2 Table $2.5/$5 6-Max Zoom NLHE Live Session (part 1)
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 126 Comments...
Haha Ben i just shaved my beard too - what a coincidence. Loling at the treadmill haha!
Lol Aaron, love the description :)
Forgot to use the headset on this one, sorry about the audio quality !
Ah! I'm so slow I just got the joke, you are actually marching! :D
Hey Ben,
~First two minutes of the video:
1) You say you would 3Bet KQ from SB vs MP. Do you have a calling range in this spot?
2) You 3Bet AQo vs UTG. Are you changing your opinion on 3-betting AKo in this spot as well?
@1: In a vacuum I probably wouldn't; it's very hard to play 3 more streets (esp multiway) with such a defined range. I'd rather 3b to get it hu and define my opponent's range while keeping my range wider and uncapped and the SPR shallower.
@2: I go back and forth on this. It depends quite a bit on how OOP does flatting the 3b which is very tricky to measure.
I guess you're saying that even if 3betting a hand like KQo from the SB vs MP if probably negative EV, calling might be worse?
Haha yes, don't know why I said that.
What I was getting at (in a very stupid way was): It seems like we run into domination so often that I don't see why we're raising it.
I guess because when we make Villain fold 8Ts, it's actually quite good for us compared to us folding, and our range for raising is so strong that we're protected?
I'd rather 3b to get it hu and define my opponent's range while keeping my range wider and uncapped and the SPR shallower.
I can see how the lower SPR makes sense.
I don't understand how "defining" an opponent's range gives us any type of advantage.
So if you don't have a calling range in this spot, you have to get AKo and QQ in pre-flop once you're 4bet, right? It would seem kind of foolish to fold them. The MP should be 4-betting around AKs as their worst value, though, so wouldn't this make it thin? Am I missing something? I guess we're playing a 3bet/call 4bet range to solve this problem?
I can see the arguments for "oh well, that's the way it goes since we don't want to call here for X and Y reasons", but is calling from the SB really that bad? It's not like the BB can just over-call with a bunch of stuff because they'll be dominated so often (and out of position) against the MP. A lot of our hands play also play well multi-way (99-QQ, QKs, AQs).
Narrowing an opponent's hand range has the benefit of allowing us to set our betting thresholds better. There's nothing tricky about this concept, you're probably thinking too hard if it isn't obvious, because all good players do it all the time. If we raise button and get flat called by the BB, and it comes KQ8, AK looks pretty good because BB 3bets 88, QQ, and KK most of the time as well as KQ. In the case of 3betting KQ from sb this effect isn't so valuable though, instead we do OK with KQ because we lump it in with a range of nut hands so that we win more often with overcards and weaker straight draws. The reason we can hand read like this is that our opponent gets forked- if he plays a hand in a way that messes up our hand reading he'll lose too much EV (relative to his other strategic options) to make his deception value outweigh his opportunity cost.
I think low SPR and folding out equity share while not splitting our range makes the strongest argument for the play. Regarding this other part:
Narrowing an opponent's hand range has the benefit of allowing us to set
our betting thresholds better. There's nothing tricky about this
concept, you're probably thinking too hard if it isn't obvious, because
all good players do it all the time.
Right, but I can think of plenty of instances where narrowing your opponent's hand range has negative expectation, and it doesn't make sense to make a play based on this reason. I wasn't disagreeing with the play, but that part seems like more of a result of making this play than an actual reason for making this play.
I'm not sure if this "required defense" terminology is helpful. We
should play all of the hands that are +EV, there's no one requiring us
to play -EV hands since we haven't put a blind in.
So in your version of the game, is the following more or less what happens?
The MP and CO play very tight to early position raises, the BTN calls them a little looser, the SB doing it's thing, and the BB calls significantly wider than all of the other other positions to make up for the required defense frequency (of the table)?
Yes, that's basically how I think 6m poker works. Another way to put it is that if our model is good for 6m, we should see an ascending PFR freq around the table with the weakest hands having roughly 0EV in each range. Whether that RFI % is 14/18/26/45/60, or 16/21/33/50/67 is an open question. And how much raising vs calling each defender does is also an open question.
AF,
Yes, that's basically how I think 6m poker works. Another
way to put it is that if our model is good for 6m, we should see an
ascending PFR freq around the table with the weakest hands having
roughly 0EV in each range. Whether that RFI % is 14/18/26/45/60, or
16/21/33/50/67 is an open question. And how much raising vs calling
each defender does is also an open question.
This is how I interpret what you're saying:
For a 3x open from the UTG, the table defends at least 3/4.5 = .3333
If the CO folds 77 to a MP raise, the CO also folds it to the UTG raise. (This follows from the arguments you made for folding 77 in CO vs MP).
The CO also folds all lower pairs when the UTG has raised.
The MP will also fold 77 plus lower by similar arguments.
This gives the defending range of the MP and CO at approximately 9% each (including 3bet bluffs). *See the range for MP and CO provided below*
Thus, the BTN + SB + BB must defend a total of:
.3333 - (.09 + .91 *.09) = .3333 - .09 - .0819 = .1614
Thus, we've got the remaining three players defending 16.14%.
Because the Button has not invested money in the pot, they will not be defending more than the opening range of the UTG. The minimum UTG opening range is 14.2%. Thus, the maximum BTN continuing range will be 14.2%. This seems high, though, so let's say 11%.
We then have the SB and BB defending a minimum of:
.1614 - BTN Min Defending Freq. = .1614 - (.11 * .8281) = .1614 - .091091 = .070309
Thus, the blinds must defend at minimum 7.03% to a UTG raise. Could you check those calculations? They definitely argue for folding 77.
Notes:
Range used for MP and CO defense (including 3bets):
AA-88,AKo-AQo,AKs-ATs,KQs-KJs,QJs,JTs,T9s,98s, A4s-A6s
AF,
Defense frequency by itself doesn't matter. What matters is denying EV. 3bets disproportionately effect the weaker hands in an opening range by forcing them to fold and lose their 3bb.
Defense frequency by itself doesn't matter. What matters is
denying EV. 3bets disproportionately effect the weaker hands in an
opening range by forcing them to fold and lose their 3bb.
So are you kind of suggesting that we 3-bet our whole continuing range from IP?
Yes, that's basically how I think 6m poker works. Another way to put it is that if our model is good for 6m, we should see an ascending PFR freq around the table with the weakest hands having roughly 0EV in each range. Whether that RFI % is 14/18/26/45/60, or 16/21/33/50/67 is an open question. And how much raising vs calling each defender does is also an open question.
Why do you prefer to open SB vs BB rather than BT vs Blinds with the weakest hands in your open range ?
Great video Ben! Very clear explanations~
Why do you fold 77 from the CO against a 3bb MP open?
Do you think the players behind you 3-bet so much that you won't see a flop often enough to make it +EV? If they're really 3-betting that much wouldn't you have a profitable backraise with any two if MP folds?
It's a pretty expensive spot to VPIP with 3 live hands behind and not great equity vs PFR's range.
If everybody did this, though, isn't it hard to see the table defending enough versus the MP PFR?
That's a tricky question. If you want to develop it into an argument I'll respond in more detail.
To follow up on this, are we by any means required to "defend" mps raise by vpiping the CO here (without antes)?
I'm not sure if this "required defense" terminology is helpful. We should play all of the hands that are +EV, there's no one requiring us to play -EV hands since we haven't put a blind in. I know people routinely call 22-77 in this spot, but I haven't seen anyone who is crushing with the play over a big sample size now that the games have gotten tougher. Tyler would be a good person to ask about this because I know he has a huge sample size at midstakes and looks at the EV of VPIP-ing various combos over that sample.
Can we get Tyler Forrester to chime in on this? I do ok flatting small pairs in this spot but I play in much weaker games (100NL) so I'm wondering whether it's only +ev for me to play here only due to the weaker field.
Ben's right calling 77-22 here isn't particularly lucrative. A good way to see this is to realize that BT, SB, BB are all going to squeeze 8-10% here so we only see a flop 75% of the time we flat call.
So we lose .75bbs (3*.25) before we ever see a flop. We now have to make at least .75bbs postflop with a hand that has less than 50% equity against the original raisers ranges. You might be able to do this with these hands, but by no way is this a lock.
We lose .75bbs, but we get 1.5bbs dead money from blinds. And also we have position.
77 have 52% equity against this 15% range - 22+,ATs+,A5s-A2s,KTs+,QTs+,JTs,T9s,98s,87s,76s,65s,AJo+,KQo.
So it is not obvious fold to me. If you have made database analysis on this spot can you please share some numbers?
What do you think about calling suited broadways and suited connectors in this spot?
couple minutes in, the treadmill thing must be a level right :D
could be a new concept, when calling incorrectly, move up 1m/ph
Can't believe the beard is gone :(!
You talk about 3betting AJo vs UTG in a coulpe of spots because of our blockers. I remember in some of your older videos you saying we couldn't 3bet AKo for value, and a lot of the times couldn't 3bet QQ either. Don't we get too imbalanced if we add all of the AJo combos to our 3betting range, and exploitable vs 4bets ?
I am playing differently than I used to.
Is this based on adjustments in your thinking or adjustments to your opponents? By "opponents" I just mean what you find to be working best in most of the games that you're playing.
Could you elaborate a little bit more ? So 3betting AJo becomes fine cuz you've widened your value range, or do you just think people will overfold a lot in that spot and you can be imbalanced ?
I have a different gameplan than I used to, but it would be giving too much away for me to estimate exactly what my range is there preflop because all of my regular opponents watch these videos. Information hiding is pretty valuable in nlhe, and it would be really silly of me to just say exactly what my preflop strategy is there because it would make it easier for my opponents to adjust.
Ok, but I would suggest for a next video that if it's something you're doing in the higher games and you can't really elaborate about it, try to avoid even doing it at the lower stakes video, just so our heads don't get confused and you can't help "de-confuse" them :)
I'm uncomfortable deliberately changing my play from what I think is best to something I feel that I can explain more fully.
Felipe is a cheeky boy
danielmerrilees lol :) I hope it didn't come out as rude or anything like that. Sauce's videos have been the most helpful thing for my game this year by far! So I'm really thankful for what he has done here, specially with the forums and all of that. You can't find posts as deep as his in any other online forums, which is awesome.
But this one video in particular was really confusing to me, as he did a lot of different things then he was used to, and, as he said, couldn't explain them for not wanting to give away info for his opponents, which is obviously understanding, but frustrating for us as students.
I'll elaborate a little more on (for lack of a better word) my video making ethics.
The first thing is that you asked me what I took to be a range question, the idea being that if I'm 3b bluffing all the time with AJo (and presumably some other stuff) then I'll need to be 3b for value more often than I've done in previous videos or be wildly unbalanced. The question I took you to be asking was then "What is your new range for this spot and why did you choose it instead of the other one?" which is a great question.
My first response is that I don't exactly know what my range is. I do have a methodology for playing this spot against unknowns that is different from my previous one, but I don't play enough non ante 6m nlhe to have my ranges memorized perfectly for this spot. If I tinkered around in CREV and applied my method to the situation then I'd get an answer, but I'm generally not answering "plz define for me your entire range," type questions in live play videos for the simple reason they're too time consuming for me to do relative to demand.
My second response is that even if I did decide to figure out my exact range, I wouldn't be comfortable sharing it. The thing with nlhe is that once our opponents are clairvoyant (which of course they are if I boldly tell them my range) it's fairly easy to plug some numbers into CREV and solve for a close to MES counterstrategy. RIO pays me pretty well, but they don't pay me well enough to write my ranges down on a public forum that my opponents can access for $100/month. What I'll never do in a video is make a play I don't think is best, and I'll never lie about my reasons for making a play. But I will leave lots of stuff out, and hint, and be cryptic, and it's part of the fun to figure out the rest.
My third response is that I don't even feel particularly bad about not sharing my exact ranges for various spots in my RIO videos. Phil's vision for RIO, which I definitely share, is to teach community members how to think about poker rather than to arm them with plays they can memorize to make more money in the short term. I like to reward community members who take the time to think through the explanations I'm giving and try to infer my ranges from what they see in a video, rather than to reward people who are good at memorization. That's why when I respond to people in the forums I ask more questions than I give answers, I'm trying to get people to think through spots in new and interesting ways which I think will keep them competitive as the games get tougher and help them innovate themselves and move up in stakes.
This is awesome ! And i think is more than fair. Lot of players wants solutions (im not taking about you Felipe, just generalizing), and don´t want to put all the work that guys who are playing NL2k+ did put to arrived to those solutions. Poker players are very lazy in general, and i like poker because its more fair than real life, if you put a lot of work, you crush, if you put laziness you get laziness results. And I'd like to keep it this way.
Glad the beard is gone.
The treadmill reminds me of DogIsHead, he used to do coaching while working out, people tought that it was douchy at the time.
Must...watch.. Sauce video. Hang on, let me see how much a treadmill desk costs.
Hey Ben,
at 34:30 you 3bet AJo, you seem to bet small in 3 bet pots. Have you ever thought that villain might simply start floating with AK, AQ kind of hands if they did indeed flat with them against that small sizing. Especially as it could take away from your fold equity as you seem to be 3bet light happy?
Ben,
So I'm just not sure about the blocker bets (or bet in this case) in which you are attempting to deny equity/free card...it seems the small sizing is going to be very difficult to balance (you're doing this with your whole range right?). It just seems impossible to know at all if the sizing is even kind of close to correct. HOWEVER, if you are not doing it with your whole range then I retract my question. Just reminds me of the paired board small lead thing that is popular now which I don't think is good (Yes, I saw the thread). But maybe I'm wrong....Idk?
I'm not sure this play is any harder to balance than any other play, probably easier. By leaning on one strategic option (lots of betting) rather than 2+ strategic options (betting, XC, XR) this seems easier to balance. I like to do a lot of betting when I have a distribution that has some combos of nuts, lots of medium vbets, and a lot of 15-30% equity hands with medium-weak playability that have trouble check/calling, and a region of really weak hands with very little equity that don't mind check/folding.
Okay, well what was difficult for me to understand was that so many of the hands are tough to categorize as bluff or value when betting whole range, whereas if a bet is polarized, I clearly know what is bluff, what is value and THEREFORE how to go about BET SIZING. In this case since there is so much thin value mixed with nuts, air, and low equity type hands (middling) I'm not sure what sizing would be correct so I get confused.
For Example: If I lead 1 combo of nuts on turn I know generally I can lead 1 combo of air (gross oversimplification I know but just an example). HOWEVER, If I lead 1 combo of nuts, 1 combo of middle value, and 1 combo of air....I feel less sure about a sizing. Obviously it should be smaller but the situation seems MUCH more difficult to get precise. In fact, I would say that its tough to think of a situation that would be more complicated to size right (early/middle street whole range action bet sizing).
I VERY WELL MAY BE MISSING SOMETHING...b/c hey hey, everybody is doing it. Do you follow my question?
I definitely follow what you're saying. From around late 2012-late 2013 I was playing a style with a lower betting frequency and more polarized ranges, but for various reasons I've moved away from that more recently. I agree with you that a higher aggression frequency style does not lend itself as easily to the results from MoP about static games.
Gotcha. Well, thats interesting....can you elaborate in an interesting/useful way at all on your thinking? If not its cool, but if you can add would love to hear.
Hey Ben. Thanks for the video. Very intresting to see your approach to the z500 pool.
About one hand..
I got very confused about your gameplan with 88 at 25min. I didn´t understand what did u try to accomplish with your small size on the turn, is it not a turn where you want to put a lot of pressure on opponents range ? setting stacks for a ~potsize bet on the river ?
And i was very curious about what would you do on a complete river blank. Would you overbet your value/bluff range on the river after those sizings ? Betting a .75x pot ? Checking ?
Honestly i didnt got surprised about opponent checking an Ace on that river, stacks were very ackwards for him valuebeting all of his simple Ax, there are a lot of combinations, when most of your bluff catchers worst than an Ace probably will hero fold the river most of the time. I would think that IP hasn´t got too many bluffs to incentive OOP calls with hands as QQ/JJ/KQ/KJ/KT. On his shoes i would valuebet some aces, but not all of them, i would have care about me folding too frecquently against a river check-shove. And if i end checking some part of my Aces, does not loose too many expected value checking the 88 ?
Thanks for reading !
There's a few ways to play that spot. I like to do a fair amount of betting because I can't think of a XR range that works particularly well, and I think because of the removal effects I don't make substantially more bombing with my nut hands that I would betting smaller. By betting smaller I can also widen my value range sometimes and set up more profitable bluff spots on the river. It's also a way of playing that seems to do well in the current meta.
Hey Ben, thanks for your answer.
I understand that the big part of your turn value range (ie A8+) dont want to bet super big because blocker effects. But, i saw you in a lot of videos making minimal adjustments to your flop/turn sizings based on what do you block of opponent´s calling range. This hand and TT ovbiously benefit a lot of sizing bigger, would you agree with me in that on a field where no ones knows too much about your game would be better to bet big with this particular hand ? (as "Explotative" play).
It´s very intresting what you say about
Are you refering to overbets opportunities ?
That's a good point. You're probably right that I would have made more in this hand by bombing twice with exactly 888 and TTT. J9s/97s turn and J9 river might be a good balancing hand because of its blocking effects to AJo and A9s which are fairly big part of villains' Ax range; although QJo might be even better depending on how he plays his AQo combos preflop. The problem with any blocker here though is that the only way we can block the A is through blocking its sidecard, and the sidecards are distributed Q-2 at a reasonable frequency because so many suited Ax get played. So it ends up as a spot where unless we get folds from some % Ax we might be making a -EV bluff.
Hey Ben, Awesome video as always. Sad about the beard also :(
anyway my question is about the treadmill desk, how much does it effect your mouse clicking skills and have you tried to lets say 6-8 table(I play about 8 tables of mtts)? Does the getting tired effect your play?
I'm interested in getting one if it doesn't have allot of $ev drawbacks.
Ben, your A5s hand about 36 min in, with the pot sized bet left on the river, if he would shove there, do you call/fold?
At 34 min, you checked back AJ on 732KQ. My instinct would be to shove it. Sure, he may have K there on occasion but even with his snap call on turn, this is what he can do with 88-JJ. As far as sets, he can only have 777 or QQQ there.
I would definitely call river with A5, I think AK/AQ is always shoving for value, and I block AA.
I think AJ is a standard ish shove on that runout, but I read his timing different from you.
9 minutes in we 3bet kj ip, flop j98cc, we cbet and 'give up' on a ten turn. My first thought here was that he can't have many Qx at all, we block Qjs, QQ 4bets pre, QT crs the flop, AQ folds flop, leaving like KQ only. Given that, how do you betting again as a bluff, which would also prevent him from bluffing us on the river with a hand like AT?
I like your line of reasoning a lot even though I don't completely agree.
I think his range contains a reasonable % of flop slowplays with QTs/sets, and I think AQ rarely folds flop, and I think hands like Q8s, QJo, QTo, probably call the small 3b bvb. It seems like we have too much hot and cold equity and too little semibluff equity to turn our hand into a bluff; if we think he's turning AT into a bluff then we might just have to call river.
Great, thanks for answering and great vid obv
Can you link the treadmill desk you used? Seems like a great investment in yourself. ty. Nice video.
Hey Gaucho, it's http://www.amazon.ca/LifeSpan-TR1200-DT3-Treadmill-Console-Black/dp/B009QHLWUK/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1401565235&sr=8-2&keywords=treadmill+desk
The one on Canadian amazon doesn't come with the desk piece, so I ordered from an office supply store in Toronto because most of the US merchants didn't want to ship to Canada. If you're in the US there's tons of places to get them. The Lifespan brand seems fine and I'm happy with it, but I'm sure you could set one up yourself by buying a treadmill and a desk and save a ton of money.
Hey Ben, great video as always.
What parts of your range would you check/call river with (if any) on 25 mins on this run out vs what you'd probably perceive to be a pretty strong range from your opponent?
I only bet about 30% pot OTF and 40% pot OTT, so if he's 1-Aing then he'll still have almost half of his preflop range by the time we hit the river. I'd generally expect any gutter+/Tx/8x at least from most opponents, which means I'm doing quite well with JJ-KQ on this river, but not well enough to bet. I'd start by check/calling KQ and KJ as well as a few XR and work from there depending on his sizing.
Hi sauce, extremely good video, i find it extremely useful, your plays are like so creative,
thank you so much for sharing a bit of your talent :).
I got some questions,
-min 7.15, you defend KJo from BB versus UTG, so sick lol. I was folding this for years.
We have 40% equity versus a UTG "standard" range of 16%, and we're OOP, so despite the "pair" value,
why do you think it is +EV? and do you plan on check-folding if we dont flop anything.
-Then you lead 1/3 pot on the turn, what to do if villain raises us? Don't you think we're in a tough spot
with our actual hand there if we get raised?
-min10 AK UTG versus BTN on 9T2 two tones, you start by betting very small the flop.
I imagine you use different bet sizings with your range in this situation, right?
What other hands in your range can benefit from a small betsize here?
I was check folding AK there like 100% in this spot, so thanks again for opening my mind to other creative option :)
-min25.88 on AAT8K, he checked back A9 river, you say its a pretty decent size mistake,
but if check-raised all-in he finds himself in a very tough spot.
So don't you think it might be ok to check back this hand sometimes to prevent ourself from
beeing check-raised? And what to do if we get check-raised, what is the way to find the answer?
-min 31.42, You double-barrel A8 on J884 when flush hits, what's the best play if we get raised?
Thank you!
Can you narrow your question down a bit? Pick one play you're interested in and try to develop an argument one way or the other.
Then turn 6 pairs, You lead 1/3 pot, what I understand is that 6pairs is better for your range than for villain's is that right? So thats the reason you decide to lead? I dont understand really how this works with all your range in this spot, and to ask specific questions:
-What does the turn lead accomplishes when we hold Kx ? My argument : our hand doesn't need protection since its a good top pair hand,and instead of making a small value/blockish bet turn, we can make a normal size value bet river if turn checks through anyway.
-Don't you think we're in a tough spot if we get raised unless we do have a 6x ? I do think we're in a tough spot with Kx here, My argument: I would not know how to responde to a turn raise here. Instead, check/calling turn and check/folding river would be my line, if turn check/check,I value bet river. I would use the "common" line.
I hope i was specific enough! thank you!
First, I'm going to refer you to a thread on this exact topic, http://www.runitonce.com/nlhe/hunl-donking-board-pairing-turns/
^^^ So by now you'll know I'm sick of talking about this play because I don't think it's very important to our strategy's EV.
I agree with your argument that Kx doesn't need very much protection in this spot, and that KJ will be in a bad EV spot versus a well balanced raising range. I think that goes to show that I'm messing up the turn lead in this hand, and I should have bet smaller, like 1/6th pot or 1/8th pot in order to make my bet a legit value/protection bet. In general, the turn lead play here is winning relative to checking against players who use a merged cb range on the flop because they'll have AQ/QQ/JJ/TT/99 with a high frequency. It will lose against players who are KQ+/bluffs/draws on the flop as the protection component isn't helpful.
That Q8s call from sb :d
Yea, I'm too used to the ante games.
a treadmill desk? well at least someone is getting rich with that idea
Another great video! In the A8o BB vs BTN. When you bet the turn 4c and he calls. On a blank river, what is the worst hand we should be value betting and what should a river check-calling range look like? Thank!
The hand starts at 30:39. Thanks!
UP
I wish I knew the answer to that. I'd look at his btn opening range and cb freq to give you a general model of his hand range on the flop. Against some players I think a value bet is likely too thin on the river, especially if their button PFR range does not have as many 8x combos as a looser player. Against most people though I'd expect a river bet on non clubs to be winning with any reasonably high trips combo. You only need to XC the river if your range contains medium strength hands, and it seems like that will mostly happen on a club river. In that case you probably want to XR boats some %, XC various medium clubs and maybe the occasional trips, and bet some air as well as some Ac if you have them to this line and some boats. Checking range on a club might be fine as well, especially if counting all the combos is too intense to do at the time.
for matty's question, its on min 31.42, You double-barrel A8 on J884 when turn 4c flush hits
18:00 The 3b of 88 in SB. I think the EV of calling>3betting. Clearly you disagree given you 3bet.
Calling
Pros:
We go to flop in multiway pot; classic large implied odds if we flop a set and they flop worse
We can continue on some select favorable boards as well in form of semi-bluffing and/or hero calling.
We dont risk a large investment and/or having to fold via a 4bet
Cons:
We dont bluff BB and CO off equity and allow them to realize equity with hands like QT QJ even 97s etc that will fold if we 3bet.
We miss value with a hand that is likely an equity favorite vs each players range.
3Betting
Pros: See Cons of Calling... ie we gain some value and bluff out hands that are flipping yet will fold.
Cons:
We can face a 4bet which is pretty dicey with this hand and these stacks.
Most importantly imo though even if we get just flatted by one player the equity advantage we push is minimal if any and we are OOP. We received an above average to average flop and runout and villain took a very passive line only betting one street (river) and we still folded (correctly imo).
These are my thoughts. I think the linear 3betting range is effective but this spot I think call>3b
One fairly simple way of attacking this problem would be to use Lefort's realized equity %, or R. If we can agree on an R for each line and a preflop tree for each opponent then we'll be able to figure out what range of R values need to be true for one line to be better than the other. If the values are really whacky, say we need R for flatting the raise to be 80% but R for a 3b pot to be 120%, then it'll be really obvious that one line is better. If the spread of values is closer though we might have to switch to a different methodology.
Hey Ben,
Really liked the video, probably my fav so far. Thought the pace and level of detail were great.
Interesting to see how much your game evolves video to video.
Gonna try to find a few questions to ask.
Ben, Thanks for reply.
I purposefully listed the pros and cons without trying to say they conclude one way. The method you you suggested using R maybe best and certainly more accurate but Id find that hard to estimate R for each line with any confidence.
What I would do better at is, review the pros and cons I listed and put weighting to their relevance and amplitude then decide which side outweighs. I think the call out weighs but I certainly see pros of the 3bet and could see it going the other way if you valued attributes differently than I.
-Zach
Hey Ben, Enjoying your video as always. Can you explain to me the rationale behind defending bb with T8s to a 3x open from MP (30 minute mark) whilst folding 44 on the button to a 2.5x open from the Cut off (28.37). Is this to do with your apparent approach to 3 bet or fold when not in the blinds facing an open? Or am I overvaluing the 44 hand as I would much rather call that if I could chose one (but would happily play both). Thanks!
Check out the preflop discussion occurring w/r/t the 77 fold, and my discussion with AF3, the same points apply for the same reasons. Let us know what you think.
last hand of the video, qts. what do you do with KJo, KTs on the flop? cbet AsQKs?
I'd mix it up with those hands, I think they're a close decision. Because we'll rarely be raised betting flop is a good option even though our hand is medium strength.
Hello Ben, very good video!
About Qts hand on AKQss, if it would be BBvBU spot, XB hands like KJo, Qts would be a way better option than cbet? since opponent has way more Ax & we also have a lot random Jx Tx we can cbet.
Thanks
Hey Ben, excellent video.
Any merit to betting river with A5 at 37 min mark? How capped would your river bet range be perceived?
I don't think that that play works. Sure, if we somehow knew his range was 99-KK then it's the play, but I don't see how we can make anything close to that read.
By the way, I guess this video gives a new meaning to "getting a walk in the big blind"...
Hi Ben,
@7:45 : BB cc vs UTG with KsJc on 6s 8h Kh 6d. You decide to lead on this turn after check/calling flop. I understand the turn card improves your range (and the stronger range usually does the betting) but why is this warranted with KJ? Do you decide to just bet your entire range as a unit because overall we have turned a card that improves us so well? My confusion is: betting turn and river with KJo appears too thin so I can only presume you're betting turn to check most rivers. After a river check you're going to face a naturally balanced bet- perhaps KJo is at or above indifference vs a balanced river bet here on the majority of river cards, and you're betting turn to protect your hand against free peels. But, overall I imagine we still face domination vs UTG at a pretty high frequency. I am also concerned with your turn check/calling range which is going to be capped <Kx if you're leading with KJ+ (if you intend to play a ch/call range here). KJo just seems more functional to me as a turn check/call... and then instead leading turn with your nutted hands and draw makes most sense to me. Can you elaborate a little on the composition of your turn check/call and betting range based on board texture/player positions?
Thanks
@ 1:46 : UTG opens to 3x, you 3-bet AJo from the CO. UTG calls.
FLOP: KJ5r
UTG checks. Hero bets.
Can you explain your rational for betting here. In video you say, "I'm going to start off by betting here. It's not a great board for me, but I think it's fine." So you really didn't explain much.
My thoughts are that we have a very good hand to check-back on the flop and call a turn bet. We might get some worse hands to fold out their equity, AQ might be a sizable chunk of his flop checking range and it might make sense for us to bet flop, but turn and check back river. But he's only drawing to 7 outs against us with that hand.
I doubt that we'll get many worse hands to call... and even if we get a hand like TT to call a bet, it'll only be for one street and I don't know why we'd try and get that on the flop.
Could you explain your reasoning for betting this hand on the flop?
Sant, the value bet threshold for villain on the turn is usually Kx+, and then some % AQ QTs and whatever backdoor comes out. By checking/calling we'll put ourselves in a really poor EV spot, but probably one that is +EV at least on the turn due to our 5 outs and high pair (in contrast, if we have a K we block his vb region making our call very +EV). Betting is also a bad option though because we're an equity dog when called usually, and most of our protection is vs QTs which won't fold or against underpairs which are nearly dead. Ideally we'd like to fast-forward to showdown, so based on your gameplan in this spot put AJ in whichever range is going to get you there.
You were in position for this hand. Are you basically saying that you'll have to put in one bet anyway, so you'd rather keep your range uncapped and get to showdown, rather than cap your range right away and be in tough spots?
Why do you think betting flop gets us to showdown more frequently exactly? Villain has the opportunity to win the pot on the river in either scenario since if we are betting flop we are assuredly checking the turn back unimproved and will be faced with a lot of river bets.
Maybe you are assuming that by checking back the flop we widen villain's range that chooses to two barrel us on turn/river, but inversely that seems like potentially a better plan since if we go call turn/call river we should expect to see range slightly more weighted with bluffs a bit more often.
I mean, unless you are always planning on folding river regardless--it just seems like when we bet the flop and are called we ensure villain bets the river EVERY time he gets there with a bluff which appears exploitable.
Do you have a solution for this or do you just randomly choose to bet flop sometimes and check flop sometimes?
@3:22 Folded to Hero in the CO. Hero raises KJo to 3x. SB flats.
FLOP: J T 5 monotone
SB checks. And Hero bets.
Can you explain for betting here. You don't really go into it in the video.
What's the worse hand without a heart that you bet here? Would you turn this hand into a bluff on the river if the flush gets there? What's the worse type of hands that you think the Villain will call with on the flop?
@ 11:39 : SB opens to 3x, Hero 3-bets to 8x in the BB with Ad Qs. SB calls.
Flop: Js 2s Tc
SB checks. And Hero bets half pot.
Do you check any of you AQ or AK in this spot? You do have a lot of drawing type hands on this flop, are you betting all your gutshots and better, backdoor flush draws, and flush draws?
I feel very good about betting a big portion of my range in this spot because villain likely 4b JJ and TT, and might fold 22 and JTo pre. That means my overpairs are in a great spot to put money in on the flop as well as lots of river runouts. It also means that villain will have difficulty on the XR because AJo won't be strong enough, JTs won't be frequent enough, and therefore balancing his combo draws with made hands is difficult.
Thanks for the video Ben, I have a general question - would you agree (and if so, to what extent?) that the less we know about our opponent(s) the more we should be practicing passive lines, given how every time we put money into the pot vs villain, and our assumptions about his ranges/frequencies are off, the mistake kind of compounds.
An example of this would maybe be something along the lines of deciding whether to make a thin river valuebet (that might get raised as well as possibly be too thin anyway) or to c/bluffcatch ? Like I understand that if I just plugged in some numbers I could solve the situation within reason, however I feel like quite often our simulations are extremely vulnerable to specific assumptions and strategies that we assign for villain, which can easily result in the output we get being completely off. I´m not sure, maybe this was all too vague but perhaps you could shed some light, it´s clear that despite practicing a well-balanced and strong general gameplan, even you are still trying to gather some info and adjust to different types of opponents and the strategies that they are employing : )
By taking just passive lines we would be minimizing losses but not mistakes. Our goal is to maximize profits not minimize mistakes. However even more importantly, the less we know about our opponent the more important it is to play our best approx of GTO strategy. That will sometimes we passivity sometimes agression. The optimal line will be dependant on our ranges, equities, and being unexploitable; it wont have anything to do with who we are facing. Only with info, reads, assumptions, etc can we deviate and make exploitable plays.
This isn't entirely true. When our assumptions are off our plays can be more profitable than expected as well. For example, lets say on turn there is a flush possible and river pairs board. Villain bets river and we can deduce from prior streets he doesnt have many boats. We expect him to be value betting flushes. We choose to raise assuming he will fold flushes. Well, this assumption could be wrong and he might snap call with a flush. But it also could be the case that he would fold flushes but in addition he is bluffing river much more than GTO or than we expected and we will have additional FE that we didnt account for making our river raise +ev where by GTO we expect it to be breakeven. Lastly, by taking this agreesive action we gain info quicker to play more accurately vs villain. Lets say this villain snap calls our raise with a small flush. We now have reason to believe he is on the stationy side and can start underbluffing him vs what GTO dictates
One other crucial piece of information is what's going on in the current metagame. That can be something as specific as a "people don't XR paired boards," or as general as "people raise to 3x the big blind with their whole range when they open pots." What I'm saying is that we have a whole background of reads about how the games play that helps us figure out where we are in hands and what's going on. Completely different but equally solid metagames are possible, for instance, people could be all opening pots for a limp for early position and balancing that well instead! I like to rotate in various plays that take advantage of pretty modest reads I have on the current metagame, and then I'll adjust even more as I learn about my opponents.
For example, this is what I said to Santaur's question above about the JT3ss 3b pot hand where I cb half pot after 3b bvb:
"I feel very good about betting a big portion of my range in
this spot because villain likely 4b JJ and TT, and might fold 22 and
JTo pre. That means my overpairs are in a great spot to put money in on
the flop as well as lots of river runouts. It also means that villain
will have difficulty on the XR because AJo won't be strong enough, JTs
won't be frequent enough, and therefore balancing his combo draws with
made hands is difficult."
Let's break this down a little,
"likely 4b JJ and TT, and might fold 22 and
JTo pre"- Here's a fairly modest read. All I'm supposing is that villain is pushing preflop equity with combos that are strong enough to GII pre, and that he's folding hands that are too weak to call pre.
"That means my overpairs are in a great spot to put money in on
the flop as well as lots of river runouts."- From making a small preflop read and taking that as a given I can infer (using GTO) how to maximize my EV on the flop supposing villain plays fairly well. Because villain lacks made hands to balance his combo draws, he can't really get aggressive until a future card gives him more made hand combos. So, I can barrel the flop and any future cards where this situation does not change, knowing I'll realize my equity. A fairly conservative preflop read turns out to be very valuable on a flop like this and switches my decision from checking to betting with a bunch of marginal hands like AQ.
Thanks for the help ! I guess I am probably overly concerned about just bluffing off big chunks vs guys who were employing a strategy of like never folding ever or guys who had a betting range so strong that they were bet-calling it all and such (a la sauce bluffing off like 250bb vs syous 93 on JJ9 from an earlier video)
NP. Just be quick to adjust when you see things that imply they are playing one way or another. Aggression produces much more info than passivity which is a side benefit.
Min T9s:
Was surpised that you did sqz here - vercaling should be clearly +ev...
but yeah, mb sqzing is vs some ppl even more +ev and keeps your range more flexible - idk..
anyways,
Im interested as palyed in the riverplay.
With T-high you likely very bottom of your sd-vlauerange - right?
I laso think that its good to check some Ax (like AQ) OTT - if so, then we have a valuebetrange OTR and hence we could bluff with the lowest SD-Value-hands of our range - so T9s would be an ok Bluff?
what you think?
Ben,
Good point. Passivity does lead to more showdowns the ultimate provider of specifically hole card info. That isn't something I thought about. Despie that I think aggression likely produces more significant or useful info.
Certainly if we check down or just call we get to see villains early street strategy and his tendencies of bluffing and value betting to some degree. But with aggression we learn what thresholds villain is willing to call down with, rebluff with, etc. The adage "we put him to the test"; and what's a test other than a measurement of what somebody knows and can perform.
Hey Ben,
What's your opinion on the infamous red-line (non-showdown winnings)? Specifically:
1) Do you think that strong play is a sufficient but not necessary condition to have a positive red-line? In other words, there are several terrible strategies which produce a positive red-line, so we can't say it's the result of good play, but do you think that strong strategies will always come close to break-even without showdown?
It seems like putting money in the pot and then folding should not be something strong strategies do quite often, since it means we're investing a bunch of money and then surrendering our entire equity in the pot.
2) Is your own red-line positive for 6Max NLHE?
3) Do you have any further thoughts?
Thanks,
AF
I agree with Tyler
Ben, where I can find Tyler's response to the question about red line?
ImMIke
Ben, where I can find Tyler's response to the question about red line?
It's in one of his latest videos.
MIn. 16.10 - Q5s.
Wouldn`t you check your valuerange here mostly with realtive best position on the PFA?
If so, this speaks against a leading-strat here... though mb you can mix it up by checking some sets+ and mostly chekcing A5s cause here you block ch-back from Ax... and leading many medicore hands, some draws, etc...?
And if you lead, why not leading on such a dynamic drawy board your entire range bigger like more 3/4PS+, instead of 57% PS?
On the river then - aren`t you here bottom of your range on this card? at least pretty much?
seems like a spot to potentially turn your hand into a bluff?
Although nah liikely not - cause you lack a heart-blocker and likely in praxtice not much better will fold... not sure here.
min 18 - 88:
Can you plz explain again why you wanna cbet here on this board your entire range so smallish? did not get this acouically 100% in the vid?
Seems that with a linear 3b-range I owuld have w my range there depending on the call3b-rannge a hige eq-advantge (15-20%eq) - so that EQs are close cannot be the reason for betting heresmall - hence Im wondering what`s your reasoning...
Whats you plan btw vs a normalsized turnbet (somethng between 60% PS and 2/3 pS)?
3:30 Q8 5 way you lead ~1/3 pot JJ8r get called by BTN
I'm wondering why you aren't betting the turn on this brick? Against your sizing, I would think his range is significantly weighted more towards stuff like T9/Q9/QT/89/87 than something like Jx. Also if you are flatting Q8 pre I'd think you have a ton more random straight draws on the flop, so do you lead those as well? And for the same sizie? Wouldn't all those have incentive to bet the turn?
23 min you flat QTs sb vs btn open, bb overcalls, you lead like slightly > 1/3 pot on T86r.
I liked your sizes of 1/3 pot in these other spots like AA6r and JJ8r but I don't understand why you are choosing to 1/3 here. It seems to me the main incentive to lead here is to prevent players from taking hands like T9 98 87 99 77 and checking back since they will always call a bet when you lead, so I think it's a strong play. I just don't understand why you don't wanna bet larger here, could you explain?
Hey Ben, w/r/t cold call opportunities in position. Is it possible you are underestimating the EV sacrifice of allowing the original raiser more strategic opportunities preflop & HU vs an in position 3bettor than vs an in position caller.
Re-opening the action vs the raiser and allowing him to put more money in the pot with parts of his range affects our ability to realize equity with our range. We kinda give him the opportunity to do what we're trying to do ie. prevent equity realization of the bottom of ranges (and just like open raising and folding isn't fun 3bet folding is very expensive!). Calling never allows the preflop raiser to act again unless we're squeezed.
Interested in your thoughts on this. Thanks!
Yes, between 30-50% of the time when we 3b we'll be called or 4b, and if we flat we'll be squeezed more like 12-20%. It's your job to further quantify this into an indifference for some middle hand like AQo or TT.
Hello Ben, what strategy do u think would be tougher to play against for open raiser, linar 3bet range like AA-TT,AKo-AJo,KQo,AKs-ATs,KQs-KTs,QJs-QTs,JTs with no cold calling range or balansed cc range with some AK & QQ mixed in + narrow 3bet range?
My guess is linar 3bet range is tougher for villain to play against, cause he hafta fold weaker hands right away & also his middle hands like suited BWs in quite bad shape too since he OOP in big pot. Same time cold calling IP become worse since ppl play better OOP than they used to, + the fact that we get squeezed a bit. Do u agree with my shoughts?
And going even farther, do we even need cold calling range at all IP on MP-BU?
Thanks in advance!
Please bring back the beard
Walking Ben isn't bad, but bearded proffessor Sulsky was much more epic.
Hi ben. Nice video as always! Btw at 32.22 when u bet A8 on turn u feel that villian should fold Jx unimproved with the assumption that he could have many flushes combos, should we try to check this turn and induce vs his floats that could bluff instead of vbetting vs hands he should fold?
Nice vid!
1:46 AJo :
I don't have a 3b range vs UTG. BC I don't like to 3b bluf vs
EP. First BU SB and bb have to fold. Then utg with a tight range have to
fold. You think you have enough FE? let's say utg folds 60% and
bu sb bb 4bets QQ+AK(2.6*3=7.8%) so pre flop we only get 60-7.8=52.2% FE.
You need 65% FE to make directly profit. You think you can fill this gap
postflop
10:00 KJo
What is your plan with your total air? I see a lot of regs folding 60-70% vs turn stabs.
DO you like just stab 100% of our air?
Hey Ben,
24:06 QTss on T86s9s. Could you elaborate a little more on this turn bet ? I perceive both ranges to be strong on this turn but I expect his range to have a salience on stronger hands and this may make me check on this spot.
Thank you a lot for this video.
Be the first to add a comment
You must upgrade your account to leave a comment.