MultiStreet Analysis. Optimal play. Preventing ATC profits.
Posted by laxputs
Posted by
laxputs
posted in
High Stakes
MultiStreet Analysis. Optimal play. Preventing ATC profits.
Btn opens to 2bb. sb 3bets to 7.5bb. Btn flats. Suppose btn 4bets a 10% range of value and bluffs and flats 30% of his 63% btn opening range. Suppose Sb 3bets 18%. Btn flats a range of 22-TT, KJo_AQo some sc's. Axs,J9s+ or 205 combos.
Flop: 222
Sb cbets 1/2 pot.
To prevent sb from profitably cbetting atc (even on a board that hits sb's range inherently stronger than btn's), does btn continue with 66% x 205 combos, or 135 combos? The weakest hands of 135 combos would be QJs bkdrfd. QJs-bkdr has about 31% equity vs sb's 3bet range. KJs has about 36%.
Question 2. Turn is 9bkdr. Sb cbets 1/2 pot. Does btn continue with 90 combos (.66 x 130)? That would be about pp33+ AJo/AQo. Axb+ QJb. (b = turned bkdrfd).
Question 3. Say btn continues with 90 turn combos. Versus a "reasonable" sb turn 2 barreling range, pp33 is best 63% and has 53% equity or so. Does it make sense to jam all pp's and any turned bkdrfd bluffs that btn can continue with versus sb's 2 barrelling range? Can btn jam his entire continuing range? If btn jams a balanced range, sb folds some better hands that have equity. Takes away an option from sb ( 3 barreling). Protects hands like low pp's with decreasing equity. And gets value from worse hands some of the time.
There are obviously significant problems with this turn strategy, but so are there too with call call call. Is it reasonable?
Is the math used here: defend x% of button's range versus sb's sizing of bet/(potsize+bet) applicable here?
Thanks.
Loading 4 Comments...
tbh i think its impossible to prevent sb to do so...
this board is just hits his range just so much better, that we pretty much have to chance to make a profit with our whole range :(
more important is, to play all our hands the most profitable way, and if its folding, we should fold
Q3: i dont think we should have any turnjammingrange, since this board is so locked down and sb is drawing to 6 outs at best or has us pretty much drawing dead (2 outs...)
there are just some hands you have to calldown 3 streets with closed eyes imo
A few points regarding the rest of your post. Balancing for the sake of balancing in certain situations is going to force us to play some hands in a non-optimal way. In this instance, it would be calling some hands that in isolation would probably be better off folded vs a bet. Also, if we are having some trouble coming up with enough hands that we are able to call the turn with it might be because we have constructed our range badly on the previous street.
There are some extreme situations where range advantage in connection with flop texture supercedes BTN's ability (and desire) to defend appropriately. Just like if the flop were T98ss at the other end of the spectrum, BTN now has the situation crushed and BB will not be able to defend enough against a bet after chking.
The problem lies in the fact that the dominating range simply has too many strong/nutty hands (relatively speaking) such that they will be able to bet a large range consisting of these {nut hands, lots of bluffs} that will still not be bluff-heavy enough for the dominated range of {bluff-catchers} to get to showdown.
That being said, these situations are extreme. I've wanted to do some combinatorics work in the past with respect to flop textures to get a better idea of how often certain sub-groups of flops happen etc but decided it wasn't worth the effort. Intuitively, I'd guess that the ~15-20% of wettest boards and ~15-20% of driest boards are typically where these heavy range advantages come into play with respect to defending strategy, while the meaty 60-70% of flops in between can be modeled with with your analysis.
P.S. Big thumbs up for your analysis, running the numbers for ranges/combos with respect to defending appropriately can really help your game a ton. Feel free to do more and I'll do my best to chime in.
Be the first to add a comment