New Posts
Threads with recently added new postsGame is $2-$100 spread. Villain has $500 and I cover.
HAND: I open JhJc to $10, folds to Villain in BB, he calls.
FLOP: KhQhTc (pot: $20, heads-up). V checks I bet $12 he calls.
TURN: KhQhTc 2c (pot: $40, heads-up). V checks I bet $35 he calls.
RIVER: KhQhTc 2c 4c (pot: $110, heads-up)
V checks.
We bet $100 or check?
RESULT: I bet $100 and Villain tank-folds.
RESULT
HAND: An EP limp, I raise Tc8c in the CO to $10. Villain in BB calls, lumper calls.
(…)RIVER: QdJsTh 5s 9s (pot: $120, heads-up).
Interesting! I hit the dummy end. He checks again. [/B]
I bet $35, looking for value from top pair/2-pair hands.
Villain check-raises to $135 and I obviously fold.
By the river, I'm not thinking about the suits of my K's. I'm just looking at the way the hand played out.
It sucks to fold AA/KK here, but we have to think logically. Most V's aren't going to run a big two-street bluff on a board like this, where one or more obvious draws get there, and the board is paired, and the paired card is one that's feature heavily in our range.
As the PFR, we're going to have QQ/AQ/KQ here a fair bit, and some flushes, and some AA/KK that just don't want to fold. It's u
Agreed on all points! Thanks for the indepth feedback.
This read was a trip down memory lane in a few ways.
I was just thinking about your comment about changing to adapt to game conditions. I think this is huge in live poker. Especially in Low and mid stakes where the “discipline” is poor. Players steam, tilt and react personally to the play of their opponents.
Most old time strategists in books (Doyle, Caro, The Boom notables) all used to talk about “switching gears”.
There are various windows of opportunity presented in the course of a typical session. Deviating hard from standard strat is appropriate.
I was also thinking of a poster from 5 or 6 years ago. I think his name was Ben. He woul post these long posts about his strategy which was generally a balanced strat al la Mathew Janda “Applications oh NLH” or Millers 1%. (Pre solver attempts at GTO). I suggested at the time that in 5 years this would become the norm for strat discussion. Largely I think it has. I only recently returned to watching and reading some strat and the difference from 5 or 6 years ago is rather striking.
Along these lines. A huge thank you to whoever started overemphasizing blockers. There are a number of players who misunderstand the use of blockers and actually overbluff in spots. Because they use large bet sizings they are getting folds from nits without nuts but their lines often don’t rep in any way the hands they block.
Regarding solvers… I had started playing around with Card Runners EV back in the day. I recently have been looking at solvers again. Someone mention node locking and I think this video does a nice job of showing how node locking can be used to develop an exploit strat.
I enjoyed the read Vernon.
Now that I'm older, and more wise. I'm curious to know which Poker Stars Tournament this was lol. I miss the good ole days. And I still feel great slowrolling the 88... Classy **** if ya ask me.
I appreciate the advice and I'd agree 100%. I realized poker favors aggression and those aggressive players tend to win more. Another question that how is your luck of playing poker? This question seems silly but it has happened to me in the past 3 years of playing poker that 90% of the time I'm ahead before all in that turned out I get bad beat and suck out on later street. 10% I'd suck them out. I don't think this percentage relationship is healthy and I don't know how to turn it around.
This is not really possible. Unless you are using biased samples as to what constitutes ahead vs behind, or the sample size is ~10, this just won't happen.
If you think of QQ vs AK as ahead, but QQ vs AA behind, they are just not remotely similar.
Here's an idea going forward. Note your all ins. Put them in an equity calculator. You will probably find that the percentages are a lot closer when you are ahead than you think.
As an example....it may seem like you have a 'lock' on the KJ vs JT hand, but Villain had about 15.5% equity on that hand. You had 84.5%.
You can score this as -84.5. Take all these spots, and add them up. Divide by the number of instances. When you have had 50 or so, come back to us with the number.
Hello, unfortunately there is no such option.
We may add it in the future.
The computers will tell you to always bet call on this flop, delaying further aggression till the turn. EV's run very close on flop actions though so more consideration should be given to exploitation. Absent that intel it's best to just play like the comp and call the flop. 3 betting is not bad by any stretch, it's just a little better to call... like $1 better.
On the turn, the 7c is the worst of the three for our range so we should minimize our aggression here. Ah is the best card for us and is certainly a good option for a turn raise. If we happen to have the QJs the 2s is a good card to raise the turn on, otherwise just calling seems prudent to me.
Spoiler
Hero tank folds. Villain shows Jc9c. I figured he could have a lot of QXs, QXo, and JTs/JTo. Every bluff I had seen villain make before was for really small size in relation to the pot. I have a history where I have bluffed villain and he has called me, so I think he wanted to play back at me.
Another bit of info, hero also plays bigger stakes where he will buy in for 5k and rebuy for 5k. But even at lower stakes, I hadn't seen him make a move like that.
Geezus. I was at least expecting him to have an OESD on the flop. Jamming turn with J9 is a bit maniacal.
Saw that you're online today urubu. I have read your thread and hope you're doing well! VAMOOOo
No they don’t. The more misunderstandings the more easily they are manipulated. To your own benefit.
Do you mean like... immutable merge with order?
Spoiler
Blockchains Language and Intersubjective Truth
Spoiler
I’ve written about frameworks already and I feel the concept of them is the key to great human advancement. I feel this even more so after re-traversing Smith’s Toms which is starting to seem to be to be a piece that illuminates the general concept of the effects of frameworks (or lenses).
I’m also interested in relating Toms with LLM technology but also through studies of language theory. Although, my initial and quick intro to language theory and notably Chomsky’s lecture suggests that the concepts of LLMs and language theory are not very related at least on a surface level.
I’m still catching up on the concept of language theory but in the meantime I’m fixated on the concept of recursion he refers to that seems to be a necessary primitive of the formation of our species’ natural ability to learn and use language. As it relates to set theory I think maybe it relates to the emerging money technology bitcoin via the concept called a blockchain (here it is coincidentally quite relevant that it is specifically a reference to bitcoin’s blockchain and not the concept one might think could be thought of in general).
Chomksy seems to be looking for an explanation as to how we developed the universal grammar technology referred to as merge as well as an explanation as to how it came about so recently in our history. And that it came about so recently in our history means it was not a genetic advancement but something that came from what we already evolved to have for other reasons.
Here I am thinking about how the blockchain is a specific version of merge that is immutable and ordered, thus, immutable merge with order.
This observation would self-satisfy the question of why the extra complexity in an otherwise minimalist system. And then it would follow that from some external technology in which we socially perform ‘immutable merge with order’ (ie pyramid building) extends our contract technology (which is implicit for scaling etc).
TOMS gives us a framework from which to understand how our internal thoughts affect our reaction to external stimuli. Through his inquiry we learn to question who is the individual being considered, who are the external actors or agents, and what is the relationship etc. Later I mean to provide some ideas for a formal syntax for frameworks/lenses to this regard and we can have some general understanding through philosophy.
Framework is a trick aspect however and most of our energy should probably be spent understanding the pitfalls of frameworks and lenses.
We are learning we are a product of natural evolution, however, we recently had a deep devotion (and literature) developed to a certain kind of framework of deity whoreshipping (here it's probably easier to think of it as judaic-christian even though that won’t perfectly apply to every reader’s family and ancestry etc.).
And now science is teaching us that many of our beliefs can be shown to not stand up to the perceivable truths of nature.
But we get confused when trying to bury the lies of religions forgetting that religion is what survived us. It was the technology that allowed us to scale socially and survive the unpredictability of the elements. To become what we are, to have what we have.
Before science, logic, reason, organized religion, as antithetical to the truth of nature as it was, ruled man in all ways.
On the Division and Specialization of Labor
Spoiler
Milton Friedman explains the amazing amount of work that goes into simply making pencil. In order to do this a society must be able to divide and specialize its labor. This is what Adam Smith expounds on in TWON. If everyone is to do every task then there can be no time to make a pencil AND prepare one’s dinner (after hunting for it once finished crafting a bow).
A society then must be sufficiently diverse, scaled, to have certain technology that requires such specialization.
Szabo talks about formalized complexity in this regard. Our theory then is humans reach scalability limitations until they develop certain technologies. Since humans require the same things, as they are all humans, these technologies share classes (ie water, food, etc.).
We can think of the level a society reaches when they can support commerce by sea/ocean and the special financial technologies necessary to carry the commerce abroad.
The Libertarian Framework
Spoiler
Szabo explains the value of the evolved complexity that is implied in the institutions we have evolved. The libertarian doesn’t see this value. The libertarian thinks from the individual framework and doesn’t balance that framework with their connection to the greater nation, nor the greater global economy.
Central Banks are necessary firms of nations. But we can align them, improve them as they are.
Money as a Shared Intersubjective Truth
I've written before on the Nakamoto consensus and how it seems to imply, if we were to consider a simulation model of the universe that probability is intrinsic in the fabric of such a universe (as much as encryption is intrinsic in privacy technology/communication). If we consider the implicit concept of immutable merge with order as the beginning of the explosion for language we can then also think of counting as being the first intersubjective truth (the implication being we did start naturally counting together through accounting). So it wasn’t that we discovered numbers but we started ordering together.
The key points being this would require both work and consensus.
And thus we should be thinking about this even in set theory. That order requires work. Or at least understand this is a thermodynamic consideration. Then of course as a corollary we can say that immutability implies consensus or ie its socially held (social force holds it).
Smith talks about the impartial observer or the person in the breast. I’m not ready to give insights on TOMS yet but money being a precursor to language and our first shared intersubjective truth lends to the idea of having the concept of a perfect being one looks to that guides one without the concept of a society necessarily existing. Smith illuminates our ability to sympathize through a process of induction, whether we internalize and mirror an affliction we witness with regard to a fellow being. This ability is remarkable. The suggestion here is that it also came before language (although I am still to study the concept of I-language).
Re-Orientating Bitcoin Maximalism
Spoiler
Hayek teaches us the importance of prices. Through Selgin’s work on free banking theory, Hayek's considerations on the denationalization of money, and the theoretical framework/equilibrium for Ideal Money Nash gives us, we can understand how our money system can be arranged, with coordination via bitcoin’s respective exchange price, to optimize our major currencies to ultimately signify a global pricing system.
This global pricing system would mark the attainment of a new global intersubjective truth. As if we, as a global civilization, learned to count together for the first time. We would think about it and feel about it as a new framework, where the pricing system aligns moral sentiments such that we act like a global ‘quantum-like’ computer where each of the individuals has full knowledge and information of what they are doing and need to do in relation to each other individual (since the pricing system, our money systems in Ideal state, would guide them optimally by the Hayek definition etc).
It was thus for the petty ape then of that Satoshi necessarily designed bitcoin to be like gold in the eyes of ****-economicus.
Hi guys, Im João and Im 24 yo, Im from Portugal and Im lookin for a backer for mtts on apps, or plo5 5/10 I have more than 500k prizes in mtts apps, and a WR of 8bb at 5/10 at plo5 on apps.
I can send you proves, add me on discord: joaopedroguimaraes
It's tricky to give hard/fast rules because everything is in relation to how well you know the spot better than your opponent.
As a rough guide I would say focus on giving yourself whatever piece of information that would've been useful to know the next time you play vs that villain. So if you see someone calling down with A high -> mark station. And adjust accordingly next time by reducing bluff range to smaller bluffs (or none) only and thin value bet them to death.
Someone playing AK passively preflop is likely to be under value betting postflop etc. For me that gets a passive tag. If I see them doing something different i'll change 'em. But it always helps to have a broad picture. Aggro guys are usually relentless overbluffers, so I know to smuggle in as many traps as I can after I catch them out once or twice.
But it all depends on how well you know what is 'correct' first. You have to be confident in what mistakes your opponent's are making in order to deviate and exploit them for it. Not to mention there are pool tendencies that might make a reg look 'bad' when they were deviating wildly to exploit something about a different fish you haven't seen. So it's always pretty loose. Thus tags can be quite subjective, depending on your style.
At a certain point MDA for rare lines falls apart though.
1) they don't happen often enough with the same people to ever find out what they would do consistently on certain extremely rare runouts against an ever-changing roster of different opponents and 2) strategies are always in flux anyway. This is evern more true for fish. Mr 2% turn signal guy is going to read a book at some point and realise people keep crashing into him unless he tells them he's turning. Suddenly all our data and calcs are useless in a heartbeat for that specific outlier.
I'm only just starting using MDA, I'm a noob. I'm looking through my DB and the patterns are def interesting and useful. But even the broadest takeaways (eg. fish overfold turn OB) are usually fragile and context dependent. There are showdown biases, game biases, individual biases. Drunk guy biases. All these variables spoil the broth. To quantify all that you'd need computers the size of this:
Also AFAICT you can actually have too much data for MDA. E.g. if you surveyed the entire planet for their favourite colour and you took that answer and applied it to every continent. The game (and sapiens) are too dynamic to solve at the extreme ends, and any algo to account for those wilder fluctuations is just god mode.
I actually like a flat on flop multiway. We have nut nut draws. If we hit we are going to gain a lot from the others on turn and river. If we miss we check turn.
If we were heads up and not multiway I would raise flop as played.
Hmm. These might be a little tricky since at stakes this low you're going to see a lot of odd play, but I'll do my best.
Hand 1 - I'd just fold, you have two people to act behind you and this is a pretty dry and static flop. It doesn't really make sense for him to be doing this with less than a better Jx than yours. Maybe he's just off his rocker and blasting at a board he thinks everyone missed, but you can't assume that and you don't even close the action to see what he'll do on the turn.
Hand 2 - where the callers are and which player donked out matters, but at these stakes and with the pot already as big as it is I probably just get it in and expect to see a good 7x or some kind of pair and straight draw combo a substantial amount of the time. (Which is a great result for you with 88 if they have 75/65/54 type hands, because you block the top end of the straight and their two-pair card gives you a straight.)
Hand 3 - Again, the preflop action and the size of the pot really matter here. Absent other information though I just get it in; you'll see worse Kx and 65 a lot.
Hand 4 - Again, here's where the size of the pot and the actual action matter. There's a big difference between you betting last to act, getting check-raised all-in, and then cold re-shoved, vs. if the first guy to act shoves and the second reshoves. And there's a big difference if the shove is like 2/3 pot vs. 2x pot. In general at these stakes I probably stack off because with the four-straight I wouldn't be surprised if at least one of them has Tx (or even 65) and we beat a lot of flushes.
In the future, try to include as much detail as you can in each hand, because the action before the decision point and the size of the pot really matter to answering these questions.
TheTyman9 has reported a post.
Reason: Can this guy be banned so he stops filling the thread with rants
Post: [url=https://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/292/online-poker-sites/bodog-bovada-ignition-unofficial-thread-1142716-post58414874/#post58414874][Bodog/Bovada/Ignition] Unofficial Thread[/url]
Forum: Online Poker Sites
Posted by: September.28
Original Content:
Because you were a ****ing moron for posting it in the first place.
Assigned Moderators: Mike Haven, Max
The block migraine.
He probably doesn't jam AQ so I lean towards bet/folding at a 'call-me-Kx' 0.5ish pot level.
I'd bet the turn almost always. Neither of you should have a j much. Your hand wants protection.
If you want to check the turn with some good hands, a jack might be better. I don't think you need to check this turn all that often.
Maybe something like AK can check here too, taking a free card but also picking off river bluffs sometimes.
Don't see much reason to check TT.
AP I think it's a fairly easy call vs most. Your hand looks week and he isn't repping much.
September.28 has reported a post.
Reason: This "coach" has made some questionable posts in the past and this post is highlighting a poker bot for sale.
Post: [url=https://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/292/online-poker-sites/bodog-bovada-ignition-unofficial-thread-1142716-post58414722/#post58414722][Bodog/Bovada/Ignition] Unofficial Thread[/url]
Forum: Online Poker Sites
Posted by: Brokenstars
Original Content:
I'm no longer really concerned with showcasing some of these bot sites/rta stuff etc. since it's all just a google away these days, but reading their forums and stuff is pretty depressing.
Also examples of people using these bots on zone btw
Assigned Moderators: Mike Haven, Max
