6-max Concepts Extended Video (Part 5: Question Review)
Posted by Sean Lefort
Video Player is loading.
This is a modal window.
The media could not be loaded, either because the server or network failed or because the format is not supported.
Resume Video
Start from Beginning
Watch Video
10
Loading 13 Comments...
Thanks for making this video to clarify. I enjoyed it.
Regarding my question, I think the biggest discrepancy came at what range of hands you arrive the river with. In your case, in which you laid out your river range, I agree with the river check raise as A4o would be one of the worst hands you can have.
So in order for you balance this CR bluff action, you will have to move some of your value hands that you would've bet into this CR range. Then, which value hands would you be choosing and why?
Thanks!
I should also mention that I think in general, players tend not to CR this spot often enough and thus regs in villain's shoes often bet too thinly with such a narrow/capped/defined range for value. Thus, I think it can often be an explo spot where we can get more value by going for CRs with more of our value hands (stretching to QX for example) which also lets us turn even more of our bluff-catchers into bluffs. It's basically a spot where we can really own his river bets and manipulate them however we choose given that we have the strong range advantage.
Had a question about the EV calc for your jam.
Is your equation:
EVjam= (25.5)*x+(1-x)[(201*32)+(-92.5*.68)]
the same as this one:
EVjam=(pot)*x+(1-x)[(Total pot when called-amount we risk*32)+(-amount we risk*68)]
The EV jam equation is:
EV = X% (+25.5) + (1-X)% * ( 201* 0.32 - 92.5)
(You added the .68 which is incorrect because we risk 92.5bb 100% of the time we jam, not 68% of the time we jam.)
So as for the meaning of the equation:
EVjam = % of the time he folds (+pot) + (% of the time he doesn't fold) * [(final pot)*(equity) - (what we risk) ]
just posted detailed question about BB defends here - http://www.runitonce.com/nlhe/lefort8/
maybe for future videos you can helps us play such a weak range OOP postflop in the BBvBUT:)
Given the fact that our range is quite narrow and strong to begin with, I don't foresee getting 4bet as a problem that might have us being exploited. I think the overall adjustment is to thin out our 5betting range (it's now either very strong hands or a few 5bet bluffs with card removal effects), and add the hands no longer strong enough to 5bet into our 4bet flat range along as a few hands that are now more appealing to flat given the deeper SPR and their strong playability. Overall, our VPIP vs. 4bets shouldn't decrease. We just happen to realize our equities in a different manner.
It's possible that because of these adjustments, our overall defense range (our 3bet range) should be altered a bit to reflect that. I'm not convinced that it should be a very drastic change however, given that we're only going to face 4bets a small % of the time. I think substituting a couple of the smallest PPs with hands with nicer playability could be a valid adjustment.
Some of your explanations make a lot of sense but some others dont convince me at all, mainly the BTN/BB spots in ante games. Here is why, in all your vids you advocate to have a GTO approach as much as possible but for that spot you disregard it completely and use an exploitive approach instead to state that minopen the BTN is still the best play in ante games. Your main point seems to be that people will make more mistakes playing wider ranges postflop. That is true, but keep in mind it works both ways, most regs on the BTN will make a lot more mistakes too with their 60-95% BTN min open vs a BB who just call tons and tons forcing them to play lots of small spots with crappy hands.
This trend of 2x BTN super wide (also I should point out that in your vids you use a 45-50% BTN range but most regs who 2x BTN do open a lot wider than that) and defend BB super wide is still kind of new so yes lots of regs are out of their comfort zone having to play weak hands oop but the same is true that lots of regs are not very used to play lots of 4bb pots on the BTN with very weak hands.
In any case as time goes on and people get more and more used to play those spots your argument will become completely irrelevant. The fact that there are more decisions to be made when BTN 2x first in certainly does not imply that a 2x strategy is best (by the way if I follow your logic then the best play would be to minopen from any position then).
So while 2x BTN with no antes may, or may not be, the best raise sizing I am convinced there is no way that with 20% antes 2x BTN can possibly be correct. You just allow way too many hands to profitably VPIP when you get them over 4.5 to 1 direct odds.
"Here is why, in all your vids you advocate to have a GTO approach as much as possible but for that spot you disregard it completely and use an exploitive approach instead to state that minopen the BTN is still the best play in ante games"
I wouldn't say it's an exploitative approach. When we MR, the BBs GTO response is to defend much wider than when we 3x. You could definitely say that my argument implies that there is more potential exploitative value offered by the BB because I'm expecting him to make more mistakes defending with a wider and weaker range, this is true. And yes, this isn't a very GTO-ish thing to say but unfortunately, GTO concepts are not always going to be our best bet for deciding what our best strategy may be.
My opinion is that the more complex I can make a game, the more mistakes I expect my opponent to make. Essentially, the more opportunity I have to outplay my opponent... or have him make mistakes against my strategy of not being able to be outplayed (explotied). When I raise smaller, I force my opponent to continue with a wider range. This makes the game more complex.
"(by the way if I follow your logic then the best play would be to minopen from any position then)."
This isn't necessarily true because the situation is much different opening UTG than opening the BTN. We're guaranteed position from the BTN and thus our hands have more value when we see flops. From UTG, we often won't have position and the hand ending pre-flop is far more appealing. Again, these are qualitative observations and it's very difficult to translate these values to actual quantities and solve for the best strategy. Some players (some very good ones, even) at higher stakes actually do MR-open from all positions, so as an option, it's at least in the realm of being valid.
"So while 2x BTN with no antes may, or may not be, the best raise sizing I am convinced there is no way that with 20% antes 2x BTN can possibly be correct. You just allow way too many hands to profitably VPIP when you get them over 4.5 to 1 direct odds."
It's pretty fair for you to say that I haven't convinced you because my justifications are a little fluffy and lacking substance. Unfortunately, it's the best I can do for this particular problem. As I said earlier, it's not a situation where GTO concepts can really help us much and we're left with qualitative speculation to decide what we think is best.
However, note that I don't feel as though your argument is all that strong either. (Expectedly so, given that neither of us have much in the way of quantifiable justification.) I don't think that allowing "too many hands to profitably VPIP" is necessarily a mistake. If you got a chance to watch the All-Star Showdown on Stars involving 8 of the best HUNL players in the world (including RiO's finest, Phil himself), you likely would have noticed that almost all of them employed a strategy of 100% BTN MR and ~near 100% BB defense vs. 100% BTN MR. It's clear that in this scenario, allowing villains to profitably VPIP roughly their entire range from the BB was not an overwelming concern.
Do you plan on doing any content on how to construct a balanced/optimal limping range in SB vs BB in 6max?
*There has been a lot of talk/discussions about these ranges
*Several highly respected players use them, and clearly they're sound in theory.
However, so far I have failed to come across anything in-depth regarding how to construct this range consisting of Limp/Call, Limp/Raise, Limp/Raise/Raise, Limp/Raise/Fold (give or take). I understand the concept of balance/ratios, but cannot really say I've got a grasp on how we'd divide our range into the three main categories: limp/call, limp/raise, limp/fold
hi, the video doesn't work :(
Hey Sean,
nice video Series. You were always talking about a minimum defense strategy. I guess this strategy means if Villain opens the button for example and we are using the minimum defense strategy, that we defend the exact amount were he Is not auto profitting werent it?
But in this case couldnt he easily only bet the flop if he has a made Hand? He Needs 0% Equity or is this not correct?
Be the first to add a comment
You must upgrade your account to leave a comment.