2 Table $5/$10 6-Max Zoom NLHE and CREV (Part 3)
Posted by Tyler Forrester
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...
1:30 "I don't have a flatting range here". There is no theoretical concept that prevents you from having a flatting range here. Especially with many players now 3betting large, linear ranges from the SB, there are hands which their highest EV line is very likely to be a flat in this spot. Many players do have flatting ranges here and I believe it's a spot that will continue to develop in order to maximize EV against the SB play of most current player pools.
Yes your flatting range in this spot will be narrow, but if flatting is the highest EV line with a small subset of hands, those hands should be flatted and this will not result in any theoretical contradiction.
I am not arguing that your play is incorrect in this spot against this opponent, just that a flatting range should very likely exist in the BB against a button open and SB 3bet.
*Again this is contingent on the idea that there are hands whose highest EV here is a flat, which is difficult to prove conclusively given the large number of variables in the spot. However it seems very likely that this is the case against current SB 3betting ranges.
It didn't sound to me like "I don't have flatting range here AND you shouldn't either"... it's a common compromise, it's fine, it makes his life easier.
The most common is, for example, playing a 3bet or fold strategy from the SB with both regs on BTN and BB: it's obvious for everyone that you should, theoretically speaking, have a coldcalling range, but still lots of good regs (the vast majority I think) don't.
It's easier, it's a compromise.
Wuming's response is really good. There is no theoretical reason why cold calling here in incorrect. I don't cold call here due to expediency. It's easier to play my hand range without a cold calling range and given the lowish absolute % of the original 3-betting and the size of the 3-bet in bbs, my theoretical cold calling range would be very small and the cc range's corresponding value would contribute vert little to my overall strategy.
I understand. Just wanted to generate discussion on the concept in general and state that I believe it is better to also have a flatting range there than just a 4b or fold strategy, like I also believe you should have a SB flatting range vs the button, not just a 3b or fold strategy.
It is anti-theoretical to only 4b or fold if there are hands which yield more EV when played as a flat. Similarly it is anti-theoretical to only 3b or fold from the SB if there are hands which make more money when flatted.
Yes, I believe it would be better theoretically speaking.
In practice I had lots of trouble while trying to build the balanced flatting ranges in those scenarios. I should play multiples mixed strategies, flatting or raising or folding different combos with different frequencies, some flat 10% of the times, some other 70%, some other 3% and so on, for the sake of a decent board coverage. In the end it was almost impossible for me to play a balanced strategy this way and I ended up choosing an easier strategy, just because I'm a human being.
Sometimes theory and practice fight each other.
I know you know what I'm talking about, I just want to generate discussion on the concept as well :)
Hey Tyler can you please explain the bajen analysis w/ A8o in BB vs Pass. I didn't understand, I'm not very good at math. Ok thanks and awesome video as always, I love the pace of everything ^_^
If player A limps the SB 100% of the time, then there 1% chance that I would see KK+ the first hand.
If Player B limps the SB the top 20% of the time, then there is 5% chance that I would see KK+ the first hand.
If both Player A and Player B occur equally in the player pool, then according to bayesian statistics, if we saw KK the first hand it is five times as likely that unknown player is playing Player B's strategy rather than player A.
Conditionally probability is complex and my argument breezes over some important points. If you are interested, google "bayesian statistics". I've linked a website that I thought explained conditional probability fairly well.
Bayes Theorem Explain
Correct me if Im wrong but in the first hand aren't you risking 180 to win 110? You say youre risking 190 to win 100.
Im counting the bb as dead money that were fighting for and not part of our bet.
Good catch.
17:30 (22 defend). Seems like we might be better off defending hands like QJ+bdfd than 22 here. We will often have more equity against much of his cbetting range (esp if we have him cbetting hands like 77). His random overcard cbets have fine equity to draw out vs 22 and we will rarely be able to show it down when we are good otr anyways. With high cards we also block some of his stronger combos.
I would guess this applies to many situations where we are trying to increase our defending frequency on drier board textures that are cbet often. Choosing high cards with back door draws is likely a better option than under pairs against most opponents.
I'd argue I should choose both. This board is really hard to hit.
Personally I fold specifically 22-33 here bc I think EV fold > EV call, but I think we agree on the spot conceptually in regard to defending frequency. I think I'm just adding enough hands like JTdd before 22 in my strat. Maybe just a preference, difficult to say it's better.
I think you're underestimating the value of spiking a deuce in relation to turning a flush draw. I can rig something up, but I think both hand types should be close to zero if villain is competent.
Nah I think I'm with you on this spot now. I do love spiking the deuce and I don't think this board will be barreled so often in practice to prevent us from realizing a reasonable amount of our equity. The value of the pair that we occasionally get to win at showdown with (plus the 2 out virtual nut draw) is probably better than the high card defend on this texture.
Super dry A or K high texture seems like a board where defending weak made SDV will yield more EV than high card defends.
Love the format, Keep those coming!
You say at minute 43 that señor Rio is one of the more looser regs and expect him to defend bb around 30-35% vs your button open, wouldn't you expect it to be wider?
I know his stats from previous play and its between 30-35%. Looser was an inaccurate description.
I saw all of your previous videos and this one is the best for me, it opens my mind a ton with your examples and your points of views give me clues of what should be a solid strategy in many of the weakest part of my game, thanks!
Be the first to add a comment
You must upgrade your account to leave a comment.