Big Blind Defense Leading to Big Pots
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...
Can you please explain on the first hand how the q of spades is a positive to bluff catch here? I did not really understand your explanation to this. Intuitively i would think if he is going to barrel spades on turn then this is a bad blocker since we block some of his bluffs.Thanks!
I was talking about the river, he's likely to barrel spades so it's Qs isn't really represented in his jam range on river.
Can you also please explain at 34:36 why if you bet 1.5x pot you need to be good 96 percent of the time. I am very confused at the model you used for this. Wouldnt you need to call around 37 percent of the time since 130+130+87= 347 and 130/347 = 37.4%....also even if we are calculating ev of the 1.5x shove assuming hero is calling 37.4 percent of the time the ev would be 83.79 if were good 96 percent of the time and 70.94 even if we were good 80 percent of the time both which is plus ev. Using the ev formula F(%pot)+C(%W$W)-C(%L$L). So im just very confused at how you calculated and very interested. I guess the most confusing part is what ev are you comparing it to that v needs to be good 96 percent of the time? Are you comparing it to the ev if it goes x x or v uses a smaller bet ect. because obviously the river bet ap is going to be plus ev regardless if v is good 40 percent of the time or 4 percent of the time ect. So the statement that he needs to be good 96 percent of the time before its negative just simply isnt true in case of course you are comparing it to other evs such as smaller bets or checks ect which could potentially be higher ev. Just a very confusing statement to briefly say without any explanation and would love to pick your brain and hear your thoughts explaining it more in depth. Thank you so much. Actually I should of used mdf in formula so .4 not .37 but still its plus ev according to my calculations. Again thank you so much for your videos.
Of course it's positive to bet bigger with some hands with lower equity but we aren't going for positive, we're going for maximum value. Every hand equity that is called at mdf frequencies corresponds to a parabola. We can find the maximum value of this parabola, using calculus. There's an old video where I go through this in detail (2015ish). If you don't want to do the math here, you can just put a bunch of different river sizes in PIO and don't allow the other player to raise. PIO will pick the best bet-sizing with each hand equity (no reason to balance).
But if he is likely to barrel spades wouldnt we want to unblock that unless you are implying we are blocking qq with Qs specifically
Maybe I mispoke, but basically his range is likely going to be weaker here, because I don't remove many bluffs from his range when I have the Qs, because it's not a bluffing card for him. It's helpful to block QQ, but not probably necessary.
i guess also an easier way to put it(at 34 minute mark) is if we have to defend 40 percent range here from mdf perspective then i cant possibly understand how villains bet is not printing money here and how he has to be good 96 percent of the time. Because obviously his holding is beating way more then the top 40 percent of our range we have to defend here.
As I mentioned above, you can verify this PIO and also Will Tipton's book series or alternatively my 2015 video about optimal betsizings.
Great review!
6:55 is this never an overbet from opponent? Our rng looks capped and it looks like a good board for opponent. It seems like a spot for a large bet size only.
29:35 it's interesting this is a pure call on the turn. The clubs hurt our outs and you mentioned we can bluff on river if opp chks but we block his busted draws that fold.
Thanks!
It's more that it's basically 100% flop c-bet so check-flop overbet turn looks really weird (so weird, I just assume he c-bet flop). If he has more AK, KK combos in check back range those are definitely candidate overbet hands. I just wonder about the actually range approach, I can't fold many Ax on the flop so he doesn't exactly improve his EV by checking when the ace hits.
It's hard to make flush draws/ straight draws indifferent in these spots, because I'm guaranteed the nuts roughly 16% of the time and I have some range coverage with my nut hands, so he should give-up semibluffs and then overfold river on certain runouts and with certain combos. Not having clubs raising my EV of the river bluff. Additionally and i think this is key, is that JT has overcards to some of the (unlikely) value region, so the equity here is actually better.
Villain line here with this holding seems a bit spewey
It's MDA thing. The check-back on turn limits the two-pair combos significantly in older strategies => opponent likely to overfold because the range is too weak. This is not likely true today against a professional.
Sweet call,
Blind v blind the ranges so wide
Great explanation on players using different sizings vs same sizings! Being able to deduce bluffs from value,
It's really nice exploit if you can get it.
Interesting raise call on this River
Not a line in super used to playing more used to just flatting this River,
I like the raise, don’t know how many bluffs villain can have when he bets and re raises on this river
This one is tricky. Some players like to turn all Ts,9s into bluffs here and others are more balanced. Calling non-spade hands against a solver is going to be always quite bad, but with a spade here should be neutral EV so only losing against players who under bluff.
Makes sense! I guess 1010 99 blockers to some straights as well.
Yes so very popular with the human element.
Be the first to add a comment
You must upgrade your account to leave a comment.