The Noble Theorem :) ?

This is a long post about some poker thoughts and strategies I've had the last few days.

1. "We should seek to maximise our total profit after identifying an opponents -ev play by maximising the amount of times he makes the mistake & the amount he loses each time he makes it, up to but not over his "adjustment threshold." (... unless you anticipate their adjustment will be even more -ev.)

2. "We could adjust our standard pre flop raise size (4bb) if the opponent/table is either too tight or too loose."

3. "We could adjust our 3bet frequency and even our 3bet sizing vs a specific opponent to maximize our gain depending on whether he is folding to often or too little."


1. The Noble Theorem ?

"We should seek to maximise our total profit after identifying an opponents -ev play by maximising the amount of times he makes the mistake & the amount he loses each time he makes it, up to but not over his "adjustment threshold." (...unless you anticipate that their adjustment will be more -ev.)

I started thinking about this one after reading all the answers for Sauces adjusting thread, specifically the one where we were supposed to come
up with the most +ev play against a villian who was 3-betting any two cards & then consider the adjustments he might make and how we would
deal with those.
Well it turned out I think that the most +ev line if I remember was to raise hands that you are are willing to 4bet shove, something like 16% of our hands,
because either way he's royally screwed if just calls with hands ahead of our range he's folding 8/10x and if he calls with anything wider than that he's still folding alot and getting the rest in as an underdog.
But then we realised he would obviously adjust after just 1/2 shoves & tighten his 3betting range.
So in reality this would actually be one of the worst lines to take because because we would force villian to adjust before we had a chance to exploit his
-ev play.
So then we decided the best option might be to 4bet to a smaller amount, which would work to but he would still probably adjust his 3betting range pretty soon.
But if he we look at (1.) above we see that if our goal is to maximise our total profit from his -ev play then we should maximise our ev as close to but not over his "adjustment threshold" thereby allowing you to capitalise on his mistake for a longer period of time which might work out to less ev per hand but have a higher cumalitive total.
So with this in mind our strategy vs said opponent might be to still 3bet fold a small % of our range & call with a small % thereby not allowing villian to see in the short term just how exploitable his mistake is, sort of like the frog in the simmering water analogy.

& I'm sure most of the good players are already appplying this concept but to be honest I didnt get it, if I saw villian was making an exploitable mistake I would try take advantage of it as much as possible thereby pushing him over the "adjustment threshold" and losing what could have been a long term exploitable edge. (& longterm is relative it could only last as long as a session, ie. the guy adjusted after you'd punished him the next 4/5 times he did it, but if you'd exploited the weakness at a slower rate like 2.5/5 he you could be able to do it 25/50 times without him adjusting thereby making you a greater cumalitive total. I think this manifest itself the greatest against decent regulars who are often difficult to find an edge against, so when you do find a chink in the armour you goal shouldn't be to apply the most +ev line to exploit it on a hand by hand basis but rather apply the theory, so you can get the greatest profit from it without him adjusting.)
I often here guys like CTS say they try to anticipate their opponents adjustment before they do it, which is great but I think if you've found a weakness then you shouldn't run over it till they make a better adjustment but rather pursue a strategy that gets the most total profit from it usually by maximises the amount of times he makes the mistake & the amount he loses each time he makes it, up to but not over his "adjustment threshold."

A case where this at first appears not to be true is vs a big donk with an obvious massive -ev play, like lead shoving flop with weak hands, in which case you probably want to exploit it as much as you can as quickly as possible even if he adjusts because if you dont someone else will bust him first. I still feel this fits in with the theory though because you're still applying the strategy that is likely to get the greatest total/cumulative profit.

2. "We could adjust our standard pre flop raise size (4bb) based on whether an opponent or even the entire table is playing too tight or too loose."

Example...
We are in the sb/otb and we know that the bb folds 95% to a steal.
Conclusion he is folding too often at the moment & we should be able to gain alot of ev just by stealing the blinds more often.
So we should raise a wider range in sb/otb, even co to take advantage of this, however if we raise every time here he will quickly reach his adjustment threshold so there is a ceiling on our ev there - simple enough, but is there any other way to increase our ev further? Well the interesting part for me is that part 2 of the 1st theory says we should maximise the amount he wins/loses with this -ev play.
How do we do this? We decrease our standard raise to <4bb in these positions up to his adjustment threshold and if he doesn't adjust and still folds the same 95% even when getting better implied odds, then we are able to steal the blinds for less & when he does 3bet us (with a tight range) we can often fold only having lost <4bb instead of 4bb which will add up in the longterm (To the greatest cumulative total.)

(Disadvantage - We give better implied odds to esp. bb when we have premium hands like AA, however if our main ev in this game is coming from stealing (very tight game), then this loss of ev ahould be acceptable.)

If an opponent is calling our raise to loosely (like 30% of all his hands.) That means he is making a big - ev play by calling with a range that is actually behind ours & + he won't have the initiative post flop.
I've read books advocating playing tighter to exploit this weakness but I think it seems you should actually be raising more hands if they are willing to call a raise with a range behind ours, (& u'll have the initiative post flop). Thereby maximising the amount of times they make it (up to adjustment threshhold.), but if we want to maximise the amount they lose by it then we can increase our standard bet size up to the point he will adjust. So if he is still calling the same range vs a 5/6 bb raise we are successfuly getting him to put 25-50% more money in pre-flop as an underdog.

(Also I think you might even consider adjusting your raise size in loose games because you want people to adjust, say for example it is profitable to raise A8o vs one of these loose calling opponents, however at the moment you are getting 3+ multiple callers on avg, forcing you to usually play hit to win poker oop, decreasing your edge and maybe forcing you to adjust to a tighter range. But if you raise to 6bb's (or just over whatever most of their adjustment thresholds are) you can get into more 1 on 1 situations again with the added of advantage of them having put in more money pre with a weaker range.)

(Disadvantage - we are putting in more money pre with the bottom of our range & are losing ev when our opponent has a hand ahead of that, but if our main ev is coming from people putting in money too often with a hand behind ours (too loose game) &/or folding flop then this loss of ev should be acceptable)


& the final concept I thought about in relation to (2) is this - We should consider increasing or standard pfr size utg & utg +1 & then decrease it on the CO & OTB.
Why? We all know we cant just raises AA to 8bb (to get more money in pre when we have best hand) & min raise our sc's because people would be able to easily put us on a specific range of hands, adjust and exploit us accordingly.
However most people are already exploiting our range (& us theres) in the following way - they are are calling with sc's & lowpp in pos to an utg raise as they know most ranges are tighter there & they are getter better implied odds/ chance of getting paid off with a set etc &/or having positional advantage . They are folding /three betting to our CO & OTB raises more as they know our range is wider &/or they dont want to call oop.
Well to exploit this we could raise more utg & utg +1 (5bb) so that we are getting in more money pre with a range that is ahead of theirs (& cutting their implied odds) till they adjust. We could also raise less on just co, otb thereby stealing the blinds for less.

(In reality though adjusting your pre-flop bet sizing is very easy to pick up on as opposed to adjusting your raising range so in practice it may occasionally work at low stakes & only in certain circumstances, but it's something to think about.)


3. "We could adjust our 3bet frequency and even our 3bet sizing vs a specific opponent to maximize our gain depending on whether he is folding to often or too little."

I started thinking of this one after seeing ISF query as to why people would be 3-betting to a larger amount.
To be honest I didnt really get (& maybe still dont get the whole idea) behind three betting.
I think the idea is to get more money in the pot pre when your range is far enough ahead of theirs or perceived to be and regain the initiative in the hand which is very +ev. So I would follow Sauce's advice & 3bet the top 1/3 or 1/2 of my opponents range & also add a few sc's and low pp & be like, yay, I'm making a +ev play.

But our ev in 3betting generally I think now comes from our opponent responding in a very negative ev way (ok obv.) but we should look at how he is responding negatively and exploit it up to his adjustment threshold.

I think the most common mistake is that they fold too much pre or on the flop and only 4bet with a uber tight range.
If our opponent is doing this we should exploit it by three betting them even more (often up to their adjustment point) & even 3bet them to a slightly lower amount - getting their 4bb raise for less and we will have put in less when they do have a good hand.

Conversely if your opponent is calling your 3bets too often you can 3bet him to a bigger amount so that he is putting in more money pre with a range behind yours.

So I hope people at least consider the idea of manipulating their bet sizing pre-flop (even though it's very transparent) and of course we do it all the time post flop, ie. if a guy is calling for draws too much we charge him more, (but I get it now, that we almost never want him to fold but rather pay the most amount possible before he adjusts by folding.) If a guy is calling too much with marginal hands we value bet him more and to a greater amount (but again we dont want him to fold or adjust his play so we should avoid going past his adjustment point.) & of course this idea can be applied to most post flop situations.



Wow that was long & although I'm sure the better players are already applying this I still hope this post will stimulate some discussion & maybe it will help someone improve/ come up with a better approach to getting the most profit possible out of their opponents in a variety of situations for a longer period of time.

Disclaimer: this post is coming from a calling station tourney donk who thinks "wait for a better spot" is a load of crap --

good post and all but I don't agree. If someone has a big leak I'm going to exploit it EVERY TIME I get the chance. I'm not going to let them get away with it some of the time because you never know when they're going to leave the table and you'll never see them again.

Also if you force them to adjust to you that's not a bad thing, because they don't know how to adjust correctly (otherwise they'd be doing it already) and when they're out of their comfort zone they might play even worse. For example if a nit is folding 95% then I'd just raise his BB every time and wait for him to start doing something stupid, then I'd take the rest of his mobney.

Good post though, you've been posting a lot of great stuff lately.

Thats some good thinking. but im inclined to agree with mcatdog. If we find someone whos mistakes are related to taking hands too far (e.g. too loose / too aggressive or whatever) then we have to maximise our value in the short term before someone else busts him. If we find someone whose mistakes are essentially that they are too timid (weak/tight / whatever) then forcing them to adjust can often bring them out of their comfort zone and cause monkey tilt. Theres way more value in periodic monkey tilt than there is in stealing his blind every few orbits.

This is a cool post, and something i was considering myself.

Sounds like a real poker player wrote it!

Thanks ISF! & thanks 4 the responses guys & happy b-day Pelion?!

I think you're both exactly right - Mcat - "because you never know when they're going to leave the table and you'll never see them again."
Pelion -"we have to maximise our value in the short term before someone else busts him."
In that case the way to get the greatest total profit is to exploit it as much as possible as quick as possible, I think this still fits in line with the theory, (but against a regular you play often this might not be the case.)

Pelion (& Mcat) you also brought up that you often want the person to adjust either by going on tilt or making an even worse adjustment.
Thanks, I see that you're right and I hadn't taken that into account
enough-

I've added an edit at the end of the theory that says ...unless you anticipate their adjustment will be even more -ev.

What do you think of that Pelion?

I think you're right that if pushing the guy is going to put him on monkey tilt or a really bad adjustment then that it is the best way to go, (to maximise your total profit.)
(But isn't it more common that decent players makes a +ev adjustment that is harder to exploit? I mean if someone is stealing your blinds too often or taking pots away from you too often on the flop I hope that once you realise it you don't go on monkey tilt but rather properly adjust the ranges you play back with in both scenarios & become harder to exploit.
I personally also often find if I am isolating loose passive guys that limp to much they don't usually go on monkey tilt but just make a positive adjustment and limp less.)

Also I see now that this really applies even more to HU poker (which I dont play alot of) but I was watching a CTS heads up video last night where he was completely dominating the guy often by stealing pots on the flop or the turn, but CTS folded a flop in a 3bet pot even though he believed he could very easily have taken it. He said "Even if you think you can win every single one, you don't want him to realise it or he will adjust & you'll lose your big edge in the game."

I think that is a pretty good example of that theory being put into practice.

lol i wrote something on this earlier but then wasnt able to post it when ftr was down for awhile there. now its pretty much been covered in this thread but i might as well paste it in here anyways...

didnt read all of the post but, for the first part that i read where you talked about exploiting them as much as possible without them adjusting.... for one example was that other thread about the 80/5 guy, for that i think that i think that most 80/5's arent going to just tighten up preflop instead he will probably just start trying to either play back or call you down post flop and then you would just adjust a little to that. For a different situation, lets say you are playing vs a good tag reg and 3betting him a lot and he has been folding to you. He is going to make a lot quick and a lot better adjustments to you. so if he 4bets you then you could probably make his range a little wider and adjust accordingly. basically what im saying is keep pushing your edge or w/e you are doing until they adjust and then adjust to that or even better anticipate their adjustment. most bad players will make really bad adjustments if they adjust at all, and good players adjustments tend to be kind of obv most times.

I just read this post fully, sounds like you just realized that you shouldn't play like a drone. Nice .

Keep thinking like this.

i pretty much only read the first point thoroughly, and i definitely like it. If you noticed in sauces post i actually said in my answer to the first question that i would keep raising and folding sometimes so he would keep 3-betting so so much.

Lets say someone is 3-betting you 100% of the time everywhere when you are playing lagg. If you shove 2 or 3 hands pre in a row, if he's a competent player at all he'll stop 3-betting so much. Now we've essentially stopped him from making a mistake. But if you raise and fold to his 3-bets a decent amount he'll probably continue to make his mistake. Why would we not want that?

Originally Posted by noble007

I've added an edit at the end of the theory that says ...unless you anticipate their adjustment will be even more -ev.

What do you think of that Pelion?

yes

nice post,
my initial reaction is that in theory, your idea is good, we definitely want our opps to continue making mistakes over and over again. i think that old saying 'you can shear a sheep many times but skin him only once' is sorta what you are getting at.

the problem though, is that there is no way to ensure that you get to play with said opponent in the future enough to warrant not taking cash off of his hands as soon as you recognize his mistakes. also, unless he is specifically targeting you with his bad play, there is no way to guarantee someone else at the table doesn't take his money first. i don't play much HU, but i would think that it would make a lot more sense to use this theorem in a HU situation.

fwiw i think this theorum applies quite well to high stakes games where you play the same, semi-good opponents over and over, and those opponents would be more likely to adjust well if they knew what you were doing.

Against low stakes bad players who are less likely to notice what you are doing/bother to adjust/adjust well/ever sit at a table with you again, it isnt nearly as important.