$100/$200 HUNL Hand Review
Posted by Phil Galfond
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 30 Comments...
im assuming you're betting any Ax that you get to the river with (Ad2s,As8d etc), so what is your plan with those hands when facing the river c/r? since i assume he's not c/ring two pair there, it seems like any Ax w/ a diamond is a better hand to bluff catch with than black 54 (just to be clear, im not saying we should fold 54ss here). so i guess my bigger question is is this just a spot where you're very comfortable having a pretty wide bet/call range because you expect him to be c/ring flop so often w/ a FD? because since he's defending a minraise pre, he's got all the T5dd, J4dd, 95dd etc, which obv adds up to a lot of combos. but i guess if you're able to discount them a ton given flop action, then bet/calling a wide range makes sense.
It's hard to say that I'd be calling my whole value betting range here, because obviously that's an extremely exploitable gameplan. In the moment, I would have, but I have to adjust as soon as I sense my opponents don't expect fold equity there.
In reality, your range will still probably be such that they can go for big thin value, but the psychological effect of just being able to have flushes will discourage them more than it should.
Gonna hit this point by point with some quotes-
"say on the turn that you "think you have to go with your hand if he raises, but that you don't like it," which I take to mean that jamming/calling have positive EV but are fairly near breakeven."
What I meant is that I expected his turn raising range to be very narrow. I still expected to be slightly ahead of it (making a shove certainly +EV with pot odds).
"You also say that "x/r to 12-13k seems like a good line," but that you like x/c better"
The reason I like x/c on turn better is that it is in line with the type of hand I am trying to represent by checking the turn (T9/98). x/r has the benefit of protecting my hand/charging his draws, but I think that a player as strong as Jungle won't be able to put me on many bluffs, at least before a dynamic like this is setup.
Most of my flop semi-bluffs now have a pair or better, and obviously my flop value c/r range is still doing well. I decided to try to play the hand out in the only way it made sense to me that I could show up with a bluff (a weak pair turned into a river c/r). Even if the river c/r doesn't get called (it does still look strong imo), I still think that getting two bets out of him would be very difficult with a c/r, bet, bet line on this board.
*The above is all generic, readless thought process.*
"on the river you say he is 'value betting as weak as JT/QJ,' which I certainly agree would make x/r 44 a no-brainer."
I believe it's very likely he'd have value bet as weak as JT/QJ, but I'm not as confident in that as I am that he's betting turn very wide/merged.
"on average, we should need a stronger hand to take x/r, x/r then to take x/r, bet (this is true because x/ allows him to get closer to showdown with his flopped range for free by checking back)"
I agree with this, but I'm not sure I agree with the main reason. We need a stronger hand to c/r, c/r than to c/r, bet, because we are trying to play a bigger pot, and trying to get value from a more narrow range (one which is betting turn when checked to).
As far as giving free cards, I agree again, but I'd use the words "less vulnerable" rather than "stronger."
44, 77 and JJ all are (essentially) equally vulnerable, so I wouldn't make a strong distinction between them for the purposes of protection/free cards. The hands which have outs against 44 but not against JJ are going to be betting the turn anyways. I agree that T8 is a better candidate for checking turn than sets, but that's the only hand that I view as clearly better than 44.
I actually think 44 is a clearly better checking candidate than JJ because of all the Jx (including J7/J9) are an important part of his turn betting range (and river betting range).
"so if this (semi) rule doesn't hold for Jungleman, that's kind of a big exploit you're making."
The strongest read that I was attempting to exploit (as I talked about towards the end of the video) was that Jungleman was betting turns at an extremely high frequency when I gave up impetus. I was very confident in this read (it became obvious pretty quickly). So yes, this was an exploit based on the way he was playing vs. me.
"Similarly, we should need a significantly stronger hand to take x/r, x/c, x/r than to take x/r, bet."
I'm not sure I agree with this. Again, I view 44 as > JJ here for blocker reasons, but I also think there's an added benefit of avoiding the awkward spot of x/r turn and seeing a T or 8 roll off on the river, bringing the 4 straight. I'd slightly prefer x/r turn with T8 and x/c with 44 because of this. I don't think there's a large difference though.
Gotta go for a bit. To be continued :)
I think we agree on everything, but I'm constantly trying to couch things in GTO-ish terminology whereas you switch between explo/GTO a little more and so I often "put you on" a thought you aren't actually thinking.
My basic point was: when X puts in more bets, X wants to play a bigger pot, so X's value hands must be stronger. So when 3bets go in one way and his value bet threshold is TP, and 3bets go in another way and it's a straight, alarm bells go off in my head.
So let me know if this is a fair way to describe the hand. (Optimally or non-optimally) Jungle blasts the turn a whole lot when checked to. So C/R, check/ becomes an attractive line with our value hands. Since we all agree Jungle calls a flop C/R with plenty of worse things than 44, and bets many turns, we can happily chek/call turn without being overly worried about protection. Leading rivers seems quite unnatural, and we have some weak hands in our turn check/call range, so checking the river seems clear. Then, when he bets, there are lots of strats we think he might be playing where we're substantially ahead of his call river c/r range, so we do.
I admit that this sort of thing has me thinking stuff like "well then, we should check 100% of turns after check/raising any flop vs this guy and exploit the hell out of him, or we should stick to our optimal strat," but I further admit I've been rather dogmatic on these sort of points lately and maybe am seeing the world a bit black and white.
I'll revise my question in light of the previous discussion. Say I'm trying to play an exploitative strategy but I don't have a precise idea of exactly my opponent's strategy, rather I have some impressions which tend to be accurate for some situations but maybe not for others (maybe this hand is an example, where your turn read was strong and your river read was relevant but more nebulous). How do you go about taking that network of impressions/reads and translating them into an exploitative strategy choice? For instance, given Jungle bets very aggressively on the turn, it might be exploitative to check all value checkraises on the turn. If so, how do you decide how frequently to check the turn? 100%? 50%? 25%? Your standard C/R, check range + N%?
I've thought about a video on this, or actually a portion of a video. I think that too many people use the excuse (in videos as well) of "I don't have any reads, so I'll just fold now and wait till later" or "He's c/r'd a lot so far but the sample is too small to be sure" when considering a bluff-raise or a call down.
Even without knowing that a guy is capable of moves (because you've played 5 hands with him), you can play your hand in a way that would be most profitable against the average of all opponents you might expect your new opponent to be (unknown screen name at your stakes buying in full on 4 tables, for example).
Similarly, when a guy has c/r'd 4/6 flops, yes of course this isn't reliable for an accurate read, but it can skew your strategy at least somewhat, as it makes it more probable you're up against someone with a high turn c/r than if he'd c/r'd 0/6 or 1/6 flops.
To your question, I don't have a well defined base strategy in HUNL, as I just haven't played it much. I do in PLO though, so I can somewhat relate to the question.
I don't think that I gameplan as precisely as you do. I have never decided to c/r check an extra x% of hands (though I have decided to do it more frequently, of course).
When I have a strong read, or even a weak read, I like to take the first opportunity I get to adjust to it. The weaker the read, the smaller the deviation I'd be willing to make (I won't make a play that I feel is clearly worse on average for the sake of a weak read). Still, I probably over-adjust if anything. I started doing this a long time (5+yrs) ago in 6m or HUNL. If I saw someone fold to a couple 3bets, I would start taking every reasonable opportunity to 3b them, because some players folded to 80% or folded to 50% and then folded 70% of flops, never 4betting or bluff-raising flops. I wanted to get that information ASAP so I could exploit it.
So I guess, when I have even a weak read, I like to give my opponents an opportunity to confirm it anytime I get the chance. If the read becomes strong, I will adjust more and more until I decide he's counter-adjusting or that his leak is so big that I don't want to risk him noticing. I think that one of my strongest skills in poker is being aware of when my opponents have or will be likely to make an adjustment.
I don't think I could have answered accurately in the terms you were looking for, so I just tried to explain how I think about these kinds of adjustments.
Editing of comments will be added shortly.
Thanks!
Oh and one more thing, your standard cbet in hands you 4b in pos was iirc 2800 into 6400 but you kept that consistent in all examples here too - I think being robotic in spots like this is ideal in PLO unless on paired flops and rare others - I'm interested if you think there'd be merit to betting smaller on the 742hh flop. Since majority of jungle's non-slowplayed flatting hands will whiff this flop and we still have a wide-ish range, it feels like we could down our cbet size further to even teens given he'll have a hard time repping anything. I'd be worried about letting say A5s just whack it in with a check-jam profitably. Are you sticking with 2800 on 223r?
To be entirely honest, I've played so little HUNL in the past three years that 4 tabling HU during this tourney was a bit of a struggle for me. Since nothing was automatic for me, I had to think through various ways the hands could go as quickly as I could. As a result, I used tableninja and was lazy with my betsizing, because I needed the brain-space for other things.
Towards the end of the match, I adjusted my strategy towards betting smaller but betting more frequently on flops and on turns. That's why the last hand shows me betting 451 into 800... it wasn't board specific. I'd just changed my tableninja cbet size.
I kept my sizing smaller in 3bet pots because I think it makes more sense with the lower SPR, but I could be convinced otherwise... I don't feel very strongly about it.
I completely agree that smaller betsizing on dryer boards, especially in 4bet pots, is preferable. I think that betting small on the 742hh board would've been a bit better with my entire range, yeah.
As far as bet sizing- I definitely don't think 3600 over 400 could be better than the current common sizings. It allows your opponent to make too much money every time he has a hand (and of course, sometimes when he doesn't) compared to what he gives up by raise-folding. I'd be surprised with anything higher than 2000 becoming standard over 400, as I think you start moving too close to giving your opponent a very easy way to profit (since you put so much money into the pot before he needs to make a real decision).
I'm not sure how a specific 3bet size could be proven optimal, but it does make sense to me that we'd like to 3bet larger when stacks get deeper, as to capitalize on our preflop hand strength edge more while their positional advantage is greater (allowing them to call/4b wider, which further increases our preflop hand strength edge).
In the moment, I thought that he'd fold too often to an overbet, so I made a vacuum play that wasn't best for my range. If I start playing HUNL more regularly, I'd like to work on this and make better range plays.
On the KK Hand with the Q864 board i would be very tempted to just ovebet jam the turn with a very big part of my range because his flop callig range seems very wide and I think most thinking opponents are bet/folding just very weak hands like JT or maybe 45s because on a drawheavy board like this where it seems unlikely you ch/call a large amount. I feel like he is realising his equity much more often with hands like 9T, 67, 78 or flushdraws that dont have too much extra equity like K3cc than if you jam what seem like a reasonabe thing to do with all overpairs, KQ or Aq and good drawinghands like 67 or K7cc. I wonder if you considered that play and what you think about it. I am also courious to know what you would do with a hand like TT that seems to be in a pretty awkward spot.
I felt JM was betting too many turns here, including some of the hands you mentioned, which most people would check behind. In hindsight, he may have checked back more than I expected, as the board is extremely draw heavy.
With TT, I think you have a lot of options. I actually think bet-calling turn makes sense if you expect him to jam most draws (and call with his strongest hands to slowplay). On the river, you can check-decide, or perhaps could jam for (very thin) value. It really all depends on how you expect your opponent to play.
I haven't had time on my computer the last couple of days, as i'm doing family stuff. I'll respond in detail as soon as I get a chance.
in the AA hand where u 4-bet and he check/raised u on 247ss u say that u prefer to shove your draws with no sd value like 65s. there was a quite similar hand with 87s in a 3-bet pot where you raise jungle´s cbet and he clicks it back on AT9ss. why didnt you shove there aswell when you had no showdown value to maximise your foldequity like you said you wanted with parts of your range in the AA hand? i was a bit surprised since you also said you wouldnt be too worried the jungle clicks it back with draws that dominate yours in the 87s hand, so for me that was also a spot where shove should be > call. especially since the handrange you gave him to this cib included hands like KJo or K5 and its obviously great for us when he folds KJ there
The only hand in the video I found myself really questioning your line was the TJcc hand where you decided to check the turn. I understand that you were changing your strategy to adjust to Jungle, and so it makes the hand closer... but I feel like you lose value from a lot of 1pair hands that will check back turn but call a turn bet. You might even win a river bet from them, but when you check the turn you never win 2 bets. (a hand like AT or QJ) Also it's a spot where you might sometimes get jungle to jam over your turn bet with his semi-bluffs.... whereas as played you pick off a semi-bluff on the turn with a c/c, but still allow him to realize all his equity with a big pot oop on river, and are put in a lot of bad river spots. (as played he semi-bluffed, got to see the river, and made a great decision to check it back).
also you were listing a lot of hands that you could have that seem weak in your check-calling range like AQ, KQ... but remember that you 3bet, and you could also easily have QJ+, QQ-AA and be deciding to play the hand the same way (after all you played TJ this way and it's stronger than all those), so i don't feel your c/c range here is especially light and that he should love barreling turn and bluffing river (which he didn't either in the real hand). So taking all that together, I think that TJ is actually a great hand to bet turn with, and even with your read on Jungle I'd still bet the turn (not too mention even with the read you can't overdo an adjustment vs a very good player, but i definitely don't have enough information to comment on metagame like that just from watching the video)
I'm still liking my play, at least as an occasional deviation. I like that I have a hand in my slowplay range that I'm not missing out on much with by skipping my turn bet (because he often calls with good equity anyways). Missing a bet here with the nut flush (even though we aren't afraid to give free cards) is much more costly, since he calls with SO many hands with 0% equity.
I felt very comfortable folding this hand on heart rivers, given that I felt I had enough 1 heart hands in my range, so I didn't expect him to exploit me on rivers (this was a hand which hit/missed rivers much differently than he'd expect).
Though I do let him realize some equity for free, if you go through how the hand plays out vs. various hands on various rivers, I think it works pretty well for me. I like playing this in a way where I'm not giving him the option to put more than one bet in on the turn.
sorry if the question has been asked already..first hand, you shove the river, what are you repping for value? Any merit in checking back with Q high for showdownvalue? Does Jungle ever check the river to let you bluff?
Is he giving up much by just adding more hands to bluff with in his turn range(airy blockers), while still giving up river with missed draws, so you keep folding when he 2 barrels random air from the turn ?
I´m mostly wondering if there is something wrong with that theoretically? (Bluffing turn and river with low/no equity hands and just the turn without following through with draws)
its a bit of a shame that there are no "thin" range vs range spots in this vid and you pretty much had a good hand all of the time... so i wonder how you ended up without showdown vs him... and how you would use your image.. i assume you took a lot of bet-check-bet lines?
Be the first to add a comment
You must upgrade your account to leave a comment.