Pinned Tweet
I'm an amateur poker player and a professional social scientist. I teach data analysis and do research at Johns Hopkins. In my free time, I study poker the way I'd study any other dataset.
That project is now a newsletter: The Poker Wonk.
That project is now a newsletter: The Poker Wonk.
1
1
5
937
You’re on the Button in a 3-bet pot vs Cutoff.
On a 7♣3♦2♠flop, the solver mixes checks and big bets.
On a A♣7♦3♠, it bets small with its entire range.
What explains these differences?
A thread on c-betting in 3B pots (100 bb cash game) based on my new Poker Wonk post.
On a 7♣3♦2♠flop, the solver mixes checks and big bets.
On a A♣7♦3♠, it bets small with its entire range.
What explains these differences?
A thread on c-betting in 3B pots (100 bb cash game) based on my new Poker Wonk post.
3
0
3
70
Finding 4: Wetter flops get smaller c-bets. The average c-bet size is ~50% pot on the driest flops and close to 25% pot on the wettest.
The difference between J♠8♠3♦and J♠T♦8♠ is illustrative. Average c-bet size is 47% pot on J♠8♠3♦. It is 29% pot on J♠T♦8♠.
The difference between J♠8♠3♦and J♠T♦8♠ is illustrative. Average c-bet size is 47% pot on J♠8♠3♦. It is 29% pot on J♠T♦8♠.
1
0
0
15
You can check out the full post, which contains more details on the data analysis and more flop examples, at pokerwonk.substack.com/p/continuation….
0
0
0
22
The Poker Wonk retweeted
This time of year, as it gets dark around 430pm, I remember this Milton Friedman passage...
The argument for a flexible exchange rate is, strange to say, very nearly identical with the argument for daylight savings time. Isn't it absurd to change the clock in summer when exactly the same result could be achieved by having each individual change his habits? All that is required is that everyone decide to come to his office an hour earlier, have lunch an hour earlier, etc. But obviously it is much simpler to change the clock that guides all than to have each individual separately change his pattern of reaction to the clock, even though all want to do so. The situation is exactly the same in the exchange market. It is far simpler to allow one price to change, namely, the price of foreign exchange, than to rely upon changes in the multitude of prices that together constitute the internal price structure.
in The Case for Flexible Exchange Rates
(or, In Recognition of Sticky Prices)
The argument for a flexible exchange rate is, strange to say, very nearly identical with the argument for daylight savings time. Isn't it absurd to change the clock in summer when exactly the same result could be achieved by having each individual change his habits? All that is required is that everyone decide to come to his office an hour earlier, have lunch an hour earlier, etc. But obviously it is much simpler to change the clock that guides all than to have each individual separately change his pattern of reaction to the clock, even though all want to do so. The situation is exactly the same in the exchange market. It is far simpler to allow one price to change, namely, the price of foreign exchange, than to rely upon changes in the multitude of prices that together constitute the internal price structure.
in The Case for Flexible Exchange Rates
(or, In Recognition of Sticky Prices)
12
74
667
56,520
The Poker Wonk retweeted
🚨 GIVEAWAY 🚨
Our BIGGEST online event EVER is coming! You won’t want to miss this one...
🎟️To celebrate, we’re giving away 10 TICKETS!
All you need to do is:
🔁 Retweet this post
👥 Tag a friend who has ZERO chance of winning
We’re picking 10 RANDOM WINNERS
Our BIGGEST online event EVER is coming! You won’t want to miss this one...
🎟️To celebrate, we’re giving away 10 TICKETS!
All you need to do is:
🔁 Retweet this post
👥 Tag a friend who has ZERO chance of winning
We’re picking 10 RANDOM WINNERS
464
474
242
25,793
The Poker Wonk retweeted
When you polarize in poker (nuts or air) your opponent’s bluff-catchers are effectively turned face up. But why does polarization make money?
The easiest way to understand this intuitively is from a limit argument.
Let’s imagine we start with 100 nuts and 100 airballs. Pot rt by value betting the nuts and NEVER BLUFFING.
Villain’s best response is to fold everything. Our nuts win the pot, and our airballs just give up.
So far, this is a fair game where we each win half the pots.
Now add one bluff. Villain’s best response is STILL to fold everything. We just turned that loser into a winner. We now have 101 winners and 99 losing combos. Nice.
Now add another bluff. And another. Keep converting losers into winners until we’re juuuuust below the point where calling becomes profitable. Villain’s best response is still to fold everything.
For a pot sized bet, we end up with just shy of 150 winners and 50 losers. We’re winning 75% of the pot.
We can approach it from the other side too.
Start by ALWAYS bluffing. Our bluffs lose, but our nuts get paid. Now remove one bluff. They still call. We saved money, and still get paid off. Now remove another bluff, and another, saving more and more money until we remove the most bluffs possible while keeping our value fed.
You can walk up the hill either way. At the summit, they are indifferent to calling, and we make the same EV regardless of how often they defend.
The easiest way to understand this intuitively is from a limit argument.
Let’s imagine we start with 100 nuts and 100 airballs. Pot rt by value betting the nuts and NEVER BLUFFING.
Villain’s best response is to fold everything. Our nuts win the pot, and our airballs just give up.
So far, this is a fair game where we each win half the pots.
Now add one bluff. Villain’s best response is STILL to fold everything. We just turned that loser into a winner. We now have 101 winners and 99 losing combos. Nice.
Now add another bluff. And another. Keep converting losers into winners until we’re juuuuust below the point where calling becomes profitable. Villain’s best response is still to fold everything.
For a pot sized bet, we end up with just shy of 150 winners and 50 losers. We’re winning 75% of the pot.
We can approach it from the other side too.
Start by ALWAYS bluffing. Our bluffs lose, but our nuts get paid. Now remove one bluff. They still call. We saved money, and still get paid off. Now remove another bluff, and another, saving more and more money until we remove the most bluffs possible while keeping our value fed.
You can walk up the hill either way. At the summit, they are indifferent to calling, and we make the same EV regardless of how often they defend.
16
10
207
25,961
You’re on the Button in a single-raised pot vs Big Blind, 100bb deep. How often should you c-bet and what size should you use?
Two key features of the flop you should consider:
(1) How many draws are possible (wetness)
(2) how likely is the best hand to change (dynamism).
A 🧵.
Two key features of the flop you should consider:
(1) How many draws are possible (wetness)
(2) how likely is the best hand to change (dynamism).
A 🧵.
1
0
0
39
Why bet big there? Top pairs tend to hold up on these flops, and the Big Blind has plenty of flush draws, gutshots and second-best hands that can call a large bet.
1
0
0
11
For more on how wetness and dynamism shape c-bet strategy in this very common spot, see my latest Poker Wonk post: pokerwonk.substack.com/p/how-wetness-…
0
0
0
59
What is the key to c-betting: wet vs dry or static vs dynamic? Or, as I put it yesterday, which @Barry_Carter is right?
The answer: both Barrys are right.
In Button vs Big Blind single-raised pots, wetness drives c-bet frequency and dynamism drives c-bet sizing.
A thread.
The answer: both Barrys are right.
In Button vs Big Blind single-raised pots, wetness drives c-bet frequency and dynamism drives c-bet sizing.
A thread.
1
0
0
69
The main lessons: wet vs dry is not the wrong way to think about flops, and static vs dynamic matters too.
Both variables matter for different aspects of strategy.
Full post is available at: pokerwonk.substack.com/p/how-wetness-…
Both variables matter for different aspects of strategy.
Full post is available at: pokerwonk.substack.com/p/how-wetness-…
1
0
0
37
One important caveat: this is just one spot.
In the next few posts I will show that the patterns look quite different in other configurations.
Subscribe to get future posts delivered right to your inbox: pokerwonk.substack.com
In the next few posts I will show that the patterns look quite different in other configurations.
Subscribe to get future posts delivered right to your inbox: pokerwonk.substack.com
0
0
0
19