In the AA hand do you think it's a good spot for villain to donk all in if we're checking back AA?
James Hudson10 years, 7 months agoI'm not sure if the Q river swings the equity difference enough because the 3 bettor is going to have QQ some % of the time. On a card like an offsuit 10 it might be a viable strategy because most people won't be 3 betting 1010 vs ep there and ep's range is going to contain tons of sets at that point vs the 3 bettor's very limited amount.
1) Yeah, we're assuming an opening range of 25% of hands in this example.
2) I mostly used CREV for this video but flopzilla should be able to give you many of the same stats.
3) Hmmm, I'm not done the second one but I think Will Tipton's books touch on some of this kind of stuff. Hopefully someone else can help me out with some ideas in the comments section.
4) Mess around with CREV and see how your 4 betting strategies do against different kinds of villains and see if certain hands have fairly constant ev when 4 betting or if they rely a lot on what villain is doing.
Equilab has a equity trainer for hand/range vs. range training, and it's free: http://www.pokerstrategy.com/poker-tools/equilab-holdem/
"The third tool from the PokerStrategy.com Equilab allows you to train yourself and test your equity knowledge. Click on the "Equity Trainer" in the Equilab main menu and you will be able to take one of the predefined quizzes or define the ranges yourself."
Thanks, I really appreciate the response. Are there any other tools besides CREV that I should be paying attention to? Currently I am working on my knowledge for ICM, Flopzilla, HUD, and now CREV.
James Hudson10 years, 7 months agoI think you're in pretty good shape if you can work your way around CREV and flopzilla but there's always new cool programs popping up.
In the TT 4bet example, you find how much equity you need to realize to make calling as good as 4bet/call. But in these examples 4b/fold is much better than 4b/call and so you should really be comparing call to 4b/fold. For example vs the 10% 3bet, QQ+,AK 4bettor, 4b/f has EV = .714*11 - .286*18 = 2.7bb. For call to be that good you need to realize about 104% of your equity, which makes it a lot closer whether call > 4b. Generally 4b/folding TT button vs bb is silly but vs opponents who play this exploitably (folding to 70+% of 4bets) it can be quite reasonable for protection/"info".
There's no reason to 4 bet/fold a hand like this unless you're up against a very particular opponent who rarely 5 bet bluff jams, rarely jams light for value but calls a bunch of 4 bets. If villain was highly exploitable facing 4 bets then we'd simply take hands that we'd otherwise have to fold to 3 bets like A6o and use those as 4 bet bluffs due to their blockers effects. By using hands to 4 bet that are outside of our 3 bet calling range we should be able to maximize the ev of our range. Using a hand like this, that has little in the way of blocker effects, makes little sense to use as a 4 bet unless we're planning on calling it off.
James Hudson10 years, 7 months agoI should clarify this. We could, of course, just 4 bet any hand and make a profit versus an opponent who is this exploitable but the problem is that even someone playing a poor strategy is likely going to make an adjustment if every time they 3 bet we 4 bet them. Villain will likely either start 3 betting less or add some more 5 bets (lighter value or bluffs) to their range to counteract our obvious strategy. In order for villain to not make a drastic change to their strategy we'd want to start calling the 3 bets with some of our weaker "4 bet for value hands" and just make our 4 betting range much more bluff heavy. If we were playing a computer with a flawed strategy we could definitely go your route where we just 4 bet them to death but this is unlikely to work against even weak opponents.
Steve Paul10 years, 7 months agoYour first post is just the reasoning for why 4b/folding TT is generally ridiculous, except that in the video example you are "up against a very particular opponent who rarely 5 bet bluff jams [and] rarely jams light for value".
I agree in general that he's going to adjust if we just 4bet everytime and I think that 4b/f TT bu vs bb is (of course) silly in practice. The point I was trying to make was that in the specific example you gave, I think it's wrong to find the equity we need to realize to make call > 4b/c when 4b/f is clearly better than 4b/c with the ranges provided. I think your video is more effective if you use more reasonable ranges where these issues are avoided.
James Hudson10 years, 7 months agoThanks, I appreciate the feedback. The point was that for a lot of people playing against aggressive players can be tough and their first inclination might be to 4 bet stack off lighter than normal. The examples in the video are meant to show that just because someone 3 bets a bunch doesn't mean that our best option is to just stack off lighter. Similarly, in the barreling examples you're rarely going to find someone who bets rivers with 100% of their range but by showing the results vs that type of player we can see how certain extreme strategies might relate to actual strategies we face. It's often going to be too time consuming and make for a boring video if I outline every single different strategy that a villain could take and how we should best combat it so I thought it would be helpful to show some extreme strategies that we probably won't face so that we can draw some conclusions from them to apply to more realistic situations. I hope that clarifies things a little bit for you.
Steve Paul10 years, 7 months agoFair enough, I did enjoy the video overall. I just think it's important to be careful not to say "a is better than b so we should do a" if there exists a 3rd option c which is better than b. We should compare a to c.
In the last 3 examples of situations #4 and #4b we are making a flat out mistake by calling the shove w/o having the odds. It's like dropping the ev of the play on purpose to conclude to our point easier.
That said, i obviously agree with your conclusion and I also enjoy the video as most of your videos.
Great discussion guys and of course great video. I`m still a huge noob, and I have to confess that my first instinct to adjust vs very 3bet happy villains was to 4bet light, especially when they are folding a lot (for me >65% FT4B is a lot - BTW, what do you think is a good sample size to define FT4b %?). This video thought me a lot why that adjustment is not that great.
I also think that most people (at low limits) go into 4bet/F with their bluffs or 4bet/call lighter vs villains who 3bet them a lot (>15%) because they are not comfortable in 3bet pots vs aggro opponents.
Could you guys recommend me some videos from Run it once about how to improve my game in 3bet pots vs regs? Thank you!
James Hudson10 years, 6 months agoYou're going to need a pretty big sample before you have much of an idea of how often someone really folds to 4 bets. Sometimes you can have thousands of hands on someone and they've only faced a 4 bet 10 times or so. You're probably best to come up with some default 4 betting ranges and deviate from them slightly if someone seems to be folding too much to 4 bets or too little rather than going the max exploit route and using almost any hand if they seem to be folding too much.
Example 1 - 88: you say 88 has vs our assumed bettingrange 39% eq, but you approximate only it to have 30% eq...
Is it because you just make an approximation that we realize w this hand on average only 75% of our EQ?
Or how you get to this number 30%?
I btw. think that we even relaize less than 75% eq OOP with this handtype... more like 60-65% maybe due to the fact that the playability sucks so much....
James Hudson10 years, 6 months agoHey, in the 88 hand we have the best hand 39% of the time but only have 30% equity because our hand is so vulnerable to being overtaken by the river. A hand like 88 on this board rarely improves but is often sucked out on by villain's barreling range.
and slight critiscm - I mean, the outcomes from example number 1 (88) habe been pretty known (to likely most members of runitonce I would guess) regards to the hands you have choosen (88, NutFD+GS and TPGK).
I would have been cool to use a mosre closeish hand like A4s but w/o the nutfd - so only ace-high+gutter... for instance.
Hey, constructive criticism is always welcome but the 88 hand was supposed to be an example of what should be a close spot versus most people. Ace high with a gutter on this board vs villain's CO opening range should be a pretty easy fold. Even if we got to check down 100% of the time on the river, the turn call would still be losing so we'd need to make up a bunch of that EV from the times we hit our gutter. Unfortunately we won't be able to check raise very often when we do hit our gutter because of the presence of the two flush draws making some of our outs dirty.
I dont know, any special reason that you gave him all the small PPs in his Defendingrange preflop?
I agree with you that most people don't defend that wide in that spot but if I remember correctly this villain had a fold of 20-30% or something in that spot.
can you clarify how you came up with the % of equity realized on river?
I would think if the villain bets an amount so that we are indifferent to calling/folding then the % should be closer to whatever the chance of us just hitting the draw (I am talking about the first example with 88?)
I came up with the % of equity realized by messing around with the scenario in CREV and using the check down feature. Given your second question it feels like you may have misunderstood what % of equity realized means. The % of our equity that we realize isn't the percentage of the pot that we win but rather the fraction of our pot equity that we win if no bets were to be made on the river.
For instance, if we have 20% equity on the turn and villain bets 5$ into 10$ by calling we would expect to get back 0.20x(5+10+5)= 4$ after calling the 5$ which would net us -1$ by calling the turn if we realize 100% of our equity on the river. Lets say for example that we expect to realize 130% of our equity by calling the turn because villain will bet call quite often when we hit our draw. In that case, we would expect to win 0.20x(5+10+5)= 4$ x1.3= 5.20$ which would net us .20$ on our turn call because of the -5$ that we invested to get there. My apologies if this was already clear to you and i simply misunderstood your question.
Loading 32 Comments...
Really intresting video James ! Congratz.
Nice presentation, well done!
In the AA hand do you think it's a good spot for villain to donk all in if we're checking back AA?
Hey James, very interesting video! I have some questions, feel free to answer which ever ones you want.
1. At the beginning of the video when you say "vs a 25% CO Open". I am assuming this means CO has a VPIP of 25%?
2. Do you use Flopzilla for the formula you used with the 88 example on the K32 board?
3. Any good books to understand the concept you explained in the beginning with the 88 hand? (Figuring out equity vs a range)
4. How can someone better learn the art of the 4b? I understand it relies heavily on villian's 3b % and folds to 4b%.
Hey, glad you liked the video.
1) Yeah, we're assuming an opening range of 25% of hands in this example.
2) I mostly used CREV for this video but flopzilla should be able to give you many of the same stats.
3) Hmmm, I'm not done the second one but I think Will Tipton's books touch on some of this kind of stuff. Hopefully someone else can help me out with some ideas in the comments section.
4) Mess around with CREV and see how your 4 betting strategies do against different kinds of villains and see if certain hands have fairly constant ev when 4 betting or if they rely a lot on what villain is doing.
Equilab has a equity trainer for hand/range vs. range training, and it's free: http://www.pokerstrategy.com/poker-tools/equilab-holdem/
"The third tool from the PokerStrategy.com Equilab allows you to train yourself and test your equity knowledge. Click on the "Equity Trainer" in the Equilab main menu and you will be able to take one of the predefined quizzes or define the ranges yourself."
Thanks, I really appreciate the response. Are there any other tools besides CREV that I should be paying attention to? Currently I am working on my knowledge for ICM, Flopzilla, HUD, and now CREV.
Nice vid.
I know it's difficult... but it would be great if you speak bit slowly :)
In the TT 4bet example, you find how much equity you need to realize to make calling as good as 4bet/call. But in these examples 4b/fold is much better than 4b/call and so you should really be comparing call to 4b/fold. For example vs the 10% 3bet, QQ+,AK 4bettor, 4b/f has EV = .714*11 - .286*18 = 2.7bb. For call to be that good you need to realize about 104% of your equity, which makes it a lot closer whether call > 4b. Generally 4b/folding TT button vs bb is silly but vs opponents who play this exploitably (folding to 70+% of 4bets) it can be quite reasonable for protection/"info".
There's no reason to 4 bet/fold a hand like this unless you're up against a very particular opponent who rarely 5 bet bluff jams, rarely jams light for value but calls a bunch of 4 bets. If villain was highly exploitable facing 4 bets then we'd simply take hands that we'd otherwise have to fold to 3 bets like A6o and use those as 4 bet bluffs due to their blockers effects. By using hands to 4 bet that are outside of our 3 bet calling range we should be able to maximize the ev of our range. Using a hand like this, that has little in the way of blocker effects, makes little sense to use as a 4 bet unless we're planning on calling it off.
I agree in general that he's going to adjust if we just 4bet everytime and I think that 4b/f TT bu vs bb is (of course) silly in practice. The point I was trying to make was that in the specific example you gave, I think it's wrong to find the equity we need to realize to make call > 4b/c when 4b/f is clearly better than 4b/c with the ranges provided. I think your video is more effective if you use more reasonable ranges where these issues are avoided.
I think stevejpa got it right here.
In the last 3 examples of situations #4 and #4b we are making a flat out mistake by calling the shove w/o having the odds. It's like dropping the ev of the play on purpose to conclude to our point easier.
That said, i obviously agree with your conclusion and I also enjoy the video as most of your videos.
Keep up
Great discussion guys and of course great video. I`m still a huge noob, and I have to confess that my first instinct to adjust vs very 3bet happy villains was to 4bet light, especially when they are folding a lot (for me >65% FT4B is a lot - BTW, what do you think is a good sample size to define FT4b %?). This video thought me a lot why that adjustment is not that great.
I also think that most people (at low limits) go into 4bet/F with their bluffs or 4bet/call lighter vs villains who 3bet them a lot (>15%) because they are not comfortable in 3bet pots vs aggro opponents.
Could you guys recommend me some videos from Run it once about how to improve my game in 3bet pots vs regs? Thank you!
As far as videos on 3 bet pots, I know that there's got to be more than these but these were the first 2 that I could think of: Phil Galfond on 3 bet pots and Jonas Smailys on 3 bet pots.
Thank you. :)
Nice Vid!
Example 1 - 88:
you say 88 has vs our assumed bettingrange 39% eq, but you approximate only it to have 30% eq...
Is it because you just make an approximation that we realize w this hand on average only 75% of our EQ?
Or how you get to this number 30%?
I btw. think that we even relaize less than 75% eq OOP with this handtype... more like 60-65% maybe due to the fact that the playability sucks so much....
and slight critiscm - I mean, the outcomes from example number 1 (88) habe been pretty known (to likely most members of runitonce I would guess) regards to the hands you have choosen (88, NutFD+GS and TPGK).
I would have been cool to use a mosre closeish hand like A4s but w/o the nutfd - so only ace-high+gutter... for instance.
Hey, constructive criticism is always welcome but the 88 hand was supposed to be an example of what should be a close spot versus most people. Ace high with a gutter on this board vs villain's CO opening range should be a pretty easy fold. Even if we got to check down 100% of the time on the river, the turn call would still be losing so we'd need to make up a bunch of that EV from the times we hit our gutter. Unfortunately we won't be able to check raise very often when we do hit our gutter because of the presence of the two flush draws making some of our outs dirty.
@james:
@ 88-ahnd: lol, sry I have misunderstood you - thought you mean we have in the vid 39% equity and not the best hand...
now it makes sense^^
And thx for answwering^^
btw. @ the AA-Hand:
Do I see it correctly that you gave Villain small PPs into his call3b_Range UTGvsBTN?
Imo he has at most 88+ (many ppl only TT+ depending on your 3b BTNvsUTG).
Hence I think vs most ppl you still have >50% vs their callingrange OTR, when theyy call off jj+, so EV_shove would be then better then EV-chback.
I dont know, any special reason that you gave him all the small PPs in his Defendingrange preflop?
I dont know, any special reason that you gave him all the small PPs in his Defendingrange preflop?
I agree with you that most people don't defend that wide in that spot but if I remember correctly this villain had a fold of 20-30% or something in that spot.
ah ok^^
At the situation 4 , the 4bets size is standard ?? It looks kinda big from 8 to 20 bb and from 10 to 25
james--
can you clarify how you came up with the % of equity realized on river?
I would think if the villain bets an amount so that we are indifferent to calling/folding then the % should be closer to whatever the chance of us just hitting the draw (I am talking about the first example with 88?)
thanks, cool vid
which
I came up with the % of equity realized by messing around with the scenario in CREV and using the check down feature. Given your second question it feels like you may have misunderstood what % of equity realized means. The % of our equity that we realize isn't the percentage of the pot that we win but rather the fraction of our pot equity that we win if no bets were to be made on the river.
For instance, if we have 20% equity on the turn and villain bets 5$ into 10$ by calling we would expect to get back 0.20x(5+10+5)= 4$ after calling the 5$ which would net us -1$ by calling the turn if we realize 100% of our equity on the river. Lets say for example that we expect to realize 130% of our equity by calling the turn because villain will bet call quite often when we hit our draw. In that case, we would expect to win 0.20x(5+10+5)= 4$ x1.3= 5.20$ which would net us .20$ on our turn call because of the -5$ that we invested to get there. My apologies if this was already clear to you and i simply misunderstood your question.
Be the first to add a comment
You must upgrade your account to leave a comment.