Pretty disagree with your comment on (55)6 hand.
1) If 2 open with 2 4 6 door cards mostly it's wired pair or 3flash cards with overcards. Don't think 3betting it showing some additional strength of hand, it's already should be good enough for open with dead 2.
2) On 5th street, it's OK to check when blocking 66, it makes you having sss in door cards much more often than if not having 66 in the hole cards.
3) And when you check back 5th street you never have flash and most probably have wired pair in the hole cards and then odds are good enough for calling down.
Only negative point imo - you can realize that you are playing against 66, but it does not cost much in a limit game.
Thanks for your comment, you made very valid points (hand in question was between 7:50-14:35)
1,You are true.. If he only has wired pairs and 3 flushes in his range, then he will have wired pairs 52% and 3 flushes 48%.
Against that range 556 rainbow is still a favourite (50,4%)
However here i think despite the dead cards, he can or will open with some other hands. I expect him to open split 2s, when he has an overcard or blocker kicker, with 2 flushes. So 224ss, he might open because he blocks split 4s. He will also open 226rainbow here imo. Maybe even 223ss, because it has some straight potential, although dead cards are not in his favour.
Anyway, if i give him some split 2s, his frequency will change a little:
Wired pair: 37%
Split pair: 27%
3 flushes: 33%
Against that range my 556 equity increases to 53,1%.
But you made a good point that his frequency is more likely weighted towards wired pairs then anything others. I still don't like an early 3bet with a hand like 99-2 rainbow. Despite we will be an equity favourite, it's just turns over our hand and weakens our calling range a lot and opponents will play much better against that range
2, Also a good point :) He is a big dog against my range (assume i have all split 6s, all live wired pairs, all 3flushes)
A6Qss -- --: EV [b]64.9%[/b] -
6622K --: EV [b]35.1%[/b] - WIN/LOSE/TIE %: 35.1/64.9/0.0
Split pair: 41 (32%),
Wired pair: 51 (39%)
3 flush: 36 (28%),
So i will have a flush 28% here. If we change his hand to 772 then it changes by a lot! He is still an equity dog (40,7% equity now), but my range looks like this:
Split pair: 57%
Wired pair: 22%
3flush (=flush at this point) 17%
3, I expect his 3bets on third street to be two type of hands:
-wired pairs
-3flushes with the ace of spade, and another spade higher then a 6... Since i have the As, he will always have 2pair at that point
Because of that i think i SHOULD check back a lot of pair+flush draw on 5th street! If i have the 5s in my hole my equity will be still only 42,6%! Therefore i will still have flushes in my range quite a lot.
However if my plan is/was to bet 6th street and follow up at river everytime i will be still massively overbluffing...Luckily i get there :)
Enjoyed the video & looking forward to the next part! In the Stud 8 round at 22:30, isn't 43539 an fold against xx/A510, or especially on 6th street when you catch a Q, with no low draw possible?
Folding that hand on 5th street will be a very big mistake. We are getting 7:1 and have around ~34-37% equity.
6th street is bad for us if he has a pair higher then our, but folding there will be still a mistake. We are getting a really good price and there will be situations when we will be ahead (against hand like 42-A5TK or 8c3c-5xAcTcKx).
Our equity droppoed significantly, now we have around 22-25%, but getting 9:1 even with slightly bad river (7th street) playability we should clearly continue.
It would be much closer if villan gets a better card (like an offsuit (non club) low card. Even then our equity will be around 16-19%. But when both catch a brick (high card) it should be an easy (but obviously not happy) continue due to pot odds
I found the stud/8 hand at 28:32 very interesting, especially the 5th street decision. First, imo, I think your hand is too marginal to raise vs such a strong low board. It would be different if he had something like 4h2d7c instead of 4h7h7c showing. Second, I am curious if it is better to try to knock out Zapa instead of letting him come along with a wider and weaker range. Both in this specific spot, but also in similar spots in general.
In this specific situation, my analysis below shows that raising on 5th is a clear -EV play. Also, that calling and letting Zapa continue with a wider range is probably a +EV play, but still marginal. Please feel free to comment or correct the assumptions and analysis anyone.
Raising on 5th
You say you expect to have something like 53% HU vs Spaise’s range, and something like 37% 3-way.
HU on 5th vs Spaise I get your equity to be ca 35%. I assumed a range for him of all three-lows, all three-flushes, all pairs, rolled-up and also AT-AK in the hole with a two-flush. Even if we assume a somewhat capped range, say that he 2-bets on 3rd with some good starting hands, I still get your equity on 5th to ca 35%.
So raising to get it HU even if we know that Zapa folds 100% still seems marginal at best. Spaise will probably 3-bet his best hands, forcing us to pay possibly $1000 to see a showdown. On average we will probably pay close to $800. $800 to win $2278 would require 35% in equity.
Add the fact that Zapa will sometimes continue when we raise on 5th, with his strongest made hands and four-flushes, ca 25% of the time accordning to my estimation below. 3-way vs Zapas stronger range we will probably be down to ca 16% in equity – making the raise on 5th a clearly losing play imo.
Calling on 5th
If we look at calling down instead and start by trying to estimate Zapas range. Given his slightly surprising bet on 4th, I would imagine that his range is weighted toward hands that he wants to protect or hands that he wants to get in bets with for value on 4th. Especially if he for some reason is afraid Spaise would check behind hands like AT-AK, 4x, 7x or something else. He could possibly start betting some three-flushes as well, but I think those hands are less likely to be in his range now once he bets 4th. To make some assumption of his range, I can imagine 44-AA, TsXs, Jx in the hole and then possibly a few flush combos, say 7s8s, 7s9s, 8s9s, As9s, As8s, As7s, AsKs. The four-flushes won´t be the most important hands to account for anyway imo, since we are neither winning nor losing that much vs them.
Given that range once he bets 4th I can imagine that he might continue with the following range if we just call on 5th:
Jx, 55, 88-AA, Tsxs, 7s8s, 7s9s, 8s9s, As9s, As8s, As7s, AsKs
That is, only folding 44, 66, 77.
If we raise on 5th, I think he might continue with only 55, TT-AA and the ss-combos.
Estimating Zapas range is not the easiest, but we can still assume that by just calling 5th we will keep him in the pot with a lot of marginal hands as well. Given the range above, our equity 3-way is 23% and probably just enough to calling down from 5th and on, on most runouts. But still marginal.
If Spaise had a weaker board
Quick analysis if we change Spaise’s board to 4h2d7c.
- HU vs Spaise we now have ca 42% equity.
- Vs Zapas stronger range of 55, TT-AA and the ss-combos I assumed was in his range, we now have 17%.
- Letting Zapa in with the range of Jx, 44-AA, TsXs, 7s8s, 7s9s, 8s9s, As9s, As8s, As7s, AsKs (now also calling 44, 66, 77) we now have equity of 26%.
- Assuming that raising 5th will make every player pay $800 5th and on.
- Assuming calling 5th will make every player pay $600 5th and on.
Raising 5th, Zapa comes along ca 25% of the time:
EV = 0.75 * (0.42 * (800 + 800 + 678)) + 0.25 * (0.17 * (800 + 800 + 800 + 678)) – 800 = $48
Calling 5th, Zapa comes along with wider range:
EV = 0.26 * (600 + 600 + 600 + 678) – 600 = $44
Would be interesting to know what anyone thinks about my view on the hand and if anyone sees the hand differently in any way. Or any other pros and cons with raising vs calling on 5th, etc.
That was a detailed analysis :)
Can't really argue with that at the moment, would like to read it a few more times, before i reply :)
But i think you forget that spaise's range is extremely capped IMO. I don't really remimber what my reads were on him when i played, but when a Q opens, a J flats, and somebody has a 4, then if he has any strong/marginal 3card low he would/should jam. At least i would, but i am pretty sure spaise will also jam those. I would definately jam a hand even like 72-4hh (maybe call with 72-4rb; 82-4rb).
He also only called on 4th which also weakens his range. Because if he had a hand like 72-47 he would/should raise. Yes, he can still have some trips, if he is on the passiver side on 4th, or if he only called 3rd on with K7-4, and then improved to K7-477. But with 3card low+1pair i think plays better there as a raise vs 2 high hands to knock out one high hand (or even charge value because against QQ/JJ 72-47 is favourite imo).
There is also an important stud8 and split pot concept: raise with a hand that is behind multiway to knock out players. Just for an example. If the pot is big(ger), and my 3way equity is 30% in a spot, but my HU equity is 45% i am clearly raising, despite i am an equity dog (only 45%) HU.
On the other side we might benefit a little bit more when we just let the third player to continue with a much weaker hand/range rather than knocking out. And probably this hand is a good example for that.
So now i lead a little bit towards a call, what you suggest also. But would like to hear your thoughts wether you counted with the fact, that spaise's range is extremely capped/weak?
However resultsoriented it turned out perfectly, since spaise almost always had A9/AT/AJ/AQ to start (those hands make the only sense for me to play that way), and even with those hands he was getting the right price on 6th but i got him to fold which was a great result.
That was a tricky a hand and interesting hand. I was thinking about this in the past 24hour and now i definately like a call better. I played with spaise's range and my equity is between 30,0-32,8% 3way (i fixed JsThJc5s for Zapha, and a random card, so a split jack which i think is correct). And HU i can get my equity higher to 38,7-42,7%.
Still in this spot it's clearly not worth it, even if spaise's range is really capped. I gain about 10% of equity of the 687$, which is 68,7$. However i put an extra 400$ to the pot with ~30%, and i am losing much much more with that.
So after this in depth review i can say that i made a mistake by raising 5th street
I did put Spaise on a too strong range, I agree with you on that. I took out some stronger hands like 44, QQ-AA, three wheel cards with an A, but still ended up at ca 35% equity on 5th. Then left it at that, didnt remove other obvious 2-bet hands like three low flush cards etc. And he would probably 2-bet much wider than that as you say.
I also agree that he might (and should) raise some of his pair of sevens on 4th, further lowering his equity on 5th in this spot. If you do get up to somewhere around 42% in equity HU, I can imagine that raising and calling becomes more equal as options as happened to be the case in my last example. In this case it might still be marginal, as you conclude yourself, if your equity isnt always that high.
I can also see the value in knocking Zapa out if we have more equal ranges, as long as we are doing a little better vs Spaise’s range. Or if we like in this case or a similar spot have a stronger range than Zapa, but actually have a hand like (9s4s)Qs9hJh. We still have roughly the same equity vs Spaise, but gain much more by knocking Zapa out with Tx or Jx hands than keep him in the pot, obviously. Then it feels like an automatic raise and then be prepared to slow down/give up later in case Zapa still comes along.
Loading 11 Comments...
����
Two thumbs up^
Pretty disagree with your comment on (55)6 hand.
1) If 2 open with 2 4 6 door cards mostly it's wired pair or 3flash cards with overcards. Don't think 3betting it showing some additional strength of hand, it's already should be good enough for open with dead 2.
2) On 5th street, it's OK to check when blocking 66, it makes you having sss in door cards much more often than if not having 66 in the hole cards.
3) And when you check back 5th street you never have flash and most probably have wired pair in the hole cards and then odds are good enough for calling down.
Only negative point imo - you can realize that you are playing against 66, but it does not cost much in a limit game.
Thanks for your comment, you made very valid points (hand in question was between 7:50-14:35)
1,You are true.. If he only has wired pairs and 3 flushes in his range, then he will have wired pairs 52% and 3 flushes 48%.
Against that range 556 rainbow is still a favourite (50,4%)
However here i think despite the dead cards, he can or will open with some other hands. I expect him to open split 2s, when he has an overcard or blocker kicker, with 2 flushes. So 224ss, he might open because he blocks split 4s. He will also open 226rainbow here imo. Maybe even 223ss, because it has some straight potential, although dead cards are not in his favour.
Anyway, if i give him some split 2s, his frequency will change a little:
Wired pair: 37%
Split pair: 27%
3 flushes: 33%
Against that range my 556 equity increases to 53,1%.
But you made a good point that his frequency is more likely weighted towards wired pairs then anything others. I still don't like an early 3bet with a hand like 99-2 rainbow. Despite we will be an equity favourite, it's just turns over our hand and weakens our calling range a lot and opponents will play much better against that range
2, Also a good point :) He is a big dog against my range (assume i have all split 6s, all live wired pairs, all 3flushes)
A6Qss -- --: EV [b]64.9%[/b] -
6622K --: EV [b]35.1%[/b] - WIN/LOSE/TIE %: 35.1/64.9/0.0
Split pair: 41 (32%),
Wired pair: 51 (39%)
3 flush: 36 (28%),
So i will have a flush 28% here. If we change his hand to 772 then it changes by a lot! He is still an equity dog (40,7% equity now), but my range looks like this:
Split pair: 57%
Wired pair: 22%
3flush (=flush at this point) 17%
3, I expect his 3bets on third street to be two type of hands:
-wired pairs
-3flushes with the ace of spade, and another spade higher then a 6... Since i have the As, he will always have 2pair at that point
Because of that i think i SHOULD check back a lot of pair+flush draw on 5th street! If i have the 5s in my hole my equity will be still only 42,6%! Therefore i will still have flushes in my range quite a lot.
However if my plan is/was to bet 6th street and follow up at river everytime i will be still massively overbluffing...Luckily i get there :)
Enjoyed the video & looking forward to the next part! In the Stud 8 round at 22:30, isn't 43539 an fold against xx/A510, or especially on 6th street when you catch a Q, with no low draw possible?
Thanks
Folding that hand on 5th street will be a very big mistake. We are getting 7:1 and have around ~34-37% equity.
6th street is bad for us if he has a pair higher then our, but folding there will be still a mistake. We are getting a really good price and there will be situations when we will be ahead (against hand like 42-A5TK or 8c3c-5xAcTcKx).
Our equity droppoed significantly, now we have around 22-25%, but getting 9:1 even with slightly bad river (7th street) playability we should clearly continue.
It would be much closer if villan gets a better card (like an offsuit (non club) low card. Even then our equity will be around 16-19%. But when both catch a brick (high card) it should be an easy (but obviously not happy) continue due to pot odds
Thanks very much for answering my question!
Thanks for another good video!
I found the stud/8 hand at 28:32 very interesting, especially the 5th street decision. First, imo, I think your hand is too marginal to raise vs such a strong low board. It would be different if he had something like 4h2d7c instead of 4h7h7c showing. Second, I am curious if it is better to try to knock out Zapa instead of letting him come along with a wider and weaker range. Both in this specific spot, but also in similar spots in general.
In this specific situation, my analysis below shows that raising on 5th is a clear -EV play. Also, that calling and letting Zapa continue with a wider range is probably a +EV play, but still marginal. Please feel free to comment or correct the assumptions and analysis anyone.
Raising on 5th
You say you expect to have something like 53% HU vs Spaise’s range, and something like 37% 3-way.
HU on 5th vs Spaise I get your equity to be ca 35%. I assumed a range for him of all three-lows, all three-flushes, all pairs, rolled-up and also AT-AK in the hole with a two-flush. Even if we assume a somewhat capped range, say that he 2-bets on 3rd with some good starting hands, I still get your equity on 5th to ca 35%.
So raising to get it HU even if we know that Zapa folds 100% still seems marginal at best. Spaise will probably 3-bet his best hands, forcing us to pay possibly $1000 to see a showdown. On average we will probably pay close to $800. $800 to win $2278 would require 35% in equity.
Add the fact that Zapa will sometimes continue when we raise on 5th, with his strongest made hands and four-flushes, ca 25% of the time accordning to my estimation below. 3-way vs Zapas stronger range we will probably be down to ca 16% in equity – making the raise on 5th a clearly losing play imo.
Calling on 5th
If we look at calling down instead and start by trying to estimate Zapas range. Given his slightly surprising bet on 4th, I would imagine that his range is weighted toward hands that he wants to protect or hands that he wants to get in bets with for value on 4th. Especially if he for some reason is afraid Spaise would check behind hands like AT-AK, 4x, 7x or something else. He could possibly start betting some three-flushes as well, but I think those hands are less likely to be in his range now once he bets 4th. To make some assumption of his range, I can imagine 44-AA, TsXs, Jx in the hole and then possibly a few flush combos, say 7s8s, 7s9s, 8s9s, As9s, As8s, As7s, AsKs. The four-flushes won´t be the most important hands to account for anyway imo, since we are neither winning nor losing that much vs them.
Given that range once he bets 4th I can imagine that he might continue with the following range if we just call on 5th:
Jx, 55, 88-AA, Tsxs, 7s8s, 7s9s, 8s9s, As9s, As8s, As7s, AsKs
That is, only folding 44, 66, 77.
If we raise on 5th, I think he might continue with only 55, TT-AA and the ss-combos.
Estimating Zapas range is not the easiest, but we can still assume that by just calling 5th we will keep him in the pot with a lot of marginal hands as well. Given the range above, our equity 3-way is 23% and probably just enough to calling down from 5th and on, on most runouts. But still marginal.
If Spaise had a weaker board
Quick analysis if we change Spaise’s board to 4h2d7c.
- HU vs Spaise we now have ca 42% equity.
- Vs Zapas stronger range of 55, TT-AA and the ss-combos I assumed was in his range, we now have 17%.
- Letting Zapa in with the range of Jx, 44-AA, TsXs, 7s8s, 7s9s, 8s9s, As9s, As8s, As7s, AsKs (now also calling 44, 66, 77) we now have equity of 26%.
- Assuming that raising 5th will make every player pay $800 5th and on.
- Assuming calling 5th will make every player pay $600 5th and on.
Raising 5th, Zapa comes along ca 25% of the time:
EV = 0.75 * (0.42 * (800 + 800 + 678)) + 0.25 * (0.17 * (800 + 800 + 800 + 678)) – 800 = $48
Calling 5th, Zapa comes along with wider range:
EV = 0.26 * (600 + 600 + 600 + 678) – 600 = $44
Would be interesting to know what anyone thinks about my view on the hand and if anyone sees the hand differently in any way. Or any other pros and cons with raising vs calling on 5th, etc.
That was a detailed analysis :)
Can't really argue with that at the moment, would like to read it a few more times, before i reply :)
But i think you forget that spaise's range is extremely capped IMO. I don't really remimber what my reads were on him when i played, but when a Q opens, a J flats, and somebody has a 4, then if he has any strong/marginal 3card low he would/should jam. At least i would, but i am pretty sure spaise will also jam those. I would definately jam a hand even like 72-4hh (maybe call with 72-4rb; 82-4rb).
He also only called on 4th which also weakens his range. Because if he had a hand like 72-47 he would/should raise. Yes, he can still have some trips, if he is on the passiver side on 4th, or if he only called 3rd on with K7-4, and then improved to K7-477. But with 3card low+1pair i think plays better there as a raise vs 2 high hands to knock out one high hand (or even charge value because against QQ/JJ 72-47 is favourite imo).
There is also an important stud8 and split pot concept: raise with a hand that is behind multiway to knock out players. Just for an example. If the pot is big(ger), and my 3way equity is 30% in a spot, but my HU equity is 45% i am clearly raising, despite i am an equity dog (only 45%) HU.
On the other side we might benefit a little bit more when we just let the third player to continue with a much weaker hand/range rather than knocking out. And probably this hand is a good example for that.
So now i lead a little bit towards a call, what you suggest also. But would like to hear your thoughts wether you counted with the fact, that spaise's range is extremely capped/weak?
However resultsoriented it turned out perfectly, since spaise almost always had A9/AT/AJ/AQ to start (those hands make the only sense for me to play that way), and even with those hands he was getting the right price on 6th but i got him to fold which was a great result.
That was a tricky a hand and interesting hand. I was thinking about this in the past 24hour and now i definately like a call better. I played with spaise's range and my equity is between 30,0-32,8% 3way (i fixed JsThJc5s for Zapha, and a random card, so a split jack which i think is correct). And HU i can get my equity higher to 38,7-42,7%.
Still in this spot it's clearly not worth it, even if spaise's range is really capped. I gain about 10% of equity of the 687$, which is 68,7$. However i put an extra 400$ to the pot with ~30%, and i am losing much much more with that.
So after this in depth review i can say that i made a mistake by raising 5th street
Thanks for your reply!
I did put Spaise on a too strong range, I agree with you on that. I took out some stronger hands like 44, QQ-AA, three wheel cards with an A, but still ended up at ca 35% equity on 5th. Then left it at that, didnt remove other obvious 2-bet hands like three low flush cards etc. And he would probably 2-bet much wider than that as you say.
I also agree that he might (and should) raise some of his pair of sevens on 4th, further lowering his equity on 5th in this spot. If you do get up to somewhere around 42% in equity HU, I can imagine that raising and calling becomes more equal as options as happened to be the case in my last example. In this case it might still be marginal, as you conclude yourself, if your equity isnt always that high.
I can also see the value in knocking Zapa out if we have more equal ranges, as long as we are doing a little better vs Spaise’s range. Or if we like in this case or a similar spot have a stronger range than Zapa, but actually have a hand like (9s4s)Qs9hJh. We still have roughly the same equity vs Spaise, but gain much more by knocking Zapa out with Tx or Jx hands than keep him in the pot, obviously. Then it feels like an automatic raise and then be prepared to slow down/give up later in case Zapa still comes along.
Be the first to add a comment
You must upgrade your account to leave a comment.