Study Group: Polished Poker Vol. II Workbook

Figaroo2 said:

*The chicken eagle.*
There was a chicken farmer who was a very keen rock climber. One day, climbing a particularly challenging rock face, he came upon a a large nest and in the nest were three large eggs. Eagle eggs.
He knew it was distinctly unethical, and even undoubtedly illegal, but temptation got the better of him and he discreetly put one of the eagle eggs in his rucksack, checking first that the mother eagle wasn’t around. Then he continued his climb, drove home, and put the eagle egg in the hen house.
That night the mother hen sat on the huge egg, the proudest chicken you ever saw.
In the fullness of time the egg hatched and the baby eagling emerged. It looked around and saw the mother hen. “Mama!” it squawked.
And so it was that the eagle grew up with its brother and sister chicks. It learned to do all the things that chickens do: clucking and cackling, scratching in the dirt for grits and worms, flapping its wings furiously, and flying a few feet into the air before crashing to the earth in a pile of dust and feathers. And believing above all things that it was totally and absolutely a chicken.
One day late in its life, the eagle-who-thought-he-was-a-chicken happened to look up at the sky. High overhead, soaring majestically on the thermal currents, flying effortlessly with scarcely a beat of its powerful wings, was an eagle.
“What’s that?” said the eagle in awe to his farmyard neighbour. “It’s magnificent. So much power and grace. Poetry in motion.”
“That’s an eagle,” said the chicken. “That’s the King of Birds. It’s a bird of the air. But we, we’re only chickens, we’re birds of the earth.”
And so it was that the eagle lived and died a chicken; because that’s all it believed it was.

Click to expand...

Figaroo2 said:

Some of the passivity also comes from not being a master of recognizing my equity in real time at the table. I think I need some more work on the equity trainer. This feels like the next few months are going to be important if im going to achieve my potential at this game. Everything feels so close to coming together but mastery remains elusive.

Click to expand...

rhombus said:

Against a range is it possible to calcualte at the table ???

Click to expand...

rhombus said:

Not sure to post this here or in PP1 thread
going through the Out of Norm Lines questions
3. Lead Small Over Bet: This works well on paired boards, or hands where you have a lot of backdoor outs. You get your opponent to define their hand a little more, and then make them make a difficult turn decision by slightly over betting the turn. Most people don't have to deal with overbets often, so unless they have a big hand, usually opponents will give up.

Click to expand...

Figaroo2 said:

Yeah it's not clear i have been using these lines for quite while now and have some observations.
Firstly the lead out on the turn definitely works against regs and you don't need to overbet to get the result. I've never seen anyone use the play against me even at 25nl. So mostly the reg will sit there bemused as to what the bet means and then they usually fold. I have found anecdotally that overbetting sometimes gets you looked up out of curiosity, whereas if you make it value looking 80-85% of the pot they think im happy to be called and they let it go. I think you do need some decent equity as the pot is getting larger than it would be on the flop lead out. I will see if I find a few examples.
The key is to make the play when the flop is low and ragged and hits the perceived callers range whilst missing the openers high card range.
You can lead out on the flop with anything really if the texture is suitable.. Im sure John will put me right if this isn't correct. In fact other than shoves I can't remember seeing any overbetting even full pot isn't that common at the moment

Click to expand...

John A said:

To rhombus - what line you take OOP is going to largely be based on your ~ hand equity and flop texture. I try and provide some example. Obviously you're not going to want to take a c/c and lead line on a draw heavy board with A high.

The amazing thing is, these lines work very well. I've used them for the past 11 years very effectively. Some of them, people still, to this very day, don't think will work. There's a lot of odd memes in the poker community that are dead wrong. It's funny that they survive so long. Some eventually die out, but there's a lot like leading into your opponent on the turn, that people think won't work... but it does.

Click to expand...

Fknife said:

There is a well known method called TUPAC, which can actually give quite good equity approximations if you pull it off fast enough at the table [1] [2]

(Sorry to "interrupt"; I was quietly following this thread for quite some time actually.)

Click to expand...

rhombus said:

So when it says Lead small overbet. Does it mean Lead Flop(donk) then overbet most turns as in pictuer below

Click to expand...

John A said:

fyi, I was looking at this and pokerstove does the same thing also for some reason. I think I know why, but just confirming with the developer.

Click to expand...

Figaroo2 said:

Fold equity
How can we ever really judge what percentage of the time someone is going to fold to a shove?
Which HUD stats can help us judge this?
Presumably related to how often they go to showdown. nervous lol.

Question 3, pg. 34: You're involved in a hand where you believe your opponent has 65% equity. There's currently $60 in the pot, and you have $90 remaining. If you shoved, how often would your opponent need to fold in order for it to be a break-even play?

Not being particularly math orientated, I can't even begin to work this out now, let alone at the table. .
My math never got this far.I have peeked at the answer and its still gobbledegook tbh
Is there a technique for quick approximation?

Click to expand...

Figaroo2 said:

Question 3, pg. 34: You're involved in a hand where you believe your opponent has 65% equity. There's currently $60 in the pot, and you have $90 remaining. If you shoved, how often would your opponent need to fold in order for it to be a break-even play?

Click to expand...

Figaroo2 said:

Err no actually guys you are both way off the answer shown in the work book!!
Before I even looked at the answer I noticed that as we only need to swing the equity 15% down from 65% to 50% before its breakeven so surely he doesn't have to fold that often for this to work I thought just as a guess it would be less than 20% and I was right it is less than that....Do you guys want to try again??!! lol

Click to expand...

Figaroo2 said:

Err no actually guys you are both way off the answer shown in the work book!!
Before I even looked at the answer I noticed that as we only need to swing the equity 15% down from 65% to 50% before its breakeven so surely he doesn't have to fold that often for this to work I thought just as a guess it would be less than 20% and I was right it is less than that....Do you guys want to try again??!! lol

Click to expand...

rhombus said:

maybe a clue needed as we did have multiple choice

o 9% o 14% o 35% o 23%

Click to expand...