[NL5 ZOOM] AshrakWhite uus algus

[Cele]

Mingi video leidsin, aga ei oska öelda kui hea/halb on. Vb abiks :)

https://www.pokertube.com/videos/adv...-pots-postflop

[Confidence]

3bet call range peaks olema vastupidiselt laiem. Kui 3bet call oleks nii madal, et see oleks väiksem kui 3bet, oleks tulemus ilmselt üsna katastroofiline.

Õppige pokkeriteooriat poisid. Kõik muud lähenemised probleemile on ühedimensioonilised ning tekitavad tulevikus probleeme (kui eesmärk on "normaalsel" tasemel tulevikus mängida). Suurt pilti peab nägema selleks et teatud punkte omavahel ühendada. Unexploitable on võtmesõna.
http://www.amazon.com/Applications-N.../dp/1880685558
See raamat.

[Fabulous]

Õppige pokkeriteooriat poisid. Kõik muud lähenemised probleemile on ühedimensioonilised ning tekitavad tulevikus probleeme (kui eesmärk on "normaalsel" tasemel tulevikus mängida). Suurt pilti peab nägema selleks et teatud punkte omavahel ühendada. Unexploitable on võtmesõna.
http://www.amazon.com/Applications-N.../dp/1880685558
See raamat.

Ma ei saa täpselt aru kas sa nõustud minuga või vaidled millegi suhtes vastu, aga see raamat kinnitab seda mis ma enne juba ütlesin. Mitte, et see unexploitable oleks, aga silma järgi vaadates peaks pre-flop peatüki järgi umbes 27-30% vs 3-bet callima (reaalsuses panuste suurused ilmselt muudavad seda numbrit mingil määral).

Osaliselt ma nõustun, et "õiged" harjumused tuleks võimalikult vara sisse harjutada, aga ma samas kahtlen, et see just kõige parem raamat on mida NL5 mängijale soovitada. Tegemist on siiski kirjandusega, mis on mõeldud tugevatele ja mõtlevatele mängijatele vastu saamiseks. Näiteks kui BvB olukorras fishilt 3-beti saad ei ole nii madalal lihtsalt mõtet hakata a'la Q7s-ga 4-bet bluffima, et balanseeritud olla või post-flop näiteks value-to-bluff ratio peale mõtlema hakata. Ma üldse ei kahtle, et madalamates limiitides nende teadmistega edukalt biitida saab, aga graafik on ilmselt paras EKG.

[Confidence]

Ma ei saa täpselt aru kas sa nõustud minuga või vaidled millegi suhtes vastu, aga see raamat kinnitab seda mis ma enne juba ütlesin. Mitte, et see unexploitable oleks, aga silma järgi vaadates peaks pre-flop peatüki järgi umbes 27-30% vs 3-bet callima (reaalsuses panuste suurused ilmselt muudavad seda numbrit mingil määral).

Osaliselt ma nõustun, et "õiged" harjumused tuleks võimalikult vara sisse harjutada, aga ma samas kahtlen, et see just kõige parem raamat on mida NL5 mängijale soovitada. Tegemist on siiski kirjandusega, mis on mõeldud tugevatele ja mõtlevatele mängijatele vastu saamiseks. Näiteks kui BvB olukorras fishilt 3-beti saad ei ole nii madalal lihtsalt mõtet hakata a'la Q7s-ga 4-bet bluffima, et balanseeritud olla või post-flop näiteks value-to-bluff ratio peale mõtlema hakata. Ma üldse ei kahtle, et madalamates limiitides nende teadmistega edukalt biitida saab, aga graafik on ilmselt paras EKG.

See raamat aitab ehitada tugeva teoreetilise raamistiku. Kuidas pokker teoreetiliselt "töötab" ja kuidas oleks korrektne mängida. Seega kui sa reaalselt mõistad kuidas unexploitable pokker töötab siis saad exploitimise kohapealt ka omad järeldused teha.
Praktikas loeb ainult Max EV. Vahet pole kas see on siis unexploitable lähenemine sauce vastu HUd mängides või exploitative lähenemine drooleri vastu kes 3betib 100%.

( Click to show/hide )

1) Against any player:

Most profitable play = maximally exploitative play

2) Against a "nemesis" (a player who will exploit us maximally whatever we do):

Most profitable play = maximally exploitative play under the constraint that we immediately will get maximally exploited in return = Nash equilibrium strategy.

In both cases we're maximizing profit and playing each individual hand as profitably as possible. Against the nemesis, this process leads us to a Nash equilibrium strategy with ranges that are balanced everywhere, but we don't play balanced for balance's sake, we do it because it maximizes our expectation against the nemesis.

It often comes up in discussion that GTO/Nash equilibrium strategies are defensive and designed not to lose. It's not incorrect to state this, but it's more useful to to think about them as designed to maximize expectation against a perfectly playing opponent. It just so happens that when we're playing against a nemesis, our maximized expectation is zero, but against most opponents we will win.

Against an exploitable opponent who doesn't adjust, we will win the most by removing the assumption that we always get counter-exploited. Then we can make more extreme exploitative moves and increase our profit further.

In poker the term "exploitative play" is usually associated with making money from opponent mistakes. We're stuck with that term, but I like "maximizing expectation" better, because it's generally applicable and because this is what we always try to do, whether our opponent is making mistakes or not. Against weak players, we achieve this by using extreme strategies that can be exploited in return. Against the nemesis, we achieve this by playing a Nash equilibrium strategy.

Hommikukohvi kõrvale lugemist:
http://www.runitonce.com/nlhe/breaki...comment-131841

[Confidence]

Teine must read raamat oleks "Mental Game of Poker 2" Tendleri poolt. See paneb päris hea aluse A-game arendamisele ja sellele kuidas iga pro peaks lähenema et selles maailmas ellu jääda.
GL

[Fabulous]

See raamat aitab ehitada tugeva teoreetilise raamistiku. Kuidas pokker teoreetiliselt "töötab" ja kuidas oleks korrektne mängida. Seega kui sa reaalselt mõistad kuidas unexploitable pokker töötab siis saad exploitimise kohapealt ka omad järeldused teha.
Praktikas loeb ainult Max EV. Vahet pole kas see on siis unexploitable lähenemine sauce vastu HUd mängides või exploitative lähenemine drooleri vastu kes 3betib 100%.

( Click to show/hide )

1) Against any player:

Most profitable play = maximally exploitative play

2) Against a "nemesis" (a player who will exploit us maximally whatever we do):

Most profitable play = maximally exploitative play under the constraint that we immediately will get maximally exploited in return = Nash equilibrium strategy.

In both cases we're maximizing profit and playing each individual hand as profitably as possible. Against the nemesis, this process leads us to a Nash equilibrium strategy with ranges that are balanced everywhere, but we don't play balanced for balance's sake, we do it because it maximizes our expectation against the nemesis.

It often comes up in discussion that GTO/Nash equilibrium strategies are defensive and designed not to lose. It's not incorrect to state this, but it's more useful to to think about them as designed to maximize expectation against a perfectly playing opponent. It just so happens that when we're playing against a nemesis, our maximized expectation is zero, but against most opponents we will win.

Against an exploitable opponent who doesn't adjust, we will win the most by removing the assumption that we always get counter-exploited. Then we can make more extreme exploitative moves and increase our profit further.

In poker the term "exploitative play" is usually associated with making money from opponent mistakes. We're stuck with that term, but I like "maximizing expectation" better, because it's generally applicable and because this is what we always try to do, whether our opponent is making mistakes or not. Against weak players, we achieve this by using extreme strategies that can be exploited in return. Against the nemesis, we achieve this by playing a Nash equilibrium strategy.

Hommikukohvi kõrvale lugemist:
http://www.runitonce.com/nlhe/breaki...comment-131841

Ma saan täpselt aru mida sa mõtled ja nõustun, aga ma pidasin eelmise postitusega silmas seda, et madalamaid limiite on võimalik täiesti edukalt ja variatsioonivabamalt läbi lihtsamate kontseptsioonide biitida ja hiljem kõrgemale tõustes saab lihtsalt keerukamad asjad juurde õppida. See Matthew Janda raamat on loomulikult ajatu kuid madalal mängides peaks võib-olla pigem keskenduma solid basic strateegia välja töötamisele (näiteks The Poker Blueprint).

[Confidence]

Janda raamat ongi basic solid strateegiast.

[AshrakWhite]

Nii, peale mõningast asjade ülevaatamist esimene sess. 1h ~0.5BI +

paar funky kätt oli ka ja kuulereid nagu ikka.


H1: liiga passiivne võib olla samas oli väga väga safe board

Poker Stars No-Limit Hold'em, $0.05 BB (6 handed) - Poker Stars Converter Tool from http://flopturnriver.com

Button ($5.02)
SB ($4.81)
Hero (BB) ($10.96)
UTG ($5.94)
MP ($4.66)
CO ($5)

Preflop: Hero is BB with 4, 4
1 fold, MP raises $0.15, 3 folds, Hero calls $0.10

Flop: ($0.32) 8, J, 4 (2 players)
Hero checks, MP bets $0.24, Hero calls $0.24

Turn: ($0.80) 6 (2 players)
Hero bets $0.75, MP calls $0.75

River: ($2.30) 10 (2 players)
Hero bets $1.55, MP raises $3.52 (All-In), Hero calls $1.97

Total pot: $9.34

Results below:

( Click to show/hide )

Hero had 4, 4 (three of a kind, fours).
MP had 9, 7 (straight, Jack high).
Outcome: MP won $8.95

H2:

Poker Stars No-Limit Hold'em, $0.05 BB (6 handed) - Poker Stars Converter Tool from http://www.flopturnriver.com/

Button ($3.59)
Hero (SB) ($7)
BB ($5.15)
UTG ($5.40)
MP ($8.43)
CO ($4.41)

Preflop: Hero is SB with Q, K
2 folds, CO raises $0.15, 1 fold, Hero raises $0.53, 1 fold, CO calls $0.40

Flop: ($1.15) 3, Q, 4 (2 players)
Hero bets $0.70, CO calls $0.70

Turn: ($2.55) 10 (2 players)
Hero checks, CO bets $1.22, Hero folds

Total pot: $2.55

Results below:

( Click to show/hide )

CO didn't show

H3:


Poker Stars No-Limit Hold'em, $0.05 BB (6 handed) - Poker Stars Converter Tool from http://www.flopturnriver.com

Button ($8.03)
Hero (SB) ($8.55)
BB ($10.62)
UTG ($5.52)
MP ($7.92)
CO ($5.83)

Preflop: Hero is SB with J, 8
4 folds, Hero raises $0.13, BB calls $0.10

Flop: ($0.30) J, 7, 6 (2 players)
Hero bets $0.25, BB calls $0.25

Turn: ($0.80) 4 (2 players)
Hero bets $0.65, BB calls $0.65

River: ($2.10) 6 (2 players)
Hero checks, BB checks

Total pot: $2.10

Results below:

( Click to show/hide )

Hero had J, 8 (two pair, Jacks and sixes).
BB had J, 9 (two pair, Jacks and sixes).
Outcome: BB won $2.01

H4: All them outs omg.


Poker Stars No-Limit Hold'em, $0.05 BB (6 handed) - Poker Stars Converter Tool from http://www.flopturnriver.com

Button ($8.35)
SB ($5)
BB ($6.37)
UTG ($6.87)
MP ($4.77)
Hero (CO) ($5.75)

Preflop: Hero is CO with 9, 10
2 folds, Hero raises $0.15, Button raises $0.45, 2 folds, Hero calls $0.30

Flop: ($0.97) J, J, Q (2 players)
Hero checks, Button checks

Turn: ($0.97) Q (2 players)
Hero bets $0.60, Button calls $0.60

River: ($2.17) 7 (2 players)
Hero checks, Button bets $1.55, Hero folds

Total pot: $2.17

Results below:

( Click to show/hide )

Button didn't show

[AshrakWhite]

täna vaadates h1 on fine, tüübil ~20% hittida võib isegi pot panna

h2 olen nit, call ja check call river ilmselt hea

h3 on ka okei, riveril check call, ei taha bettida kuna sitem enivei valuet ei anna ja AI minna ka kahtlane

h4 on ka okei vist, järele mõeldes kahtlustan et turnil oli mul 2 outsi. aga vaakumis ei tea kunagi.

[Cele]

H1: üldiselt microdes mõttetu slowplayda. Isegi ohutu laua puhul. Ma ajan ikka rahasid sisse, foldib siis foldib.
H4: open-ended straightflush draw võimalusega royal hittida- miks floppi chekkida? Nii masiivset drawd ikka pigem aggroda? Või arvad, et seal QQ vastas? Või JJ?

[donkament]

H1: üldiselt microdes mõttetu slowplayda. Isegi ohutu laua puhul. Ma ajan ikka rahasid sisse, foldib siis foldib.
H4: open-ended straightflush draw võimalusega royal hittida- miks floppi chekkida? Nii masiivset drawd ikka pigem aggroda? Või arvad, et seal QQ vastas? Või JJ?

ei :(

1. wp
2. makes no sense. milleks 3bettida for value ja siis give uppida seal, eriti mingi fishise stacki vastu?
3. wp
4. mehhhhh. Mida tightimad 3bet ranged, seda vähem näed oma equityt turnis/riveris ja ei saa lightilt peelida. Prolly oleks pre fold ausate micronittide vastu.

[AshrakWhite]

ei :(

1. wp
2. makes no sense. milleks 3bettida for value ja siis give uppida seal, eriti mingi fishise stacki vastu?
3. wp
4. mehhhhh. Mida tightimad 3bet ranged, seda vähem näed oma equityt turnis/riveris ja ei saa lightilt peelida. Prolly oleks pre fold ausate micronittide vastu.

2. jep, brainfart minupoolt, nagu ütlesin c/c oleks ilmselt kõige safe way.
4. 3b võrdlemisi light seal IMO aga eks seda näeb statist kui kauem mängida veidi. selline 50/50 minu arvates. 9t's selline käsi ka millega õige flopi korral saab stacke, mõte oli selline et tüüp betim siis mina shoven.

[AshrakWhite]

-2 BI, suts alla EV, polnud midagi parata.



H1:

Poker Stars No-Limit Hold'em, $0.05 BB (6 handed) - Poker Stars Converter Tool from http://www.flopturnriver.com

Button ($6.55) (VPIP 42 PFR 25 AGG 1 hands 11)
SB ($5)
BB ($5.94)
UTG ($5.85)
MP ($4.52)
Hero (CO) ($5.73)

Preflop: Hero is CO with 6, 6
UTG raises $0.15, 1 fold, Hero calls $0.15, Button calls $0.15, 2 folds

Flop: ($0.52) J, 6, 5 (3 players)
UTG bets $0.33, Hero raises $1, 1 fold, UTG calls $0.67

Turn: ($2.52) 4 (2 players)
UTG checks, Hero bets $2.20, UTG raises $4.70 (All-In), Hero calls $2.38 (All-In)

River: ($11.68) 8 (2 players, 2 all-in)

Total pot: $11.68

Results below:

( Click to show/hide )

UTG had 10, 9 (flush, Jack high).
Hero had 6, 6 (three of a kind, sixes).
Outcome: UTG won $11.32

H2:

Poker Stars No-Limit Hold'em, $0.05 BB (6 handed) - Poker Stars Converter Tool from http://poker-tools.flopturnriver.com/Hand-Converter.php

Button ($7.74) (VPIP 15 PFR 15 AGG 2 hands 13 )
Hero (SB) ($5.59)
BB ($7.87)
UTG ($8.48)
MP ($5.38)
CO ($5)

Preflop: Hero is SB with J, 8
3 folds, Button raises $0.15, Hero calls $0.13, 1 fold

Flop: ($0.35) 4, 6, 7 (2 players)
Hero checks, Button bets $0.24, Hero raises $0.70, Button raises $2.70, Hero raises $4.74 (All-In), Button calls $2.50

Turn: ($11.23) 7 (2 players, 1 all-in)

River: ($11.23) J (2 players, 1 all-in)

Total pot: $11.23

Results below:

( Click to show/hide )

Button had 6, 6 (full house, sixes over sevens).
Hero had J, 8 (two pair, Jacks and sevens).
Outcome: Button won $10.76

h3:

Poker Stars No-Limit Hold'em, $0.05 BB (6 handed) - Poker Stars Converter Tool from http://flopturnriver.com/

Button ($9.76)
SB ($5.77)
BB ($5.79)
UTG ($5)
Hero (MP) ($8.74)
CO ($5.93)

Preflop: Hero is MP with Q, K
1 fold, Hero raises $0.15, 1 fold, Button calls $0.15, 2 folds

Flop: ($0.37) K, Q, 6 (2 players)
Hero bets $0.29, Button calls $0.29

Turn: ($0.95) 8 (2 players)
Hero bets $0.80, Button calls $0.80

River: ($2.55) 10 (2 players)
Hero checks, Button bets $1, Hero calls $1

Total pot: $4.55

Results below:

( Click to show/hide )

Button had A, J (straight, Ace high).
Hero had Q, K (two pair, Kings and Queens).
Outcome: Button won $4.36

h4:

Poker Stars No-Limit Hold'em, $0.05 BB (6 handed) - Poker Stars Converter Tool from http://www.flopturnriver.com

Button ($7.97)
SB ($11.12)
BB ($5)
UTG ($1.70)
Hero (MP) ($7.52)
CO ($5.11)

Preflop: Hero is MP with 8, 8
UTG calls $0.05, Hero raises $0.20, 4 folds, UTG calls $0.15

Flop: ($0.47) 3, 7, 6 (2 players)
UTG bets $0.31, Hero calls $0.31

Turn: ($1.09) 5 (2 players)
UTG bets $0.44, Hero raises $2.40, UTG calls $0.75 (All-In)

River: ($3.47) 2 (2 players, 1 all-in)

Total pot: $3.47

Results below:

( Click to show/hide )

UTG had 4, 4 (straight, seven high).
Hero had 8, 8 (one pair, eights).
Outcome: UTG won $3.33

[trasadonkad]

postita stattidega

[AshrakWhite]

panin statid juurde sinna kus ei olnud 0 hands. ise olin 34 / 27 ja 574 kätt 16.4 3bet

[mikk2468]

1. wp
2. kui flopil otsa paneks, siis tsipa rohkem.
3. wp
4. viimane ei meeldi. calliks pigem turni ja re-ev river. pole mõtet oma kätt blufiks pöörata.

[AshrakWhite]

mille peale me riveril foldime? 1.97 pot ja 0.75 taga villainil. 2.6:1 to call vist?

[Cele]

Kolmanda käe river chek meeldib täiega, ise ei oleks vist suutnud seal chekkida :D

Samas esimeses käes donk-call raise flop ja c/r AI turnist on nii obv, et tal on see mast seal olemas. Kui oleks veel aggro stati pealt pasiivne ka siis vist suudaks isegi seti ära foldida. Ei tea kas see on correct liin muidugi, aga ma kohati räme argpüks ka :D Zoomis on see ikka räige jõunäitamine ja bluffi ei näe seal never pmts. Eriti micros.

[mikk2468]

ei pannud stacki tähele, raiseks floppi juba kindlasti siis.

[AshrakWhite]

Jällegi miks, broadwayd, AQ'd jne asjad jooksevad ära enne commiti, seda pidi mängides jäävad need sisse ning turnil võib-olla barreldavad. raisedes flopil saad stacki sisse ainult halvemas seisus imo.