River Overbets
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 27 Comments...
Hell yeah great topic great video!
Merry Christmas!
Thank you! Merry Christmas!
Great stuff. tyty
Thank you Hunter! I appreciate the love.
The 34hh bluff practically seems very good for the reasons you mentioned…. in my games anyway! I would guess even in that pool they won’t find the weaker bluff catchers necessary to defend?
It’s always fascinating how much strategies can change with small changes in frequency. Poker is hard
That would be the assumption with most non-gto based players, because they don't use enough randomness in their flop strategies to defend against big overbets, when the draws that are almost always bet on the flop come in.
The concept of having 2e as a standard size when you know you are not gonna go in a deep gto node where you 4b the flop is underrated in 2024.
I like it very much
Thanks Luminol, I agree completely. The 3-bet and higher nodes in GTO are so impossible to replicate. It's probably the most serious flaw with GTO play, because they also account for like 20% of the EV on nuttish hands.
Hi Tyler,
8:30 it sounds like you both played the hand in an exploitative manner. Would you really say either of you played their hand poorly? Seems like you guys just tried to make adjustments.
21:30 you said that solver likes to use the bet, raise reraise etc...on the turn to get the money in. I just don't see that in games that aren't populated by top level pros. It seems betting big yourself is the way to go or check raising. However, with the larger sizes on turn and river you used, do you feel that vs your typical field you are just isolating too much vs a range that is too narrow and won't pay off without a flush?
Thanks!
Thanks Soundspeed!
It wasn't the adjustment to try and induce a bluff here as much as the fact, I think there is some group of players that could reasonably fold under 30% of the time to a jam, because they have bluffed all of their Ace-high or worse combos here, so my jam is just a very large exploitative mistake.
The argument is "I should bet smaller so I get paid off". It's actually a logic fallacy, but it's subtle. The argument should be "I should bluff until I start getting paid off". If I don't get paid enough with my value hands, then all of my bluffs are profitable. There is far far more bluffs than there are value bets so the game value against somebody who folds too much and does not adjust is much much higher.
interesting turn size here,
in this scenario i generally bet around pot or 115% on turn after flop goes XX
we got lots of 2s in our range actually like it. with the big over bet i dont have alot of experience choosing those size, because in my head i dont want villain to just fold vs my big size either. cant be afraid of that though need to get value with our nutted hands.
That's been the thought process is bet the most they will call, but with advent of GTO I see no reason that people won't have calling ranges in these spots, given the number of slowplays.
wow nice hand way to get the max here
Thank you!
turn over bet again love to see it
This is really poor execution in 2024, because both players have enough QJo that there is a cap on the number of big blinds that should go in n the turn. If we put in too many, we just only play against chops.
hand makes me question if i should be checking back AA more often in these scenarios lol
If your player pool likes to go allin after you check then yes. But, very few players do this.
Tyler,
Nice video. Enjoyed the topic as well as the way you explain your thoughts.
Thanks
Thanks 777!
Happy new year Tyler!
Enjoyed the debate around this hand. On turn, you were deciding between check, bet small and bet big. Are how many delayed cbet sizings will you play here? Are you utilising both a big and small bet?
You mentioned on the river that you will bet big because you don't expect many raises here as your opponents will not have flushes anywhere near enough for them to raise here often enough. If this player is a reg, can we not apply the same logic to the turn and bet big there too, given that MDA data shows that the average reg will under-raise the turn here, so we strictly prefer the bigger sizing with our nut combos?
These days for the river spot, there is a subset of regs who use MDA based exploits who will go a little crazy with bluffs vs a river block bet. Against them it might be highest EV to block the river with nut combos, despite knowing your opponent is probably very capped, given the frequency at which they will bluff raise. In this exact scenario though with this combo that probably wouldn't work as your opponent is very likely to have and A or K that will just call, given your blockers.
You raise some really great points here. I think if I had to play it again, I would just go big big, because the board texture (3 broadways) is generally a board that is under raised compared to GTO.
On the 2nd point, which is very valid against a lot of regulars, it's probably better (than small big) just to go small, small and then jam over the raise. I think on this type of board, it's particularly hard to fold to 3-bet, because of the obvious bluffing combos.
I didn't do any MDA study on board textures, but I was thinking the same thing too. Opponents probably wary of their lack of sets/2 pairs, plus large pairs making for seemingly good bluff-catchers probably affects the decision making process here of regs causing them to under-raise as a bluff. Plus of course your exact blockers here block the naked flush draw hands that can bluff raise
This was a really interesting hand. I was dubious about if we would get to have a turn e sizing here. At equilibrium it is not possible, but if you nodelock a slightly lower frequency of QJ in IP's range, then we can use it.
For the river, the solver prefers a smaller sizing though after the board pairs. We will have boats here, but straights makes up a far bigger chunk of our value region and they can't shove and prefer betting less than pot.
Interestingly the hearts make for worse bluffs than the diamonds on average. The reason being that AX with a flush draw is a big part of IP's river folding range, and the Ad being on the board means they can only have AXhh for this hand class.
Your opponent showing down AA here though probably means that many players are good enough now that you can't use this 2e sizing on turn.
This hand is completely botched against the solver. QJo is present so often in both ranges that there really isn't any giant sizings by either player for chopping issues. This hand I think is a case study of the difference of playing poker against pre gto-wizard strategies and post gto wizard strategies.
Pre GTO wizard this hand is likely an okay/good bluff, because most players don't have hearts on check back and rarely have strong hands here. AT is basically the top of range. And he needs to call around 7% of his flop check-back range on river, which is basically hoping with AT I am overbluffing.
Post-GTO wizard, the preflop ranges are much more important and given positions QJ is very present in both ranges so we can't bet geometric. Additionally the top 7% of his range on the turn is now AK,AA,QJ, which are much easier bluff-catchers (and QJ is never jammed as OOP, because it value cuts itself). So I just create a terrible bluff with poor card removal (Ah4h, Ah3h being pure folds).
Be the first to add a comment
You must upgrade your account to leave a comment.