Is It Worth Calling 3 Barrels Without the Nuts?
Posted by thejericho2
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 24 Comments...
What are your key takeaways on calling three streets in SRP's when in a blind.
The hands are cool to learn from, but what are your key takeaways?
This was very cool, i enjoyed the thought process. You should do more of these!
P.S: What i mean by these is videos where you analize a large number of hands in wich you share your thought process. Is quite helpful, at least to me.
Thanks for the feedback :)
I have another similar video coming up on calling 3barells in 3bet pots.
Good video, nice to relate to thinking through similar struggling spots (and seeing mistakes too!). Any thoughts today after another months worth of volume and reflection?
When I look at my own hands sample and variance skew results and observations, it is tough for me in this spot not to be biased. However right now my thoughts are that its a good idea just to get over the range disadvantage and just try to construct a strong calling and then calldown.
I definitely feel like people still underbluff these nodes but there are so many variations in ranges&formations, board/range advantages, reg vs rec, SPRs and pot odds on T/R, that it still is all guesswork in each hand for me instead of having a more solid framework & strategy.
Thanks for the kind words :)
My main thoughts and focus would be not to worry so much abt what others are doing. Instead, make sure that my game plan is optimal and that I follow it to a tee unless I have reason to deviate.
MiracleQ isnt a fish. Its a russian MTT pro streamer :) (timing 17-00)
sounds like synonyms :D
That's good to know. Thanks for the heads up. Funny stack size nonetheless haha.
You should counter these small river bets with aggro raising but its very tough to implement do you think people over call/fold vs raises here very tough to get a sample on em
my experience with raising these spots is people folding quite a bit also some very light calls but it kinda has to be a light call when they call cus the sizing always middling value
Yeah ofc. The thing is, you can't always do it. You also have to look at your hand and the way it played out, if you rep some nuts otr given the action form previous streets.
Really good video!
27mn40s : Why to have the A Spade is better than the A heart to call on the river?
Thank you
Thanks :)
Ace of spade blocks more 2pair hands than the Ah, that's why it's a better blocker.
Really great video! I really like this format. You were able to get through a lot of hands.
12:30 the turn call seems thin. We do block a straight but our outs seem marginal. A ten may not be good, a K puts a 4 straight out and a J puts bway out plus any diamond could be bad.
19:25 can we ever xr the turn? On the river do you ever fold without the diamond?
33:45 on the turn can we xr bluff? Seems too hard to cc especially if we face river action.
49:40 what about xr jamming river? We have a straight blocker and he potted instead of overbet so he can still have some smaller 2pr or even aa kk we can get him off of.
Thanks!
Thanks for the kind words :)
12:30 - It seems like a mix according to PIO; better to have the Td than the Kd.
19:25 - I think x/r the turn vs weaker player won't yield that great result. I much prefer calling and taking my equity. Usually, you want to x/r w the A or the K blocker in those situations.
33:45 - I believe that you are much better off x/r 65 or 52 or 32. Combos that block the flop sets seems much better to x/r. So pair + gutter would be the way to go.
49:40 - You would want the J blocker there in order to block both straights (KJ and J8). So combos like JT or J9 would be more appropriate.
I think lots of the CO's natural bluffing hands on this turn will be KXdd e.g. K7dd, so having the Kd is bad as it blocks the CO from having those hands.
I filtered my database in the same way, and found that my winrate calling the river with hands worse than 2 pair was around -100bb/100. I assume this means I'm not calling enough on the river? Let's assume I'm calling around 2.5bb preflop on average, ~2.5bb on the flop, ~8bb on the turn. So 13bb in total (very rough guess), then my breakeven winrate for calling on the river should be -1300bb/100? Given the big difference, I think that means I'm passing up a lot of profitable river calls given that my winrate is way higher than the breakeven point?
This makes sense, but I'm not sure that it's accurate. I was never good at poker math tbh. Depending on the stakes you're playing, folding more than required otr might be okay.
Few stats that I like to look at (over large sample):
- River fold to cbet: around 50% is ideal (maybe folding more the lower the stake you're playing).
- Fold vs river bet: between 40-50% is ideal
- River call efficiency: around 1.4 is decent
If you monitor your stats and they are around this, it should be fine.
For the river call efficiency around 1.4 - is that for an unfiltered sample for all hands that get to the river with this line, i.e. it includes some value-catchers that beat some of villains range, and some traps? And then whilst filtering for 1 pair pure bluffcatchers it should be just over 1? Or have I misunderstood?
matlittle Yeah, it's unfiltered. For pure bluffcatchers, around 1 sounds ideal.
You mentioned early in the video that you think this line is underbluffed in general. After the analysis, do you still hold this opinion? Or is the 42% bluffcatch success rate and the sample size enough to change your mind?
Do you have any opinion/data to say whether this differs between regs/recs?
Do you think at lower stakes this line is likely underbluffed?
Thanks, looking forward to watching the 3bet pot version next!
Thanks for the detailed responses!
I agree with your ideas, and that better regs are generally more likely to bluff appropriately with this line.
Be the first to add a comment
You must upgrade your account to leave a comment.