Out Now →
×

$5/$10 HUNL Session Review

Posted by

You’re watching:

$5/$10 HUNL Session Review

user avatar

Sean Lefort

Elite Pro

Current Time 0:00
Loaded: 0%
Duration -:-
Remaining Time 0:00
  • descriptions off, selected

Resume Video

Start from Beginning

Watch Video

Replay Video

10

You’re watching:

$5/$10 HUNL Session Review

user avatar

Sean Lefort

POSTED Nov 30, 2012

In his first video for Run It Once, Sean Lefort looks at a 2 tabling $5/$10 HU session that he played against a fairly LAG opponent. Sean sets the tone for future videos by opening the discussion for the theory behind his style of play.

25 Comments

Loading 25 Comments...

MorePower 12 years, 3 months ago
I think your overbet Bluffing frequency example is wrong. You calculated your perfect calling frequencies, but not his bluff fequ only based on the betsize.
For example when he bets infinity and could bluff up to 50% in this spot its obvious that his ROI on that bluff is getting way negative. You only need to call him for example 10% of the time and he is loosing. The break through Point would be 1 / infinity. And given the odds you only need to be good 50% of the time. Like i said, you calculated the call frequency, turned that around and presented that as his bluff frequency which is not true.
Sean Lefort 12 years, 3 months ago
Hey Mark. I'm not entirely sure what you're trying to say so it's possible you're still correct but as far as I can tell, the bit on optimal bluffing frequency is accurate.

If he's risking 100 to win 1, his optimal bluffing frequency is going to be close to 50%:

X*(+101) + (1-X)*(-100) = 0 --> This equation makes bluff-catchers indifferent to calling or folding, ie. sets the value of calling = 0.
101x - 100 +100x = 0
201x = 100
x = 100/201
x = 49.8%

"You only need to call him for example 10% of the time and he is loosing."

Again, you might be using some sort of other definition or context, but as is, this is incorrect. If we call him 10% of the time and fold 90% of the time, we're calling too often. See the optimal calling frequency calculation:

Optimal calling frequency calculation:
Villain is risking 100 to win 1 --> b = 100/1 = 100
a = b / (b+1) = 100 / 101 = 0.99
(1-a)% = 1%

So if we call him 10% of the time, he has the opportunity to adjust to exploit us and bluff 0% of the time with this bet-size because we're calling more than optimally (and thus his bluffs lose money). Conversely, if we call him 0.5% of the time, he has the opportunity to adjust and bluff > 50% of the time with this bet-size because we're calling less than optimally (and thus his bluffs auto-profit).

*NOTE* - After re-examining the hand I think I may understand where you went wrong. Remember that when villain "bluffs" with a 50% bluffing frequency, that means that he has the nuts the other 50% of the time. Thus when HERO calls 10% of the time against a 50% bluffing frequency, half of that time he'll win the 101 and the other half of the time he'll lose the 100 he called with against the nuts.
MorePower 12 years, 3 months ago
Okay i think i got your Point. You are saying that he only bets unbeatable hands for value, so that he can never be "bluff catched" by another monster. Normaly even a polarized range contains some 2nd Nut type of hands and its obvious that if someone bets infinity we can exploit him by only calling the nuts even though he will bluff us out 50% of the time.
But i got your Point and I am sorry i said that's wrong.

It would be interesting to make a chart were the most EV Pot size bet is for special boards. Sure you can bluff more, but we have to figure out which has most EV for our bluffs and overall Range.
Sean Lefort 12 years, 3 months ago
Yes you're correct, the whole analysis hinges on clear-cut ranges of {NUTS, BLUFFS} vs. {BLUFF-CATCHERS}. Note that my 2nd video breaks all this down and includes all underlying assumptions... stay tuned! :)

Saibot 12 years, 3 months ago
What have you done specifically to find out how you can combat a wide 3-betting range?
Sean Lefort 12 years, 3 months ago
One thing you can do if you happen to have a really large database of HU hands is to filter for a grouping of your worst hands that have called 3bets. So choose the hands, then filter for "Did call 3bet pf" and see your results. If you're min-raising the BTN as a strategy, steal/folding hands result in -2bb or -200bb/100. So if you find that the worst hands you're calling 3bets with did -50bb/100, it's clear that calling was wayyy > folding. And you can extrapolate that a step further and conclude that you can almost certainly add more hands that you were previously folding that may end up something like -100-150bb/100 as defends vs. -200bb/100 folding.

Some caveats:

You really need a large DB to look at this stuff.. I think 100k is likely too small and you need a least a few 100k+ hands to filter for this situation and get a sample thats large enough to tag results with some significance.

Also, there will be biases present in your analysis. Ie. some of the times you called these weaker holdings v. 3bets were because you were playing a very exploitable villain and thus of course they resulted in doing quite well.
eq.fest 12 years, 3 months ago
Hi Sean, good vid! I played around in poker stove with some of the hands you decided to call 3bets with. I found the contrast between the 85ss and A9os hands very interesting especially considering the raw equity advantage A9os has over 85ss . Could you tell me how your attitude would change towards these hands if a) we started the hand 800 eff. and, b) we started the 1300 eff, c) stack sizes stayed the same but villains cbet freq in 3bet pots was 50% or lower. Thanks in advance.
Sean Lefort 12 years, 3 months ago
Great questions. If we started with 800 eff, A9o type hands strengthen in value and 85s hands weaken given that the former tend to often make proceedable 1-pair made hands on flops while 85s tends to make a lot of drawing hands and given the shallower stack to pot ratio, our draws have less implied odds. We also lose less with A9o when we're dominated by another made hand yet can't find a fold. That being said, I don't think 80bb v. 100bb is all thattttt different. Once we're down to 65bb tho it's a pretty important concept. Of course, at great stack-depths (like 130bb) the reverse is true in that drawing hands become more valuable and the hands that often make medium-strong 1-pair made hands have less value.

The CB frequency question is an interesting one because there's no implication of how well/balanced our villain is playing with both his betting and chking ranges. If he's CBing < 50% because he's only CBing his good/proceeding hands and thus he's folding to a bet the majority of the time he chks, I'm not going to fold to many 3bets. But if he's actually playing a good chking range that chk/calls some strong hands as well as throws in some chk/raise bluffs, I'm not sure I would change how I'm playing pre-flop. That being said, it's rare to find someone that's CBing that low after 3betting while actually doing it well. So typically, I expect the average mid-stakes reg with that 3bet CB% to be exploitable in some fashion.
fitzroy 12 years, 3 months ago
Hi Sean,

In one hand, at 45:25, you decided to 4b 87o as a bluff...wouldn't it be better to choose better hands to 4b bluff with that have blockers like A8o or K8o since they are just below the threshold (or wherever the threshold is) for profitable calling 3bets IP?
Sean Lefort 12 years, 3 months ago
Yes you're absolutely right. However, there exists a gameflow dynamic specifically during a HU match that can have you choosing slightly less desirable hands to perform certain actions because of recent history or simply just looking to maintain a certain frequency and/or begin finding out how your opponent is reacting. All of the hands that are not quite strong enough to call (but are close) are 4bettable but if we 4bet them all, we're of course 4betting too often. So we have to choose some and typically we lean towards hands with blockers but when we're not being distributed those hands yet want to establish a 4betting frequency, we sometimes resort to 87o type hands.
DirtyD 12 years, 3 months ago
In the 87o hand, wouldn't you have called the 3bet (rather than 4bet) with QJ, AT, and T9? It seems to me we're only looking at JJ and slow-plays for value. Am I wrong?
scout123 12 years, 3 months ago
could u make a video on pokerstars or fulltilt? If im not mistaking this was played on an italian skin, where the level of 1k is comparable to nl50 from what ive heard. I think dynamics would be much more applyable if u made a video against more competent regulars on a regular site.I mean u can always hide ur screename if ur worried about that, I dont really care what it is, but more so about the content.
Zizek 12 years, 3 months ago
Hey Sean, really liking the content you're putting out (though I'm watching them all in reverse order ^_^). Just a quick question for you...

@ the 6:45 minute mark while going over your HUD you mention a stat "Turn bet when Flop is checked" and how you often use this stat to construct a flop betting/overall strategy vs different villains. I'd be very interested to hear a bit more about this, whether it be in a quick response or in the midst of a future video sometime. Seems like it could be a very useful/unique topic to go over.
mike 12 years, 2 months ago
good stuff -

feedback - please keep in mind some of us are trying to watch on smaller screens(iphone, ipad) so it was tough to see the live action hands on small screen with your layout :)
danielmerrilees 11 years, 3 months ago

loved the 87off bluff haha dwan esque. although he only needs to be good around 18% + the ev of information its going to be a tough fold lol and its hard for him to have a bluff himself

BCRUNGOOD 10 years, 10 months ago

Do you fold A5o HU around the 40 minute mark because you are in a hand with ATo.  You fold from the BB and it seems like all other options are better than folding.

Be the first to add a comment

You must upgrade your account to leave a comment.

Runitonce.com uses cookies to give you the best experience. Learn more about our Cookie Policy