~17:00 Table 4 you open btn 7663ss bb calls and x/r your cbet on AT6r. Turn 7s bringing your flushdraw, villain checks. You check behind saying villain has too many AA/TT' that will be x/caing that you don't think you can get value. On the river villain checks again and you say you should have value bet.
My question is if we decide that we can only get 1 more street of value in this hand, why isn't the turn a better spot to do it with than the river? When we bet the turn, he's likely to x/ca most of his AA/TT combos, meaning we don't get blown off of our equity and we're still losing a bet vs those on the river(I assume we aren't find a fold on bricks) so we're indifferent. Additionally, our hand should have equity to bet/call vs the range we expect him to be x/jamming (high equity draws like wrap+fd, 98, maybe the rare TT+Fd). So, if we expect him to have some AT+backups, or some high equity draws that will choose to x/ca turn, then there are a decent amount of hands we can get value from. If he doesn't have those, it seems like showing down our hand is better than trying to get 1 street.
Another point is on the 7s turn, this hand seems high enough in our range to where we'd want to value bet it.
The thing I dislike about checking turn and going for river value is that now we're playing a capped range and if our hand wasn't strong enough to value bet the turn, it doesn't seem strong enough to go for river value. By opening up the betting again we allow villain to x/r a balanced range, effectively making us lose the pot+our river bet. It sounds like when he checks river again, your discounting his TT+ combos a lot(or at least TT and AA), so your hoping he can hero you with a hand like he had, or potentially call w/ whatever AT+backup that he x/r'ed flop with(the only one he might have pre are AJT9 or AT98).
Just hoping you can elaborate a bit more on this spot and let me know if I'm on the right track here or not.
Really enjoyed the EV calcs at the end. Iirc on hand 1 you said jamming>calling for our range. Could you elaborate a bit more on that?
Thanks for the feedback. I think you made some good points on your post.
In general I agree with what you said and if I was playing someone I tought was good and/or want to play more balanced I would definitely prefer to bet turn. However for some reason I thought this was was probably a rec or maybe a not so good player.
So when he raised that flop I thought he would have AA/TT a lot and I didn't want to value cut myself there. Also if he had some kind of draw my FD protected me a bit, so I thought checking back was best.
Finally, I think you make a pretty good point of why betting turn is better when you say that I cap my range when I check back turn. However, in practice most players will value bet the river after I check back turn w/ AA/TT (even most good regs), because they know my most likely hands won't value bet river (AT is probably the worst hand I would consider vbetting there) and he has a better chance of getting value by betting).
About hand 1 when I say that jamming>calling for our range, what I mean is that our calling range is already heavy on the type of hand we have (drawy hand), and because there are many weaker drawying hands that can't jam (because it would be EV-), I think it makes more sense to jam this one than to call (that is if we think both decisions are close). I use some omaha ranger analyses just to show that our calling range is heavy on fd's and straight draws.
In general you would want to have hands on your calling range that cover most turns so that you are not exploitable by villain on some turns when he knows your range is weak, and so that you actually have some bluffs on turn that he thinks your range improves a tone on (and also so that you get more value from your good hands on this turns).
Yes, it probably is, but I it's probably a relatively small mistake. I need 38.1% to stack-off, and running a quick sim I have like 38.9%. That's if he pots all the hands he wants to stack-off with there, which I'm not sure of, but I assume he does.
And yes, I normally adjust sizes and most importantly (in my opinion) ranges when there are shorties at the table, but sometimes I miss on that.
+1 to the EV calcs at the end. It's a strong point for you, and I'd be happy just to watch 2-4 hands reviewed in this depth for a full video.
The first hand reviewed was pretty cool. ~38mins you talk about how paired turns are bad, however, why don't you break down turned T and 7 vs turned 3, since it should be really hot/cold? A minute later at ~40min we can see 3c gives our hand 81% (3rd best card), and 3d gives us 71% (13th best card), whereas the T and 7s give us the worst 6 hands possible.
As for which hands to add in to a chk back range, would we want to add some that improve on A, T, 7s? (bottom of third column at ~40mins) as that ups our equity of our actual hand significantly over our range?
Thanks for the feedback. On the next video I will probably will only make Ev calculations.
I think I refered that altought our hand gets worse on paired turns in general on 3's it obviously gets much better (and if I didn't I meant to), but those combos are less frequent than the other paired turns (because there are only 2 3's missing and there are 3 7's and 3 T's). But, yes I should have made that distinction more clear.
Regarding you last question I think you mean call range and not check back range, right? And yes, we would want some hands that actually improve on those cards. Some good hands would be bottom 2 (that I already included on x/c range), T3 and AT, for example. 73, and T3 are obviously also good hands to shove, but because they're the weakest 2 pair I think they make good candidates to call (if we want to slowplay some hands), because if we have TT and villain shows up w/ AA,T7,73,etc ( we could be losing a ton of value by calling), whereas w/ B2P value we lose by not raising might be compensated by the value we gain on some turns where our range looks rly weak.
Really enjoying your videos Andre. Couple of quick questions...
In the first example hand when you are deciding hands to check as villain you pick AA+pr. Is that not a good hand to have in the b/f range given it blocks hands that will shove flop and instead include AA+bdsd to c/c? Not a big deal for this calc, just wondering about my range in villains spot.
In hand 2 I would assume Ben would c/r flop with the NF so when he calls flop and has a flush we should have the best flush 20% not 14% and also equities on turn and river will be slightly different. Right? Given that the choice between checking back and betting on the turn are so close, what exploitative tendencies would make you lean one way or the other? Which is better for our range?
Regarding the AA hand: I think I excluded both AA+pr and AA+bfd from the bet range (so that we would x/c with those, bet/call AA+(sd,fd) and bet/fold the other dry AA).
But as you said I think it makes more sense to include AA+pr on bet/fold range (and maybe even more so AA w/ Ad blocker) instead of some other dryAA because as you point out our cbet would have more F.E. and the "pair" doesn't help us that much in playability on turns anyway.
Regarding the 2nd hand I think you're also right. He probably x/r nut flush there almost always. I excluded some nut flush blockers from is call range (so that he would x/r those), but for some reason I forgot to exclude nut flushes as well. Anyway I re-did the calculations excluding the nut flush from the calling range and as expected the E.V. of both betting turn and checking back turn to induce bet on river went up (from 8.1 to 9.3bb and 7.7 to 8.9bb respectively).
Both decisions seem to be really close in E.V., but against a good player I would be more inclined to bet (I did bet in the actual hand), as it allows me to bluff a bigger portion of my range.
We can check back turn with weaker hands (like TP+1 flush blocker). They're not as good (villain will have flushes slightly more often, and we beat 0% of his value range instead of the previous 20%), but it's still E.V.+ (goes down from 9.3 to 6.7bb), whereas value betting that kind of hands wouldn't make much sense.
Against players that call flop too light I'd be more inclined to check back for obvious reasons.
When you bluffraise A92ddd9x with 9xxx you say we can rep AA and A9, but doesn't that make our river range when calling turn extremely weak if we are fast playing boats?
My actual range, perceived range and GTO range play are all different things. What I mean is, the fact that I credibily rep AA/A9 by raising there, doesn't mean that I do it every time (altought I do think I would be doing it at a higher frequency than calling). What matters is that I think villain will think that I would do it.
Also when constructing ranges you can think this way: if there's a certain play that's clearly EV+ you should build the rest of you range around that. So, for example in this case: if I think bluffing there w/ 9xxx is hugely EV+, I probably should be raising A9/AA there to balance it out. And then, if that makes my calling range too weak and face up (e.g. only baby flushes), I probably should take some combos of A9 from the raising range and just call with those.
If for some reason I thought that calling there would A9/AA would have very high EV, because I thought villain would bluff river everytime or something, I could try to build from there, and then I would never raise there as bluff (I would call 9xxx and possibly bluff-raise (or bet if checked) some rivers.
Loading 11 Comments...
~17:00 Table 4 you open btn 7663ss bb calls and x/r your cbet on AT6r. Turn 7s bringing your flushdraw, villain checks. You check behind saying villain has too many AA/TT' that will be x/caing that you don't think you can get value. On the river villain checks again and you say you should have value bet.
My question is if we decide that we can only get 1 more street of value in this hand, why isn't the turn a better spot to do it with than the river? When we bet the turn, he's likely to x/ca most of his AA/TT combos, meaning we don't get blown off of our equity and we're still losing a bet vs those on the river(I assume we aren't find a fold on bricks) so we're indifferent. Additionally, our hand should have equity to bet/call vs the range we expect him to be x/jamming (high equity draws like wrap+fd, 98, maybe the rare TT+Fd). So, if we expect him to have some AT+backups, or some high equity draws that will choose to x/ca turn, then there are a decent amount of hands we can get value from. If he doesn't have those, it seems like showing down our hand is better than trying to get 1 street.
Another point is on the 7s turn, this hand seems high enough in our range to where we'd want to value bet it.
The thing I dislike about checking turn and going for river value is that now we're playing a capped range and if our hand wasn't strong enough to value bet the turn, it doesn't seem strong enough to go for river value. By opening up the betting again we allow villain to x/r a balanced range, effectively making us lose the pot+our river bet. It sounds like when he checks river again, your discounting his TT+ combos a lot(or at least TT and AA), so your hoping he can hero you with a hand like he had, or potentially call w/ whatever AT+backup that he x/r'ed flop with(the only one he might have pre are AJT9 or AT98).
Just hoping you can elaborate a bit more on this spot and let me know if I'm on the right track here or not.
Really enjoyed the EV calcs at the end. Iirc on hand 1 you said jamming>calling for our range. Could you elaborate a bit more on that?
Hi jd.stl,
Thanks for the feedback. I think you made some good points on your post.
In general I agree with what you said and if I was playing someone I tought was good and/or want to play more balanced I would definitely prefer to bet turn. However for some reason I thought this was was probably a rec or maybe a not so good player.
So when he raised that flop I thought he would have AA/TT a lot and I didn't want to value cut myself there. Also if he had some kind of draw my FD protected me a bit, so I thought checking back was best.
Finally, I think you make a pretty good point of why betting turn is better when you say that I cap my range when I check back turn. However, in practice most players will value bet the river after I check back turn w/ AA/TT (even most good regs), because they know my most likely hands won't value bet river (AT is probably the worst hand I would consider vbetting there) and he has a better chance of getting value by betting).
About hand 1 when I say that jamming>calling for our range, what I mean is that our calling range is already heavy on the type of hand we have (drawy hand), and because there are many weaker drawying hands that can't jam (because it would be EV-), I think it makes more sense to jam this one than to call (that is if we think both decisions are close). I use some omaha ranger analyses just to show that our calling range is heavy on fd's and straight draws.
In general you would want to have hands on your calling range that cover most turns so that you are not exploitable by villain on some turns when he knows your range is weak, and so that you actually have some bluffs on turn that he thinks your range improves a tone on (and also so that you get more value from your good hands on this turns).
André
26:05 table 2- that has to be a stack off vs kaju85
Don't u adjust your raise size pre when there are shorties at the table?
Hi donkpredator,
Yes, it probably is, but I it's probably a relatively small mistake. I need 38.1% to stack-off, and running a quick sim I have like 38.9%. That's if he pots all the hands he wants to stack-off with there, which I'm not sure of, but I assume he does.
And yes, I normally adjust sizes and most importantly (in my opinion) ranges when there are shorties at the table, but sometimes I miss on that.
+1 to the EV calcs at the end. It's a strong point for you, and I'd be happy just to watch 2-4 hands reviewed in this depth for a full video.
The first hand reviewed was pretty cool. ~38mins you talk about how paired turns are bad, however, why don't you break down turned T and 7 vs turned 3, since it should be really hot/cold? A minute later at ~40min we can see 3c gives our hand 81% (3rd best card), and 3d gives us 71% (13th best card), whereas the T and 7s give us the worst 6 hands possible.
As for which hands to add in to a chk back range, would we want to add some that improve on A, T, 7s? (bottom of third column at ~40mins) as that ups our equity of our actual hand significantly over our range?
Hi,
Thanks for the feedback. On the next video I will probably will only make Ev calculations.
I think I refered that altought our hand gets worse on paired turns in general on 3's it obviously gets much better (and if I didn't I meant to), but those combos are less frequent than the other paired turns (because there are only 2 3's missing and there are 3 7's and 3 T's). But, yes I should have made that distinction more clear.
Regarding you last question I think you mean call range and not check back range, right? And yes, we would want some hands that actually improve on those cards. Some good hands would be bottom 2 (that I already included on x/c range), T3 and AT, for example. 73, and T3 are obviously also good hands to shove, but because they're the weakest 2 pair I think they make good candidates to call (if we want to slowplay some hands), because if we have TT and villain shows up w/ AA,T7,73,etc ( we could be losing a ton of value by calling), whereas w/ B2P value we lose by not raising might be compensated by the value we gain on some turns where our range looks rly weak.
Really enjoying your videos Andre. Couple of quick questions...
In the first example hand when you are deciding hands to check as villain you pick AA+pr. Is that not a good hand to have in the b/f range given it blocks hands that will shove flop and instead include AA+bdsd to c/c? Not a big deal for this calc, just wondering about my range in villains spot.
In hand 2 I would assume Ben would c/r flop with the NF so when he calls flop and has a flush we should have the best flush 20% not 14% and also equities on turn and river will be slightly different. Right? Given that the choice between checking back and betting on the turn are so close, what exploitative tendencies would make you lean one way or the other? Which is better for our range?
Hey Stephen, I'm glad you've enjoyed the video.
Regarding the AA hand: I think I excluded both AA+pr and AA+bfd from the bet range (so that we would x/c with those, bet/call AA+(sd,fd) and bet/fold the other dry AA).
But as you said I think it makes more sense to include AA+pr on bet/fold range (and maybe even more so AA w/ Ad blocker) instead of some other dryAA because as you point out our cbet would have more F.E. and the "pair" doesn't help us that much in playability on turns anyway.
Regarding the 2nd hand I think you're also right. He probably x/r nut flush there almost always. I excluded some nut flush blockers from is call range (so that he would x/r those), but for some reason I forgot to exclude nut flushes as well. Anyway I re-did the calculations excluding the nut flush from the calling range and as expected the E.V. of both betting turn and checking back turn to induce bet on river went up (from 8.1 to 9.3bb and 7.7 to 8.9bb respectively).
Both decisions seem to be really close in E.V., but against a good player I would be more inclined to bet (I did bet in the actual hand), as it allows me to bluff a bigger portion of my range.
We can check back turn with weaker hands (like TP+1 flush blocker). They're not as good (villain will have flushes slightly more often, and we beat 0% of his value range instead of the previous 20%), but it's still E.V.+ (goes down from 9.3 to 6.7bb), whereas value betting that kind of hands wouldn't make much sense.
Against players that call flop too light I'd be more inclined to check back for obvious reasons.
When you bluffraise A92ddd9x with 9xxx you say we can rep AA and A9, but doesn't that make our river range when calling turn extremely weak if we are fast playing boats?
Hi,
My actual range, perceived range and GTO range play are all different things. What I mean is, the fact that I credibily rep AA/A9 by raising there, doesn't mean that I do it every time (altought I do think I would be doing it at a higher frequency than calling). What matters is that I think villain will think that I would do it.
Also when constructing ranges you can think this way: if there's a certain play that's clearly EV+ you should build the rest of you range around that. So, for example in this case: if I think bluffing there w/ 9xxx is hugely EV+, I probably should be raising A9/AA there to balance it out. And then, if that makes my calling range too weak and face up (e.g. only baby flushes), I probably should take some combos of A9 from the raising range and just call with those.
If for some reason I thought that calling there would A9/AA would have very high EV, because I thought villain would bluff river everytime or something, I could try to build from there, and then I would never raise there as bluff (I would call 9xxx and possibly bluff-raise (or bet if checked) some rivers.
15:00 table 5:what do u think about jamming turn for balancing ? we can rep t8xx,sets very well because of the drawy flop.
Be the first to add a comment
You must upgrade your account to leave a comment.