|
Well, if the spot you're talking about is 4bing pre as a response to a 3b with a presumably wide range from the blinds after we raise in LP, I am of the school that, in a vacuum - and say at a reasonably low / soft stake like 25 or 50 nl - we could 4b a very very large percentage and come out on top in the long run, barring readjustments.
In response to the concept of overadjustments in general, I really just consider this an inevitable mistake that players make in making adjustments. Incrementally, our 'adjustment' takes place in a single hand, and we may over-shoot or under-shoot over time; this becomes sort of blurry given the uniqueness of every hand and every situation, obviously, but I believe it is fair to say that you are either overadjusting or underadjusting as you begin to make any sort of adjustment.
To make a more concrete example of this: say we are in LP facing a raise from MP1, and have now accumulated enough hands on this particular opponent to decide that his range for raising in this position is rather wide. So our options to adjust are pretty obvious, and include 3betting lighter for value or calling a wider range in position. Assume we opt for one of those two decisions and follow through. Have we adjusted? Yes. Is it the absolute correct adjustment? Maybe, but the likelihood of this action exactly coinciding with the long-run tolerance of adjustments versus this player is incredibly low.
There are several reasons for this. First, we will almost always lack a sufficient sample size -- ignoring player style correlation -- to make a perfect adjustment versus a given player at a given point in time. Second, the player will not simply continue to play as such as he observes our adjustments to his playstyle, and will usually adjust himself.
So it's fairly plain to see that there is no such thing as a perfect adjustment; all of our adjustments, while certainly grounded in mathematics and poker logic, are either undershooting or overshooting an equilibrium. Our goal then should be to tailor our adjustments as we see to most closely coincide with this long run equilibrium.
A simplified example could be how we generally play against random players in nanostakes; our plan is to generally value bet, value bet, value shove our premium holdings and generally giving way when our opponents display unsolicited aggression against our non-nut hands. Assume our opponents do not properly adjust to this, calling us down light and not folding their more marginal hands, nor raising their weakest hands as a means of balancing their value raises. Our playstyle then reflects a "perfect" exploitation of our opponents. In reality, however, our opponents do adjust, and we never have perfect information on the types of opponents we are facing. We generalize, and hope our adjustments land within some tolerance that lands us maximum profit in the long run.
This is fine, of course. Perfect information and static opponent classification are fairy tales. In the meantime, however, we make adjustments with which we intend to maximally exploit our opponent's tendencies, and continue to adjust as our information on these opponents increases, and our history with them continues to evolve.
|