DustyB

Appologies in advance, but this will be bit of a read but I would appreciate some of you taking the time to give you thoughts.

First a little background of where I am at moment.

As mentioned in a previous thread, at this point I am primarily playing live cash games (1/2 for the time being). I was playing a little of the micros online but lost interest as I don't play using software (don't play on a pc or laptop) and feel this puts me at a bit of a disadvantage. But I actually do enjoy going to play live when I do get the chance (which is only once every few weeks at his point) and spend my time in between revisiting and discussing key hands, and play in general. With this in mind, my questions are focused around live play, primarily 1/2.

I find that in these 1/2 games most of the older regs play a fairly straightforward strategy and often make questionable descisions and in this way I think many people could say that a lot of players in these games have an exploitable strategy. For example, some play fit-or-fold post flop, may not bluff very often if at all, or they will call down with a worse hand "because they had to see it", and so-forth. There are more examples, but basically leaks that many of us would try to eliminate if we look at our own game.

On the flip side there are some players; often younger, who aren't quite as straightforward in their play. Of course, they are a little trickier to play against and obviously have a more refined strategy.

So i find at this level there seems to be generally 2 different groups of players, though the "older straight forward regs" seem to out number the the other players. (More on this as I get to my questions further down in the post.)

Having said that, I am always looking to trying to improve my game, plug any leaks and make it more difficult for others to play against. I am constantly trying to learn in order to do so. I will mention that this is the first year I have been playing live and the first year that I have spent a good amount of spare time (when possible) reading and studying in a serious way away from the table. I suppose you could say that I have only been serious about poker since the new year, but I feel that I have learned a lot in this amount of time as poker has become my passion.

I feel that I have built a decent foundation by sticking a good and fairly tight fre-flop strategy which has certainly helped, and now I am beginning to look at some more advanced (for me) ideas lately (such as ranges-polarized vs. Linear, bet sizing, and various other game theory type things).

I have no doubt that these things will improve my overall play and understanding and help me against the tougher opponents especially should I ever move up, play in tougher games or even look to play online again.

So getting back to what I touched on above, my first question is:

In the kind of games I am playing will a lot of this stuff (game theory) be lost in mix and not needed against many of these players for these types of games?

For example, is a polarized or balanced range really necessary against players that mostly play their own cards vs the board, or those who often split their range by limping with weak hands raising strong hands? (Just an example)

I guess I am trying to figure out if some of the game theory thinking is effective against players who clearly are not playing an optimal strategy themselves? Or is it a case of deciding how to play depending on our opponent(s) and the way they play? I know that playing a gto strategy makes us less exploitable but against these players is it not better to exploit their strategy?

I was looking at Matthew Janda's recent book (No Limit Hold'em for Avanced Players) and I was hoping that someone might have read it and could tell me if this would set me on the right path for further educating me in these game theory ideas and if these ideas would help in the games I play now or might want to play in the future?

I have no doubt that these things will help me to hopefully identify and plug some of the leaks in my game but I am concerned that these strategies may not be optimal against more exploitable strategies.

I hope some of you with much more experience than me could shed some light on this and give me some advice to help me out.

Thanks for taking the time to read this long post and for giving me your thoughts and advice.

Cheers.

I have been playing live 1-2 the last while. I have been having a bit of a mental block that I need to get over. When I hit the flop well and then someone raises or check-raises the flop I have been playing somewhat passively fearing that villain has flopped a set. Here is an example from my session yesterday...

I am in middle position in a short handed live 1-2 game and I decide to open J-4 suited and got 2 callers behind me. Flop comes J-6-4 rainbow. SB checks, I bet out around 2/3 of the pot and the player in position raises to $50. I obviously have a pretty well hidden 2 pair but his check-raise worries me and as I have done lately, I fold to the check raise fearing that he flopped a set. I have done this a few times in the last while.

I had only been sitting a short time and Ihave not had a chance to get a decent read on this player but I knew he was quite competent. So I fold, other player calls. Hand gets to showdown and check-raiser proudly shows pocket Kings, and takes the pot.

Even though there was a very good chance that I was most likely ahead after the flop, I once again feared being up against a set in which case I would have only 2 outs to the nuts. But i was certainly dissapointed seing the pocket Kings at showdown. I knew i Missed a great oppurtunity and I'm pretty sure there was a good chance he would have been fairly pot committed at that point.

As far as the 6 on board, people in theses games always play pocket pairs to set mine so i had that thought in my mind. With a better read I may have re-raised and been in decent shape. I wonder how he would have reacted to a shove?

Any advice for getting over his mental block and folding the best hand when I could have taken a nice pot from him? At 1-2 live, at least in my local games, people really over value their over pairs and it is hands like these that really punishes them. Maybe with a set he would have smooth called to let us catch up?

How small is the chance that he would actually flop a set in that situation?

I can't be folding 2 pair to an over pair too often and expect to maximize my profits...lol

I appreciate any insights and advice in dealing with this this.

Thanks.

I have joined recently and I always enjoy discussing hands and scenarios with others in order to get a different perspective, so from time to time I will post a few here

I don't record hands while at the table and my memory isn't that good to remember every detail, so I hope the information given is at least adequate for discussion.

Live 1-2nl

This was a heads up pot, villain seemed to be a decent reg type and had just won a few big pots previously. He had me covered but we both had over 100bb's.

This was a limped pot with 3 or 4 limpers while I sat in the SB with pocket Kings. I made it $12 to go I think, and only the early position limper ended up calling, which raised my eyebrow a little. So we were heads up to the flop.

I don't exactly remember the flop, but I do remember the Ace that was on the board, while the rest was dry and pretty ragged. The Ace was not good for me. So i decided to lead out on the flop, betting maybe a little more than half the pot, thinking I could rep an Ace and maybe take it down in the event that villain didn't have an Ace.

Thoughts on this action?

Villain actually went into the tank and really gave it some thought. He was even talking outloud worrying that I had a strong Ace. At this point I had a strong suspicion that he had an ace, but with a pretty weak kicker. He ended up flat calling but seemed tentative after I showed strength by betting out.

The turn was uneventful so I checked, not wanting to make the pot any bigger with only 2 outs to improve.

Thoughts on the turn check?

My thought was to maybe just shut it down and check-fold. But villain immediately checked back. The river didn't seem to help him. There were no flush or straight draws on the board and for some reason I just checked the river, almost giving it up and to my surprise villain checked it back. I think he had Ace-4 off or something, which I ended up being correct about with my read.

I was happy with my read but dissapointed with my passive approach after showing strength post flop.

At the time I wasn't prepared to keep barreling on the turn but should I have changed my approach on the river? Since villain was obviously playing very cautiously after I led out post flop, was my mistake not trying to rep a strong Ace or even 2 pair by leading out on the river?

Problem is, at 1-2 people have a real hard time folding their pair of aces with no draws on the board. It was a small pot so i let it go but thinking back it could have been possible to bluff him off top pair? Looking at it now, my play after the flop showed a lot of strength and the turn check could have been viewed as inducing a bet with a strong hand to check-raise and this could been how he interpreted it which may have been why decided to check it back. I wasn't thinking along these lines at time though.

It turned out to be a fairly small pot and after I took a stab at it, it didn't cost anything to get showdown. Just trying to analyze the hand in terms of decision making and most profitable play.

Thoughts appreciated.

Thanks