Poker Forum > Strategy

Cash Game Hand on Betfair - I have QQ.

<< < (8/8)

JamieCarra:
I lol"d

noble1:

--- Quote ---The definition of GP is somewhat similar to David Sklansky's Theory of Poker, which states that whenever your action is different from what you would do if you could see your opponent's hole cards, you show a loss. However, it is important to remember that poker players have imperfect information; so in learning poker we should not be trying to play "perfect" poker (Theory of Poker) but rather "optimal" poker (GP), meaning that we want to make the actions with the highest rate of return based on the information that is actually available.

As an example, say you are playing in a hypothetical game in which a friend of yours raises all in. Because you are familiar with your friend's play, you know that this means he will always have either pocket aces or exactly the deuce of clubs and three of hearts. If you are getting 1:1 on your money, you should fold to his raise even the times when he is actually holding deuce three. This is because you have no information regarding when he is holding exactly deuce three, and so must choose the action with the highest average rate of return based on the information that is actually available, which in this case is that, on average, when your opponent makes this action he holds deuce three 14% of the time.

The first part of GP is in many ways the more challenging one and is much more responsible for the depth of poker than the second point. This is because guessing the likelihood of your opponent's actions or potential actions is a non-deductive process; ultimately all your assumptions of what your opponent is likely to do, regardless of how much information you have, are simply opinions of what he is likely to do based on your past experiences with him and with other opponents.

This brings up an interesting problem for those learning poker: How can I quantify the quality of my assumptions? Since this is an intuitive, or inductive, process, you can never determine the likelihood of your opponent's actions with deductive certainty, but carefully and honestly evaluating your own decision-making processes makes sure that the available information is being processed rationally. What information is available to you? Could you get more? How? Did you have enough information to weight your opponent's actions as heavily as you did? Was all of the information you used for your decision actually pertinent to the actual situation at hand? And so on.

The second portion of GP is a deductively valid process: For any set of assumptions made regarding the likelihood of your opponent's actions, you can use mathematics to find the one line that will have the highest average rate of return based on those assumptions. This may not always be a simple thing to do, of course, but quite a bit of literature and software is available to help familiarize players with the mathematical aspects of poker; and while it may not always be practical to solve mathematical questions in entirety, many players may find that it only takes a little bit of handyman's knowhow to be able to analyze which factors have an impact in particular situations, and how changes in those factors would affect how they would want to play the hand.

And so, having discussed what good poker is brings me to my next point: What are some of the common problems with the ways that people try and learn poker today? First, it's very important to remember that in playing poker you are not trying to play against your opponent's specific two cards, since that information is not actually available; instead you want to make the series of plays that have the highest average expected rate of return based on the information that is actually available, which most of the time means that you are playing against a range of hands. This also applies to trying to quantify the likelihood of your opponent's actions: You are determining what actions are likely and the degree of likelihood, based on the information that is actually available and not the action he or she ends up making in actuality.

The second issue is not necessarily a problem in and of itself, but is something that people should be aware of, particularly when moving on to more advanced play. This is that, traditionally, poker education, be it through books, a website, or one-on-one instruction, tries to teach the student how to play a generalized, exploitative gameplan based on common assumptions of what people are likely to do. The reason that I say that this is not necessarily a problem is that the learning curve for poker is very steep as is, and it would be very difficult to approach a new player with the tools to take a more mathematical approach to finding optimal actions against their opponents on an individual basis.

It is important to remember that, while it may be an effective method for teaching beginning players, it contains some extremely large flaws. Instruction that centers on teaching the student how to exploit particular game conditions is only effective so long as those game conditions remain true. If game conditions change, the coaching the student received is no longer effective; and as is the case with many amateur players, these exploitative concepts may be misapplied to different game conditions
--- End quote ---

Marty719:
No-one argues that we would rather have reads, but due to the mass volume of players atm, its important to be able to play profitable poker vs opponents in a readless situation.  Value shouldnt be sacraficed in a cash game.  We can always reload the rare occasions he has the top of his range...

TheSnapper:

--- Quote from: noble1 on January 01, 2011, 04:24:53 AM ---

--- Quote ---The definition of Good Poker (GP) is somewhat similar to David Sklansky's Theory of Poker, which states that whenever your action is different from what you would do if you could see your opponent's hole cards, you show a loss. However, it is important to remember that poker players have imperfect information; so in learning poker we should not be trying to play "perfect" poker (Theory of Poker) but rather "optimal" poker (GP), meaning that we want to make the actions with the highest rate of return based on the information that is actually available.

As an example, say you are playing in a hypothetical game in which a friend of yours raises all in. Because you are familiar with your friend's play, you know that this means he will always have either pocket aces or exactly the deuce of clubs and three of hearts. If you are getting 1:1 on your money, you should fold to his raise even the times when he is actually holding deuce three. This is because you have no information regarding when he is holding exactly deuce three, and so must choose the action with the highest average rate of return based on the information that is actually available, which in this case is that, on average, when your opponent makes this action he holds deuce three 14% of the time.

The first part of GP is in many ways the more challenging one and is much more responsible for the depth of poker than the second point. This is because guessing the likelihood of your opponent's actions or potential actions is a non-deductive process; ultimately all your assumptions of what your opponent is likely to do, regardless of how much information you have, are simply opinions of what he is likely to do based on your past experiences with him and with other opponents.

This brings up an interesting problem for those learning poker: How can I quantify the quality of my assumptions? Since this is an intuitive, or inductive, process, you can never determine the likelihood of your opponent's actions with deductive certainty, but carefully and honestly evaluating your own decision-making processes makes sure that the available information is being processed rationally. What information is available to you? Could you get more? How? Did you have enough information to weight your opponent's actions as heavily as you did? Was all of the information you used for your decision actually pertinent to the actual situation at hand? And so on.

The second portion of GP is a deductively valid process: For any set of assumptions made regarding the likelihood of your opponent's actions, you can use mathematics to find the one line that will have the highest average rate of return based on those assumptions. This may not always be a simple thing to do, of course, but quite a bit of literature and software is available to help familiarize players with the mathematical aspects of poker; and while it may not always be practical to solve mathematical questions in entirety, many players may find that it only takes a little bit of handyman's knowhow to be able to analyze which factors have an impact in particular situations, and how changes in those factors would affect how they would want to play the hand.

And so, having discussed what good poker is brings me to my next point: What are some of the common problems with the ways that people try and learn poker today? First, it's very important to remember that in playing poker you are not trying to play against your opponent's specific two cards, since that information is not actually available; instead you want to make the series of plays that have the highest average expected rate of return based on the information that is actually available, which most of the time means that you are playing against a range of hands. This also applies to trying to quantify the likelihood of your opponent's actions: You are determining what actions are likely and the degree of likelihood, based on the information that is actually available and not the action he or she ends up making in actuality.

The second issue is not necessarily a problem in and of itself, but is something that people should be aware of, particularly when moving on to more advanced play. This is that, traditionally, poker education, be it through books, a website, or one-on-one instruction, tries to teach the student how to play a generalized, exploitative gameplan based on common assumptions of what people are likely to do. The reason that I say that this is not necessarily a problem is that the learning curve for poker is very steep as is, and it would be very difficult to approach a new player with the tools to take a more mathematical approach to finding optimal actions against their opponents on an individual basis.

It is important to remember that, while it may be an effective method for teaching beginning players, it contains some extremely large flaws. Instruction that centers on teaching the student how to exploit particular game conditions is only effective so long as those game conditions remain true. If game conditions change, the coaching the student received is no longer effective; and as is the case with many amateur players, these exploitative concepts may be misapplied to different game conditions
--- End quote ---



SOURCE

--- End quote ---




Happy New Year Mr Noble ;D

FYP.

Backs up your pov somewhat and is a good read so thanks but, simply put, imho villain has sufficient hands we beat in his calling range to warrant BETBET.

If I"m not mistaken you agree on the calling range but prefer to bet smaller (not play it as fast) so as to not scare off the weaker end of that range. This really is a moot point.......



* Smaller bets are often perceived as stronger.

* Raptor betting(successive small bets) gives the villain more chances to fold hence it is a powerful bluffing technique

* Turn and river cards are somewhat likely to scare villain into finding a fold.

* Any Benefits of betting small are negated by the scare card potential on the turn and river

 

But tbh its so close I don"t really mind either line.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[*] Previous page