micro-stakes no-limit strategy for inexperienced players

[Zybomb]

Not saying I agree with this idea (which I definately don't), but lemme play with the numbers for a second

First of all, the "schemer" can post UTG, to avoid any action before him disrupting his "scheme", so we can wipe away the - 500 (small change in the big picture but still), in addition increase his blind steals from 17 to 19 out of 20 (since we are ignoring the 2 times he'd fold, since he is posting UTG)

Next, you can reduce the amount of your buy-in to $1500. You have close to as much fold equity with $1500 as $5000 (I think) they are both drastic overbets.

So say you win 1 out of 5 times that you are called, you'd lose 6000 and win 1500 (for a net of -4500) everytime you are called. So you'd need to make this up in blind steals. You'd steal 19 times without being called on average. SO lets go through 5 rounds (since youd win a showdown 1x out of 5) which means you'd steal blinds 95 times (19 times per round times 5 rounds). 95* 75 = 7125

For an overall net of $2625 per 100 hands

Again, I AM NOT SAYING I BACK THIS IDEA WHATSOEVER nor would I ever do it -- but playing with the numbers this way gives it a different spin

Comments?

[thrash1294]

for micro stakes I did well with the system but in higher stakes no way.The reason being in micro stakes they play alot of trash but in higher stakes you tend to see much less trash starting hands played.

[eejit101]

Praise the lord. Im not saying im EVER going to do this, i was wondering on the ideas of it.

As i was reading TPs post, i was writing down my own numbers, but i couldnt make them work like Zys does.

I agree it is possible to do this, however i would definatly say that actually doing this is a insane idea.

Like i said in my post, im never going to fucking DO THIS, thats mad, very mad, so get off my back shabi, i didnt say give me advice on how to do this, i was posting a thought on if this would work, and expected some kind of ethical response somewhere down the line.

[Talking Poker]

I think you've gotten a couple of very detailed, mathematical responses here. I'm not sure what more you can be looking for in terms of if this will work or not. If you disagree with my numbers - and that's fine - back them up with some of your own.

It's just math.

[eejit101]

thanks for the maths TP, nice posts.

I was gonna say 6MAX tables, i would not like the risk of doing this in a full game. Which is why i was more inclined to go with Zys 95% of the time itll win, as with the maths i worked out of getting called 4.5% of the time, it could be profitable.

So we all know the maths isnt spot on untill someone does this, which wont happen, maybe if one of us wins the WSOP we can test it out or something.

How about ethics, is this idea against the idea of fair play, poker, and everything else?

[Talking Poker]

Of course not. You are welcome to commit suicide at my table any time!

As for the math, that's the thing about math - See, it's just math! All you need to do are make a few assumptions, namely what hands will call you. After that, the math does itself.

For 6 max tables, the odds of someone behind you being dealt a monster are lower, of course (less players), but people are going to call you with more hands too (because there are less players). I think the EV from doing this at a full table, a 6 max table, or even a heads up table will work out to be about the same in the end. It's less likely that your opponent(s) will have a monster hand, but the fewer players at the table, the larger the range of hands that are going to call you.

[eejit101]

Luckbox

[thrash1294]

I agree with TP wont work shorthaned I did this with at least 8 players at a table ,and tried to find full tables when possible but only micro nl.

[Talking Poker]

I'm certainly ok with changin the numbers as you see fit, but the format that you wrote up this post is very confusing. Can you just stick to the format that I used, so it's nice and clear? I think I follow what you are suggesting (and I like the UTG post and the $1500 suggestions, but I think your 95% no call is definitely too high), so let's plug your numbers into my format:

1. Lose $50 * 10 = -$500
2. Win $75 * 95 = +$7125 (19/20 can't be right, IMO)
3a. Win $1575 * 1 = +$1575 (you forgot the blinds in your calculation)
3b. Lose $1500 * 4 = -$6000
Grand Total = +$2700 / 100 hands = EV of $27.50.

My problem with that though is still the 95% of the time that you think you won't get called. Let's change that to just 90% (18/20) and see what that does to the numbers:

1. Lose $50 * 10 = -$500
2. Win $75 * 90 = +$6750
3a. Win $1575 * 2 = +$3150
3b. Lose $1500 * 8 = -$12000
Grand Total = -$2100 / 100 hands = EV of -$21.00.

Notice how significantly that changes the results by just saying that you'll get called TWO times out of 20 instead of ONE time out of 20. To support my argument, let's say that you are ONLY called by AA, KK, QQ, and AK. Some people will fold the QQ and AK (we all agree that no one will fold AA/KK), but others will call with JJ, TT, AQs and far worse than that (especially considering they are facing an all in from a guy sitting with < 1/3 of the max buy in who just posted UTG instead of waiting one more hand and then immediately pushed in - I actually think some people will call you here with any pair, and even hands like Ax and KQ), so I think my assumption is reasonable.

The odds of any individual player being dealt one of those four hands is:
220:1 + 220:1 + 220:1 + 46:1 = ~3.5% of the time. So, with 9 players left to act behind you, assuming a full table, you're going to be up against one of those hands 31% of the time! Wow.... is that right? That seems really high to me, but I think my math is correct. Someone call MathBabe.

Even if we throw the AK completely out of the equation and say we'll ONLY be called by AA, KK, and QQ (and that just can't be right) we are going to be facing those hands and get a call (1.36% * 9 = 12.3%) of the time! My original assumption in my first post was 15%, Zy said 5%, and in my final example, I said to use 10%. This makes it sound like all of those numbers are on the conservative side, if anything, making this an even MORE -EV play.

Any responses to this? Zy, especially?

[Zybomb]

Makes sense -- I guess the ultimate question in determining the EV of this play is how often you'd be called. Im assuming AA KK QQ only JJ and below folds, and AK folds (even if AK calls, thats actually great -- well as great as it can get if you're called, because we're probably a 60/40 dog, which means we'd win more than 1 out of 5)

The next question is that if you are sitting 6 max, how will the range of hands you are called by change? PERSONALLY, they probably wouldn't change for me (as regardless I dont want to gamble for a nice chunk of my stack for no reason agaainst an unknown player) but for others they may.

Ultimate exactly how often you will be called (and if you are called by hands that dont have you 80/20 it needs to be calculated that you will win more often than 1 out of 5) determines the EV of this play -- and even that may (actually will) vary from table to table/player to player

[Talking Poker]

Of course that varies. That's why in terms of EV, we talk about the long run, averages, etc. I was making estimates. YOU and I may fold JJ, but we both there there is some tool out there who is going to call with 88 and ATs.

All you can do is list the ranges of hands that will call, determine how often they will turn up in one of the players behind you hands, and then calculate how often you'll win in each situation.

YES, when ATs calls, you're not going to be a 4:1 dog, but certainly you agree that ATs is better than your random hand, so you are going to be behind... so adding that into the equation HURTS your overall EV - it doesn't help it. I was trying ot be as simple and conservative as possible, and I can not see how this could possibly be a +EV play - Under any circumstances. If someone thinks they can, please, by all means, spell it out for us - mathematically, like I did.