2 Tables of $5/$10 Zoom NL (part 4)
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 52 Comments...
Content is great as usual, thanks, but you should consider not recording in a church :).
24' I don't understand why you'd wanna barrel on a 2345 turn ? It gives no additionnal equity to our hand, neither does it block hands that might C/C a second barrel or scares them off. I could see 2d barreling Q or J just because our range is gonna have so much more equity against his pairs and he'll have less KQ/KJ, but 2345 I really don't understand.
34' : in addition to your arguments for betting smaller here, what hands could you have as a bluff that wouldn't CBet ? Some bottom pairs mb ?At 24', You're right, the low cards don't block any hands in his x/c range, but that isn't a horrible thing. Maybe more importantly it doesn't improve many marginal hands in his range, except for 44/55 which might have hit a set (but probably fold flop). I generally wouldn't barrel the turn though without some kind of read.
At 34', you're right that there are a lot of hands I might opt to cbet, and that might leave me with very few bluffs on the river. Is that an argument for checking the river, betting smaller on the river, or cbetting flop less often? In other words, if villain folds enough that we can't profitably (i.e, profitable as opposed to checking river or betting significantly smaller) bet river for this size, then what adjustment should we make assuming villain is playing well vs our range?
The way I'd see it I guess if I'd end up having a x / x / b line in this situation I would end up betting around 2/3 pot for value with 7x+ and as sole bluffs I guess I maaaaaaaaay have ATs, AJo, AJs. That might be a stretch since most of the time I think I'm Cbetting this.
Which leads me to think about what I'm not cbetting in this situation. I can see hands like 99, 76s, AQ that I might like not to bet, but I just end up betting them because my whole range seems to fare better by only betting. Does this even make sense ? :)
You mention you feel like you've improved a lot at NL recently and you've been studying mostly HU- it would be interesting to hear a little bit about your approach to studying the game on your own and what you've been focusing on.
+1 to whitedevil
+1, how to improve between your bi-monthly vidoes would be very helpful, especially since you seem to have a unique approach to poker study :D
+1 to whitedevil
I don't do anything that special to study. I just played a lot of nlhe, and thought a lot about the hands I played. Sometimes I did sims looking at the lines I took in hands to make my analysis more precise. Sometimes I thought about how to make my strategy stronger.
For the 76s last hand, is there a stack size for which you would prefer the wilhasha line (cbet flop, check turn, bink river and overbet) instead of checking the flop.
Don't you think that by betting 76s you have more 7x in your range, which becomes more important deep. Also 7x hands need more protection than QQ type hands.
It is important because if you never cbet any 7x, your only nutted combos on a 7 turn will be KK (or 77 and 55 if you 3-bet them pre). Especially as ranges get wider, such as in HU, and your opponent gets to flat many 7x this will make your range capped. As stacks get deeper you become more vulnerable to overbets if you you never take the wilhasha line.
I figured that since it was a BTN vs BB hand, ranges would be similar to HU.
GT,
Thanks for always bringing up interesting concepts. Does it matter to you that the situation you describe (7 coming on later streets) would happen such a small fraction of the time? It seems ok to be capped compared to the potential value lost from betting the middle of our range in every other instance when a 7 does not hit no? Ultimately, we cant rep all things in all situations...sometimes the board changes not in our favor and we just have to optimally call or fold.
I just want to touch again on this point about betting versus checking the 7xdd.
I think most of the ambiguity here comes not from what we should do with 76dd, but from how we should play our range on the flop as the pf3bettor on a board like this.
To frame the problem, we want to look at the preflop action and board texture to see who has paid more to get into this spot. If one player has taken a more expensive line than the other, they'll have the stronger range. Button raised preflop (which narrows his range) and then BB 3bets. 3bets are pretty expensive- at this point folding is free, and 3betting costs a potsized raise. We can generally treat a BB 3bet as a bit stronger than a SB 3bet due to BB's ability to close the action. Since IP just calls, and is getting good pot odds to do so (and note BTN opted not to 4bet, which BB opened himself up to by 3betting) OOP has risked more to get into this spot. So, BB's range is substantially stronger preflop. Then, the flop comes K76r, which is a medium flop for both players. BB gets AK to hit TPTK, and flops a lot of strong backdoor draws, and IP hits a few gutters, pairs, sets, and a reasonable amount of top pair. In general though, IP won't have many offsuit 7/6 combos (he's probably folding a7 pre), so this flop is fairly blank.
The result of this is that BB can probably cbet flop profitably with almost any two cards. So, a tempting strategy choice for BB is just to bet everything- it hides information perfectly, it protects his range (which can use protection on this board), and it isn't allowing IP to play any two profitably. This is why I don't say many candidate flop strategies for OOP are bad here- even really simple strategies like 'bet everything', do kind of OK.
I try to squeeze out a bit more EV in this spot as OOP by splitting my range on the flop. One of the principles I use to split my range is to generally check medium hands, and generally bet good and bad hands. 76dd is a pretty obviously medium hand, so it makes sense to check at least from what I've said so far.
There might be reasons to bet 7xdd at least sometimes, but I don't think a big one of them (even deep) can be that our range is dangerously exploitable on a 7 turn. There are only three 7s in the deck, which means they show up on 3/46 turn cards, or 6.5% of the deck. The 7 frequency is particularly important on the turn because on many turn cards like the Qh, when we double barrel for a large sizing IP will have to fold his 7x pairs, which means we don't have to worry about 7 rivers.
It's true on that 6.5% of turns we're going to have lost huge amounts of value by not including 7x in our cbet range, but my guess is that the extra EV we gain from checking a middle strength hand more than outweighs it.
To draw an imperfect analogy, in 6max today I played a hand where I raised the CO in an ante game to 3bb with J8o and got called by Forhayley in the BB. I cbet a A72r (or thereabouts) flop for 60% pot and got called. The turn was a To and I barreled for 2/3 pot and got called. The river was my gin card, the 9o, and Forhayley checked. I realized that because this runout (T followed by a 9) was so unlikely, Forhayley could never have the nuts, but I could. I didn't need to be too afraid of a XR, since sets are also unlikely for Hayley, so I decided to bet as much I could, 11.5k into around 3900. That I can shove on this runout does not at all incentivize him to x/c flop with J8s, since he won't pick off overbets often enough, and I won't let him win the pot some other way often enough.
Ups, sorry for length. This is the reason I can't answer every comment !!
76s hand: would you check call on turn with your hand? i guess you also have 88-TT in your range on turn...what u do with those kind of hands?
I have a question regarding the A10o hand with the 4 flush on the board where you have the 10 diamonds flush. Do you ever consider CR bluffing a river like that there? It seemed to never be a part of your thought process when discussing it. Thanks
blonk-
Td is too far up in my range to be used efficiently as a XR bluff. I suppose I could bluff given I plan to fold, but the point of the hand was that IP probably had mostly Ad on the river, and obv I can't bluff the nuts.
Thanks for the thoughts
ben have you read it experts heads up of will tipton?
if so did u find useful?
Hi Ben,
ty for the great video!
I have some questions as usual :)
1. The QJo hand where you coldcalled BB vs 2.8BB open from UTG. You said that one strategic option in this spot is to call wide pre and fold more flops. How do you determine which hands are strong enough to call pre? How to find hands strong enough to proceed on the flop?
2. Is K8s your standard openraise from HJ?
P.S. Why the video is only 36 mins long? Your previous were ~50 mins on average. I prefer the longer ones :D
Thank you in advance,
Sergey
This one is shorter because there were problems with the webcam and we had to edit some of the footage out.
1. Well, to call pre we need to win on average 4.3:1.8, or around 30% of the pot. The short answer is we use our poker sense to guess when that's going to happen and set a threshold on our hand strength. As a general heuristic, I'd try to defend a little less frequently than the opener is opening.
2. K8s is probably a little loose from the HJ, but it's no big deal.
Thanks for the great videos! Really enjoying them.
Around 28 min, you defend the SB w.KTo. I find it hard to come up with SB ranges in general when not 3betting (vs all position basically..).
I do flat a very wide range when the BB is a weak player but without, it's hard and if we 3bet all hands we want to play our 3b range becomes way to wide.
Maybe you could make a topic about this and the same goes for calling IP, then getting sqeeuzed and how we would like to defend versus that? Or give some advice here, would be great!
Thanks, looking forward to the next one!
Hi Randy,
Complicated question. A good rule of thumb is that the SB has to defend less often than the opener, but still sometimes. That usually means the sb needs to slowplay a few big hands in order to resteal or call a squeeze. I'll try to make a vid on this topic at some point as well.
On the AT hand(4to flush), you should call river with ~9hi / Thi flush+ vs those sizings and obv cannot c/r because villain is betting Ad/bluff.
Which one of those BTN`s betting strategies on the turn would you prefer?
-check 100%
-betting ~2/3 w/most of his Ads+some lower flushes to checkbehind on the river
-betting 33-40%pot
*Do you think BTN should bet(bluff) a high proportion of his 2p/sets on the turn?
Can you explain why I should call river with the 9 hi flush?
If I should be calling river with the 9d, then that leaves me calling with the Ad, Kd, Jd, Td, and 9d. It seems like if I'm calling with all these combos, then IP bets the K hi flush for value, since he'll beat 3/5th of my calling range. This is especially true considering that all else being equal I should be more likely to XR earlier streets with hands containing the Ad than hands without it.
As far as the strategy choices you mentioned, I think #1 and #4 are very weak (can you see why one player might unilaterally increase their EV?). #2 or #3 both might be reasonable, and I agree that IP should not always bet the Ad.
I just made a quick analyze, with the idea of not letting him bluff profitably(ofc it depends on our preflop range and flop strategy) and it showed Td is the borderline(it`s Kd and 9d on the board btw) (I personally prefer to call with any 2diamond hand(like 4d3d) cause of card removal reasons).
My first idea was that I wouldnt worry too much about him being able to valuebet with Qd, because if he chooses to use this betsizing with Qd he is definitely decreasing his EV(like if he has 55% vs our calling range) but it seems that`s not rly true and I underestimated the impact of being BBvsBTN on this board texture. So it seems Qd could comfortably bet turn + river. I still feel that betting 3/4 turn+river is not optimal
The idea of betting set/2p by BTN is cause if board pairs on the river, BB could have like 5-15% FH in his range while BTN would have 0(and it seems reasonable for me BB to c/c turn with all his sets/2p and fold some low flushes).
I find this spot quite hard for making a decent 2-street betting strategy(with taking into account river play after checkbeh) because BTN`s range gets less polarized so I`d be grateful if you could give me some hints
I think you make a lot of interesting points in this post.
I agree that BB should fold some low flushes and call some hands which makes FH- a 5-15% shot at a XR is going to be worth more than a small amount of card removal. I also like your point about calling turn with small 2card flushes as opposed to bigger one card flushes, I never thought of that!
I think a nice 2 street betting strategy is to bet relatively medium on the turn, somewhere between 40 and 75% pot, and then splitting our range on the river. We can bet the turn with some sets, flushes as low as the 9d (sometimes), bluffs, and mix with our big flushes. Then, on the river, we can play a mixed strategy- sometimes betting bigger with our Ad and sometimes smaller. This will let us get value with our Qd combos while not losing too much value with our Ad combos.
How should we balance with the Ad given the analysis so far?
I was a bit busy last few days, but made it today.
It seems like my favorite option is:
- bet 50% OTT, w/Jd,Qd,Ad(sometimes Td might be included), bet 50% OTR w/Qd,%Ad and 1.5pot w/Ad
Havent found the freq we should check Ad OTT
Ben, you say in the video that 76s seems like a standard 3 bet BB vs BU. Don t you think that u could choose other/worse hands to 3 bet bluff BB vs BU assuming you want to 3 bet polarized bb vs bu? From SB I agree that it is standard but from bb vs bu I think it plays better as a flat .
You said you would fold 76 to a turn bet on K75Q. That means to me that you would also fold all of your 88-JJ given that these hands have same relative strength than 76?
I haven't done out the math, but typically in spots like this, anything worse than A7/AT is around neutral EV facing a 2/3 pot or larger turn bet. I might have to defend a bit more than that threshold though, so 7x or JJ through 88 are OK choices. I think I'd typically go ahead and call with 88 or 7x before JJ because neither block IP's JT/T9 combos which are probable semibluffs. 76 also has more outs than pocket pairs, so I'd tend to stretch my defending range down to 7x before including the pairs (unless for instance I think IP bets 7x on the turn, or bets 99).
Ben, thank you for the long post. You make a couple of valid points, but I don't necessarily agree with all of them.
By cbet profitably you mean that cbetting is +EV, but that is kind of irrelevant since the aim should be to find the max EV line for every hand. Which can be against your opponents conjectured strategy in case of exploitation and against a Nash equilibrium strategy in case of wanting to play unexploitable.
If that is your strategy, then the optimal counter strategy would be to start barreling hard against your checking range, and 76s doesn't seem like a good hand to call multiple barrels with since it is such vulnerable. Even on a 7 it still loses to many other 7x hands such as 75 and A7.
Moreover, if your cbet range is strongly capped on runouts like K755x, K75x5, K75x7, K757x, then your opponent can make almost arbitrarily large valueraises with all his trips. So if you could have nutted hands in those spots you could win a lot by picking off his river overbets.
While this is generally true, it doesn't imply all the conclusions that you seem to make. First off, allow to use another imperfect analogy. You played HU against KTPOKP, he 4-bet to $1750 and you raised all-in for $10.9k with A8s and he held TT. That is a spot where you sometimes show up with bluffs while he doesn't. The reason for this is that you tried to win the pot without a showdown, in which case your equity doesn't matter. This can still be applied to your 3-bet, you could hold a hand like 52o that is too weak to defend, so it need fold equity in order to be played profitably.
On dry boards like 222, K75 and A93 your range will generally be stronger yes. But especially deep this doesn't mean that your range has more nutted hands, for instance you wouldn't be all that happy to stackoff with KK on 222 for 400bb in a 3-bet pot wouldn't you?
And the proposed J8 OOP float on A72 when the potsize is 8bb with 130bb behind in order to collect river overbet is silly. He only gets there 1.6% of the time while your cbet is already larger than 1.6% of the total pot of $25k. Whereas the chance that either the 5 or the 7 has paired by the river is around 25%, and he is very likely to continue with all his pairs in position after calling the 3-bet. I think that is an answer to Daniels question too.
I asked Odds Oracle the following questions:
Board - 7h5sKd
PLAYER_1 7d6d
How often do(es) PLAYER_1 5-card hand type is trips by the river
6.6715%
So 76dd makes trips 6.6715% against an empty range.
PLAYER_1 7d6d
PLAYER_2 AA,AK,AQ
How often do(es) PLAYER_1 5-card hand type is at least trips by the river
17.5679%
Now assume that 76dd gets paid 250bb on the river every time he makes trips by the river against AK-AQ,AA and you 3-bet 13% here. So 30/146 combos pay him off. So that makes him 250bb*17.5679%*30/146 = 9.0bb.
So his realized equity in this 14bb pot would be more than half the size of the pot from this alone, despite that you have many overpairs and top pairs in your 13% range.
So clearly you must protect your ranges in order to prevent this from happening at deep stacks, that is why I believe that having 7x and 5x in your betting range is important.
I don't think you are being charitable to my line of argument here. Charity means you generally try to assume I'm saying something smart unless it's obvious I'm not.
By cbet profitably you mean
that cbetting is +EV, but that is kind of irrelevant since the aim
should be to find the max EV line for every hand. Which can be against
your opponents conjectured strategy in case of exploitation and against a
Nash equilibrium strategy in case of wanting to play unexploitable.
Of course. My claim isn't that 'if you can find a +EV line, take it'. I think you would be surprised how well 'cbet 100%' seizes EV vs the nemesis here.
If that is your
strategy, then the optimal counter strategy would be to start barreling
hard against your checking range, and 76s doesn't seem like a good hand
to call multiple barrels with since it is such vulnerable. Even on a 7
it still loses to many other 7x hands such as 75 and A7.Moreover,
if your cbet range is strongly capped on runouts like K755x, K75x5,
K75x7, K757x, then your opponent can make almost arbitrarily large
valueraises with all his trips. So if you could have nutted hands in
those spots you could win a lot by picking off his river overbets.
I said "one principle that I use" to decide whether to bet or check is having a medium strength hand. I would also check sets, top pair, and a variety of other hand classes, for different reasons. I think it's silly to assert that the strategy I'm advocating is to only check medium hands.
While
this is generally true, it doesn't imply all the conclusions that you
seem to make. First off, allow to use another imperfect analogy. You
played HU against KTPOKP, he 4-bet to $1750 and you raised all-in for
$10.9k with A8s and he held TT. That is a spot where you sometimes show
up with bluffs while he doesn't. The reason for this is that you tried
to win the pot without a showdown, in which case your equity doesn't
matter. This can still be applied to your 3-bet, you could hold a hand
like 52o that is too weak to defend, so it need fold equity in order to
be played profitably.On dry boards like 222, K75 and A93 your
range will generally be stronger yes. But especially deep this doesn't
mean that your range has more nutted hands, for instance you wouldn't be
all that happy to stackoff with KK on 222 for 400bb in a 3-bet pot
wouldn't you?And the proposed J8 OOP float on A72 when the
potsize is 8bb with 130bb behind in order to collect river overbet is
silly. He only gets there 1.6% of the time while your cbet is already
larger than 1.6% of the total pot of $25k. Whereas the chance that
either the 5 or the 7 has paired by the river is around 25%, and he is
very likely to continue with all his pairs in position after calling the
3-bet. I think that is an answer to Daniels question too.I asked Odds Oracle the following questions:Board - 7h5sKdPLAYER_1 7d6d How often do(es) PLAYER_1 5-card hand type is trips by the river6.6715%So 76dd makes trips 6.6715% against an empty range.PLAYER_1 7d6dPLAYER_2 AA,AK,AQ How often do(es) PLAYER_1 5-card hand type is at least trips by the river17.5679%Now
assume that 76dd gets paid 250bb on the river every time he makes trips
by the river against AK-AQ,AA and you 3-bet 13% here. So 30/146 combos
pay him off. So that makes him 250bb*17.5679%*30/146 = 9.0bb.So
his realized equity in this 14bb pot would be more than half the size
of the pot from this alone, despite that you have many overpairs and top
pairs in your 13% range.So clearly you must protect your ranges
in order to prevent this from happening at deep stacks, that is why I
believe that having 7x and 5x in your betting range is important.
This is partly correct. We know that 3betting 76s is best because it's more profitable than calling, and it's more profitable than other candidate strategies like 3betting KTo or 83s. We tend to guess this is true because of a combination of decent equity, and great drawing potential, and deceptive board coverage. It might also be true that cbetting 7x and 6x is best for the same reasons, I just don't think so. The odd thing about the A8s example is that A8s is a bluff 5bet, which usually doesn't have enough EV to call. 76dd does have enough EV to call. Also, Axss is added to a 5b range in order to prevent 4b/expo fold, which is a powerful line for IP, it doesn't have much to do with card removal after the flop. I don't see how this example really connects to the argument at issue, though it's obviously true that my opponent won't show up with bluffs.
I don't understand how your simulations suggest their conclusion. Why do you think the assumption that 30/146 combos of a 3bet range get 250bb in on a bad river is realistic? One obvious objection is that if we were getting in 250bb into a 14bb preflop pot 30/146 times, that would mean we go broke with 20.5% of our preflop range for a PSR of 18. That's crazy!
I do think that the spot is close, and I do think you're hitting on the right type of reasons (i.e., range protection/implied odds on fairly unlikely runouts vs the nemesis) in arguing for your point. The difficulty of getting a meaningful conclusion here is that we're comparing two lines (x versus bet) with a ton of game tree left in play, and at least I think the final tally of EV might be fairly close. It's going to be hard to come up with a quick model which will decide the issue one way or the other.
GT,
I appreciate the work shown.
w/r/t the 25% of times a 5 or a 7 pairs by the river(on K75) and they are still around with a 5x or 7x in their range:
- I'm not sure they get to the river with any 5x unless they turn a flush draw w a 5x hand. Its likely the number is closer to 12-15% rather than the 25% you suggest as the amount of times they experience tripping up with 5x or 7x by the river....ALSO those opportunities will be discounted by the times we will be able to represent flushes that back door and LETS NOT FORGET AA-KK that set up for boats as well (that our opponent cant have).
The video is awesome!
Ben, use webcamera, please. It's makes easier to understand u for those who don't speake english as a native lang. Thanks!
There is nothing wrong with calling 3bets wide IP especially when you are one of the best players in the world like yourself Sauce im not saying hat sarcastically ethier.
I love your vids and the depth you go into is very valuable but id also really like to see sometime you just 4 tabling zoom doing live commentary, making decisions in the moment like you would when you are really grinding
I was kinda dreaded to watch your vids, cause often i do read argument between you and GT and i can't follow up , due to my insufficient level of understanding ATM. I just wanted to say i was surprised to see that your teaching ability matches Phils, and it was real pleasure watch them all, and content was extremely valuable and understandable . Einstein said if you can't say it simple you don't understand it well enough. By this i don't mean people should stick to simplicity in mutual conversations, because many things do need detailed analysis, but i believe it to be crucial quality when teaching other people. So using this occasion to give you compliments for remarkable teaching vids, thanks
Don't you get too much weak hands, compared to strong hands in your check-calling range if you have 88-QQ and a bunch of the AT+ hands as well ?
Considering that 76 ends up with 2 pair+ by the river 21.6% of the time (10.6% by turn), which is slightly more than double of what 88-QQ does, makes me think it's a better bet than those if you want to split your range. It play better vs a flop raise as well.
I don't either 76 or QQ-88 unimproved are strong enough to check-call 3 streets, so I'd play a strategy of balancing their checks with some strong hands, likely sets and some medium hands with good blockers, likely Kx 3bet bluff, so either the strong hands or the medium hands will benefit regardless of which strategy opponent chooses.
I also think you need the 7 turn less when you check-call, rather than when you bet.
88+ are also stronger when the flop gets checked through.
7x also improve more often and 'block' way better than random air if you decide to fire 3 barrels.
If you choose a strategy if 3betting more polar, would you bet or check 53o 72s etc. ?
Great Discussion Ben. I have to say I am very impressed about your interaction in the comments since you started here at RIO. Even more so I would appreciate if you could answer the following questions:
- In the paragraph before you outline how much this K72 flop favours BB, so why does BB's range need protection then?
- How would it allow IP to play any two profitably if BB does not bet everything?
- What reasons come to mind for checking these other various parts of your range?
- What do you think would be a good check back frequency of the nutflush for IP on the turn and do you think the population deviates much from this frequency?
- What are good bluffraise hands on these monotone flops?
Thanks Ben
@1:33 are you sure about peeling 35s there with SB being really short ?
thanks for another great video :-).
19'30 should we not 3bet a wide BTN opener who folds to 3bet all the time with AT? (playing against his trash range).
instead of , we should be 3betting a depoloried range or extended value range (like AT) from bb against a BTN opener and always calls 3bet with very weak part of his range.
my thinking is that if BTN folds to 3bet alot, shouldnt we be 3bet alot of weaker hands in our range rather than hands like AT? Thanks Ben
If the opener folds to a lot of 3bets, it's pretty good to 3bet anything. We still gain when we 3b AT vs a tight calling range as we prefer hands like 76s fold pre rather than come along to the flop.
thanks for the answer ben！
I am doing a calculation on the 76s hand and you have to make quite a few assumptions to run out the decision tree. I need your help. What does everyone thinks the % bluffs you pick up when you check the Flop (10%, 20%, 50%???) to opponent and if the flop goes check check, the % bluffs you get when you check the turn?
In the 76s hand at the end, you allude to villain potentially having A8o and A5o on the river. Do you flat the 3bet preflop with those hands in villain's spot?
Be the first to add a comment
You must upgrade your account to leave a comment.