what is street poker

The term has been around a long time, but probably the most succinct definition would be "A large deviation from what a solver would do, esp. with little knowledge of how ranges are different from GTO and how those ranges interact with what you are doing."

In your 86s thread, you said V opened too much and called too much. Then he opens 3x EP and you 3bet 86s in CO.

But in GTO land if EP opens then CO _at most_ 3bets 87s/76s ~33% of the time (GTOwiz), and it's even less than that for wider ranges (Eg. HJ opens). Other models much prefer to use A6s and increase KQo/etc. and almost pure fold 87s/76s. The EV of fold/3bet/call is 0, so in theory you can pick slightly different hands but much more likely you are just playing much wider. The hand you picked is a worse version of those, which is pure folded everywhere and is -EV as raise or call.

Also FWIW if you run V's hand his actions are much more solver approved at every point (you bet way too much on flop, but vs. the correct size V is supposed to raise or call with all 55 ... and then if call, calling a large bet on the turn with 5s5x is also fine).

I have been taking Street poker to mean tactics that are heavily based on reads, tells, game dynamics, or meta factors outside of the mathematical aspects of strategy.

For example "this guy has raised the cutoff when it's my button the past 4 orbits and if he does it again I'm 3-betting no matter what" then follows thru with 84s. Or "this player is scared money, I'm going to barrel off on almost any runout here"

yeah, I mean the term was created long before solvers, so no need to involve them in the definition.

I think Man of Means hits it very nicely. I was going to say 'Playing the player & the situation (with a focus on being creative & aggressive) irrespective of the cards'

IMO, "street poker" is essentially doing things we know are -EV simply because we think we can out-play our opponent, and we plan to.

It's turning poker into psychological warfare, by way of deliberately doing stupid $hlt, mostly hyper-aggro $hlt, with an apparent disregard for the value of money. It's "playing chicken" at the table, being "showy", daring opponents to look us up, using speech play to get opponents wound up, etc.

Examples might include calling a 4B light with a plan to bluff post-flop, or making a very light 3B thinking an opponent will over-fold post. It may be incessant min-clicking, or betting in the dark, or auto-raising whenever an opponent donks.

If you tell yourself, "I can make this guy fold a strong hand if I apply enough pressure," you're playing street poker. If you're going out of your way to make plays not because they have immediate +EV within that hand, but because you see a lot of future EV if you can tilt an opponent, you're playing street poker.

If you 3B a mis-reg TAG who opened from EP, while holding KQs, in the blinds, and then run a huge three-street bluff, from OOP, you're playing street poker (I've done this).

If you 3B huge from the BB over an aggro reg's BTN open over 2-3 limps, while holding T2o (I've done it), and then look up and point to the ceiling, and say "RIP, Doyle!" after everyone folds (also done it), you're playing street poker.

If you know the cocky reg kid on your immediate left will open for a raise 90% of the time when you limp, and you go for the limp-3B with A8o, and you wait for him to make a comment about how obvious it is you have AA, then you show him A8o, and say, "good read" (I've done all of this), you're playing street poker.

If you're running over the table, and open 95o UTG (done it), get two calls, and then the kid who looks like he's 12 years old 3B's you from the BTN, you 4B him (done it), then check-call the K76rb flop with nothing but a gut-shot (done it), and donk-jam on the turn 9 (done it), you're playing street poker.

If you defend your BB with 52dd vs the nit-reg's MP open, and then check-raise his flop c-bet with bottom pair and a couple of BD draws, because you know 942rb is not his board (guilty of this), you're playing street poker.

None of this is necessary. It's not GTO. It's not even "exploitative". It's stupid is as stupid does. But it is entertaining.

This term has clearly earned some odd implications over the years. I'll send up the Squid Signal

one variant is doing something that might be -EV in a single hand but will induce overcompensating mistakes in future hands. like bluffing a few times then overbetting the nuts vs teh same opponent later.

Wildly loose and highly aggressive!

‘Street Poker’ is exploitative play. Theory doesn’t matter, the story doesn’t matter, it’s all about applying pressure and putting villain in uncomfortable situations.

The best of these players has a read on everyone at the table and challenges each of them. Comfortable being overly aggressive, comfortable bluffing with nothing and always putting villain to the test.

The worst of these players is what we usually consider, making plays that make no sense. In their mind, they make plays to get back at someone or just try to push people around.

Blasting off because that’s the only way to win the hand, even if the hand and situation strongly suggest we shouldn’t.

Since I started the thread, I hereby grant me the authority to declare a winner. A passing grade is given to feel wrath, an A+ to Man of Means, everyone else has to remain in class during recess and clean the chalkboards. Eh...what's that? No chalkboards you say?

I grew up in poker when there were no charts or solvers. I had a credit card sized piece of plastic that gave approved opening hands, sorted by EP, MP, and LP. I guess what many of you are saying is street poker is me in many ways, except I'll disagree around the margins. Not trying to change minds here, but I do think it is very important that each of you know that my opinion is the only one that matters as it comes from the divine teachings of the poker gods on high.

docvail

I think poker is absolutely a game of psychological warfare, but disagree with the latter part. Sometimes the cards don't matter so it might look stupid to the solver, but the solver isn't in the hand. Knowing when is the art of poker.

docvail

I love this one. I don't know why the meta game is not talked about more. You're sitting there for 4, 6, or 12 hours and so many people act like the only hand that matters is the one you're playing at that moment. It's not just tilting someone, it's training them to look for the wrong tells with bet sizing and timing, difficult folds that may or may not have been difficult, showing the bluff, etc.

freecard

wildly loose - not necessarily, I can play nitty for hours and then do "stupid ****" in one hand and be believed; aggressive - yes; theory - no; story matters - YES, I like to start the bluff pre whenever possible; pressure and discomfort - yes.

OmahaDonk

That can just be stupidly bad play. The V who has decided he can't go home until his chips are gone does this because he's desperately looking for someone, anyone, to put him out of his misery. That's not street poker in my book.

What I've long wanted to see was a stacked deck tournament. 1000 hands where everyone gets the same cards in the same positions over the course of the day. If it was a 2 person event, when S1 gets AA and S2 gets JTs, later in the event those hands would be reversed. In theory, with no rake and everyone playing perfect poker, everyone would end the day at break-even. In practice, there would be winners and losers based on human factors.

Post-script, I found a more succinct definition. Street poker is the extreme end of the continuum that starts with game theory and extends through exploitable / exploitative play.

GTO = theory according to a equal application of mathematics and conditional (if / then) logic.

Exploits = deviating from theory by making adjustments to take advantage of opponents' observed leaks, relying more heavily on conditional logic and less heavily on mathematics.

Street = throwing math out the window and shoving logic into a corner, making plays that are not supported by either, but rather the player's own intuition about what might work, without regard for the inherent variance being intentionally added to the game.

Theory says do X. Exploits say my opponent does Y, so I'll do Z. Street doesn't care about X, Y, or Z, instead preferring to do N, where N has no predicate and therefore can't be predicted or quantified.

I once read a post in this forum that effectively said no logic or math could help hero make a decision because V did something hero had never seen before. V either is or is not bluffing.

Street poker is like that, all the time.

As a former practitioner put it when I lit the Squid Signal: