United Poker Forum

Server Time: 2/13/2012 1:25:54 AM PACIFIC  
Learning through extremes, Sredni Vashtar, 15. Oct 2003 22:32
    View ( Message | Thread )       Return to Thread List
One way we ferrets might go about learning how to play better is by the use of extreme situations. From there, we might be able to more ably adapt to real world situations that frequently arise.

Sredni just read a post on Rec.gambling.poker which asked how to deal with a certain kind of aggressive opponent. This opponent raises 75% of his hands, bets when checked to 100% of the time, when called on the flop, bets 90% of the time on the turn. (Limit shorthanded holdem).

At first glance this sounds like a maniac. However, if your counter strategy is weak, you may find this type of opponent more difficult to deal with than you realize. Such a player will win the default pots, and in shorthanded many pots are default pots. (A default pot is one where nobody holds much of anything, and the pot goes to the bettor.).

First, before being intimidated by this play, let's look at it in a theoretically disarming way.

Suppose we now have this opponent and he is required, by the rules of play, to:

When he's first in the pot, he's required to straddle with the top 75% of this hands. This is a blind that is twice the size of the big blind.

When he is checked to on the flop, he is required to place a live blind equal to the size of the big blind.


On the turn, he is required to place a blind, when checked to, equal to the size of the big bet, 90% of the time.

That sounds like a lot of dead money.

Still intimidated by this opponent?

Now realistically, the opponent wouldn't last long if he were so predictable, and would also likely adapt to whatever you throw back at em.

So let's take a simple situation:

You are in the big blind in a $10-20 6 player game, and this opponent raises from one off the button (some call this the cutoff), how do you play?

What general hand ranges do you play and how do you play 'em?

How do you change your strategy if you know that said opponent will call/raise you down with any pair and even ace high?

How would your strategy differ if the opponent checks behind more often on the flop/turn?

I believe thinking about these questions with the above theoretical context might help you in your game.

I believe there are several ways to exploit such an opponent, so there is no single correct way of playing over a series of hands.

I believe some strategies that might appear effective in the immediate hand might nudge the opponent in the direction of more correct play. Just like never calling a non-bluffer might cause him to bluff more, which might hurt in the long haul.

I believe that you will gain far more from thinking this through than having someone hand you a strategy. One reason for this is your real opponents will adapt, and then what do you do? You'll know if you think about it.

Another angle to look at this is from the perspective of the opponent. If you are the opponent, playing as described, what would you NOT want your opponents to do? What would you like them to do?

Thanks for reading this far.

I have some more extremes to explore if any are interested.

Sredni Vashtar,

who does occasionally use first person, incorrectly, to assimilate with humankind.


        Return to Thread List
 
 
Re: Learning through extremes, modestmice, 15. Oct 2003 22:52
    View ( Message | Thread )       Return to Thread List
on 15. Oct 2003 22:32 Sredni Vashtar wrote:
> One way we ferrets might go about learning how to play better is by the use of
> extreme situations. From there, we might be able to more ably adapt to real
> world situations that frequently arise.
>
> Sredni just read a post on Rec.gambling.poker which asked how to deal with a
> certain kind of aggressive opponent. This opponent raises 75% of his hands, bets
> when checked to 100% of the time, when called on the flop, bets 90% of the time
> on the turn. (Limit shorthanded holdem).
>
> At first glance this sounds like a maniac. However, if your counter strategy is
> weak, you may find this type of opponent more difficult to deal with than you
> realize. Such a player will win the default pots, and in shorthanded many pots
> are default pots. (A default pot is one where nobody holds much of anything, and
> the pot goes to the bettor.).
>
> First, before being intimidated by this play, let's look at it in a
> theoretically disarming way.
>
> Suppose we now have this opponent and he is required, by the rules of play,
> to:
>
> When he's first in the pot, he's required to straddle with the top 75% of this
> hands. This is a blind that is twice the size of the big blind.
>
> When he is checked to on the flop, he is required to place a live blind equal
> to the size of the big blind.
>
>
> On the turn, he is required to place a blind, when checked to, equal to the
> size of the big bet, 90% of the time.
>
> That sounds like a lot of dead money.
>
> Still intimidated by this opponent?
>
> Now realistically, the opponent wouldn't last long if he were so predictable,
> and would also likely adapt to whatever you throw back at em.
>
> So let's take a simple situation:
>
> You are in the big blind in a $10-20 6 player game, and this opponent raises
> from one off the button (some call this the cutoff), how do you play?
>
> What general hand ranges do you play and how do you play 'em?
>
> How do you change your strategy if you know that said opponent will call/raise
> you down with any pair and even ace high?
>
> How would your strategy differ if the opponent checks behind more often on the
> flop/turn?
>
> I believe thinking about these questions with the above theoretical context
> might help you in your game.
>
> I believe there are several ways to exploit such an opponent, so there is no
> single correct way of playing over a series of hands.
>
> I believe some strategies that might appear effective in the immediate hand
> might nudge the opponent in the direction of more correct play. Just like never
> calling a non-bluffer might cause him to bluff more, which might hurt in the
> long haul.
>
> I believe that you will gain far more from thinking this through than having
> someone hand you a strategy. One reason for this is your real opponents will
> adapt, and then what do you do? You'll know if you think about it.
>
> Another angle to look at this is from the perspective of the opponent. If you
> are the opponent, playing as described, what would you NOT want your opponents
> to do? What would you like them to do?
>
> Thanks for reading this far.
>
> I have some more extremes to explore if any are interested.
>
> Sredni Vashtar,
>
> who does occasionally use first person, incorrectly, to assimilate with
> humankind.
>
>
>

are you actually adam the expert?

-------------------------------------------------------------
"I prefer talking with old persons of the female sex who peddle family gossip; next, with the insane-and last, with very sensible people" -S. Kierkegaard
        Return to Thread List
 
 
Re: Learning through extremes, Sredni Vashtar, 16. Oct 2003 00:11
    View ( Message | Thread )       Return to Thread List
Modestmice,

I am certainly not Adam the expert.

I was a poster on twoplustwo.com for many years. I posted also as "backdoor' and this was well known by the reguars there. Most of my posts were prior to the new software, and most don't show up on the search.

I stopped posting there as backdoor when Mason Malmuth banned Abdul Jalib from posting. I felt that was intellectual censorship.

I like the civility of this forum and the class and sportmanship shown by Caro and Cooke and many of the posters here.

One last thing. Methinks you are a lion, not a mouse.

Do you like George Nory too?

SV.

        Return to Thread List
 
 
Re: Learning through extremes, modestmice, 16. Oct 2003 00:21
    View ( Message | Thread )       Return to Thread List
on 16. Oct 2003 00:11 Sredni Vashtar wrote:
> Modestmice,
>
> I am certainly not Adam the expert.
>
> I was a poster on twoplustwo.com for many years. I posted also as "backdoor' and this was
> well known by the reguars there. Most of my posts were prior to the new software, and most
> don't show up on the search.
>
> I stopped posting there as backdoor when Mason Malmuth banned Abdul Jalib from posting. I
> felt that was intellectual censorship.
>
> I like the civility of this forum and the class and sportmanship shown by Caro and Cooke
> and many of the posters here.
>
> One last thing. Methinks you are a lion, not a mouse.
>
> Do you like George Nory too?
>
> SV.
>
>
i was trying to be humorous about the adam comment. shrug. anyhow, its strange you mention Abdul, i have been reading his articles for the past hour. thats too bad S+M banned him. egos egos. who is george? being a lion in mouse clothing is helpful at the tables.

-------------------------------------------------------------

"I prefer talking with old persons of the female sex who peddle family gossip; next, with the insane-and last, with very sensible people" -S. Kierkegaard
        Return to Thread List
 
 
Re: Learning through extremes, Blade, 16. Oct 2003 00:29
    View ( Message | Thread )       Return to Thread List
Why did Abdul Jalib get banned? On the face of it, this sounds completely ridiculous.
        Return to Thread List
 
 
Re: Learning through extremes, Roy Cooke, 16. Oct 2003 07:13
    View ( Message | Thread )       Return to Thread List
Thoughtful post and insightful. I like the way you broke down the players play.

Sounds like using trap plays would be the right way to get maximum value out of this player. Also raise-bluffing him will have good value as often he will not have any kind of a hand to pay you off and the price the pot is laying you should be pretty good!

Life is Good :-)
Roy Cooke

on 15. Oct 2003 22:32 Sredni Vashtar wrote:
> One way we ferrets might go about learning how to play better is by the use of
> extreme situations. From there, we might be able to more ably adapt to real
> world situations that frequently arise.
>
> Sredni just read a post on Rec.gambling.poker which asked how to deal with a
> certain kind of aggressive opponent. This opponent raises 75% of his hands, bets
> when checked to 100% of the time, when called on the flop, bets 90% of the time
> on the turn. (Limit shorthanded holdem).
>
> At first glance this sounds like a maniac. However, if your counter strategy is
> weak, you may find this type of opponent more difficult to deal with than you
> realize. Such a player will win the default pots, and in shorthanded many pots
> are default pots. (A default pot is one where nobody holds much of anything, and
> the pot goes to the bettor.).
>
> First, before being intimidated by this play, let's look at it in a
> theoretically disarming way.
>
> Suppose we now have this opponent and he is required, by the rules of play,
> to:
>
> When he's first in the pot, he's required to straddle with the top 75% of this
> hands. This is a blind that is twice the size of the big blind.
>
> When he is checked to on the flop, he is required to place a live blind equal
> to the size of the big blind.
>
>
> On the turn, he is required to place a blind, when checked to, equal to the
> size of the big bet, 90% of the time.
>
> That sounds like a lot of dead money.
>
> Still intimidated by this opponent?
>
> Now realistically, the opponent wouldn't last long if he were so predictable,
> and would also likely adapt to whatever you throw back at em.
>
> So let's take a simple situation:
>
> You are in the big blind in a $10-20 6 player game, and this opponent raises
> from one off the button (some call this the cutoff), how do you play?
>
> What general hand ranges do you play and how do you play 'em?
>
> How do you change your strategy if you know that said opponent will call/raise
> you down with any pair and even ace high?
>
> How would your strategy differ if the opponent checks behind more often on the
> flop/turn?
>
> I believe thinking about these questions with the above theoretical context
> might help you in your game.
>
> I believe there are several ways to exploit such an opponent, so there is no
> single correct way of playing over a series of hands.
>
> I believe some strategies that might appear effective in the immediate hand
> might nudge the opponent in the direction of more correct play. Just like never
> calling a non-bluffer might cause him to bluff more, which might hurt in the
> long haul.
>
> I believe that you will gain far more from thinking this through than having
> someone hand you a strategy. One reason for this is your real opponents will
> adapt, and then what do you do? You'll know if you think about it.
>
> Another angle to look at this is from the perspective of the opponent. If you
> are the opponent, playing as described, what would you NOT want your opponents
> to do? What would you like them to do?
>
> Thanks for reading this far.
>
> I have some more extremes to explore if any are interested.
>
> Sredni Vashtar,
>
> who does occasionally use first person, incorrectly, to assimilate with
> humankind.
>
>
>
        Return to Thread List
 
 
Re: Learning through extremes, ReMMy, 16. Oct 2003 07:35
    View ( Message | Thread )       Return to Thread List
I used to play a lot of heads up play. The trick to heads up is being able to recognize your opponents current style of play and adapt faster than he adapts to you(if he even adapts at all).

Far and away the toughest opponent I ran into played exactly as described above. After losing about $50 to him(it was only 1/2), I left the table and thought about what was happening. I watched him play a couple people and take some of their money. When his table opened up again, I sat down.

I decided not to fold any hands other than extreme junk. I'd simply call him down to the river w/ one bet each round. Anytime I hit a relative power hand I would go ahead and cap at least one round of betting w/ him. I even got him to fold some him. Basically this negated his advantage of winning the default pots, so I simply had to outplay him post flop, which since he obviously had no real skills was not at all difficult.

I took my $50 back and sat out. I didn't really find the game very interesting since there was so much 50/50 gambling mixed in and paying lots of rakes heads up is not smart for anyone. I just asked him how he got any enjoyment out of playing like that and left.

Since then I have used the strategy in heads up occassionally, not as a long term thing but it can really mess w/ opponents play if you use it for 10-20 hands in a row, especially if you switch as soon as they adapt...

Good post Sredni!
        Return to Thread List
 
 
Re: Learning through extremes, McMonkey, 16. Oct 2003 10:22
    View ( Message | Thread )       Return to Thread List
I think how I would play depends on a few things, one of the most important (and the one I'll discuss for this example) is stack size. Most of the times I've seen this kind of behavior has been in tournaments, so bear that in mind as I respond, the strategy would probably be different for a limit ring game.

If I had a chip lead on this player, I would loosen up greatly. He obviously is playing anything, so even a Jx type hand would be favored against his average holding.

When the flop hits me hard I'd try to trap him (which shouldn't be difficult giving his style).

If the flops hits me a little, I'd check/call it down if I thought I couldn't budge the other player, or if he has the potential to fold I might bet out the flop and if I get called tread lightly the rest of the way.

If I was short stacked compared to the agressor (the more likely situation) I'd loosen up a little up front, and bet hard if I hit the flop at all. You want to get in cheap and drop it if you miss and bet it if you hit at all. In this scenario I think you need to get a little lucky to get/catch decent cards.

If I were this player I wouldn't want the other player(s) to call past the turn. Ideally, what I would do against him is match his aggression with more aggression but only when I'm pretty sure I have him beat. If you come out swinging back and he ends up winning you've just strengthened his position/strategy. Hopefully if you show a little backbone he'll abandon his blind betting (or you'll win a couple decent pots and drain him of his chips)

There are many other factors, of course, but this is, I believe, a piece of the puzzle.

Finally, yes, Sredni, I am very interested in more of these extreme situations. It wasn't until I starting doing idle excercises like this one that I was REALLY able to see leaks in my game and apply concepts I've learned. There just isn't enough time for a beginner to go through the correct thought process when sitting at the table. You must have thought it out beforehand and have a general idea of what to do if you want to succeed.
        Return to Thread List
 
 
Re: Learning through extremes, Formless, 17. Oct 2003 09:15
    View ( Message | Thread )       Return to Thread List
This style of opponent gives you great leverage. You want to make maximum, and checkraising is the weapon of choice, as are slowplaying, moving around your attack on different streets, and rope-a-doping. But the key is to squeeze every penny out of this sucker.

You also have to have the math knowledge to ascertain on the flop exactly where you are vs. a top 75% hand, and have to call down some crappy hands. Bet out some medium-weak hands too. When you check and he bets, you are getting 5.75:1 on your call; that's a lot. This situation isn't so extreme at higher limits, it's pretty common.

So you want to defend with a lot of hands, but because of the rake you have to tighten up a bit.
        Return to Thread List
 
 
Re: Learning through extremes, chasepoker, 17. Oct 2003 10:38
    View ( Message | Thread )       Return to Thread List
Great post !

Chasepoker
        Return to Thread List
 
 
Re: Learning through extremes, Flatout_Mainiac, 17. Oct 2003 16:18
    View ( Message | Thread )       Return to Thread List
I agree...great posts Srendi!!!

I enjoy reading these Socratic dialogues. Keep them comming.
        Return to Thread List
 
 
Re: Learning through extremes, modestmice, 17. Oct 2003 18:13
    View ( Message | Thread )       Return to Thread List
on 17. Oct 2003 16:18 Flatout_Mainiac wrote:
> I agree...great posts Srendi!!!
>
> I enjoy reading these Socratic dialogues. Keep them comming.

yeah, great posts, which is why i was joking about him being adam the expert, since he is clearly the opposite.
hare krisna.

-------------------------------------------------------------
"I prefer talking with old persons of the female sex who peddle family gossip; next, with the insane-and last, with very sensible people" -S. Kierkegaard
        Return to Thread List
 
 
       POKER FORUM HOME   |   POKER FORUM   |   LINK TO US   |   ARCHIVE   |   ONLINE POKER Copyright 2002, United Poker Forum  
Getting Started |  UPF Tournaments |  Poker News, Views, Rules |  Poker Strategy & Psychology |  Money and Bankroll
Poker Bonuses & Promotions |  World Series of Poker (WSOP) |  Play Online Poker |  Poker Odds & Statistics |  Tournament Poker |  Poker Books, Videos & Learning Tools
Looking for a Poker Game |  Poker Bad Beats |  Not Quite Poker |  Quizzes and Polls |  Forum Suggestions & Bugs

Interesting Links: Online Poker | Free Poker Games | United Poker Network | Find Vancouver Businesses