Hey guys,
I've been using a strategy to deceive my opponents in the beginning of the tournament, but it is difficult to calculate the impact of these changes, so I wanted to ask you if you find the concept of this strategy good. Currently I'm playing $3.5 turbo HUSnG, but please analyze this strategy regardless of the stakes I'm playing.
In the first blind level I try to misrepresent my usual style of play (which is loose aggressive), by limping a lot and playing relatively passively post-flop. From the SB I play the top 90% of hands. I only raise the top 10% of my hands for value, and also raise the worst 10% hands of my range (from 80% to 90%) in order to add fold equity to hands that have little equity. I limp with the remaining 70%. When I get raised, I usually call with hands that play well post-flop and have good equity, such as KT or 76s, taking advantage of my position to outplay my opponents.
My main goal with this strategy is to create a first impression of a loose passive player, so I can later take advantage of that image. When the blind level increases I start being more aggressive, open raising the SB between 70%-90% of my hands, 3 betting from the BB around 1/3 of villains open raises, cbetting most flops, check-raising dry flops OOP, etc. Since villains think I'm passive, I get more credit when I'm bluffing. I'm able to win more pots out of my aggression before my opponent notices that I changed gears and adapt accordingly. When opponents start realizing that I play aggressively, I've already gotten a lot of credit with my aggressive plays. And since blinds are now bigger, I'm hoping that I recover more than the value I may had lost from playing the first blind level more passively in the begging.
So do you think this is a good strategy? Or I'm better of playing aggressively from the beginning?
Thanks for your inputs!
This is an interesting idea, but I think that you might be overestimating the average $3.50 player's ability to make adjustments to your game. Most simply are not able to make sensible adjustments based on your limping vs. minraising decisions IMO. You will therefore lose value by limping hands like QJ or K7s preflop, when you could be raising.
Personally I like to play each hand in isolation at the beginning of a game with a new player, as they will not realise that I am highly unbalanced in certain spots. Only after they begin to adjust ( which is rare at the $3.50s) will I deviate and begin to do meta type stuff as you describe.
The good thing is you have a plan and that plan gives you the confidence that you have an advantage over your opposition. Use it, explore and expand on the idea.
Good luck !
Go forth and CRUSH !
Strategy is premised on the assumptions:
1. Opponent is thinking beyond level 1 and is capable of adjusting to your strategy
2. Opponent puts you in a quadrant [loose passive, loose aggressive, tight passive, tight aggressive] and then leaves you there, never readjusting
The value you gain from this sort macro-strategy will not exceed the value you lose by playing suboptimal in many spots imo.
Say you're up against a level 1 calling station, very commonly found in the games you're playing.
You've set up your loose passive dynamic and decide to run a big bluff to capitalise on your image when the blinds go up and you're now playing @ 25BB.
He calls you down with 2nd pair despite the board being ridiculously wet. He doesn't even know that your entire value range in this spot is ahead of him and that his relative hand strength was completely devalued from the flop to the river. He had a pair so he called down.
Ok contrived example, which makes obvious point.
Now say your'e playing a thinking player.
They will be watching your frequencies very closely.
In my experience, different players react psychologically different to the various stages of a HUSNG.
Some are quite aware that at shorter effective stacks that mathematically it becomes correct to get your money in with a much wider range of hands, some get scared and completely tighten up. Others are in a rush to get to the push/fold stage because they have a super duper chart which has solved the game for them in their mind.
A thinking player will compartmentalise the difference in your play at the early levels 50-75BB + deep, compared to the shallower end game play.
There is a good chance that a thinking player will make a mental note, plays weak passive deep and loosens up end game.
And any dynamic which you sacrificed EV setting up will be completely lost.
You might have 5-10 hands where you can take advantage of the dynamic you've set up before a good player will have readjusted to what you're now doing.
But it's going to be too much of a function of card distribution as to whether you can take advantage of it or not that I wouldn't design my strategy around it.
Personally I put a lot more stock in opponents having a static way they think about the game than giving them credit for being able to dynamically adjust.
I think its more profitable, to try and work out how they think about the game, assuming it is static, then designing static strategies to maximally exploit their weaknesses. I would only readjust once they show evidence that they have falsified the assumptions which the profitability of my strategy is dependent upon.
Hey, thanks for all your inputs.
I think your right cdon3822. Against beginners, I'll be loosing value since they will not adapt anyway. And against thinking players, they will understand what I'm doing and adapt accordingly. I guess I may have an improved edge against intermediate players, but it doesn't compensate for the value I'm loosing against other opponents.
Good luck at the tables!
He who makes a beast of himself gets rid of the pain of being a man. -- Samuel Johnson