Jump to content

How To Deal With Preflop Atc Pushes From Players Buing In For The Minimum

soilent gruen
 Share Followers 1

Recommended Posts

soilent gruen

soilent gruen 0

Posted
Posted

I'm currently beating 0.05/0.10 NL 5 handed with a very aggressive atc strategy ( VP$IP > 50, nearly always with a raise or re-raise preflop by me, sample size 10k hands, winning 20 bb/100).I'm winning because1) I steal a lot of pots with nothing2) I'm winning a big pot if I have a hand and someone wants to go to war - they don't believe me when I have a hand(pretty much what's explained in SuperSystem)Anyway sooner or later someone shows up who buys in with the minimum (20 bb = 2$) and pushes preflop atc.This of course ruins my strategy:1) I can't steal any pots from him2) more importantly I can no longer steal from my opponentsTherefore I want to get rid of them either by busting them or doubling them up one or two times.When they doubled up 2 times they are playing with scared money and I can steal from them too or they are just leaving.The logical conclusion is, if I'm the only player against them I should call them with atc either I double them up which I don't mind or I get lucky and bust them. As a positive side effect this influences my table image and the other opponents now think that I completely lost my mind.But thats not what I'm doing my calling range in these specific situations is more like Qx or better.I'm particularly interested in thoughts on1) Should I call with atc?2) Have I completely lost my mind because the sample size of 10,000 hands is to small and I can't be sure if I'm winning, maybe I'm just running hot?3) Should I tighten my calling range to maybe 66-AA, Ax, KQ that way I have a better chance of busting them and while I wait maybe one of my opponents bust them?4) I assume that they are pushing with atc when they push with the first hand. But maybe they got lucky and got dealt AA or something and are not really the type of player I'm discussing here, should I wait for the next hand and see what they are up to?I'm currently trying to run some sort of Monte Carlo simulation but I'm not sure how exactly I should do that. I'm not interested in which hand is a favorite over a random hand but rather how many orbits can I allow this player to disturb my strategy before I lose more money than losing money by doubling him up. Any thoughts / hints on that are very much appreciated too.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Temporary Nuts

Temporary Nuts 1

Posted
Posted

UmmmUhhhhErrrrrWowWait for a good hand then call/push over top? Like... really... it's that obvious. Or would that require patience? Sounds like you're using Supersystems to justify being a laggrotard

Link to post
Share on other sites
NoBBiR

NoBBiR 0

Posted
Posted
UmmmUhhhhErrrrrWowWait for a good hand then call/push over top? Like... really... it's that obvious. Or would that require patience? Sounds like you're using Supersystems to justify being a laggrotard
What's wrong with being a lagtard?
Link to post
Share on other sites
soilent gruen

soilent gruen 0

Posted
  • Author
Posted
UmmmUhhhhErrrrrWowWait for a good hand then call/push over top? Like... really... it's that obvious. Or would that require patience? Sounds like you're using Supersystems to justify being a laggrotard
I'm not trying to justify anything, I'm observing that I'm winning with my strategy.And one question is, is my observation correct or do I need a larger sample size than 10,000 hands. My feeling is that the sample size is big enough to conclude that I'm winning but not big enough to be sure how much I'm really winning.I agree that it's obvious that if I wait for a good hand my chance greatly improve to bust the other player, but I don't want them busted I want them to stop interfering with my strategy as fast as possible. They found a good counter strategy against my strategy. Their strategy is not a good strategy as such but it's a working strategy against mine.Here is my initial thought experiment why I even came up with this question (there are some unrealistic assumptions in this experiment to simplify my reasoning, if I manage to run a simulation I can use more realistic assumptions):1) I only play AA against this type of player2) If I wait nobody else is trying to bust this player e.g. raise all-in the blinds will fold3) I have to wait 200 hands before I get AAIf I really win 20bb/100 I will not win 4$ while I wait.Even AA gets cracked by atc now and then. Assuming I'm a 80% favorite when we finally get it all in for a pot of 4$ I will win $3.2 but I didn't win the 4$ while I waited so I'm actually losing 0.80$ I will even lose more because I didn't consider my blinds while I wait and the rake when I finally get AA.From this over simplified thought experiment I concluded that my calling range must be bigger than AA alone. Maybe my calling range should be AA-66 or it should be really atc. I think it's obvious that waiting for AA in this spot is wrong and I think it's obvious that it's not atc (but not as obvious as AA is wrong). Edit: This is short handed so the blinds come around pretty fast.But I don't want to think I want to know thus I need to run a simulation or read a posting / article where someone already ran such a simulation.Edit: I'm willing to accept that I'm just a big moron and that anybody with a little bit of understanding about poker wouldn't even come up with this question...
Link to post
Share on other sites
ROBBBIGG

ROBBBIGG 0

Posted
Posted

when short stackers double up, many of them leaveand this is a lot of crazy thinking for .1BBalso: do you think tight players are sitting there going OH GOD MY BLINDS ARE BEING STOLEN! I WILL GO BROKE SOON! No, they sit and wait for a maniac to shove on them with any two cards and get all their money back and then some. i know doyle talked about how he can pay off those times with the money he accumulates from his steals, but he's doyle brunson.

Link to post
Share on other sites
krup24

krup24 0

Posted
Posted
Wait for a good hand then call/push over top? Like... really... it's that obvious. Or would that require patience? Sounds like you're using Supersystems to justify being a laggrotard
PASS
Link to post
Share on other sites
ROBBBIGG

ROBBBIGG 0

Posted
Posted

it's pretty entertaining to imagine a guy going through all these ideas in his head ("im gonna have to run a simulation here!") while shoving with 24o

Link to post
Share on other sites
navybuttons

navybuttons 15

Posted
Posted

i would be less likely to get involved w/ marginal holdings when a loose shortstacker is in the blinds. just pitch Q7s from the CO when the BB is in for min.IMO shortstackers are more likely to get involved w/ medium pairs more often then they should which means you're always gonna play for stacks w/ AK. the real cutoff hand IMO is TT. there's times where you're just gonna have to let it go. but if you have a VPIP>50 and find them shoving on you a lot, go with 99+ and AJ+.

Link to post
Share on other sites
David_Nicoson

David_Nicoson 1

Posted
Posted

If your normal strategy isn't working because of the table conditions, you need to either

  1. Move to a different table
  2. Employ a different strategy

I wouldn't invest any money or time trying to change the nature of the table.

Link to post
Share on other sites
David_Nicoson

David_Nicoson 1

Posted
Posted

I think it's a good idea not to feel ownership of a particular style. Keep thinking "I'm playing LAG to exploit their weakness", not "I am a LAG". That way when a strategy fails it's not a personal failure.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share
Followers 1
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...