Passive line on the river with good made hand.

I think he can easily call AK, this might even be the correct play as you could bet AK/AQ by yourself.

I think he's never folding a pair there. He can call AK, AT-AQ but is not betting these ip. I think his range is actually more towards A hi because he didn't raise the flop, I think he should at least sometimes put in a raise with 99 there.

So I would bet, not expecting to get raised often at all. I think you have to bet/call because there are too many Ax-desperationbluffs in his raising range imo and he can't really rep much but slowplay or passively played 99.

If we expect him to call some of his A-highs then i agree with you that betting is better. He'll have a lot of combinations of these that take this line. I didn't really expect him to show down these hands vs my barrel.

I do think he'll have quite a few pocket pairs that will bet in position putting me on AK/AQ.

Hi!

I can write quite a few stuff here:)

...personally I wouldnt cap anything in this spot and basically coldcall 100% of range which wants to continue...since you have two very strong ranges your range gets supper narrow unless you do this with KQs,JTs,55,78s sometimes(and you prolly should if you do decide to cap in these spots).When you just call ranges get slightly wider and you can also extract a bit more postflop,but yes its not bad to just cap,however it has lower EV imo

River is a bet for sure since you will get called by AK which is very very likely hand that he has(basically just AK,AQ,KsQs are possible,maybe AJ,88,66).To balance this I would also be betting with AK and its a perfect spot to make a bluff with some QTs,KQs type of hands since he really cannot be calling too wide here since your range is super dooper great....but.... he has to call with AK!(and maybe even AQ+pockets must call in this spot or they are really giving too much) or he will be folding too much in 8BB pot since you can easily be betting with AQ,AK,KQ,QT

When you check you can expect a bet from worse pockets,Jx which is basically the same as if you bet(prolly 88,66 doesnt even bet every time) but will get a checkback from AK,AQ very very often and I wouldnt really expect a bluffbet from AQ?!? here or even possible KQ as it doesnt really make too much sense since your hand is either c/r one or AK which isnt folding for about the same reasons that he might be valuebetting AK(plus not being exploitable)

Getting raised is really really though but I dont see it happening very often,I would also call for the fact I dont really believe he is slowplaying till river as good player knows he is loosing too much value so only 99 makes sense,on the other hand there are like taavi said some amounts of overcards which may(actually correctly,with something like KsQs) decide to make this wierd bluff to get you off possible AK,TT

Thx Dawnfall.

Yeah, my standard line is usually bet/cry call when I have a value hand OOP vs call/call/call. Perhaps I should expect players to pay off with AK in this spot a little more often.

This preflop discussion is interesting to me. You'd rather coldcall your entire capping range and miss preflop value to check/raise a lot of flops and have a wider hand range... but If you're going to value cap then you want to include non-value hands. In a vacuum this seems like a backward strategy: either miss value preflop or cap against your equity with non-value hands. I know that the reason is to make ourselves difficult to play against but how do we really prove that this is correct.

I do think checking here is an interesting way to balance a tight preflop capping range. Lets say I have 99+, AJs+, AQo+. If he knows this is my hand range then he can't really call a river barrel with AQ+ and then I can't value bet AK. If i'm checking AQ+ then he has an easy value bet when I check unless I check my weakest made hand. In this case, TT.

Hi!

Well when playing strong player Im pretty sure it should be the default play not to cap anything in this spot. Wouldnt really know how to prove this due to huge amount of parameters you would need to take into account but Ive emulated this from various players who I believe are very strong and also since it makes a lot of sense. Besides we dont really loose super huge amount of value this way due to the fact we can expect a cbet close to 100% of the time and then we can c/r and induce much more action.

When we cap we pretty much kill the action unless its really gonna be AA vs KK but even then they will realise it quite quick.

About the range if we do decide to cap(which I would not but still...) I was stating my own opinion and I like the idea to then cap a bit wider(not super wider but include some "spewy" hands)If our default range is like AQ+,TT+(which is doing this strictly for value) that would be 56 combos of hands and we can 5-10 that would balance this range...prefferably hands that can be ahead and have good enough equity anyway(like 88,99) or hands that can be drawing very live(78s)(theres a glitch as we arent really folding KQs,QJs but caping 78s...so I would put it like KQs and occationally some other hands like 78s... point with these hands is to make them fold postflop...which is quite likely as they percieve our range to be super tight so what we have doesnt really matter...

... like said I think this is an inferior way to just ccall entire range since we:

1.disguise our premium range very effectively+preserve implied odds
2.we can play more hands since we get decent odds on BB

Dont see how you can compare missing value in first line and spewing in the other...these are different strategies which have very few things in common.

About your last paragraph... you mean checking river to balance preflop?! That is strange..

Sure if you think he thinks your range is super tight(and then AJs is not there!) then yes, AK makes very little sense to bet but still TT should bet against AK... then I would prolly just c/f AQ(way too little we beat when we check and getting vbet against AK is ugly),c/c AK(hope for a split or KQ,AQ) and vbet the rest... still I think in this case you should try to change your percieved range and not loosing value with TT

Hey Dawnfall,

I was playing devils advocate a bit and I'm happy to include some loose caps in situations that are appropriate. I also think coldcalling 100% of our VPIP range could be a great option. I just don't have a solid justification for it.

This hand was 3 months ago so I don't remember the dynamic. I marked it because I took a strange line on the river.

You're right about balancing preflop with a river line... but against his line our hand range doesn't diverge until the river. I wonder if thats important.

Hi guys, I'm sorry I'm realy bad at english and I can't read too long so I don't know if you already explained it but this is what I think about this spot..

Pf: I don't cap, there's already a 3bet and so many flops will crush my hand and scare me, I just call here..
Flop: I think if you bet this flop (after a pf cap) you have to 3barrel on this turn and river (just perfect for you)
If you call 3bet pf I think you can donk and 3barrel or c/r this flop to value AJ+/99- and barrel turn/river (or c/c river if you fear 99)

I think you need to know where you are on this flop and the best way is to c/r, but for this you have to just call the 3bet pre-flop.. I think you can cap only in a HU spot with this hand and the worst position..

Flatcalling in BB with monsters vs one opponent is one thing.

Not capping in BB with monsters vs several opponents is entirely another thing.

I intuitively think that you lose just too much value preflop to be able to make up for it postflop vs two or more opponents. I suck at poker, but I do know the math. I realize that a proof of what I just said takes a little labour and a lot of assumptions. But still, this is my gut feeling.

@Densyosh
Reasoning along the lines of "too many scary flops" is not pointing in any direction at all. If you don't bet preflop when your equity is good including all possible flops, turns, and rivers, plus possible folding equity, and you probably wouldn't and shouldn't bet even that J72 flop (equity now only approx 31% vs 15%MP2 and 10%MP3 ranges), then exactly when do you bet TT? The hand is simply too good to set mine with.

/Johan =

Hi Guys,

I definitely flatcall here with my entire range. The main reasons for it is:
a) we never have any fold equity preflop (if we do, I cap my entire range)
b) if MP2 caps, we get a bit more information about his hand, and also can be closing the action on the flop a lot
c) if MP2 doesn't cap, we have great relative position postflop, meaning if we hit favorable boards, we could easily try to isolate MP3 by immediately raising and pushing out MP2
d) if we want to coldcall here 'naturally' we can keep our ranges together. I really wouldn't want to cap my monsters, and coldcall some pretty weakish hands, especially in that tight range situation.

In that sense, it makes much more sense to me not to cap e.g. BU vs SB, since we want to have a wider coldcalling range, here it wouldn't matter so much, since we probably want to coldcall just a tiny fraction of our range, but still, I think it can be applied here (especially since our valuecapping range would be pretty tight itself: 88+, AJs+, AQo+, or something like that).

Flop turn is okay, river is a very standard bet/call for me. Bet, because you beat 90% of his calling range, and in these situations people will bluff less than optimal for sure (they will think they have SD value with AQ when they don't). Also, "inducing thin vbets" is just a very bad reason for checking here, because it's not like he's going to fold the thin vbetting part of his range for 1 bet, therefore you just miss out value from his bluffcatching range. If you get raised it's an easy call. The only hand that makes sense is 99, 3 combos. You're getting 13:1 meaning he has to have 0.21 combos of bluffs in his range so that you could call. That's less than a misclick ratio.♦

Also, from a balanced perspective it's interesting what you say, however I strongly believe it's still a bet. Our overall range is way way stronger than his on the river. If we check here not accounting for range asymmetry, we will lose a ton of value - because he can exploit us by not vbetting thin enough, since our range is so strong. (Like the top of his range not including 99 is probably 66 - that we can exploitatively vraise with most of our range here. Such a huge range asymmetry will definitely allow us to bet TT here for easy value.

Yohan: Your math doesn't take into account the future streets and your overall range. Obviously, I'd love to cap AA, KK, etc. here for value all the time, however just exploitatively I think the call with TT or worse and any unpaired hand is better in itself. (Example below.) If we take that for granted, we really can't just cap JJ+, that's too unbalanced, therefore I think we should sacrifice the value we'd get from 24 combos, and take the 'route of' the other 54-86 combos.

Let's imagine you have TT like in this example. Your preflop equity is around 38%. Therefore by capping, your EV is: 0.38*9.5 - 0.62*3 = 1.75 SB.
If you call there, the EV is (given that MP2 never caps): 0.38*7.5 - 0.62*3 = 1.61 SB.

Now that .14 SB difference is not that much, and certainly you'll make up for it by seeing a flop, where in extreme cases you can fold, but also you can make MP2 fold some equity and huge implied odds against your hand, that will certainly take up more than .14SB in general.

I hope my analysis was clear and instructive, let me know if you have any questions.

Cheers,
Madi

@madorjan
I'd be happy if you could read this rather longish post through and comment on it. I'm not arguing that this particular TT hand should be capped as an isolated hand. But, I'll try to make the point that lost preflop equity is not that easy to turn around completely, using this hand as an example.

I said above that it's my gut feeling that people give up too much preflop for them to make up for it on later streets by not giving full action with good hands when there are two opponents or more in the hand. I know that some postflop value is lost. But how much?

This particular hand is very borderline - granted. But, as you say, if I cap AA then I pretty much have to cap TT and a few worse hands too. My point is that slowplaying and deception has questionable value in MW pots, especially if you are playing against people that have had no time to read your ranges.

Your analysis is clear. Good points, all of them. All qualitative arguments are perfectly valid of course. The quantitative analysis is bit incomplete though.

For example, just how much is the possibility of maybe being able to push MP2 out on a flop that suits us when he really should call if he knew what we had? 0.14SB?

Easily, you say. Perhaps so.

He will need to have exactly KQ, AK or AQ on this particular flop. At the same time, MP3 must have a hand that we beat - and bet it. MP2 will get 12:2 = 6:1 in odds. If he folds here, he is not making a disastrous play, but still a mistake. Is it worth 0.14SB for us? If he is chasing a 2-outer or a 3-outer, I want him in, not out. A 5-outer? Those are exactly the A + rag hands. In practice, he has less that 5 outs since MP3 might have an A as well.

We'll split the equity with MP3 if MP2 folds. Just for the sake of reasoning, lets put the burden on MP2 to make a mistake this hand that regains us that "lost" 0.14SB preflop. This means that MP2 must make a 2*0.14SB = 0.14BB folding "mistake" on average every time every single flop. There is just no way that that will happen. If people were to make 0.14BB mistakes every hand - wow.

He also might make a really bad flop fold (for a single bet) in the face of the 4-bet pre + possibility that he will be caught in the middle. That shouldn't be altogether discounted.

That 0.14BB folding equity from MP2 on the flop (split between us and MP3) simply isn't there on average. But if one combines all arguments for a coldcall, then one might find find coldcalling better.

With hands like KK and AA, the "lost" preflop equity is a lot higher than 0.14SB of course. Then again, we simply have to cap some worse hands too if we cap at all. Say that we cap with 77. That, of course, is a losing proposition. We'd lose about as much as we gain by capping TT (equitywise). But by being able to cap with AA we can compensate for quite a few marginally losing caps.

Once again, I'm just arguing that it is hard to regain "lost" bets postflop and get an overall +EV against multiple opponents. Against a single opponent, it's a lot easier. Balancing is another matter too.

/Johan =

You're mistaken at the point that he has to make a mistake folding. He doesn't. He can make a correct fold with let's say 10% equity, you still gain x% of that 10% equity. It's not that we want him to make mistakes, it's that we want to prevent him to realize his equity, correctly or incorrectly it doesn't matter.

I wanted to do an EV-calc for my earlier post, but didn't seem necessary, however, for the purpose of being complete I'm gonna do it.

Let's say our opponent has a 17% range here: 44+,A7s+,A9o+,KTs+,KTo+,QTs+,QJo,JTs,T9s
The 3better has 9%: 77+,A9s+,KQs,AJo+,KQo

Note that these ranges are wider than the ones you gave, therefore having a greater equity edge preflop, and less on the flop in general (more damn Js).

Now we'll discuss 2 scenarios.

- in each scenario we want to get the pot equity we have, since most of the time we're gonna get to showdown, the hot-cold equity is kind of a good guideline of our real chance to win.
- I will take a look at them always calling or folding on the flop, raising would make it a lot more difficult, and I don't think has much relevance, since we're comparing our equities here.
- also I won't take into account MP3 might fold in each situation, mostly because I think he shouldn't. Our equity HU against MP3 is 54% on this board
- all the EV calculations will be starting preflop, but given that this board comes

Scenario I.
- we cap, and bet this flop
- I assume MP2 will fold A9o, KTo, and QTs, KTs, A9s and A8s without backdoor flushdraws. That's 12% of his range.

So in 12% of the times, he folds, the other 88% he raises or calls, so does MP3. If MP2 doesn't fold, we have 33.5% equity 3ways. Therefore:

EV(cap pre, cbet flop) = 0,12(EV(when MP2 folds)) + 0,88(EV(when calls)) = 0.12(0.54*10.5 - 0.46*4) + 0.88(0.33*11.5 - 0.66*4) = 0.12(3.83) + 0.88(1.16) = 1.48SB

Scenario II.
- we coldcall, and raise MP3's cbet (note that we risk the same amount of bets than by capping and cbetting, but push out a wider range LDO)
- I assume MP2 will fold everything with a pair of 6s (3rd pair) or worse that doesn't have a gutshot (T9s). That's 53.6% of MP2's range he'll fold here. Against his calling range we have 20.5% equity 3ways.

EV(3bet and raise flop) = 0.536(EV(MP2 folds)) + 0.464(EV(MP2 calls)) = 0.536(0.54*9.5 - 0.46*4) + 0.464(0.205*11.5 - 0.795*4) = 0.536(3.29) + 0.464(-0.823) = 1.38SB

Ok, that's surprising, I admit.:) However keep in mind, that this is all given the assumption that this board will come. And that board is probably one of the worst for the analysis - we have a borderline decision on it. If I'd know this board will come, I'd cap also. However we're in much better shape on every board we have an overpair 30.5% of the time, where we make more often more equity to fold against us (that'll probably be more favorable for the coldcall line), and also there are a couple of boards (A hi, or 2 broadway boards), that will come little less than 40% of the time, where we will be happy that we didn't cap preflop.

So even though the results didn't turn out the way I expected, I still feel confirmed by them. On this quite bad board there's still not a lot of difference, and obviously the more extreme boards are for coldcalling, therefore I think my argument still holds (however I absolutely can see your point, and I believe especially on lower stakes there's nothing wrong capping here imbalanced).

If people were to make 0.14BB mistakes every hand - wow.

Players make bigger mistakes than that regulary, just maybe not on the flop, and not always against us.:)

Also, I think JJ+ will show massively bigger profit here capping than coldcalling. That's 24 combos. If we just think about the other hands: TT-88, AQo+, AJs+. These are 54 combos. Therefore every JJ+ hand has to have on average 2.5x better value than what we "lose" by capping all the other hands. I think they don't make this many relative profit, but after my last bummer, the emphasis is on 'think'. (And once again, by profit we mean the extra that comes from capping and not coldcalling, not the whole EV.)

I hope everything is understandable, and could prove my point a little bit more "in quantitative measures".:) Also sorry for my English, I feel it's kinda meh being it's almost over midnight here.

Cheers,
Madi

Thanks for the rapid reply.

Pretty much all hinges on how well the opponents play I guess. If they play very well, then I'd have to adjust to them of course. Balancing ranges become much much more important. Also, good opponents wouldn't play A8o from UTG or coldcall an early raise on the button with 96s like some of mine do.

I'm not surprised by the numerical outcomes. I think that the numbers show in this case that the better flop play "regained" parts of the equity, but not all, that we "lost" preflop by not raising. In the example you gave (which look quite plausible), MP2's flop behavior changes quite drastically without affecting the our overall EV particulary much.

Perhaps analyzing a wider range of flops would show that all equity + more is regained postflop. But still, those 0.14 SB that sounded so puny aren't easily and obviously regained on the flop only. MP2 folded 53.6% in Scenario 2 vs 12% in Scenario1. He simply can't fold that much more on the flop often that really has good equity against us.

The one thing that I don't agree with you on is your first paragraph in the last post. We want him to make mistakes. For sure. If he folds/calls/raises incorrectly, then we are happy. The only way we can possibly beat him is if he makes mistakes. We don't gain anything when he doesn't make mistakes. All of poker theory is built around this. In this particular case, if he correctly folds having insuffiecient odds, then we are by definition better off if he calls because he'd be making a mistake calling.

/Johan =

Hey Yohan,

Once again, I disagree with your last paragraph. You're mixing up long run, and an actual situation. In the long run, we make money if our opponent plays worse than us, and for sure, we want them to make mistakes. However in a single hand a player doesn't have to make a mistake for us to gain a profit. Like if we coldcall here pre, and raise the flop, and your opponent has AdTd - if he calls (or 3bets LOL) with 13% equity, we make money, since we have 47% equity 3ways. If he folds we make money, since our equity is increased by ~8%. (Of course, we would prefer one over the other, but that's not up for us to decide.)

Surely both are much better than calling to let him draw perfectly against us, because we'll get .47SB from his 1 bet he put in, while if we make him fold, the 8% equity increase in a 10.5SB pot means .84SB for us. So if we call and he overcalls correctly, we make .47SB, but if we raise, and he folds correctly, we make .84SB. That's why I don't want to let him just call.

In this particular case, if he correctly folds having insuffiecient odds, then we are by definition better off if he calls because he'd be making a mistake calling.

Yeah, but we can't build up a general strategy assuming our Villain will make mistakes against us. I think first off we have to be "mistake-free", and then focus on your opponents' mistakes. I believe what you're referring to is the reciprocality idea of Tommy Angelo, that if we would play the same way as our opponent did in a certain situation, we break even in the long run, etc. etc. - but that's for the long run, and given that in reality we'll never switch seats with any of these players, and therefore will never get to the same situation as in what he is now, it's kind of pointless IMO, even though it helps with mental game issues for sure. But we have to accept that the opponent on our left will take money from us, and we will take money from the guy on our right. No reciprocality can help us there.

What I forgot to mention in my previous post is that protection is not just for hot-cold equity. In my mind protection has 3 parts:
- protecting our equity (what I calculated above)
- protecting us from reversed implied odds: meaning that e.g. an AQ will suck out on the turn 12% of the time, and surely will get more than 1BB out of us, that means at least 0.12BB RIO if MP2 calls on the flop. If we can make him fold this hand, we make him fold .12+BB IO against us, that is also huge. (Of course it's not absolutely right, since not a 100% of his range will be AdTd, but you get the point.)
- protection as bluff prevention: I think that doesn't really apply here, since we'll probably never fold our hand except for some really bad turn and river cards, so I think it's negligable.

And just some minor points:

good opponents wouldn't play A8o from UTG

If we're talking about SH UTG (MP2, LJ), I think A8o can be openraised in most line-ups. A9o I'd raise even against "5 Phil Iveys" behind me, so if the SB or BB is particularly bad, or you have one nit, or 2+ tighter player behind you, I don't think opening A8o from LJ is that bad at all. Coldcalling 96s is.:)

He simply can't fold that much more on the flop

Well, if we hit an overpair on the flop, there are a lot more for him to fold, since all the Jx hands "open up" to folding (AJ, KJ, QJ, JTs), also we're more often ahead of MP3's range, so I think if we know we'll hit an overpair on the flop, slowplaying is even better for us.

Cheers,
Madi

Goodmorning Madi

Originally posted by madorjan
Hey Yohan,

Once again, I disagree with your last paragraph. You're mixing up long run, and an actual situation. In the long run, we make money if our opponent plays worse than us, and for sure, we want them to make mistakes. However in a single hand a player doesn't have to make a mistake for us to gain a profit. Like if we coldcall here pre, and raise the flop, and your opponent has AdTd - if he calls (or 3bets LOL) with 13% equity, we make money, since we have 47% equity 3ways. If he folds we make money, since our equity is increased by ~8%. (Of course, we would prefer one over the other, but that's not up for us to decide.)

Madi

No.

We gain only if he calls with his 2-3-outer. We don't gain if he folds it.

This is absolutely fundamental for understanding poker theory, including analyzing single situations. Who wins this particular hand is not important.

From http://www.pokerstrategy.com/strategy/fixed-limit/222/1/ :

THE FUNDAMENTAL THEOREM OF POKER:
Every time you play a hand differently from the way you would have played it if you could see all your opponents' cards, they gain; and every time you play your hand the same way you would have played it if you could see all their cards, they lose.

Conversely, every time opponents play their hands differently from the way they would have if they could see all your cards, you gain; and every time they play their hands the same way they would have played if they could see all your cards, you lose.

Observe here that "gaining" is not the same as winning the pot, and observe how "mistakes" are defined.

/Johan =

Hi again.

About terminology:

My above post talks about the mindset that one should have when thinking about poker. If you raise with the best hand, and your opponent folds given bad odds, then nothing has really happened. You haven't gained anything. That's how you should think about it.

This concept is much clearer if we put ourselves in the losing spot. If we lose money in a pot where we fold correctly, we really didn't lose at all from the poker theory point of view. If we call and win a huge pot by sucking out badly, then again, we didn't gain from the theoretical perspective. [Our bank account may be of a different opinion , but that's another story.]

It is simply incorrect in this context to say that we gain if villain folds a very small equity, even if it has to enter with a plus sign in an EV calculation. At the very least, it's misleading. I can easily see new players believing that it is good for us if our opponent folds with 13% equity in the pot, and that we should be very happy that he folded. I know that you don't mean it that way, but your calculations can be misinterpreted that way.

I realize that my way of using terminology can be misunderstood as well. For instance, in our hand: Of course it's better for us if we check-raise and our opponent folds, than if we simply call and he then overcalls. Not check-raising would be making a mistake in the pure sense of the fundamental theorem of poker.

/Johan =

Hey there,

Maybe it's just the language barrier or something, but I still not get what's the difference between gain and winning x amount of money (that is higher than some other sum of money we could also have won). Maybe there's something else, I don't know, but anyway.

I feel that the FToP by Sklansky is by far not the best representation of a fundamental theorem for a long time now. Even though what he says is true, given the nature of the game (that we can't possibly know what our opponent has exactly - usually not even the range of hands) we can't rely on such stuff. Let's say that your opponent bluffs on the river with 86 hi, and I call with 87 hi and win the pot. Was my play good? Sklansky would say WP Man! Every time I make this call I make loads of money, right? That's obviously not the case, because he will have stronger hands usually.

Also if in a certain spot you have 1 combo on the river you'll fold, and 200 you call with (and the pot is normal size), your opponent is gaining against you by not bluffing ever.
For really defining if our opponent made a mistake or not, we have to take a look at our whole range in this spot - that's called G-bucks (after Galfond).

So even though it would be nice to apply the FToP in real life, I find it pretty impossible to do so, because you lack the information against your opponents' wholecards. I don't think it's wrong, I just think it can't be applied to poker in its raw form - you can't say XY move is a mistake, because I had YZ hand. And also, you can't force your opponent to make mistakes, you can exploit their mistakes, if they have any, and otherwise you can hope they make mistakes. But against unknown players I strongly believe we should assume they play perfectly, until proven otherwise.

Just one more minor point:
Sklansky doesn't talk about our opponent's strategy. Let's say our opponent on the river has 3 hi, we have the nut flush. Sklansky says, betting makes no sense, since he will fold for sure, let's check and see if he bluffs. But what if that player would bluffraise our bet, and maybe even bluffcap? Betting is now a superior play for sure. But he doesn't say we have to take into account how our opponent will play his hand.

I hope I could make you see what's the difference between the FToP and 'real life'. I think there are some big problems with it.

Cheers,
Madi

I wrote my post while you wrote your second post, so here we go: yeah, I agree with all. But I still believe from a strategical point of view FToP is bad for us. It doesn't make us think in ranges, and also will define mistakes incorrectly. Like if we fold 4 hi on the river, and Villain shows 3 hi, the pure Skalnsky person would say "oh shit, I made a huge mistake here", while in reality it was a prettty easy fold.

Edit: like how funny it would be if my coaching session would consist of analysing a hand given my opponent's holecards?♦

Haha, well, ok. ♦

I think that FToP is neither good nor bad. It just is - and I think that it is a true statement. Other more directly useful statements exist, of course. But they never contradict FToP. In case they do they are simply false. Remember, FToP only defines and points out what the "de facto lowlevel mistakes" are, and defines "de facto lowlevel gain" in the process.

Any definition of "mistake" that we actually use in practice must be expressible in terms of these "de facto lowlevel mistakes". Our useful definition of "mistake" is then necessarily of a statistical nature. Appropriate ranges can be defined directly in terms of theese "de facto lowlevel mistakes" too, but it would be horribly complicated to do so. Likewise, mistakes versus a range again boils down to "de facto lowlevel mistakes".

We just don't need to express sound poker strategies in terms of FToP. The important thing is that we can do so. Any strategy that clearly can't be expressed in terms of some statistical version of FtoP is just wrong. Are you with me?

It's like the axioms of Set Theory in Mathematics. If one uses them directly to solve even a fairly simple mathematical problem, it's a pain in the ass. Nobody ever does that. Even so, if one found that a particular mathematical statement, no matter how useful or pretty, violated one of the (9-10 very simple) axioms, it would be deemed false. I just felt FToP was directly applicable when we had that discussion about wether we actually want villain to fold or not when he has very low equity.

Now I am going to play a bit of poker. I haven't played much in months. I am dropping is PS status. Not good. Time to fix that!

/Johan =

wow, this thread really picked up. Like, really picked up...

regarding preflop: There's room for debate here. I'm not sold on flatting necessarily.

If the fish had 3-bet I'd much rather flat and push out the solid player postflop.

Flatting here sets me up to face the fish with two bets cold which tends to isolate me post flop against the stronger player with the stronger hand range. From that point forward I expect to have a very minimal edge and we're essentially fighting over the fish's preflop investment of 2BB rather than inducing mistakes from him and abusing him postflop (where most of the money gets made).

If indeed we are giving up preflop equity by flatting so that we can produce such a postflop scenario then I prefer capping for value instead and leading the flop which allows us to extract value from a weak opponent more of the time.

Its true that we can increase our winning chances by flatting and then check/raising, but I think the net effect of this is that it reduces variance rather than increasing profitability. I'll tend to profit more when they play worse than I do and I think keeping the player around who's more likely to do this is good for me.