$2.5/$5 6-Max Zoom CREV Analysis
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 31 Comments...
1st hand. The raise strategy for SB is so infrequently that his river range is likely stronger that what it would be in equilibrium. On 9h river, if he ever gets there with a naked T (specially [Ah,Qh]Ty), doesn't betting all in have a larger EV than checking ? If you call AK, KQ, KxTx, AA, TT, QxJx, Ah5h, KK for $237/$916 the Ah decreases your calling frequency in almost 20% when Qh on 10%.
I suggest you look into another possible river cards when you make CREV videos. Thank you.
I didn't explore whether open shoving river is good for SB. It seems like it could be good here with QhTx for example, but we'd have to go back to the turn and iterate the sim to see if that hand can ever make it to the Ah river without being -EV on turn. For example, it might be winning 20bb for sb to shove QhTx here and still make QhTx a losing call on turn. There are very few ST+FL completing rivers.
On a serious note:
Any thoughts on whether or not JJ becomes a good turn x/shove if he starts betting too much for protection on the turn in the 2nd hand? If we're not going to play purely x/f or x/c on the turn it seems like a pretty prime candidate. Blocks no bluffs except maybe 1 AJs combo, blocks no Qx which can bet/fold, benefits from denying his bluffs their equity (as long as he's only betting reasonable hands which it's hard for him to not be unless he somehow finds a flop call w/ 3s) and has 10 outs vs his bet/calling range for the most part other than specifically 2 combos of KJs and whatever 78s he happens to have (and I guess 8 vs QQ). It also sort of feels like when we check/call, despite our outs it's never like much good happens. He never value cuts himself against us when we improve so we're only picking off bluffs and just sort of guessing at his frequencies a lot. It also seems like we don't have a ton of other good options (for what to include in our x/ jam as a bluff range). We have a small smattering of unpaired fds (like AKhh/AJhh and maybe another combo or two sprinkled in depending on our frequencies with stuff like A5s pre). That being said, given his pot odds at that point and how much equity most of his hands have it's not likely we need a pile of bluffs.
On a less serious note:
I was sad to see his 87cc made the showdown on the flop.Not because it introduced bias but more because after the K turns you just have to lose the hand pretty much always. It's like the shitty foreshadowing in horror movies where the cliché music comes on and you know the guy is about to get whacked but the poor bastard is just completely oblivious and there's nothing you can do. You're just sitting here like "Don't bet the turn sauce! He's gonna get there!"
I hadn't really considered X/shove with JsJc here, but your argument is pretty reasonable. The problem is just that with a board this dynamic and an SPR this small X/shove strategies tend to go towards semibluffs with more nutty equity than JJ, FDs mostly. The natural safeguard for IP against OOP X/shove JJ is that supposing JJ is winning the most to X/shove, it's usually also the case that any FD is winning way more to X/shove, in which case IP has to lower his BF frequency. I do think there are some regs against whom X/shove JsJc here is very good, specifically anyone who uses 2 or more betsizes on turn and who likes to put too many Qx combos in one of the sizings. Once you detect a range that's protection bet heavy JsJc can sometimes exploit by X/shove.
Hello Ben, thanks for the video.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems to me that in the 1st hand SB should not be getting to the river with that strong and non-bluffcather heavy range as you described. So donkbetting / x/raising turn or at the very least donkbetting rivers should be considered. I also presume that given your bet/calling turn range shoving both sets and some draws will have greater value than x/c.
Please use numbers so I can understand you better.
0000101000101000101110010100010010101101010
Unfortunately I'm not quite aware of your cbetting range and the % of hands you'll be willing to fold vs a shove, so my numbers would be specualtive..
On my raw estimation, a hand like A7h will have like 35-40% eq vs your bet/calling range (as it has a lot of weaker draws) and around 25-30% eq vs your bet/folding range, which as I've understood consists for the most part of hands that have showdown value vs our hand (AQ, AJ, AT, QQ-JJ(?)). Also our implied odds on hitting the river after calling don't seem that nice.
A hand like 66 will get freerolled by your bet/folding range and will not get value from Kx, AA and even as we saw KT on a descent amount of rivers.
you play 3b only strategy from SB vs UTG/MP? how do you think it compares to 3 betting more polarized and also having a flatting range?
P,
I'm not sure. It's certainly easier to balance a 3b only range vs 3x, and it's likely giving up fairly little.
Ben - Do you like SB's pre-flop call to the squeeze? If so, how low can we go in our range for calling this squeeze (obv all PP's call)? I'm assuming 78s is the bottom of his range, I'd say 89s/9Ts is the bottom of mine. Thanks and great video.
Eric,
Yes, I think it's fine. I'm not really sure how EVs run here for SB, Tyler is probably who you want to ask about that. I'd think 54s would be a winning call here as well, though I'd be folding the KJo/ATo kind of stuff.
Ben,
I think in your models on the JJ hand you are over-estimating how often Villians will have AK. In addition to the possibly that most people prolly 4 bet AKo some % of the time here (25%), I think most opponents would be folding AK combos without a heart on the flop at least half the time (along with AQ with no heart which takes out some of the value range also. So perhaps that cancels out). Thought it was worth pointing out as it was a close spot and leans it slightly more towards a fold with dramatically less combos of AK.
Loved the Vid, as I do all of yours, more like these please.
Hey Andrew,
Good points, thanks. I think in the online games it's kinda figured out that if someone is opening ~14-17% UTG, then 4betting AKo is too loose (this would leave .9% AKo + 1.5% AKs/KK/AA for value, and likely some % of QQ if AK is getting 4b for ~2.7% value which entails at least 2% bluffs---> means we're 4betting as much as ~1/3 here if AK gets played as a pure 4ball, though I know that's not what you're suggesting just explaining).
I agree that 4betting some % of AKo is likely at least OK, and especially in looser live games (or deeper games) it's quite likely we need to discount AK based on our read.
I also think you can see that these reads sort of compound. Suppose a villain 4b AK 33%, folds AK no heart 80%, and AQ no heart 40%. This kind of player usually (in my experience) isn't the type to aggressively bluff 98s/88/77 and also A8s/A7s, meaning JJ becomes a very easy turn fold.
Thanks for the video Ben. In regards to cold 4-bet semi-bluffing. In common situations like BTN open, SB 3-bet (active player), we are in BB, which hands do you first like to add into a cold 4-bet bluffing range? Are we flatting AQ here or do we add it? I'm thinking more along the lines of KQo since we aren't calling it (often).
As of now I'm flatting AQ and splitting my range for 4-bet bluffing with KQ/AJ about 50/50. Thanks!
Eric,
Let's keep this discussion loosely focused around the video; I think talking about preflop lines not featured in either hand is going too far afield. In any case I wouldn't be doing that topic justice by trying to tackle it in comment form, that's a video+ length discussion.
Oh crap. I meant to post this is one of your last videos and not this one (where a cold 4-bet spot happened). My bad!
Hi Ben!
For the first hand I compared check on river vs bet and that's what I got:
I assumed your squeeze range is: 99+,Aj+,KQ,all suted broadway, T9s,A9s,A4-5s.
On the turn you bet everything except 99, A4-5s,A9s w/o fd, thats 90.5% cbet turn.
On the river the ranges are:
Very nut heave range for opponent.
Than comparing check and all in for opponent:
check
all in
So the difference is pretty big - 19bb.
Only value cards sb loosing when betting are T9s,K9s.
TG,
Thanks for the quantitative post.
I'm a little worried about going down the rabbit hole of everyone having different assumptions about ranges and not being on the same page and having to split hairs about assumptions. I also think this is a tricky sim to do for non-expert CREVers because the river equilibrium depends heavily on the turn play for OOP, as I've hinted earlier. To be fairly precise you'll have to look at many individual rivers, plug those EV numbers back into the turn tree and re-solve for turn peels, and it's fairly easy to get lost along the way.
Kevin makes the excellent suggestion below that I should post my CREV files so that we can all work off of the same template. I'll do this when I'm back at my work computer tomorrow or the next day. So if you guys can hold off until then but still stay interested in the discussion I'll be happy to post those and I think have a more productive debate.
CREV files should be up today
First Hand: Wouldn't it make sense to give some weigh (say 33%) to the possibility of SB x/shoving sets on turn (I think in practice you see people shoving there for protection pretty often, and regardless it will always be a non-zero %), along with the possibility of him donking flushes on the river? I wonder how much that would impact the comparison between the EVs of betting and checking. It's still entire possible that shoving is bad. Maybe next time upload the trees so we can tinker with them :)
great video. i learned a lot in this format.
about the first hand, 2 quick things.
1. why did u cbet half pot on the flop? i assume ur not betting a really wide range and are a bit more polar 3way, or are u betting wider for protection with hands like AK/AQ? Is ur sizing due to the SPR?
2. at 9:30, when you discuss c/shoving turn with 66/44, you say if he checks shoves turn, "the weakest semi bluffs that he will be making profitable bluff catch on river will be out of villains range, therefore its losing to shove here relative to calling." I dont understand this statement. The logic i see against shoving is that it weakens his calling range and makes for more profitable bluffs for the weakest semi bluffs in our opponents range, but it seems you are saying something different.
FBB,
@1, Sizing doesn't really matter a ton here as long as you balance. You're right, there'll be more AK/AQ type of weak hands in the smaller sizing I chose. I don't have a strong intuition for what the best size is here, but it seems to me that on a semi-dry board like this half pot is likely fine.
@2, Yes, I am saying something different. The object of poker is to make the most +EV play at any given time, so it can't be the case that OOP should call a set in order to make his calling range stronger or to deny IP more EV on his bluffs. Instead, OOP should only call with a set if its EV is >= to X/shove turn. It can be true (and I think it is true in this case) that OOP should xc a set for highest EV, this is because the main bet/fold combos in IP's range are gutters and OOP's sets benefit from these combos continuing in IP's range.
Great video, Ben, and I love that it revolved around hero folds. This seems to be an under-appreciated skill, because they aren't as sexy or "sick" as hero calls, big bluffs, etc., and I know that for me one of the eye-opening things about watching your videos is seeing all of the hands that you do play, and how much wider some of your ranges are than what seemed correct to me a year or two ago. So it's great to see your same analytical prowess applied to this less sexy but at least as important topic of hero folding (or checking).
Heh, or I'm just getting old :p
Sauce please make a video about dodging bullets and a 'white magic' video!
Hey guys - you can download the CREV files shown in the video HERE
"The object of poker is to make the most +EV play at any given time." I understand this to be true. But i'm having a hard time reconciling it with this thought: if we keep sets in our c/c range and our opponent sees this, he won't be able to barrel off as many bluffs on future streets, which help the weaker parts of our range go to showdown. If we assume we've gained EV from the weaker parts of our range, and the EV gained > the EV of check shoving sets, we have gained theoretical future EV. I know this isn't our goal and this could be flawed thinking, and im hoping you can explain to me why.
Daniel Dvoress, in one of his non analytical videos, explained the biggest misconceptions of game theory, and how almost everyone was incorrectly using the term "protecting my range." Your comment is along the same lines, and i think its worth clearing this topic up for everyone.
Love the format, keep it up.
David, this is just a basic game theory point that some people lose sight of when doing complex stuff in CREV (my past self included).
You can see that a strategy pair isn't at equilibrium if one player can gain EV by playing a hand differently. So, each player must be maximizing their EV for the pair to be at equilibrium.
where can i find the files of this sim? is it upload in rio?
There is a link in the description of the video where you can download the file.
i click on "view description" and i dont find any link
Be the first to add a comment
You must upgrade your account to leave a comment.