2 Table $2.5/$5 6-max Zoom NLHE Live Session
Posted by Sauce123
Video Player is loading.
This is a modal window.
The media could not be loaded, either because the server or network failed or because the format is not supported.
Resume Video
Start from Beginning
Watch Video
10
Loading 53 Comments...
having the 7 in the Q7 hand, does not really increase his bluffing portion, he just will bet more since he has less checkdown hands, the value range and the bluffportion that will bluff again is uneffected of you having the 7 there. Plus you actually block 67 that he might still turn into a bluff.
On the positive side, really enjoying your videos, must sees.
Yep! Thanks for the correction.
Hi ben. Nice to see you back.
You use the same 3bet sizing when 3betting in position and out of position (the bb 25.30), why is this? I normally go larger from the BB because my range is more polarised, are you using the same sizings because your ranges are similar from both positions?
My ranges aren't similar exactly, but I've been doing more flatting IP vs RFI lately so that ends up making my 3b range somewhat more polar IP, which has ended up making me increase my sizing slightly. I'm really not sure what the best sizing is in 6m nlhe in these spots, it's a particularly difficult thing to measure.
great video. it was really helpful
at 24min with a9dd on 664k, what are the different blocker effects you mention that aqdd and ajdd have? they have more SD value but what is their difference in blockers? they block more QdJd JdTd that we dominate and want to get money in against?
at 50min, with A2, i get why you check the turn on KJ42, but how often do you get to showdown versus hands you beat, given Q hi and worse probably bluffs somewhere and you have the Ad, so you wont win versus AdXd that might check down (and AT/AQ probably 3b pre a lot).
FBB,
The Q/J beat/chop with more Ax hands for OOP so they make better X behind hands given we want to sometimes hold a NF in the BC|XX line.
If it's true that he's 2barreling all Q hi< and value betting most Kx> that he decides to bet the turn with, then you're of course right that my call is losing loads unless I plan on calling river. I think it's usually a mistake, though, to assume opponent is betting river with a significantly higher frequency than 1-A unless we have a strong read. I don't really disagree with your read that this is likely to be a high aggression freq on river spot given he bets turn though.
Hey Ben, thanks for the video! Great content as always, although I prefer when you have timebank. :D
@48.20 A7s, Would it be too nitty to just fold OTF without bd equity? We get a great price on the call, but being OOP and our 2pair outs are somewhat dominated too, I think we don't have too good of an implied on them.
Will,
I'm not sure about that one. I think I'd lean towards fold in hindsight. But I think it's probably a call with a BFD.
Great vid even though it is NLH. Well worth opening my chest of useless comments.
Great video. I have a basic NLH question, coming from a PLO player: why are we 3betting JTs BB-BTN and KQs BB-UTG? I used to play NLH few years ago, and were more used to more polarized 3betting ranges, guess people defend 3bets wider and 4bets more, so these are 3bets for value/playability in 3b/4b pots?
Well, when you 3b 7654ds in PLO it isn't exactly for value or as a bluff either. It just happens to be true that your highest EV play is to 3b based on a combination of deception in 3b pots combined with fairly high equity vs continuing ranges and increased FE on broadway/paired boards.
The NLHE concept isn't dissimilar, we need to add hands to our 3b range which aren't JJ+/AK type of stuff in order to connect with various boards. We benefit from preflop FE from pairs with 50% equity as well as the weaker offsuit A hi combos.
@15:25 w AJcc you choose a small sizing on this texture. can you explain this choice a bit?
I currently choose a larger size trying to leverage the overpair asymmetry to apply more pressure to his pocket pairs under the ten and his overcard floats. i have a bunch of 2 overcard/1 club hands that are interested in bluffing. are you protection betting a decent chunk of hands on this texture?
thanks.
I'll try and answer this question using a solver at some point.
My strategy choice involves more protection/blocking bets as you identified, I think I'm less keen to build a big pot with my overpairs over 3 streets; he probably has around 7 combos of sets and then maybe 20 combos of MPPs and maybe 12 combos of Txs. Supposing then pot/pot/pot it feels like we're getting a little bit thin on the river.
U said u dont really want to xf much given his lack of sets. Does this mean u bet a hand like KhQh here small too?
"Not check/folding much" isn't typically a thing. If it's true that not check/folding frequently is a high EV play, then it's also almost always true that betting more is superior. Since I can't auto bet this flop, I'll be doing some XF along 1-A sort of lines.
@25:25 w JJ I'm pretty confused postflop.
are you not developing a checking range on this flop? do you think this combo is a better bet than x?
I would think to force more $ in ott or otr with some overbets- particularly with this combo when he has a ton of Qx available to him to bluffcatch. is this bad/why is it bad?
I don't think I'm checking this flop.
As for overbetting overpairs; it seems like a decent play on turn but on the river it seems like he'll hit the flush often enough that we won't be maximizing with an overbet?
It's also usually a logical mistake to argue for a bet by showing that the bet does well against a particular section of the opponent's range. It's true that we can construct a range such that overpairs bet B and bluffs bet B such that Qx must call and overpairs appear to be winning a lot of EV on the line. But that's a simplistic way of looking at the situation; often it's the case that overpairs co-maximize their EV betting a different sizing but the rest of our range is less exploitable with the smaller sizing. I don't what the right choice of sizing is with our range here precisely but on average it's more dangerous (from an exploitability perspective) to add more sizings into our range until we're familiar with the gametree.
@Ben Sulsky: Your reply here is confusing to me. You're aware that the board was paired and our boat is the effective nuts on turn and river, right? Given that we don't block Qx which is calling very often vs your chosen sizing and we will get to the river with a lot of missed draws that we want to bluff, wouldn't it make sense to overbet-shove river with our hand to get more value from stronger part of his range like flushes and allow us to bluff more of our missed draws?
2:45 Table 2 Q96dd tu 6
Do you play a leading game on the 6o turn given you'll have substantially more 6x combos calling from the BB than UTG will have after pre and flop action? I know maybe 1yr ago it was pretty common place to lead range small on this turn, but it appears that that's changed a bit recently. Is playing all 3 ranges: lead, x/r, x/ca likely part of a GTO framework for this situation?
I think those turn leads were exploitative of a metagame where IP players were polarizing too much on the flop. It was really nice to lead small on turn when IP had like a 2.5:1 ratio of bluffs:value bets and the value bets started at like KQ+. Now that people bet some random pairs on the flop the small turn leads just end up bloating the pot with the inferior range. I think they still happen in some situations but are probably not contributing much to EV compared to X.
17:25 87o lead 3 way on 975r.
What's the idea behind playing a lead here 3 way?
A few points I can think of:
- We deny BTN some fairly high EV check backs 3 way, which will be a pretty frequent part of BTN's range.
- We keep the game a 3 street game which benefits our nut combos and likely increases our game value given the larger number of combos we can bet in a balanced 3 street betting range compared to a 2 street betting range.
- The board texture here is unlikely to change substantially such that a flop value leading combo will be unable to get additional streets on turns and rivers
- On 975r we're going to have the biggest nut advantage which seems to favor playing some kind of leading range.
Anything else to add/edit/remove from this list?
I think it's more that we hit a really nice flop for our range and that many of the villains' hands have 6+ outs vs our hand and can use protection. Checking is certainly a good option as well.
Hey Ben, i notice your bet sizes are smaller than average, and i understand that the smaller your bet, the higher frequencies you can fire (base on theory),but could you please elaborate a bit more about this strategy, i like to incorporate it in to my game but i feel like i will get fight back a lot because of it...it is very interesting to me. If you can please make a list of the pros and cons of using it will be amazing. Thank you in advance Super Ben and have a great week
I kind of think I'd be doing more harm than good by trying to discuss this topic in a non quantitative way. I hope to be doing some solver videos comparing different flop strategies at some point in the coming months, stay tuned for those.
thank you that will be great
yessssss^^^^^
Good enjoyable video.
At 40:25 left table A9o, with the weaker player in the BB and you being 200bigs effective, is this hand good enough to peel the small cut off raise?
Hmm I'm not sure. I tend to only increase my VPIP by a couple of pips to exploit a weaker player, so I'd prob go from AJo to ATo and then add a bunch of suited hands which play better multiway. It feels like A9o is a lot worse than ATo, lacking the bway gutter.
This quality of content is why I subscribe to RIO. Excellent video and great answers to questions...Thank you, Ben!
Thanks, glad to hear it!
Nice video. No big leaks other than raising every hand from the SB while claiming it is the exact bottom of your opening range.
Some people just like big bottoms.
You can like your big bottoms, but I like balance:
That is a beautiful balanced big bottom....
maybe the surfer is this girl??
Min 47: with the A7ss on Kc7hTd multiway. Could you elaborate what rivers would you bluff ? I got difficulties to see one because I feel like both players should have some straightdraw so even if we bluff some cards that can make some straights for us, I feel like it's kind of -EV to bluff there.
Don't think you're supposed to overcall flop with A7s no backdoors. Even if you hit the ace you aren't overly thrilled about so you're basically drawing to 2 clean outs.
favourite vid i have watched so far on RIO. love your thought process, and it is clear you have a pretty big edge post flop, even vs these regs who are clearly good players.
@32.00 you say you would shove your range vs the button squeeze when you have A3s, i have one question. recently i have started balancing ranges a bit more, players love to squeeze in zoom so i have been flatting big hands- AK/AA/KK/QQ, vs ep raises (6 max.)
say i am on the co vs utg with KK. utg opens to 3x i flat, sb squeezes to 12x, utg folds, folds to me with 100 bbs. what should my play be here? do i want to be 3 bet shoving range? making small raise- but i think this would look insanely strong no?
like if i have a hand like TT i think i would just jam it vs the squeeze, so maybe i have to be balanced and shove whole range? seems like kinda a big shove tho i dk.
great vid again cheers.
Thanks Demon, glad you liked the vid!
It's going to be very hard to measure the EV of flatting KK versus 3betting in your hypothetical. There's certainly some sets of strategies such that flatting is better; we just need to assume they squeeze a lot. How much is a lot? I'm not sure, certainly if you think each remaining player is squeezing >10% then you'll have sufficient incentive to flat nut hands.
From an equilibrium standpoint it's important to note that the PFR can bear a lot of the burden for defending. Suppose you play a capped flatting range and villains squeeze to
Ugh sorry, I wrote out a long post and it got deleted again
Thanks Demon, glad you liked the vid!
It's going to be very hard to measure the EV of flatting KK versus 3betting in your hypothetical. There's certainly some sets of strategies such that flatting is better; we just need to assume they squeeze a lot. How much is a lot? I'm not sure, certainly if you think each remaining player is squeezing >10% then you'll have sufficient incentive to flat nut hands.
From an equilibrium standpoint it's important to note that the PFR can bear a lot of the burden for defending. Suppose you play a capped flatting range and villains squeeze to
thanks for the reply :) i think i got most of your message, players in the $0.50/$1 games squeeze like 12%, they just love to squeeze, but their call off range is still pretty tight. so i suppose the best play is probably to just flat my range- obv fold weaker flats like 6s/ ATs and play with a stronger range vs them post. plus i have position, most of the time.
if it works would love to read rest of earlier reply :P cheers.
Hey sorry the second half of my comment got deleted
I was basically saying that vs a small squeeze your suited/PP hands have a lot of EV 3way and vs a big squeeze PFR shows up with nut hands pretty often, the combination of which protects your flatting range quite well.
minute 33 we check back TT on Q9xss, turn and river go spade spade and we call 2 bets from BB. He shows up with A5 no spade and you say the board is to small for him to dig deep into his range and use that as a bluff. Why is the size of the pot a function of how deep he should dig for bluffs?
Two reasons, (a) he could have taken a more passive line earlier in the hand for higher EV (checking turn), (b) given he made such a small turn bet, A5o beats a large region of our turn defense range/river X behind range that he could have chosen a weaker hand for a more efficient river bluff, like a missed straight draw.
Hey Ben,
I have comments and questions regarding the 55 hand on 346r at 19:48.
The turn check seems like a good play to take with regularity. It should produce substantial ev by allowing him to re initiate his low equity flop bluffs by betting river, likewise he can value-bet his non straight value hands namely sets, and 64s.
I simmed this hand in Pio to refute and/or substantiate my thoughts and answer my questions. Hopefully you can help me as well.
You started to say, "Given I have twooooooo fives....." but it seemed like you didnt finish your thought. If you allow me I will take a guess at what your thought was. Given you have two 5's it makes our hand a better candidate to bet than a hand like A5 because we better block chops and block 57. Were you going to say this and then stopped because you decided you wanted to check this time regardless?
Solver supports this by having you bet 55 85%, betting A5 55%, and betting 56 15% (blocks 66,64s) , K5s and similar are bet 92%) Overall it has 5X betting about 85%
Where I lose you is on the river.
1)You state that the 9 river pairs him regularly and that is one reason you will opt to overbet. It seems to me that he will arrive to the river with enough stronger hands than 9x such that he can fold to this sizing. He can take this line with sets and 2pr, and even straights. Additionally the turn card is good for his range and he opted to check which will increase his SD value and bluff catcher frequency in his range.
*Solver suggests that he should call 100% on river to an overbet with 9X; I was incorrect; 9X needs to be called. So you were correct that he is calling 9x. However the EV of calling 98 on the river for him is only ~$8 of a $263 pot. Additionally and more importantly he has very few 9x on river in solver because it has him betting turn about 90% freq with all his 9X hands so its not a prevalent hand in his range to bluff catch with. So while an over-bet should be called by 9X, its razor thin and justifying using an overbet because river is a 9 is a mistake. He only has 9x 2.2%, he has a stright 11.7%, sets 4%, but 6X and worse 82% frequency. Interesting stuff!
2) You said that this over-bet works well because this is how you could play KJ. Are you calling flop with KJ? I would not. I would fold without deliberation.
*Upon looking at the solver KJs (BDFD) is a call yet a very thin one. So if you are calling with KJ well played. That said, I think its likely the population is under-bluffing this spot such that KJs is fold. agree , disagree?
3) I suppose the reason I find the over-bet awkward logically is that our turn check is indicative of a range that consists mostly of bluff catchers, give ups, and occasional slow plays.
Now on river, we employ an over-bet and larger sizing bets are best suited for situations where our range is nutty and facing a range of mostly bluff catchers. It seems to be somewhat contradictory of strategies. I do get that oop has also reduced his nut combos drastically by checking twice so perhaps that is enough of an effect. The solver has us betting all 5x about 85% frequency. Once the river checks to us it has us over-betting our 5X about 45% freq. So the overall frequency it has us playing 5X from turn on, this way, is only about 7%. Equity is nearly 50/50 on this river once OOP checks. and 5X combos are actually in favor of OOP at a 11.% to 8.5% clip.
We really are dealing with 2 very weak ranges. An overbet seems like an odd fit.
An aside question, "Why in the very upper right the frequencies it says Bet 70 and check occur dont match the main frequencies listed in Salmon and Green?
Zach,
The pio sim is going to be fairly sensitive to its abstraction here (and you'll also want to run a lot of iterations because we're using a flop sim to look at a river spot). I think in general it's important to add an overbet for OOP here on river which I think should bring up the X behind 5x frequency from the 15% you discussed to more like 25%.
I guess another point is that if you quizzed me prior to the hand about the optimal strategy for OOP here I'd probably have been off by a fair amount. It seems like from the 4.4% you have OOP rivering a set that OOP is betting turn frequently with sets. I think a lot of humans don't do this. Given humans bet sets less often I expect them to give up with a few more of their bluffs, which leads me to put him on a more set/straight/9x heavy range than you're seeing in solver. I think I also have the tendency to overweight information I think is clever; in this case I felt kinda smart for putting him on 9x so I wanted to use that information in an exciting way (yay cognitive biases)! So it appears Pio is playing turn more polarized than the most players typically would.
From an equilibrium perspective I also haven't really studied how 55 figures in the turn mixing strategy. The outputs you describe show that the more "null" (i.e., the A/K don't block any plausible XC hands) our kicker is, the more often we want to value bet turn.
As for the river betsizing, I agree that it's "awkward logically". The standard argument goes that we X behind some 5x hands on turn to protect our weaker value bets from overbets and XR, therefore when he X to us on river we should choose a medium sizing (say 2/3 to 3/4 pot) with a range of strong 2PR+, and call our ST/some bluffcatchers to various sized XR. I think that's actually a pretty good argument, and it's likely true that a single medium betsize seizes most of the EV of an overbet/smaller size abstraction. On the other hand, there's no reason why it can't be true that we should add 2+ betsizes (though I think >2 betsizes sees diminishing EV returns very quickly) and split with our 5x down the abstraction, which is the option I chose.
Thanks Ben. I am new to playing around with Pio so your suggestions to try various sims and pointing out how adding an oop overbet would increase our turn slow play (5X) makes sense and is helpful.
I also wanted to point out I learned and was impressed with the way you played the K8 on 843,Q,4 at the same time stamp. Your realization that this turn was good for his floats and allowing him to bluff river with the ones that missed worked out perfectly. It might be something I don't need to apply because in live player pool the population isn't calling the JT type floats near as much.
Hi Ben,
nice video overall, the no time bank thing was kinda interesting! nice dynamic, a lot of played, haven't been bored a second, and even had to replay soem hands! :D Keep going!
and obviously, a few questions:
1/and why you call K4o in the BB vs a minraise at 23:20 when you fold it earlier in the video vs a minraise and a call?
2/ always saw you cbet in a 3b pot at 1/3 sizing (except A5 on QT5: why?): why never 2/3 or 3/4 sizings?
3/ at 44:10 you talk about "backdoor blockers" on A96s vs a raise: what do you mean?
Thank you Ben. Very nice video, love your thoughts. I'd love to have seen more difficult spots though. What a wonderful world when one almost always hold the best hand or bink rivers in the biggest pots ;)
nice video !!
@15:25 w AJcc
you say you dont like built a big pot on this board
so if you have over pair at here
could you will bet flop and check turn when turn is 7
or you will continue use a small sizing to barrel?
and if the turn is a K (overcard)
could you will like to use a small size to cbet turn when you has AJcc?
4:01 I have a question about betting, when board pairs on the turn. Both pots was 3bet pots, in one you bet JTs on 7Q6hhQ, but in other you check KQs on T4JJ. It is cause of range advantage/disadvantage against utg/BU or just playing different flush draws and straight draws? Could you explain? Video also would be nice with some samples on those situations ;)
Hey Ben,
watching this for the second time so pardon the late comment.
Could you talk a bit more about the Q7 bvb that starts around 9:40? Other than pre, I honestly found every street pretty interesting.
Flop:
Turn:
River:
Sorry if that's a bit much. I highlighted all of the questions so that they'd be easier to see through the "fluff" (caused by me explaining as much as my thought process as possible in case you find some inconsistencies).
Great video as always hence the multiple viewings by me (as always)!
Be the first to add a comment
You must upgrade your account to leave a comment.