6-max Concepts (Part 2: SB vs. Steals)
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 34 Comments...
so when the blinds face a MR they need to defend a combined 43% and the SB defends 16% that means the BB should defend at least ~27%?
so the SB has ~39% of the combined blinds defense responsibility? (16%/43%=39%)
so if we are defending in the SB v a 3bb open and the MDF=33 the SB should defend 33*.39=12.8%? and the BB at least ~20%?
i know you are going to cover BBvBUT but i was wondering if the ratio i used above made sense for constructing SB defense ranges against different bet sizes? and i am following the math correctly?
You'll see in the BB Defense video that yes, we do defend AT LEAST 27%. However, it's a pretty irrelevant number given that we actually end up defending a TON more than that, and thus the SB (in our combined blind defense strategy) ends up with far less than 39% of the responsibility.
You'll also see in the BB Defense video that we have much better tools in our arsenal for getting a good idea for how wide we can/should defend against steals. Stay tuned. :)
Ya as we talked about earlier the MDF thing is kind of irrelevant preflop as the defender. What matters imo is the odds your getting and your equity vs the raisers range. The defense frequencies are however relevant to the one raising though as it points the way to spotting spots for extra lite steals. Farther down the road in the hand though the minimum defense frequency becomes much more relevant. Its well known that going call, call, fold OTR too often is very exploitable so building later street ranges that can survive sufficient amount of heat is important.
i have been 3B what i think of as polarized range in SBvBUT of wide value(KQ+AJ+TT+) and some bluffs(Axs,SCs) and lately i think i have been folding to too many 4Bs so this video come at a good time for me:)
Seems contradictory to me you to say that you are calling down almost every runout and finally fold on a not very dynamic river in my opinion. The other point is that i am very sure that almost every regular valuebets that river even as weak as KQo as they ( and I do ) perceive the river as a brick as i never have a 5 on my Co vs Sb flat calling range. As you thing you would have a 5 sometimes in that situation, you think a hand like 65s is a Ev+ preflop call in that spot?. Thanks in advance.
@alex & Sean Lefort, regarding the KJhh hand-
I think that one of the main reasons Sean changed his mind after that river hit from saying "I'll be not folding on most runouts" is because KJhh here is at the top of Sean's range on the flop, on a board that heavily favors his opponent (as he said). By the time the turn and river hit, not only is Sean not nearly as close to the top of his range, but the board has shifted heavily in the favor of his range and away from his opponent's.
So, if Sean is looking at this spot from a GT perspective, which we know he likes to :), he is no longer worried about having his range exploited by bluffs, now that the board is much different.
I like the fold, Sean, but I don't agree with some of the reads. That said, I'm out of touch with the way regulars are playing these days. I'd have expected him to expect two calls from 99/88, so I still think he has at least some incentive to bluff (but much less than on a T+ river).
The main reason I fold though, is that while his bluff frequency is reduced, my instinct would be to disagree with the assumption about his value range. When he gets to the river this way with AK and AA (which he almost always will) and even KQ, I would expect most opponents to value jam. Not that I necessarily agree it's the right play, but I think most would consider it the best of three semi-unattractive options.
Really liked your thoughts/play with AA from the sb v UTG raise, btw.
I do think my fold was good but my justifications were lacking. On second look, I agree with pretty much everything Phil said. Also, what we haven't talked much about is villain's potential bluff candidates and what that range looks like. I don't expect him to double barrel many dry bluff hands like AQo or JTss on that turn/board, nor do I expect him to go for value/protection with hands worse than ours. Thus, potential bluffing candidates for the river are mostly just bricked draws and/or weak pair hands turned into bluffs. I don't foresee him getting aggro on this board texture and run-out with his entire range (ie. a lot of drier bluffs) because he feels like he's got the range advantage. Therefore, I don't expect him to have an overwelming number of river bluff combos.. and that would have us wanting to fold our bluff-catchers.
I REALLY enjoy your theory videos and your clear explanation on the math stuff is really helping people mathematically impaired like myself; however, I'd like to point out that I'm not a particularly big fan of the zoom play towards the end.
the reason is that with the nature of poker, it will inevitably turn into a regular video no matter how hard you try to incorporate today's concept because the situations just dont' come up as often in a 20 minute span.
Ideally, I'd think that if you do say, a theory based video on SB vs. BTN + BB vs. BTN for 1 hour, then the next video be you picking hands from your database to emphasize on your points. I think that way the ideas will be delivered more concisely w/out any down time. just my suggestions
regarding the actual play hands i have some thoughts:
1. on the AQxQx hhh board and we arrive the river with A4o. I feel like this is a pretty strong hand that arrives the river when the action goes button mr, you flat bb and you flat the flop. I'm not sure what your flop flatting range is but i imagine it'd be any pair esp one with a heart, any decent heart, and draw? so by the river you will have to be bet (bluffing) these mostly as a check is too dangerous for us to lose. so in order for these bluffs to meet the optimal bluffing frequency should A4o be thrown in there as part of that value range? I know we don't much value in a vacuum but for range play maybe?
2. on the KJ hand my thinking is that and you also said that you will not have AK, maybe not QK either. And on that low of a board you won't have many sets either also you are deficient in 5x. In that case isn't KJ kinda towards the top of your range? If you can't call KJ what would your calling range be on this particular run out? Also we have not much information regarding his initial 3bet range, his triple barrel value/bluff range so wouldn't this be an ideal spot to call down with the top of our range and note?
lastly I really enjoy your videos and cannot wait for the BB vs. btn one!
So you mention that you like minraising CO vs BTNS that are going to be 3bing a ton so that it makes 3bets easier to deal with. This makes sense to me. But at the same time, aren't we effectively making stack sizes deeper when we're OOP vs a tough opponent? Obviously, if we could choose to be 150bb deep or 100bb deep OOP vs a tough player, we'd choose to be 100bbs. I'm wondering if you can talk about this apparent contradiction here, and which one wins out.
Thanks,
Mike
On the same token, how would stack sizes and/or antes would influence your BTN strategy? Do we still want to minraise when getting deeper and deeper or is there a trashold when we want to start 2.5x/3x whatever bigger size? Also I see more and more people minraising the BTN 6-max on ante tables giving the BB around 4.5-5 to 1 odds, I truly think this has to be a mistake here not to open bigger. Any thoughts on those issues?
I have some questions and opinions regarding your decision to adopt a single strategy of no flatting in SB.
Consider a strategy where we 3bet an approx. range of [TT+ AQs+] and [weaker somewhat playable hands] This makes our flatting range approx. [99-22,KTs+,QTs+,JTs,T9s,98s,87s,76s,65s,AJo-ATo,KTo+,QJo]. You dislike this option because our flatting range is unbalanced. I see the flatting range as balanced but capped. It is balanced in the sense that it has good coverage on the full spectrum of boards. We have our small pairs and SCs to protect us from being too weak on low coordinated boards etc. It is capped given we have no TT+ PF. However we do have broadways that make strong hands on high boards.
The fact that we are capped is an issue but I think the disadvantages of having a capped range are less than the disadvantages of not having a flatting range. Whichever strategy we choose the fact remains we are discussing one of the lowest EV spots in NLHE. We cannot change that we are guaranteed to be OOP on every street.
Let me propose just a few things we can employ to minimize but not eliminate our opponents’ ability to exploit our capped range. We can do some or all of the following depending on opponents’ strategy against our flatting range:
-We can play a more passive sticky c/c game vs villains who try to barrel.
-We can keep in mind that even though we are capped our overall range is still much stronger than theirs and we can make lighter call downs.
-We can play TPGK type hands aggressively going for c/r on flops like T65xx with KTo. And recoup the value post flop that we missed by not increasing the pot PF with a 3bet vs their wider range.
Now in regards to the point you brought up about when we flat we present an attractive squeeze spot for the BB. This will probably be the biggest disadvantage of flatting but still we can have success. Yes it will be attractive for them to squeeze given we are capped but we still have a fairly strong PF range. We can adjust by calling wider to their squeezes (when deep) and 4bet wider at <100bb. The biggest problem I see with the ranges I propose is that the BB will never be dominated with QQ+ nor AK. However that isn’t a deal breaker. It just means that they can play 2.5% of their range as the absolute nuts PF vs our flatting range. We can also mix in flatting AA occasionally and although I agree with you that it forfeits EV we can recoup much of it postlfop by just playing one pair aggressively. The BB also has to face the BTNs wide yet uncapped range as well so we are somewhat protected from being 3bet with impunity.
You also brought up that flatting gives the BB great direct pot odds and position. This is another issue but 3betting doesn’t eliminate that either. They can cold call 3bets or 4bet with some success if we are 3betting our entire continuing range. Our range will be strongest of all 3 when it goes BTN Raise, hero calls, BB calls. We can adopt a leading game among many other strategies where BB will have to act before BTN acts with his uncapped wide range.
Another issue with I see with adopting a single strategy of 3betting all our continuing hands comes into play when we face an earlier position raise. I’m curious how you play in these spots. Lets say HJ opens, CO and BTN folds, we are in SB. What has changed? The only thing changed is that we now face a much stronger PF range by HJ than when we faced BTN open. Do you still suggest 3betting our entire continuing range? I see many more problems with that.
For one, small and mid PPs which now have more postlfop implied odds given we face a stronger range would have to be folded or 3bet. When we do face the top of his range (which we will face more often now) we will get 4bet and have to forfeit one the most profitable spots in NLHE. Also, hands like ATs for example. If we 3bet we don’t expect to get called by worse often by HJ we also wont have good playability postlfop given so much of his flatting range will dominate ours. I think hands like AT and other good broadways will be diminished to PF bluffs, and difficult postflop spots where as a flat they were +EV. You agreed that those hands do play better in a vacuum and I think the disadvantage of 3betting those hands is amplified in spots where we face opens from earlier positions.
If you agree that 3bewtting our entire continuing range from the SB vs MP & EP opens isn’t optimal than that means you will be having a mixed strategy of flatting and 3betting an even narrower range given we will continue less often vs MP and EP raises. You stated that the reason we 3bet everything is that it would be too difficult to split up 2 balanced ranges of an already narrow continuing range into flat and 3bet.
This is how I choose to form my PF ranges and I think it works better for a wider array of game conditions. Consider we have a BTN reg, we are SB and BB is a fish. With the game plan I propose we can widen our flatting ranges to keep BB in without making a drastic deviation from our game plan. With a 3bet all hands strategy we would have to now drastically deviate from our strategy to capitalize on playing a lot of pots with the fish. This is just one example but I think it keeps us more versatile for more conditions. If we are deep stacked, 300bb+, the disadvantages of 3betting our entire range are amplified. We still will be OOP with high SPR. Yes we gain initiative but I think initiative is just a psyche not an intrinsic or quantitative element. Position is. You have to act and give information before your opponent when oop. Initiative is different but that’s another subject.
Please respond with your thoughts on what I have written. I know you are highly analytic on these subjects so I expect you have answers, agreement and rebuttal to the points I’ve made.
Thanks for the great video.
You're correct that we can have a balanced, but capped, flatting range. (balance is a somewhat vague term when used this way, though) In addition, we could add some of our value 3bet hands into our flatting range at a low frequency (20%), so that it's technically possible to show up with those hands.
My intuition is that a mixed strategy would be good, however, I'm not convinced. Since we're dealing with wide (steal) ranges, we have a range imbalance in our favor once we VPIP. So taking that whole range and putting pressure on our opponents weaker range seems like a decent option.
Also consider that, (though I'm not an expert and can't vouch for it being correct) the best limit holdem players seem to all agree that you should 3bet your entire VPIP range in a 6max game from the SB, button, and (I believe) every position other than the BB.
If they're correct, that means to me that it's possible in certain spots for optimal play to involve eliminating one of your three options (raise, call, fold).
A good OOP strategy is going to look something like, bet almost 100% on flop, then check some air, 99-AA, KJ-KT, and pr+fd on turn, while betting KQ+ (excluding KK-AA), any pair+ gutter, naked fd, and a few random AQ/AJ (noting we don't frequently hold the weakish draw portion). If OOP expects us to mostly call 88-QQ on turn and mostly fold the river he should follow through exploitably often in a vacuum/first encounter when we hold Kx as combinatorically midpairs for IP are quite likely compared to KJs KQs and random pre/post slowplayed hands. In addition, many aggro OOP players will tend to bet the turn even wider on these boards to avoid difficult situations/transfer their headache to you. Then they wouldn't even need to follow through so often for any Kx+ to be a call.
When we get 3b by button and call from CO (yes I realize this isn't default play for some but alternative plays make me cringe), BU is able to pot control some hands he might spew with OOP and get to flop with way more hands that connect with a mostly low board and cbet it. I wouldn't expect many but the most loose aggressive players to bink something on K7643 too often when they 3b SB v CO.
Lastly, as we get deeper than 100bb KJ certainly isnt going to be anywhere near the top of our range on this board. However, we should be playing pretty snug preflop with nothing over $500 to play here and I think the board hasn't really shifted much to IP player's favor at all, making top pair prettaaaay good.
I do see your point about capatilizing on an imbalance in strength once we vpip by 3betting.
I don't think the LHE analogy is very applicable because in LHE we 3b the SB mostly hoping the BB will fold which is a big win strictly from getting one BB dead in the pot. In NLHE direct odds in high SPR pf spots aren't going to influence our decision making near as much as other factors.
I have a question. Another video instructor at a different site who is extremely successful at higher stakes recently released a video where he introduced the somewhat unorthodox line of limping the SB (never raising) in unopened pots and then having either a limp/raising range or a limp/folding range. As I recall he didn't really go through any math for this but he did say it was his belief that it was GTO favorable to do so.
I'd love to hear your thoughts on this and why you think opening to 3.5BB (which I noticed you doing in the videos) is better.
One question which I feel like you covered on a different video but I can't recall which one it was-Lets say an opponent is stealing such a small % overall(say 25%), that his range becomes so strong that we can't profitably reach the MDR. Is it better for us to just play a range that is optimal against his range? He will have a higher steal success, so his opens will auto profit, but he's passing on so many other times that I'm wondering if all of the times he folds pre make up for giving him immediately profitable steels the times he chooses to open.
If you don't want to take time to explain it all here, pointing me to the video would be great.
I've been through most of the preflop and 3betting videos on here and none of them seem to show how to adjust your range as a function of your opponents range. If my opponent only raises say JJ+/AK, then surely I shouldn't be 3betting 16% of my range as this will force me to be insanely behind post-flop or have to fold a high frequency to 4bets. So in the end, the primary thing that matters is how well your range does against your opponents, taking into consideration your opponents 4bet, call 3bet, and fold to 3bet ranges. If there's a video of this on here already, someone please point me to it!
Since this looks like i have to change my entire SB v Steals game plan, i would like hear every voice on both sides.. !
I hope is not too late for new feedback, specially for the good of this amazing series.
what if there is a fish in BB?do we then call everything or then we change to mixed strategy?
is there a reason we flat KQo in the multiway pot from the BB, instead of 3betting it?
These are really great vids. The smacking though.....
Be the first to add a comment
You must upgrade your account to leave a comment.