ProView: Brian Rast reviews Becks at Deep Ante 6-Max NL (part 3)
Posted by Brian Rast
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 21 Comments...
you have some new questions in part 1
Awesome vid, really liked the series too!
- 30:00 K8dd, i like the raising plan in the 3b pot, as for sizing how much should we make it ?
Raising the 30:00 K8dd on the turn is a bit tricky, since it is such a disaster if he shoves on you, especially since your hand is still a bluffcatcher. The flushdraw gives his bluffs less equity and even some reverse implied odds. So barring a read that your opponent is underreraising the turn I prefer a call.
If you would rather fold K8dd on the river than call, then it should be one of your best bluffing hands besides 87. First off you block 88, A8, AK of his value range and you don't block any of his T9, J9, JT type bluffs. There is no reason to pick the hands with the lowest showdown value to raise on the river; if your folding range is wide enough you should certainly pick the hands with the best blockers.
I was going to say the same thing, it is a disaster to get shoved on drawing to the nuts in this spot.
I disagree it's a disaster if we get shoved on, on the turn. I think with a pair, nfd, we have decent equity. Sure, it's not what we are looking for - we'd prefer a fold.. but I think the play is strong enough that we have a good chance to get Ax to fold... any weak Ax suited hands might... and even stronger aces could find a fold... and if they don't our hand plays fine against that part of his range (possibly 14 outs).
And, if you narrow our opponent's shoving range to be so narrow that shoving is quite bad for us (say A8, sets) - than we pick up tons of fold-equity imo bc we're now talking a small % of his 3bet, bet/bet range. Also, I think an opponent who decides he has fold equity, could easily find a shove with other diamond hands that we dominate - as long as they contained a gutter+ with it... which albeit is a small group of hands, but a range we completely destroy equity-wise - and adding even a few of those into any shoving range helps make up for the sets and A8 (which are obviously in the shoving range, but also a small % of the bet/bet range overall).
I agree with, and like your logic, with our opponent having reverse-implied odds on his semi-bluffs (i.e. straight draws that will rep diamonds on the river)... and I do think there are lots of merits to calling. I think that if you have a really good feel for how your opponent plays rivers (i.e. will he not bluff in this type of spots... A78r flop, where he bet/bets ... and our ip range is very value-heavy on river after a turn-call, although usu. not super strong but bluff-catchery... or he will bluff lots in that spot, i.e. all his draws)... than that's a very strong reason to want to call with this hand in particular (given that it's one of the few draws we can have with show down value)... but, we can balance our turn calling range by including some non-showdown, weaker flush draws / straight draws in our turn call range, and just fold them when we miss. Because I believe our turn call-range here will include enough weak showdown hands (that are almost all bluff-catchers on a 3-barrel), that we don't need to work this hand in to that range... especially since imo it's better suited to widen our turn raise, call-off range. And thus, I think that exploitatively, at this stack depth, there are lots of merits to raising.... and in general, i think in these spots if you are able to widen your turn raising range in a spot like this, your opponents will find you very difficult to play with. This, imho, is a great hand to toss in there... and once you widen your turn "value" range - i.e. the hands you are raising and getting in (like this one) enough, you can start throwing in a few bluffs, like the 64 - that can't call turn anymore, and at least has a shred of hope when called.
now you are raising the turn more than others - something that's very profitable... and people need to learn how to do 200bb deep.
I like the idea of (semi-)bluffraising turns at these stacksizes, and this hand is of course one of the better hands to do it with. But in general this is a spot where your range is weaker and more bluffcatcher heavy than his range, all your bluffcatchers need to call again on the turn so raising a range of strong draws, bluffs and strong made hands will weaken your river range a lot.
Also we don't know his exact ranges, but since he is 3-betting wide and cbetting half pot on both streets he is likely going wide for value. Perhaps AJ+, but in any case it looks like he won't shove the river. That is why I would prefer to call and bluffshove the river, we get an extra bet out of him.
Getting it in for 170bb with 31.5% is quite a disaster in my book. Since he is likely to barrel wide here I'd prefer to attack his range on the river. Also, if you get call you will have a weak bluffcatcher on blank rivers, it works better to have a more polarized range in that spot.
That said, if he is overfolding the turn once you raise and never reraises, this play could very exploit him maximally. Even more so if he doesn't give your river raises credit.
This hand is almost precisely THE best hand to be (semi-)bluffraising the turn in this spot. If we don't do it with this hand, then we are only do it for value/air. Which could be fine, since we can have just about any value hand (other than AA, which we probably 4bet usu. pre).
Here are a few things I'd like to point out, most of which are disagreeing with the range you used for our opponent in the PPT analysis above...
1) I disagree slightly with using "14%" as this equity chart... first, deep stacked people don't 3bet the top 14% of hands... it's usually a range like AA-99, AK-Aj/AT, KQ at the top for value, then some other hands mixed in that are a bit random and playable - but tending to be suited, and probably more likely bigger than smaller... but some of that depends on the player. Anyways, even if he's always 3betting the top part of that value range - say AA-99, AK-AT (all ATo which is debateable depending on player), and all KQ. That's only 116 hands and 8.75% of range... we are saying 14% 3bet... the other 6.25% of hands that are getting filled in when you use the PPT simulator are... KJo,and suited... KJ/QJ/KT/QT/JT/A9-A7/A5... and 88-66... in other words the next 6.25% of hands value-wise (as compared to a random hand)... this is not a balanced 3betting range, and i would argue more important also not a 3betting range anyone who's 3betting 14% uses.
2) i don't think all opponents are always 3betting 77 100% here.
3) for example, no T9 combos are in that range, and only a few DD combos, which we are blocking 3 of them... so your range as listed include almost no semi-bluff hands for our opponent.
I did something very interesting... which is change the 3betting range to a more balanced one of AA-77, AK-AJo, KQo, AxKx-AxTx, Ax5x-Ax2x, KxQx-5x4x, KxJx-6x4x, KxTx ... which is also not realistic but more balanced ... and against that range which reshoves (the diamonds, but remove Ad/8d)... i end up with:
Hold'em Simulation ?2,376 trials (Exhaustive)board: Ad7c8s3dHandEquityWinsTieskd8d42.00%9980AA,88,77,AK-AJ,Tx9x, QdJd,QdTd,JdTd,Jd9d,Td9d,9d7d,7d6d,7d5d,6d5d,6d4d,5d4d58.00%1,3780I'm including all combos of 77 and no combos of Ax8x or Ax7x - which my guess is probably about evens out... and sure this is a bit crazy on the reshove side... but i think reasonable... and this also assume 0 folds of AK-AJ - which I think 200bb deep some people will fold (especially AQ-AJ) in this spot.You'll notice that all diamond draws that are small have either a pair or a gutter to go with them.This is something that I firmly believe, and I think the math will back me up - if we are going to have a semi-bluffing range here on the turn that we are raising and getting in - especially to counter an opponent who will attack a value/bluff (which corresponds to go with / fold) dichotomy raising range on our part by semi-bluff shoving draws, then including a few very strong draws in our turn raising range will really counteract that.
in fact i'll not be lazy and figure it out... there's 106$ in pot and 275$ in stacks... we risking 275$ to win 106$ when fold and 381$ when called. Let's assume our equity when called is your # first: 32%... here's the equation to figure that out:X(.32)(656$) + (1-X)(423$) = 317$ ... i.e. our equity when called + equity when fold = 317$ (amount in our stack effectively if we fold right now to the 42$ bet when our opponent is 275$ behind). In this situation I get x = .497... so we break even if our opponent folds half the time / calls half the time. Any more folds and we are winning, any more calls and we are losing.If you change this to be say 40%... close to where I'm putting it, then the number ends up being .66 ... so if we get called still even 2/3 of the time, then we breaking even... any less calls and we are winning. considering that
So in summation: 1) I think this hand has higher equity when we get it in than you are listing after we get it in... although I will admit this is opponent dependent. I believe that most opponents 3bet a wider range, and will have more suited hands... and if they are willing to semi-bluff them some of their draws on the turn then our equity when we get it in imo is fine - considering this hand is at the bottom of our range getting it in. 2) I think that we are underestimating our fold equity here on the turn some, and thus not only exploitatively in this spot, is it not a disaster when we get it in at equity even as low as 32% bc our fold equity makes up for some of this lost pot equity. Also, bc of that fold equity (and I do believe we can get even as good as AQ to fold here, depending on opponent and images) - we should be raising the turn more often - and i think this is one of the very few semi-bluffing hands strong enough to actually include in this range... in fact, other than maybe T9dd/65dd?? and 3) so therefore when balancing a range, it's good to mix in a few flush draws in to our raising range, and rather than raise/fold, choose the very strongest to raise/get in. I think it's good for our overall ranges to do this. and 4) if you prefer call and bluffshove river, there's no reason to do it with this particular hand, a hand strong enough to augment our turn raise/call range. just choose a weaker hand like any 8 or 7 with no diamond in it... or a few of our weakest aces with no diamond - if we fold all 8s/7s on turn - that satisfies some card removal like our actual hand kd8d and does the same thing, while still letting us use this hand in turn raise/call range
I am rushed so couldn't edit this all together: but also... honestly i think everyone is incorrectly assuming here that AK-AJ are just snap shoves, obv, duh, everyone's so crazy!!! for our opponent in this turn spot well over 200BB deep on the turn. I think that against a typical player who does not semi-bluff / bluff enough in OUR spot on the turn (which is totally reasonable given that VILLAIN's range is stronger than ours here), i find that most people probably don't bluff enough - and when you do get raised (if we are in villain's shoes), and you are looking at putting in another 180-200bb there on the turn with AJ ... not the best spot... and in fact probably a fold against most opponents. but if WE start including some strong semi-bluffs here - hello Kd8d i wuv u - , than they are folding that incorrectly... now since we have no idea what our actual opponent will do here - i am arguing that Kd8d is part of our turn GTO raising strategy - to make him more indifferent to continuing with AK/AJ
Im pretty sure game theory optimal is to sometimes raise turn with a 910 of diamonds 45, 65 diamonds and bluff catch with your pair eights and nut flush draw. Like you said, top set probably isnt 3 betting turn all in so you still get to realize your equity. its a spazzy play in my opnion and one that I wouldnt use unless you know guy is merged or has too many bluffs in his turn c bet frequencies.
I dont think hes ever folding the turn with an Ace, and you have no read that hes merged somehow with an underpair. Most people with a weak suited ace would either bet flop check turn or check flop bet turn, so he doesn't have many weak aces in his range. You're isolating yourself in position against all of his strong hands and hes folding all hands you beat, plus you are drawing to the nuts and its a disaster to jammed on in any turn situation.
Plus if you are called, your pair is too good to turn into a bluff on the river and you will probably need to turn it into a bluff if you want to win the pot.
I noticed that when the played faced a decision where his steal was 3bet his popup showed the stats that was related to villians frequencies vs steals. Fx what he did from the sb and bb vs co. How does he make his popup do this? I've got the latest version of HEM btw.
Brian, I love it when you get angry. Please give us more of that.
not angry - tbh i actually rly like & respect game theories posts itt and in many others, and feel like this is an interesting spot... One that, after thinking deeply about it - i like my play for many reasons - so am unconvinced about changing my mind.
i will say that - it is an interesting idea to never raise the turn here - as it seems game theory is suggesting - and i haven't directly addressed besides blithely assuming it's good to raise turns more...
it seems like his #1 reason is that villain's range is a lot stronger here... but i would argue that many villains will cbet that flop close to 100% ... and after we call flop, i think the range's are pretty close in value going in to the turn... sure he can have AA and we are very unlikely to, but otherwise we can have all two pairs, any set, AQ-... even AK some of the time, it's reasonable to sometimes flat here with AK (especially AK suited) 225bb deep... and we have no air unlike our opponent (esp. if 3betting then cbet 100% or close to it)... although most 3bet hands hit this board in SOME form.. although all broadways -A are air, we can't have them (on turn). So, given that... I believe our range isn't really much weaker going in to the turn (it is ofc on flop), and while it's true that his raise then double-barrel turn range is ahead of our only-call-flop range - I think it's not enough to take away our raising option and shell up for the river.
this, however, is really a GTO argument about raising turns vs. waiting for river... etc... and in many ways goes well beyond the scope of this particular hand... though an interesting discussion. I personally believe in keeping all aggressive options on the table - and dislike putting all hands in one range here when we continue (call) in order to then play river. I think it puts us at a disadvantage on the turn... and while I agree that having a turn raising range obviously weakens our river range when we just call... we also lose out on a lot of equity by not raising here. And while you could decide to take some of those hands and just do it on the river - that's a reasonable way to play... and afaik there were some mid-stakes bots written that played precisely this way post-flop... I don't play the strictly call to river and raise method. It's an interesting and valid way to play your ranges afai am concerned.
Rast, Snowie says to flat the turn again in this spot with the K8s. How can you argue against a computer that's played a trillion hands in this spot at gto? If we are expanding our turn in position raising range (which I agree with for sure) why not have hands like 910 diamonds instead? Snowie says to raise that hand on the turn 5% of the time vs 0% of the time with K8 diamonds. With 910s at least you can follow through on blank rivers, what a disaster if somehow this opponent (we are readless remember) bet calls turn with some weak ace and we dont have the grasp on his range to follow through on the river with our pair of eights.
Brian, I meant getting excited in the video.
Sandwich, I've played against Pokersnowie, and it sucks.
Nobody knows what GTO poker is, so they're lying if they claim their bots play GTO.
Rast, I guess the question is this: If villan just calls your turn raise what are you doing on blank rivers? If you arent bluffing river with the 8, you are charging yourself 12bbs or whatever it is extra to draw and showdown, i'm a simple man and that just dont make much sense..
1) I agree that 14% isn't perfect. Having T9s is definitely reasonable.
2) Could be true.
3) Someone 3-betting 14% isn't very likely to have a ton of K5s Q7s J2s etc, so this shouldn't be a big issue. The Ad on the flop should be the biggest blocker.
Beging over 150bb deep you should be much more inclined to 3bet suited aces rather than low suited connectors for obvious reasons. Especially the weaker suited aces.
It is true that if you include all suited gappers your equity improves to 42%, and of course this hand has the highest equity of all semibluffs since this is the TPTK among the semibluffs.
He bets 42 into 82, 126 in total. Say we hold total a total air hand like KhJh here and we raise to $112 then if we get a fold .503 we also do better than folding.
With your assumptions you come to the conclusion that raising with the intention to get it in is better than folding on the turn. Let's just agree on that. But that doesn't prove dat raising with the intention to get it in is better than folding. In your +EV calculation you come to the conclusion that your line has positive EV, but calling is for sure very profitable with our second pair top kicker and backdoored nutflushdraw getting better than 3 to 1 and 137bb behind in stacks and having position. How high would you value the EV of calling?
If we have 42% equity and no more betting the EV of a call will be .42*(84+42+42) -42 = +28.6
And I would definitely argue that we gain from the betting with our actual hand, making our EV of calling even higher. How high would you estimate the EV of calling?
If you want to make it more interesting you could give the range of the opponent, your proposed raising size, the opponents fold-call-shove range. And the river strat of his calling hands. If you do it accurately you can estimate the EV of your raise even better.
If you do the same for his river range when we call, we can even compare the EVs.
As far as balance goes, what hands would you raise for value on the turn?
To continue in this discussion along the lines that you are suggesting would require quite a bit of thought and work. Something I'm willing to do - but not at this exact moment. I'm currently in Macau and quite busy playing - although maybe one day that I take off or something I'll work on this because I think it's an interesting hand and spot - and I think pursuing it further along the lines you suggest will be interesting and informative.
Just a few quick comments on your post: the suited aces thing I agree with (and in fact if u look at my 3betting range, I have AK-ATxx and A5-A2xx... so that's most of the suited aces). Also, I think it's clear that raising or calling are both better than folding with our actual hand. I do suppose that when I was doing the equity calculation - I was comparing raising to the equity of folding (because that's very easy) - and that figuring the equity of calling our hand is much more difficult. I think if we put this hand in poker snowie, we could probably come up with a reasonable number for the equity of calling, and run the calculation of what our fold equity would have to be in order to make raising more profitable just using that number (you want to do this??) ... and if we disagreed with it, then actually do everything you are suggesting and come up with an EQ(call) ourselves.
And as far as balance goes - I think you can do something like... 77, 78, 88, A8, K8dd, T9dd for value... throw in a few raise/fold bluffs... choose a few out of... 64, 54, T6suited (not dd), 79 - obviously if these hands can be off suit than it's too many, if only the suited hands than probably a bit better... doesn't have to be all of them - but they are good candidates.
So I guess I'm saying - I'm acknowledging the post and the value in your analysis / questions... let me take a raincheck with this one, and hopefully at some point soon I can explore this further.
like your vids Brian!
Be the first to add a comment
You must upgrade your account to leave a comment.