Improving On 1-A
Posted by jdstl
Posted by jdstl posted in High Stakes
Improving On 1-A
Hand 1:
10/20pl 6m, $2000 eff
UTG raise $60, MP call, Hero call BB with Tc8c4h2h.
Fl(190) AhTh7h
Hero ch, UTG bets 95
If we defend 1-A of our range, the field is required to defend 67% vs this bet so UTG is indifferent to bluffing with his 0 equity holdings.
Hand 2
10/20pl 6m, $2000 eff
MP limp, BTN limp, Hero complete SB with KdKh9c8s, BB ch.
Fl(80) 7h7c3d
Hero ch, BB ch, MP bets 80
If we defend 1-A of our range, the field is required to defend 50% vs this bet so MP is indifferent to bluffing with his 0 equity holdings.
If we defend 1-A of our bluff catchers, we'll be folding a lot more than 1-A of our entire range.
For example, in Hand 2, approximately 15-20% each of BTN, SB, and BBs ranges could be classified as 'bluff catchers', (defining bluff catchers as their combos of naked QQ, KK, AA, and medium 7xxx). If each player is defending 1-A of this subset of combos, that's very different than defending 1-A of their entire range. This decision lies in making the bettor indifferent between betting or checking with his bluffs.
Questions:
1) Do we want to defend 1-A of our entire range or do we want to defend 1-A of our bluff catchers?
2) Is each player equally responsible for defending the flop, or are some players more responsible than others?
Loading 4 Comments...
Some quick thoughts:
1) Having to defend just the bluffcatching part of your range only applies if villain doesn't gain anything from making you fold air (e.g. OTR if villain can just check back and always win vs air). This is not the case here, since if villain checks back his own air, he will sometimes lose the pot to your air when you bluff him, so getting you to fold the flop is preferable for him.
2) I don't like saying the players are "responsible" for defending. Everyone will continue when it's profitable for them, and if they can't do it often enough to stop villain from betting 100% then too bad. That said, different players will be able to defend a different amount of hands. Being close to the bettor is bad since you also have to worry about the guys left to act. If it was say BTN betting into SB+BB, SB would have to play tighter than BB for sure. In these examples the guy first to act has the benefit of having position on the bettor. Not sure how that affects things other than it obv lets you play some amount of extra hands.
Nice post.
Re:Defending "responsibilities"
Those were my thoughts as well. Whoever has the best relative position to the bettor is the one who should be doing the majority of the defending. I think this idea stems from blind defense vs btn steals where the bulk of the defense comes from the player in the BB (though that's not just because he's last to act, he's also getting a much better price pre-flop than SB)
If it's true that the player with best relative position is required to defend the most, the issue I can see here, which is illustrated very well in hand 2, is that sometimes it's just not possible for certain players with certain ranges to defnd enough. For instance, in hand 2 BB is the player who is last to act after MP bets. So according to this "theory" he should be the one who does the bulk of the defending. The problem is his range is like 100%-15% and it's just not feasible that he'd be able to defend enough there.
You're probably right that it's correct for us to just take the highest EV line with each hand, and if that means we can't defend "enough" then so be it. Sacrificing our own EV to try to decrease villain's EV seems like a mistake on our part.
Well in hand 2, assuming that each player has a bluffcatcher 15% of the time, someone will have a bluffcatcher about 39% of the time. Add to that the nutted hands everyone also has in their ranges, as well as some air floats/raises, and I doubt the field will fold the required 50% of the time to bluff for pot without equity. Also it's not like MP's range hits this board hard either, so if he starts betting all of his air, the field will in theory counteradjust and attack his wide and weak betting range with thinner bluffcatches and more raises/floats.
In general though it's ofc possible to have such a range advantage that villain(s) just can't defend enough, for example a tightish 4bet range catching a dry A-high flop.
+1 SuperT
Be the first to add a comment