Yeah, sure, but the original question said “no info” on the other players.
Anyway, this whole side trip has nothing to do with the original topic, so imma shut up now before Grapie yells at me again.
3 Likes
My take away from this story is that you never supported RP.
According to you, you’ve played for several years but never bought any chips and you’re proud of that.
Basically you used RP to school yourself, but welshed on the tuition…
I’m not sure if that is something to be proud of.
- I like excelling at things: being able to amass a large bank here without ever having bought chips testifies that I’ve achieved at least some measure of skill at this game
- I like a good deal: it’s great to be able to do things I enjoy at a great price, and $0.00 is about as good as prices tend to get.
- I’ve tried to share some of my knowledge, and I hope that effort counts as a contribution to the community
- I take chips from those that don’t play as well as I do, encouraging them to buy more
I don’t think you were addressing your comment to me, but I have to say I’m reasonably proud of all of these things.
2 Likes
You have, and in so doing add value to the forum which is a greater benefit to the site than buying a few dollars worth of chips.
But all of this is off topic. Just sayin.
2 Likes
If nobody pays, the site will disappear.
I buy chips not because I need them but because RP wouldn’t exist without money.
The WP or the NYT just published a report that the 25 richest people in the US pay less taxes than the rest of the country or no taxes at all.
You remind me of that …
I’m not sure why you would be proud of others footing your bill.
Actually what you wrote just now IS a personal attack. I’m offering a different view to your story. If you don’t like it then give a coherent retort like Yorunoame did
Still not sure why you think others should pay so you can play and then call it “your” community.
Since this hits a nerve, maybe I’m on to something.
A bit off topic but I thought it might be of interest to some people here. Yesterday, a player who started on this site came in 2nd in a $150K gtd tournament for a score of $27K. He wasn’t particularly good to begin with but he exploited the heck out of other players here. With a little work and some adjustments to attitude and strategy, he’s now doing fine in online real money tournaments.
4 Likes
That’s great news and confirmation that time, determination and directed study can achieve great things 
Regards,
TA
1 Like
What is my bill? I’m proud of playing well enough on a free site that it is free for me. Are you suggesting that I should be paying money for chips I don’t need?
If you are arguing that perhaps I should donate to the site in some other way, I’ll admit that I’ve considered that, as I’m grateful to the site, and in part that has motivated a number of the posts I’ve made on this forum. If you choose to buy chips as a way of supporting the site, I respect that, but don’t agree that anyone on a free site should feel compelled to buy chips.
I’ll second that I don’t see this as a personal attack, and that I think the tone here was nice enough.
1 Like
Fun news! I’ve felt that some of the players here are good enough to make a living playing poker, if that is something they’d enjoy.
2 Likes
Congrats on your 2nd place win!
I supported myself (mostly) by playing online tournies for about 2 years back in the day. (I say “mostly” because I also had several affiliate web sites generating passive income) There’s nothing like a big score like that to make it all seem worthwhile. Good job!
1 Like
This wasn’t my result - it was from a friend I met here. You might remember talking about betting large on paired boards as an exploit. That was this guy. It was theoretically wrong but the experiment we ran showed it succeeded here over 80% of the time.
I helped him with his game and he switched to real money poker a few years back. With work and time he is finally getting some good results. He said he’s finally above break-even with this win. LOL
2 Likes
No, I don’t remember that conversation, but most of the stuff I write is theoretically wrong and works more than 80% of the time.
Edited to add: The idea of betting paired boards is from Brunson’s original Supersystem.
2 Likes
It is a pretty obvious idea when you are heads up, or even in a multiway pot. At least you will gain information, like whether there is another player who still likes the flop even if you may have trips. He may have a flush or straight draw (risky facing a potential boat) or he may have made trips with a small kicker, or maybe, this being replay poker, he has a small pocket pair and is prepared to call from behind and make a boat of his own, or he has a large pocket pair and isn’t ready to fold, or (this being RP) he has AK and is not folding for nothing because AK has showdown value (which could be right if the flop comes J77 and no-one has an 7. If you have a paired flop, there is an increased chance that no-one has made trips since there are only two outs, and it is also very likely that most offsuit combos with a 7 and many suited combos with a 7 will be folded preflop. Why, just yesterday I folded 74o preflop in a multiway pot and the flop came 774.
Additionally any pocket pair gains somewhat in value if the pair on the flop has not formed a triplet, as now there are only 3 cards that players can pair with. On the 772 flop pocket 3s is king!
I don’t know what Doyle Brunson had to say on the subject, but the man knows his poker.
1 Like
Lol I never read super-system I just thought of it one day and now I bet 75% of paired boards. I called it “the paired board theory” because it was just that, a theory. All the books I’ve read have never talked about it, since many times I do it even if I’m not the preflop aggressor which they do not advocate. However its an easy exploit if players are willing to call down with the same hand strength as they would with three different cards. Idk why but hearing that as an actual strategy made me feel so good, even if they thought of it 40-50 years ago.
Also a very nice forum, I have always thought of possibly playing real money in the future, so its nice to see the comparison, although I still am a bit confused as Punisher and others disagreed on the level of play in the micros.
1 Like
He said something to the effect of, “I like to bluff on paired boards because those bets are hard for my opponents to call.”
And they are hard to call. If they actually have the trips (or boat, or quads), you will usually either be drawing thin or drawing dead… not a great position.
Brunson introduced me to the “sheer terror” psychological aspects of big bet, no limit poker. He said he regrets writing that book, and that it has cost him a lot more money than he made on it.
Thanks. Next time I am playing Brunson in a high-stakes cash game, I will remember to raise him all-in when he bets on a paired flop. But I doubt if he will ever dare to throw his hat into the ring on RP.
1 Like
The idea of betting certain paired boards is theoretically sound but not in the way we executed the play here. In many solver strategies, a small bet as the preflop aggressor on a paired board is the most efficient play (25-33% in single raised pots). This applies when the paired cards are likely part of your opening range. For example, KK2 as the preflop aggressor is a range bet for a small size as the K is a large part of your opening range. on 662, the 6 is not a likely part of an EP open and so more caution is used, depending on what position the caller is in.
The exploitative move that this player made here was that he bet full pot on any paired board when checked to. Didn’t matter what his cards were or whether it was heads up or multiway (4 or less in the pot). We tracked results of several thousand hands and he had an 82% success rate in taking the pot by everyone folding to his bet. If he was ever called, he wouldn’t put another dime into the pot unless he improved to better than trips. This was a massive exploit that shouldn’t work to the extent it did. He auto-profited if he achieved folds more than 50.1% of the time so 82% was just printing money.
FYI - he had to modify this strategy when he moved to real money but not all the way down to theoretically optimal. The exploit remains valid to a significant extent to this day, at least in the player pools he faces. Not every seemingly goofy play seen on this site is without merit when playing for cash. They may need to be tailored a bit but they can work.
Players started to counter-exploit this strategy by check-raising more on paired boards that favored their range. Nothing puckers you up more than c-betting your AA on TT7 and having the big blind raise you. Theory evolves.
1 Like
And an excellent counter it is. And yeah, big pucker factor. The key, I think, is frequency based, as usual. If one bets every paired board, they open themselves to counter-exploits.
One small point over which I would quibble: the notion that “theories evolve.” A hypotheses can evolve as our understanding deepens, but a theory is settled science and can’t evolve. The words are carelessly used interchangeably, but to a self-respected pseudo-scientist like myself, they are not the same. Consider yourself quasi-quibbled!
2 Likes
I did something similar for nearly a year here, almost always betting half pot on paired boards. I did not keep careful track of my fold rate, but suspect it was close to 70%. I did this nearly always if checked to with 1 or 2 opponents. I was not quite so bold to try it in massively multi-way pots.
1 Like