That is my dog Ziggy, he barks when I play two card.

That is my dog Ziggy, he barks when I play two card.

Did you really name your pup after Larry? Your next video should show live webcam footage of Ziggy in the corner of the screen so we can see how strong his beard game is, preferably walking on a theadmill.

Ziggy?

It's because I usually play limit or PLO

Pat,

This seems fairly spewy from both sides, especially preflop. Tim's postflop play with the FD is fine, though generally having a FD makes the river barrel less good since we block our opponent's FDs. Jin's calldown with 55 isn't awful here, depending on what Tim's 3b range is preflop (for example a lot of people 3b A5s-A2s or 54s-87s, making 55 a bad calldown relative to 99-JJ). It kind of boils down to Tim having a strong semibluff on flop+turn and then thinking he's near bottom of range OTR, and Jin deciding he's bluffing too much and hero calling down.

Good question farf,

I'm playing my hand as a protection bet/decide/decide UI, type of line. I'll sometimes do this when I think my RvR EV is really high on a certain board and when a high proportion of my opponent's range has some possibilities. In this case I think most combos that connect with the 8/7 almost always fold preflop, so by making a third pot bet I'll force a decision from 22-JJ, suited Bways, and maybe KQ. A lot of people flat a ton of combos of AQo here as well, so once I get called and face a fairly large turn bet I can likely find a fold vs AQ/BhBh type of range with the occasional AK/88/77.

I don't think you need to build your whole range in this spot with a lot of precision, but be aware to mix in a lot of Ax-AK type of hands in the small CB line, and certainly some of them in the sCB/X line so that villain can't float you with range.

Ben what do you mean when you say villains range needs to have alot of possibilities for you to take the small cbet line and why does that incentivize us to make this play?

Shib,

I mean that villain's range has some solid EV vs X that I want to deny by betting.

+1 for the first question. This may be a dumb question but... when I want to make a sizing that I don't have even AA-KK/AQ on that board, so my value has only the very top 5% shouldn't I be betting only nut bluffing hands, also ?

Would like to hear discussion on questions 1&3 :)

Juan,

It's correct to bluff with a mixture of blockers there. If IP bluffed only with As or Ks, then a hand like JsQx becomes a nice bluffcatch, blocking IP's value region (FL, ST, Q+PR, QQ) and none of his bluffs. I agree that the bigger IP's sizing, and the more flush heavy his value region is, then the more one-spade hands he should have in his bluffing region, otherwise it's too easy for OOP to hero with a hand KsQ, and Asx, since so many rivered flushes in a CO opening range contain those cards.

So Ben. In theory should Thimothee be trying to make every bluffcatcher in your range 0ev?

Shib, no. "bluffcatcher" is just a way of describing hands with a zero or small EV as a calldown.

Bump for question 2 & 3 :)

Chalk it up to spending too much time with Aejones

Raphael,

I'm not sure I understand your post. I think you're saying that when your range is weaker than your opponent's you widen your calling frequency from 1-A% of your range in order to float against passive players? But you're unsure of what kind of strategy to use against more aggro players?

I'd generally take the opposite adjustment. When I'm OOP against a much stronger range, I'll fold the flop more often than 1-A%. We received pot odds and closed the action preflop, so we can play a much wider range than the initial opener profitably, Katya has around 17% here and I have closer to 35%. But I think we're just burning money by peeling flop light with a weaker range, we'll want to continue less than 1-A% here on the flop on average, with that figure varying a bunch depending on the actual board.

I'm going to come back to this spot in a subsequent video, because I think the specifics of this spot are worth looking at.

Sorry Ben, I may have wrote it in a hurry. I didn't mean what you said, so my mistake. I hope this is less confuse this time.

My question is mostly related on to how to play spots when my flop x/c has a high vulnerability on turns and the specific turn card improves a reasonable portion of ip flop bluffing range even tough it doesn't make it nutted.

Just for simplicity, on TT8hh board, UTG vs BB, an offsuit K hits the turn. It improves fold equity against 8x hands and improves QJ. So, from his bluffing range very few hands shut down on this particular turn in a spot that he probably isn't betting the non heart version of Kx hands that he has from his preflop range, so most of his flop bluffing range is still air.

Again, for simplicity, suppose that none of his flop bluffing combos shut down and now he has fewer value bets, as KK/KTs decreases. If that is the case, I may expand my x/c frequency to include 8x hands. When I decide to do that, my river range should be weaker and I could be easily exploited by him setting a smaller bet sizing with his whole river betting range.

If I want to have 8x on the river (against Katya type), my decision would be to merge my turn x/r range (%Tx+ ?) into my turn x/c range to disincentive river overbets from ip. What you think are the flaws of this strategy on this board ?

Well, I'd be glad to hear more from those spots.

"My question is mostly related on to how to play spots when my flop x/c has a high vulnerability on turns and the specific turn card improves a reasonable portion of ip flop bluffing range even tough it doesn't make it nutted."

I think he answered that question pretty well. on turn cards that improve villain's range more than ours, we continue with a smaller portion of our range than the direct pot odds dictate.

in the hand, katya bets 386 into 644 which is 60% pot. on the Q, which is one of the best cards in the deck for his range vs. ours, it's correct to fold more than .6 / (1 + .6) = 37.5% of the time and give him immediately profitable bluffs on his lucky turn card.

thereheis

I guess he answered more focusing on the flop when I more concerned with turn perceived equity against aggros. I totally agree with what he said. Just for the sake of analysing the different spot I used the K turn since he Q turn bias too much the answer when it is a well above average card.

Raphael,

I don't understand how this

"Again, for simplicity, suppose that none of his flop bluffing combos shut down and now he has fewer value bets, as KK/KTs decreases. If that is the case, I may expand my x/c frequency to include 8x hands. When I decide to do that, my river range should be weaker and I could be easily exploited by him setting a smaller bet sizing with his whole river betting range.
If I want to have 8x on the river (against Katya type), my decision would be to merge my turn x/r range (%Tx+ ?) into my turn x/c range to disincentive river overbets from ip. What you think are the flaws of this strategy on this board ?"

leads to your next paragraph,

"If I want to have 8x on the river (against Katya type), my decision would be to merge my turn x/r range (%Tx+ ?) into my turn x/c range to disincentive river overbets from ip. What you think are the flaws of this strategy on this board ?"

If you think you can be easily exploited if you call turn with 8x, don't call unless you have a good reason to believe it's winning vs a certain player. Against a good player weak 8x is never a call, so it's a fairly easy decision.

I misspoke, I don't like Tim's sizing if he plans on betting a lot of 2PR or OP combos for full pot. If he's betting 2PR+, SET+ then it's a fine sizing.

Also ben you mention that you want to bet KJ there because you don't want your range to be too polarized. Why is having a polarized range there going to be a bad thing?

K,

I agree with your plan mostly. AJ/KJ are a lot stronger here than other Jx though, and since I usually 3b AJ the only Jx combo I have that's strong enough to bet is KJ. I prefer to add specifically KJ to my polarized value range on turn, checking all of my other J almost always.

I don't think OOP needs strictly Qx+ to bet flop, his range should include some weaker Jx, some 7x, and some A hi gutters and FDs that XC turn somewhat often, and he might bet some air or very weak hands for protection as well thinking he has a big range advantage on this board BvB. I do think this spot is quite close though, and I'll be checking KJ behind on a lot of bad rivers.

Because if I'm 3betting ~6-9% there, and my range includes a fair % of 99-AA, AQ+, suited bways, then it's pretty hard for me to flop an airball there. A lot of OOP's range is lower suited bways and worse pairs or SCs.

its interesting because its pretty hard for either of you to have a flush (unless you 3b bluff Axss/87s type hands a lot here). i just dont see really how its much better for your range because he arguably has more 99/TT/QJs as well as you both probably have near even amt of AK combos. It seems to hit you both pretty hard as i dont think he misses much either (he prob has 66-88 that fold flop but thats not that many combos)

F,

I don't think I agree, but maybe you can convince me with a simulation or three.

Fivebet, did you even model this board?

Shibulon i did not. it is just my reaction to thinking about how the board interact with their ranges

Ok fair enough however If you model it I think youll be suprised.

V,

Opening myself up to a 4b costs more with medium strength hands IP than OOP, and calling IP the first time is worth more than calling OOP.

E,

Sorry, this is too much. I don't mean these are bad questions (they're not), I just mean I can't devote this much time to one person's questions.

I want to make these video threads more of a back and forth dialogue and not a Q&A session with me.

"(a) 5:20, BB ak, what other hands would you cold 4 bet in this situation? What hands would you be
using for bluffs? What's the weakest value hand you would have?"

Instead of asking open ended questions like this, it's a lot easier and more fun for myself and the community if you start with an argument. So, instead, say something like '5:20, BB AK, I'd 4b a range of [xx] because of [blank] reasons/sims, and my conclusion is that AK is [too tight? too loose?] to cold 4 here.'

I'll also preferentially treat threads which have forum members in there debating with each other, so we can get multiple people's arguments.

OK sounds fair. I'll try to take that into consideration the next time I post comments on one of your videos. I'm very glad that you are making videos at run it once sir!

O,

I don't think 6x is an efficient river bluff in a pot this small because it has too much showdown value. We can replace Ad6x with a hand like Ad2x and get the same nut blocker effect but without turning a pair with slight showdown value and turning it into a bluff.

If we want to bluff with Ad6x, my line is to lead turn small, then XR river if he bets >1/3 pot, once the second postflop bet goes in, our sixes are never beating any of his value bets, so they're now an efficient bluff.

A,

Your analysis is missing the most obvious piece: our hand! It's true that being OOP against a tight range decreases our ranges's R on average, but different hand classes will perform differently. If you thought all hands realized a similar R, then you'd be playing a lot of hands like K8o or A9o and not enough hands like 86s or 54s. SC hands always realize a lot more equity than offsuit disconnected ones. So, no, I don't think it's ambitious to realize 85% or more of our equity with 86dd here.

Leading here won't add much value to our strategy, and is very difficult to execute well, requiring a lot of mixed strategies. I think you can mix in a lead if your opponent plays passively on the turn and you think you need to get money in here.

Hi Rev,

I think in both of your other situations it's much closer. I wouldn't 3b/GII against 20%, and I probably would against a 15% but I'm not sure.

Chael,

I don't really like my play there either, but it's fairly close. I think I should be betting more hands like Ad2x as semibluffs, and saving hands like Ad6 for a XC or XR. I think a XR with Ad9x or AdTx and Ad6x seems pretty good, then XC more often with Ad8x.

I usually prefer to block more hands that are likelier to be in his flop X/X range rather than hands which are closer to the nuts when I XR river. I doubt he plays the NF this way very often (if ever), and Q6 isn't well represented preflop. That leaves 66 and Q6s I suppose, but those aren't massive parts of his range. The main reason I didn't XR was that I won't play a huge frequency of nutty hands to this line, and it's easy to get out of line by XR tons of missed protection bets on the turn, e.g., JxXd, Ad6x, Kd8x. I'll generally stay away from diamonds here when I XR river because I want to block Qx rather than flushes, thinking that most of his BC frequency is Qx. So I'll choose stuff like black J9 to XR.

ben, how does black j9 block Qx? it blocks Q9 but isn't that a reasonable hand to call with? seems tough to block Qx so i guess maybe this is best? wouldn't black 98 be better? or do you not bet that on the turn?

reshove,

An MDF (minimum defense freq) is not the way to think about pre flop. If the table played a 33 VPIP and didn't always 3b, then the PFR could open any two because all hands have positive EV when called. That's obviously not correct, so....

6x blocks rivered 2pairs that will always call our bluff, so we increase the chance of our bluff going through.

Altough I would think that 6x has a tiny bit of showdown value against 55-22 but I guess tough opponent will turn those hands into bluff either on the turn or the river ?

When we get to the river here we'll have a no SD value region that's much larger than our value betting region, so we can't bluff a very large fraction of it. So, we need to pick out tiny little differences between this region in order to privilege some of it for bluffing. Being called 2% less than some other combo qualifies.

It's possible that 6x has too much value to bluff here, in that case it might be better to pull some blockers for Ax/Kx like 34s and bluff with that instead.