Beating "Good" Players (Strategy Wise)

[IowaSkinsFan]

When I say good player, I'm talking about a typical regs who are TAGG, raise their draws when its good, find good spots to bluff, two barrels a good amount, blah blah you know the guy.
Game Theory makes it easy for us to understand that the goal of poker isn't to become completely unexploitable, in fact, that would be really stupid. We want to move away from unexploitable in a way that exploits our opponents.

In midstakes games, we deal with a relatively similar player base of regs. Not many people who's games are too far off from the others. In fact, I think what's important in midstakes is staying a level ahead/adjusting quicker. Some will argue that the difference between higher stakes games and mid stakes games is how fast the adjustments come. But I don't want to talk about this right now. I want to talk about strategy, not the adjustments.

I read a thread on 2p2 awhile ago where a well known poster made a post on a hand versus TheCleaner11 which went something like this.

"This isn't how we beat these kind of players, the good ones. In fact, I'd say the way too beat them is to not raise this hand (something like 86s) in the CO and to tighten up preflop in this spot....."

Then he goes
"I would say more but I really don't want everyone to find it out."

I tend to have a good amount of trouble figuring out a strategy to exploit good players. Their strategy is clearly not unexploitable (less exploitable than most? And if that's the case, why would people play this way? If I felt like I was the better player than I would do a strategy with gigantic exploitation and just stay a level ahead), What do you think the best way to beat it is?

One thing I have thought about but its the only thing ive really come up with is playing extremely loose from EP while much tighter from LP. Regs would tend to still threebet you light/semi light from the BU or the blinds which would be a big mistake.

I could also imagine doing a counter play type of strategy as an uber nit would work out because opponents will tend to call/raise you way too much, and adjustments tend to be slow. But of course we'd have to adjust between that and normall taggy or laggy ness.

[Jager]

Ever play Chess?

When 2 good chess players meet the player who makes the least number of mistakes wins. However in chess their really is no 'hidden' information, one can always see what the other is doing, if they choose to look deep enough. Now with poker its not that much different. If we make more +EV decisions than our opponents then we win. The thing is that we can't look deep to see what cards they actually hold, but we can get very close. Chess 'lines' have been established for 1000's of years. The best lines have been used over and over and over. When a player deviates from these lines, it can lead to a better one or a worse one. Most often the 'new' line is only temporarily better. It is better until the other players adjust or find a 'counter' attack for the 'new' line. As with poker the player always needs to adjust to counter the other good players, and be ready when their 'new' line is attacked, and be ready to counter the next 'new' line.

The other great analogy between these 2 games is that there are a lot of copy cats. They see what one player does, but they don't understand why. In chess players can memorize openings and win a lot of games, but they cannot adjust when they see a 'line' that is not standard. Their lack of understanding leads them down the road to exploitability. They are never able to counter what their good opponents are doing, and they continue to beat non adjusting opponents and lose to the ones who adjust. These copy cats will still win a lot of agmes, but will never be able to advnace farther than their own knowledge of the game. They can continue to study, and may even stumble across someone else's counter to their problems, but would never have done this on their own. Now the ones who have adjusted are killing the ones who fail to or don't know how to adjust, unless of course someone tells them what they are doing wrong. So you see that even if one eventually finds their solution, the adjusting player is still far ahead.

You may think of this as thinking and non thinking poker players, but I thnk you can see that it goes much deeper than that.

[EzDuzIt]

\\

"This isn't how we beat these kind of players, the good ones. In fact, I'd say the way too beat them is to not raise this hand (something like 86s) in the CO and to tighten up preflop in this spot....."

Then he goes
"I would say more but I really don't want everyone to find it out."

So was he saying to play normal against the rest of the table but tight preflop in situations where you are likely to play with a good opponent? so that the good opponent would view you as having a normal range but in reality you would only have the top part of your range against them? otherwise i dont really get what he's saying.


i usually would for the most part play pretty standard against a good opponent like you are describing, but im thinking (not that i really ever do this) that maybe making more bluffs against them where you really rep something strong like a set the whole time or something?

[IowaSkinsFan]

Ever play Chess?

When 2 good chess players meet the player who makes the least number of mistakes wins. However in chess their really is no 'hidden' information, one can always see what the other is doing, if they choose to look deep enough. Now with poker its not that much different. If we make more +EV decisions than our opponents then we win. The thing is that we can't look deep to see what cards they actually hold, but we can get very close. Chess 'lines' have been established for 1000's of years. The best lines have been used over and over and over. When a player deviates from these lines, it can lead to a better one or a worse one. Most often the 'new' line is only temporarily better. It is better until the other players adjust or find a 'counter' attack for the 'new' line. As with poker the player always needs to adjust to counter the other good players, and be ready when their 'new' line is attacked, and be ready to counter the next 'new' line.

The other great analogy between these 2 games is that there are a lot of copy cats. They see what one player does, but they don't understand why. In chess players can memorize openings and win a lot of games, but they cannot adjust when they see a 'line' that is not standard. Their lack of understanding leads them down the road to exploitability. They are never able to counter what their good opponents are doing, and they continue to beat non adjusting opponents and lose to the ones who adjust. These copy cats will still win a lot of agmes, but will never be able to advnace farther than their own knowledge of the game. They can continue to study, and may even stumble across someone else's counter to their problems, but would never have done this on their own. Now the ones who have adjusted are killing the ones who fail to or don't know how to adjust, unless of course someone tells them what they are doing wrong. So you see that even if one eventually finds their solution, the adjusting player is still far ahead.

You may think of this as thinking and non thinking poker players, but I thnk you can see that it goes much deeper than that.

This is a very good post. In fact, I think this is a post that a lot of people should read, but this wasnt my question.

Of course i understand exactly what you're saying but I'm asking this. What is the best strategy against the player who is consider good?

I think if the answer is a good player isn't as exploitable, im going to seriously rethink poker strategy.

(I don't want answers it all about adjusting. I know that, I'm wondering exactly what the adjustment is against this type of player)

[dsaxton]

I don't think chess is quite as static a game as you suggest. Just like poker, backgammon (there are some strategies that weren't discovered until the past few decades when intelligent computers learned to use them, even though the game has existed in various forms for thousands of years) and probably any game for that matter, the game has been evolving since it was invented.

I also think it is worth mentioning that the idea that one should adjust to one's opponents in poker is a trivial point. The mental states and playing styles of your opponents are part of the context in which the game is played. Failing to take these variables into consideration would be like playing a game of chess while ignoring some of your opponents pieces.

[mixchange]

very cool thread, awesome post Jager

[IowaSkinsFan]

I don't think chess is quite as static a game as you suggest. Just like poker, backgammon (there are some strategies that weren't discovered until the past few decades when intelligent computers learned to use them, even though the game has existed in various forms for thousands of years) and probably any game for that matter, the game has been evolving since it was invented.

I also think it is worth mentioning that the idea that one should adjust to one's opponents in poker is a trivial point. The mental states and playing styles of your opponents are part of the context in which the game is played. Failing to take these variables into consideration would be like playing a game of chess while ignoring some of your opponents pieces.

I think your making poker out to be much more liquid than it really is, it's actually very static.

[Toadstool]

Jager - that post is absolutely perfect - if people can understand your post fully they will get a lot out of it. You need to be able to think of your own plays and answer the WHY in the heat of the moment - not "I should raise here because its the standard thing to do" but you should think "I will raise here because......and then you need to know exactly why - based on calling ranged and how much value you get against certain hands in his range etc etc etc"

anyway, thats on another concept - as for beating good players I think the key is to find out what level they are thinking on and then think one level ahead. If you think they are thinking "What does my oppponent have?" then in the hand you should be using the "What does my opponent think I have?" level.

Beating regs....most regs multitable and dont really do much adjusting to you - almost every reg has some exploitable part of their game - but you all know that - going back to jagers post you need to know not just the how to exploit the regs mistakes but the WHY so you are ready for any opponent. If a reg calls 3 bets too light you may know you should tighten up your 3 betting - the why is because you are not getting as much FE preflop and if he is going to be calling your 3 bets light then there is not much of a reason to 3 bet light as he is going to call you with your big hands anyway and you'll be crushing his range when you do. I think if you can understand and think for yourself the why of every play - and also find out what level your opponents are thinking on and go one step ahead then beating regs will be a breeze.

Obviously when you get to higher and higher stakes pretty much everyone will know this, but against your standard middle stakes reg I think this is where you have a big edge.

[Jager]

dsaxton, I agree that all games are constantly evolving as new strategies present themselves. As far as playing styles goes, this is part of what we need to know to exploit them. Now I think that if we could all instantly tell the mental state of an opponent especially online, we would all just wait for them to tilt and take their monies. This is definately something to consider, but again the better players just don't tilt, this is part of why they are the better players.

So anyway I made the above post because ISF has made a few of these 'how to exploit regs' threads. I understand that this is a important part of a winning players game, however there really is no simple answer to your question. You are also right that a good player isn't as exploitable, this is part of what makes them 'good'. They are playing whatever way that has either worked for them so far, or they learned from someone else. They may have learned this from a book, a coach, or even this forum. When most players around here have a problem with a hand, they post it to find out if they are playing their best or if there may be a better way. There is nothing wrong with doing this, we are all trying to become better players.

Again though this isn't what your asking, you want to know how to beat the players who are beyond posting a lot of hands, who have learned the basics, who understand their game, and who are solid winners. These players are good for a reason. They have worked on their game, and they make fewer mistakes than players who are worse than them. I strongly believe that most of these players may never be able to adjust their games on their own. This is why you have a "relatively similar player base." When they face a situation that they are unfamilar with they go ask another player, most likely someone who has taught them something before. I'm sure alot of them have repeated this process many times. They have seen a lot of situations and 'know' how to handle them. This is what makes them good.

You need to be better than these good players. You want to 'learn' what it takes to be great, and in that manner I think my first post in this thread starts to answer your question.

[Lukie]

'beating good players'

many people consider players who frequently find the fold button to automatically be good players but thats not always the case.

good players are going to 3-bet you more, fire multiple barrels with initiative more, raise your c-bets more, etc. i think the guy's point was to tighten up with good players at your table because they will play back at you more often, particularly when they have position on you. i agree with this. that doesn't mean we have to let them run over us; i'll let others elaborate.

edit: this is coming from the pov of someone that raises 15-20% of their hands pre so take it fwiw

[IowaSkinsFan]

Lukie, I think you sauce gabe and cocco bill may be the only players here who can elaborate so please do the honors .

[Lukie]

Lukie, I think you sauce gabe and cocco bill may be the only players here who can elaborate so please do the honors .

what am i elaborating on again?

[IowaSkinsFan]

Lukie, I think you sauce gabe and cocco bill may be the only players here who can elaborate so please do the honors .

what am i elaborating on again?

how to beat 'good' players

[Lukie]

haha damn, if i knew i would be grinding NL5k or higher

[sauce123]

1. concentration
2. less tables
3. competitive/not making mistakes/discipline
4. creativity without FPS
5. identifying non-glaring mistakes

[benny999]

here's something i've been thinking about lately as far as staying one step ahead of "good" players

actually im not sure how to describe the general thought so heres an example:
you're on the button, and it's like the 5th or 6th time in a row you open raise it. the "good" player in the blinds has folded each time so far. now they 3bet...they likely have a MUCH wider range here than usual.
the reason is simple - they're tired of folding and think with their tight image you will give them respect and fold you're weak button hand.
the way to exploit is just to either 4bet pre, or probably better, to call and make a move on the flop or turn (or take a marginal hand far depending how aggro they are and/or how tight they think you are), since it's rare that their Axs/97s etc is going to make a felt-worthy hand.

there are other spots like that, but i guess the idea is the "good" players aren't going to keep doing stuff that isn't working for them.
also, this reminds me a lot of the CR video where greenplastic plays muddywater heads up...toward the middle GP says something like "ok i think he's going to start 3betting more, so im going to get even more loose now..." and its funny because around then muddy is saying something like "alright ive folded enough im going to 3bet this time"

[c-luvin]

in my opinion there are two answers to this question which are similar.

online poker and live poker are becoming very different games. Like Jager said the winner at a poker table(in the long run and most of the time in the short) is the player who makes the least mistakes. in online poker this is getting to the point where it is very technical with poker tracker and all sorts of other programs. with hundreds of thousands and hands being played making as few mistakes as you can becomes incredibly important. this makes being able to beat "good" opponents less important and rather being wary of who they are more important. this is to say to beat the "good" player you dont necesarily need to take his money, maybe why it was said you might not raise 86 in the CO when you know you have a good defender in the blinds.

when you are playing live poker i think the best way to beat the "good" player is to be deceptive and making sence of whats going on better than they can. since players see less hands live everyone widens their range and confusing your opponents becomes easier. once again its about making less mistakes but live it is easier to force a big mistake than it is multitabling online. we all know what it is like when a few good players get together for a game and how "unstandard" alot of the plays are, to beat these good players you just have to out think them. theres no simple way to outline how to win against these players.

in summary: multitabling online be wary of good players, dont necesarily avoid them but dont make a point to try and outshine them at the table.
live: in a game of good players no one can say do this this and this and youll win everytime. get to know the player and out think him.

[Genitruc]

wats up all

i m in peru right now and i m very drunk so plz don t take this 2 seriously (i havnen t played serious poker 4 awhile so...)

recently a "student" of mine... ( i.e. a player i wouldn t want to sit with) asked me what to do when :

he had ak

he raised

the flop cane 2 6 T rainbow

he c-bet (vs a laggy villain)

villain called

turn was an A that brought a flushdraw

my friend 2 barelled w AK (obv tptk)

villain minraised

this is the kind of play that will fuck you hard if you are a thinking reg

this is how you own regs : if your range here is "x" (x being WTF) and air and sets vs a reg that doesn t want to stack off w tptk after 2 barrelling

he knows that he has to call the river after calling the turn and he s afraid that you have a set

s0 DO IT

[Numbr2intheWorld]

as hard as you tried to not make that a drunk post, it was.

[SmackinYaUp]

It was a great post. I hate being in that position.

[IowaSkinsFan]

as hard as you tried to not make that a drunk post, it was.

That post was actually extremely good im surprised you wouldn't get anything from it.

It actually made me realize i have to think more about situations where villain is going to be put in a really tough spot. for example that spot really sucks.

[mixchange]

villain minraised

this is the kind of play that will fuck you hard if you are a thinking reg

this is how you own regs : if your range here is "x" (x being WTF) and air and sets vs a reg that doesn t want to stack off w tptk after 2 barrelling

he knows that he has to call the river after calling the turn and he s afraid that you have a set

s0 DO IT

I'm not quite sure what is being said here. Are we talking about a bluff or when we hold the a set? It sounds like we're talking about a bluff but Gent says "he has to call the river after calling turn" so it seems ambigious to me

[EzDuzIt]

he saying the other guy knows if he calls your turn raise he would have to call the river too. which would make it basically like putting him all in if thats how hes thinking.

[Jager]

This kinda reminds me of Fnords implied threat thread.