Fold top of my range?
Posted by Chael Sonnen
Posted by
Chael Sonnen
posted in
Mid Stakes
Fold top of my range?
SB: $658.82 (Hero)
BB: $746.68
BB: $746.68
Villian is a reg. Early into the match.
This is a Hu Zoom table.
This is a Hu Zoom table.
Preflop
($7.50)
(2 Players)
Hero was dealt
5
A
Hero raises to $12.50, BB calls $7.50
Hero raises to $12.50, BB calls $7.50
Flop
($27.50)
4
5
7
(2 Players)
BB checks,
Hero checks
Turn
($27.50)
4
5
7
5
(2 Players)
BB bets $15,
Hero raises to $50.06,
BB calls $35.06
I play a mixed strategy between raising and calling 5d here.
Given the fact that I have the nut kicker and no blockers to his draws, I choose to raise it.
Given the fact that I have the nut kicker and no blockers to his draws, I choose to raise it.
River
($127.62)
4
5
7
5
J
(2 Players)
BB checks,
Hero bets $165.75,
BB raises to $684.12, and is all in,
Hero calls $430.51, and is all in
If my value range is really thin (5x only), I probably want to make a big bet. Also, he'll probably call any sizing under 2x pot with a 5.
But now he jams, and I'm in a tough spot.
If I never check back a straight or two pair on the flop, I'm at the top of my range. Folding this hand means I'm never calling.
On the other hand: I raised the turn, overbet the river where I've got a polarized range, but he still jams.
Thoughts?
Loading 39 Comments...
What´s your bluffing-range on the turn?!
How thin your range is has nothin to do with betsize
My bluff:value ratio
Pre flop I don't think his range is quite strong, 130bb deep I think he may 3b the top 10% of the hands. I usually c-bet this in HU but it is ok to give some strength to your checking back range here. Leading the turn looks like 66, 65s, 54s, 77, 44, 86s, 87s, A6o and hands with sd value like A4s, A7o may x/c this turn. When you raise you make your range pretty capped at 5x and I don't think that your raise make any of the good hands to bet the turn fold, maybe some QJs that he is with very low equity totally bluffing but I don't think that is very usual. OTR I think he may turn 88s/66s into a bluff, 87s by the blocking value and no much more than that. 65s is to strong to turn into a bluff here, so I think he x/c it OTR.
This river decision looks like a hand that ElusiveMark played on http://www.runitonce.com/pro-training/videos/-50/ 7:39+
When he bet calls OTT his range seems very strong, maybe you are beat at that point, and the check on the river has 2 purposes:
a) X/r
b) Check/ fold some draws missed ,pp and random overcard floats.
But here the x/r line worked perfectly for him with his nutted range, so he seems he doesnt have a mid strong non nutted x/c range that make a raise OTR.
Without reads is a diificult spot, maybe he is capable of doing it with some overpairs or a Jx, but I discard that possibility due to your river cbet size and being most of the times polarized as you said and he still reraised, so I dont usually call here, this is my nitty conclusion.
As was said your range is pretty capped at 56, 85-A5 and sometimes 44-77 if you mix it on the flop but i don't see a problem with that.
After calling the turn his range seems to be 7x, trips, full houses and 86-A6 (probably not all)
When you overbet this river a sufficient part of his turn calling range become bluffcathers or hands not strong enough to value raise you (basically 86 and trips)
So the most important thing on the river we should think about is
Do we have enough bluffs and trips on turn which we are going to fold later so that it is reasonable for him to bluff on the river?
Actually he needs 70% FE with say T6.
Probably we are not going to have so much FE until we are going to fold any trips.
I don't think many regs think you can fold trips here. They definitely can't be 100% sure in this. That is why i think they won't bluff 33% of their range here. But to b honest given the number of his value combos if he bluffs here only 100% on his T6o combos we have to call. So it is really close.
All in all i think fold is good if we play vs good reg.
As BigFiszh said, your bluffing range is quite non-existent on this spot. I dislike the river overbet to be honest, because you have few FHs and straights (if any). So, you're overplaying your hand in a spot you're rarely bluffing, it's unlikely you'll get looked up IMO + you theorically give room to your opponent to bluff you (since your value range shouldn't be nutted). In practice though, who is raise-bluffing river overbets?
Calling 'because you're at the top of your range' is a fallacy, also. Very few people are balanced enough, or good enough, to ever bluff you in this spot, so you have a fairly easy fold. Who cares if you're at the top of your range, you're getting exploited if you call, not if you fold.
NB: what I'm saying holds true for midstakes, in the actual conditions of the game. A time might arise where people overbet more and people also bluff-raise overbets more. But from my experience, EVERY time my river overbet has been raised and I called, I was shown the nuts.
I may be laughed at for writing this, but i do it anyway....
I think the turn raise is good for value/protection against draws, but should we really even bet the river ?
If you look at the range he b/c turn with and then x/cont with on the river if find it hard to belive he calls with less than 5x ? If he doesnt call with less we shouldent really bet.
I wouldn't overbet this river. I don't think you have enough bluffs in your range to justify this which means you are going to be isolating the stronger parts of his range. His line is very consistent with a flopped set. Against his river raise I think you are beat just about always barring some very strange and unlikely spaz shove from villain.
--This is backwards. The fewer value bets you have, in general, the smaller your bets should be.
This is backwards.
fyp
Oops yes I typed the response backwards. I should have said the fewer bluffs the smaller our bets should be. The concept still stands and is very relevant though.
Oops yes I typed the response backwards. I should have said the fewer
bluffs the smaller our bets should be. The concept still stands and is
very relevant though.
It's still irrelevant (for this specific hand). I see what Santaur is saying but I think it can be kind of subtle unless you think a little more about Alpha.
I don't see why you guys think it's irrelevant. Care to elaborate?
I don't think the # of value bets has anything to do with your sizing? The strength of your value bets determines sizing. Eg if your "value bets" have 50% equity vs his river range, you bet $0. If they have 100% equity then you bet all in (or all in is at least co-optimal with some other size(s)). If they have some in between 50-100% equity, your sizing is going to be somewhere between $0 and all in. The number of value bets you have determines the number of bluffs for a given sizing, but does not determine sizing (at least I can't see why it would)
if we run out of bluffs with ~0EV to check back, then the fact that we need to drag in bluffs with showdown value allows villain to fold above 1-a for the sizing, which makes our v-bets thinner (they get paid at a lower fqcy).
But i still don't see how this incentivizes us to use a smaller sizing, since when villain overfolds to our value, our 0EV bluffs in our range are now producing in the same amount that our range would've, had villain responded by calling at 1-a, or any rate more frequent than 1-a.
After that, aren't we still incentivized to drag in bluffs that had some showdown EV to balance the rest of our overbet value hands, since even tho villain pays value at a lower rate when we include showdown EV bluffs, we still get value?
Basically it just looks like betting smaller restricts us to winning the effective pot at a lower fqcy than betting larger.
i think?
if we run out of bluffs with ~0EV to check back, then the fact that we
need to drag in bluffs with showdown value allows villain to fold above
1-a for the sizing,
I think this is wrong. The goal of the game is not to let Villain play according to the [0,1] model of poker, it's to take the most +EV line with every hand. We never lower the EV of a hand that more profitably checks back so that the play will conform to a model which is not real poker.
villain's new calling fqcy would make the highest EV bluff in our range indifferent to checking or betting. he's able to hold that equilibrium by folding more than 1-a
Yeah, you're right. I think you're
essentially saying that if Villain overfolds the river, then what our
value bets miss out on by getting paid, our SD value bluffs make up for
by taking more than their share of the equity when Villain folds, right? That wasn't really the part I disagreed with, because every hand has showdown value unless it's the nut-low. I was disagreeing with the idea that we should actually be doing that in this hand, but I don't think you ever actually said that, I just mistakenly assumed it.
Santuar is right in that this discussion is incredibly irrelevant,
because we're essentially trying to compensate for a mistake that GTO
would never ever make, and then we're trying to argue about what's
"optimal" or not.
I don't think it's right to say that GTOnever gets to a spot where it runs out of bluffs (this is the "mistake"
you're referring to right? Ignore the following if not!)
That wasn't the mistake that I'm referring to.
rereading the thread I have no idea why I thought it was, sorry about that
our SD bluffs have 0EV relative to checking. Our 0EV bluffs print money tho
what was the mistake? overbetting river?DeleteDeleted!
Nick, get your ass into the 500 Zoom games.
You're probably better than a lot of the regs, at least from what I've seen you post.
without a read i think u get money in better by flatting turn and raising most rivers. as played prob call but go with your gut
My gut says fold, which means I call to confirm I was right about folding.
That's known as a gut check.
This is because it's less likely he'd bluff raise the turn with something like 34? Whereas if he peels he's underrepresented in a spot where his range is much wider and is more likely to bluff raise a hand like 34?
eh this is such fucking ugly play. You just can never over bet this spot because you're never going to have enough bluffs - villain knows this so hes just never bluffing here- he doesn't need to because your range is so poor. snap fold river - infact i'd maybe timebank 2 seconds. If you bet a normal sizing is gives him more oppertunity to bluff and he has to defend more of his range. I just dont get what you were thinking.
Genuinely don't believe I wrote this: ''If my value range is really thin (5x only), I probably want to make a big bet. Also, he'll probably call any sizing under 2x pot with a 5.''
At least I'm still improving, because I'd probably call someone a donk if he said that to me.
Thanks for the input, everyone.
I forgive you buddy
So I guess everyone that is running out of bluffs is cbetting 100% of their air on this board? Interesting.
What´s interesting about that? If you have 90% nuts and 10% air, how much of your air are you betting then?!
I dont think thats an accurate description of our flop distribution :/
Probably I misunderstood your first statement?
What I meant is that I am a bit confused by all the people saying "You never have enough bluffs here" which implies that they don't have very much air at all that they get to the turn with, which I thought was interesting.
Be the first to add a comment