Small Stakes Shorthanded NL Poker Forums

Just because you don't make a thin value bet this time doesn't mean villain will think you're incapable of thin value betting ever, or even if he does think you're incapable of thin value betting that you can't start thin value betting to take advantage of it later. The information you gain by seeing his turn calling range is going to be way more valuable than the information he gains by seeing you check back TPNK on the river, most regs wont even bother to notice or care what you're doing at SSNL to adjust.

You guys are seriously leveling yourselves and getting value towned vs. his calling range on that river.

definetly good reasons to checkback, no question.

I feel anyways that when you rly wanna be tough in this spot, you should make this thin val.bet and balance this with a reasonable Bluffrange.

In addition to this,
when you checkback, then not only you will have information.
Villain will also know that yu are not able to val.bet here thinnly on the river...

Your reasons to checkback are anyways good and make sense, so I definitely do not say, that it is bad to checkback here.

But to be very honest,
so a little surprise I am that this is not a val.bet for you.
Would you personal val.bet here?

Thx in advance,
Prologion^^

For me it is a super clear value bet once I bet the flop - but I'm playing something like 35% from the CO and apply a lot more pressure postflop than I would expect OP to do - my range for betting the flop is betting this turn close to 100%. On the river I'm not surprised if I get called by A-high - I rep a ton of bluffs on this river vs most of the players I play with on a regular basis.

Against a player who is calling with a tightish TAG range in the SB versus me I'm actually not c-betting the flop 100% with this hand!

I would in some types of game flow be concerned about balancing my checking range. Mostly when I'm checking a lot of flops and using a lot of delayed double barrels.

For me it is a super clear value bet once I bet the flop - but I'm playing something like 35% from the CO and apply a lot more pressure postflop than I would expect OP to do - my range for betting the flop is betting this turn close to 100%. On the river I'm not surprised if I get called by A-high - I rep a ton of bluffs on this river vs most of the players I play with on a regular basis.

Against a player who is calling with a tightish TAG range in the SB versus me I'm actually not c-betting the flop 100% with this hand!

I would in some types of game flow be concerned about balancing my checking range. Mostly when I'm checking a lot of flops and using a lot of delayed double barrels.

All right, thank you, I see


@DireStr88:

Imo you are leveling yourself a little bit, tbh:

"st because you don't make a thin value bet this time doesn't mean villain will think you're incapable of thin value betting ever, or even if he does think you're incapable of thin value betting that you can't start thin value betting to take advantage of it later"

The playerpool in SSNL is so big that such detailed adjustingstrategies are probably almost impossible (without leveling yourself).

But:
When I val.bet here thinnly always vs. solid REGs and I am ok-balanced with a reasnable Bluffingrange here, I feel protected.

Reason: I cant level myself and he cannot exploit me too much in tis spot b/c my Value/Bluffrange is more or less balanced -> in reality it is very likely that he will male longterm misstakes vs. me in this spot.

At least that is how I think about this in general (independent from this sot here)

All right, thank you, I see


@DireStr88:

Imo you are leveling yourself a little bit, tbh:

"st because you don't make a thin value bet this time doesn't mean villain will think you're incapable of thin value betting ever, or even if he does think you're incapable of thin value betting that you can't start thin value betting to take advantage of it later"

The playerpool in SSNL is so big that such detailed adjustingstrategies are probably almost impossible (without leveling yourself).

But:
When I val.bet here thinnly always vs. solid REGs and I am ok-balanced with a reasnable Bluffingrange here, I feel protected.

Reason: I cant level myself and he cannot exploit me too much in tis spot b/c my Value/Bluffrange is more or less balanced -> in reality it is very likely that he will male longterm misstakes vs. me in this spot.

At least that is how I think about this in general (independent from this sot here)

I think it's more important to consider the context than to consider the theory here, while Improva may have a point at HU or at high stakes I'm positive villains are calling stronger pre-flop and post-flop to the point where TPNK never gets called by worse and you're making a -EV bet in order to balance a bluffing range vs. villains who aren't exploiting you OOP anyway at these stakes. Villains just don't bother to have a wide CO cold calling range or play past fit/fold on the flop enough to be worried about any of this at SSNL. Defaulting to a check back is going to be way less variance, more informative and you can just re-adjust your value range after you check back the first time around compared to paying off vs. QJ+.

[...]I'm positive villains are calling stronger pre-flop and post-flop to the point where TPNK never gets called by worse [...]

So you should mutate into a 3-barrel-monkey, right?

So you should mutate into a 3-barrel-monkey, right?

No, because when fit/folders call the flop and call the turn OOP they're polarized between either top pair + or busted draw or maybe some weird middle pair hand that picked up a BDFD, however you should Cbet and 2barrel them relentlessly and check back marginal SD value like in the example. Think about how tight an SSNLer is playing OOP in the CO, it's probably AQo, AJ/To, KQo, suited broad ways, JJ-22 with a habit for either check/folding the flop with PPs or check/calling the flop with Mid PPs and then check/folding the turn with them and very little check/raise semi-bluffing or OOP floating.

Barrel, barrel check on a 2 tone board with TPNK is pretty standard vs opponents at these stakes, their range is strictly AJ/To, KQo, suited broad way and PPs with possibly AQo/JJ in their 3bet range (and I wouldn't count on it). They aren't using a well distributed calling range OOP in the SB vs the BTN let alone vs. the CO, so it's really likely his calling range doesn't have the hands you're looking to vbet in it.

Basically, you can't think about how you'd play in the SB as a good, balanced aggressive regular and then project that on to them at SSNL, because most of them are just nitty broad way /set miners OOP who actually bleed more by calling than they do by folding and only reduce their loss rate in the SB by raising an exploitable amount of hands when HU vs. passive multi-tabling BBs with their auto-fold buttons on. Like, if you just looked thru' the HEM files of a 100 something SSNL regs you'd vomit at how they play OOP because it's laughably unbalanced and incredibly predictable. In fact, I don't think I've ever come across an SSNL reg who wouldn't be better off just 3bet or folding their entire range in the SB with even a remotely competent hand reader in the CO or marginally aggressive squeezer in the BB instead of playing face up OOP or pretending they can play a wide range OOP vs an average 26% steal range in the CO and an aggro squeezer in the BB profitably.

It's just not practical FWIW, I mean you're talking about people who think it's a good idea to 3bet Axs and SCs when BTN vs. CO and auto-folding vs 50% steal ranges from the SB when they're in the BB and you think these guys are playing wide enough OOP for you to 3barrel?

these guys

This is your leak. It is should read this guy.

This is your leak. It is should read this guy.

This guy is just 1 member of those guys tho', villains aren't unique snow flakes at SSNL, if you take the time to go collect a large sample of HEM files, run filters and compile statistics you're going to see wide spread, exploitable trends in their game play based on the opponent modeling. As a default read, it's really accurate at 200NL and below. That's why I think the context of the stake and game is really important, the 6+ tabling regs are playing by rote here. At MSNL or HU I agree with you completely tho'.

This guy is just 1 member of those guys tho', villains aren't unique snow flakes at SSNL, if you take the time to go collect a large sample of HEM files, run filters and compile statistics you're going to see wide spread, exploitable trends in their game play based on the opponent modeling. As a default read, it's really accurate at 200NL and below. That's why I think the context of the stake and game is really important, the 6+ tabling regs are playing by rote here. At MSNL or HU I agree with you completely tho'.

No irony/offense intended, but I suggest taking one session with Improva - and you´ll quickly recognize how incredibly wide the horizon behind the garden fence of "default reads on NL200 and below" is.

No irony/offense intended, but I suggest taking one session with Improva - and you´ll quickly recognize how incredibly wide the horizon behind the garden fence of "default reads on NL200 and below" is.

I don't want to come off as a know it all, as I'm willing to listen to and learn from any one, but I've put in a lot of time and money going thru' PTR and HEM files and evaluating lines and compiling statistics at 50 thru' 200NL to know what I do. If you take a non-biased, empirical look at the stake you're playing, you'll see the regs don't really deviate from each other as much as you think they do. Try talking to the guys that do database analysis on PTR, Leak Finder or 2p2 and asking them if they're willing to share their data, believe me when you have that much information at your disposal you can do some incredibly accurate opponent modeling.

I wasn't really a math or computer based player myself, but the more time I've spent with the players who are and the more I've learned how to use the numbers and software from them, the more I've come to appreciate how much of an advantage it is over the "feel" BS everybody else preaches because they're mathematically inept. It's seriously not a coincidence that a lot of the best players in the game are either mathematically inclined or have close relationships to players who are IMO.

Back to the point, I'd just rather have a good, statistically generated, empirical read on your average SSNL reg before hand than go into the game blind folded or wait for a thousand hands to develop an individual read that's probably no different than the norm. Obviously you make adjustments as you go, but making broad generalizations against most of the SSNL regs isn't that ridiculous because any one who it doesn't apply to is either going bust or moving up real fast. Guys playing 9 tables at SSNL just don't surprise you that often.

If you were right, you could easily auto-pilot 20+ tables (because things like dynamics and gameflow are completely irrelevant) and literally print money, right? I dare to disagree with your approach.

You're taking it to a ridiculous extreme, just because I have more information about playing trends and player tendencies doesn't mean I don't have to think about board textures, ranges, equities or bother to pay attention and take notes, it just means I have a better understanding of individual situations and can make superior judgement calls with out history.

Dynamics and game flow are completely relevant, and I adjust my game play as necessary, the problem tho' with dynamics and game flow is that it's extremely difficult to quantify and only relevant over small samples regarding individual players that you've constructed an image against. Where you can determine ranges, aggression factors and bluffing frequencies on a street by street basis pretty damn well for a low stake, if you can actually data mine, evaluate statistics, analyze lines and understand what a number means in HEM and how to apply it correctly.

But whatever, people who don't understand math or haven't put in the time to actually compile a database and analyze other players away from the table are always going to be incredulous of numbers if it doesn't fit into their idea of their own telepathic, x-ray vision, Phil Ivey like gut instincts to put their opponent on an exact hand while playing.

I agree. Over a large enough sample many multitable regs will show up with more or less the same stats and they will for the most part play super straight forward.

There is only one problem - unless the stats are extreme they tell you nothing about how each player likes to contruct his range in a specific situation.

They do not tell you how a player reacts when he is put under pressure. In addition to that there are very few avg. situations in poker (that is why we need a large sample). Variance. And don't even get me started on the fact that we are not repeating the same experiment over and over again - but dealing with a moving target. The games evolve and players improve.

That said I do use stats - but only for basic decisions.

Yeah, it's definitely an imperfect science, but there are more extremes than people think in a SSNL ring game player's "style," it's exactly what makes them SSNL players instead of MSNL or higher players in the first place.

But whatever, people who don't understand math [...] are always going to be incredulous of numbers if it doesn't fit into their idea of their own telepathic, x-ray vision, Phil Ivey like gut instincts to put their opponent on an exact hand while playing.

Eventually you couldn´t resist, huh? Search for my posts around the forum here and you´ll see that I have a very little, still existent idea of math. But whatever ... I didn´t even say that you´re wrong / unsuccessful with your approach, just that you probably could do even better.