BUT WHAT'S YOUR RANGE

[Savy]

No, it's not. Even when people are calling too much we should still be bluffing, just less. I'm sure there do exist points when you shouldn't be bluffing at all because our opponent does call so much, but you have no idea how much villain should be calling in a certain spot so gl with that because ranges aren't important.

What you're all probably doing is over adjusting based on reads that probably aren't as strong as you think they are which is why it's always nice to have a rough idea what your range should look like in certain spots. Apparently over adjusting isn't a problem though because we can just ignore obvious holes in our logic.

I think my least favourite part about OP is that it kind of implies that you should go about learning poker in a way that just tries to exploit population reads when in reality this just leaves you not really knowing what you're doing and your only real way of gauging the situation is through experience. When trying to approach the game from a more mathematical perspective gives us a much better idea not only how we should be playing in a certain spot, but how our opponent should which means we can see his leaks better and exploit him better.

[Carroters]

I think my least favourite part about OP is that it kind of implies that you should go about learning poker in a way that just tries to exploit population reads when in reality this just leaves you not really knowing what you're doing and your only real way of gauging the situation is through experience.

Is it better to base our default strategy (meaning our strategy before implementing any reads of villain) on the expected tendencies of villains as they are in the actual games they're playing or on a model of how they should be playing if they're playing perfect theoretical poker in every spot.

Eg. If we open the BU really wide then our unknown villains in the blinds should be 3 betting some really high amount therefore we should be 4-bet bluffing some pretty high amount. Only this is horrible because it's 5NL and they're just not 3-betting some high amount for the most part. I'm not by any means saying we should try to guess at exactly what a villains range is and how to exploit him based on population reads, but ignoring them when it comes to our default strategy in the games we play leads us to do the nonsensical stupid stuff I'm referring to that's so out of touch with reality.

If you guys actually just learned how to hand read, put your opponent on a range and then play well vs that range and what you expect him to do then you'd get through the microstakes a hell of a lot faster.

Quick example, when I was playing 25NL a few years ago I'd basically be folding a huge amount of my range by the river vs aggression so much that if someone was playing optimally he'd have exploited the hell out of me and my play would have been horrible. As it was in the games at the time, hardly anyone was tripling as a bluff or 4 betting light so for me to start with the assumption they were playing optimally would have been a disaster. I'd have been calling the GTO advised amount and getting raped by a betting range that was grossly less bluff heavy than a range of someone playing "as he should" How did I know folding loads to aggression was just a solid base strategy? Population reads.

If you want to ignore the fact that probably 90% of your opponents don't have a call flop - min raise turn line in their arsenal as a bluff then go ahead and play sound mathematical poker by calling down X% vs optimal play - you'll just be at 5NL a lot longer.

[Pelion]

+1

Game theory is a great basis for knowing where to start adjusting from.

We should rarely try to be playing GTO if our opponents are not playing GTO (read if our opponents have huge gaping flaws in their game e.g. nits / stations)

I think too many players use GTO as an excuse to lazily avoid making reads on opponents/populations and start adjusting to them (and play more tables?) e.g. bluffing stations/ calling down vs nits to be unexploitable.

Having said that, I will go back to my first point. It is very useful to know GTO as a starting point before we start adjusting, although we will want to be adjusting in one form or another to the vast majority of micro/low stakes opponents.

[MadMojoMonkey]

No, it's not. Even when people are calling too much we should still be bluffing, just less. I'm sure there do exist points when you shouldn't be bluffing at all because our opponent does call so much, but you have no idea how much villain should be calling in a certain spot so gl with that because ranges aren't important.

This entire paragraph is misguided... OR (since it's Savy) at least mis-worded.

1) It is a fallacy to say that we should always have some bluffs in our range at any time.
There are absolutely cases when we should not be bluffing at all, esp. vs. stations. A polarized range is only of use in certain circumstances, and a merged range is only of use in certain circumstances. I can think of many examples where a polarized range may be +EV, but not as +EV as a merged range. It all depends on Villain's ranges as to what is the best line.

Seriously. You do not beat the micros with your bluffs.

2) How can you say, "you have no idea how much villain should be calling in a certain spot" when you are fully capable of doing the algebra to solve for how Villain's calling %-age interacts with your bet sizing and frequency?
I have so many issues with this "Your ignorance is insurmountable" attitude.

[daven]

No, it's not. Even when people are calling too much we should still be bluffing, just less. and in different spots

^ also nh. italicised bit added by me