Railbirding $50/$100: DavyJones vs FourSixFour (part 2)
Posted by Nuno Alvarez
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 18 Comments...
Nice explanations, thanks!
Glad you liked it.
1) 3:45 on Q6227 when Davy goes half pot you mentioned he is repping a 7x type holding. Instead of using block or big size. Middling strength hand going middling sizing. Would you recommend bluff raising the river if you know opponent has mostly 7x here and what size would you raise to?
2) 8:50 QT9hh you mentioned because the board is connected IP doesn't do a lot of cbetting. In six max on wizard, Btn vs BB, IP is only checking 37% of the time. Why is HU so different?
3) 15:00 - 15:45 we see Davy 3bet 12bb and 464 3bet to 10.5bb you mentioned both sizes are too big when 130bb deep. What size would you choose? At 100bb the 10-12bb is good and at 125bb+ we want to use 9bb? Image below is six max btn vs SB vs a 2.5x open and we can see at 100, 125, 150, 200 the 3bet size gets bigger, then at 300bb the 3bet size drops back down to 12bb. Given we don't want to 3bet large as IP will just call and win a lot of pots postflop, should we also 3bet less often when deeper?
Hey RunItTw1ce! Sorry for the delay in my response, I was on vacation.
1) 3:45 – Bluff raising the river is definitely one way to exploit our opponent if we suspect that his range is face up to a medium strength hand. In terms of sizing I would go around 4x to try to map for my Qx hands that would want to raise for value.
2) 8:50 – This is what the spot looks like in HU. A little bit under 60% cBet frequency is pretty low for single raised pots, definitely below average but perhaps saying that ''IP doesn't do a lot of betting'' feels like it's supposed to check even more. I'll try to be more specific in future videos :)
3) 15:00 - 15:45 – Personally, vs a 2.5x open, I would chose to size down very slightly to 10bb (instead of 10.5) and then go down even more to 9bb when 180bb+ or so. I think the idea of 3betting large OOP in general has to do with reducing the SPR and since we're playing deeper and we cannot reduce the SPR effectively enough we start to size down in order to decrease the EV of IP 4Bets.
We should definitely 3Bet a bit less when deeper since a lot of hands (especially the offsuit high card combos) go down in value the larger the SPR. Regarding the suggested sizes in 6 max it may be different given that there's still one player left and we probably tighten our range considerably compared to 100bb.
22:08 you mentioned vs small cbet we don't play aggressive enough with flop raises. Do you think this is just the way people were taught? Not to XR on double broadway boards because of nut and range disadvantage? Maybe bad teaching trying to simplify too much?
33:15 when you go over the 3bp on 963r-3dd board where AA pure checks and KK pure bets unless it has the KsKc combo. I always thought of this spot as AA-QQ with a diamond we block the calling range and need less protection, so we end up checking more often. Then AA-QQ no diamond we would continue to bet unblocking the calling range. Interesting to see that AA doesn't care about the suits and KK-TT mostly pure bets. The 99,66, 33, A3 is pure checking. I'm probably losing out on a lot of value not barreling over pairs enough and splitting them 50/50 in these spots, trying to XR or XC and let villain value bet worse.
On this 9d 6c 3s board. I also divide over pairs on the flop AhAx-QhQx will be pure bets unblocking bdfd. Then AA-QQ double blocking the bdfd or two suits on the flop I would play as a check. I am not sure how this transitions over to the turn. With my flop bluffs I'll check with hearts and bet when I double block the suits on the flop to increase my FE. Quite a bit of checking in my strategy rather than a range bet. Not sure how bad it is.
Just thought of something on this 9d 6c 3s board the reason KcKs checks more than other combos is that when IP floats the flop with a BDFD, this KcKs hand blocks those floats now it's more likely villain has diamonds, so we can XR this combo if IP is equity driven to betting flush draws.
I still like my approach of checking AdAx KdKx and betting the other 3 combos, but maybe I'll start checking the 1 combo that blocks 2 of the suits as well on the flop. 3B preflop, B50 range bet flop, then play a lot of XR on the turn. Thoughts?
22:08 – I think it mainly has to do with the fact that we tend to interprete bets, even if they are very small as much stronger than checks in general so we don't attack those enough. It's very common to face a bet and think about all the good hands your opponent can have rather than think about all the trash on their range (especially when we don't hold a good hand ourselves)
33:15 – It seems overly complicated for a flop strategy but not necessarily bad by any means. I think the key on earlier streets is to think in general terms rather than try to choose the very best blockers or unblockers. That becomes way more relevant later on when the ranges are more narrow and the SPR is shorter.
Regarding your last question I think I already answered on the previous comment! Don't overthink these situations. Just try to look for general concepts and ideas and simplify your strategy as much as possible IMO.
Here you recommended Davy might opt for a smaller delayed cbet sizing of 40% rather than the 66% sizing he took, to make it harder for OOP to defend against which I thought was a nice idea. Had a quick look at some sims for this spot, and the solver's EV for IP is almost identical for either the 40% or 66% delayed cbet sizing. My question is whether you would still opt for a smaller sizing if the EVs in the solver were different and you were sacrificing some theoretical EV to pick the smaller sizing? Would you expect to make up more EV from opponent's mistakes to make it worthwhile?
I would normally just try to use the optimal sizing in most scenarios but in some spots I would chose a suboptimal strategy because I don’t think people would play correctly against it. Ie: 10% cBet sizing on monotone boards 3BP OOP.
It seems these days for most 3bet pots these days you advocate for using 2 flop cbet sizings. Roughly what percentage of flop do you use 2 cbet sizings on now in 3bet pots? Do you do the same in SRP or not?
There are a lot of boards in 3BP in which playing 2 sizings captures the most EV. I would say they make up for ∼ 70% of all the different flop textures.
In SRP I tend to play a single sizing strategy in almost all the boards because the SPR is much larger and you are IP so you don’t need to play a 2 street game with any part of your range.
So for 3BPs the 2nd sizing is usually a large size added for strong overpair/top pair hands that want to play a 2 street game?
Exactly! That's why when you get pretty deep you stop using the large sizing given the different postflop SPR.
Very interesting concept you mentioned here where the solver chooses to fast-play KK here rather than XC because it wants to stack 9X which will check back quite frequently on river given the number of bad rivers for 9X.
Do you know if this type of concept is true for SRPs too? I.e. on a middling board we might look to XR our nutted hands more frequently on earlier streets in order to get value and avoid the risk of top pair hands checking back bad rivers?
Great question. I was thinking about this and I believe it almost never happens in SRP mainly because of the SPR. In SRP you would have to raise for a non all-in sizing in most spots and that would not be as effective at countering those hands that would bet and then check back bad rivers.
Nuno,
Great video. Really enjoyed your analysis of the play as well as some of the concepts you brought up regarding bet and raise sizes.
Thanks Nuno.
Thanks for the kind words man, glad you enjoyed it.
Be the first to add a comment
You must upgrade your account to leave a comment.