$25/$50 HU NLHE vs muumipoiss
Posted by Kevin Rabichow
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 10 Comments...
The rematch...
11:49, K9 hand, is it not a concern that with a 9 you block his 9x which you would unblock with a hand like QQ?
Definitely relevant, but at the same time QQ is in a far more polarizing position. Big removal effect on legitimate draws that pose a threat to hands like K9, and 9x is not really a huge part of his range at this point in the hand. If he calls twice it becomes a lot more relevant, which is where I'll make the close decision to vbet a third street.
Hey, thanks for your video, do you have in the last hand (q7) some blockbet with some part of your range? I think q7 still have some value against some of his calling range, but also plays good as bluffcatcher.
Yeah that's a totally reasonable point. I wasn't planning to in game, but it's a generally good concept to block bet this hand strength in the event that it isn't as good of a bluffcatcher.
great footage, thx!
Love the videos as always Kevin! a couple questions I have w/Regards to to the delay cbet - probe dynamic is around 21 mins you said that you are striving more to defend vs the Delay Bets. My question is how do you approach this situation for example in the context of an opponent who may be delay cbetting at a frequency which is too high in comparison to equilibrium. As some added context in the environment i play (shirt stacked HU) the solvers recommended fold to delay cbets in raised pots is in the 54% region, but i struggle reconciling the solvers high fold, vs a population which is over delay IP betting considerably. I know the devil is in the detail here, as things vary greatly across different board textures and facing varieties of sizes here but generally, are you willing to try and over defend and bring your fold to delay closer to 1-Alpha gievn our opponents size in these scenarios?
Any feedback truly appreciated, and thanks again for the great content, I've learnt tremendous amounts from your videos over the years despite my game type starting a quarter of the stack as these!
I really like this question. First off, I don't know for certain that your 54% figure is going to carry over into full stack HU games, but let's assume it is. The cool thing about the solvers is that they tell us when we're getting our priorities out of whack. So in this situation, we want to think about what we're sacrificing when we direct our focus to delay cbet defense.
In order to defend well (or too much, exploitatively) vs delay cbet, we need to
increase our double check frequency OOP.
Pro: we hit, or exceed, 1-a defense and deny villain's ability to overbluff this street.
Con: we allow button's flop check back range to realize more ev
By breaking down the relevant factors like this, I can decide on which boards the con outweighs the pro, and vice versa. The solver seems to be telling you though that, on average, you're going to want to steal ev from villain's flop check back range often enough that you're folding a bit too much vs delay cbet. Especially playing at shorter stacks, this doesn't surprise me too much.
Thanks for the reply Kevin, insightful as always! The mechanism you describe above, definitley seems to be at play.
I think this idea is relatively intuitive and i guess a well known feature of Heads up Cbet and Probe dynamics. Playing around in the solver, and locking the in position player to weaken his checking back range, we see the solver increase its willingness to steal ev by probing at a higher frequency than usual, and also check folding even slightly more.
As for how you decide to weigh the trade offs between, over and under defending vs the delay bets; breaking down the pros and cons like that is a relatively novel idea to me and is something which i look forward to incorporate into my thought process in these scenarios. One of the challenges of playing good poker i find is organizing all of these moving parts so i really appreciate this streamlined way of approaching this problem!
Thanks again looking forward to the next one!
Amazing, always love hearing your analysis of hands. It's extremely clear and easy to understand
Be the first to add a comment
You must upgrade your account to leave a comment.