Poker Badgers, let's do this (noobs without addictive personalities welcome). - The Bear and Badger

SpaceGazelle

GooberTheHat wrote:

Maybe that's better, and the extra information is actually mord likely to be misinterpreted and lead to the wrong decision, especially if it's deliberately false information, but then that's what makes it so fun.

You're mental?, and not in a profitable way. So tells are bullshit and maths is better. Probably. Unless it's a thing. Which it isn't.

SpaceGazelle

sorry. \carry on. xFont Size
Font Color
Remove Formatting

Insert a link
Unlink
Insert an image
Insert a YouTube video

Code
Insert a Quote
Set as spoiler

Cut
Copy
Paste
Paste Text

View source

You can use BBCode in your post.

Back to Discussions

[ul][li]Off topic[/li][/ul]

Start a New Discussion

[font=helvetica neue", Helvetica, arial, sans-serif]Categories[ul]

[li]All Discussions2,240[/li]

[li]Games1,488[/li]

[li]Off topic672[/li]

[li]Forum Talk80[/li]

[/ul]

[/font]

GooberTheHat

SpaceGazelle wrote:

GooberTheHat wrote:

Maybe that's better, and the extra information is actually mord likely to be misinterpreted and lead to the wrong decision, especially if it's deliberately false information, but then that's what makes it so fun.

You're mental?, and not in a profitable way. So tells are bullshit and maths is better. Probably. Unless it's a thing. Which it isn't.

I was saying just using the limited information of the playing style is probably better.

Armitage_Shankburn

SpaceGazelle wrote:

Yeah I get the bankroll thing, I've been doing it since the start. I read somewhere your bankroll should be at least 20x the tourney fee so I did a cautious 40x and grinded microstakes. I've got over 5K now and it's for poker only.

Are live tells an actual thing btw? Seems like bullshit to me but I'm not live experienced enough to know, and I'm very tempted by the occasional Casino trip. Some poker forum guys swear it's a thing and live and online are different, but the two times I went to the casino I cleaned up, admittedly in a hoodie just in case. I probably looked like I was shitting myself every hand because I was, but I played my usual online game.

The thing is, some of these casino players I was chatting to are experienced live regs (waiting for the drunk crowd to rock up) but I've probably played more hands than a live player who has been playing for 20 yrs. I played my normal online game and it went better than I was expecting. Maybers luck both times. I'm still calling bullshit on the reads thing but people swear it's a thing.

Live tells are very real, and very reliable as long as you have people pegged. Some of the most reliable are weird ones which are still in Mike Caro's book of tells:

Spoiler:

There are others: the bet with a story (oh I guess I'm all in ), the acting before a raise, the quick putting down of cards after they checked them - very very quick, trying to hide their monster, followed by a raise (or occasionally a limp).... The averting their eyes straight away after a flop comes down, when they normally look at it for a bit longer (made flush, trips, two pair...) All are very reliable as long as you have the opponent pegged imo. They're just shit when you turn up in a casino with a bunch of strangers.

Armitage_Shankburn

You can use this. Always check your cards when a suited flop comes down, and you have a made flush, if you're not worried about that being exploited eg cos you play regularly with the guy, or always check your cards many times full stop before an action, like some pros do. But you have to be careful not to do it ponderously, or you are acting and it will look fake.

I always take the same amount of time looking at my cards - about four seconds. If I'm staring at AA I force myself to stare some more and I count to four in my head. I try to memorise the suits, if I'm in a serious game and I think my opponents are paying attention.

Betting motion and accompanying speeches is also a tell, less reliable - especially raises. I try to just say "raise" and then either consistently say the amount (whether I'm bluffing or not), or put the chips in in the same consistent motion. Usually slow and methodical. I respect tells big time.

SpaceGazelle

I suspect you're all talking bollocks. It's what live players do because they only play live, I think. I admit there's a chance Goober/Muzz/Gonz is right - that's a formidable trio brainage right there, but I reckon you're still all wrong/mad.

GooberTheHat

You don't think that people's body language changes depending on the level of stress/excitement/nervousness they are experiencing?

SpaceGazelle

People with really good and really bad equity experience the same emotions though? I know you lot think online is boring but I'm more fascinated by it than live. It requires more study. Judging betting patterns and estimating ranges takes ages to be good at. Maybe 10,000+ hands and a quarter that again in review. It's not easy and it takes serious work. Reviewing hands is what I do most these days and sometimes it can take hours to judge what should've been done. I don't think live reads will ever be able to match what I think you're on based on betting behaviour.

GooberTheHat

I'm not saying it's easy at all. I've already said that's it's probably the sensible (read correct) way to play.

Armitage_Shankburn

SpaceGazelle wrote:

People with really good and really bad equity experience the same emotions though? I know you lot think online is boring but I'm more fascinated by it than live. It requires more study. Judging betting patterns and estimating ranges takes ages to be good at. Maybe 10,000+ hands and a quarter that again in review. It's not easy and it takes serious work. Reviewing hands is what I do most these days and sometimes it can take hours to judge what should've been done. I don't think live reads will ever be able to match what I think you're on based on betting behaviour.

You don't understand, it's real. I'm not making it up.

What you can argue about is who will have a better hourly rate playing live, the person who plays online (high volume) or the person who plays live (live tells experience).

Well, over time (playing many many live hands), imo it's the online player who does better (because of volume) than the live player.

But live play isn't known for volume. So my advice to any online player is to invest in learning and spotting live tells - read Mike Caro, play a few Mickey mouse games, before investing any significant amount in a casino tournament, say. Get the best of both worlds - you can happily 3bet A3s to make your 3 bet range less exploitable; most live players struggle to do that. But if you've picked up on a tell (player who quickly flicks down monsters, as if to hide his monster hand from prying eyes), you can make an exploitative adjustment (even fold, screw your GTO chart)

SpaceGazelle

It's like we're playing different games with this tells businiess. My sole focus is, as you say, putting people on ranges and seeing how each street tells a story. It's basically about representation and whether the story makes sense. If a pure bluff occurs it's after the river, on a failed flush or run. If you're dealt a monster then you bet accordingly - anybody who slow plays aces or kings shouldn't really be at the table. Nor should anyone bluffing K7, but I'd bet A3 all day if I'm in position.

Understanding position, bet sizing and exploiting ranges are the absolute key to good poker. If it gets to the river then I'm bluffing 1/3 of the time if I didn't make it because maths. Maybe a tell might be thing then. If I start crying and shout "WHY LORD WHY!" or something.

GooberTheHat

or maybe you look over at your opponents stack to see how much you could realistically lure out of them if you made your hand, or you double checked your hand to make sure that the Club you had was the A and not the Q, or you had a microsecond of hesitation as you went to put your chips in. Scoff all you want, but body language is a real thing. People communicate non verbally all the time, often without realising it. I am unsure why you're so adamant that they don't?

SpaceGazelle

It's not that I don't, I'm just not sure if it's that important. What I'm looking for is a consistent story on the streets and by judging you on your range. You should know rough stack sizes by looking before a hand is dealt.

Anyone 4betting K10 is a maniac but you don't always want to 5bet AA either. Even if I know you're on AA I might still play you if I'm in postion. Not in microstakes obvs but in the bigger games I'd do it for sure.

GooberTheHat

No one is saying its the most important thing, just that it is one aspect that makes live games different to online. It is extra information that is available to you. How well you interpret that information is down to the individual, and whether you choose to use it at all is also up to you, but it's there regardless.

SpaceGazelle

It's extra information if you're correct. I suspect you'd remember the hits more than the misses but like I say, I'll bow your live knowledge. If I'd have got beaten when I played live I'd me more convinced I guess. Their reads on me were wrong for sure because they kept calling when I had good hands and the one bluff I did do got through. The main thing that struck me about live was that it was mainly much less aggressive even though it was a little tighter. Apart from the drunks obv.

GooberTheHat

It's an art more than a science. Some people are better at it than others, and you can only learn so much, the rest is instinctive. And it's not the only thing to rely on, it's not even the main thing, it's just extra information that you can use to inform your decision. If you process it incorrectly then obviously you are going to be making imperfect decisions.

SpaceGazelle

Amma going to play a bit more live I reckon. See what's what.

Armitage_Shankburn

I still don't think SG has read my post. Live tells reduce variance, they narrow the range. Instead of this guy has AA, KK, then suited trash K and Q high, a few connectors and whatever weak holding people limp with, you are like... Ok he only does this with a monster unless he knows I know, and most live poker players are too dumb for that. So you go 50% AA and KK and 50% random holding and act accordingly..

Online poker play (and volume) is still more valuable than live tells, but if realistically you are only playing in a casino once or twice a year you must invest in live tells because you aren't going to play for 200 years running in order for your superiority as a live player to be able to overcome variance. Capisce?

SpaceGazelle

Armitage_Shankburn wrote:

I still don't think SG has read my post. Live tells reduce variance, they narrow the range. Instead of this guy has AA, KK, then suited trash K and Q high, a few connectors and whatever weak holding people limp with, you are like... Ok he only does this with a monster unless he knows I know, and most live poker players are too dumb for that. So you go 50% AA and KK and 50% random holding and act accordingly.. Online poker play (and volume) is still more valuable than live tells, but if realistically you are only playing in a casino once or twice a year you must invest in live tells because you aren't going to play for 200 years running in order for your superiority as a live player to be able to overcome variance. Capisce?

Yeah I get variance - couldn't bankroll without it and you take it in your stride when things are grim, but variance doesn't get a look in when live players are so bad.

SpaceGazelle

I suppose the differnce here is cash games, which I rarely play. I'm sngs and longer tourneys so ICM becomes important and shoves are rare.

SpaceGazelle

There's obviously a genuine difference in play between the two and I suspect the divide is getting bigger. Would a live player 3bet 54s more than 98s? Probably not. But that's only a slight probability improvement I guess, but it really does add up, even in a single session.

It's more basic than that though. Live players are frankly just bad, and often seem to just make up their mind on every street at that given moment (after they've looked at you maybe?), but I'm often thinking about what I'll do next in advance. It's just instinctive with online and that's why tells seem, dare I say outdated? It was business as usual live and it was more than fine.

EG. I'll bet 1/2 pot say after the flop and think in advance - if they do X I'll do this or this or this. I've already decided based on range without looking at them, so it will not help. I don't see tells help with that kind of play.

Shrugs.

I guess we'll have to play together live sometime. I suspect you're all shite tbh.

Funkstain

Or you could look at them and narrow that range

Funkstain

Or get it wrong and fuck up. Live poker involves the maths but is more about the behaviour. You could play the odds the whole time and not beat a top live player who can read you and your (personal style of) play. If your play is purely odds then they’ll figure that out quick and play you easy

SpaceGazelle

Range is about behaviour and everything is range. Sure, you use maths but mainly it's putting them and yourself on a range and exploiting. Live players often don't seem to understand basic odds.

SpaceGazelle

I always raise on 2.25X. Always. No maths involved there but keeps range exploitation down, which is more important.

GooberTheHat

I think you're just playing bad players.

SpaceGazelle

I think you're not playing good players.

Funkstain

Both of these things could be true

Everything is range and behaviour contributes to that on a per player basis and is massively emphasised in live

Thought experiment: everyone at a live table is playing “pure range in their heads”. You note this. Can you take advantage somehow?

SpaceGazelle

Yes, by being aggressive.

GooberTheHat

I'm not the one claiming my opponents don't understand odds.

Howdy, Stranger!

Categories