Micro Stakes Online NL Poker Forums

Someone brought up the reciprocity concept earlier- that kinda settles the argument IMO. No one is ever folding KK here so you don't lose by calling and running into AA because when the roles are reversed the same thing will happen.

This multi-way action PF widens people's ranges too - people show up with weird stuff when pots get big multi-way- you start to get huge odds for various hands.

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/69/micro-stakes-pl-nl/how-2-2-cost-me-7-dollars-50-cents-546961/

(http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showpost.php?p=12190543&postcount=48 )

These threads always seem to pop up from time to time and I've spent a few hours trying to figure out why. I think that it almost always comes down to people not really understanding how range vs range situations work in NL. If we clearly reason about ranges and have the necessary framework to work out the EV of spots we should be able to figure out when to fold or not fold a certain hand preflop. First up there's nothing special about KK, KK is just like any other non AA hand in the sense that stacking it off pre will sometimes not be good based upon your opponents range.

Someone brought up the reciprocity concept earlier- that kinda settles the argument IMO. No one is ever folding KK here so you don't lose by calling and running into AA because when the roles are reversed the same thing will happen.

I actually don't like this argument or line of thinking actually. This might seem to be a nitpick but I really strongly think that this seemingly small distinction is a big deal.

Here's an exaggerated example, I'm playing in a live 1/2 game, I have some sort of TPNK hand and there's a bunch of action in front of me, it's pretty clear I'm beat, but my opponents wouldn't fold this hand so I don't lose out in reciprocal terms by also not folding it.

The thing is, all that matters is maximizing your own EV, who cares if your opponents don't do this, you shouldn't justify any reduction in your EV just because your opponents do not play perfectly. I think the problem with the whole reciprocal analysis is that it judges your actions relative to your opponents, where really it's better if you use a different metric that doesn't take into account your opponents skill level.

I think if I used the reciprocity criterion for judging the quality of plays my game would be weaker. This is because I've played a lot of live poker and frankly many people are super terrible at poker and the ones that aren't tend to be super unbalanced.

I've folded KK pre a few times, each time I'm pretty sure I made a good fold. I was shown aces in all but one of these hands (the hand I didn't was online). In one hand I made a pretty crucial mistake I reraised KK when I shouldn't have and hence needed to fold to the shove which was a pretty bad range vs range mistake. In that particular hand the reason I reraised KK in the first place in that hand was because I autopiloted and just thought something along the lines of "I have to raise KK, because it's KK" and once I got reraised I actually stopped autopiloting for a second and realized the mistake I made and I didn't compound the mistake by just stacking KK pre with some other thought along the lines of " I can't fold KK pre". Anyway the main thing I'm trying to get across is that in both those little snippets of thought quoted before I didn't actually stop and think about opponent ranges, I just said "I have absolute hand strength X so therefore I must do Y". As it turns out the vast majority of the time folding KK pre is a mistake, but the reason for this is simply that opponents ranges are wide enough that it is a mistake to fold KK pre. However this doesn't justify substituting X = "KK" and Y = "get it in pre" in the above. It seems as though many people suddenly suspend all range vs range based thinking as soon as they are dealt KK, and if it were any other specific hand the mistake would be the same. If you have some sick read that your opponents range is AA and only AA then by all means don't get it in pre with KK. I don't think anyone should go into auto flame mode if people are not stacking KK pre without first asking what is our opponents range.

These threads always seem to pop up from time to time and I've spent a few hours trying to figure out why.

many of were exposed to poker on tv, where hole cards were visible. this emphasizes your first point (hand v hand, not hand v range or range v range), but it also exposed us to a world where folding was glamorized. the (fairly fundamentally poor) commentators would absolutely celebrate big folds. these were, of course, results oriented.

many of were exposed to poker on tv, where hole cards were visible. this emphasizes your first point (hand v hand, not hand v range or range v range), but it also exposed us to a world where folding was glamorized. the (fairly fundamentally poor) commentators would absolutely celebrate big folds. these were, of course, results oriented.

Thanks, that makes a lot of sense.

How many hands do you have on the villain?

How many times have you seen him get all in preflop in that sample?

I mean, I've only started playing again fairly recently and have just over 6,000 hands in my DB. I filtered that for where I've put in between 60 & 200bb preflop and got a grand total of 10 hands, so unless you've got at least a few hundred hands on the villain it's quite possible you've never seen him get all in for a significant amount preflop.

I'm also not quite sure the reasoning behind the flat/4-bet, even ignoring the fold (which I think is wrong)

How many hands do you have on the villain?

How many times have you seen him get all in preflop in that sample?

I mean, I've only started playing again fairly recently and have just over 6,000 hands in my DB. I filtered that for where I've put in between 60 & 200bb preflop and got a grand total of 10 hands, so unless you've got at least a few hundred hands on the villain it's quite possible you've never seen him get all in for a significant amount preflop.

I'm also not quite sure the reasoning behind the flat/4-bet, even ignoring the fold (which I think is wrong)

your welcome to your opion, sorry im not going to answer your questions because the answers are already in this thread.

if your not sure what the reasoning behing the 4bet was then maybe you should read the thread?

im pretty happy with my range analysis and my reasons for intiially flatting pre flop and then 4betting, bear in mind though I have around 3 million of hands of experience at FR, and its just occured to me that maybe alot of contributors in this thread probably have no idea about nits continueing ranges UTG in FR games

your welcome to your opion, sorry im not going to answer your questions because the answers are already in this thread.

if your not sure what the reasoning behing the 4bet was then maybe you should read the thread?

im pretty happy with my range analysis and my reasons for intiially flatting pre flop and then 4betting, bear in mind though I have around 3 million of hands of experience at FR, and its just occured to me that maybe alot of contributors in this thread probably have no idea about nits continueing ranges UTG in FR games

Right except you haven't actually said how many hands you had on the villain, or how many times in that sample he's got all in preflop so maybe you could answer those questions?

You have said - "I wouldnt 3bet this players UTG open with any hand as I know if I do he only continues with QQ+ and sometimes folds QQ"

Also - "UTG flatted the SB 3bet (which looks very strong) with 2 players still left to act behind him. His range looks alot like QQ,AK here. So I 4bet for value."

So his range is wider if SB 3-bets which you say looks very strong?

Yes you can. I did it in the above hand correcty. Saying that you "cant do X" or "you cant do Y" is just narrow minded.

its just as useless as other sayings like "if you call turn you have to call river". people say these things but dont know why they are saying them.

the above hand is a clear fold. Im not getting the right odds to call and try and hit a K. so easy fold.

also its was a 4bet fold not a 5bet.

And what about the times you fold and the opponent doesn't have aces. I think you lose more value trying to be correct everytime than you do by shoving everytime.

your welcome to your opion, sorry im not going to answer your questions because the answers are already in this thread.

if your not sure what the reasoning behing the 4bet was then maybe you should read the thread?

you sir, should get a life, djeezes

bear in mind though I have around 3 million of hands of experience at FR,

and your still playing 50nl ?
maybe yo ushould start stacking off with KK and move up the limits...

Epic thread!
"when sheep strike back"
haha why are you getting so defensive?? ya, alot of people lose money at poker. but you have people that made a living out of poker trying to walk you through this and help you out! why make the thread if your not going to listen to anything??
also if this only accounts for 1% of hands, how can you be so accurate to always pick it out perfectly? no one is that perfect!
and lastly, how can you know that you were right everytime you folded? theres no way they show you everytime.

I actually don't like this argument or line of thinking actually. This might seem to be a nitpick but I really strongly think that this seemingly small distinction is a big deal.

Here's an exaggerated example, I'm playing in a live 1/2 game, I have some sort of TPNK hand and there's a bunch of action in front of me, it's pretty clear I'm beat, but my opponents wouldn't fold this hand so I don't lose out in reciprocal terms by also not folding it.

The thing is, all that matters is maximizing your own EV, who cares if your opponents don't do this, you shouldn't justify any reduction in your EV just because your opponents do not play perfectly. I think the problem with the whole reciprocal analysis is that it judges your actions relative to your opponents, where really it's better if you use a different metric that doesn't take into account your opponents skill level.

I think if I used the reciprocity criterion for judging the quality of plays my game would be weaker. This is because I've played a lot of live poker and frankly many people are super terrible at poker and the ones that aren't tend to be super unbalanced.

I've folded KK pre a few times, each time I'm pretty sure I made a good fold. I was shown aces in all but one of these hands (the hand I didn't was online). In one hand I made a pretty crucial mistake I reraised KK when I shouldn't have and hence needed to fold to the shove which was a pretty bad range vs range mistake. In that particular hand the reason I reraised KK in the first place in that hand was because I autopiloted and just thought something along the lines of "I have to raise KK, because it's KK" and once I got reraised I actually stopped autopiloting for a second and realized the mistake I made and I didn't compound the mistake by just stacking KK pre with some other thought along the lines of " I can't fold KK pre". Anyway the main thing I'm trying to get across is that in both those little snippets of thought quoted before I didn't actually stop and think about opponent ranges, I just said "I have absolute hand strength X so therefore I must do Y". As it turns out the vast majority of the time folding KK pre is a mistake, but the reason for this is simply that opponents ranges are wide enough that it is a mistake to fold KK pre. However this doesn't justify substituting X = "KK" and Y = "get it in pre" in the above. It seems as though many people suddenly suspend all range vs range based thinking as soon as they are dealt KK, and if it were any other specific hand the mistake would be the same. If you have some sick read that your opponents range is AA and only AA then by all means don't get it in pre with KK. I don't think anyone should go into auto flame mode if people are not stacking KK pre without first asking what is our opponents range.

^^responding to 'you lose nothing since they do the same in your spot'^^

well put

the argument you debunk is similar to 'it doesn't matter what i do; everything is profitable.' we don't max ev by choosing one of several profitable choices. overall +ev depends on the sum of ALL our spots, so we better grab our ev greedily where we can!

Isn't this a spot where the concept of reciprocity works out to be even in terms of running into AA? With TPNK you gain a ton by folding when others wouldn't and you should often fold TPNK to a lot of action.

I always thought running into AA with KK pretty much balances out in the long run? I haven't listened to EPTPE in awhile though maybe I'm confused.

it does, but his point is to think of it in terms of an information edge

until we can accurately fold KK (or other hands of whatever strength) that our opponent would not fold, we are content not because he would stack off, but because we could not avoid it. when we can accurately make these folds, we should do so. to avoid doing so would be leaving money behind...