PLO25 get it in too light vs 3bettor? Hand 2/2
Posted by Osterror
Posted by
Osterror
posted in
Low Stakes
PLO25 get it in too light vs 3bettor? Hand 2/2
BB: $25
BN: $14
SB: $25.93 (Hero)
BN: $14
SB: $25.93 (Hero)
Preflop
($0.35)
(3 Players)
Hero was dealt
J
Q
9
8
BN raises to $0.75, Hero calls $0.65, BB raises to $2.75, BN folds, Hero calls $2.25
BN raises to $0.75, Hero calls $0.65, BB raises to $2.75, BN folds, Hero calls $2.25
I think 3-betting is my more usual default here. However, the open comes from an unknown guy who just sat in and who has a short stack. I'd have no clue if he calls too much or folds too much so I dont know which way he could be exploited. 3-bettor is a TAG with very standard looking stats.
Flop
($6.75)
Q
3
K
(2 Players)
Hero checks,
BB bets $5,
Hero raises to $21.45,
BB raises to $17,
Hero calls $0.55
Again I have a lot of outs to improve in absolute terms, but hitting most of them will still be very tricky If I just call? However, a strong bet, should this raise alarm bells?
Turn
($50.75)
J
(2 Players)
River
($50.75)
8
(2 Players)
Loading 17 Comments...
Calling is fine preflop, this hand doesn't have to be an auto 3-bet. I think it's fine to call the squeeze too although it's not exactly what you hoped for.
OTF are you assuming he has dry aces here? Otherwise you kinda need to fold...
I believe(d) he can also have a broadway hand where he often has a pair+wrap or KQ . Now I think naked AA is unlikely unless he misplays it by betting too much for no real reason I guess. Looking at the strong bet NFD gets more weight?
Yes, either NFD or two pair or a draw that has you crushed. With an SPR of ~3.5, I think it's unlikely that dry aces gets it in here -- which is basically the only thing that you're doing alright against.
This hand is totally fine. His bet-size isn't unusual for a board like this and I don't see any option beyond getting it in. Folding is utterly ridiculous w/ a gutter, flush draw and a pair in a 3-bet pot for 100bbs and calling will make life tricky on the turn, especially OOP. Well played.
Wow you don't give me a lot of credit do you?
If you are so convinced that my argument is wrong, how about explaining the ways it is wrong instead of just calling it utterly ridiculous? It seems unprofessional coming from a RIO pro.
I've obviously been in this spot lots and lots of times, and I don't think I ever got it in good when I'm up against a good TAG. He could have dry aces yes, and he could have a lower wrap with lower FD yes (we have JT98:ss crushed obviously). But those hands are not getting it in. Those hands are essentially the only ones you're doing well against. With everything else, you're essentially flipping or in bad shape. You're just not going to have the 44% or so that you need on average to get it in. And in terms of fold equity, I don't think there really is any. He wouldn't be betting this board often with the intention to fold to a shove. You could hope that he has something like AKT8 with no spades, but you're essentially just going to shove and pray that he doesn't have it.
Give me a spew tard and I'm getting it in every time. Give me a random fish in the game and I'm still probably getting it in. Give me even a weak bad TAG and I'm happy to get it in. But when we don't have that read, I just don't think this is going to work out well. Getting it in is just only slightly losing at best, but it's never making you any money.
1) You refer to villain as a "good TAG" which is not a read I'm willing to accept as we lack the evidence. He has standard TAG stats which simply means he plays fewer hands than most. At 25PLO, that is insufficient evidence to label him "good" in any way and I'm firmly of the belief that assuming skill in these games is a mistake. Play as if someone is standard for their stakes until you know otherwise. For 25PLO, standard is bad.
2) You say, "He could have dry aces yes, and he could have a lower wrap with lower FD yes... But those hands are not getting it in." However, later on you say, "And in terms of fold equity, I don't think there really is any." These statements simply don't mesh. Ignoring the fact that you seem to think he'll fold like JT9 w/ spades, which he won't, you are assuming random TAGs don't c-bet most of their AA hands here which isn't the case - they are more than happy to try and simply pick up the pot here, many of them calling off w/ AA as well (some might need AAJ perhaps). You've somehow assumed his c-bet range contains only hands which we do poorly against which is incredibly pessimistic. In reality, very few TAGs have a c-bet% low enough that we can't shove here, especially given how incredibly AA heavy their preflop range likely is.
A look at how we do versus some potential stacking off ranges suggests this:
Against (AA, KK, QQ, 33, KQ, K3, Q3, As*s, AJT, AKJ, AKT, JT:ss):3% we are 54%. That has him c-betting pretty much 100% of his range (by PPT's count).
Now, if we remove the hands which we want him going broke w/ (AA, AJT, AKJ, AKT), we fall to a mere 34% which sucks, but that has his c-bet% down to about 30 as well. That is clearly completely unreasonable for any TAG (indeed, given my original range covers basically everything he 3-bet, I would expect to see him betting nearly all the time as very few of those hands are unreasonable c-bets IP).
Even w/ a 5% preflop 3-bet, you will still find that original range accounts for the vast majority (>90%) of his preflop 3-bets so it's completely reasonable to expect a very high c-bet% here (only c-betting the bad range is a c-bet% <40). He's a TAG, so expanding the preflop range beyond this is not a reasonable assumption. Note: against a 5% 3-bettor, we are 51 and 34.5% respectively against the two stacking off ranges). Even if we expand his c-betting range to include all AA+gutter hands and AA+spade hands (ie AA w/ non-nut spades), he's still only c-betting a very low 56%, too low given how strong his range is on this board (we would be 41.5% versus that range).
Now, clearly if he's c-betting 100% and going with it, we can stack off given our equity >50%. If he's c-betting the 100% but folding to a raise unless he has the hands you think he stacks off, we can shove because we have either 60 or 70% fold equity (meaning we win $5.09 and $6.66 respectively).
IF we accept your stacking off range, but reduce villain's c-bet% from 100%, we could potentially create a scenario in which we are unprofitable. However, to do this we have to reduce villain's c-bet% to either 56.4% for the 5% 3-bet range or 42.25% for the 3% 3-bet range. If he c-bets wider than that, which I am almost certain he will (and would heavily criticize making a different assumption based on the information provided) and yet only stacking off the hands you think he will, we are profitable in shoving based upon fold equity.
The only way to make us unprofitable here is to manipulate both his stacking off and c-betting ranges in such a way as to assume he's basically playing perfectly against our hand which isn't really fair (and the ranges you'd input would hold true for so few villains as to be of little analytical value, especially given the very limited reads we have here).
Hope that helps.
Note: I didn't consider check/calling this OOP as playing turns with such poor visibility will suck and shoving is profitable so I have no desire to put myself into gross spots which I may make loads of mistakes in.
This is a squeeze, not just any random 3-bet. You can generally assume ranges to be far tighter, especially when a TAG squeezes. He's not going to have sets of 3's, or K3. He's going to have sets of K's and Q's, and he's going to have double suited aces or aces with broadways.
Assuming he stacks off with his entire range... I see how you need that assumption, because it's the only way your argument really works. But let's say he squeezes 4% and stacks off with everything except naked aces, you have 35% even against that very simple range. I think you're probably doing a bit better than that in reality, but I don't see how you have the required 44%.
I'm not saying players at 25PLO are necessarily good. But just assuming that you can stack off lighter because they are randomly "bad", that's not going to do you any favours. Bad players with tight ranges still hit the boards just as hard.
One particular property of tight players at 25PLO is that they are scared to death of the nuts. This board is bad for naked aces, and even bad players realise that. When I see players stacking off with naked aces here I make a player note, because that's not what I see in the general case. This skews their stackoff ranges to being stronger in general, which means we also need to tighten up our stackoff ranges. You're basically assuming a spew tard here, and that's just not what I see at the tables.
There are a number of issues with how you've read my explanation here, first of which Osterror pointed out below - I assumed preflop 3-bet ranges of 3 and 5% respectively. They factor into all the equity calculations and combinatoric work I did.
Secondly, you've completely failed to understand my argument. I did not state that we require villain to be stacking off 100% to be profitable, I merely indicated that if he is we are clearly doing very well. What I showed was that villain had to have an incredibly low c-bet% to make stacking off a mistake.
You say things like, "Lets assume he squeezes 4% and stacks off everything except naked aces, you have 35% against that very simple range." What I showed was that he has to have a very low c-bet% to be only betting those hands, an assumption which won't hold true for the vast majority of TAGs in these games. If he is only stacking those hands, then we almost certainly have enough fold equity to make this shove very profitable. We don't need to get it in 44% if we are picking up nearly 50bbs without showdown some of the time!
Finally, the idea that I'm assuming a spew tard is patently false. Re-read the intricacies of the analysis I did and you'll see that. What is actually happening is that you are assuming a player who is playing perfectly against you by never bet/folding and never bet/calling a worse hand. This fails to reflect reality and lies at the centre of why your decisions are flawed here (imo).
He did assume tight range, that shows in :3%. It means the range is only 3% including those other hands.
Folding here should never happen, and especially not to a villain where all we know is that he has "TAG stats". I won't try to add on to what Tom said because I think he smashed it, but I'll add some syntax action.
(AA:ss, A$R$R$R:xx, $R$R$R$R:xx, AAQ, AA3:hh, AAT, AAK, AAJ, KK:88+, QQ:99+, KK$ds, AKK$N, (JT98:ss, JT97:ss, JT9Q, JTQ8)$ds, (JT98:ss, JT97:ss, JT9Q, JTQ8)$ss)$nt!wxyz
Against a tight, taggy 3-betting range I've added only what seems to be hands in the optimal c-bet/calling range. Against this range we have 44.1%. What then makes it a crystal-clear stackoff are the times he has a wider range (very possible), bet-calls lighter than this (most likely) or bet-folds (uncommon, but non-zero).
Thought experiment: The only time I could ever see myself even remotely consider folding is in a spot like us raising UTG full-ring, we get 3-bet in MP from 14/8/2 player with 40% c-bet stat who then c-bets here. But that would be an A-game boss hero fold and near impossible to make in-game and 100 BBs deep.
Regarding the squeeze factor: if we are going to start assuming that the villain has solid skills, then we should also assume that his range is wider than normal considering he is squeezing a short button and our capped (most always) medium-strength SB flat. Much different than squeezing out of the blinds vs a full-stacked MP open raise + caller.
Forgot to add that I am 3-betting here always out of the SB and 3-handed, even against a 60bb unknown button. I'd consider flatting if BB is some enormous whale.
Im rereading this post, and i see arguments for stacking off and checkfolding, what about simply calling with so many outs and yet not great hand to stack off with ( has equity but can lose as well ), and make a decision on turn?
ok, indeed :)
This turn is a good example of the trouble you'd get into when you just call, so I didn't even consider that option here OTF- Not sure what is the etiquette here but maybe some ppl want results and now is an ok time? He had AA22 with nut flush draw and I actually manage to suck out both runs into 2 pair.
Be the first to add a comment