EPT Barcelona Hand Review
Posted by Daniel Dvoress
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 28 Comments...
In my experience, tourney players are quite capable (right or wrong) of valuebetting Set+ in hand one and A8+ in hand 3.
Hand 1:
I've gotten a lot of people writing to me about sets being a likely valuebet, and given how numerous these comments have been (and the caliber of players they've been coming from) I think I have to change my perspective with regards to the hand.
At the time I heavily considered that it made sense for me to occasionally check AK and that I should also have a non-negligible amount of 9x in my range so I didn't think a valuebet from a set is too likely. One thing I would add is that I wouldn't actually consider the sizing to be too small in this spot when you combine this being a tournament and the type of spot this is.
Very good hands for a video though, and you showed a lot of heart with your lines.
i agree with sets being possible to be valuebet for sure h1 (wrongly or rightly)
Like I said in my response to forhayley above: very possible I'm wrong on this one.
Hello Daniel ,
great video !
In first hand with pocket aces on the river you say that in you range you sometimes have 9x hands , which kind of 9x hands do you have ? why you don't value betting them?
And why you think he never valuebet his sets ? for example set of JJ or TT
great video.
on hand 1, dont you think you can get into trouble betting this thin on turns when you cant really have sets other then QQ (which may check turn, given it blocks ur calling range...and id think JJ is checked on flop and 88/55 dont 3b pre). He has all 4 sets at 100% frequency, T9s at 100% frequency, as well as QJs at 100% frequency. I think if u bet AA u prob bet KK here and can get into a lot of trouble if he realizes ur thin and somewhat capped and can implment raising range.
on hand 2, on 943r, u cbet 400 into 660, so i assume thats a more polar range IP. I guess you check back AK/AQ then and how do you balance that? check back some AA and some A5s/99 type hands as well?
on hand 3, im not sure about your turn bet. are you dividing your range at all on the turn or just betting everything here? If you do divide your range, i think Ac7x needs to go into check range. I think its expliotative turn bet that has merit as i think this is a very good card for your range cuz u got flushes and most of his raise flop (id assume) so he may overfold but i also think a lot of the hands u want to fold like 99-kk no club shove flop. so maybe he does just have a lot of floats here once calls flop, like QJdd AcJx. Thats entirely possible i guess because its a board where pairs have incentive to get protection and stacks are so shallow, he may not worry as much about balancing a strong calling range.
The thing is when you check turn, it feels sort of gross cause you look like you have what you have but im not sure, complex spot.
Hand 1:
Yes, I do think that I can theoretically get into trouble betting overpairs on this turn for the reasons you stated. One of the reasons that I bet is because I did not expect to get raised very much on this turn: he rarely has air and a lot of his bluff candidates are going to be pairs+draw of some sort which I thought would have diminished incentive to raise.
So if we are not expected to be raised here very often, betting is clearly superior to x/calling since the same thing happens when we are beat, but a reasonably wide range of hands that are calling are unlikely to bet for us. Now if you think x/folding is an option, that's another story...
If we are expecting him to raise with a decent frequency then I completely agree that betting is not a good play. I don't really expect someone who I haven't played much with to be able to make this adjustment. If this was a cash game hand where villain was someone I have (and will) play a ton of hands with my approach would be different.
Hand 2:
I think I'm reasonably polarized, yeah. The strategy you suggested for the check back range is a good one. Another one you could use if you don't want to be checking back AA/AK/AQ/99/whatever else is to have two betsizes and just bet a lot here. So have a smaller betsize with your AK/99/good equity/barrelability bluffs (for example KQs with a bdfd).
Hand 3:
Agree on checking Ac7x on the turn, and agree with everything else you said.
Like you said, tough gross spot and I'm also still unsure about my turn bet. Even if he does have a bunch of floats after calling flop that doesn't really add too much to the EV of checking since we're not supposed to win much versus those floats anyhow.
great responses. about hand 2, if u have betsizes, do u need to include some hands from big bet size into small bet size at some frequency in order to be balanced and not allow him to raise u a lot? Or can you keep them exclusively in one size?
I feel when we bet small (and this might be expliotative and unfounded) ppl assume we have AK/AQ type hands and raise a lot given we have some many more combos of those then 99/AA.
Can either of you expand a bit more on having 2 betsizes on 943? I understand the logic of having AK/99/good barrelability combos in the small one, and having a lot more "one and done" type hands in the bigger bet size. What does our value range look like in the bigger bet size section?
I'm not sure we'd be facing a x/r too often when we bet small since betting small actually takes away the incentive to x/r from a lot of his x/r bluff candidates. Although maybe you'd be getting x/r a lot anyhow. Some hands should likely be bettering both big and small with some frequency.
I think AA should actually go into the big size range rather than the small one, or at least all combos that block his A-high BDFD. When we have AA we block a bunch of A high hands that would want to peel versus a small bet but might fold against a large one - so a larger portion of his range is calling any reasonably sized bet, if it's calling at all - so we might as well bet big. In addition, we can't triple barrel even close to every runout with AA, so it makes sense to bet bigger to get the most in when we are only potentially betting twice.
hand 3; I feel like almost every flushdraw combo would just raise flop, and also all sets and overpairs as you stated. Doesnt that leave him with the exact type of hand that he has very often? Which would make this a pretty easy call?
Easy isnt the right Word i guess, cause its not. But yea I dont seem to find alot of valuehands he often shows up with in this specific spot.
This is the same conclusion that I arrived at but it's one of those spots where it might be a very profitable call if all of your assumptions are correct, but a slight mistake in those assumptions might mean you are actually lighting money on fire.
that is true
love this format, is there a video of the last hand on the web ? ^^
Unfortunately that hand wasn't televised.
Can you elaborate what you mean when you 32 min into the video say that because we know the run-out the EV's don't mean anything in the tree.
I don't know exactly what the EV number means. Can you explain what it means? I am talking about the EV number that on the flop is showing -328 in the tree
We know what the river is going to be, so the EV of the turn bet isn't the overall EV given all the possible rivers, but the EV given that specific river.
In this particular instance this matters a lot because we missed our FD on the river - so the -328 turn bet means the bet is losing that much if we never hit our draw on the river, which is why it is meaningless.
In hand 3 given that you thought Martin finally came to the assumption that you had some showdown and not air hands like j9dd, shouldn't his value shoving range then include all 6x(I guess he doesn't have too much 6x on this runout however) and not just flushes like you mentioned? Really cool hand, nice call.
It's somewhat possible I could have played some funky low club this way so I'm not sure he should be shoving any 6x - but that's not super important since I don't see him having a 6 here ever. The only 6x hands I can really see him calling on the turn are ones where the other card is a club, but I don't see him opening any offsuit hands containing a 6 from that position.
my initial thought at the last hand when you mentioned you want to bet the turn against his AcX hands was that you won´t be able to win at showdown against them, because either they hit or they will bluff you off your hand. and given this assumption i wasn´t too convinced about the turnbet tbh, i also see him rather raise the flop with overpairs without clubs so he doesn´t have a huge foldingrange at all on the turn and i think it is just a check/fold or maybe a check/call against his AcX hands and valuehands, depending on combos. but as played i think it makes a lot of sense for him to bluff the river with Ac, especially this one, since it improves some ouf your bluffleads to pairs that beat him now like 32s. and other then the backdoor fd and 2 overs you dont really have that much air on the river anymore, maybe some Kc9x stuff but i guess that would be a decent canditate to bluffshove for us, so his showdown value isn´t that high and i think he should bluff.
this spot is really weird though alltogether, the way you broke down his range with having close to no 6x on the river, i think it´s even hard to valueshove your mid flushes because his range basically consists of AcX and made flushes that he didn´t raise on the flop.
also, i would tend to not lead my Ax7x on the flop, because i guess Ax is a big part of his check behinds on the flop and my equity is great against those and i´d like them to hit their ace. though that goes for K7 Q7 or J7 as well and it´s nice for A7 when KQ QJ fold and nice for J7 if AK folds etc. Ax will be the biggest part of his openraisingrange though so i think A7 benefits from being a better two-pair on the turn more then the rest of our 7x.
Markus,
Lots of good points. I agree that if he always raises his overpairs on the flop, then we probably shouldn't be betting the turn.
Re: leading - I agree with everything that you are saying (especially how good him catching with with Ax is) but also consider that if we bet, a good chunk of his Ax hands continue anyways, especially since we do not have the Ac, at which point now not only did we get a bet in with phenomenal equity but also that if he does happen to hit the A we are extremely likely to stack him. Also consider that it's only a 2 outer for him to hit the A, but a 3 outer for him to hit his kicker.
Had it been a dryer 7 high board, I would not have led as I would have expected a lot of broadway type of hands to cbet anyhow. Here in this spot however I thought that it would be quite advantageous to be in order to get him to just fold 2 overcards that would likely check back flop.
Hopefully that adds a little bit to think about - I'm by no means saying that I'm correct in having led: I'm not 100% about any postflop street in that hand.
The 2 most interesting spots i found in this video were:
1) Your turn bet in hand one. I often find myself over checking my range when the turn improves our opponents range. You mentioned since we are calling a bet anyways, its best to get value/protection from worse. How sure are you that value protection against hands we beat outweigh the value in checking against the nutted nature of his range by this turn?
2) Your sizing on the flop in hand 2. This could be a trivial spot, and as 5betbluff stated, you are probably going polar here when you choose this sizing. Why do you prefer a bigger size as compared to a 1/3 size on this flop?
Turn bet in hand 1:
We don't really have to outweigh the value of checking against the nutted part of his range since if we are not going to c/f anyways that value is non-existent.
Hand 2: Assuming that he always calls with all AQ combos on the flop and that 87 suited is unprofitable river bet against his range and we accordingly decide to give up, are we just exploitatively betting for value on the river and never bluffing? Are there some better bluff combos from a blocker perspective that we should consider?
Be the first to add a comment
You must upgrade your account to leave a comment.