Small Stakes Shorthanded NL Poker Forums

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U39kfgjuie4

http://youtu.be/XSDi6Ii7Fg4

also EV can't be evaluated in a vacuum. There will always bet a set of assumptions associated with the EV of any line. Balanced range is 0 EV. Breaking even is generally not the goal of most poker players.

balancing your actual range is useless most of the times since villain can't see your cards.

I agree with this but

Balanced range is 0 EV.

this is not true at all. Like when we're betting the river, it means the EV of our opponent will be 0, which means our EV is the EV of the pot. And by using better betsizes we can have more combos in our betting range and thus increasing our EV, while if our opponent is balanced in the reversed spot and uses a worse betsizing our EV on a call is 0 but he has to check more often as a result of poor betsizing and we thus gain a considerable edge.

If villain bets 100% of his air every time you check, then check/raising is clearly EV > than continuation betting, but it's not justification for replacing continuation betting with check raising as a standard play because the opponent can adust, take advantage of his position and check-back to realize his equity and pot-control. You can't play the highest EV game by trying to maximize the EV of every hand you play individually, it's not sustainable.
.

If you expect the opponent to start adjusting by checking back, then you can start cbetting. If you expect him to give your cbets less credit after seeing you check a good hand, then next time check your air to bluff turn and river if he checks back, and cbet your good hands.

this is not true at all. Like when we're betting the river, it means the EV of our opponent will be 0, which means our EV is the EV of the pot. And by using better betsizes we can have more combos in our betting range and thus increasing our EV, while if our opponent is balanced in the reversed spot and uses a worse betsizing our EV on a call is 0 but he has to check more often as a result of poor betsizing and we thus gain a considerable edge.

True 0EV for villain to call does not mean it's 0EV for us to bet. But this just means we optimize our range better than villain.

also EV can't be evaluated in a vacuum. There will always bet a set of assumptions associated with the EV of any line. Balanced range is 0 EV. Breaking even is generally not the goal of most poker players.

It is true that EV is always based on assumptions. It is not true that balanced strategy leads to 0 EV for your range.

What is he going to do about it next time you check as pfr? he's auto going to c/f because you can call him with TP? If assumption changes EV of your line also changes. Many things can cause assumptions to change including our perceived range to the villain.

The point I'm trying to make is there is no right or wrong plays in a vacuum. There's only EV and assumptions so the only reason to not take a certain line is that the assumptions that make this particular line highest EV is not true.

also EV can't be evaluated in a vacuum. There will always bet a set of assumptions associated with the EV of any line. Balanced range is 0 EV. Breaking even is generally not the goal of most poker players.

I think you are missing something very important here and I'm not only talking about that playing a perfectly balanced game most certainly can be +EV.

Here is the thing: If you find that your opponent regularly makes a certain big mistake, you want two things:
1. Take as much advantage of that mistake as possible.
2. Let your opponent keep making the mistake.
These two goals are usually in conflict with each other! If you try to maximally exploit your opponents mistake, it will often become very obvious to your opponent that he makes a big mistake and he will adjust. (Sure, he might sometimes overadjust, but you can't count on that. Especially not if his original mistake was a big one.)

For instance, say that your opponent is cbetting 100% of all flops. Now, you could surely make money here by just raising/floating with a normal (balanced) frequency. You could however make even more money by starting to raise/float more frequently. If however, you start to really brutally pound on his cbets, he will for sure adjust and start cbetting less frequently, maybe something like 70%. That is a very bad result for us, though we may have earned a little extra EV on a hand or two.

So, our optimal frequency for raising/floating flops against this opponent is probably somewhere between a balanced and a maximally exploitive frequency.

I think you are missing something very important here and I'm not only talking about that playing a perfectly balanced game most certainly can be +EV.

Here is the thing: If you find that your opponent regularly makes a certain big mistake, you want two things:
1. Take as much advantage of that mistake as possible.
2. Let your opponent keep making the mistake.
These two goals are usually in conflict with each other! If you try to maximally exploit your opponents mistake, it will often become very obvious to your opponent that he makes a big mistake and he will adjust. (Sure, he might sometimes overadjust, but you can't count on that. Especially not if his original mistake was a big one.)

For instance, say that your opponent is cbetting 100% of all flops. Now, you could surely make money here by just raising/floating with a normal (balanced) frequency. You could however make even more money by starting to raise/float more frequently. If however, you start to really brutally pound on his cbets, he will for sure adjust and start cbetting less frequently, maybe something like 70%. That is a very bad result for us, though we may have earned a little extra EV on a hand or two.

So, our optimal frequency for raising/floating flops against this opponent is probably somewhere between a balanced and a maximally exploitive frequency.

I think this is a common misconception that if you exploit someone too much they will adjust then you can't exploit them anymore. The people we are exploiting are usually not the best players at whatever stake that we play so...

1. You can't assume villain will automatically make the correct adjustment. How do you know someone won't adjust badly and make the spot higher EV for you than before? Example, you 3 bet someone who folds a lot now they adjust to calling then playing fit or fold postflop. Mistake is bigger and you should 3 bet even more often now.

2. Even if villain adjust correct most of the times they will just weaken another part of their range so as long as we can adjust there's usually a new spot to attack.

I think there's just no reason to pass up +EV spots for a maybe. People change sites/stakes and their games also change so that same spot will not be there forever for us to exploit anyways.

Really good villains will be able to adjust properly but those are probably the best players at the game so then we shouldn't be worried about trying to make money off them.

Feel free to disagree with this as lots of people do but seems to be working for me. On the balance thing Improva is probably right, he has very deep understanding of poker and I think will about it more.

I think the word "balance/d" can be quite subjective.

I think this is a common misconception that if you exploit someone too much they will adjust then you can't exploit them anymore. The people we are exploiting are usually not the best players at whatever stake that we play so...

1. You can't assume villain will automatically make the correct adjustment. How do you know someone won't adjust badly and make the spot higher EV for you than before? Example, you 3 bet someone who folds a lot now they adjust to calling then playing fit or fold postflop. Mistake is bigger and you should 3 bet even more often now.

2. Even if villain adjust correct most of the times they will just weaken another part of their range so as long as we can adjust there's usually a new spot to attack.

I think there's just no reason to pass up +EV spots for a maybe. People change sites/stakes and their games also change so that same spot will not be there forever for us to exploit anyways.

Really good villains will be able to adjust property but those are probably the best players at the game so then we shouldn't be worried about trying to make money off them.

Feel free to disagree with this as lots of people do but seems to be working for me. On the balance thing Improva is probably right, he has very deep understanding of poker and I think will about it more.

Yes, you do have a point. I certainly agree with point 1, that sometimes villains will adjust badly, replacing one mistake with another. I don't really agree with point 2, that a correctly adjusting villain will necessarily open up new spots that are vulnerable to attack. Well, ... maybe some opponents are better to abuse heavily, since they are likely to adjust in bad ways, while some are best to take advantage of more discreetly, letting them donkishly plod along their beaten track of fail.

Regarding the +EV from balanced play, I think it is very easy to find a clear and simple example: Just think of a short-stacked push-or-fold preflop game. If you push with a completely balanced (game theory optimal) range, you will make money anytime villain deviates from a balanced calling range. You will not be 0EV against a bad opponent who calls to much or too little, you will be +EV. If you find out what your opponents tendencies are, you could be even more +EV by adjusting.

I think there's just no reason to pass up +EV spots for a maybe. People change sites/stakes and their games also change so that same spot will not be there forever for us to exploit anyways.


.

The above seems to be contradictory to what you wrote in the range construction thread the other day:

"If we optimize the EV of our individual hands we will naturally achieve the highest EV for our range and this is what we want to do f possible. This is not possible vs every player however. We must also manipulate our perceived range so it does not match our actual range . Sometimes we must take lower EV line with some hands in our range in order to optmize the EV of our entire range. In a way optimize the EV of each hand is an ideal scenario. For example, vs fish we should bet big with good hands and small as a bluff which optmize EV of individual hands to achieve max EV for our range. Vs aware opponents since we can't let our actual range match our perceived range or they'd read us perfectly, so we can't play each hand differently. We sometimes must sacrifice EV on some hands in order to optimize EV of our range by playing the range of hands the same way."

Can you reconcile these/clarify your position?

following

The above seems to be contradictory to what you wrote in the range construction thread the other day:

"If we optimize the EV of our individual hands we will naturally achieve the highest EV for our range and this is what we want to do f possible. This is not possible vs every player however. We must also manipulate our perceived range so it does not match our actual range . Sometimes we must take lower EV line with some hands in our range in order to optmize the EV of our entire range. In a way optimize the EV of each hand is an ideal scenario. For example, vs fish we should bet big with good hands and small as a bluff which optmize EV of individual hands to achieve max EV for our range. Vs aware opponents since we can't let our actual range match our perceived range or they'd read us perfectly, so we can't play each hand differently. We sometimes must sacrifice EV on some hands in order to optimize EV of our range by playing the range of hands the same way."

Can you reconcile these/clarify your position?

When I say passing up +EV spots I'm talking range most of the times instead of hands. Optimizing the EV of each hand is an ideal scenario only which we can only get close to but not get there exactly. For example, even if someone folds to 3 bet too much so we can auto profit we still have a 3 betting range when we 3 bet them, sometimes that range may include 100% of hands but it doesn't mean it always will.

When I say passing up +EV spots I'm talking range most of the times instead of hands. Optimizing the EV of each hand is an ideal scenario only which we can only get close to but not get there exactly.

yeah but how can you pass up +EV spots with your range without passing them up with hands?

yeah but how can you pass up +EV spots with your range without passing them up with hands?

you can't since hands are part of a range. our range can change to include different hands. We sometimes pass some EV of individual hands in order to optimize the EV of our range but not the other way around.