hand based on value alone. To call, you have to know you can win the pot postflop by floating/bluffing/whatever some percentage of the time.

    I would call these "intra-hand" decisions. Level 2 crosses streets, but not hands.

    The next level is "inter-hand" decisions. I think these are the ones that most TAGs have the most trouble with, and as a teacher are probably the most difficult to teach. This is where table dynamics and image come into play, concepts that many TAGs have a harder time with - harder to quantify. In other words, to what extent does a losing overall play on this hand improve my botton line for the rest of this session?

    I think those are all just phases of thought that will move a level 1 thinker to a level 2 thinker. The separation is the need for card value to win. Ed's point in that scenario is that if you're on level 1 you need to have highly equitable hands, since high card value and one pair value of 87s is very weak it'll be difficult for a level 1 player to avoid reverse implied situations. Level 2 of this hand would be to squeeze or fold as now our focus shifts from card value to spot value, i.e. positional advantage + card value. Becoming a good post flop player requires not only a lot of experience but a multitude of levels of thought. You truly have to be fully emerged down the rabbit hole, where as the vast vast vast majority of players are merely peering into the darkness from the safe ground of the surface...
    It's why MTTs are sooooooooooo popular; Level 1, 2, and 3 players can win a lot if they can withstand the variance.
  • berkey11berkey11 Red Chipper Posts: 17
    SplitSuit wrote:
    berkey11 wrote:
    I'll pass this scenario off to Splitsuit as I have a lot of respect for his TAG, shallow style of play. Perhaps he can show me the light, but in my experience you're lighting that preflop raise on fire.

    Thanks a lot Berk...that's a huge compliment coming from you. And I agree that raising to just 5-7bb there is terrible and creates a terrible situation...

    Interested to hear your thoughts, particularly given that we have such complete polar opposite styles

Leave a Comment

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