>>13320330>>13320367If you want to win I would just learn how to play poker preflop for the most part. The vast majority tend to undervalue folding, strongly overvalue betting, and somewhat overvalue raising. Especially at large tables.
If no blinds or antes existed in hold'em, you should always fold until you get AA and then bet. Since blinds exist, you have an incentive to bet. You have an incentive to bet even if you aren't playing the blinds, because the blinds will be making the first actions post-flop, putting them at an information disadvantage.
As a very rough rule of thumb, if you're at a 9 player table and 3 fold ahead of you (leaving 6 players), you should gauge if you have a hand in the (1 / <number of players remaining> * 1.5) percentile. If you do, you should raise 3x. If you don't, you should fold. If somebody raised or bet ahead of you, see next point.
>>13320421Bluffing does not make poker an inexact science, because you can quantify a players probability to bluff.
Lets say you have a player, crazy george, who plays 1/3rds of hands and always raises every street. Crazy george's average hand will be in the 17th percentile (you can get more precise results knowing exactly what kind of hands crazy george plays, but this is a good approximation). Every time you have a hand below the 17th percentile, fold against crazy george. Every time you're above, call. Crazy george will be statistically BTFO, because you're playing a stronger hand than him 75% of the time, and he won't make up the difference on blinds because of how much money he is throwing into raises.
This is a simple example and logic, but you can use the same principal for more complex analysis One can even use "tells" and notice that crazy George scratches his head with a good hand 75% of the time and weight tat.
This is an exploitative strategy, and it gets more complex if people catch on and start exploiting your OWN predictability, learn about GTO poker too to hedge.
