Boomer's user review with Zodiac90 - Part 1

  • Fixed-Limit
  • FL
  • $1/$2
  • Shorthanded
(11 Votes) 4490

JOIN NOW TO VIEW THE FULL VIDEO

Free membership

Join now
 

Description

Boomer takes a video from community member Zodiac90 for the purpose of sharing his thoughts and analysis about the plays made.

Tags

hand history review preflop series Session Review User Session Review

Comments (15)

newest first
  • EuanM

    #1

    Enjoy the first part of the new series from Boomer2k10, where a user review is conducted of community member "Zodiac90" and the plays made in the video.

    Please leave any questions or feedback about any spot thoughts you had while watching!
  • overson

    #2

    Thank for this video. I'm looking forward to the 3-4 handed review.

    I think raising the flop with bad hands as a bluff to balance will just lead to too much bluffing. Wouldn't it be better to know the optimal amount to bluff and then adjust based on specific reads?

    And checking back with KK there could include AQ,AJ,maybe AT if the flop was 4 handed, which would really have a tonne of combos of drawing type hands.
  • Tarhonya

    #3

    Great video!

    I was hoping to see a new video from you before losing gold status next month!
    Thanks!
  • YohanN7

    #4

    A general thought on the basic theme of this session: Fancy play doesn't pay off in the long run against the same (thinking) opponents. This is clear. But in the short term I think that there may be situations where it does pay off.

    What I am trying to say is that non standard plays against unknown opponents (they don't know you either!) or good opponents (that don't know you for some reason) should be made on occation, especially early in a session just to take those (temporarily available) extra bets. Moreover, even if a certain fance play costs a fraction of a bet in expectation value (even short term) it may be a good thing. With some luck one ends up in a good players player notes and gain from this in the long run if one cares to remember the particular fancy play against that particular opponent.

    In short: Balancing can be balanced too.
  • Boomer2k10

    #5

    #4

    The problem I have with this arguement is that it's very similar to the standard "metagame" arguement where you try an explain away a blatantly unbalanced and probably unprofitable play by "I can make up for it later".

    I acknowledge that "non-standard" plays can occasionally make up their supposed lack of EV but usually that's when you go on the side of aggression rather than slowing down with a huge hand trying to induce action. Most players don't bluff anywhere near enough except on obvious boards and those are the type of non-standard plays I'd prefer to make (where essentially "balanced" play looks very wierd/uncomfortable) rather than trying to take a line which in many situations is leaving money on the table.

    As my coach said to me at the time "Why check raise with a big hand when you can bet-3-bet?" and that holds true in a lot of cases.

    If you have to take a fancy play in order to get "paid off" due to the fact you don't think your opponents will give you excess action with worse hands you have to examine your game as a whole because that bascially means you're not aggressive enough.

    If I'm going to deviate and do a fancy play I want a read to back up why I'm doing it (i.e. my opponent always bets when checked to on previous street with any 2 cards) or something similar rather than trying to create a metagame which may not be there at all.

    In this case zodiac's opponent were the type where slowplaying is one of the worst adjustments to make becasue they're calling stations post-flop, you don't win money off calling stations by slowplaying.
  • Boomer2k10

    #6

    #2

    Actually on most boards most players don't bluff enough rather than the opposite, which has resulted in certain artifical balances in the game. (i.e. on a K72r board most BB who x/r will have less bluffs than on a J76 twotone and thus you can fold more)

    It's actually very interesting to analyze how the "default" play on certain boards gravitates towards what would be thought of as GTO and on others how the play you usually see is way off.

    And the KK hand is 3-handed and on a K35r board in a 3-bet pot. I'm not checking back anything there 3-handed with initiative.
  • YohanN7

    #7

    #6

    I actually agree with you completely, and I don't advocate being mr. Tricky, checking mosters and betting trah.

    I just mean that non standard play could have optimal EV in a couple of situations in per session taking the tendencies of your opponents into consideration.

    Perhaps one shouldn't consider this fancy play at all and that the play in question is standard.

    (In the following paragraph I capitalize words which have a precise mathematical meaning. I'm not yelling at anyone;)

    With this definition of "standard", however, one runs into the slight problem that OPTIMAL strategy (making up the definition of "standard") for limit Hold'em has to my knowledge yet to be invented. I am not even sure it exists in any precise mathematical sense.

    It has been said that heads up limit Hold'em is a SOLVABLE game. Perhaps it is, but I'm not convinced. A mathematical proof is required for this and I haven't seen or heard of any such proof. I've been away from poker for a while, and the last thing I knew for sure way that an UNBEATABLE strategy exists in short stack (like 6.4 BB or whatever) heads up no limit hold'em (shich is solvable). Unbeatable here means just what it sounds like. Some would call it unexploitable. But, unbeatable is not the same as optimal, and optimal is what we want. Limit Hold'em, even heads up, is much more mathematically complex than push/fold poker.

    Yes, there is a little bit of metagame thinking in my previous post too, but that wasn't my main point. A failed non standard play can be put on the advertising account just as a failed legitimate bluff can. Balancing ranges is metagame too to some extent. For instance, if one calls on some street mostly because a fold would expose us to exploitation(perhaps in a situation where one regrets putting in a raise on an earlier street), then one is doing a bit of metagame. Likewise, raising 76 suited on occasion preflop UTG is 100% metagame because one obviously doesn't do it for the sake of the current hand only. Not 3-betting or capping in BB preflop is sort of metagame too.

    /Johan
  • overson

    #8

    #6
    I put weak showdown hands AQo,A3o,33 vs a BB call range vs BU in Equilab and gave the x/r range of all pairs plus a certain number of draw combos based on pot odds for 25% (actually 29% unless its 10% correct me if I'm wrong) (I'm using 25% even though the bluffing odds are 29% because it should be so similar)

    These are the results:
    On the K72r board equity ranged from 12-16% with no bluffs and 27-30% with 56 back door flush combos(GTO)
    The calling range for 25% folding from BU is A3+ no back door flush draws

    On the J76 two tone board equity ranged from 20-27% with only strong draws but 22-29% with 11 gutshot combos(GTO)
    Calling range(25% folding) being A4+,draws,no back door straight draws

    Although that is alot of combos to bluff on K72r, it seems very difficult to execute it in practice, with that many it would be easy to bluff too much.

    So Here's the questions based on this:
    1. Is 25% reasonable for bluff range based on pot(bluff 2 into 7sb=29%)?
    2. Are the 25% fold ranges reasonable in practice vs good TAGs?
    3. What should optimal calling ranges be? (It seems to me they should increase)
  • overson

    #9

    I thought about it more, and realized he needs 22% bluff catchers and we need 10% bluffing hands. So just assuming the pot odds actually made 25% bluffing hands correct, then would my analysis be correct?
  • Boomer2k10

    #10

    In terms of wroking out ranges what you want to be looking at is combo-counting rather than equity a least in terms of "what hands to bluff"

    It's fairly easy to see which hands are hopeless and thus candidates to turn into bluffs and there are also bluffs withdtrong equity where you don't lose much either way.

    I'll be going into this in greater detail in upcoming videos as this whole issue is a pretty large subject and needs going into in more detail.

    Basically approaching the game from a Game theory point of view actually involves counting combos a lot more than it does equity, equity is simply a means to an end (i.e. where a hand is in your range)
  • Robzor

    #11

    can't believe zodiac made it to 1/2 and how bad 99% of the players in this video are.

    still a nice Video by Boomer again.
    thanks
  • tab

    #12

    nice vid. especially i liked the the intro explanation in connection with your last words (about learing in poker).

    thanks boomer.
  • YohanN7

    #13

    Boomer, ýou never replied to my #7. Did you just say to yourself "This dude is just hopeless" and then left it at that?

    /Johan
  • Boomer2k10

    #14

    The problem is it's a huge question you're asking

    If you are asking if Game Theory Optimal strategy is possible in LHE the answer is yes and it is also therefore possible to completely solve certainly HUHU LHE and, certainly since 2008, a lot of work has gone into it coming up with some of the balance ideas you see today.

    However before you start panicking there are approximately 10^18 different game states in HUHU LHE and therefore it is impossible for a human being to solve, even a supercomputer would take hundreds of years using present day technology but if your question is "Can an individual hand be solved?" the answer is yes and there are examples of that in video form on Pokerstrategy.

    What you appear to be driving at is that Game Theory Optimal strategy is not necessarily the strategy which grants us highest EV in the current circumstances which is correct. Often exploitative strategies are superior in terms of the vacuum of the particular hand involved.

    However the big caveat to that is that by deviating from Game Theory to exploitative strategy you thereby make yourself exploitable. This may not be a problem in itself vs non-good players but when you make extreme shifts in your play you'd better be right about what you're doing.

    One of the top players of the past 5 years, Matt Hawrilenko (Hoss_TBF), stated that even if you're deviating it shouldn't be far from GTO (i.e. even if you're sure your opponent is a total calling station you should ALWAYS bluff the bottom of your range on the river with initiative because you can never say with 100% certainty your opponent won't fold) and often in the name of exploitation players are prone to making radical shifts which simply aren't warranted and certainly in the circumstances I saw on the video, these shifts weren't warranted
  • YohanN7

    #15

    #14 Thanks for your reply. I'm quite happy with it. It makes very much sense (and you understood precisely what I meant). Now I will promptly watch part 2 of this vid that just appeared!

    /Johan