Concept of the weaks - fordítás/értelmezés
Sziasztok!
Elég gyenge angol tudással rendelkezem, de szeretnék minél több angol nyelvű információt magamba szívni. Tartok tőle, hogy bizonyos dolgokat félreértelmeznék, ezért arra gondoltam hogy a COTW sorozat részeit szúrnám be fejezetenként, és mindegyik fejezet alá pár mondatban összefoglalnám, hogy én mit értettem meg belőle, és arra kérném a PA profi angol tudással rendelkező társaimat, hogy írjanak egy OK-t ha jól írtam, ill. ha nem akkor javítsanak ki.
szerk.:
elfelejtettem említeni, hogy a COTW-t bandus-nak ezúton is köszönöm.
Előre is köszönöm.
Üdv,
Misi
lökjed :) de minél hamarabb feküdj rá az angoltanulásra, nem csak a póker miatt.
csatlakoznék az előttem szólóhoz.
lökjed :) de minél hamarabb feküdj rá az angoltanulásra, nem csak a póker miatt.
week, nem weak :)
Concept of the Week #5: Basic Cold Calling
Here we'll talk about preflop aspects of cold calling. Firstly, cold-calling is generally bad.
You are giving up initiative, often to be in a heads up pot, against a villain who is already
showing strength. When you are not in a heads up pot, you end up with poor relative
(and often absolute as well) position. So why do we do it?
Recall the three main edges in hold‟em: card edge, positional edge, and skill edge. When
a villain raises, if we believe ourselves to be ahead of their range cardwise, we generally
3-bet. Thus when we are cold calling, we are mostly trying to push our positional and
skill edge. Based on their ranges, we should have a plan for cold calling from the start.
The idea is either to potentially bust the player we are involved with by hitting a monster
against their made hand, or to take the pot away from them on a later betting round,
hopefully with outs to a better hand than theirs if that fails. In general, while these two
purposes can merge somewhat, it is best to have a plan for which is the main goal unless
it is highly dependent on board texture, meaning that on some board textures you will
have fold equity and some you will be likely to stack them. Thus, the two most important
questions about our opponents when we are considering cold calling are: do we have
implied odds, and two, is their range weak enough that we will likely have fold equity on
later streets? The reason the ideas of busting vs. bluffing are separate is that usually you
usually don‟t have much fold equity if you have large implied odds and vice versa,
although there are exceptions.
These ideas can be illustrated nicely by seeing the goals of calling vs. different player
types. For instance, vs. a nit who will mainly play big pair hands and AK preflop, but will
go too far with overpairs and TPTK, we are calling for the massive implied odds they
offer. The standard is that we are trying to crack aces with a set. Vs. a positionally aware
thinking TAG/LAG, we are calling to use our positional advantage to put pressure on
them and put them in difficult situations where we can force them to fold better hands or
extract value from worse in spots that are easy for us to play but marginal for them due
to our positional advantage. Vs. these opponents we could either bluff them or bust them
based on board texture and betting action and the lines between fold equity and implied
odds can become blurred. Vs. a maniac we are calling to flop something strong enough to
give them rope to hang themselves with. We are calling to bust them, but we may not
need as strong a hand to bust them as we need to bust a nit. Finally, vs. a passive fish,
we are calling so that we can value bet and raise them very aggressively. As you can see
then, in all cases the two factors to consider are what are our implied odds vs. this player
and what is the likelihood we will have fold equity later on.
Position ties well in with this in that it often tells us more about our implied odds and/or
fold equity. For most villains, we can create some kind of range for them based on their
position. If they make an EP raise, we can generally assume we have implied odds, while
if they make an LP raise, we will often have fold equity on later streets. There are
exceptions though. Bad players generally cannot be put on a range based on position,
while tricky villains will occasionally mix in more speculative hands EP for balancing their
ranges. Also, extremely nitty players will have an extremely strong range regardless of
position. We additionally have to consider our own position; more for the risks. For
instance, if UTG raises and we call UTG+1, there is a good chance we will play a
multiway pot with no initiative and both poor absolute and relative position on postflop
betting rounds. On the other hand, if the CO opens and we flat on the button, we our
opening ourselves up to a potential squeeze from aggressive players from the blinds.
Further, the position we are calling from and their position also tells an observant
opponent something about the strength of our hands. If a thinking UTG raiser opens and
we call UTG+1, he will generally put us on either a strong hand or something like a
medium pocket pair that can easily make a very strong hand postflop. Finally, it is
generally terrible to cold call from the blinds; mainly due to the disadvantages you have
in controlling the pot size being out of position. You lose the implied threat of future bets, and thus much of your fold equity, you often have to pay more if you are on a draw to
see if you hit, and you lose much of your implied odds because it is harder to build a pot
out of position.
Now we come to what hands to cold call with, and it really mostly relates to whether we
have implied odds or fold equity, and also where our implied odds come from. Do our
implied odds come from him overplaying strong, but not monster hands? Do they come
from him being a calling station, or do they come from him bluffing too much? For
instance, vs. a nit who overplays big pairs, it might be wise to cold call with pocket pairs
only. You will need a very strong hand to beat his, and if you have little fold equity it may
be difficult to play draws successfully, so a fit or fold strategy where you attempt to hit a
set may be best. Vs. a persistent bluffer, we may only need a good top pair hand to bust
him, we could add AK/AQ to the list, and if he has poor preflop hand selection and will
likely play dominated hands we could even add AJ-AT and KQ/KJ to the list. The hand
selection ideas vs. a bluffer are similar vs. a calling station, but in fact hands with huge
potential like 33 may be less valuable (though probably still worth playing) vs. a calling
station, since you will hit a set less often than top pair playing the other range, and a
good top pair may be more than sufficient to take his stack. Against all of these except
perhaps the aggressive nit whose bet sizing is too small, drawing hands like 67s are
pretty weak, since against the group you will likely have no fold equity when you flop a
draw, and against stations even if they let you get to your draw, the pot might be too
small for you by the time you hit on the turn or river for you to get his stack.
week, nem weak :)
Concept of the Week #6: Isolating Limpers
hehe, pár mondat mi.... :D ha túlleszek a záróvizsgán akkor átnézem tüzetesebben,illetve 1-2 cikk lefordítását tervezem én is :)
hehe, pár mondat mi.... :D