Calling Three Barrels BvB in 2024 (Part 2)
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 32 Comments...
thejericho2,
On the first hand played, does villain want to go for 3 streets with 77 on 2d9h5c 3d 8c? Seems like 77 would want to check turn or mostly check river if betting turn. Depending on hero sizing on river, villain might even find the check raise in this spot. Seems like that would be a better line to take. Interested in your thoughts.
Thanks.
I mean, depends on the turn size that SB wants to use. I for one would be using quite a small size ott and this would mean that I could block turn, block river w 77.
However, if one would have a bigger size ott, then 77 most likely would have to check. It all depends on how you construct your betting range and your checking range and if you have multiple sizes otf and ott.
thejericho2,
Very nice video. Lots of interesting spots. Would like to have seen some solver output for some of these spots, but really enjoyed this one. Nice job.
Thanks.
I agree some solver outputs would be nice. However if you did the solver study prior to the video and just give us some notes you took on what you seen while going though the HH would be nice. I also like the amount of hands you get though while doing your videos.
777TripSevens777 Thanks for the kind words. Will incorporate more sims within the HHs videos in the future.
I_Fold_Jacks I enjoy talking abt the hands w/o the solver bias first. It keeps my mind sharp and forces me to think a lot more when discussing a hand when recording. However, I do agree that looking at a sim after a tricky HH would be cool. Thanks for the input.
6:30 how do you feel about opponents turn and river sizing? I feel like he could go half pot turn with 2 pair and sets. River seems ok since there isn't big range assymetry on the nut side and I don't think he has a ton of bluffs.
9:00 If the read is he is a rec then I feel river is a much more easy call because he won't realize he doesn't have that much kx in his range. All he thinks is he is the pfr and the king is great for him.
19:30 feel like on the turn we have somewhat poor visibility to call and I would have consideed folding. What do you think?
20:00 how do you feel about raising the river?
Thanks!
6:30 - I like his sizing scheme; it allows him to vbet quite wide on a 4 to straight board where he has natural range advantage. Bluffs will be hard to find in his range, I agree. Maybe smthg like 33-44?
9:00 - True and this all makes sense. I was a bit hesitant because from my experience, when recs size up otr (90% psb +), it usually means that they are value heavy.
19:30 - Are you talking abt the 85ss hand?
20:00 - I would prefer to raise w diamond combo because I would be blocking more two pairs combo. Also, it's probably better to bluff w a 7 or a 6 so for example 96dd or 75dd.
Yeah the 85 hand. I rewatched it, and I still feel visibility isn't that great, but i doubt I fold since it is b vs b. But we are drawing to the bad end of the straight, a made straight is already out, and if we make a straight it is a one liner so we won't really get additional value.
It almost seems we are drawing to the flush only. Our opponent sized up on the turn so I don't even like drawing to the flush especially such a low flush.
Hey jericho! Love these Tyler style video -- and I agree with
100% - people are relying on solver nowadays too much without keeping their poker nature and sharpness. And also - solves are so assessable these days, any member subbing RIO can find a sim and view it (even fore free), I would rather listen to you talk about your ideas/exploits/real-time thoughts vs thoughts in hindsight rather than just browsing through the sims.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying sims are bad - it's just to me that the thought process from a crusher like you is way more valuable & educational.
Thanks again for the vid, much love as always <3
Wow, thanks for such kind words, I rly appreciate it!
And yeah, we don't have access to solvers while playing so I'm always trying to think first what I would do and then, I might look up the solution.
06:03 on AKJ Q2 BVB, I think in practice BB's range OTR is actually way stronger than SB. And a reg like welshgaz will certainly realize that so OTR our hand beats nothing.
Since you mentioned you fold A2 OTT -- however, vs double blocking, solver will call as wide as Jx even with the NL50 rake structure -- see below.
And I think in practice OTT, most reg's BB range is Tx, weaker 2p (and maybe some Ax) and nothing else.
So in practice OTR SB's bluffing efficacy should be pretty low. Vs a reg I definitely think our call is losing money. Curious on your thoughts! Thank you!
It's close imo. I def think that at higher stakes, regs will show up w some bluffs every now and then. However, at midstakes, I do agree that this call is most likely losing. Wouldn't mind seeing myself fold otr tbh. The thing is, we don't need to win v often to make the call b/e. But in reality, we probably don't win enough...
07:14 you said it's a spot that reg will check a lot -- and what do you think of the rec's tendency? Since we are playing a potential recreational in this hand.
Hard to say because I don't have a specific read on them BvB. They are prone to betting wider and thinner for a bigger size from my experience. They will also MASSIVELY overbluff w some stuff like ace high or king high even when the board bricks out. I've seen some recs triple flopped 2nd pair and you're not sure at the end if it was for value or bluff lol.
08:09 Also on this hand, do you take consideration of his HUD stats? 36/17/3.1 seems kind of passive to me when it comes to initiative and it's true that he's polarizing the river so his value range is way much narrower, but using 9x and Kxhh here to bluff catch should be more of less enough?
Above is the thoughts I had before showdown haha -- I do love your idea of
But still love to hear your thoughts regarding my thoughts
I try to keep things simple against recs lol. He is too polarized otr and we have an A+ bluff catcher. So yeah, whenever debating, call imo.
15:27 55
The combo selection is pretty terrible OTT to me already. I kind of feel this hand works fine as a BXB but barreling the turn without blocking straight or high spades seems awful right?
And as an exploit would you just call every 0-ev catcher against this guy in the BVB BBB line? Haha.
I agree, that turn barrel w this combo seems meh. He blocks a lot of my natural folds (54-53).
I would def try to call as wide as possible BvB vs him after seeing that hand.
19:10 you said you expect this board to be cbetted close to 100% by a reg. However, GTO freq on this board is around 50% (see below).
Just curious - as an exploit - would you start raising these hands (mid-pair/bottom-pair w no overcards to the 2nd pair) as protection -- like calling A8/K8/A6/K6 but raise 85/84/87/65/67 type of hand since we are vs almost his entire range per your suspicion.
If you solve for only using block size in PIO, you will probably get smthg like 70-80% cbet fqcy I believe. Then, to make things simpler, I just cbet range.
Naturally, this is a board where we can already raise a lot. So I would try following the solver's raising charts, and perhaps raise even more w the combos that you've mentioned if villain is not 3betting enough otf.
thejericho2 Do you think over-raising will work well on these boards? -- since if we are facing a range bet and potentially less flop-3bet - mixing in more none-showdown double backdoor type of hand seems nice as a bluff?
mx404 It should work in theory given the assumption that people are betting close to range and are most likely not 3betting the flop enough.
28:48 Love these comments bringing it up the previous hh with villain and talking about the adjustments. Keep it up!
How do you think of his line for this hand tho? - The turn sizing seems pretty off to me, river play is mostly mandatory after turn bet guess.
ps - after checking the sim -- actually A2s is one of the very few combos solvers goes for large OTT here lol -- good job to Andy
I mean, it's hard to say because we don't know for sure if villain is playing multiple sizings ott. I guess that he is given previous hhs so my first thought is that it must be quite hard for him to be balanced if he is using 3 different bet sizes ott.
I still don't think that I like the bluff. I understand why the turn bet is good though (blocking sets and two pairs) but otr, you would block folds no? Perhaps not because the solver probably calls to some fqcy w two pairs so maybe it's a good bluff. Props to him if it is.
thejericho2
Yeah this is rough, curious on your personal approach on sizing reading (given vs a reg) ?
1) Do you just rely on HUDs to find out if villain is multi-sizing or you have other ways?
2) When there's no read -- how would you assume villain's range? Will you just treat it like one-sizing scheme or will you still assume "bet size == hand strength" (aka. blocking = weaker, larger size = stronger)
Thanks!
mx404 I don't play w a HUD now for a long time. I usually rely on game flow and from my previous history w villain. Sometimes, it's quite easy to know because the sizing used is so egregiously wrong for the situation, etc. Some regs bet their hand strength instead of their range strength which is a mistake that will always be costly vs good regs.
When I have zero reads, my first objective is to figure out if the player is a reg or a fish (SN, country, what I've seen so far, etc). If the payer is a fish, bet size = hand strength. If the player turns out to be a reg, bet size = range (one size for the range) unless proven otherwise.
thejericho2
Thanks for the detailed response :) Very helpful <3
35:18
1) Do you expect these Q64r to be c-betted at 100% freq (just like the earlier Q86r hand)?
2) this hand OTT - I thought OOP will main opt for block sizing since it's a pretty bad card - but solver actually mixes it up w more larger sizings (see below). What do you think the reason is?
Thanks!
1) If you are using the block bet size as your cbet sizing on that board, then yeah.
2) I would use half pot size on that turn card so I'm not that surprised that 2/3 is an accepted bet size. I think the reason is that given the nature of the card being "bad" for OOP, the solver will have a heavy X fqcy. So when betting, it's a much stronger range that is included in that "betting" range. Therefore, OOP is allowed to size up given the fact that it's a much more concentrated/stronger portion of SB's range that is betting.
thejericho2
Fair enough -- so if we playing one-sizing scheme ott here, b50/b66 is a better sizing choice vs b33 right? :D
mx404 I believe so, yeah.
Be the first to add a comment
You must upgrade your account to leave a comment.