Friday, August 10, 2012

'balance'

Pre-flop, the most common and sensical arrangements are to swap or 'shift' connectors with high ranks, and change as your opponent catches on.  This is true IP and OOP.  There are other ways to tweak these ranges, but your options are more limited because pre-flop your choices are to call or raise (i.e. not to check, check-raise, donk-bet, etc).

Post-flop it gets interesting.  The cool thing is, though, that no matter where you make decisions post-flop, your options are all the same (with slight differences IP vs. OOP).  For example, if you check-call the flop, this provides you with options for a calling arrangement.  If you're VBetting the flop (you must then consider your opponent's current 'arrangement' which I sometimes refer to as a snapshot or strategy) and they raise and you call, your range that was your VBetting range now becomes your calling range, and has it's own arrangement with all the same components/options as any other time you call!

Before we get into all the arrangements, there's one more concept that's important to understand.  While value and bluffs can be swapped (by the way this is what people refer to as 'balance' except that many people think this means do both in proportion all the time, when really you should go back and forth using the same size range for cover; these balances are meant to be tipped!) to exploit how much your opponent calls/folds, the CR is a tool, specifically OOP, to implement when you need to control how much your opponent CBets each street with their marginal value (you can control their bluff % just by your calls, but then they can exploit your bluff catchers with their value, so this is when you need the CR).

The balance with the CR is how much you do it; i.e. how much you add/remove it from your checking range.

Within the CR is another balance: how much you CR with value vs. how much you CR with bluffs (or semi-bluffs).

And a third balance being check-call/check-fold.

A visual would be a large balance containing two smaller balances on each side:   

_CR-V__________CR-B_            C-C                 C-F    
                  ^                                          ^                   
                                         ^


There are actually many ways to arrange the balances (what it actually is is a decision tree), but the above isn't how I'm going to view it actually.  I'm going to put the hands that continue on one side, and the folds on the other.  I'm also going to try to keep the typically larger groups as main branches on the tree.  Lastly, I'm going to incorporate into my diagram the betting (VBets & Bluffs) hands.

Here's the tree when you have the option to bet or check OOP (note: when you check, you are also deciding what to do afterwards if your opponent bets since that will decide the EV of your check, and that your opponent may also check behind, which also contributes to your EV).  Also note: 64 possible combinations of arrangements if it's all or none when tipping each balance:


_CR-V_____CR-B_     C-C lower   C-C higher           
              ^                                 ^           
                                ^                                       C-F 

                                                         ^                               Opp Check       Bluff        V-Bet          
                                                                                 ^                                        ^    
                                                                                                            ^

By the way, this previous one would be built on another one for pre-flop ranges of either 3-bet connectors or top ranks!

Here's the tree when you have the option to bet or check IP (4 combinations of possible arrangements):

                   Bluff-Bet        V-Bet          
Check                         ^      
               ^


Here's the tree when you're facing a bet IP (note: if you're OOP, you're using the first tree where you check with a decision of what you'll do afterwards).  Also note there are 16 combinations of arrangements:

                    Call-Lower             Call-Higher               Bluff-Raise          V-Raise  
                                         ^                                                         ^  
 Fold                                                              ^   
               ^

I'll address the Call-Lower/Higher in depth later on.  There's a bit of an exception to the 'balance' model on that one; basically when you call, you can call more by either calling with more bluff-catchers (lower side of your calling range, instead of folding it) or call with more of your higher value hands (higher side of your calling range, instead of betting it).  And in fact, it's an even more special exception because you can do both at once; in the model, this would be like keeping the Call-Lower and Call-Higher balance level, while the whole side of the balance underneath it was heavier.

Here are some perhaps familiar and/or frustrating arrangements you and/or your opponent might have.  Later I'll provide some visuals and math behind them, and talk about which ones exploit which ones / how to adapt to each.  I'll also go through every possible/relevant arrangement so as to not leave anything without being addressed:

A)  (opp is OOP) Your opponent bluffs > pot odds by a lot, and starts calling with at least some of their stronger value.

B)  (opp is IP) Your opponent VBets a much wider range than 50% of value on the board (ex: BP+) and practically stops bluffing.

C)  Your opponent both VBets and bluffs a ton (i.e. they CBet 100%).

D)  (opp is OOP) Your opponent checks a very wide range, calling a lot, almost not folding at all, and they CR all their value hands.

E)  (opp is IP) They CBet low value and best value, but check behind medium value and bluff-catching range.


If you noticed in the example scenarios above, I also compared the ranges to the pot odds, as well as to a 50% amount; these are common thresholds that must be considered when you decide 'how far' to tip each balance.

Ok, that's it for this post.  In a coming post I'll go through each arrangement and how to exploit it.

exploiting GTO

In my previous post I talked about the 2 poker rules to 'triage' your game, now we need to follow up and adapt.

GTO (Game Theory Optimal) is something talked about as a style of play, contrasted by Exploitation of non-GTO play as another style.  But I don't believe there actually is GTO unless you allow there to be.  In order for there to be GTO, your opponent must know what ranges you're playing with (note: I'm not saying what hands you have at any given moment, but what range of hands you have).

Going back to the calling but folding > pot odds so that your opponent should bluff, this is assuming they are bluffing at all.  If they're not, you should never call with bluff catchers because they're losing value to your opponent's made hands.  Similarly, if they would bluff just as much if you never folded, you should call with 100% of your bluff catchers.

Again with your own bluffing, if your opponent never folds, you should never bluff (note: until they change by perhaps folding to all your value bets!).  Similarly, if they will always fold too much, you should only bluff (maybe start calling with your value hands instead since otherwise your opponent will fold to your VBets and you'll make nothing from your made hands; more on this in a moment).

What I'm describing is basically how to exploit a GTO player.  All I said with the 2 rules is that your opponent can't exploit you by their bluffs or bluff catchers.  I never said they couldn't exploit you with their value hands.

Pre-flop is the perfect time to knock a 'GTO' player out of any GTO advantage.  OOP is a commonly recognized scenario when you 3-bet.  If you 3-bet with your top 20% (my recommended range) they may start folding (until they do fold, you profit though).  Once they start folding, start 3-betting your connectors and suited connectors 20% of the time, but not your top 20% anymore.  They'll then be folding to your 'bluffs' (which will sometimes still improve and win you a big pot because your opponent didn't put you on that range).  This argument holds true for the SB open-raise too, but with different % amounts.

Why 20% OOP pre-flop?  Because your opponent cannot effectively call you don't when even 1 paint card comes on the flop (note: top 30% is close, so I'd be ok with that too as desired).  This brings up range shifting.  When you move one hand type from one of your ranges (ex: pre-call, flop bet with draws made from connectors) to another range (ex: 3-bet pre-flop OOP), then what happens to your other range?  Well, in this example, you put your higher value in place of the connectors, and vice versa.  Here's an important concept: they can't be in both places at once.

There are common 'arrangements' of hands, such as connectors in the 3-betting and top 20% in the pre-call range.  There are similarly arrangements post-flop.  My next post will discuss these and more.

2 poker rules to be inexploitable, and more

This post may be a little out of order from other things I have posted and will post, but those other things are on paper, and I've got to get some thoughts down.

There are 2 things you can do to instantly plug any major holes in your game; this may be more true for HE LHE than other forms, but in theory can be considered to guide actions in other forms as well.  Note that these 2 'triage' rules require understanding/application of the >= 50% value 'rule' I posted before with my scanned post-it notes.

i) When in a calling scenario (i.e. your opp. is betting), you should fold enough to make their bluffs correct (while folding < 50% effectively by the river, i.e. 'absolute' % from the beginning of the hand).

Why?  a)  If they do bluff, you still collect those bets with your value hands, which is > 50% of the time.  This means it's impossible for you to actually lose money because of your opponent's bluffs (you may not be calling optimally if your opponent is always/never bluffing for example, but you won't effectively ever lose money in the hand from calling the wrong amount vs. bluffs by your opponent). b)  If they do NOT bluff (i.e. they check), then your bluff catchers will win at showdown.

ii)  When in a betting scenario (i.e. you are betting), you should bluff enough to make it correct for your opponent to call (while not bluffing >= 50% effectively by the river, i.e. 'absolute' % from the beginning of the hand).

Why?  If they do call (i.e. with bluff catchers), they're also calling vs. your value hands > 50% of the time.  If they do NOT call, then your bluffs are profiting from their folds.

This brings up an important theoretical understanding of where profit comes from.  When you bluff, you are effectively NOT profiting.  You are putting in more than 50% of the bets any time they fold (i.e. you are risking > 50% to win < 50%).  So when they call down > 50% (i.e. as they should, just like I recommend you do), you end up putting in more bets that lose (from the start of the hand) vs. their calling range than you ever make vs. their folds.  In this way (here's the important theoretical statement...) bluffs do not profit, they only reduce your loss.

This being said, reducing loss is important.  If you don't bluff, you'll effectively forfeit (lose) all the bets you put in with the hand so far, as opposed to a % of the bets you put in so far.  Also, if you stop bluffing, your opponent can then make correct folds when you do bet.  Remember, when you put money in pre-flop your hand had the equity to do so, so you didn't actually start out losing money.  You can't ever know you had a 'bluffing' hand until post-flop (ex: Q7 is a fine hand, but if the board comes AJ2 it's now a bluffing hand).  But when you do realize it, you are then trying to salvage money already spent.

Lastly, bluffing is important because you should be doing so with the hands that can't stand a showdown, but out of that group the ones that have the most equity; this way the longer you stay in (i.e. by bluffing), you will also make more hands that can end up seeing a showdown, in addition to the times your opponent folds and you wouldn't have improved (which of course you can't know before you bet).  To summarize this, when you bluff, you win in 2 ways, when: a) they fold, b) they call but you improve.

Ok, I'll stop there for this post.

Thursday, August 2, 2012

What to do if the SB splits their pre-flop range, and more.

If the SB splits their pre-flop range (which the BB can do by sometimes 3-betting, or sometimes raising vs. a limp) you must play differently than if they either open-raise or fold pre-flop.  (There is also, by the way, great benefit vs. 'good' players who don't fold their BB too often pre-flop to sometimes open-limping, and other times open-raising; I'll discuss this second).

Scenario A)  If the SB raising range is stronger, you play vs. that range as you would if they played an open-raise/open-fold strategy.

Scenario B)  But if the SB raises with weaker hands (after making you think they're doing it only with strong hands) to gain fold equity, you must become aware of this and adjust.  Vs. this range, you'll be able to...

1)  call down a lot more with stronger made hands on higher boards (since your opponent will think they have bluff/fold equity).

2)  You can also VBet on lower flops since they'll have lower pairs using the same board cards.

3)  Play your range that matches their now-stronger limping range vs. their range as you would if they open-raised (except of course adjust for a smaller pot size/lower odds) using your matching range.

4)  You'll then need to just ditch a lot of your worse hands since they don't play well vs. your opponent's strong limping range, but that's ok because you saved money vs. if they had open-raised forcing you to call!  Plus you'll make more than that back since their lower hands are going in for twice as much money, plus worse odds throughout the hand as mentioned above.

Simply swap these above scenarios (A and B) if they shift their ranges back to open-raising with strong hands, and open-limping with weak.

---------------------------------------------------

This range-splitting can be good if your opponent doesn't realize it's happening right away.  Vs. observant opponents it's not a good idea (because of how terrible it performs if your opponent does what I just described above), but if they don't adjust and fall for your range swapping, you'll make a good profit.  Pre-flop it's tough to pull this off, though, because it's pretty visible once they see one of your hands at showdown.  But if hands aren't going to showdown, that means it's probably working (i.e. they're folding to your raises with junk), so keep it up.

This bring up an aside: why should I not open-raise or call pre-flop 100%?  For the same reason as above: it's pretty obvious if you never fold that you're playing 100% of your hands, thus allowing your opponent to play vs. your range as a whole perfectly.  If you open-raise 90%, then 75%, then 90% again, it's tougher for them to know exactly how tight you're raising, and so they won't be able to play perfectly.

Lastly, BB 3-betting pre-flop is the same idea as the SB range swapping.  You want to sometimes 3-bet with strong hands, then sometimes with weaker hands.  But don't do both together as you do on the flop (where you maintain > 50% value to showdown) because you can't guarantee to have any specific amount of  top combos on the flop (i.e. sometimes you'll hit with your pre-flop 3-bet 'bluff' hands like 87s perhaps, and the flop is KJ8).*  You need to change it back and forth as in the SB example above.

*note:  if the SB will let you 3-bet (without them capping), a somewhat effective strategy could be for you to check the flop sometimes, and others CBet as you would split your ranges if you had just called pre-flop, and sometimes VBet/bluff, and other times check-call.  The reason this can be good is that it does allow you to get 1 extra small bet in pre-flop with your better hands and still get your flop bet in too.  Conversely it does make it harder for your bluffs to succeed...

...because splitting up your ranges, then deciding how to proceed on the flop is much more complex than simply calling 100% pre-flop from the BB, this is why it's very opponent-dependent.  If they play poorly enough vs. your 3-bets, it can be worth sacrificing some 'correct' plays (because it's more complex you'll make plays that are sub-optimal) to gain value from their mistakes.  An example would be if they fold way too much and allow you to 3-bet with garbage and bluff them off many pots.

Couldn't sleep, more poker.

As I'm sure everyone interested in Poker has heard, we may be getting our Full Tilt money back.  Hopefully the U.S. will soon host online poker too.  And when the hoards of fish come, I'll be ready.  :)

My cat was sick last night, and I ended up not sleeping much.  Instead I worked on poker in my head.  Came up with a few things...

1)  The first person to tighten their range (ex: pre-flop would be a good spot) has the advantage if the other person doesn't adjust, since they'll be behind throughout the rest of the hand.  There are 4 good scenarios to show what happens.  Take for example the SB open-raising tighter (say 60% instead of 90% suddenly).

a)  BB is behind on higher made hands vs. SB made hands.

b)  BB is ahead on lower made hands vs. SB air.

c)  BB is unable to bluff on lower flops vs. SB air.

d)  BB must fold more often vs. SB bets.

Recourse #I:

i)  BB should VBet made hands more on the lower flops.
ii)  BB should bluff less (both on high flops because SB has a hand more often, and on low flops because SB will be calling with HC more)
iii)  BB should fold more/not call down as readily with bluff-catchers (high & low flops, because SB more often has even better HC hands than your bluff-catchers).

Recourse #II:   My preference

The BB (in the above example) can avoid having to worry about any of these adaptations if they simply contract their pre-flop calling range to match the SB open-raising range (if the SB folds when they don't raise).  You can always 'match' the folding frequency of the SB, and lose very little in the process.  Example: opponent folds bottom 10%, you gain their 0.25 big bets = +0.025 bb.  You fold 10% of the remaining 90% and lose your 0.5 bb blind = - 0.045 bb.  That's a net of 0.025 - 0.045 = - 0.02 bb.

The pattern, at 50%, wil be EV = 0.  You gain 0.25 the 50% they fold = + 0.125 bb.  You lose 0.5 bb 50% of the time you fold to their 50% open-raise = - 0.125 bb, so EV = 0.

After that you'd be ahead, except that by that point your opponent shows an immediate profit by open-raising and could decide at that point to not ever continue, and they'd always be ahead in EV.  It would be very odd to see an opponent open-raise less than 50% from the SB, and if you did, you could certainly find ways to exploit that.

So your EV is somewhere between 0.02 bb and 0 if you match their pre-flop folding % when you're in the BB.  In my opinion, this is worth it so as to not have to severely adjust my post-flop approach.

Your post-flop hands, then, will be able to be played 'normally' as you would if your opponent simply raised 100% pre-flop and you called 100%.  To explain: your VBet range will, on average, match your opponents on the flop.  This will give your bluffs credibility (i.e. it's balanced), and will allow you to call down with HC hands on lower flops still because your opponents won't on average have better HC hands than you.

-----------------------


Quick update to my 'notes' post (scanned notes).  VBet range should be 75% made, 25% draws (roughly) so that vs. a raise, by the river I can drop the 25% draws, and then also 25% points of the made, and still have 50% of the made hands range.

Tuesday, July 31, 2012

My poker notes (literally)

I've had poker thoughts brewing in my head for a while; things I could almost see, like images.  Was actually giving me a headache as they swirled around, but couldn't quite gel.

Pieces finally started snapping into place today, and with each piece the others came faster, until they all were totally lucid, and I quickly scratched them down.  Too tired to put them into electronic form today other than scanning them.  Plus I thought it would be cool to have these available to look back on...

...they're my most comprehensive, important thoughts to date.  I'm sure of this because I've both used them in part at high-stakes HU LHE play with great success, and the rest of them directly relate to those that I've used.

So, without any more talk, if you can decipher them, then congrats - feel free to use them in your HU LHE game!  Otherwise you may have to purchase my future book :)


Lastly, a few extra things:

These are specifically for HU LHE; some things I'm fairly sure don't apply to other forms.
Bluffs don't make profit; they recoup loss they've already incurred.  They always lose value effectively.
VBets and VCalls are the only places to make value.

Things still needing to be addressed:

What happens with pre-flop contractions/expansions of ranges IP and OOP?
Also, I'd like to develop a way to play both sides of a match against myself, so I can always practice with somebody who wants to 'train,' i.e. myself.

Sunday, July 29, 2012

flop donk > CR ? I think it's likely.

I've got 5 reasons why I think a flop donk is better than a CR when OOP in HU LHE. Here they are, in order from my rough estimate of importance, from lesser to greatest: 5) by acting first, you force your opponent to choose the correct response 100% of the time, and since no player is perfect, you force them to make the first mistake. 4) I actually WANT the times that I check/check-call the flop/turn to be exploitable, where I'll often call the flop but then fold the turn. This will encourage my opponent to CBet-bluff the turn, which allows me to then shift otherwise VBet hands into my check-calling range to gain value (while bluffing more in my betting range), and then to shift those hands back if they catch on, allowing my weak hands to get free cards on the turn (and then VBetting more strongly when they're then calling more often vs. my donks). If I CR the flop, I don't have any options to incentivize my opponent to make these mistakes. 3) your opponent never has an option to simply check back the flop or turn to realize more equity with hands you want to VBet/protection bet against (like AH/KH hands, or QH with a GS, etc). (note: even if they raise the flop for a free turn card, then they'll run into my #1 point below). This becomes an even greater issue if they tighten up pre-flop and have a higher % of HC hands on average when there's a lower flop/turn. 2) you're getting 20% price on the flop for pure-bluffs instead of 33%, which I feel is more important than getting extra value from value CR on the flop since in the end, VBets/raises are EV neutral. 1) you force your opponent to put in extra bets for a bluff raise, giving yourself either 2:1 profit on your own Value:Bluffs if they raise the flop, or 2.5:1.5 if they raise the turn. This means you can get paid off on your value hands from their bluffs at a higher price to them, which allows you to bluff twice as often as you VBet (in the 2:1 structure). Ex: if you VBet (donk) 20% of the time on the flop, you can donk-bluff as much as 40% of the time, while if they try to bluff-raise the flop, in small bets your EV = 2(0.2) - 1(0.4) = 0. For a flop CR, you're getting 3:2 on both either the flop or turn, which if you V-CR 20% leaves you with EV = 3(.2) - 2(.3) = 0 for EV neutral, showing you can only bluff max 30% of the time. This feeds back into point #2 above, where not only can you bluff more often, but those bluffs are then more profitable.

Tuesday, July 24, 2012

Poker Outline & KISS approach

While poker has been categorized previously into 2 categories (Assumptions, Best Line), I see it as 2 main categories that are slightly different, and which are broken further into 2 categories each, as follows: 1) Assessment a) Assumptions b) What's possible 2) Action a) What's profitable (parts I and II) b) What's MOST profitable In #1, a) assumptions are tied with knowing how to b) read boards / count combinations. For example, you can't assume an opponent is bluffing 70% of the time when they only hold 50% of garbage hands based on the board. More on #1 in a bit (it's where I'll discuss using the KISS approach). In #2 it gets complex. To decide if an action is profitable, you can't only look at the hand you hold in a single scenario, ex: bluffing and having your opponent fold. If your opponent also folds when you hold a made hand, you're not making money with your made hands. #2 a) part I: it's the EV of i) each of your hand ranges, ii) via an action you take, and iii) responded to by your opponent with each of their hand ranges. I call this 'vertical EV' because it is a composite of your best through worst hand ranges across scenarios. *note: this is where you consider balance. #2 a) part II: You must also then consider what I call horizontal EV, which is your vertical EV taken through the actions/streets of a hand, as far as you figure you can make accurate assumptions. *note: this is where the KISS method shows itself in the EV. Doing these #2 steps allows you to evaluate a plan of actions that you can take vs. a "model opponent", an opponent for whose actions you define/know. #2 b) is comparing identified profitable scenarios for the 'model opponent' and choosing the most profitable. This is tough enough on it's own, but then if you do a 'what if' for your opponent's actions, it can easily turn into a multi-variable problem, which basically means you can't solve it. Better might be to take a different given opponent, and repeat steps #2 a) and then b). ------------------- KISS approach --------------------- In #2 everything is away-from-the-table; it's harder. It's also less useful. Knowing how to do #1 really well can pay off much more than doing it poorly and also trying to do #2. Keep in mind that you'll change your strategy frequently as you adapt to your opponent, making any research you did in #2 obsolete if you don't know what to do next. In contrast, you will make decisions based on the board texture/assumptions every decision point of every hand. Just keeping an eye on your balance needed in #2 part a) will ensure you don't have any 'holes.' Also keep in mind that you don't actually WANT to play balanced. You want to play the opposite of what your opponent thinks you're doing. For example, bluff way too much to get them to call, then stop bluffing and VBet more so they'll pay you off. Or, in reverse, only VBet, then when they start folding a lot, stop VBetting and start bluffing. Another way to think about it is that you also aren't trying to profit with all of your actions all the time. You expect to fold your garbage and only VBet sometimes (losing value when you fold your garbage, but making even more with your VBets). This is really important to understand! You CAN'T profit with EVERY action EVERY time; it's always a trade-off. Making these adaptations as early in the hand as is profitable (i.e. if your opponent won't immediately catch on if you do it pre-flop for example) is usually the most profitable because your opponents actions in response, if incorrect, will compound their loss (your profit) throughout every hand. -------------- Start #1 work: Two tasks -------------------------- Task #1: To start focusing on #1 then, we should do a case study to get an idea of how much it's worth. For example, change your pre-flop range vs. the 'model opponent' and see how much your EV changes. Referencing my previous statement that profit is always a trade-off, you may fold more pre-flop (losing your blind) to gain many big bets from your opponent when they think you have weak hands but don't, and they call down. Task #2: Learn your pre-flop ranges by 'squares' on the charts, in 10% range increments for 'paired' hands, then also for HC 'high card' hands; then for composite ranges (ex: top 60% - top 20%) for each of those. Don't try to do combos directly! Two quick reasons for NOT doing combos: i) too hard to count; not enough benefit, and 2) hands change based on square (like when an 'out' comes to make a straight), so you still need to keep track of the 'squares' anyway. It's the KISS approach again; do the 'squares' 100% and you'll get more benefit than doing it poorly and trying to do combos.

Saturday, July 21, 2012

Fluent Poker (& wine)

Fluent Poker (& wine) Had a great wine last night; 2010 pinot noir from Wollersheim winery, a winery in Prarie Du Sac, WI. It runs about $14, and was great! http://www.wollersheim.com/ Working at my new job, I realized how much information a person works at mastering to have a job where you get paid to know technical processes, etc. You are basically learning to be fluent in a language. I think poker is like this too. There's no quick way or trick to learning poker; you just have to force tons of information into your brain for practice, and repeat. Many times I feel that I still haven't really become fluent in poker; I've simply 'hard linked' scenarios to outcomes, but this is like memorizing phrases in a language; you don't really know how to speak it unless that specific scenario presents itself again. To become fluent in poker, I feel that you have to know these things: 1) How many squares are on a poker chart for the top 10% range increments (i.e. top 10%, top 20%, top 30%). For example, the top 30% has 19 squares (where AK is a square, AQ is a square, etc), plus all the pocket-pairs (PP) 55+. 2) How many made squares of made hands are possible based on a board card in each range. Ex: In the top 30%, if an A comes, there are A5+ = 9 squares of made hands (pairs). This accounts for most of what you'll deal with in wider ranges, the rest being PP or HC (high-card) hands. Ex: top 30% has 19 squares, 19-9 = 10 HC still remain, plus 10 PP hands. 3) After this learn to subtract top 10% pre-flop range increments from each other. Ex: top 10% has 4 squares and 7 PPs (88+). Top 30% has 19 squares and 10 PPs (55+). So the range top 30% - top 10% has 19-4 = 15 squares plus 10-7 = 3 PPs. But also beyond this know which hands for each rank, as in #2 above. Ex: top 30% had A5+, and top 10% had AJ+, so top 30%-top 10% has A5 - AT = 6 squares of Ace made hands (pairs). 4) Then do all of this given 2, then also 3 board ranks. 5) Once these are mastered, then learn how many HC are in each range given the ranks on board, then in each subtracted range scenario. This will account for the majority of hands you'll see, especially in HU LHE where the ranges are wider (my particular game of choice). You'll start to get a sense of how 'heavily' flops hit ranges, etc. After this, though, there is still much more to consider: scenarios where I hold a pair, double ranked boards, ST 'straights' (which will take up squares on the chart similar to pairs, but between board ranks), FL 'flush' (which will be roughly a % of HC and PR 'pair' hands available), 2PR 'two pair', trips, etc. Then also OE & GS draws.

Wednesday, July 11, 2012

A bit of everything, esp Poker (Esp HU LHE)

I decided my blog is going to be for me, and of course anyone who wants to read this drivel! So I'm going to blog mostly about what I'm doing/interested in that day, whenever it strikes me (as most terrible blogs do!). Namely: poker (a lot of this for sure! Especially HU LHE), playing guitar, staying fit, drinking wine, learning to speak Thai, or my websites (plug: www.thepeopleswines.com , www.hulhe.com , www.hulhe.com , etc.). Today is poker!

 Poker:

 Value betting IP is different form VBetting OOP (will discuss more distinctions in a later post). One main difference is that your opponent is often already betting and when you're IP you can just call, or you can VRaise.

VRaising is like VBetting in that you want to be a 50% favorite vs. your opponents value range, but VRaising is different than VBetting because when you're opponent is bluffing, you have an option of collecting bets from bluffs by calling, where as those hands will likely fold if you raise. So the decision pits value from inducing bluffs vs. value from their made hands.

You collect 1 extra bet from their worse value hands, but only those which are > 50% of their value range, but still worse than your hand! This is because if you're exactly a 50% favorite, raising is a wash; you'll gain 1 extra bet from worse hands, but lose that extra bet from their better hands; it's a half-life scenario that continues until betting is capped, back and forth with your opponent.

Seen another way, for example, they 3-bet pre with top 30% and fire the flop & turn. If they held 20 possible hands and would call with 10 of them, if you hold the 4th hand from the best in that list, you're a 50% favorite vs. their top 8 hands, and also vs. 2 more lower calling hands.

If you raise, you gain 1 bet for 2 hands = 2 bets gross. But if they were bluffing with 3 hands, by just calling you'd gain 3 bets gross.

Flow of thought: count # of opponent's bluffing hands. To VRaise, count # of opponent's better hands, double this, and add the # of hands they were bluffing with; this is how many hands with which they'd need to call for a VRaise > VCall.

Summary: a value raise vs. call IP must compare # of extra calling hands beyond 50% worse vs. # of hands pure-bluffing. Whichever is greater determines your more profitable action with your IP value hands.

Friday, April 13, 2012

M90F (vs. P90X) - Day 54: extreme diet day 1 of 8

follow me on Twitter:  @matt_miller_c

email me at: matt.miller.c@gmail.com
find me on Facebook



Series:  "M90F: Matt's 90-day Fitness"

Day: 54

Activities: LOWER BODY - Walking (2X).

Did my double walk today to make up for yesterday's splurge a bit, and also just because I can 'smell blood' (i.e. I can see the progress of my stomach getting leaner), and I want to shred the last bit of fat away.  I'm going to take in only 1,000 calories each day starting today, and going through next Friday (i.e. 8 days).  If I burn 2,000 calories just being alive each day, then an extra 500 per day in double workout, and take in only 1,000 per day, that's 1,500 per day more burned than taken in.  That's 3/7 of a pound!  That's gotta be like half of my fist size in fat!

Reminded me that I read an article about Anne Hathaway losing weight for a new role where she plays a starving prostitute.  She takes in "at least 500 calories a day" her trainer assured the media!  And she's doing it for more than just a week.  That's insane (but in a weird way inspiring).  But then you'd start losing muscle mass too, and that's no fun.  :)

M90F (vs. P90X) - Day 53: splurge

follow me on Twitter:  @matt_miller_c

email me at: matt.miller.c@gmail.com
find me on Facebook



Series:  "M90F: Matt's 90-day Fitness"

Day: 53

Activities: UPPER BODY - Hand-stand push-ups, push-ups, ab-wheel, Walking.

Splurged a bit on take-out food tonight.  Did a great workout, but I think I'll start my week of calorie reduction tomorrow along with double workouts.

Thought about how, if you work 10 hours at a job during the week (ex: 7 to 5), get home and exercise, then eat dinner, it might be about 7 at night before you can do anything else.  Made me realize that maybe only 2 hours each night during the work week determines who you are in terms of what you do aside from your job.  When my M90F ends, I think I'll have to do 30 min of workout each week night, then 30 minutes of my next blogging activity.  I don't think it's realistic to dedicate 1 hour to exercise during the work week and still have time for another hobby as well, especially 1 hour of another hobby.  It really makes you think about priorities.

M90F (vs. P90X) - Day 52: determination

follow me on Twitter:  @matt_miller_c

email me at: matt.miller.c@gmail.com
find me on Facebook



Series:  "M90F: Matt's 90-day Fitness"

Day: 52

Activities: LOWER BODY - Walking.

I noticed on my walk today that just doing something difficult, like walking for 1 (or sometimes 2) hours and pushing through when you start to realize how long you've been walking give me determination in general.  It makes me think about other things I want to do, not even fitness-related, and makes me determined to do them.  Kind of cool how pushing yourself generates an even more determined attitude.

Tuesday, April 10, 2012

M90F (vs. P90X) - Day 51: 2 full handstand push-ups

follow me on Twitter:  @matt_miller_c

email me at: matt.miller.c@gmail.com
find me on Facebook



Series:  "M90F: Matt's 90-day Fitness"

Day: 51

Activities: UPPER BODY - Hand-stand Push-ups, Ab-wheel, Push-ups, Walking.

Decided to attempt a full handstand push-up on the first rep, first set today; touched my head to the floor, and up!  Got it!  On the second set, first rep, decided to try it again; got it!

Very little juice left on the other reps, but still pushed them hard; 3 sets, about 8 reps each.

M90F (vs. P90X) - Day 50: wiped out

follow me on Twitter:  @matt_miller_c

email me at: matt.miller.c@gmail.com
find me on Facebook



Series:  "M90F: Matt's 90-day Fitness"

Day: 50

Activities: LOWER BODY - Walking.

Extremely tired today.  Took a nap after work from 3:00 until 4:30, and didn't get out walking until 4:45.  I feel very worn out, but managed to force the hour walk.

Sunday, April 8, 2012

M90F (vs. P90X) - Day 49: Easter calories

follow me on Twitter:  @matt_miller_c

email me at: matt.miller.c@gmail.com
find me on Facebook



Series:  "M90F: Matt's 90-day Fitness"

Day: 49

Activities: UPPER BODY - Hand-stand Push-ups, Ab-wheel, Push-ups, Walking (X2).

I did my workout along my walk today; something I'm trying just like the stretching - makes it easier to do it.  It kind of tricks you into doing it.  For example, if you're at home after your walk and still need to do push-ups, etc, then you are having to choose to work out vs. watch T.V., etc.  But if you workout along the walk, then you're choosing to workout vs. walk, which is basically the same, so it's not hard to say: ok, I'll stop here for a sec and do some push-ups.

Everything is going well, but I ate too many calories today and yesterday!  Nothing to do but go forward, though. So I'll keep my diet structured again since spring break is over.

M90F (vs. P90X) - Day 48: nothing!

follow me on Twitter:  @matt_miller_c

email me at: matt.miller.c@gmail.com
find me on Facebook



Series:  "M90F: Matt's 90-day Fitness"

Day: 48

Activities: LOWER BODY - nothing!

We had weekend plans, so I'll have to do a 2X walk tomorrow again.

Friday, April 6, 2012

M90F (vs. P90X) - Day 47: same old

follow me on Twitter:  @matt_miller_c

email me at: matt.miller.c@gmail.com
find me on Facebook



Series:  "M90F: Matt's 90-day Fitness"

Day: 47

Activities: UPPER BODY - Hand-stand Push-ups, Ab-wheel, Push-ups, Walking.

Same old, again gotta keep it short!

M90F (vs. P90X) - Day 46: short entry, long walk

follow me on Twitter:  @matt_miller_c

email me at: matt.miller.c@gmail.com
find me on Facebook



Series:  "M90F: Matt's 90-day Fitness"

Day: 46

Activities: LOWER BODY - Walking (X2), Stretching.

Did a double walk today just for the heck of it to get ahead a bit!  Gotta keep today's entry short, that's it!

Wednesday, April 4, 2012

M90F (vs. P90X) - Day 45: surprise!

follow me on Twitter:  @matt_miller_c

email me at: matt.miller.c@gmail.com
find me on Facebook



Series:  "M90F: Matt's 90-day Fitness"

Day: 45

Activities: UPPER BODY - Hand-stand Push-ups, Ab-wheel, Push-ups, Walking.

I'm half way there!  Just finished my workout for today.  A few things on my mind: the benefit of a 90 day program, my diet, and a surprise.

I thought about how a 90-day program is perhaps a more natural alternative to bariatric surgery.  It's kind of the same idea: take care of the existing problem as quick as possible.  Then maintain the result through a change of habit.  The two must go together, but the ideas I used to have about a 90-day program being a bit silly, well, I think it's a good way to kick yourself into shape, as long as you back it up with a follow up program that you can maintain for the long-term.

It's becoming easier for me to be optimistic when I'm working out, now.  It used to seem like the extra weight had the upper hand.  For example, if you think about it in numbers, if I had 20 extra pounds on me at the beginning and worked hard during the week and lost 1 pound, that's only 5% of the weight.  But now, after I've lost some weight, say I'm only 10 pounds of excess weight.  If I do the same amount of work and lose 1 pound, that's 10% of the weight!  It's much easier mentally to feel like you're 'winning' vs. the extra weight when what you do takes a big chunk out of the entire picture.  The hardest part is getting to a point like this, and the more weight you start with, the harder that becomes.  So again, I think a 90-day program is a great way to help get to a mentally optimistic point.

This made me think about my diet.  It's hard to make huge long-term changes.  But if I could do a short burst of low calorie intake, high calorie output, I could lose a bunch of extra pounds all at once.  I think I'm going to do this as the end of the program gets closer, partly because I'm showing everybody my results (I want to look good, and beat my friend who's doing the P90X workout!), and partly because I think it's got the same benefit as this 90-day program.  So here's my thoughts: I'd take in 1,000 calories a day for a week, while also burning about 500 calories via workout each day.  On a 2,000 calorie per day equilibrium, that means I'd be net -1,500 calories per day.  In 7 days that's 10,500 calories.  In one pound there is 3,500 calories, so that's exactly 3 pounds.  3 pounds in just one week.  I think I'll do it 3 weeks before the end, have 1 normal week again, then the last week shred the last of it off.

Ok, my last surprise: I fit into 2 pairs of old shorts that haven't fit since college!  I didn't even know I still had them, but then when I was looking for shorts for the warm weather, I remembered I might still have them.  Sure enough, and they fit!  It's like that Progresso soup commercial where she tells the guy on the phone, he says "uh, yeah?" and she asks if there's a woman she can speak to.  Anyway, what a great surprise at the half-way point of my exercise program!

M90F (vs. P90X) - Day 44: little chunks

follow me on Twitter:  @matt_miller_c

email me at: matt.miller.c@gmail.com
find me on Facebook



Series:  "M90F: Matt's 90-day Fitness"

Day: 44

Activities: LOWER BODY - Walking (X2), stretching.

Went on my double walk today from missing yesterdays.  It's not the most fun, but doable.  Just need 2 hours of time to do it!

Almost reached the half-way point of the 90 day program.  Brought up a point I've been meaning to talk about: setting goals.  My first week, the goal was to finish the first week.  Then I started thinking about 10 days: nice even number.  After that, 15 days I realized was 1/6 of the entire program; also half of a month.  30 days is obviously a mile stone, as is 45 days.

By setting little goals, it splits up the big program into manageable little chunks.  I also do this while on a long 2 hour walk with the different pieces of the walk I'm on; just a little trick I do to keep myself mentally committed, and thought it might help you too!

Monday, April 2, 2012

M90F (vs. P90X) - Day 43: moving

follow me on Twitter:  @matt_miller_c

email me at: matt.miller.c@gmail.com
find me on Facebook



Series:  "M90F: Matt's 90-day Fitness"

Day: 43

Activities: UPPER BODY - Hand-stand Push-ups, Ab-wheel, Push-ups, Shoulders.

No walking today; I got busy posting stuff on Craig's List for our move coming up.  Man does that work quickly!  About 20 emails in the first 20 minutes it was posted for all sorts of items we're getting rid of.  So anyway I'll have to do a double walk tomorrow, which should be fine.  I just hope it's not as windy as it's been here lately.

Speaking of Craig's List, the last person should be showing up any minute now; they're already 17 minutes late.  Then I gotta make dinner, I'm hungry!

M90F (vs. P90X) - Day 42: windy

follow me on Twitter:  @matt_miller_c

email me at: matt.miller.c@gmail.com
find me on Facebook



Series:  "M90F: Matt's 90-day Fitness"

Day: 42

Activities: LOWER BODY - Walking, stretching.

Thought about an extra long walk again today, but here's how old I feel sometimes: my right foot was hurting because of the wind.  That's right, because of the wind.  It's like when I go swimming and tread water, the upper-inside part of my foot will sometimes hurt because of the weird angle and resistance of the water.  There was a wind advisory today (and that's windy in NV, let me tell ya), and I was wearing wind-breaker pants (they should call them wind-catchers I think).  So for an hour my right let was being blown sideways, and I had to correct on every step I took, a lot like treading water.  But perhaps I'll do a double walk tomorrow and take advantage of the extra time from being on spring break!

Saturday, March 31, 2012

M90F (vs. P90X) - Day 41: Spring Break!

follow me on Twitter:  @matt_miller_c

email me at: matt.miller.c@gmail.com
find me on Facebook



Series:  "M90F: Matt's 90-day Fitness"

Day: 41

Activities: UPPER BODY - Hand-stand push-ups, push-ups, Ab-wheel, Shoulders, Walking (2X), stretching.

I'm on spring break!  I woke up at 5:30 a.m., just 30 minutes after I normally do for work.  So I decided to just get up, and get my double walk in for missing my workout yesterday.  I actually walked for about 2 hours and 15 minutes (including stretching).

I did one set of my hand-stand push-ups while out for my walk.  They didn't go as well because I was still tired from it being so early, and I had already walked about 3-4 miles.  But I had my camera with me to take some pictures of the sunrise to prove I was up so early (and capture that which I almost never see, other than driving down the freeway in my car: the sunrise), and figured I'd take a video of my hand-stand push-ups.

Here's the pictures of the scenery:









Here's the video of my first 4 hand-stand push-ups of the day (I took it sideways, and I don't know how to rotate it, so you'll maybe have to hold your laptop sideways, sorry!  :)

video



M90F (vs. P90X) - Day 40: Nap time

follow me on Twitter:  @matt_miller_c

email me at: matt.miller.c@gmail.com
find me on Facebook



Series:  "M90F: Matt's 90-day Fitness"

Day: 40

Activities: None!

My last day of school leading into spring break!  I napped today for an hour and a half!  (See yesterday's blog post for the details on why :)  Just very tired, and wanted to make sure I didn't get sick over spring break!

I'll make up for it tomorrow with a double workout.

Thursday, March 29, 2012

M90F (vs. P90X) - Day 39: sleep is good

follow me on Twitter:  @matt_miller_c

email me at: matt.miller.c@gmail.com
find me on Facebook



Series:  "M90F: Matt's 90-day Fitness"

Day: 39

Activities: UPPER BODY - Hand-stand push-ups, push-ups, Ab-wheel, Walking.

Hand-stand push-ups are coming along nicely.  I can go further down on each rep now, but still not more than about half-way down.  I feel more stable, though (which is a huge part of what strength is: muscle memory).

I saw an interesting article on MSN about how lack of sleep can thwart efforts to shed pounds:  http://fitbie.msn.com/slideshow/5-ways-sleeping-less-makes-you-gain/slide/1

(It's from the same main MSN sub-site I've seen good articles on before: fitbie.msn.com)

If only getting enough sleep was easy to do.  Not enough hours in the day as it is.  I already go to bed like an old man at about 9:00 on average (yes, some days at 8:30, but others at 9:30).  During the work week it's like I just wake up (5:00), work, work out, eat, and sleep again.  That's 8 hours of sleep.  I don't know if I can pack any more hours into the night and still eat dinner!  I suppose 8 hours is ok, though.  Some people only sleep 5 hours!  I can't even fathom it.

I hope you have a great workout today!


Wednesday, March 28, 2012

M90F (vs. P90X) - Day 38: long walk

follow me on Twitter:  @matt_miller_c

email me at: matt.miller.c@gmail.com
find me on Facebook



Series:  "M90F: Matt's 90-day Fitness"

Day: 38

Activities: LOWER BODY - Walking.

I realized that my 'hour' walks on lower body days weren't an hour anymore; they were about 50 minutes.  I'm walking much faster now than I used to.  I'm not trying to walk faster, but I just am; otherwise it feels slow.  So I added an extra loop around the soccer field in the middle of the park I walk around; it's about the size of a football field.  Even with that extra loop, my walk was barely over an hour.

Feeling a little bit better today, but still run down.  Didn't get enough groceries for the week, so now I need to figure out what's for dinner!

Tuesday, March 27, 2012

M90F (vs. P90X) - Day 37

follow me on Twitter:  @matt_miller_c

email me at: matt.miller.c@gmail.com
find me on Facebook



Series:  "M90F: Matt's 90-day Fitness"

Day: 37

Activities: UPPER BODY - Hand-stand push-ups, Ab-wheel, push-ups, shoulders, Walking.

Still feeling worn out; got the whole workout in today though.  Just checking in for today again, maintaining the status quo; still waiting for spring break to gain some rest and regain some momentum.

Monday, March 26, 2012

M90F (vs. P90X) - Day 36: light headed

follow me on Twitter:  @matt_miller_c

email me at: matt.miller.c@gmail.com
find me on Facebook



Series:  "M90F: Matt's 90-day Fitness"

Day: 36

Activities: LOWER BODY - Walking.

I'm worn out; not feeling great today, a little light-headed.  I feel like I've had too much caffeine and too little sleep, but I really haven't had either of those happen, so I'm not sure why I feel like this.  I don't think I'm getting sick; I don't know.  I felt like this yesterday when I was working out a bit too.

Just 4 more days until spring break!  Then I'll catch up on my sleep, hit the exercise a little bit harder, and make these blog posts a little bit more interesting with some photos of my hand-stand push-ups, etc.