Randomizing

[David_Nicoson 1]

I'm really disappointed in this section of the book. It seems that the steps to mixing up your play optimally are:

1. Pull percentages for the different actions with different hands out of your ass.
2. Use your watch to implement these precisely.

[JubilantLankyLad 1,957]

I'm really disappointed in this section of the book. It seems that the steps to mixing up your play optimally are:

1. Pull percentages for the different actions with different hands out of your ass.
2. Use your watch to implement these precisely.

argh, i just ordered these books a couple of hours ago. hurry up and read them and tell me if i should cancel the order, by tomorrow am, plskthx.

[David_Nicoson 1]

argh, i just ordered these books a couple of hours ago. hurry up and read them and tell me if i should cancel the order, by tomorrow am, plskthx.

:-)I'm not going to quite make that deadline.

1. It's probably going to be good on the whole.
2. If it's not, then you'll learn what all the 2+2ers are trying to do and exploit it.

[JubilantLankyLad 1,957]

:-)I'm not going to quite make that deadline.

1. It's probably going to be good on the whole.
2. If it's not, then you'll learn what all the 2+2ers are trying to do and exploit it.

this was exactly my decision making process. that and i had to do SOMETHING with the FPPs.

[Sheiky 0]

Trying to 'randomize' your play in FR NL by finding optimal bluffing frequencies and such seems incredibly pointless.

[copernicus 0]

Trying to 'randomize' your play in FR NL by finding optimal bluffing frequencies and such seems incredibly pointless.

FR?The randomization they are talking about is not for bluffing but because plays are either close in EV or so that your plays arent predictable (raises are always strong hands, etc.).I don't think that discussion is at all weak. He doesnt pull the %s out of his ass, he determines what the majority of the plays should be, the strength of the motivations for making that play, and then chooses the % for that play based on that. Obv his %s arent carved in stone either.I use the same Excel spreadsheet I keep player notes in for randomization, with 4 random numbers generated for the next 4 decisions (because i rarely more than 4 table, and not having to click for every decision is a little easier).

[BaseJester 1]

Word on the street is that Harrington on Cash Games was ghost-written by Micon.

[David_Nicoson 1]

I don't think that discussion is at all weak. He doesnt pull the %s out of his ass, he determines what the majority of the plays should be, the strength of the motivations for making that play, and then chooses the % for that play based on that. Obv his %s arent carved in stone either.

Here's the sort of thing that made me say that.

Now you move on to ace-king and ace-queen. Here you might decide to raise 70 percent of the time with ace-king (limping the other 30 percent) and just 50 percent of the time with ace-queen (limping the other 50 percent). Again, these are reasonable numbers.

Well, why might I decide that? What if I decide to raise 90% of the time with AK? Is that OK? What mathetical basis is there for 70%? Shouldn't we consider combinations and pot odds with this sort of strategy?

[Sheiky 0]

Well, why might I decide that? What if I decide to raise 90% of the time with AK? Is that OK? What mathetical basis is there for 70%? Shouldn't we consider combinations and pot odds with this sort of strategy?

I'm 99% sure he's just talking out of his assIf you want a better insight into 'randomizing' I highly reccomend you read the Mathematics of Poker

[copernicus 0]

Here's the sort of thing that made me say that."Now you move on to ace-king and ace-queen. Here you might decide to raise 70 percent of the time with ace-king (limping the other 30 percent) and just 50 percent of the time with ace-queen (limping the other 50 percent). Again, these are reasonable numbers."Well, why might I decide that? What if I decide to raise 90% of the time with AK? Is that OK? What mathetical basis is there for 70%? Shouldn't we consider combinations and pot odds with this sort of strategy?

I think youre looking to be spoon fed a bit too much. Prior to that section he talks about the relative strengths of hands, and subsequent to that very general section he talks a litte more specifically about AK, AQ position by position.There are no "right and wrong" call/raise/fold percentages, and while 70% may be reasonable 60 or 80 might be just as good...there are too many variables to lay out specific numbers. Is 90% ok? Sure, 100% may be ok, at a table where nobody is really paying attention and youre going to get called consistently by weaker Aces.You should also be able to figure out for yourself why the proportion of raises is lower for AQ than it is for AK.Im not sure what you mean by "consider combinations and pot odds" since this is specficially a pre-flop section. He does talk with some specificity about stakck sizes, which is what is really relevant to this section. He points out that the strength of various starting hands depends critically on stack size, and you should be able to apply that to your game, being less aggressive with AK or AQ with very deep stacks than you would be with shallow stacks.If you think more about the why's and less about specific numbers the books are much more valuable.Mathematics of Poker? A great scholarly book that is far too dense and formula ridden to be at all practical unless youre programming a bot.

[BaseJester 1]

Dang it.

[David_Nicoson 1]

I think youre looking to be spoon fed a bit too much.

I just want him to show his work like any good high school student. That doesn't seem like to much to ask since I'm paying the author.

Prior to that section he talks about the relative strengths of hands, and subsequent to that very general section he talks a litte more specifically about AK, AQ position by position.

Yeah, OK. But he doesn't connect that discussion with the choice to raise or limp, and that connection is not at all trivial. It's a much more important and interesting topic that how to play at a particular percentage after having picked it.

There are no "right and wrong" call/raise/fold percentages, and while 70% may be reasonable 60 or 80 might be just as good...there are too many variables to lay out specific numbers. Is 90% ok? Sure, 100% may be ok, at a table where nobody is really paying attention and youre going to get called consistently by weaker Aces.

I almost never limp with big aces. I play AQ and AK the same when I'm not folding the AQ. It's a pretty tough sell to me that's somehow leaking information more than playing AK and AQ differently.

You should also be able to figure out for yourself why the proportion of raises is lower for AQ than it is for AK.

Really? It's not my idea. Why should I have to justify it?

Im not sure what you mean by "consider combinations and pot odds" since this is specficially a pre-flop section.

You should be able to figure it out for yourself. :-)If I'm adding JTs to a range to make it harder to read, that's 4 combinations. If my range is AQ+,AK+,JTs,QQ+, what percentage of my hands have aces? The number of combinations for a particular "hand" is relevent to the mixture. When I continuation bet with these range, the ideal bluffing percentage is related to the pot odds the bet offers. So it seems our preflop raising range relates to how we play the flop and later.

If you think more about the why's and less about specific numbers the books are much more valuable.

I'm objecting to a section that has a specific number and no reason why.

[aucu 3]

Just got this book, don't care if some parts are weak.

[Marchione 0]

i loved the interview with bobby Hoff