General Poker Discussion Poker Forums

Thanks for the chat. A beer sounds good, imo.

Cliff notes: They became me well.

A little of everything

Time for a beer or two.

Excellent, Oliver (as usual); thanks for sharing.

Cool! Gonna check it out asap

Improva. I can't imagine why you do this. But I'm glad you do.

Improva. I can't imagine why you do this. But I'm glad you do.

Because I think it might help some of you guys .. and because I enjoy it

Thanks for the chat. A beer sounds good, imo.

ahm aha ahm ahm ahm aha ahm right ahm ahm ahm ahm ahm yeh aha aha mkay ahm ahm ahm

I told you in a PM a week or so ago, and I'm gonna tell you here again publicly. Your contributions to the DC community are outstanding. The discussion from yesterday was, just as all the others you posted, well worth the money.

Oh wait!

You did that for free???

After posting this I'll head over to the podcast forums and link Bart to this thread. I'd really love to hear the 2 of you guys talking some poker.

Also, If you ever do one of these again, I'd be super happy to be one of your "guests". I'm a pig that is experimenting with the occasional line of coke for a while now, and that stuff gets you really addicted after some time.

improva 4 Prez!

Your contributions to the DC community are outstanding. The discussion from yesterday was, just as all the others you posted, well worth the money.

Oh wait!

You did that for free???

After posting this I'll head over to the podcast forums and link Bart to this thread. I'd really love to hear the 2 of you guys talking some poker.

+1

Really great stuff Oliver, once again . Thank you x 1M

Thanks very much indeed Oliver.

As usual, solid gold.

Thanks for putting this up.

I love listening to you dissecting opponents and responding to their behaviour so elegantly.

I tried to record a video for the members videos section last week and it quickly became apparent to me that I have a real problem in identifying a range and responding accordingly. Probably explains why my redline is descending into the 7th circle of hell!

It's something I shall be working carefully on over the next few months.

This thread is full of win!

Thx improva.

Oliver,
After listening to this most recent recording again, I have some questions about what to do AFTER applying the concepts. When we find ourselves up against a player who has caught us ch/R as a bluff and he is now calling us down light, what kind of adjustments are we to make in our pre flop, flop, and post flop decision making. How does position effect our decisions?

For instance, We are up against someone who we know is now calling us down light but who continues to open too much from the button and c-bets too many flops. Can we still profitably call with 76s or A4s from the BB vs their BTN raise, or does 3 betting (or folding) become the more profitable play? If the flop is something like 952tt (with 76s)or K52r (with A4s), I would assume ch/R becomes much LESS profitable since we have LESS fold equity. If you think it can be profitable, what is our plan for a blank turn? How do we prevent from spewing chips to a hand like 77/65 that is going to bluff catch light? Should we be limiting our PF calling range to big cards like KQ?

Now what if we are the PF aggressor and IP. We are on the button with the "sheriff" in the blinds. We raise PF with 76s and get a call from the BB. the flop is KQ8r. Does c-betting/barreling make sense here? Is there any line besides ch/F that can be profitable knowing villain will call us down light? Would you ever bet/ch/bet to get him off hands like 77?

What I'm getting to here is this: Our overall strategy by increasing our bluffing frequency is not only to steal pots, but also to get called more often by weaker hands in the future. This is only helpful when we have a hand that beats villain's bluff catching range (since there is no longer as much fold equity). Since it's so hard to hit a strong hand, what is our plan for the time between getting looked up light and hitting the monster hand that stacks the bluff catcher? Are there techniques to make this period less costly? Should we tighten up PF, decrease our c-betting %, only play hands IP and pot control the flop and/or turn? Are there boards that will still be profitable to play more aggressively with less than a top-pair hand, simply because the villain can't take the heat with the majority of his bluff catching range?

This may or may not be something with a clear "answer" but I'd love to have a discussion about it in the future.

Thanks,
Ben

Oliver,
After listening to this most recent recording again, I have some questions about what to do AFTER applying the concepts. When we find ourselves up against a player who has caught us ch/R as a bluff and he is now calling us down light, what kind of adjustments are we to make in our pre flop, flop, and post flop decision making. How does position effect our decisions?

You could start to expand your value range.

You could start to expand your value range.

ok, so since he's calling down with weaker holdings, we can value bet weaker holdings. That's simple enough. For some reason I thought this was more complex-the only complicated thing is deducing how wide to expand your range and how to extract the most value vs his range. Let me see if I have this down: we might begin ch/R KQ on K72 or even AJ on KJ3 because he is likely going to call with a hand like a middle pocket pair more often. If we are IP, we can barrel with a hand like 99 on KQ2 because we have equity against his bluff catching range. Since we are widening our value betting range, we also need to tighten our bluff range. This would mean NOT semi-bluffing draws with no SD value as often and possibly not c-betting with some of our pure air hands on boards he is likely to continue to showdown with his bluff catching hands (Q72/K95 etc). We should still be able to cbet air on a board like 972 though, correct? Since he's not peeling with as wide of a range (as discussed in the vid). Therefore implied odds hands like suited connectors/gappers and very small pocket pairs likely lose some value, while med/high pocket pairs and high cards gain value since they are most likely to be ahead of his bluff catching range at showdown.

Should we expect a thinking villain to be tightening his pre-flop range against us since we are playing back so often? Does this further influence our range or choices post flop?

Do I have this correct?

ok, so since he's calling down with weaker holdings, we can value bet weaker holdings. That's simple enough. For some reason I thought this was more complex-the only complicated thing is deducing how wide to expand your range and how to extract the most value vs his range. Let me see if I have this down: we might begin ch/R KQ on K72 or even AJ on KJ3 because he is likely going to call with a hand like a middle pocket pair more often.

AJ on KJ3 is going too far. Then you are bluffing too much. You should not bluff _every_ time you can. You should do it when the time is right - which is more often that you used to think, but not every possible time.
It is not that much different from 3-bet bluffing.

It is a huge huge huge leak to play fixed ranges; which is another way of saying - always doing the same thing with a hand ignoring villain's range and game dynamic.

If we are IP, we can barrel with a hand like 99 on KQ2 because we have equity against his bluff catching range. Since we are widening our value betting range, we also need to tighten our bluff range. This would mean NOT semi-bluffing draws with no SD value as often and possibly not c-betting with some of our pure air hands on boards he is likely to continue to showdown with his bluff catching hands (Q72/K95 etc). We should still be able to cbet air on a board like 972 though, correct? Since he's not peeling with as wide of a range (as discussed in the vid). Therefore implied odds hands like suited connectors/gappers and very small pocket pairs likely lose some value, while med/high pocket pairs and high cards gain value since they are most likely to be ahead of his bluff catching range at showdown.

Hmmm... I think you have might have reversed the logic somehow.

Betting 99 on KQ2 on the flop serves one purpose: taking the pot down. If you get called you very often in a lot of trouble. So I'm not sure why you would want to barrel?

We expand our value range so that it fits our perceived bluff range. If our actual value range fits our actual bluff range the range is said to be balanced.

Suited connectors don't have very good implied odds (it is very hard to flop 2 pair). Most of the time we flop a weak draw or a bluff catcher with 5 outs => you want to play them when villain has a wide range and you want to be agressive (your stragety is to pound on him postflop).

Should we expect a thinking villain to be tightening his pre-flop range against us since we are playing back so often? Does this further influence our range or choices post flop?

Poker is not static. Different players will adjust in different ways. I can't tell you how people will react. The only thing you can do is pay attention.

Do I have this correct?

Some of it yes

ok, I think I just took it a bit too far-however, I want to emphasize that I was talking about taking these actions for VALUE, not as a bluff. We are talking about a villain who we have observed calling down extremely light because he has caught us bluffing with the same lines. However, ch/R AJ on KJ3 or barreling 99 on KQ2 for value is too wide of a value range- I should have used more modest examples.

It seems like an easy concept to expand our value range when in pots with this villain. However, I've gotten in the scenario where we won't have a decent hand relative to the board at the time villain is ready to call down light. I thought perhaps I had to expand my value range even more to be sure to capitalize on my earlier increase in bluffing frequency, but perhaps that is too reckless.

I didn't mean to suggest that we should be ch/R or barreling in these specific examples every time they come up once villain is calling down light-I just wanted to present some scenarios where we could expand our value range; an example of the concept, not a "rule" to follow. Is this a little more reasonable:

If we would typically value bet KT on KQ7 and ch/R KQ for value vs this player without the "calling down light" dynamic" now we can add AQ to our v-betting range and consider ch/R AK.

when you say "we expand our value range so that it fits our perceived bluff range" I think you're saying we should be value betting a range of hands that occur at about the same frequency villain expects us to bluff. Please elaborate if I misunderstand this, but the above makes sense to me. Basically, we get called down light because our perceived bluffing range has widened-therefore we can v-bet with a range that is just as wide.

In theory, this sounds very simple, but in practice, it seems hands we can bet for value occur so much less frequently than our perceived bluffing frequency (by the calling down light villain).

ok, I think I just took it a bit too far-however, I want to emphasize that I was talking about taking these actions for VALUE, not as a bluff. We are talking about a villain who we have observed calling down extremely light because he has caught us bluffing with the same lines. However, ch/R AJ on KJ3 or barreling 99 on KQ2 for value is too wide of a value range- I should have used more modest examples.

It seems like an easy concept to expand our value range when in pots with this villain. However, I've gotten in the scenario where we won't have a decent hand relative to the board at the time villain is ready to call down light. I thought perhaps I had to expand my value range even more to be sure to capitalize on my earlier increase in bluffing frequency, but perhaps that is too reckless.

I didn't mean to suggest that we should be ch/R or barreling in these specific examples every time they come up once villain is calling down light-I just wanted to present some scenarios where we could expand our value range; an example of the concept, not a "rule" to follow. Is this a little more reasonable:

If we would typically value bet KT on KQ7 and ch/R KQ for value vs this player without the "calling down light" dynamic" now we can add AQ to our v-betting range and consider ch/R AK.

when you say "we expand our value range so that it fits our perceived bluff range" I think you're saying we should be value betting a range of hands that occur at about the same frequency villain expects us to bluff. Please elaborate if I misunderstand this, but the above makes sense to me. Basically, we get called down light because our perceived bluffing range has widened-therefore we can v-bet with a range that is just as wide.

In theory, this sounds very simple, but in practice, it seems hands we can bet for value occur so much less frequently than our perceived bluffing frequency (by the calling down light villain).

Seems like you are on the right track.

Improva

I listened to your audio sessions and I feel like I got alot out of them. Especially some of your ideas about exploiting certain types of opponents and re-bluffing. I get the feeling that by exploring these ideas further some significant win rate increases are possible.

Thank you for making them available

Improva

I listened to your audio sessions and I feel like I got alot out of them. Especially some of your ideas about exploiting certain types of opponents and re-bluffing. I get the feeling that by exploring these ideas further some significant win rate increases are possible.

Thank you for making them available

I'm glad that you feel you learned something. The sitautions, I talk about with the other dudes in the sessions, are not that different from other situations. Poker is all about ranges, position, stack size and image.

I'm sure you will begin to see more and more situations where you find reason to adjust your lines according to villain's range and his habits.

This thread is a tad old, but i just now found it. i am still new to poker, but thanks to you i have made leaps in my game in a very short period of time.

Thanks Again.

Any more of theese epic conversations on the way any time soon?
Thanx again for doing this anyhow!

I like the style you do it, Improva.
Probably best topic in poker forums i've ever seen.
Congratz, and know, that we really appreciate it!
Have read the whole thread and i am really excited, sorry about upping the old topic.

Epic thread. Thanks for doing these. Not sure how I didn't find this sooner.