Now a lot of people are focused on "equilibrium" poker now days. I admit, it is very interesting and can be very profitable. However, I think there is a lot to be said about an exploitable strategy.Many people in turn play an exploitable strategy, but THEN in certain spots try to balance their ranges. But in reality there are plenty of spots where there is a certain "quid pro quo". If your opponents are letting you rob them blind in one spot, rather than too aggressively try to play back at them in another spot, just let them exploit you in one spot, and exploit them in another. Ths is especially true in tournaments. Sometimes it's okay to let them get away with crazy ridiculous all in bluffs if they were to move in with every hand, but you trust your read that they wont and even if they do, there is an adjustment period and a counter exploitation.
For example, what if you could raise the blinds with a min bet, and do this every time and steal a pot with a pot size risk more than half the time everytime? You could coast your way into the tournament provided you don't go all in. Granted, opponents will adapt, but you can as well. This is to illustrate that even folding aces would be correct if in theory you could indefinitely steal your way to first place without ever getting knocked out of the tournament or ever being at risk.
Realistically this assumption is terribly misinformed and I would not suggest folding aces.... However, folding Jacks or queens? that's another story.
Most people who play lose expect to be able to get paid off and they expect to get played back at. And when they get ace-x or top pair they can't lay it down because they anticipate players will play back at them with air. I at times struggle with BOTH being extremely exploitative YET also making big laydowns during that style... Such a style is mathematically incorrect... Theoretically if you raised 75% of your hands and folded 5/6 times to a reraise a player could reraise 10% of the time and be profitable and just fold to your 4bet all ins almost every time as well. But what happens if you switch strategy without them knowing it and go from raising 75% of the time and 4betting 1/6 (or 4beting with the top 12.5% of hands) to raising 40% of the time and 4betting 1/2 of the time? You'd be 4bet stealing a lot (20% of all hands and half the hands you raise). But by the time they realize it you have a ton of chips and they've been conditioned to fold and assume you finally got a hand. They probably won't notice whether you are raising 75% of all hands or 50% of all hands because you could just be getting dealt 27off and 29off several hands in a row. Then you could be dealt AJ+,666+ and be moving in. If opponen tis 3betting you very light and assuming you are moving in with 77+ and AJ+ they have to wait for JJ+ or AK to be able to call. Maybe TT or AQ, I haven't calculated the equity and it depends on how much dead money is in the pot. But if you are 4betting with 20% of hands (55+, A2s+, AT+, K7s+, QTs, JTs, KT+, Q9s, J9s, T8s+, 98s, QJ) you have a very good chance of getting them to fold way too much. And even when they call you, you still may happen to have a very strong hand. Alternatively, you could tighten way up and take more of a passive approach to see more flops if you recognize there are greater exploitation opportunities on the flop.
Losing a huge portion of your stack or busting out of the tournament isn't a big deal if you can win often enough to compensate for your losses as well. And if you are far enough away from money, or at a key stage where massive chip accumulation can significantly improve your chances of finishing deep, there is no problem at all with taking this strategy for a few massive steals and then moving back to exploitative/exploitable again.
Even though a strategy may be theoretically "mathematically incorrect" you have to challenge the assumptions made because it may still be correct in real life. This is BECAUSE math often requires certain "flawed assumptions" to simplify. The flawed assumption is that players adapt perfectly to whatever style you have. Realistically if they THINK you are playing loose, you can switch to tight for quite some time before they realize you have switched styles. So you can be quite "exploitable" for quite some time and switch styles to the opposite.
But in reality that is sometimes EXACTLY what you should do, and when I DO, I have a great chance of doing very well, provided I don't get impatient and regret that decision rather than just focus on the game.
No comments:
Post a Comment