Wednesday, September 29, 2010

Leveling War: What Level is He On? by Tri "Slowhabit" Nguyen


Some of my students often have a hard time beating mid-stakes games even though they are capable of doing so. They said the main reason is they don't know what level their opponents are on and they end up losing. I then ask them usually when you have one of these “level wars,” how often does your opponent shows you the nuts. The answer is, “usually often.” So what is happening here is my student is playing the leveling war against himself. I must go out of my way to remind them that the only hands that a nit balances in his range is the nuts, the second nuts, and the third nuts. That's it. There's no more other hands when you see a huge raise on the turn or the river.

The question you should be asking isn't what level is he on. Rather, it's how capable is your opponent. For example, let's say you raise on the button and a solid player defends from the blind. It doesn't matter what the flop is. You bet. He calls. The turn is you bet. He calls. The river he donks bet small, you raise with the 4th nuts, and he shoves. What do you do?

The first question you would normally ask yourself in this spot is what level is he on or what level does he think you are on? However, what you should ask yourself is, “is he capable of taking this line as a bluff?”

If you think he is capable of taking this line as a bluff, try to think of the last time you saw someone took this line as a bluff. If you can't come up with any hand, then it is likely you are giving your opponent too much credit. Because trust me, that's a bizarre line to take. If you were to see it, you would remember it, especially if it's a bluff. I have probably played over 1 million hands of poker. I can't even recall one situation where an opponent takes that line as a bluff.

Of course, if you have some kind of nasty read that it's a bluff, by all means, call. But don't sit there and think you are playing a leveling war against an opponent who play the hand bad and was lucky you have a strong hand to raise the river.

Another question you should ask yourself is would I take that line as a bluff? If you would never take that line as a bluff, it is unlikely he's taking it as a bluff if you think he's comparable to you in skill, which is likely since you guys are playing at the same stakes. Of course, this isn't 100% fool proof but it does give you a place to start.

Remember, think of what he is capable of. No one messes with you as often as you think. They are too busy playing solid or grinding their daily quota of hands. Or they are trying to avoid variance by tangling less with a regular. Or best of all, you're playing against a moron so stop bluffing him! Because in a moron's mind, you are capable of everything so he will call and you will lose.

By Tri "Slowhabit" Nguyen

Mathematics of NLHE Ep 4

Covered in this episode:
  • EV calculations
  • EV calculations
  • and more EV calculations
Expected Value (EV) is the long term expected outcome of a given hand or situation, either positive (+EV), negative (-EV), or neutral (0EV).

EV Calculations 101
Basic EV calculations setup:
  • EV = [result of win] - [result of loss]
  • To expand a bit:
    • EV = [Our Equity] * [what we win] - [Villain's Equity] * [what we lose]
  • Basic Example:
    • We're in the big blind with AsAc. The UTG player shoves with KhKd and folds to you. It's $900 to call to win $1015 (stack + blinds) 5/10nl, $1000 stacks.
    • EV = (0.81 * 1015) - (0.19 * 990)
    • EV = 822.15 - 188.1 = +$634.05
  • Alternative Method:
    • EV = [our equity] * [total pot] - cost of our call
    • EV = (0.81 * 2005) - 990 = +$634.05
Example 1 - 98o on 7T24 vs AA. We need to call 650 to win 700, what is our EV for calling?
  • EV = 0.18 * [650 + 700] - 0.82 * 650
  • EV = 243 - 533 = -$290
Example 2 - Villain opens from the CO to $35, we 3-bet him again OTB to $125, Villain thinks for about 2 second and calls.
  • First let's put him on a range: Mostly pairs, AQ (he would 4-bet AK a lot), occasionally a SC or AXs type hands.
  • On the flop Kc9c8d, Vil checks, we bet $200 into $265, he check/raises all in for $875 meaning it costs us another $675 to call. Do we call or fold?
  • Let's evaluate his range now that we have information: He always has 8 outs+ if drawing (OESD, FD or better), and let's assume he 4-bets AK 100%, but he could call AA/KK planning to trap.
  • Based on our pre-flop and flop range, we now get a narrowed down range of: KK+,99,88,AQcc,AJcc,ATcc,A8cc,QJcc,QTcc,JTcc,98s,87cc,JTs,67s. Against this range, how is our hand doing?
    • Against the range above, our hand has about 35% equity.
  • EV(call) = 0.35 * (875 + 200 + 265) - 0.65 * 675
  • EV(call) = 469 - 438.75 = +$30.25

WoT's TUPAC method
  • Following these 4 steps will help guide you to mentally calculate your equity against a hand range while at the table:
    1. Tally Up the hand combinations.
    2. Pair combos to known equities.
    3. Analyze unpaired combos.
    4. Combine the analysis to estimate.

    Cont. on Example 2 using TUPAC method
    1. Tally Up the hand combinations
      • Let's break apart his range into the 3 main categories of hands: Those that crush us, those we're flipping with, and those we're decent favorite over.
        • Crush us: AA, KK, 99, 88, 98s (5 hands, 13 combos)
        • Flipping with us: AQcc, AJcc, ATcc, A8cc, QJcc, QTcc, JTcc, 87cc, 67cc (9 hands, 9 combos)
        • Decent favorites against: 67s, JTs (2 hands, 6 combos)
    2. Pair combos to known equities
      • Start matching up hands that crush us and the flips, those should even out between 25 to 35% equity depending on how badly we're crushed. A set has us drawing much thinner than overpairs.
      • There are 13 combos of hands that crush us and 9 combos of hands that flip. If we match those, we will have 9 pairs with about 25 to 30% equity (not quite because of the sets) and 4 left over unpaired combos that crush us. We can guesstimate that we have about 30% equity before the 4 unpaired combos and after adding in the left over combos, our equity is going go down and be between 25 to 30%.
    3. Analyze unpaired combos
      • There are 5 combos of OESDs and against those hands, we are a 2:1 favorite or 66%.
      • Thinking a little deeper though, we have a Q and that removes one out from the JTs hands which moves us closer to a 3:1 favorite.
      • Our JTs can average out with the left over combos of 98s from the "crush us" category which will boost our between 25 to 30% lets say 27% a percent or two to about 28% or so.
      • That leaves us with the 3 unaccounted combos of 76s where we are about a 2:1 favorite. 76s makes up about: 3/(13 + 9 + 5) or 10.7% and we have 66% equity so 0.66 * 0.107 = 7%.
    4. Combine the analysis to estimate:
      • Our base is about 27% after pairing the combos of crush and flips.
      • Pairing JTs and 98s bumps our equity up a little.
      • Our decent favorites add about 7%.
      • The total is 27 + 1 + 7 = 35%.
      • This is very close to the 34% equity that pokerstove gives us. This method is by no means 100% accurate and at times, it will be incorrect but this is a good way to start calculating equities and as you get better with pokerstove and estimating equities, this will all become easier and second nature to you.
      • Finally when our decision at the table is so close, where our estimated equity calculation is close but not 100% in line with our mathematical requirements, it is best to rely on the gut reads/intuition to tip the scales on whether to call or fold, depending on how frustrated we perceive our opponent to be.

      Alternate Method
      1. Tally up combinations
        • Crush us: 13 combos w/ about 13% equity
        • Flipping: 9 combos w/ about 50% equity
        • Decent favorites: 6 combos w/ about 66% equity
      2. Multiply range by equity
        • (13/28) * 0.13 = 0.06
        • (9/28) * 0.5 = 0.161
        • (6/28) * 0.66 = 0.141
        • You can fudge these numbers to make it easier.
        • Ex. (13/28) is close to 50% so 0.5 * 0.13 = 0.075. (9/28) is close to 30% so 0.3 * 0.5 = 0.15. (6/28) is close to 20% so 0.2 * 0.66 = 0.132
      3. Add up the equities
        • 0.06 + 0.161 + 0.141 = 36%
        • Fudge: 0.075 + 0.15 + 0.132 = 36%

        Table Estimations Thought Process
        • WoT's thought process at the table when using his TUPAC method:
        • As soon as I get checked raised all in, I think: ok, I doubt he ever does this as a pure bluff and right there I am talking about his hand range. I figure him to do this with big draws, sets, pocket aces, and the two OESD, 67s and JTs. He never has AK here because he will 4-bet it 100% pre-flop. There are about 10 or so big draws he can have depending on how many Axcc combos and suited club broadways he is calling with pre-flop to a 3-bet. I know I have been hammering on him so I know he may call with a lot of those combinations. So the more he is calling with those combinations the more draw combos there will be. As for sets, it's hard for him to have KK because I have one and the board has one. He could have AA and the smaller sets. He has aces and smaller sets about as often as he has big draws so if that's true, my equity against that part of his range is between 25-30%. he could have the 98s for two pair and the OESD as well. I am doing bad against the two pair but I am ahead of his OESD so that sort of balances out and gives me some equity. I am actually a 3:1 favorite against JTs since I have one of the Qs removing an out for him, giving me more equity. Over all I'd estimate that I am about 30 to 35% or about a 2:1 dog. I am getting about 2:1 on my money which makes it close. This leaves it down to reading my opponent. The more frustrated he is, the more apt I am to call. The less frustrated he is, the more I will fold.

        I Play Solid by Tri "Slowhabit" Nguyen


        ... But I Can't Seem To Win.
        I hear a lot of players say this and it gets funnier every time I hear it. The reason is, they don't play solid. What they meant is they play in a robotic manner and hope to cooler someone. So when they win these big cooler pots, they play well and run well. If they lose, they run bad. There is some truth to this because you obviously run bad if you don't win the cooler pots.
        But poker is much more than those big cooler pots. Poker is a game that is defined by better players accumulating small edges here and there. When you sit and play a solid game, better players are taking a more active role in maximizing their EV. One example, they play with a little more aggression. They fight extra hard for pots. They think of opponents' ranges before betting. They dictate the flow of the game and is always aware of their images.
        People usually say they play a good game and they are just running bad. But whenever we have sweating sessions, there are so many small things they miss out. Three notable examples are cbetting too much, neglecting the small pots, and passive pre-flop play. It's hard to detect these problems because if you knew it, you would have fixed it already. When we look over our sessions, we usually focus on the big pots that we win/lose but neglect to think about our overall game and what we can do to improve it. A player who is active pre-flop will take a lot of uncontested pots and thus, don't have to win those big cooler pots to have a winning session. It's amazing how Doyle was sooo ahead of his time.
        Next time when you're at the table, remember to think throughly about a situation before clicking a button. Don't be lazy. Talk aloud. Practice. Perhaps you'll realize that maybe, just maybe, you weren't as solid as you assumed.

        By Tri "Slowhabit" Nguyen

        DB Analysis vs. 3-bets by mpethybridge

        By mpethybridge:
        Using my DB as an illustration for how people ought to go about this analysis to determine their profitability in responding to 3-bets:

        1. Note your Fold to 3-bet%:
        (I'm a calling station, what can I say?)

        2. Note your overall performance facing a 3-bet:



        5. Note your win rate when you are NOT slow playing AA or KK by filtering them out--I call this my unsubsidized 3-bet calling win rate:


        The standard for whether you are leaking playing back against 3-bets is NOT making a profit on the hand. If you fold, you lose 3 or 3.5 bb. Therefore, any strategy which yields you less of a loss than folding is a +EV strategy.

        In PT this is a loss rate of -1.5 to -1.75ptBB/hand; in HEM, it is a loss rate of -300 to -350 bb/100.

        Take a look through your databases in this way, as most of the micro players I have been doing DB analyses for are definitely leaking in one or more of these areas, as knn05 says is likely the case.

        Full Ring Theory and Practice, Part 2

        Theory:
        • What makes betting, raising, calling and checking profitable?
        • Playing a hand against a range versus playing a range against a range.

        Betting/Raising
        • There are three reasons to bet or raise:
          • For value
          • As a bluff
          • To pick up dead money against hands with non-trivial equity
        • Whenever we are debating the merits of a bet or raise, we must consider our opponent's continuance range relative to his entire range. We can often manipulate our opponent's continuance range through bet sizing.
        • We want to use the information available to us at any given time to make the most profitable decision possible - not bet in order to obtain additional information.

        Calling
        • There are four main reasons to call a bet:
          • Our hand is ahead of our opponent's range. You could refer to this as a "value call"
          • Our hand has sufficient implied odds to extract enough value on later streets should we improve.
          • Our hand is behind our opponent's range, but good enough of the time for a call to show a profit given the pot odds we are being offered. Especially applicable on the river.
          • To "float": calling a bet because we believe we will be able to bluff a later street profitably enough of the time.
          • The expected value of our calls must always be weighed against that of us raising. Just because a call is profitable does not mean a raise will not be more so, and vice versa.
          • If we are unable to call or raise profitably when facing a bet, that is what the fold button is for!

        Checking
        • When we check and are not closing the action, it is because we are intending to:
          • Check/Raise - for any of the reasons that raising is profitable.
          • Check/Call - for any of the reasons that make calling profitable.
          • Check/Fold - if we cannot do either of the above profitably, we should check/fold.
          • The expectations of check/raising and check/calling should be weighed against each other, and also compared with that of betting. Fairly frequently all three will be profitable, but one will have a significantly higher return.
          • When we are closing the action, the expectation of checking behind should  be compared with that of betting. Even if betting is profitable, checking behind may have a higher expectation in some situations.

        Good Float
        • Our opponent, running 14/10 with a flop c-bet of 80% opens in MP1. We call from the CO with AhQs.
        • The flop comes 3h5hTs, and our opponent c-bets 2/3 pot.
        • Factors that make this a good spot to float:
          • Our opponent's range has a reasonable amount of air and his c-bet stat suggests he frequently c-bets his air.
          • Having the Ah acts as a blocker to our opponent having many combinations of flush draws which he is likely to be continuing with on the turn should we float the flop, while also giving us additional equity.
          • Having two overcards, we will often have three to six outs should our opponent c/c our turn bet on a blank.
        Bad Float
        • Our opponent, running a positionally aware 13/9 with a flop c-bet of 50% opens UTG. A weaker player calls from middle position and we call from the BTN with 6d6s,
        • The flop comes JhTh8d, and our opponent c-bets 90% of the pot. The weaker player folds.
        • Factors that make this a bad spot to float:
          • Our opponent has a strong UTG range.
          • Based on his c-bet stat, it is unlikely our opponent will be betting his air multi-way on an extremely wet board. His bet sizing supports this.
          • Our hand has very little chance to improve if we are checked to on the turn and our bluff is called.

        Hand vs Range or Range vs Range?
        • When playing against an opponent who is not thinking about our range or that we expect to never develop any history with, we need only play our hand against his range.
        • When playing against an opponent who is thinking about our range, we should be attempting to play our range optimally against his range. Otherwise, we will inevitably develop tendencies which are trivially exploitable to a thinking player that is paying attention.
        • By playing a range against a range well, we may sometimes sacrifice expected value with some parts of our range in order to gain a larger amount with others.


        My Thoughts:
        Definitely a video I would re-watch as the information is presented in a very clear and precise manner. The first 15 minutes of the video touches on basic theories but the explanations are top notch. Beginning and intermediate players could benefit from watching and re-watching that part to refresh their memory, especially when running or playing bad. The rest of the video is made up of HH review, live play, and a quick HEM stats review.

        I very much like RonFar3's style of play and wish to emulate it. He puts a lot of thought into his decisions and goes through/compare all his options to choose the one that is MOST +EV. As a result, his style of play lends itself to more checking and less c-betting compared to other winning players. 

        I feel that most people, myself included, overuse the c-bet as a standard strategy but fail to consider all their options. I need to seriously take a serious look at my game and see if I can improve in that aspect.

        Monday, September 27, 2010

        Destination: SSNL, Part 4

        • Verneer concentrates on button play and when we should be calling or 3-betting. He goes over a bunch adamwil's HH in detail and explains his thought process.
        • This video pointed out quite a few mistakes I have been making. I need to pay more attention to the blinds and whether I want them to come along or not. 
        • A few things you can address to improve your redline:
          • Picking up dead money:
            • Stealing the blinds
            • The button as the Gatekeeper
            • Re-stealing vs. regulars
            • Isolating fish
        • The Button is a Gatekeeper
          • If the CO opens, check the blinds:
            • Weaker players: call more on the BTN vs the CO open.
            • Stronger players: 3-bet more on the BTN vs the CO open.
          • It's your BTN: Act like you own it
        • Most fish slowplay sets for the same reason they slowplay AA; because it is very strong and hard to make.

          Hand examples:

          10NL 6max - MP fish (50/6) calls $0.10, CO LAG (62/37) raises to $0.20, SB fish (33/17), BB fish (55/4). Hero is OTB with ATss, Hero?
          • If the blinds were regulars who can potentially squeeze, a 3-bet would be preferable to isolate the CO. In this case, everyone at the table is a fish and is not likely to 3-bet. We can call OTB and expect the SB, BB, and MP limper to come along with dominated hands. Our hands plays decently well multi-way and flops strong draws and good TP.


          10NL 6max - MP fish (72/4) calls $0.10, CO regish (26/17) raises to $0.40, SB fish (35/9), BB fish (50/13). Hero is OTB with KTcc, Hero?
          • This spot is similar to the one above except the CO is a regish player. The CO likely knows that he can isolate the MP limper wide which makes KTcc a playable hand. We have the option to 3-bet or call and a quick glance at the blinds indicate that a call may be more profitable. If we had a hand like A9o, a 3-bet is better.


          10NL 6max - CO reg (16/13) raises to $0.30, SB fish (39/0), BB fish (49/5). Hero is OTB with AdQs, Hero?
          • Again, with two fishes in the blinds, it is better to call and get them to come along. 3-betting AQ wouldn't be bad here but if the reg 4-bets us, we will have to fold.


          10NL 6max - CO reg (22/18) raises to $0.40, SB reg (19/15, 3-bet 5%), BB regish (26/16, 3-bet 8%). Hero is OTB with AcAh, Hero?
          • This is a pretty interesting spot. The Hero ends up 3-betting, but calling is also a viable option. In my mind, there is a long list of pros, but short list of cons.
            • Pros to calling:
              • BB has high 3-bet % and may squeeze.
              • Deception.
              • Strongest hand in nlhe, hand is more or less invulnerable.
              • Keep CO's range wide and get value from that range post-flop.
              • Can still stack his monsters post-flop most of the time.
            • Cons to calling:
              • Do not stack CO pre-flop the times he has a legitimate hand.
              • Blinds might end up calling instead of 3-betting.

            10nl 6max - CO LAG (36/26) raises to $0.30, SB reg (19/15/ 3-bet 5%), BB reg (20/15 3-bet 5%). Hero is OTB with ATcc, Hero?
            • With two regs in the blinds and a LAG opener, 3-betting is probably better than calling. If the CO folds to 3-bets a lot, a call might be better to keep in his dominated hands. The blinds don't seem to be squeeze happy so thats not much of a worry.


            10nl 6max - CO regish (26/21) raises to $0.30, SB reg (24/19, 3-bet 9%), BB reg (22/17, 3-bet 12%). Hero is OTB with KdJc, Hero?
            • This would be a great spot to call with AA or KK because the blinds are very squeeze happy, but with KJo, a 3-bet to isolate the CO is better. We want to either get it HU or take it down pre-flop.


            10nl 6max - CO nit (11/9) raises to $0.35, SB fishy (23/10, 3-bet 4%), BB TAG (16/15, 3-bet 6%). Hero is  OTB with QhJc, Hero?
            • Learned a little something from this hand. I wouldn't fault anyone for folding in this spot, I would too, but it seems a 3-bet even against a nit is very profitable. Nits will play their hand face up by 4-betting the top of their range, calling with low-medium pocket pairs to setmine, and folding everything else. If we give a nit a poker stove range of 14.9% from the CO (22+,A8s+,KTs+,QTs+,JTs,ATo+,KJo+) and assume he continues with 7.4% of his range (22+,AQs+,AKo), he will fold to a 3-bet ~50% (should be slightly higher because I did not account for our Q and J blockers). 3-betting in a vacuum is not profitable, but we will win a lot pots post-flop when he misses his set.