1/3 play against loose deep stack bullies

• maniacs beat nits
  
• nits beat stations
  
• stations beat maniacs
  

I do not include maniacs in this category. The ones I describe has decent fold frequency and folds to aggressions/stop betting facing calling stations when they have air on wet board.

Understand your pain as I often play with people with no respect for money. What you don’t want to do is bet KQo from the button against people that might throw out a hundred for fun.

If there are several of this type in a game you can watch them bash each other. They still have no answer for tight and aggressive play. The ones that know me mostly get out of my way if I’m attacking.

I would be hesitant to go jacking it up against this bunch (3bets/4bets) without very strong hands because now you’re playing in their wheelhouse. They are used to big bets and you will struggle to know how strong they are.

Don’t let these players run you off, they have leaks. Some will lose several buyins waiting for the 2/5 game. I look at them like players on tilt: they will not be playing their best game.

You just have to play solid poker and recognize that these players are taking more chances. Not too many players understand how tight you have to play to win. These 2/5 players exploit people playing KJo, 89s, 22, etc. They accelerate your losses, because they put too much pressure on you to continue with these hands, and sometimes they have the nuts.

So it’s the same game:
Fold lots & lots - win a big pot - fold lots & lots - win a big pot. People don’t even understand what I just wrote. It’s brutal to fold for hours, catch JJ and have to fold again.

Believe it or not many 2/5 players are not very good, they just have more money than the average joe. And when a player walks in with the attitude that y’all ain’t sh-t, I’m so good - it’s a funny thing to watch.

Yes exactly. I am trying to counter by doing tighter open/continuation range. Which, like you said, is painful, and more importantly implies larger variance. Wining a big pot is good but once in a while they do flop a set etc. Also this means we play way less hand an hour, which is not good for me as I don't live near a casino. Then based on what you said, and I agreed, the best thing to do is just to change table and find some more familiar soft calling station/nit to play with?

Anytime you’re uncomfortable with someone, switching tables is a great alternative. You never know what you’ll find. My table broke a day ago and the worse player followed me to the new table that was the softest I’ve played in years.

I also play less than I would like, but I hate losing so bad that I bring discipline with me.

This is a great example of the $2/$5 play in my area of South Florida. Just because these guys are regs, doesn't mean they actually have an imagination. It doesn't take long to figure out who the maniacs are.

My sesh last night went exactly as described above. Lot of folding 98s oop, KJos, 44, etc. waiting to stack one of the maniacs....as was stated above they have no defense for tight aggressive play.

I chipped up by staying disciplined, stealing a little and recognizing the usual maniacs patterns and exploiting them with traps, large turn bets on favorable boards. The other thing is don't limp. It's like a red cape to those guys.

So much to tackle here....

First, if the guy is waiting for a 2/5 seat to open, then he'll be gone soon. Why go to the trouble of changing tables yourself?

Second, the proper counter strategy to a LAG is not to "tighten up". That's exactly the wrong thing. Every post in this thread so far just suggested we try to lose more money. The lag profits from your over-folding. To beat a lag, you're gonna have to clench your butt-hole and call down.

Third, I'll bet that the average open size at a 1/3 table is probably within $5 (or 1BB) of the typical open size at 2/5. So your table is almost like a short-stacked 2/5 game. The proper strategy there would involve a lot of stack committing bets with small edges. So it sounds like your villain is just a good poker player.

Instead of trying to get away from him, you should want to be like him.

There's a Phil Galfond video out there that talks about downswings. Your downswings are a function of your skill edge and variance. If you get in a situation where you have less of a skill edge, you can't fix it by playing tighter. The lower skill edge and lower variance means you'll just experience the same downswings.

There is something very very very wrong with thinking "This guy is just a donkey with too much money" when confronted by a better poker player.

That's total misreg cope.

One other thing I'll add.....

If variance makes you queasy, it might be time to quit poker. I don't mean that in a snarky way, I mean the game is changing. In 10 years, assuming we can find a NLHE table...it will be unrecognizable when compared to the game today.

Straddles, antes, stand up game, 72 game, bomb pots, and PLO are taking over.

We're gonna have to embrace the variance, or find a new game.

What's your goal as a player? If the goal is to just grind $1/$3 indefinitely and just not lose too much money, then moving tables makes sense. If the goal is to improve as a player and be able to play higher stakes, well these are the guys you're going to have to beat. Take advantage of being able to play a slightly better player at lower stakes when tuition is cheaper.

The first questions you need to answer are:

1: Are they actually 3!/squeezing "wide", or are they 3!ing closer to a theoretically sound amount? Are they showing up with hands like J9s in a 3! pot (too wide) or are they showing up with KTs (very wide compared to typical $1/$3 players but theoretically sound).

2: Are they whaling about, or are they playing good poker. I live in an area where my local game is very small ($200 cap) but if I drive a couple of hours the games can get really big (MTS). It's very hard to make that transition and play good poker and I've certainly been the whale and gotten stuck $600 in a $200 cap passive game because I pushed too hard and didn't take it seriously. Other times, I can go sit and focus in that $200 cap game and tear it up playing better than I might in a big game because the fear of money is completely removed and I can just make what I determine as "the best" play. So in my experience, playing smaller sometimes makes me into a much worse player, and other times a much better player, dependent upon my psychology that day. Whaling about and using aggression strategically often look similar in small sample sizes, but have meaningful impacts in how you should play against them.

A few quick clues that V might be whaling about or playing good poker- are they putting a lot of money in OOP? Or is their aggression more amped up when they are IP? Are they showing up at showdown with reasonable hands/logical bluffs, or are they showing up with trash that has no business being in the pot at all? There is a line between playing a little wide and playing absolute trash.

If they are actually playing good poker, choosing reasonable hands and perhaps just taking the aggressive options a little too frequently in theory, then you want to play more hands aggressively. Tightening up is absolutely the wrong move because you are probably tightening up too much and a V who is playing well will recognize that and adjust. It's the easiest thing in the world to recognize a TAG and simply not pay them off. You're letting the V decide the size of the pot, and if V is playing well then they are going to be sizing the pot in a way that is favorable to their hand, not yours. You'll find yourself waiting for the big hand, and winning a modest pot because V will find the hero fold against you. When you are OOP, find more x/r bluffs. When IP take control of the betting and fight their aggression with aggression.

If they are whaling about, that is where a good TAG strategy shines, because V is just piling money in with mediocre hands and is willing to gamble for the sake of gambling. Your goal is to get into H/U pots with this player and be willing to get the money in relatively light. So you want to squeeze out other players aggressively (which is usually very easy at $1/$3) and then attack Vs weak range when you miss and let him hang himself when you have the goods.

Yes like PresidentDeuce said and I mentioned earlier I don't think they are maniacs, and they are using KTs to squeeze on btn/SB/BB which is not something entirely crazy. Since they are targeting weak players I am just trying to see how to counter. Tighting up is one answer but it indeed could end up in a win small lose big scenario as you shift towards being NIT. I just can't think of an overall framework against this right now other than defense wider pre and more bluffs with decent outs/when flop meets the range. Maybe this can be summarized as to play more like that aggressor. Saying to play better is just too vague here. Also it is kind of hard to switch between this and the usual under bluff/over fold strategy against usual 1/3 players. Like do we just try to be a LAG or do we still want to lean towards TAG. Right now I am still confused on should I just make some adjustment when he is in or just switch to his play entirely as it is better and embrace variance?

I agree with lots of things you said. So you are also saying to play against LAGs is to defense wider right. Is there any adjustment when we are the aggressor? Do we adjust bluff frequency, sizing etc.? One situation I find hard to play is when you are missing lots of flops when defending 3b wider with AJo/KJ etc. When playing against weak/nits it is easy to find the correct boards to attack as their range is easy to define and it is cheap to get them to fold. Against good LAGs I find it hard to find the right spot to attack, and it is often costly to get them to fold. Of course costly is relative. Based on your idea maybe we can just pretend this is a 2/5, embrace variance and bluff as usual?

Against aggro 3bettors/squeezers the adjustment I'd make is opening tighter, 4betting wider, back4betting premiums(as in calling an open to trap then wait for them to squeeze then we put in a 4bet.)

Another thing on variance: 3bet pot in 1/3 is not that common. Playing 20-25bb pot heads up and miss a few times could quickly hurt your stack. Right now I feel the only solution is to play as if it is 2/5. I was mentally more used to the low variance 1/3 game and probably not good for improvement.

Yeah definitely be prepared to call 3b when open/call open and do A5 4b bluffs that you never do to a nit. I like back4betting bluff more though as people perceive limp 3b/4b to be super strong at 1/3

Yes, you'll have to call down lighter. Look into something called "Minimum Defense Frequency" or "One minus Alpha". Basically when a villain bets, you have to defend with a certain percentage of your range to make him indifferent to bluffing. In other words, if he bets half pot and you fold more than 66% of your range, he can profit with any two cards. If you defend with a sufficient percentage, then you force him to actually have a hand, which he often won't.

Yes. Be Polarized. When you are polarized, you are not afraid to get raised. Either you're at the top of your range and can get value, or you're at the bottom and you can make a stress-free fold. Check and call with all your middle-strength hands.

I'm hearing two things here:

First, I'm hearing that you're opening AJo and KJ. Refer to what I said above about being polarized with our aggressive actions. Don't open these hands. You can limp and call with them.

Second, I'm hearing that you're looking to "attack" and try to get folds (i.e. bluff) when you're not the preflop aggressor. Don't do that. Just call down. It's not always going to be easy. You're going to have to call with middle two pair when a flush comes in. You're going to have to call with bottom set when he's piling it in. You're going to have to call when there are four to a suit on the board and you hold the 9 of that suit.

Why do you keep talking about bluffing? The adjustment to a LAG is to call more.

I'd assume they call 4bets more than folding. Hence I rather 4bet a linear range vs them than a polarized range.
I thought ppl give less credit to back4betting hence that's why I'd choose it as traps.

Yes I am trying to deal with him by limp/call open - then call his 3b with AJo and KJ. If I open something I want to make sure I can be comfortable calling his 3b.
I am totally on board with calling him down with any medium strength hand on a wet board. It is just I have been missing a lot recently and I am thinking about which hands to bluff against this guy. Not entirely sure about what to do with two overs and missed draws when against him. From what you said I should be polarized & work on my defense range and do some detailed calculation for my MDF.

Minimum Defense Frequency is another GTO concept that is too wide for a raked low limit game. The idea is not to jump in there and try to outplay these guys by playing like them. People are not playing GTO, not even close to optimal ranges, so they won’t respond as expected.

It’s for you to decide, but if you want to carry small edges into battle and outplay these guys, then luck is your huckleberry.

Agree that these players struggle when you attack aggressively. The best players play like a maniac on early streets, but settle into solid logical play on later streets.

I find it interesting when I disagree with the pack, but TAG is my style. I find the idea of playing like a LAG against LAGS as amusing.

I’m walking tall with a big stick when I enter the pot. I’m fighting aggression with aggression & they know my range is strong. I don’t have any trouble with these guys.

But I am not defending with weak hands or attacking with junk. I’m not trying to jump in there and outplay them. Just my usual game of patience, recognizing good situations and avoiding bad ones.

I know how hard it is to win
When people advocate playing more hands on here, in the back of my mind I’m thinking this is not a winning player.

That's absolutely not true. You'[re incredibly wrong. And you should be embarrassed to be giving poker advice when you so clearly misunderstand the basic fundamentals of the game. This statement is so ignorant I don't know where to begin. Should I explain what GTO is and how this isn't it? Should I explain what Minimum defense frequency is because you clearly don't know what that means either? Or should I explain what rake is, since you somehow think it's something that's actually relevant to this analysis?

This is stunning, really.

Bluffing, and the math behind it, have been part of the game long before any poker player ever thought about GTO.

I'm pretty sure this stuff was in Super System for crying out loud.

If your opponent bets, you let him profit by bluffing if you fold too much. That's not a "GTO" concept. It's basic ABC poker.

It's the basis of the fundamental exploitative strategy we all agree wins at low stakes. You raise pre to isolate a player who calls too wide, then you attack post-flop and get folds. That's the bread & butter play against loose-passives. You get them to put money in with a ton of speculative hands, and then get them to fold when most of those hands inevitably miss.

Try this exercise: List all the hands that you would flat-call a raise with in position, and take heads up to the flop against the pre-flop raiser. Count the combos. Assume the flop is Q96 double suited. Then assume your opponent makes a half-pot c-bet. He can auto-profit if you fold more than 33% of the time. So you need to find 67% of the hands in your range that will continue. Start counting hands and see how much of your range you're folding. If it's more than 33%, then you are most definitely a losing poker player.

The solution could be to call with more hands from your range. But more likely, the solution is to get to the flop with a tighter range to begin with. If you find you can't defend enough to prevent your opponent from bluffing, then it's an indicator that you're playing too many hands pre-flop.

It means you're the fish.

First of all. I'd ignore anything presidentdeuce has to say. He's a 2nl reg, while his advice might seem ''good'' to a novice. It's total garbage.

Second, the money you win comes from weaker players, not from having dick measuring contests with regs who you deem to be competent/better than you. The solution is not to start playing more hands vs them and calling 3bets with AJo and KJ so you can get destroyed post-flop.

Winning poker is boring, winning poker at your stakes is to play tight, winning poker at your stakes is not ''play more junk-ish hands against LAGs''.

If you want to actually improve, post hands you struggled with, don't ask for generic advice that simply won't improve you. Being told to ''call down more'' or ''be more aggro'' doesn't do much if you're clueless when and how to do it.

Feel free to say WHY it's garbage.

Otherwise, you're a ******.

I agree that stacking off and variance are becoming more common, and as mentioned this is especially true since Omaha is becoming spread more often (from my perspective). It's a hard truth for some new players that you're going to have a very hard row to hoe if you wait two weeks to play, then have $600 to play with, and if you lose it, wait, rinse, repeat. That is a very difficult way to build a bankroll. I struggle with it myself in a local Omaha game where people go crazy (and they're bad), but to them the stakes are small and they're ok losing up to $100K in a night. I can't do that, so it's extremely frustrating to play in that game, knowing I can't play the way I really want to to beat it handily.

Here is some advice. Go find a play money game. For example on PokerBros. You might think play money is nothing, but some people are actually trying. So the tables end up being a little similar to what you describe. A couple maniacs, a couple total fish, and a couple people really trying their best for practice. Now just make sure you're playing play money stakes that are so small that losing 20 buyins means literally nothing to you, other than mayb you're getting a little annoyed. Even at play money, don't play stakes where you're getting anywhere close to your play money bankroll.

This will give you an idea of what it takes in terms of bankroll to actually play your highest EV poker in these situations. It might take awhile to get there, and once there you might want to spend that money, because why are you playing if not to make money and spend it on something? But playing with 100-200 buyins means more than just covering risk of ruin. It's a mindset and it leaves all your options open so you can play the best exploitive EV for the situation, no matter what it is.

The genius is often stunned by my posts as delusions run through his mind. Since he clearly didn’t understand, maybe some others…

Simply saying that MDF usually has you playing looser than necessary, because you are not facing a player playing GTO.

He’s wrong, but convincing
Probably make a good used car salesman