A Deeper Look Into Blockers
Posted by Felipe Boianovsky
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 48 Comments...
Hi Felipe,
I like the idea of this video but I think if you are going to tackle this subject you need to crunch some numbers to show how much of a difference the blockers makes. Its a good starting point to highlight that his bluff catch with JJ, for example, is not a good bluff catch because he holds blockers to your bluffs but it would be SO much better if you showed, for example, when he had JJ with Jd you have X amount of bluffs and when he holds JJ no diamond you have Y combos of bluffs and when he was AT no diamond you have Z combos of bluffs. It is a basic over view to point out the types of hands you should call/bluff with but it is much more useful to show some numbers. I mean if him having JJd halves your bluff combos that is huge and you basically can't bluff catch with it. However, if it reduces your bluff combos by only 5% then its not that big of a deal and you have a lot more room to make exploitative plays if your opponents are over bluffing. At the end of this video I understand the concepts of blockers and how they can be utilised in betting, checking and calling but I don't know exactly how much of a difference they really make.
Thanks for the vid though! Hope this comes across in the constructive manner that was intended!
Im not sure if you know Phil but James Hudson did a video a while ago called Utilizing Blockers in NL that really breaks it down into numbers, so if you want to see how big an effect blockers have mathematically check that out (its from Jan 2013, I think).
Felipe - I really enjoyed this short video and how you presented it. Blockers is something I was always aware had a big impact in PLO (even though I rarely play it) but until recently didn't realize how much impact they can have in NL. I think you showed a way of thinking about them that we can use in game at the tables. Thanks.
BTW - I think all your videos are +++EV but especially your theory / power point videos. Keep up the hard work.
Excellent! I had not watched that video so I will do that now, thanks arizonabay.
Very good video as always Felipe! These video's definitely help me the most, just remembering to always use logic when deciding on a play instead of 'feel' or whatever is a lot of help to me. Thanks.
@Phil I think on the first hand his call down is not quite as bad on the 8 river since as Felipe mentioned villain now blocks J9 from our value which is more relevant than the 5/6 Jxdd combo's we'd be bluffing with. I was interested in numbers as well so I punched in some potential river calls in odds oracle as best I could, giving Felipe QJ+ for value and missed gutshots/flushdraws for bluffs.
Q9cc: 47.6%
ATcc: 43.2%
68cc: 42.5%
JcJd: 37.3%
So it looks like JJ might still be a call anyway, but cool to see 86cc would be a better bluff catcher in this spot (i know regs prob dont get there with it but w/e).
Thanks very much for running those numbers, very interesting!
Hey Phil,
Thanks for your input. I'll try to add a little more math to my future concept videos. But since I haven't, a tip that I give to you is to do that on your own. It's one of the main way I study poker. I take a situation that I'm not sure about, and I count combos, writing down in a note pad. This is a really important practice, because counting combos while in a hand is a very difficult thing to do, because it takes time, and the more you practice it off-game, the quicker you can do it in-game.
So to use the first hand as an example, when he holds JdJx:
My bluffing range:
KJ - 16 combos become 8 combos
Jx flush draws (AJs-J2s) - 6 combos (cuz i counted KJs already, J9s is a straight, I don't bet J7 on the turn, and probably check J8 on the river [even though I said I might not in the video]) becomes 0 combos.
Other flush draws - Around 16 combos, stays the same.
So my bluffing combos goes down from 38 (if he has Q9ss) to 24 (when he has JdJx). And then you do my value range, and you do the same with Q9 or AT and other things like that, and see the diference.
Hova , thanks for the numbers! The only thing that is not quite right is that I probably don't bluff every gutter on the turn being 4 ways on that spot. I'm probably not going to lead AJo on the turn. So my bluffing range on the turn is actually just OESD and flush draws.
Felipe offers villain 42 to win 108 (42+66) = 0.38889 or 39% so we need hands with roughly 39% or above.
I also gave Felipe KQ KJ QJ and some FDs (Ad7d Ad5d could be played passively)
But for reasonable ranges i have villain folding JJ - it has 37% in your estimates below the required 39% above.
I do note 8c6c does get 42% so very interesting indeed.
Daz, your math on the pot odds is wrong actually. It's 48 / (108+48) = 0,28. One easy way to think about it is remembering that if we bet POT, villain needs do win 33% to be b.e.. So if we bet less than pot, it's less than 33%, and if we over bet, it's more than 33%.
Daz :
to calculate quickly and avoid these mistakes ingame, I use this table :
GTO simplified (OTR)
So here, 42 into 66 is a bit less than 2/3 P -> pot odds offered = a bit under 29 % => 28%
HTH
Wow messed up that calculation completely, thank you for the correction guys
Hey Felipe,
You mentioned, "One easy way to think about it is remembering that if we bet POT, villain needs do win 33% to be b.e.. So if we bet less than pot, it's less than 33%, and if we over bet, it's more than 33%."
I always thought if we size our bet 1/2 pot, our BE% was 33%, 2/3 pot was 40%, and POT was 50%. Am I getting something mixed up here? If so, what is the difference? Thanks.
Interesting video with some really good, practical examples shown. Well done.
I do disagree with checking the river in the T8 hand, though. While your analysis of the blocker situation is correct, he still has showdown value an awful lot here, and this is one of the few hands in our range that we can value bet somewhat confidently. I'd rather check / call with QT / JT type hands, perhaps even 78. It's a minor nitpick though, because I don't think there is a significant EV difference either way. I'd just rather be betting close to the top of my range when he has a lot of showdown value and the most obvious draws missed.
'I'd rather check / call with QT / JT type hands, perhaps even 78'
These hands probably aren't in our range on the river though seeing as we chose to donkbet the flop.
Hey aislephive,
Tom Whealan said it. I'm probably check-calling those hands on the flop (although QTo might just be good enough to be in my leading range).
Just remember to not be stuck with "top of my range" and "bottom of my range" in absolute terms, because like you can see in the Ole vs Igor youtube hand, KhJx is much better for calling then ATss for example (which is more at the top of his range then KJ).
So if you think betting or checking has a pretty similar EV with the T8, for card removal reasons and range constructing - protecting my checking range, not having to many value hands in my betting range and be imbalanced, etc - it's probably going to be better to check-call with it.
Tom - QT / JT are reasonable donking hands in a balanced range that includes a lot of weak semi bluffs. I'm not sure why you would think otherwise.
To be precise, they are reasonable ranges in this spot. Ranges are widest here BB defend versus BTN minraise
like arizonabay said :
"I think all your videos are +++EV but especially your theory / power point videos."
yeah, these are the videos from which I learned the most : a theory concept demonstrated in practical situations.
Thanks! Btw, how do you mention someone's name like that ?
I just selected the name with the mouse then copy / pasted it :-)
I'm on windows, but I guess it's the same on other OS.
KT hand - I think another reason to fold is that Villian expects you to check back a bunch of Ahighs, so it's less appealing for him to bluff that river.
Hey Chael,
Yeah, but my range doesn't have as many Aces as it might look like, because I'm gonna fold a lot of A highs on the turn. The reason for that is that vs his SB pre-flop flatting range, I don't beat much with a hand like AT for example. The only things he MIGHT flat that I beat on the turn are QJs, QTs, T9s, TJs, 89s... and that's pretty much it, and a lot of players don't flat those in the SB.
So because I fold most of my A highs on the turn, this river isn't as scary for him as it might seem. Most of my range is still going to be middling PPs here (88-QQ).
But yeah, I don't expect him to be bluffing that often, given he doesn't even have too many non-showdown value hands... but since my range looks very weak on this river, it more plausible that he thin value bet with hands like KQ/KJ.
excellent video, as always. I would check-call river with T8 by the reasons you said and we can represent by checking the river some showdown value by a missed draw, like 97o.
all the action on the hand kurganov vs schemion
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E5CreDR9KcU
cheers from brazil
Thanks man, cheers :)
awesome video with great info. short and sweet too
Thank you!
Nice video Felipe.
Id like to know why you are not playing higher than 200nl having a good understanding of these concepts.
Hey man!
That's a good question, I ask myself the same thing everyday, lol! Probably mental game issues, and laziness / not grinding enough...
Well, keep this way ! You are doing well and your videos are very interesting.
Good luck.
Thank you!!
You should definitely be able to beat 500NL. The games aren't super tough, and you know what you're doing.
Felipe said :
So to use the first hand as an example, when he holds JdJx:My bluffing range:
KJ - 16 combos become 8 combos
Jx flush draws (AJs-J2s) - 6 combos (cuz i counted KJs already, J9s is a
straight, I don't bet J7 on the turn, and probably check J8 on the river
[even though I said I might not in the video]) becomes 0 combos.
Other flush draws - Around 16 combos, stays the same.
So my bluffing combos goes down from 38 (if he has Q9ss) to 24 (when he
has JdJx). And then you do my value range, and you do the same with Q9
or AT and other things like that, and see the diference.
So how / why does it make it bad to bluff catch with JdJx ?
a) it reduces the number of possible bluffs, hence the corresponding number of possible value combos; Villain thus bluff catches against a stronger range
or
b) Hero doesn't know Villain's holding so doesn't take into account the blocker effects and uses all possible bluffs coupled with the corresponding ratio of value hands. He thus is unbalanced and heavily weighted towards value and Villain should always fold
Both
However, and assuming we play against a GTO / generally balanced opponent :
a) implies that we should calculate the minimum equity against the stronger range and adjust our bluff catching range
b) seems more relevant because, indifference calculations dictate that Villain *always* fold if Hero is just slightly unbalanced towards value; this would make an easier decision at the tables.
if we are facing a river bet against a "GTO player" (at least someone trying to make us indifferent to calling or folding, and at least in a perfectly polarized vs bluffcatcher situation), then
- whenever we have a blocker to the bluffing combos (like in the JdJx first hand), we know that the bettor is unknowingly unbalanced towards value hands, and we have an easy fold, because we cannot be indifferent to calling or folding : calling has a negative expectation instead of the constructed zero EV.
- whenever we have a blocker to the value combos, we know that the bettor is unknowingly unbalanced towards bluffing hands, and we have a mandatory call, because our expectation is always positive ! In this case, the bettor still has a positive expectation, but lower than the constructed 1 pot EV.
Sounds like a huge implication of blocker usage.
Great video. I will definitely try to at least start recognising spots where I have a good bluff catching hand and value blockers...but will be careful to use this as a tie breaker and not a justification for a bad call/bluff. I've definitely overvalued blockers a few times in my life:)
The T8 hand is rather dubious. Villain can be semi-bluff raising flop or turn, so he can definitely have mostly weak showdown here. Without more info on villain, i'm inclined to just bet the river for value. Would any semi-bluffs you lead here bluff the river here too? Ranges are so wide in this spot (BTN minraise and BB defend to minraise) i'm hesistant to think blockers would be as effective here.
I don't think we can assume that most players will be mostly raise bluffing and not floating enough. That's very player dependent. On average I think it's pretty close between seeing people raising or flatting the flop with Q9, 79, or Q5dd, for example. I think he can still have quite a few missed flush draws, and some 9x hands as well.
I'm definitely not sure on this spot though, and maybe betting might have a higher EV than checking. But the important thing to get from this, is that IF both decisions are close in EV, it's better for our ranges and overall strategy to check-call with this combo, rather than a hand like Jd9 (just for argument sake, not saying they are the same thing), which blocks a lot of possible missed draws in villain's range, and don't block the bluff catchers.
So to understand the concept, independently of what's best in this particular scenario, just pretending the EV of checking and betting are very close:
Jd9 is a much better bet then check on the river, because it doesn't block bluff catchers, and it blocks possible air in villain's range, and T8 is a better check, because blocks a lot of bluff catchers, but doesn't block any possible air.
I have subscribed at RIO few days ago , and i didn't expected to watch videos of such qualities.
Thank you, it was very interessing
Got a lot out of this one (and your other 'powerpoint/concept video's), so thanks and keep the good stuff coming!
hand 1: KQs v JJ
if MP flats {22+,AJs+,KJs+,QJs+,JTs,T9s,98s,AQo+} pre, then on a turn of Td 7d Qd 5h, his range contains 118 combinations. when BB bets ~3/4 pot, MP must defend ~60pct of his range; 0.6*118 = 71 hands, which is approximately {QQ-TT,77,55,AJs+,KJs+,QJs,JTs,T9s,98s,AQo+} [70 combinations]. on the 8s river, that becomes 69 combinations, and if BB bets ~2/3 pot, MPs MDF is again about 60pct. 0.6*70 = 42 hands. if MP folds all his air [ie, {AK, AJs, KJs, 98s}], his remaining combinations of {QQ-TT,77,55,AQs,KQs,QJs,JTs,T9s,AQo} make exactly 42 hands.
of course, MP will probably be betting his sets/TPTK a fair percentage of the time on the four-way flop, but still -- from this standpoint, the JJ river call isnt exactly as terrible as made out to be.
Hey,
Interesting, thanks for doing the math! When looking more deeply, he might have to call as you said. But I'm not sure he is gonna get to the river with that much air, because he is going to bet a lot of those draws on the flop being the third to act.
But either way, the point is that JJ should come after a hand like AT in the rankings, even thought it has better absolute strength, because of blockers. So if he had to defend 42 hands, and he were to have 50 bluff catcher, JJ would probably be the bottom 6 combos of bluff catching hands, being a fold, because it's the worse one for card removal reasons. That's the point of the video.
so first hand of video he has the jj and you have qk there and you value bet. So if we have Q9 we should be hero calling here? Or say the river is k of diamonds and we got jj. Is this even a good spot to raise over your bet? Since we have a blocker to a straight and flush? Or is that just getting to carried away on such a wet board? Like if have a j with the ace of diamonds I would put in a raise o the river with river was like 9 of diamonds. But say the opponent your up against you dont really have reads. You don't know if they are fish or not would you still try the bluff?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2WB3McjW1M8 I had a question at 23 min of the video dwan checks back a flush draw on 2TT board with 2 spades he had q 9 of spades. Was that due to the fact he 10x it pre and he has no nut outs? And in another hand at 26 min of video he checks back qq on a 2jj board with 2 hearts. He has no heart in his hand shouldn't he bet the flop to get value from flush draws and pairs and maybe even someone floating with ace of hearts flush draw? I don't get his check backs.
I think it's a excelent staff for me,and I have already set up a blocker concept in my game.Thank you Felipe
Great video. I feel like this is a really simple idea yet it is very powerfully and underutilized. I cannot wait to apply this to my game.
Honestly, I think this video helped me realize that I'm thinking about blockers to much. I dunno, maybe I'm wrong. But I'm still in my first year and I'm always trying to think about blockers. But after watching this it seems they only really come up in some of the tougher spots.
Sure, they're still a factor in many hands, but not as many as I was thinking.
I just finished the video but I'm restarting it. It's really good. Thanks!
Hey! Yeah, overthinking them can definitely happen. One tip I have is that it is much more important on the river, where equities are static, than on all the other streets, where equities are dinamic, and there are many other things to take into consideration when, for example, calling a bet with a "bluffcatcher".
Another tip I have is just be careful with watching too many old stuff. This video is 6 years old now, and a lot has changed in the game during this time. There are some old videos that are kind of "timeless" but I would in general focus on watching things that are at least 2 years fresh. GL!
Yeah I noticed a lot of videos in the MTT learning path are a few years old. I assume that a lot of it is evergreen but I'm sure parts aren't. I try to be diligent on things like that though.
And that's a good point about the river. It's probably a lot easier to see what's happened by the river then think about what's what.
Thanks again!
Be the first to add a comment
You must upgrade your account to leave a comment.