Maybe I'm crazy but I can't help but wonder given Cobus' winrate whether all those bets he's made that are like 99.95% pot instead of pot has ended up costing him a reasonable amount of $
I was sondering too why Cobus is 3betting 99.95% or whatever close to pot instead of pot. This has to have psychilogycal reasons. So whenever villain sees this sizing u will know that the enemy is cobus which gives some doubt in ur head plus if someone is not 3betting pot the brain kinda starts thinking, how much exactly he 3bet and this requires more energy/brain power from villain. Maybe I am overlevelling this thing and has an easier explanation.
I think it probably has minimal effect. I don't know his reasoning but I'd say the most likely reasons are:
1) personal style / habit / superstition
2) he wants people to not immediately know how large me made it vs pot
3) he wants people to notice when he raises them and have them remember for psychological reasons.
19:09 AAT3 we 3bet BB v BU, then check a J93r board with SPR ~ 3.5. I was really surprised to see us check flop here - I've been studying some strong players' games and I often see a really high cbet in 3bet pots OOP, I would expect this to be a bet-get it in. Do you think people cbet too much in 3bet pots? Maybe we claim a higher pot share by checking a hand like this?
I think J93r is an okay board to have a high Cbet frequency on. I think that 3.5 is an awkward SPR for our hand here. With 3 it's comfortable enough to bet-call and with 5 it's comfortable to bet-fold.
I don't mind a bet-call here, but that depends a lot on your sizing strategy. The problem with our hand on this board is that if we aren't potting (charging them the max), there are a lot of very problematic turns for us. On K/Q/T/8/7 we will be in trouble due to straights and probably x/f. On 6/5/4/2 we will bet & get it in, but will run into some 2 pair hands and be in bad shape on occasion. He will make few mistakes on 2-6 because those cards don't help our range.
Anything but a board pair or an ace isn't great, so while we have decent equity, I view us being at a sizable disadvantage in the hand.
I guess what I'm saying is that I expect things to go poorly for us if we bet 2/3 pot or less, so I prefer potting or checking. I'm not thrilled about the EV of potting (off the top of my head) and I tend not to pot these rainbow boards often at this SPR.
I'm not sure about the players you're talking about or their Cbet tendencies in 3bet pots, but I do think there should be a good amount of checking as the 3-bettor on most boards.
I got curious and did some more work on this spot.
If we give fjutekk 65%!$4b6 we have a substantial equity advantage on the flop, 63% ($707 pot share). The EV of shoving the flop is $680 assuming he plays fold/shove. He can probably do a bit better by peeling and making good stackoff decisions on turns if he understands our range, for instance if we only pot with hands like overpair with no backup. Nonetheless, it seems pretty encouraging that we realize almost our full pot share with a shove, given how problematic playing later streets will be with our hand.
For that reason it seems like pot-get it in is quite an attractive option in a vacuum. I can see what you're saying about not loving a pot sizing on this texture: we probably want to be able to cbet bluff on this board and potting is very expensive for that. Maybe we can have two sizings, pot with hands like this, and bet much smaller with a more polarized range.
I agree that turns are problematic if we bet smaller and get called, but I don't necessarily see how checking mitigates that problem. By checking we all but guarantee that we'll see a turn (unless we're trying to check-shove?). I suppose if we succeed in getting the flop checked through we'll have kept the pot smaller in a bad situation, but our opponent can still threaten our whole stack starting on the turn.
Loading 7 Comments...
Maybe I'm crazy but I can't help but wonder given Cobus' winrate whether all those bets he's made that are like 99.95% pot instead of pot has ended up costing him a reasonable amount of $
I've had these same thoughts
My guess is he's induced enough spew through those bets that it makes up for it
I was sondering too why Cobus is 3betting 99.95% or whatever close to pot instead of pot. This has to have psychilogycal reasons. So whenever villain sees this sizing u will know that the enemy is cobus which gives some doubt in ur head plus if someone is not 3betting pot the brain kinda starts thinking, how much exactly he 3bet and this requires more energy/brain power from villain. Maybe I am overlevelling this thing and has an easier explanation.
I think it probably has minimal effect. I don't know his reasoning but I'd say the most likely reasons are:
1) personal style / habit / superstition
2) he wants people to not immediately know how large me made it vs pot
3) he wants people to notice when he raises them and have them remember for psychological reasons.
19:09 AAT3 we 3bet BB v BU, then check a J93r board with SPR ~ 3.5. I was really surprised to see us check flop here - I've been studying some strong players' games and I often see a really high cbet in 3bet pots OOP, I would expect this to be a bet-get it in. Do you think people cbet too much in 3bet pots? Maybe we claim a higher pot share by checking a hand like this?
I think J93r is an okay board to have a high Cbet frequency on. I think that 3.5 is an awkward SPR for our hand here. With 3 it's comfortable enough to bet-call and with 5 it's comfortable to bet-fold.
I don't mind a bet-call here, but that depends a lot on your sizing strategy. The problem with our hand on this board is that if we aren't potting (charging them the max), there are a lot of very problematic turns for us. On K/Q/T/8/7 we will be in trouble due to straights and probably x/f. On 6/5/4/2 we will bet & get it in, but will run into some 2 pair hands and be in bad shape on occasion. He will make few mistakes on 2-6 because those cards don't help our range.
Anything but a board pair or an ace isn't great, so while we have decent equity, I view us being at a sizable disadvantage in the hand.
I guess what I'm saying is that I expect things to go poorly for us if we bet 2/3 pot or less, so I prefer potting or checking. I'm not thrilled about the EV of potting (off the top of my head) and I tend not to pot these rainbow boards often at this SPR.
I'm not sure about the players you're talking about or their Cbet tendencies in 3bet pots, but I do think there should be a good amount of checking as the 3-bettor on most boards.
I got curious and did some more work on this spot.
If we give fjutekk 65%!$4b6 we have a substantial equity advantage on the flop, 63% ($707 pot share). The EV of shoving the flop is $680 assuming he plays fold/shove. He can probably do a bit better by peeling and making good stackoff decisions on turns if he understands our range, for instance if we only pot with hands like overpair with no backup. Nonetheless, it seems pretty encouraging that we realize almost our full pot share with a shove, given how problematic playing later streets will be with our hand.
For that reason it seems like pot-get it in is quite an attractive option in a vacuum. I can see what you're saying about not loving a pot sizing on this texture: we probably want to be able to cbet bluff on this board and potting is very expensive for that. Maybe we can have two sizings, pot with hands like this, and bet much smaller with a more polarized range.
I agree that turns are problematic if we bet smaller and get called, but I don't necessarily see how checking mitigates that problem. By checking we all but guarantee that we'll see a turn (unless we're trying to check-shove?). I suppose if we succeed in getting the flop checked through we'll have kept the pot smaller in a bad situation, but our opponent can still threaten our whole stack starting on the turn.
Be the first to add a comment
You must upgrade your account to leave a comment.