DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
missionGTO
HTML https://missiongto.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Poker
*****************************************************
#Post#: 4--------------------------------------------------
Hand Review
By: xxHaZ Date: May 25, 2014, 4:28 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Bovada hand:
90bb BU opens, i 3b Ad Ah, he calls. BU is a fish.
flop is Tc Tx 4c. bet/call.
turn is 4x. bet/call.
river is Jc. check/call.
first adjustment should be check/calling flop. vs competent
players i balance my flop chk/call range, especially with AcAx.
however, vs fish and using nick's prior logic of "dealing with
the Tx later" i bet to barrel off against dominated hands. after
some discussion we agreed this is incorrect and i should be
checking AA here a bunch (his logic is "outdated").
to fix any bias that led to a river call (standard thought
process that seems to be overridden either by "fish" or "the
quality of hands shown down on bovada"):
1) our perceived range is protected so he won't try and test our
range (or push us off our hand with a bluff).
2) late street aggression is imbalanced towards value and we
don't have enough domination against a value range
3) it is hard for him to ever be bluffing on this run-out
"no one ever made a living by check/calling."
just to emphasis this point, let's see how crushed we are here:
Giving fish a range of 12.2% on BU vs 3b :
TT-77,AQo-ATo,KQo-KJo,QJo,AQs-A8s,KQs-K8s,QJs-Q9s,JTs-J9s,T9s,98
s,87s
we are betting approximately 3/5 down, so he should be defending
62.5% / street (+ a little extra so bluffs don't free roll -
let's just round it up to 63)
# edit: the following i forgot to remove AA which is pretty
significant, so ignore or rework later. the gist is AA cannot be
bet for value versus a range that destroys us to the river, and
AA cannot be called versus a balanced range. in practice ranges
on the river are no where near balanced (majority value) so this
is a very easy muck.
= 146 combos on Th Tc 4c, so desired defend # is 93.
-> TT (1), ATo (6), ATs (2), KTs (2), QTs (2), JTs (2), T9s (2),
99 (6), 88 (6), 77 (6), AQs (3), AJs (3), AQo (12), AQcc, AJcc,
A9cc, A8cc, KQcc, KJcc, K9cc, K8cc, QJcc, Q9cc, J9cc, 98cc, 87cc
[66 combos], AJo (12), A9hh, KQhh, KJhh, QJhh, Q9hh, J9hh, KcQx
(3), KxQc (3), KcJx (3) = 93
= 93 combos on Th Tc 4c 4d, so desired defend # is 59
-> TT (1), ATo (6), ATs (2), KTs (2), QTs (2), JTs (2), T9s (2),
99 (6), 88 (6), 77 (6), AQs (3), AQo (12) [50], AQcc, AJcc,
A9cc, A8cc, KQcc, KJcc, K9cc, K8cc, QJcc = 59
= 56 combos on Th Tc 4c 4d Jc, so desired defend # is 35.
Just for reference, let's see in what bad shape we're in after a
bet:
-> TT (1), ATo (6), ATs (2), KTs (2), QTs (2), JTs (2), T9s (2),
AQcc, A9cc, A8cc, KQcc, K9cc, K8cc [23], 99 (6), 88 (6) = 35
= AA has 39% equity (we need at least 50% equity versus a
calling range to warrant a bet)
Versus a balanced range that is bet for 3/5 (73% value:27%
bluff):
> TT (1), ATo (6), ATs (2), KTs (2), QTs (2), JTs (2), T9s (2)
AQcc, A9cc, A8cc, KQcc, K9cc, K8cc = 23 combos (73%)
-> AcQx (3), AxQc (3), AQs (3) = 9 bluff combos (27%)
= AA has 21% equity (we need at least 27% equity versus a
betting range to warrant a call)
so check calling is actually worse here.
#Post#: 14--------------------------------------------------
Re: Hand Review
By: A Date: May 27, 2014, 7:12 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Fuck this "perceived range" shit. I hate that fucking term.
It applies to like 10% of situations and doesn't even give you
an advantage. I would much rather use my real range.
If you know how your Villain is thinking, then that's great, but
"perceived range" isn't something that seems legitimate at all.
It was more in vogue when people played terrible.
There's also a lot more going on than "perceived range". In the
AKQ game, for example, I "perceive" your range perfectly, but in
order to exploit you, I need to know how you're going to manage
it.
#Post#: 25--------------------------------------------------
Re: Hand Review
By: xxHaZ Date: May 28, 2014, 5:31 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=A link=topic=3.msg14#msg14 date=1401235930]
Fuck this "perceived range" shit. I hate that fucking term.
It applies to like 10% of situations and doesn't even give you
an advantage. I would much rather use my real range.
If you know how your Villain is thinking, then that's great, but
"perceived range" isn't something that seems legitimate at all.
It was more in vogue when people played terrible.
There's also a lot more going on than "perceived range". In the
AKQ game, for example, I "perceive" your range perfectly, but in
order to exploit you, I need to know how you're going to manage
it.
[/quote]
Ya you're right. I base too many of my decisions on perceived
ranges when the best option is to manage your real range -
"perceived range" brings in too many unwanted and ill defined
variables and will almost always result in an unnecessary
self-level war. From my understanding the simplest solution is
what you're advising + playing a discrete strategy.
#Post#: 26--------------------------------------------------
Re: Hand Review
By: xxHaZ Date: May 28, 2014, 5:32 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Feel free to post hands here too as summer progresses as I'll
learn to give more valuable responses.
#Post#: 29--------------------------------------------------
Re: Hand Review
By: A Date: May 28, 2014, 8:00 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Eh, maybe you're way better at it than I am or something. I've
always just found it to be a pretty useless concept.
Personally, I don't know what people are thinking most of the
time that I'm playing, nor do I much care.
Tyler Forrester, who has made like 1.5M at midstakes, pretty
much says the same thing.
#Post#: 42--------------------------------------------------
Re: Hand Review
By: A Date: May 29, 2014, 11:54 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Feel free to post hands here too as summer progresses as I'll
learn to give more valuable responses.
Actually, once you understand the [0,1] game and some of the
models that we're using (I don't understand them all yet but I
will), then I'd actually be interested in posting some hands for
you to work on. That sounds mildly insulting, but I actually
find that I learn better by looking at other people's hands
because I have more emotional distance from them and far less
bias.
#Post#: 75--------------------------------------------------
Re: Hand Review
By: xxHaZ Date: June 5, 2014, 3:53 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Bovada hand:
Min-open Button with Qx Th. SB and BB call.
Flop is Qh 4x Ah.
Better played as a check or a bet?
I think it's better treating this hand as a multi-street bluff
when it's likely too weak to call with against a multi-way bet
on most turns. We also have good backdoor equity.
#Post#: 77--------------------------------------------------
Re: Hand Review
By: A Date: June 5, 2014, 4:19 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Seems horrid. Could be convinced to the contrary, though.
EDIT: Not horrid, seems ambitious.
#Post#: 78--------------------------------------------------
Re: Hand Review
By: A Date: June 5, 2014, 6:18 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
I think it's better treating this hand as a multi-street bluff
when it's likely too weak to call with against a multi-way bet
on most turns. We also have good backdoor equity.
Notice that people can't go too crazy with bluffs here, because
if the BB has a good hand and checks it to you on the flop, this
will nullify the SB over-bluffing on the turn. The BB, on the
other hand, should be the most likely to stab, and should
probably do it for large sizings if they choose to, since you'll
be fairly condensed on a variety of turn cards, but so will the
BB, and it's not like they can really get you off of much with
the way board can run out. You should have some flush-draw
check backs on flop, and be willing to call pretty big bets with
Ax on the turn and the river here. I really don't see why you
want to bluff by betting the flop. If you decide something like
"alright, I'm gonna play this like I would with QQ and AQ", then
you get to have about 6-8 bluffs for an all-in river bet with
those hands, depending on how you size the flop and turn. Your
strong flush-draws should probably make up the majority of
those. I can see your hand being good to kind of click-and-pray
with I guess, but I don't think it's that weak. Could be,
though, you should have a pretty wide value range on the flop,
so I could see a wider bluffing range than I thought.
Personally, I would check back to see a turn card and then
possibly raise a bet, depending on the card.
You should be checking back Ax here a lot, so I don't think
you're un-protected against a turn bet.
#Post#: 94--------------------------------------------------
Re: Hand Review
By: xxHaZ Date: June 10, 2014, 4:23 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
The following hands are anonymous on Bovada:
versus 26/18 over 45 hands. BU opens to 3 BB, I 3 bet Ah Kh to 9
BB (90bb stack in BB). BU calls. Flop is Kc Ac Jh ($190 in
middle). I c-bet $130, and he raises to $330.
My initial thought is: I don't think we can fold, and I also
don't think we should jam:
A jam plays best against value-owns (all two pair below AKs)
which is time sensitive to stacking-off (which we might lose
value from on later streets). We are protected by AKs so a
competent opponent should not make this polarization error -
however given the anonymity and player pool on Bovada I wouldn't
be half shocked to see it. Against lower two pair we are nutted,
against strong combo draw we have ~50% equity and against QTs we
have 20% equity.
Against the strongest part of a raising range we have 30% equity
(4 combos of QTs, and 1 combo of QcJc / JcTc) on the flop.
Against a fish player who will be prone to making a polarization
error I think it's an easy jam, however my initial thought is
versus a 26/18 I think I should give him the benefit of the
doubt and just call.
This accomplishes two things: first, if he is making a value own
then he'll still stack off on close to 2/3 turns that blanks.
Second, his strong combo draw equity is cut in half on blank
turns (again, 2/3 of the time).
However, because the equity of QsTs goes up 10% in equity on
blank turns the strong part of his range (4 combos of QTs, and 1
combo of QcJc / JcTc) balances out and stays the same. It's
important to also note that he has the liberty of checking turns
versus a flop call and check turn- so if we are to just call
flop we must make an obligatory shove on blank turns so our hand
plays best against draw.
If we give him the benefit of the doubt (he makes 0 polarization
error on the flop), then 2/3 of the time we will run into QTs
and 1/3 of the time we will fold out his best combo draw. In
itself this does not seem profitable enough to make the flop
call (20bb) so let's look at our implieds.
2/3 [(200)(.09) - 73.5] + 1/3 (85) = -36.63 + 28 = -8.6bb. So
we are calling flop to overall lose -8.6bb on the turn. -8.6bb
<20 bb. This is a -EV plan. Against an opponent who is not
making a polarization error it is then best to just fold flop.
(Without any supporting math) I think against an opponent who is
making a polarization error then it is best to just jam flop to
maximize value vs dominated time sensitive holdings and play
your full equity against draw and QTs.
I'm a bit conflicted on how to respond here on Bovada. The
player pool is very capable of making a polarization error and
because we don't sever enough of his range equity substantially
enough on a flop call/turn jam (he only has two strong combo
draws, 4 combos of QTs, and ~14 combos of potential two pair) I
think a jam could be a good standard unless I have significant
sample size and player read - upon which point we've just proved
if he's not making polarization errors it's correct to fold
flop.
*****************************************************
DIR Next Page