12 thoughts on “Episode 174: Nate and Carlos Doing God Knows What”

  1. The TPE ad…oh man so funny.

    I didn’t realize free Vegas housing was a perk of membership.

      • Thanks, Carlos. I hope that the Nitmobile doesn’t have leather seats. Imagine they would get kind of sticky in that hot, Vegas night…

  2. The final strategy hand was interesting.

    It was (or was close to being) one of those situations where we are out of position and the usual classifications of value bets and bluffs don’t apply. What we really want to do is check behind, but we can’t. If we bet we play against his nuts and his bluff-catching range, if we check-call we play against his nuts and bluffs, and if we check/fold we often end up with nothing. Even without exploitative reads, we can construct ranges where betting > check-fold > check-call (or we are indifferent between the last two).

    (Ignoring the possibility of getting bluff-raised) the key thing for bet > check-call to be true is that he has fewer bluffs than bluff catchers we beat – even if he has more nuts than bluff catchers (thus we get called be better more than 50% of the time and it isn’t a strict value bet) because we lose a bet against his nuts regardless. The key thing for betting > check-fold is the amount we give up by more often getting called by worse is less than the amount we give up by getting bluffed out a pot that is rightfully ours. I’m interested in these situations because they seem to suggest that the classical understanding of “reasons to bet” isn’t strictly correct.

  3. I like this idea of understanding which of his ranges we play against based on which action we take. I haven’t heard of that til now.

    • I started thinking (or maybe realised I was already thinking) on those lines when I read this thread:
      http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/33/books-publications/review-peter-carroters-clarke-grinders-manual-1602843/
      (the first 40 posts are enough), where Mason Malmuth and Peter Clarke(Carroters) get into an angels on a pinhead discussion of what is and isn’t a value bet and I give my own view on it. I probably like MM’s definition slightly more because if we have our polarised river range then the “called by better slightly more often than not but betting anyway because we can’t check” part of it is towards the top directly under the classic value bet and bluffs are at the bottom.

  4. Good luck in your nit travels, Carlos! I’ll be eager to hear more stories. For those fortunate people who may have the honor of having you sleep on their couch or their floor, I envy you! Too bad your route doesn’t take you through Baltimore.

  6. Nate, can you please post the PokerStars A7 hand details so we can all do our ICM analysis? I think A7 is a fold unless the button has a jamming range of almost any two cards. What calling range did your ICM calculations come up with?

  7. I missed Andrew, but it was great to have Nate & Carlos run the show.

    On that second strategy hand, in a 1/3 game w/200 BB deep, a mid-position raise to 12 and two callers, I think it it totally fine if not definitely correct to call on the button with 10c4c. You don’t have close to 25% equity in the hand, but the implied odds are awesome when you flop well against a large overpair.

    Bad luck on the run out, which brings it back to whether on not hero should raise the flop instead of flat the 20.

    • The same applies to 72o. The question is, do you flop well against a large overpair often enough relative to the price you pay? Even then it has to be held by a guy who cant fold one pair when flushes get there. I supposed that could be the case in some games.

      Not to mention you have reverse implied odds considering you almost never make the nuts or near nuts with a hand as bad as T4s. I think this is an important concern when playing deep stacks. That said, I mostly play small stakes mtts so I’m not sure.

Comments are closed.