David Capon
8 points
Its hard for you to fold river to any bet with the price you are getting and you don't know if opponent will bluff missed draws or not. I would just go for value vs the range and get it in now.
March 29, 2017 | 9:46 a.m.
I just get it in. If he has qq or 66 unlucky, you still have outs to hit and even more outs if he has 2p.
On the turn you may well have an equity advantage vs his range. With you blocking the queen he can easily have hands like kk57,kk54,A456 etc. which are great for you.
March 28, 2017 | 8:33 a.m.
Good work Jonna,
I enjoy reading your posts. I have always wondered if these stakes are actually beatable; this just goes to show how solid theory and work can massively help for those learning PLO and moving up in the stakes.
I think one of the most important things for people playing these stakes as you said is to be resilient. Learn how to minimise the effects of downswings. You had some pretty big swings there (as everyone has in PLO), and if you cant handle these and stay in control it will be hard to progress.
Jan. 13, 2017 | 3:34 p.m.
You need 39.66% against his range and I would presume you don't have it. You should give him a range on odds oracle or poker juice and see.
Also I would presume his range is tighter than you think with him shipping into 5 others (Even though the others check). Even if a player has laggy pf tendencies they will tend to not go crazy in this spot.
As a side point you should think about your bet sizing. It does not make sense to bet half pot on this much of a wet board. If you have AAcc,jj,tt you are going to be betting bigger for value/protection/not knowing how to play the hand later. Personally, I am checking a lot of my ACC range 5 handed and looking to realise equity as I am in CO.
Sept. 13, 2016 | 8:17 a.m.
Maths: Why do we get in part of our range which
loses vs their Range?
To make a simple scenario:
Blinds are $0.5/1. We are assuming
blinds will fold. Stacks are $37.5. Co raises to $3.5
with 35% of hands. Button makes it $12 with a 10% range. When
CO 4bets BN calls it off.
For CO to profitably 4 bet: they are
risking $34 to win $76.5, so they need 44.444% equity in the hand to 4bet get
it in.
My question is why do we want our range to have
this equity, as opposed to narrowing our range and having a play which makes us
more money? - is it just to make CO less exploitable in a game
theory sense? as BN could adjust and just ramp up their 3 betting range when
they figured out CO's range is too tight?
Below are my numbers to show how a tighter range is
more +ev.
By using Pro poker tools to find out what range of
all hands have 44.444% equity, it is roughly the top 23% of hands. So
CO is shoving 23/35 = 65.71% of the time. The average equity for CO=
44.88%. BN equity = 55.12%. using this info we can create an Ev table:
Now, if we are to have the same scenario but with
CO only 4 betting the top 8% of his range we see that CO is shoving 8/35 = 23%
of the time, but this time has an average equity of 51.92%. If we
extrapolate the rest of the numbers needed it creates the table:
So in a vaccum, with these ranges (which happen to
be the propoker tools hand equity ranges) it is clearly more +ev after being 3
bet to 4bet the top 8%.
So intuitively, the top of the range is
compensating for the bottom of the range as shown by how well the 8-23% of the
range does. So with a similar table to the above we see the CO
4bets 15/35 = 42.85% of the time. When shoving Co has an
average of 41.731% equity. From this we can create the
table:
So this portion of our range clearly loses us
money. Why do we want to keep it in having reached the scenario of
being 3bet?
I have used Jonna as a coach for the last few years, and have also discussed a lot of strategy with him. I am mainly a live player, but have learnt to handle myself in games which are 2/5 zoom to 10/20 online though my sample sizes are small. I am fully aware he is not a high stakes crusher, and I am in strong disagreement with people who want a high stakes crusher to teach them because in my opinion that is not how people best learn.
I have done a lot of reading on books such as Outliers by Malcomn Gladwell, Deep Work by Cal Newport, The Talent code by Daniel Coyle, and I have developed my own personal views on how and what it takes to improve myself. I recognise it is not a one size fits all, but this is what works for me.
If I had a highstakes crusher telling me how to play, I feel that yes it would make a difference, but it would not give me the long term tools to think for myself. With Jonna, he has done a vast amount of work on theory, and he will talk you through how he got to these conclusions. I am not someone who is going to go away and do the highly theoretical work myself; so I like how he has done that work and how he presents it. To learn at a deeper level, it is creating an understanding of how Jonna came up with these theory points, discuss them, and have me argue with him when I don’t think they work in reality. If you have read the Talent code by Daniel Coyle, he would probably argue this is a process, which will create Myelin, and thus creates a better understanding of the game mechanism through deep learning. I find this methodology of “deep learning” much more effective than what I would classify as shallow learning eg. Only watching training videos and not bothering to examine, discuss and challenge them; or just blindly accepting what a coach tells you.
I feel if you are wanting a coach to tell you to simply do xyz, Jonna is not the coach for you. He is a coach who has a real passion for the game and it's theory. Use his tones of work to discuss and argue with him. It is our responsibility to then build upon his passion for the game and work as hard as him. Add some of his theory to your arsenal, see what parts of it work for you and what doesn’t. This for me creates deep learning and greater understanding of the beautiful game which I will never fully comprehend its depth :))
July 17, 2017 | 1:17 p.m.