BigFiszh

Still there' no merit in raising the flop. It's like p* against the wind. :-) Sure, there might be "some frequency", that's the reason why we are never folding. Neither flop, nor turn (most often). But raising accomplishes nothing.

And you think a tight-passive player tends to overbet-donk the flop with TT? Do you wanna raise and continue barreling on the turn? I do not think that's the best idea.

I'd say this most likely looks like Jx. I like how the hand was played.

You're absolutely right!! The cap of the rake essentially turns a 5% rake into a 0.x% rake effectively. That's why the rake has less and less impact on the higher stakes.

And remember - one of the "crucial" things to understand is that the rake is not "split" - but it's completely taken off YOUR winnings. For example, if the rake is 10%, it's not 5% per player - it's 10% from the pot!!

Effectively each player has "contributed" 5%, but at the end of the day, it will be taken from your winnings. Means - a pot of 10bb, that was fed by you with 5bb is still raked with 10% total. That means, instead of gaining 5bb (net - pot minus your own invest) you only gain 4bb. Which essentially is 20% of your (potential) profit! ;-)

That makes the micros so "brutal" to get away from.

The wider your range, the lower is the potential EV of the hand. Up to the point where the EV is eaten up by the rake.

Simple example (numbers are not correct, it's just for the sake of simplicity): let's assume we are on the BTN and have a hand that we open (2.5bb) and see a flop with. The final (average!!) potsize postflop shall be 12 bb and the rake is either 10% or 2%. Let's compare two different combos (as mentioned with ficticous EVs):

AKs -> Postflop EV = +5.5 bb
87s -> Postflop EV = +3.0 bb

Postflop EV means the total EV that we got postflop, ignoring rake (assuming 0% rake). As we invest 2.5 bb preflop, our total profit (rake still 0%) is:

AKs -> EV (net) = +3.0 bb
87s -> EV (net) = +0.5 bb

So far everything looks good, both combos are profitable and argue a preflop raise.

Now, we are looking at the rake. Start with 2% (= 0,24 bb):

AKs -> EV (net after 2% rake) = +2.76 bb
87s -> EV (net after 2% rake) = +0.26 bb

Still a small profit for both hands. What happens with 10% rake?

AKs -> EV (net after 10% rake) = +1.80 bb
87s -> EV (net after 10% rake) = -0.7 bb

All of a sudden, 87s turns into a negative outcome! Obviously the overall EV of that combo depended on the frequency we actually saw a flop with, but overall it demonstrates how easy we cross the treshold for marginal hands.

Same applies for BB-defense obviously!! Many hands that seem to be easy calls - EQ-wise!! - turn into folds, because we simply do not realize our EQ due to the high rake.

That's a real fallacy - and the reason to tighten up. Unfortunately I have no good idea on how to define the "adjusted" ranges based on the rake%. :-/

How is that possible?

That is not possible. :-) What tracker / stat are you using? I use PT4 and there you have a ton of different stats like "rake taken", "rake contributed", "rake attributed".

#1 is the entire rake from all players (for that hand / session), regardless of who won.
#2 is the rake that I contributed, regardless if I won / lost the hand.
#3 is the rake that was taken from all hands that I won

Obviously #3 is the one you are looking for. Your stat probably falls into #1 (more likely) or #2.

A good way to check it, is to filter for ONE hand (ideally a big hand postflop) that you won. Then go to the replayer and see what the final potsize was and what you actually were paid off. Then compare that with the rake-stat in the report.

Hope that helps.

In fact I confused you with the threadstarter.

Still, it makes no sense to bet. We have no valuebet, we still only have a semi-bluff. Our EQ against a range of KK-TT,AKs-AJs,KQs,QJs,AKo-AJo,KQo is ~33%! Against the given range (assuming we are getting AK and TT to fold) we got 30% fold equity. Our EQ vs. the continuing range (JJ+, AJ+,KJ+) is 27%. That is not sufficient to turn our bet into a +EV bet. So, what's the reason for betting?

The only reason might be to protect our EQ against a psb - which we could not profitably call (not even with implied odds), but even that is proven to be -EV unless Villain is betting potsize (!) very aggressively (with KQ+).

Why did you even post the stats then? He could end up being a 11/10 as well, if I follow your argumentation. I said "tendency". Probability is higher that he's passive and stationary than that he's a maniac.

By the way, 30/14 is not far away from 21/11 if you read AND understand my arguments.

So what?!

Yeah, JTs is better, but even that hand would be better off to just call. Why wasting it? Use Ax to 3bet.

Given the high f3b-frequencies. Remember that you play against BOTH. Combined, their f3b (ignoring any other factors, like 3-way) is 0.79 x 0.73 = 0.57. So you are facing a flop in ~43%. Given your 3bet-size, your preflop play is round about break-even, so it gains you exactly nothing. The only advantage would be if you could make money postflop. But this hand pretty damn well demonstrates why that is an illusion, right? ;-)

Borderline. But you got to call anyways, so you define the betsize, so I think it's okay.

It's actually not about remembering the details for every single situation, but it's about remembering the mechanics (i.e. certain blocker effects).

I agree though that we are talking about absolute marginal fractions of percentages that won't really have an impact (either way).

Raise bigger on the turn. And "82" hands is not "only", it's sufficient to recognize a tendency. And this tendency is nitty-weak-passive. Villain is (close to) never bluffing, so you're calling for a split at best. Obviously he can have a bunch of 8x, compared with flush draws, but likely there enough flushes (and KJ) that calling won't really be profitable. At best you are break-even, at worst you're just lighting money on fire.

It's not even marginal, it's plain bad. What do you expect to happen? In almost no cases you will win the pot preflop and then you find yourself with an unsuited weak hand postflop, where even TP has a marginal kicker, is threatened by overcards on turn and river and has no SD-value whatsoever.

That is pure spew. Sorry. :)

21/11 shows at least a tendency. A tendency of passivity - and an attitude for calling.

Given that he can have all AA (yes), KK, QQ, JJ, AQ, AJ and finally AK, the only hand that you actually are aiming to bluff against is AK. Does not sound promising. If he happens to call down with TT, so be it, most of the time it won't - and most likely more often than the ~50% you'd need (and then you are simply break-even, so why bother).

A like simply for the brillant nickname!! :-D And aside from that for the content ...

If I’m making mistakes [...] will betting 1/3 with range be higher EV?

How should we know that? Fact is that EV(1/3rd-range) < EV(mixed). Now, the margin between those two EVs is your error margin.If you are exceeding that margin, you will be better off implementing the range-strat (assuming you make no mistakes there - which is unlikely as well, as a strategy does not end with the cbet!!).

Also if I did play this strategy(assuming I’m going to get raised more), does this mean I should have more 3bets on the flop?

Most likely, yes. You got a weaker range that you got to defend against attacks (bluffs). You can defend by either calling or raising (3-betting). The point though is that you need way more combos IF you call than if you raise, reason being that Villain can realize EQ with his bluffs if you just call. That means that most likely the amount of combos to be called vs. 3-bets is so high that you had to start calling with crap, which means, 3betting becomes more important.

Try to get used to calculate pot odds in "odds", not percentage. 25% (not 0.25%) means 3:1. That's Villain's (optimal) value-to-bluff-ratio where you are break-even (namely indifferent between calling and folding with your bluffcatchers).

If for example your opponent's valuerange would be AA (3), AK (12), AQ (12), AJ (9), JJ (3), 66 (3), 44 (3) for value, that made 45 combos. With odds of 3:1 you'd need to "find" (or imagine) 45/3 = 15 bluff-combos (i.e. all KQ). Then you have a break-even-call:

EV (call) = (45/60 x -50) + (15/60 x +150) = 0

I still disagree. Or I think most have a wrong understanding of "range protection".

So, let's assume, my xb-range is weak. And Villain knows it. He makes an overbet. I got to defend X%. What keeps me from calling bottom pair? Even A-high? Nothing? Cool. So there's no need to "protect". The only thing I lose by not "protecting" my range is a potential raising- (and bluff-)range. But that is not "protection" in the original idea, that is maximizing EV of the strong hands. That is what I meant. At a certain point, xb a strong hand might get higher EV then betting - because we get the chance to profit from a potential overbet. But that does not "protect" our weak hands.

Second "disadvantage" is that Villain might valuebet lighter. Nobody mentioned that so far. If I start calling with bottom pair or even A-high, Villain can bet hands for value that he otherwise wouldn't even think about (as we call way lighter than "normal". But a) HERE's the specific of the micros, you will NEVER find anybody doing that and b) we are not looking at EV's for specific situations in isolation, but overall. If Villain starts valuebetting lightly, he still has to have a lot of those hands in his range, which means, he has to defend a LOT against the hands that we did NOT check-back on the previous streets.

In other words, as long as we earn more money by betting our strong hands on the previos street, we do not care about "range protection". Once it breaks and our strong hands earn more money by checking, because we "grab" the light value bets / bluffs / overbets / ... from Villain after checking, we check.

Summarized, we do not check to "protect" anything, rather we are streaming in the slip of the weak hands, like an alligator keeping the head under water. The alligator does not protect the water. :D Maybe that helps.

No, I'm not talking about stakes - or specifically microstakes. "Range protection" is purely not existent. Every combo is played on it's own EV. There might be a situation where combos are essentially better checked than bet - and it might seem as it would be to protect the rest, but that is just our human interpretation, even though at the end it comes out by the same.

But again - and aside from that: ignoring the stakes, who can explain what exactly we wanna "protect" our range against?

"protect your range from what?"

That is the point. I already asked for the disadvantage of a "capped range". But nobody replied. Seemingly everybody takes it as granted that ranges need "protection". Which is not true.

The discussion about "how to protect our range" is entirely misleading when we do not exactly define what we wanna achieve.

So again, might anybody try to explain his thoughts about range protection?

What's the "real" disadvantage of a capped range? Think about it. ;-)

He likely did not suggest to limp, but to flat the 3bet (instead of 4b).

Awesome.

Improving the red line is astonishingly easy: don't fold.

Seriously, don't care about red line. That's nonsense. Care about green line. That consists of red and blue line. Especially in the micro stakes it's close to impossible and most likely not even optimal to have a "stable" red line.

My "process" is pretty easy:

1) What's my "optimal defense frequency"?
2) What part of my range qualifies as bluffcatcher?
3) What's the optimal calling range, based on #2?
4) Any further reads?

For #1 I got to quickly estimate / calculate Villain's risk (pot vs. bet) to get my optimal defense frequency (MDF).

For 2) I got to roughly estimate the range Villain got to the river with (given actions and betsizing). Depending on that my worst bluffcatcher might be K-high, or bottom pair or TP or ... that defines the range that I got to "defend" (namely the range that #1 is referring to).

For 3) I got to calculate how many combos of my #2 range I got to defend. Then I am looking for those combos who have the best blockers (blocking his valuebets, unblock his bluffs). That's my "standard" defense range.

For 4) I check if there are any hints in Villain's behaviour, history, notes, maybe even poolreads that needs / suggests adjustments on my results. For example, I could skip the bottom part of my bluffcatching range (or stop "bluffcatching" at all), if I came to the conclusion that Villain (or the pool if unknown) is presumably never (or at least not often enough) bluffing on the river.

Obviously those steps do not necessarily be processed like an algorithm, one after the other, mostly it comes "intuitive" with training, especially #4 oftentimes overlays or even substitue the other steps. But in really difficult situations I take that route. Whereas "really difficult" situations often are the ones that do not have great impact anyways. :D So these have more training effect than real EV-impact.

If we assumed a completely static EQ (for both sides), betting 28 "bluff" combos would be totally sufficient (I come up with ~26 bluff combos, assuming a geometric betsize distribution).

But EQ is not static - in that situation. If we "bluff" with AK and get called by QJs / JJ, we have massive equity. That said, Villain were far away from a "neutral-EV"-bluffcatcher with QJs and should immediately fold anything but the nuts.

That said, bluff with the bottom end of your range, not the top end. And - without being able to pinpoint it mathematically, I'd say, betting 100% of our range for 60% likely is the best balanced play to keep Villain from simply folding 100% (and us losing value).

Otherwise, your figures are reasonable.

you come off as a reddit mod where is your fedora

Sorry, I do not understand (no native speaker :D). What do you mean? Did I come off rude in any way? Not by purpose!! :-)

AK is not a bluff. If that were your "bluffrange" on the flop, Villain should instafold 100% - and exploit your value-heavy betting range that way.

We're 3-betting BTN vs. UTG, I wonder what "broadway bluffs" you see in BTN's range that don't have TP? Following Snowie's range (as a "public" example), there's exactly 3 combos, namely KJs. What's your range?

What made him passive? 10/6 or 75/30 with AF of 0.4? What makes him a "fish"? What do you expect to get called by on the turn? What Tx does a "passive fish" come to the turn with? When you check - do you expect a "passive" player bluff the river against your line - or why did you feel compelled to blockbet? Too many questions. Try to come up with answers. ;-)

Aside from the hand, if you don't mind, let me give you some hints:

1) Stop calling players "fish". Not only because it's derogative but because it clutters your mind. Try to dig deeper. It will make YOU a better player overall.

2) Ask specifically. Give as much information as possible. Too often I read posts like "how's my line against a fish?". What should one reply to that?! A 99/2 might be as huge of a "fish" as a 3/2 player or 54/42 or any other extreme variation. Again, go into the details. What do you know about him? If you label him as a "fish", you HAVE to have some reads. What is it? Show respect to those who you ask for advice. And get better advice.

Win-win-win. :)

Checking the flop is likely the worst thing we can do, given our (presumed) range.

What's your bluffing range on the flop? What's your plan for turn / river after xb?