NLHE In-depth Hand Analysis (Part 2)
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 45 Comments...
"the more I think aboot aboot aboot it" lol <3
Hope you still enjoyed the video, eh.
Very nice analysis.
I would like to know, in the 1st hand, what sizing would you make on a blank turn since the stack sizes are pretty weird (also how comes you are not full stack ?) ?
But my main question is : When you raise the flop with 109 and with your bluffs, how do you balance it ? Is it 50/50 in terms of combos or is it determined by your sizing ?
i.e. : If you raise the size of the pot, in gto perspective you let your opponent 33% odds to call, thus you should have 33% bluffing hands in your range. But since these bluffing hands also have equity on later streets im a little confused on how to proceed. Can you explain me this ?
Daniel help me !!!
First hand - my sizing on the turn would be to go all-in. I would have liked to make my raise a little bigger but my plan was to make it a two-street game. At higher stakes I play a variety of stack-sizes depending on the circumstances. I have more experience with different stack sizes than most of the regulars so I think I have a bit of an advantage there, but not much.
Balancing bluffs - it would not be 50/50, how many bluffs you get to have is determined by sizing and how much equity our bluffs have (which is also influenced by how often our opponent responds by shoving vs. calling). In this spot we get to bluff more than half the time, but exactly how much more is impossible to say since the factors that would influence the answer are pretty unknown.
You are correct that if you bet the size of the pot you give your opponent 2 to 1 to call so your bluffing ratio should be 1 to 2. However this applies only on the river. Even on the turn if your bluffs have 0% equity you get to bluff significantly more than 33% under these circumstances. Basically threat of your future ability to bet on the river gives you the ability to bluff more - this concept is explained very well in Janda's book, I'll try to get you the page #'s tomorrow when I actually have the book.
Do you have the book ? :p
Good video tho, would love to see the first hand from forhayleys side...
On the 2nd hand if we have QJo (or something weaker if that's a 3bet) u never bluffing that spot with naked queen on the river? Do we get too many bluffs in our range if we do that? Maybe add 1 combo of QJo or whatever ever hand we're defending with the Q only?
Given that there are relatively few combos of stuff we can have for value, and how many KsXx combos are available to us I don't see a reason to start bluffing QsXx.
Peter Jennings and Daniel on the same day. God bless RiO and Phil :p. I really like your vocabulary, subset, proof by contradiction... makes me feel more comfortable here lol
First hand, T9o. Daniel, you did not said much about the impact of your stack size on your raising range. What combos you should add/remove from it playing full stack ? Doesn't him play a lot of his offsuit A of clubs combos on this leading twice range ?
Thank you for the amazing content.
If I started off with a full stack my flop raise size would be roughly the same and I would play a three street game betting something like 2/3 pot on turn and river when I do bet. This would allow me to have more bluff combos on the flop. I didn't really go into my "bluffs" that are strong draws that would be looking to get it in on the flop, but I would have more of those with a shorter stack and tend to flat them more with deeper stacks. Being able to add more bluffs would also allow me to add more backdoory junky stuff to my bluff range, so you could say that as stacks get deeper my flop raising range gets both more bluff heavy and more polarized. Playing a three street game with deeper stacks does two things for me: 1) allows me to actually bet three streets so I can have more bluffs on the flop 2) makes his made hands more volatile - basically the board can run out in more ways that improve one part of my range or another.
What do you mean by his offsuit A of clubs combos? Do you mean AcXx? There are not that many possibilities for those: AcKx gets 3bet preflop, AcJx is a bit a of nonsensical lead on the flop unless it is exactly AJcc, AcQx gets 3bet preflop at least with some frequency and also it not certain that he would lead that hand on the flop. AcTx is a definite possibility although who knows if he plays his offsuit AT hands preflop in this spot. So, there are some possibilities, but not a lot.
Thank you. Yeah, I certainly agree. AcT, Ac9 I think it is reasonable for a twice leading range otf and ott and those can make some difference when we start counting the combos. I agree that AcJ, AcQ plays better as a xc than a lead.
I don't think Ac9x is really part of his preflop range given how the CO plays, even if it is with some reasonable frequency the fact that he called a flop raise would eliminate it from his range. Even AcTx I would say likely have a reduced frequency but that is definitely a hand that it makes sense for him to take this line with.
Faaaantastic Vid. Keep em comin!
Thank you!
for hand 1. Can you explain a bit more why raising T9 without Tc is preferable to doing it with Tc. In my mind I could easily argue the opposite, where if we have our raise flatted, we can comfortably bet a club turn since we are still so far ahead of villain's range, whereas without the Tc it becomes much less profitable turn bet.
On the other hand, if we flat T9 without Tc, I feel it's not a big deal if runout comes badly for us since we're both in postion and are probably fairly well protected with other parts of our range.
Hey,
I thought I went pretty extensively into why we should play my suggested mixed strategy with the T9 starting at around the 9:45 mark, is there anything specific you would like me to expand on?
Generally speaking you are going to want to play your more vulnerable (nut) hands more aggressively, even in position, and there is no question that T9 with no Tc is much more vulnerable in this spot.
Like I said I didn't think at the time that I would get flatted much in this spot, although I'm now on the fence about whether or not that is correct. We are definitely in a more "comfortable" spot if we get flatted when we hold the Tc and the turn is a club, but it's now also harder to get value. Additionally we get shoved on less when we hold the Tc.
Re: being in position - obviously it is very important but in this particular spot note that given how the hand is being played out and the stacks, even if we flat we are still almost certainly getting stacked if villain completes his flush draw, despite being in position. We are protected with other parts of our range, but this also implies that it is again harder to get value when the flush comes.
I've always been curious about simulator syntaxes. When you have him leading, let's say 100% KTs and ATs, does this mean 1 combos of each (AcTc & KcTc) using CREV? I've always thought the programs don't do a difference between suited hands depending on board texture, meaning that when you put ATs in the grid it'll treat them as 4 combos, so you'd have to manually edit the program input so that villain leads x% AcTc, y% AsTs and z% AdTd & AhTh (where z=0 or greater).
Vid delivers as usual, these theoretical ones seem to be your strong ground. You've quickly become my #1 favorite RIO coach. Will prob have to keep subscription going if you keep publishing videos on a weekly basis. :-)
If you put in him leading 100% of KTs it would have him leading all the available combos (so anything that is not blocked by known cards in our hand or the board). I just used the grid for a visual and counted the combos verbally/manually. The grid as is doesn't actually reflect the weights.
____
Thank you!
Great video Daniel. I would have liked if you had spent even more time on the 2nd hand, the first hand was obviously very challenging against a sick opponent but it probably doesn't happen that often where as the sb vs bb spot happens very often.
It's a pretty tough spot but you seemed to be really good at breaking down the hands and using CREV, I wouldn't mind if you continued to break this hand down by talking about what hands you would call with and which hands you would. fold Also possibly talking about it from the sb point of view, which are the weakest hands you would vbet river, if you would ever x the river with a flush so the bb can't overbet every time you check. Personally I don't open all of the Kxo combos from the sb and wouldn't have as many KsX bluff combos so I would be curious how you approached this spot.
Just in general I'm in big favor of seeing a bvb spot that is monotone, from either point of view and you talking about sizing, different plans on which card and anything like that. Thanks a lot.
I've been thinking about whether or not I would check the river with a flush as the SB with a non-negligible frequency and I don't think that I would. Why do you think that the BB gets to overbet everything if SB never checks a flush? Just because the SB doesn't have any nuts in his range doesn't meant the BB just gets to ship his stack - as long as the SB defends with a high enough frequency he can't.
The reason I don't think checking with a flush as the SB is such a great idea in practice is because of how "showdownable" BB's range is. I would really have to think that my opponent is capable of (and does, in practice) turning a hand into a bluff to also think checking is a good idea. Even BB's "air" here has showdown value - for example the K high flush draw might not even want to bluff believing it will occasionally win at showdown against some of SB's airy give-ups.
---------
KsXx, what you open, bluff combos: I personally play tighter from the SB as well and wouldn't open all of my KxXx combos either. However that doesn't necessarily mean that now you don't have a lot of bluff combos in your range - firstly there are 3 combos for every rank of offsuit KsXx hand so they are going to add up, and secondly you still have other bluffs available to you as the SB if you don't have enough KsXx combos (which don't block the BB's K-high flush draws which you might be targetting with a worse hand). Generally though, finding enough things to bluff with isn't the problem, it's the other way around!
Great video. I really enjoyed it. ty!
Thank you!
I much prefer these last 2 videos to the previous series. Great content, please keep them coming.
Yeah, the shortstack series didn't get much traffic or attention, although oddly I often find myself referencing one of those videos when trying to explain a purely theoretical concept because at least there is a practical example.
Thanks!
Another strong vid. Well done. Not much to comment other than hand2 wouldnt you expect non A sets to bet 3 streets? Those sets not blocking TP. Even if so the vid is just an exercise and the methodology of arriving at your conclusions were great.
Thank you!
Yeah, I would. Reason I did it the way it I did is exactly what you said - I wanted something simple to go off that would be a theoretical exercise from which we could take away something practical. I'm not even sure it's possible to do a video like this with a holistic range breakdown for this spot (I mean, obviously it's possible, but in order to make on there would have to be so many assumptions and guesses made that it would quickly cease to be a theory-oriented video and turn into an argument over what nanonoko does when with what parts of his range, which I really wanted to avoid).
nice one! I think the format fits you well. I hope you can do somre more. What had you done with 10 9 if he checked to you?
If he's got a flush we're getting stacked either way, and I think it's a bit easier to get called by worse on turn rather than the river. We also don't freeroll him.
One question for 2nd hand. I agree that best candidate for bluff shoving is Kx spades. But we block all his best bluff candidates for 3 barreling. So maybe is better for us shoving with Qx spades because snap fold all his bluffs everytime
I understand what you are saying but it's a little backwards. If he is at all balanced then he is going to have more combos of value-bets than bluffs to begin with, so blocking the value hands is more important. Generally speaking there are very few situations when not blocking a bluff is going to be better than blocking value.
nice vid,
a question about the T9o hand.
The range you said you are raising this flop (both value raises and bluffs(basicly strong backdoors)) do pretty shitty on this turn,and it is kind of a standard raising range that I believe forhayley is aware of.
Don't you think you are going to be folding too much to this turn lead if you fold hand as strong as straight ? ( I assume you will also fold most of your flop bluffraises and that alone is at least 50% of your range,maybe more)
It's fine for me to be folding a bunch to the turn lead here - like you said I would be folding over 50% of my range but that is fine because this is the nut low turn for me. Just because I fold this one a lot doesn't mean I fold too much across all the possible turns. I think you might be a little confused because you are mixing up playing unexploitably on the turn versus playing unexploitably on this particular turn. He's can't exploit me because I fold too much on this particular turn because a turn as bad as this seldom comes for me.
hi Daniel,
Hand 2: are you raising any flushes on the flop and/or turn or do you think it's best to just call down with all flushes? Maybe it would be better to raise at least some of the flushes that you can't shove the river with on an earlier street?
He is probably raising several flushes earlier particularly the ones that benefit from protection most. He will probably have a mixed strategy there. I can only guess. But that is irrelevant. Like my question about sets, this is just an exercise which was kept simplified.
Spot on ^^
Nice vid Daniel.
One point I want to mention is that on the river nanonoko thinks that he has all of the Qsxs flushes so we can assume that his bluffs will be more than 11 combo. it would be like 15-16. so on the river In reality he is betting 23(value) + 15(bluff) = 38 combos but he thinks that he is betting like 30(value) + 15(bluff).
If we assume that he is 3 barreling with only flushes + bluffs. So lets see, on the flop he has 5.3% flushes. For him it would be reasonable to bluff Ksxx Qsxx combos cause it blocks our value hands, so on the flop he has 4.9% Ksxx and nearly 4% Qsxx. so OTF he is betting all of this stuffs. on the turn he drops some of his Qsxx combos and betting all flushes + Ksxx + Qsxx(very small amount) . So on the river he ends up only flushes + Ksxx(bluffs) and it seams reasonable. But now assume that like it is in the video we have Qs7s and we are going to shove the river and we want to balance it with some bluffs. it would be reasonable for us to balance it with shoving some Ksxx combos cause it kills all of his nut flushes, but if we do this we are also blocking all of his bluffs, so if we are holding Ksxx we can assume that he is betting river with 100% flushes. so I think it would be better to bluff shove the river with Qsxx and Jsxx rather than Ksxx. what do you think about this?
Great vid as usual. You are my favourite RIO instructor and have got my watchinng vids again after a 3 year layoff! One thing you didnt mention was as you are sitting with a shorter stack could forhayley have mistaken you for a rec player? Also it seems when you fold 9To there you basically fold your entire range on the turn bar a few combo draws (maybe 1 or 2 combos) - does this not worry you? Also check your pm's :)
Cheers
Nah, basically 0 chance forhayley could have mistaken me for a rec player.
That I am folding this turn a bunch is a slight concern but not a huge one - it is a particularly bad turn and as long as I'm not overfolding turns on average it's not such a concern.
Sorry about missing the PM.
Nice video but something is bothering me with the Q7ss. Being in nanoko's shoes facing a river shove, i would try to find out the number of combos i have to call with and make the call with the best hands among my range fiting that number (should also be some blockers consideration i guess but let's assume it doesn't matter that much).
Here i would probably end up figuring i have to call with my best flushes, namely K and Q high flushes. Since u're shoving with Q high flushes yourself, it ends up with me either folding a hand that was beaten or calling with better, making your shove a bad one. I guess i'm missing a point but can't find why :/
In nano's shoes he does have to figure out how many combos of hands he has to call with - and calling with K high flushes only is nowhere near enough.
Ignoring blockers etc. he has to call us with ~43% of his range. Assuming we always have a spade when we bluff and assuming that he opens all suited Kx hands he has only 8 combos of K-high flushes. How many combos do you think he bets on the river and what % of those combos would be K-high flushes?
I would say he bets at least all of his flushes, without blocking consideration there must be around 30 of them which makes him have to call with about 12 combos. He does that calling with all of his nuts (K high flush) and a part of his second nuts (Q high flush). Because u're blocking Q high flush he would end up calling only with his nuts.
If he considers u're only bluffing with a spade, I guess he would assume u're doing it with Ks/Qs which would lower his flush combos to around 20. He would then have to call with around 8 combos, namely his cold nuts.
I guess there is a flow somewhere but can't find wich ...
He needs to call with 43% of his whole range, not 43% of his value range.
God I fell so dumb ... Thank you I get it now !
I really enjoyed the video, good stuff!
The AQ hand, you mentioned you dont think he leads turn with the A of clubs...why do you say this? Leading that hand cant be too bad given the fact we fold str8s often here.
Be the first to add a comment
You must upgrade your account to leave a comment.