3 Barrel Spot
Posted by Nick Howard
Posted by
Nick Howard
posted in
Mid Stakes
3 Barrel Spot
BN: $467.59
SB: $225.04
BB: $208.96
UTG: $359.91
HJ: $284.54
CO: $209.06 (Hero)
SB: $225.04
BB: $208.96
UTG: $359.91
HJ: $284.54
CO: $209.06 (Hero)
Preflop
($3.00)
(6 Players)
Hero was dealt,
UTG folds,
HJ folds,
Hero raises to $6,
BN folds,
SB calls $5,
BB folds
Flop
($14.00)
5
2
9
(2 Players)
SB checks,
Hero bets $9,
SB calls $9
Turn
($32.00)
5
2
9
A
(2 Players)
SB checks,
Hero bets $23,
SB calls $23
River
($78.00)
5
2
9
A
3
(2 Players)
SB checks,
Hero bets $48
What's the bottom of your river value betting range?
Loading 24 Comments...
Against an unkown it likely would be A9. Sounds weird, but if we think about it, we open CO and SB did NOT 3-bet, so probably he has not that many Ax in his range, so most of his Ax are two-pairs anyways. What else are we getting value from? I´d say his range for calling is A2 at the very least, so it made no sense for me to bet AK for value.
Obviously this goes against a "strong" player, who should be capable of constructing his ranges well and don´t overcall the river. With reads we might do everything else. :)
I'm realistically asking as I am improving but not yet great on computing the math side of these things but in the heat of the moment, those would be my thoughts.
Equity Win Tie
MP2 47.37% 42.11% 5.26% { As2s }
MP3 52.63% 47.37% 5.26% { 99, 55, 22, AQs, A9s, A5s, A2s, AQo }
Furthermore, we don´t know anything about this guy, so we should assume he´s playing "optimally" (or what we would estimate as close to optimal), and AQ is rather a 3bet than a call, so you shouldn´t count 100% of his AQ-combos - making our equity even worse.
Even if we assume he´s not playing "optimally", why are you automatically assuming he´s playing looser than optimal? Why not tighter? See, this is the problem (for me), I think it can´t be good to "automatically" assume he has AJ/AT in his range (AND x/c the flop AND calls down 3 barrels). Surely, it´s possible, but it´s as possible that he never has Ax in his range because he either 3bets or doesn´t call three barrels.
So, when we have no clue, why assuming the best case for us? What if chances are 50% that he´s tighter than optimal and 50% that he´s looser? Then it´s the same as if we assumed he´d be playing optimally, right?
Against an unkown it likely would be A9. Sounds weird, but if we
think about it, we open CO and SB did NOT 3-bet, so probably he has not
that many Ax in his range, so most of his Ax are two-pairs anyways.
What kind of strong player calls with the hands that make 2 pair on this board? It seems quite a parlay for to show up with A2 here.
What
Obviouslyelse are we getting value from? I´d say his range for calling is A2 at
the very least, so it made no sense for me to bet AK for value.
this goes against a "strong" player, who should be capable of
constructing his ranges well and don´t overcall the river. With reads we
might do everything else. :)
The small blind shouldn't really show up with 22 here, so don't you think this is just one of those asymmetrical board textures?
If he shows up with A2 here, that makes me think AK was actually a pretty good value bet, know what I mean?
So when constructing the range that you did, I don't think it's wise to not include a single combo of AJ/AT/T9s/98s due to the fact that we assume he's optimal. I think it would be best to take an esimated guess at how often 200nl players would play these hands like this preflop and on the flop, and then add in the number of combos that you see fit based on the estimated frequency. Is it going to be a perfect assumption? No, but I think it will be much more accurate than just chalking an unknown villain up to being optimal and not taking that level's player's tendencies into account.
Adding X amount of those combos might not even sway this particular hand to a mathmatical bet on the river but I do think it seems like a better way to go about attacking an unknown's range.
Also, one last thing that I somehow overlooked is that many of the combos in your esimated range for villain should be discounted due to the fact that villain would raise the flop or turn some % of the time, even if it's not an optimal spot to do so, which is likely why I think A2 is a fairly easy value bet on the river. (A4s should also be added, though)
Up, I know exactly what you mean, but my argument is NOT, that Villain should be expected to play optimally, rather that we don´t know HOW he deviates from optimal play.
If you found X% of players that flat AT in the SB, you should check as well, how many players would NOT call any Ax from SB. You know what I mean? We can´t just singlesided add the combos that fit us, but we had to take the other side into account as well - unless there are way more players in the pool that play a) than players that play b). But I´m not sure that we can generalize it ...
I see what you're saying Fiszh. I guess the main backing of my thoughts when constructing I guess what we would call an assumed range is that far more players play loose at the 200nl level as opposed to overly tight. So if I'm constructing a range for a total unknown, I should be "hedging" the range slightly in a way that favors the average player and not the optimal player as the average player will be far more frequent than the optimal or even close to optimal one. If I'm incorrect in thinking that most players, especially unknowns, are looser as a whole at that given limit then disregard this thought process as it wouldn't work.
Villain can also take EV away from us with a river CR , making things even thinner OTR. Readless i think i'm really leaning toward A2+
just block a lil more of his value range i guess... might not even be that close tho, might need a better 2pair.
I'd value bet roughly AT+, but betting any ace is fine too.
In a SB vs CO spot, Villian doesn't have many Ax, so you don't have to worry about running into two pair very often. Had he been in the BB, I would be more coverservative. Ahigh would be a big part of his flop c/c range, and he has all the low kickers in his range.
Let's sat we bet every FD, every 87s, 67s, then we need to bet an amount of value combos to compensate for that.
Sorry, Chael, but I think this is wrong. You can´t simply go on and liberally define your valuerange. Your valuerange is defined by your opponent´s calling-range. And valuerange comes first, bluff-range comes second, not the other way round. :)
i'd v-bet any 2pr or better, use gutshots or busted hearts as a maximal range for bluff range
i expect for villain to call AJ+ on this flop as part of his defence and as such would consequently call a turn and a river bet.
I'm thinking AQ=AK and i'm not feeling good about v-betting either of them. I'm with Robert so far, in the 2pair+ department. Which makes me think villain should play a mixed strategy with some strong hands otf/ott, if he's deincentivizing us from betting AQ+ otr by x-c'ing all 2pair+ + otf&ott. But maybe i'm being too conservative..
It's interesting that if it's incorrect to v-bet AQ-AK otr, it almost begs the question as to why we're betting it ott. Sauce had a spot in his 1k zoom series similar to this, where he justified betting turn with a TP hand that planned on checking back the river on a very dry texture. He argued that it's better if our turn value range isn't completely polarized (i.e. consists of some value hands that are checking back river), since it penalizes villain for not CR'ing turn with 2pair+ hands.
Intuitively this makes a lot of sense, since if we put all of our AQ-AK into a check turn --> bet river line, villain in incentivized to go for a CR with all of his 2-pair+ hands otr after turn checks through, which lowers the EV of our AQ-AK substantially relative to the bet turn--> check river line. My guess is there is an equilibrium reached where we bet some check some ott.
This further leads me to thinking what are the consequences on certain pairing scenarios of the board if we do intend to bet turn with the intention to check some rivers. A pairing of either the 5 or the 9 does hit villains turn 2-pair slow-playing range and as such even though it feels like a solid value bet with a 'board beating kicker' due to reason of an opponent calling a worse kicker-ed Ace, it could be incorrect to do so.
I think this requires empirical analysis /w decision trees!!!
It's interesting that if it's incorrect to v-bet AQ-AK otr, it almost begs the question as to why we're betting it ott.
I think you're over-thinking things here. I guess you're saying it would strengthen the check-back range or something, I could see merit to that, but I would rather do it with AQ than AK since when we check back then if villain bets the river AQ is the same as AK only we've lost one street of value with our turned top pairs by checking both. That came out messy but I think you know what I mean.
Also, am I absolutely crazy here? The "optimal" villain should have like six combos better than Ax on this flop and when we hold AK, the turn and river are both blanks as far as we're concerned. Isn't this a super easy value-bet and let Villain figure out what to call with?
I think Chael had it kind of backwards but I do agree that it seems a little crazy not to be betting more when the board runs out so much better for our range than his.
The question of "well what calls you?" doesn't seem of much concern when Villain is much less nutted than we are and I just see such an asymmetry on this board.
Quick analysis:
If we construct our value range backwards, what range would we be betting turn and river with.
sets: 99,55,22, AA.
Equity affecting action: Does aggressor check any sets on flop or turn thus removing combinations from triple barrelling range.
Two pairs: A2s, A5s, A9s, A9o.
Equity affecting action: Does aggressor check 2-pr on flop or turn with thus removing combinations from triple barrelling range.
One pair: Ak, AQ, AJ, AT.
Concern: Can aggressor bet top pair, large kicker for value versus enemy in small blind whom has called two streets so far?
Suspected small blind range which has called two streets:
A9s, 99 if he doesn't 3bet with greater value range, A5s if he flats, A3s, A2s, A6s, A7s, A8s, if he flats and defends /w gutshot, AQo, AQs, AJs, AJo, ATo; if he doesn't 3bet preflop or fold. JJ, TT, T9, 98, k9, if he calls 3 streets.
-From this it is clear that we have to make a massive amount of assumptions we most likely vary depending on player behaviour.
______________________________________________________________
Case one
Assumption 1: Opponent has maximum range of suspected hands.
[JJ-99,55,ATs-A5s,A3s-A2s,K9s,T9s,98s,AQo-ATo]
Assumption 2: We bet only 2prs and sets OTF,OTT,OTR.
Hero Equity: 92.67%.
Assumption 1.1. Opponent has 'more reasonable range'.
[99,55,A9s,A5s,A2s,AQo-ATo]
Assumption 2.1. We bet only 2prs and sets OTF, OTT, OTR.
Hero equity: 85.70%.
Assumption 1.2. Opponent PF [3bets small pairs as a bluff [removal of 55], 3bets 99 for value [ removal of 99], 3bets AQo for value [removal of AQo], does not call A2s PF vs CO. Villain only has left, A5s, A9s, AJo, ATo.
[A9s,A5s,AJo-ATo]
Assumption 2.2. We only bet 2prs and sets OTF, OTT, OTR.
Hero equity: 96.13%.
_______________________________________________________________
Case two
Assumption 1. Opponent has minimum range of strongest suspected hands.
[A9s,A5s,AJo-ATo]
Assumption 2. Hero has all Top pair /w big kicker, 2prs and sets.
Hero equity: 82.21%.
Assumption 1.1: Opponent has minimum realistic range of strongest suspected hands.
[A9s,A5s,AJo-ATo]
Assumption 2.1: Hero has all top pair /w big kicker, 2prs, sets and broadway hearts and some suited connector, king h hearts.
[AA,99,55,22,A9s+,A5s,A2s,KhQh,KhJh,QhJh,KhTh,QhTh,JhTh,Ah8h,Kh8h,Th8h,Ah7h,9h7h,Ah6h,Ah4h,Ah3h,AJo+,A9o]
Hero equity: 69.42%.
Extending 2.1 .1: with any reasonable improved heart draw.
[KhQh,KhJh,QhJh,KhTh,QhTh,JhTh,Ah8h,Kh8h,Qh8h,Jh8h,Th8h,Ah7h,Th7h,9h7h,8h7h,Ah6h,9h6h,8h6h,7h6h,Ah4h,Ah3h]
Hero equity: 61.43%
Extending 2.1 .2 + gutshot 87s, 67s
Hero equity: 55.71%.
If we now give the opponent AQo, as a hand he does not 3bet PF.
Hero equity: 53.31%.
If we extend one last time and give opponent 55 PF.
Hero equity finally tilts, 48.22%
value bet 2 pair plus, is this rocket science or pker? lets not level ourselves here boys
I think you can probably value bet AK and AQ here. I think the main issue with the analysis so far is that it's assuming that the Villain is slowplaying ALL his nutted hands until the river. Assuming he raises most of his 2-pair+ before the river, I think we should technically be able to value bet both those hands against an optimal opponent.
It might be a little close, but I don't think there's any way that we need a hand as strong as A9.
yea i think this is the main consideration. It's understandable that people want to leave all of his 2-pair+ intact to the river since flop was rainbow .. at the same time it feels like if we lose incentive to v-bet AQ-AK otr, i think it probably means that villain is getting to the river with too strong of a range and would be better off playing a mixed strategy otf/ott with some 2pair+.
It seems like this is the right equilibrium b/c we'd still v-bet turn with AQ even though we know that we're going to face a CR sometimes, b/c when we do get the turn call we are semi-fistpumping, knowing we have a clean river v-bet. And villain is satisfied b/c his 2pair+ now have a higher EV in both lines than they did when they were all lumped into his x/c to river line. Does this sound right to you guys?
yeah, but we do have some gutshots which can outdraw his nuts. And since this board is difficult for the Villain to defend out of position, we'll likely bet at a higher frequency than on most boards, which will incentivize him to check-raise the flop more. In addition, a hand like A9 is probably a check-raise from him, since we'll be using hands like JTo in our flop "bluffing range" which they're quite vulnerable toward.
Yeah, I agree. Since what is the point for the Villain of not raising sets and two-pair earlier, if Hero's not going to be betting these hands on the river. I assume that it'll be higher EV for the Villain to raise 2-pair on the flop, where we can get check-raise and 2 more streets of betting, than to check-call and let the Hero's range get stronger on the turn and let the Hero check back some hands he was "value" betting on the flop with the intention of checking the turn.
I think AQ could be a mixed strategy. It kinda depends on how many we're betting on the flop, but if they make up a sizable chunk of our range, then I could see them being a mixed strategy of betting and checking on the river.
Be the first to add a comment