SRP OP river decision vs jam 150x
Posted by EpicFoldGirl
Posted by
EpicFoldGirl
posted in
Mid Stakes
SRP OP river decision vs jam 150x
UTG: 295.63 (Hero)
HJ: 200
CO: 219.12
BN: 396.02
SB: 227.53
BB: 243.84
HJ: 200
CO: 219.12
BN: 396.02
SB: 227.53
BB: 243.84
Preflop
(3)
(6 Players)
Hero was dealt
A
A
Hero raises to 6, HJ folds, CO calls 6, BN calls 6, SB folds, BB folds
Hero raises to 6, HJ folds, CO calls 6, BN calls 6, SB folds, BB folds
Flop
(21)
2
5
Q
(3 Players)
Hero bets 14,
CO folds,
BN calls 14
Turn
(49)
2
5
Q
5
(2 Players)
Hero bets 36,
BN calls 36
River
(121)
2
5
Q
5
J
(2 Players)
Hero bets 110,
BN raises to 340.02, and is all in
Probably its more easy common spot but imnot sure
River SRP IP fold 58 call 34 raise 8 CC 11 BN vs UTG
I need 22% for BE
Dont think he jam QJ for value here all sets are in his range
thoughts? also is my river size too big?
ty
Loading 44 Comments...
Even though his value range is very narrow and you have very good odds for a call, I don't see people bluffing this spot expecting you to fold overpairs. It's a pretty clear fold imo.
GTO wise this is a clear call, you're at the top of your range, you need to defend half of your range against this shove or otherwise he has a profitable bluff with all his air (flushdraws and floats).
More arguments for calling are that he might 3-bet QQ and/or fold 22 pre, fold JJ on the turn, raise sets earlier. Could still shove QJ. Also you don't block any diamond draw that he could have.
The only reason to find a fold here would be a player/population tendency to under doublefloat and bluffraise blank rivers when they rep very few value combos. Most players at these stakes don't bluffraise here often enough in this type of spots.
Also your river sizing is fine, since you beat all Qx and block none of them, making him bluffcatch with Qx is a good strategy.
I know you're going to destroy me with a soul crushing reply, but I'm still going to say that I disagree with almost everything you said:
GTO wise this is a clear call, you're at the top of your range
Hero is not at the top of his range. He has 22/55/QQ/A5s/maybe JJ in his range.
he might 3-bet QQ and/or fold 22 pre, fold JJ on the turn, raise sets earlier. Could still shove QJ.
I think most of these assumptions are somewhat optimistic. BTN would likely not 3-bet QQ because of stack sizes, he's never shoving QJ because his hand is way too weak to jam for value, but too strong to use as blockers for a bluff.
Because of his position and effective stacks, he has many 22 combos, and maybe A5s.
I don't see why Villian would raise 22/55/QQ on the turn. There is nothing he needs to protect from, he has few bluffs in that range, and he wouldn't allow Hero to potentially catch up a little.
The only reason to find a fold here would be a player/population tendency to under doublefloat and bluffraise blank rivers
Not sure that even the top NL players double float on a 5 turn, since it's such an awful card for UTG to barrel, therefore his range is very strong. And Villian would likely still have enough missed diamonds on the river to be balanced, with a river bet.
you beat all Qx and block none of them
AQ is the main hand you want to get value from in this spot. Maybe KQs because of Hero's blockers, but in terms of the bluff catcher that's higher up in Villians range, it's AQ.
You
should still have a bluffing range on the river, and I'm sure that AA
beats all our bluffs, we very well might fold 22-55 preflop, so that
seems to suggest that you only call with QQ and A5s. Betting this large
with QQ doesn't work well due to card removal. I really like to know
your river betting range in this spot if AA isn't a top 50% hand there.
He can also raise on the flop, we should at least discount sets a little bit.
If we never have better than AA here and our opponent has many sets, we
should start by checking more turns and rivers since AA becomes a
bluffcatcher. But that seems very unlikely, since our opponent can still
have QTs and missed draws.
Assuming we're playing optimally, this is a perfect example as to why you should sometimes open 22-55 UTG; (deepstacked) board coverage.
Top 50% is not equal to the top of your range.
The worst hands to value bet here for that sizing would be AQ, then KK, and then AA. So it's probably in the middle of Hero's range, if boats are at the top.
And what's Villians bluffing range here? AKdd that didn't 3-bet, AJdd which may fold the turn.
Let's be generous and give him some QJs.
It's too late for math, but my guess would be that given the amount of bluff combos, the price we're being laid, and the fact that we have numerous better hands in our range, I think we can unexploitably fold here.
And from an exploitative standpoint, it's definitely a fold.
Hero opened UTG, c-bet a somewhat wet board 3-way, bet a blank turn and bombs a somewhat blank river, while being deep stacked. There are very few 1/2 players who have a balanced bluffing range in Villians spot.
That is a fallacy, just because on this runout having 22-55 will give us 4 extra value combos does not prove that we should open it. Also this is not deepstacked, versus most players we are barely more than 100bb deep.
Nope, you're wrong. You still haven't answered what your river betting range would be.
Also, it should never be a problem for our opponent to find hands from the bottom of his range.
GTO wise this is a clear call, you're at the top of your range, you need
to defend half of your range against this shove or otherwise he has a
profitable bluff with all his air (flushdraws and floats).
Would appreciate math behind this.
That is a fallacy, just because on this runout having 22-55 will give us 4 extra value combos does not prove that we should open it. Also this is not deepstacked, versus most players we are barely more than 100bb deep.
It's not proof that 22-55 should be opened, but it is a solid indication that it can be hugely beneficial.
Even if the EV in a vacuum would slightly negative, that EV calculating does not include the times where you're losing tons of flexibilty and board coverage on low boards, especially deep stacked.
Let's say you open 300BB UTG and BB defends. Flop is 432r. In theory, Villian could simply c/r, bet-overbet shove, because you're capped to one pair, whereas he can have the sets. A bit of a simplification, obviously.
Another example would be to flat 99 in CO OOP vs a BTN 3-bet 100BB deep. It's probably slightly -EV to get in, comparing your pre-flop fold equity and stack off equity, but the reason I would do it is because you will lose way more EV by having to play a super vulnerable hand post-flop.
Nope, you're wrong. You still haven't answered what your river betting range would be.
Also, it should never be a problem for our opponent to find hands from the bottom of his range.
For the sizing Hero chose, my value betting range would likely be AQ (12) < KK (6) < AA (6) < A5s (2) < 22 (6) < QQ (3) < 55 (1).
Assuming we ignore card remove, JJ/QJs don't bet the turn, A5s bets the flop.
That's 36 value combos. (18 worse combos) (AA 6 combos) (12 better combos)
So AA is slightly higher than 50% in your range. And I was generous in giving Hero every single AQ combo.
You can still have 56s there, and obviously you need to have more board coverage at 300bb than at 100bb. Also, if you don't cover a board very well you need te check back more, and call down lighter.
You are miscounting combos here. Also, given our hand, there is only one combo of A5s, the A5dd, which very well might raise the flop since out of all 1326 combos, it is the one that makes the nuts on the highest number of turns.
I asked for your betting range a couple of times now, you keep talking about value combos only. So I assume that you never bluff this river, in which case you can fold more combos obviously. Recall what I said:
Here I made the assumption that a 'GTO wise' strategy for EpicFoldGirl involves bluffing this river. AK!d seems like a good candidate to bluff rivers with.
You can still have 56s there, and obviously you need to have more board coverage at 300bb than at 100bb. Also, if you don't cover a board very well you need te check back more, and call down lighter.
56s is not in most players' UTG opening range. If you include it, then AA moved down in Hero's value range.
Valid point on checking back more on these boards.
You are miscounting combos here. Also, given our hand, there is only one combo of A5s, the A5dd, which very well might raise the flop since out of all 1326 combos, it is the one that makes the nuts on the highest number of turns.
This is an estimation of Hero's overall betting range in this spot. I did not factor in card removal.
I asked for your betting range a couple of times now, you keep talking about value combos only. So I assume that you never bluff this river, in which case you can fold more combos obviously.
Sorry, I thought we only talking about value hands.
Hero's bluffs would probably be A3dd, A4dd, AKdd, AJdd, KJdd, JTdd. Don't think you can bluff much because of the offsuit 5 turncard, assuming Villian doesn't fold an exploitable amount of turns.
That's 6 bluffing combos, compared to 30 value combos. Given the near PSB bet, this range would be way too valueheavy, so the solutions would be to:
1. Bet a smaller sizing
2. remove some value combos (especially AQ because of blockers)
3. Bet turn and river with lower equity bluffs.
Again, this not factor in card removal. It's about looking at Villians betting range in a vacuum. AA just happens to be the hand he has here.
I have learned so much from this debate :)
Exploit him by folding. I would estimate that 1 player of 10 has a balanced river- raising range in this spot at those stakes.
I agree with Ivey. This is an explo fold vs most players. Just can't get maried to game theory in all situations and this is one of those moments.
P.S. I personally never fold so don't try and exploit me, or actually please do :)
first of all ty for the replies
I dont open 22 from UTG (yes 55 and A5s) i dont play like this JJ probably
so my "value" hands are KK AA 55 A5 and AQ ( because i dont think i play like this KQ and QJ)
Is there any argument for bluffcatching with AQ rather than AA/KK since we now block QQ?
This surely has to be a fold. Main arguments; villain has all sets in his range, we don't block any of his valuecombos, wouldn't give a player enough credit on this limit to turn a hand into a bluff on this river (especially to your sizing), the only hands he naturally would feel the need to turn into a bluff on this river are draws w/o sd value where i'd assume a player good enough to turn hands into bluffs probably is more likely to reraise a decent amount on the turn since you have a 5 very rarely in your utg range and the stats your provided doesn't tell me he is this kind of sicko i'm making this herocall against.
Fuck GTO, just play well this spot and fold.
You open UTG and bet big 3 times, you are polarized and he doesn't care. He got a boat/quads/Royal Flush with 9 cards like always.
I like this. You guys are in an ivory tower on this hand.
i mean, if the bottom line of your analysis always ends up being "fuck gto, they always have it" then there isn't much merit to posting the hand. this isn't 2008 anymore
That's a NL200 hand, versus an average villain (and OP give us no read).
Not a NL40k hand versus Kanu or Ike Haxton...
To use GTO with efficiency, you must :
- play perfect GTO (but WTF are you playing in NL200?),
- villain must play perfect balance range, etc... (but WTF is he playing NL200?).
If not, you just lose a lot of money trying to be "unexploitable".
Some reasons why GTO isn't an amazing approach here.
1. If it was GTO, AA would be basically indifferent between calling and folding. That's fancy words for 0 E.V. -- it doesn't matter what you do.
2. If we deviate from a GTO calling frequency here, its almost impossible to exploit. The situation arises too infrequently.
3. No solid reg plays a maximum exploitative strategy in this spot, i.e. bluff raise everything worse than KK on this river. It's suicidal.
It's an academic debate between gametheory and Chael. In practice either approach is probably fine.
1. You have to make a distinction between the different combos of AA, since we don't block Ad*d, there are fewer potential bluffing hands (if it is GTO to bluff with missed diamonds), making AhAs one of the better bluffcatchers. Also, it might be that GTO goes wider for value here, for instance shoving KK for value, making a hand like KQ a bluffcatcher and AA good enough to call.
2. There will be many spots where we can have a lot of strong hands and few super nutted hands like this.
I don't think the debate between me and him is academic, we both agree that most players at these stakes underbluff in this spot. But he thinks that a GTO strategy for betting the river has (almost) no bluffs, and I think that it does.
It's academic because calling AA in the GTO framework is worth 1 or 2 BBs at best.
It's academic because you start with a set of assumptions (guesses) of about what hands we open preflop. Then make guesses about the button's calling range and our betting ranges on the flop, the turn and the river. Then using these guesses, make a bold claim that the GTO strategy -- the unbeatable strategy --is to call AA.
What if the actual optimal strategy was to check the turn with our entire range, because our range was too far behind the buttons?
What if the optimal strategy involved opening up small suited fives and small pocketpairs?
What if the optimal calling range for the button on the river involved folding most queens and calling most fives?
I don't know the answer to these questions, and it is deceitful to pretend that you do. And until we do this sort of river analysis is academic.
But it is a fact that most humans would play AA like this. So when I say this is a call GTO wise since you're at the top 50% of your river betting range I mean something like:
In the subgame where you have your typical raise UTG and barrel 2 streets range and your opponent has a typical calling range, assuming you try to play optimal and commit yourself to betting $110, calling the shove with AhAs must be a part of your strategy.
Also speculating if we should only have a limping range, no turn betting range or anything exotic that humans currently don't do or even know how to do is far more academic than assuming that the first streets are played like we currently do. If you want to take it this far, we can't even argue that AA should be opened preflop.
PokerIsHard
The discussion was about GTO play. Nobody said we have to play the hand this way.
It's surely beneficial to learn how to play an unexploitable style. It's fairly easy to deviate from GTO play to exploitative play, but it's really hard to do it the other way around.
@Tyler I'm just a midstakes fish who learned a lot from GT himself/herself.
IMO he has JJJ here by far most often for a value hand, QQQ sometimes as well. If he's bluffing it's usually with QTs type of stuff (assuming QTs is a 0EV call) or maybe TT. I think most players aren't bluffing here a ton, so I'd just fold. I like your line. If you think 55 and 22 and QQ are fairly infrequent in his range you might want to overbet the turn and jam the river.
I think Qx turned into a bluff is way more likely.
Most players would not calls JJ again, after Hero has opened, c-bet 3-way on a board containing and overcard, and then firing on a blank.
Doesn't it matter that he put 30bb in to get to the river ? It's not like he can just call call shove any hand.
However, Villain should have a bunch of busted draws that plausibly got to the river with - likely more than he needs to balance his valuehands - and that´s the point. We need 28% to make the call, so Villain´s value:air-ratio should be 72:28 or 2.5:1. When we give him like 5 valuecombos, his max. bluff-ratio would be 2 combos!!!
That said, once we fold more than 50%, Villain could throw the 2.5:1-ratio out of the window and shove any2.
But that´s theory. :) In practice, it´s probably less likely and we can "exploitively" fold, because I agree with GTO that we make an exploitive fold if we fold AA, still it´s likely the "correct" play in this situation.
The more money our opponent has risked to be able to get to a good bluff opportunity the lesser we have to defend. In theory this is not a good bluffing opportunity though.
I believe that players more often calls turn with JJ and nutflushdraw, than turn top pair Qx into a bluff-shove on river at low stakes. If he is bluffing I think it is more likely that he tilt/spazz shoves his missed nutflushdraw. Players just don´t turn top pairs into bluffs, because their hand block nuts combos when there is a flushdraw on board at these stakes.
If it is not a spazz-shove, then the bluffing player must be capable of making advanced river-bluffs. This at the same time as he must be sure that his opponent is capable of making a big folds when facing a repped narrow valuerange on a board with a missed flushdraw on it. Not very likely in this case.
How is that M Bigfizh? If you call turn on a paired board with a flushdraw you have decent equity yes. If you three bet bluff me pre flop and I call. You also have decent equity.
What is the difference?
Let me make an example:
1) Hero bets the turn, Villain calls with 0% equity to shove any river - knowing that Hero won´t defend the necessary 50%, but only 45%. So, Villain risks (36+240) to win (85+110). He´ll succeed in 55%, which yields a negative EV for the turncall of -$16.95.
2) Hero bets the turn, Villain calls with 15% equity to the nuts. Villain still shoves any river (for the sake of simplicity). Hero will call 45%. Now, Villain´s EV for the turncall goes up to $23.55, even with the small equity of just 15%.
See, what I mean?
My point is this:
The player in this case could (in theory) have called turn (risked his money) with the plan to shove some rivers. Yes, he had some equity (not to the nuts by the way) but so do a player that three bet bluffs pre also have. He has even more than 16 percent equity when risking his money.
If I three bet bluff you pre (risks my money) and you call. You do not have to defend your flop range as often as you should do in raised pot, because I risked money to get to that good bluffing-spot.
In short: There are situations where opponent risks his money with equity, and then gets to a good bluffing-spot where his opponent can defend less often without being exploited.
I feel like whenever I read these discussions I find myself believing that the problem lies with trying to play aggressively OOP with tight and fairly predictable ranges. IE I agree with gametheory's assumptions and arguments, but feel that what he's shedding light on is the problems with hero's range construction. Do such hands and the surrounding theory discussion suggest that we should be playing a much more passive strategy OOP with our entire range?
Yes, I read what you wrote, but maybe you also read that I wrote in my first post that this theory was not good to use in this handexample because he does not have a good bluffing spot. It was the three bet example I wanted you to focus on. Since the OP example is not a good one, I will give another one:
What I did not understand was your claim that the theory we are discussing only is true when the player has 0 percent of equity with his risktaking.
If I call turn with a gutshot (with some percentages of equity) and plan on bluffing all flushcards when there is a potsized bet left, I risk my money because it can happen that you shove river first and I will miss my opportunity to bluff. It can also happen that I do not get a good card to bluff on river. But IF the flushcard hits and I get my good bluffing opportunity, then you do not need to defend your river range at the minimum if you check because I took a risk to get there. When I risked my money with this gutshot hand I had more than 0 percent of equity.
My point has all along been that this theory does not only apply when opponent risked money with 0 percent of equity. I also gave the three bet example to show that. If I three bet bluff you pre I risk my money because you can fourbet me. But if you only call I will have a good bluffing-spot on flop. You will then not have to defend flop at the minimum because I risked money to get to that spot.1) The opponent could spoil my bluffing opportunity when he shoves first.
2) There are only few rivercards that "allow" me to bluff.
In combination, I won´t get the chance to bluff often enough so the odds on the turn aren´t there. Right?
Obviously you´re correct with that, but obv. nobody doubted that special situation. But in the example OP gave we have a completely different spot as a) we´re not all-in and b) Villain was not waiting for some special scare cards (in case he planned on bluffing), so I don´t know how it relates?
Let´s take your 3bet example: say you fold the "optimal" frequency to my 3bets, which means, my 3bet-bluffs are break-even. Why do you think you can afford to defend less than the minimum against my cbet?! I´m printing money with my cbets - and in fact I didn´t even "risk money" to get into this bluffing-spot, because my 3bet was already break-even, so on the flop the clocks are reset to zero - and I have a "new" bluffing spot that gets profitable if you fold too much. OK?
But I´m afraid we´re derailing this thread ...
I said all along that the hand example in OP was not a good one to use this theory in. You missunderstood my question. My question was about you claiming that this theory is only true when opponent has had 0 percent of equity, this is not true. I believe I showed this with the "calling turn with a gutshot planning to bluff x amount of cards" example.
About the three bet example. Since we should not derail this thread I will create a thread in the NL highstakes thread about it.
BigFiszh makes some valid points about the turn, if he floats with a 0% equity hand just to exploit a minor leak (calling 45% instead of 50%) he will still be losing. But clearly, we will not be betting 100% of rivers, we might be check folding too much with the other part of our range.
For instance if we double barrel all our flushdraws and not valuebet enough made hands on the turn, and always check fold flushdraws on the turn, the EV of his float goes way up.
And moreover, this river is perfect for our overpairs, and AA without a diamond is the 'best' overpair that we can have. If we bet fold this hand, surely our calling frequency will be much lower than 45%.
And regardless of the cost of floating, we should assume that the GTO strategy of our opponent involves folding some hands, for instance missed flushdraws or QT-. If we allow our opponent to have a profitable bluff with all of them we are betting too wide. I have seen people argue for a fold, but I haven't seen anyone argue for a rivercheck, so they must be quite inconsistent. (Which may be fine as an exploitative strategy.)
I have claimed all along that the hand in OP is not a good example in our of topic discusstion. What I asked Bigfiszh about was his claim that the theory we are talking about is only true if a player has risked money with 0 percent equity. This I have hard time to believe and I gave a better example than the OP example to try to explain my point.
If I call turn with a gutsthot with a plan to bluff all x cards on river I risk two things. 1) you do not give me the chance to bluff river 2) X cards do not come on river. Therefore if a a very bad river hits for you then you can check and do not defend the minimum because I risked so much to get to that bluffing spot. In short, the theory we talk about applies also when the risktaker has had equity when taking the risk. No only when he has had 0 percent equity.
I would apprecate if you could give your opinion in the NL highstakes thread that I created by the way.
Regs at these stakes will never be bluffing here. Especially when deep. Take big diamonds out of his range and there's practically nothing we beat (qj isn't even likely).
Easy fold as we run into quad 5s, Queens and Jacks full nearly all the time.
Be the first to add a comment