HU $100/200 PLO Turn 3b Bluff - More Concerned w/ Theory
Posted by Phil Galfond
Posted by
Phil Galfond
posted in
High Stakes
HU $100/200 PLO Turn 3b Bluff - More Concerned w/ Theory
BB: MrSweets28: $39192.06
SB: patpatman: $40185.27
SB: patpatman: $40185.27
Preflop
($300.00)
(2 Players)
MrSweets28 was dealt
K
A
2
T
patpatman raises $300.00 to $500.00, MrSweets28 calls $300.00,
patpatman raises $300.00 to $500.00, MrSweets28 calls $300.00,
Flop
($900.00)
Q
7
9
(2 Players)
MrSweets28 checks,
patpatman bets $754.60,
MrSweets28 raises $1918.40 to $2673.00,
patpatman calls $1918.40,
Turn
($5491.40)
Q
7
9
Q
(2 Players)
MrSweets28 bets $4568.32,
patpatman raises $5631.68 to $10200.00,
MrSweets28 raises $7131.68 to $17331.68,
patpatman folds,
K, this is a read/flow based play that isn't that important. Essentially, I expected the overwhelming majority of his turn value range to re-raise flop given how the match had gone. More concerned with theory in this spot...
Final Pot
MrSweets28
wins $26824.00
Boats+: QQ, Q9, 99, 77(semi-rare), Q7(rare)
"Air": Wraps & flop "bluffs"
For PatPat to value raise the turn at this stack depth, I'd expect him to have QQ or Q9, perhaps AKQ7 but I wouldn't expect it without a very strong game dynamic. I don't see people raise a bare Q here, but should they?
If PatPat has a "value-raising" hand, like Q9, he barely needs protection. I either have a similar hand, an underfull, or MUCH more likely, a bluff of some kind with 0% equity.
The first issue is constructing PatPat's turn raising range. He either raises with some bluffs and some (likely) 100% equity hands, which means that given his blockers, his value hands will often get no action and will be up against 0% equity hands, and his bluffs are likely to run into a stronger range (or risk being rebluffed), OR he includes some Qxxx hands in his raising range (value? but needs protection), or he just doesn't raise the turn at all. I'll keep my instincts to myself until we've had some discussion.
I have a bunch of questions. Feel free to address as many or as few as you'd like, or to add your own and I'll try to share my thoughts.
So:
1) Should PatPat be raising the turn here with QQ or Q9?
2) If not, we can assume he has no turn raising range, correct?
3) If so, does he raise thinner for value than Q9?
Next up, if we assume his range is Q9+ or weak hands (draw, pair+weak draw, pair + no draw), how do I play my range? Keep in mind that it's already somewhat polarized.
If I ever want to bluff, given that I'm OOP, I need to do it here, on the turn. This means that my calling range can't really be balanced, right? Given my flop raising range, I can only call the turn with Qx+ (often boats), or perhaps the rare AAxx or KKxx that I didn't 3b preflop and decided to play this way. Unless we think I have enough equity to call turns with KJT7 or TT96. Do we?
So, even though my opponent is polarized, it appears that I should have SOME raising range.
Keep in mind, if I don't, he can raise Qx or KK for protection, as well as his wraps or OESDs with or w/o a 9 in them, and not risk being blown off his hand.
So, then:
4) Can I call with my whole range and be "balanced" enough that he doens't know I'm calling river 60%+?
5) Is balance important in my spot, or am I thinking about balance incorrectly?
6) Can I raise any hand other than Q9 or QQ for value?
Extra Credit:
7) I could call with most of my continuing range and construct a range that leads rivers. Could this be a viable strategy?
8) How would being 100bb deep affect your strategy here?
9) How would being 500bb deep affect your strategy here?
Loading 32 Comments...
1) I don't really see why Patpatman should raise the turn with nutted hands given that you've already represented a polarized range and him having a nutted hand would weight you heavily towards your air hands which have little to no equity vs QQ/Q9.
2) If he isn't raising QQ/Q9 hands it seems like his best bet would be to have no turn raising range.
7) This seems like a good way to counteract the problem of him being able to raise Qx and KK for protection as it still keeps his weaker hands that can improve in the pot / doesn't allow him to check back those hands while also allowing you to have an uncapped range on the river.
Re: 7 - I agree that this works well, with the only downside being we allow some of his bluffs to realize their equity (when we don't have boats) and find opportunities to call us.
Still though, the benefit of making a cheaper bluff sometimes, allowing us to have a river c/r range, and allowing us to get value from underfulls without risking our whole stack on the turn all seem like major benefits to this strat.
FWIW, I know of no one who employs this play, myself included, but it's been in my head for a long time.
2) If he isn't raising Q9 we can comfortably assume his range is 100% bluffs
3) I'd be surprised. Maybe against the right player he should be if we delve deeply into the analysis but in practice I'd be really surprised to see someone value raise weaker with the exception of mayyybe 997x (or 9977!).
3.5) I think if you're the one with Q9 you should 3b the turn so that you can also bluff and so that we can punish him if he did decide to raise with just a queen or an underfull. If he's just got draws and hits them he's obviously going to check river back so I think your turn 3b range should be Q9 and bluffs.
4) Hard to expect him to bluff the river again but who knows. If he thinks you will 3b Q9 yourself then I can see some players following through, but since you will probably just call with QQQQ it would be real gutsy or even stupid. It's not like you have Q9 like 5 times more often than QQ either since you probably need a gutter with Q9 to raise flop and a lot of good Q9s you'd 3b pre whereas most QQs would be flats. No way you can't look strong, just a disadvantage of being out of position.
5) I wouldn't worry much about having a balanced turn calling range, this spot is so rare and you're never going to develop enough history with someone for them to be 100% certain what your precise flatting range in a spot like this is. Whatever we flat it may as well just be because it's right in isolation. Maybe a range like QQQQ, strong two pairs with draws, underfulls, Q7 or trip queens.
6) I wouldn't think so unless you had super precise reads that he'd bluff spaz.
7) If the river comes T,J,K,A and you boat up with the queen (not aces full etc) are you leading or going for the CRAI? Whilst unusual there's probably nothing logically wrong with devising a strategy like this but my suspicion is it just won't be as effective as a more normal strategy like we've discussed, probably because you'll get less value with Q9 and your bluffs might get called more often. In a way that could cancel out if it means you'll get paid off small more often but I think that given pumping the pot with Q9 on the turn makes the most sense it's probably hard to have a coherent call-lead range.
8) 100BBs might mean he repots most Q9s and QQ on the flop and if he didn't yet still raised the turn I guess your decision would be based on game flow, I'd really have no idea with nothing to go from.
9) lol 500bb HU matches. 5 bets better be mandatory preflop or I'd rather kill myself.
I'm interested in your 3b sizing. In theory would clicking it back be optimal or is this giving him too good odds to continue and are you worried about how a click-back may look in practice to this opponent? What made you choose min+1500?
I think optimal sizing depends on ranges (if we think he's doing this with KKxx or strong draws, we need to go a little larger, I'd guess).
To be honest, I think that I give him the opportunity here for a profitable float, even against this sizing. Since my range is polarized, and he can very credibly rep boats by calling, he puts me in an awful river spot with all of my non-nut hands by simply calling turn, and betting a good frequency when checked to.
I am not comfortable having a high bluffing frequency on this river, especially for a large sizing. Actually, I wonder if we should have a smaller default sizing in spots like this against what we perceive to be a very polarized range (assuming river is a blank). Seems likely we should, OR that we should check most of our range. Hmm.
Anyways, I raised a little larger to deny him a profitable float (which I thought he was more likely to make against a smaller sizing, even if he didn't realize the reasons I listed above).
Sometimes just have to rely on opponents not reading the situation perfectly or having enough respect for you to not completely trust any decision thinking you might be on the next level.
Given what most people would assume in a game with presumably aggressive dynamics I think a 50-55% fold to c/r will play too poorly on the river if we begin to raise turn and the weakest portions of your flop c/r range will be an automatic and very profitable 3-barrel.
1. I think he can raise this turn because of how infrequently he will play QQ/Q9 this way. If he thinks that you rarely put him on QQ/Q9 after just calling the flop, he should also realize that, in your eyes, his turn raising range is/will be heavily skewed toward bluffs, which means that you'll be bluff raising here at a high frequency.
Also, playing QQ/Q9 this way protects his flop 2B calling range which is actually pretty cool IMO. Given that in the OP you said he wouldn't have QQ/Q9 the "overwhelming majority" of the time here, at best the strongest made hand he can have here is bottom two. That means that you'll be barreling him OTT here at a high frequency which is hard to counter because his turn raising range is skewed toward bluffs because he capped his range OTF, BUT if he plays QQ/Q9 like this enough of the time he can protect his flop 2Bet calling range by keeping it uncapped to a certain point and he can balance his turn raising range by putting the strong made hand back into his range. That allows him to not be auto-barreled OTT in this spot and he can now make this play with his flop combo draws that he would have to otherwise X/F OTT or bluff raise repping a weak turn raising range. HOWEVER, this all comes down to him playing his QQ/Q9 OTF like this enough of the time to balance his frequencies because if he's only doing this once in a while Phil can still +EV bluff raise.
If I am totally wrong please let me know. This way beyond my normal PLO thinking/knowledge. The question of whether or not Patpat could ever make a turn raise here profitable really intrigued me. The above is my possible answer to making it profitable. I'm also very tired haha.
The board pairing is something he should prepare his range for slightly, yes, but you don't want to get too carried away with it, especially since having QQ/Q9 will make the board less likely to pair.
I've been thinking about this spot for a few days now and did some sims and whatnot and some headscratching and I still have no idea what the right answer is. I suppose some observations which might be of service are that (1) IP is going to have way more trips combos than OOP because Qx so rarely gets included in a flop C/R range but may be included more often in a cbet/calling range, (2) The number of trips+ combos for each player by my accounting is about 35% each, with OOP generally having about 35% boats while IP has some more trippies, (3) I think people are vastly underguesstimating the effect of card removal in a spot like this for both players: if I'm OOP and I don't hold Qx (and to a lesser extent if I'm unpaired) I drastically increase the frequency of continuing combos for IP making my semibluffs much less profitable, and if I'm IP and OOP barrels me and I look down and don't see any Qx/9x/7x then I need to be awfully nervous about the trips+ frequency in OOP's range, (4) If I'm OOP and checkraise this board I'm likely to have quite a few JJ/TT type hands which serve as nutblockers when my wraps/OEs complete- but these hands improve to like 25-35% equity on the turn against IP's range and become sort of valuable to showdown, and (5) If I want to showdown those bajunky bluffcatcher JJ/TT hands by checking some nut hands on the turn I can't really ever checkraise bluff because once a checkraise goes in on the turn card removal effects become prohibitive for bluffing without some sort of blocker-y thing or bluffing at an extremely low frequency.
So I have nfi what to do really. If nothing else I'm not too fond of Phil's near pot betsize on the turn since it becomes tricky to make a 2 street bluff with that sizing without running into unpleasant removal effects. I guess the short answer is that I think OOP needs to play a fairly elaborate mixed strategy with a bunch of different hand classes here, but that that mixed strategy will involve mostly betting with nut hands while occasionally slowplaying with a check/call. I wouldn't be surprised at all to see some check/raise frequency being important as well though, this spot is harrrrrdddd.
FWIW, I was surprised by my turn betsize too, but I believe the converter was still very buggy when I posted this during beta, and the pot was actually 1k larger.
What assumptions did you use for IPs flop 3b range? I feel as though that makes a big difference... not as big a difference for my OOP turn betting strat, but a very big difference for his IP turn raising strat.
Glad you agree this spot is hard :)
I feel like trip type hands for IP that also contain blockers to the wrap (w/ overs to the 9 AQJx, KQJx) play pretty well for value in this spot. If we smooth call and river completes wrap/our boat, then oop can basically only c/c, b/f or c/f. On a garbage river, impossible for oop to bluff (as you said oop can really only bluff turn here). If we raise these connected Q hands it gives a chance to a) oop a bluff opportunity b) win an extra bet from wraps, c) if oop shows up w/ Q9, for the 7k raise i think we still show a profit calling here. Feels like the hand just plays better if we raise for value. Seems like this would allow us to put most QTxx in our range, as we have nut blocker and equity against alot of wrap hands. Wraps/misses basically need to start betting out on river for value to keep us from also raising any Qxxx which in turn should allow for us to also start raising even weaker (JJxx TTxx blocker type hands) on the turn for value, as well as put a few bluffs/nuts into our range.
A) how thin are you value leading here?
B) what range are you looking to c/c?
C) what sizing would you use as a bluff if no draws complete?
On the flop, isn`t patpatman playing ALL the sets and 2 pair type hands the same way?
1) I don't expect him to have QQ very often. On a draw heavy board like this, most people always raise top-set for various reasons. If he has a strong value hand, I think he's way more likely to have 99 or 77 or Q9/Q7 in his hand given the stack depth. That said, if he had QQ in his hand, I think raising the turn as he did is a great way to play it (let you rebluff, or get more money in against your underfulls in a spot i think you will play river pretty well). however given how infrequently he has qq by both card removal and flop play i'd basically discount it from considering how to play the hand. I think he and most people will raise Q9 here as their standard play, correctly. I think occasionally people will mix up their play by calling here - which is fine, but the standard play that i'd expect patpat to do in this spot with Q9 is raise. So now the big question, what about slightly weaker hands?
I follow your reasoning for the hand and like your thinking and the bluff. The truth is that he probably isn't raising a lot of his strong but not-nuttish hands very often (9s/7s full, Q7, AKQ8, etc...). the real question is should he?
if he has 9s full, should he raise here? if he does raise, would he ever raise to such a small size? is that the correct raise to balance out his raising range? (i.e. should this small raise be his only raise size?) The problem with 9s full and especially 7s full in this spot when IP is that you are generally up against a very polarized range of Q9/QQ/99+ that has you crushed, or wrap-type hands that are drawling dead to your under full. There are a few hands you might checkraise such as KQJTr that you didn't 3bet pre or KQT8 or something of the sort that you cr flop with ... and now have trips. but seeing as those hands are actually a relatively small % of your range it's a spot where it's almost certainly incorrect to reraise 77 in pat's spot. Against you phil, he probably should raise the 9s full to pick up your rebluffs. I'm a bit undecided as to whether or not it's good to reraise 9s here in pat's spot and would like to see some opinions on it. I think most people will avoid a tough decision here and just call with 99 in pat's spot, then call any river. But i'm not sure that's right.
4) i don't think you can call with your entire range here and be balanced. the spot is pretty rare, so if you did that i don't think anyone would pick up on it. but if you called here with some hands like this one instead of rebluffing turn - then bet river... it's a very strange line and i'm not sure how he'd react to it. it kind of reminds me of flop-leading hold'em (both out of blinds or oop in 3bet pots), and opponents react very differently to it. Some people might think you're slowplaying tons here and betting riv for value, to not blow them off their hands on the turn... others might think you're really bluffy. and i think you'd have no idea what your opponent will think here... generally in these spots i think it's better not to take the game to "guess land" if you already feel like you have a good read on your opponent in more standard situations (i.e. if you balance your ranges in this spot to be 3bet turn with Q9+ and bluffs, call turn with the strong range you discussed above).
6) going back to this question - the only hands I think you can consider would be Q7 or 99. I want to say you can raise Q7 for value, especially if you have two more overcards to the 9. But if your opponent isn't raising 99s full, than that's not a very good play is it? If he is raising 9s full than i definitely think you should raise Q7, unless you have no overcards to the 9.
gotta go... hope i didn't ramble too much
1) Should PatPat be raising the turn here with QQ or Q9?
No, I think he's best off protecting his bluff catching range by calling with all his nut hands. Given the SPR on the river, he's going to get a lot of his remaining stack in against worse boats anyways. By calling, he will substantially lower the profitability of your river bluffs which are the predominate part of your range when he has Q9 and especially QQ.
2) If not, we can assume he has no turn raising range, correct?
Yes, if we have no value range, we also have no bluffing range
3) If so, does he raise thinner for value than Q9?
If you did choose to raise QQ and Q9, I think you should probably also raise Q7 even if it's a little thin, because I'd like to be able to bluff raise the turn with some more interesting holdings like AKQJ and possibly get a fold from 99 or 77. In order to do that, you would need more Queen's full combos.
4) Can I call with my whole range and be "balanced" enough that he doens't know I'm calling river 60%+?
You could call with the whole range you continue with and it would still include some hands that may fold river such as your worse bluff catchers that don't improve, like TT or JJ. You may have to include more bluff catchers in order to balance the fact your range includes a lot of hands that will never fold.
5) Is balance important in my spot, or am I thinking about balance incorrectly?
People usually think of balance as having both weak and strong hands, but it's more about range diversity. Ideally our range is distributed in a manner than minimizes his profitability of all his options from this point forward (when he chooses to raise). We want to find a strategy that minimizes the combined profit of both his bluffs and valuebets and I think do that best by continuing to the river with some nutted hands, some strong bluff catchers we will never fold, and some weak bluff catchers we will.
6) Can I raise any hand other than Q9 or QQ for value?
I don't think so, range shrink up too fast after he raises the turn.
Extra Credit:
7) I could call with most of my continuing range and construct a range that leads rivers. Could this be a viable strategy?
It would be interesting. I think i would only lead a A, K, Q, J, or T, as his range probably includes too many Q9 combos to lead anything else. You would lead nut boats and a proportional number of bluffs. However, I'd assume he's valuebetting Q9 at an incredibly high frequency on the river anyways, and is correct to do so. Overall I think it's probably best to always check.
8) How would being 100bb deep affect your strategy here?
Well, I'm not sure i understand the question because if you had 100bb, his turn raise would be an all in. So I would call with Q7+ combos, and hate my life with 77 and 99 but probably call.
9) How would being 500bb deep affect your strategy here?
I would probably never 3bet the turn as his range is still too nutted. I would be more likely to bluff raise rivers on high cards. Not sure beyond that, would have to think about it more
I think he SHOULD have a turn raising range, as it's going to be easy enough for him to find combo's of hands to bluff with here OTT isn't it? Hands like 97+gutter, 9T8 and so on, problem is though (as has happened in the example) that because his flop call range isn't strong enough Phil has exploited the turn raise effectively. So if he is to have a turn raising range he needs to be flatting stronger OTF (You've said you think him extremely likely to 3b the flop with set/2p fair) So i guess the argument for 1,2 and 3 is which is the better strategy, to flat the flop with more strong hands and build a suitable turn raising range, or to not have a turn raising range?
If either of these two strategies had been implemented stronger in the specific hand posted, then you Phil, with no blockers would have a real hard time making this play? If im right?
I think flatting the flop stronger and having a turn raising range is better, although you lose some value some of the time with sets and 2p's I think calling with hands like 78T/89T and bluffing some turns is a nicer way to play those types of hands overall.
In the exact spot, whether he should raise QQ/Q9 IDK really his flop range is percieved to be pretty weak in an aggro dynamic on such a texture so in a vacuum seems like a good idea to raise.
4),5) and 6)
mmm I might be behind the curve here but can't think of any huge disadvantages to not having a 3b range OTT, even if say both of you are playing GTO accurately then you're still easily going to have enough combo's of hands to valuebet/bluff and 3bet with on this turn card against a polarized range, providing ofc that you're not going off your lid crazy 3bet bluffing the flop, even if his flop flatting range was stronger. Basically without going into actual hand/hand ranges I feel like slight mistakes in your frequencies would be easier to exploit IP if you never had a turn 3b range, than if you did have a turn 3b range.
7),8) and 9)
Sigh, sorry to much of a hangover to think about these :( no extra credits (if any credits at all even) for me
The opimal line with his entire range, including nuts&draw/bluffs, is to call off the turn and bet the river.
Much easier to balance, a lot less vulnerable to the 3b on the turn.
In my opinion, your reaction to his turn raise is simply wrong.
Would you ever 3b Q9/QQ on the turn?
If I shouldn't be 3betting any turns, then doesn't it become very profitable for him to bluffraise turns? What else can I do about it if I can't raise?
Be the first to add a comment