Doctor2d

@baetamedina.
His opening-range would be wider but that includes a wider folding-range (against 3 bets) and a wider continuing-range - so the blocker value shouldn't have more value against a wider range.
/J

Hello Apotheosis.
Very nice format and a good tempo.
About 18:40:
Costi Holdem opens with 18.3bb [JJ] in UTG2/LJ-1 and it folds to DJ.Antoi with 31.8bb [88] who shoves. You say, that it is a "pretty standard cooler - Jacks have to open and eights have to shove"
But do eights really have to shove?
Shouldn't Costi Holdem be opening very tight here - stack sizes and position taking into consideration; something between [88+,A9s+,KJs+,QJs,AJo+] 8,57% and [66+,A8s+,KTs+,QTs+,ATo+,KQo] 12,3%
(ranges that 88 have 41,82% to 47,84% against).

88 do have a profitable CC obviously - but I would think that the shove is kind of borderline.

If we give Costi Holdem the
a: tightest opening range I suggested
[88+,A9s+,KJs+,QJs,AJo+]8,57% and the calling range [TT+,AQs+,AKo] 4,08%
Then the shove is 4,25bb0,524+0,476(0,330420,5bb-0,6696*18,3bb)=-0,38bb
31,9% he ends up loosing an allin and becomes the shortest stack left (13,4).

b:the loosest opening range I suggested
[66+,A8s+,KTs+,QTs+,ATo+,KQo]12,3% and the calling range [99+,AJs+,AQo+]5,88%
Then the shove is 4,25bb0,522+0,478(0,365920,5bb-0,6341*18,3bb)=0,26
30,3% he ends up loosing an allin and becomes the shortest stack left (13,4bb).

Do you think that these ranges are way of?
If not, is this not a very high variance/low reward situation, and wouldn't a flat be a better play with eights.

Regards
/J

Thank you for your feedback.
I have looked at the blocker value of AJo as well, the numbers are here.

D: His range when you are holding AJo.
Assumption D1: Villian oppening range.
[AA-77,AKo-AJo,AKs-A5s,KQs-KTs,QJs-QTs,JTs,T9s] 9,63% 118 comboes of 1225 possible.
Assumption D2: His range that continues aginst you either by calling or 4betting.
[AA-TT,AKo-AQo,AKs-ATs,KQs,QJs] 4,9% 60 comboes of 1225 possible
Continuing with 50,8%

As you can see the blocker value of AJo is the same as the blocker value of KJo.

I do believe that blockers preflop are given way to much value.
The fact is, that against an opponent with a well constructed opening and fold/continuing range the blockers often affects the folding range in quite the same way as they affect the continuing range.

In conclussion if we look at his ranges without taking the blockers into consideration and compare all the different blocker options.

E: His range when not considering blockers
Assumption E1: Villian opening range.
[AA-77,AKo-AJo,AKs-A5s,KQs-KTs,QJs-QTs,JTs,T9s] 11,2% 148 comboes of 1326 possible.
Assumption E2: His range that continues by calling or 4betting.
[AA-TT,AKo-AQo,AKs-ATs,KQs,QJs] 5,88% 78 comboes of 1326 possible.
Continuing with 52,7%

OP continuing (our blockers)
A: 50,7% (KJo)
B: 55,7% (87s)
C: 53,1% (A9s)
D: 50,8% (AJo)
E: 52,7% (none)

Because of this I do value postflop playability much more than the "blocker effect", when I construct a preflop 3-bet bluffing range :)

Sorry for the wall of text.
Regards
/J

I hope you don't mind the discussion :)

I think the bluffraises you choose in the AKo (SBvsUTG1 open 31,06 deep) and the reasons behind them are interesting - and I don't quite agree on them.
You choose [AJo;KJo-KQo;KTs] (a lot of off suit broadways) on the grounds of them blocking his range.
If we look at 3 diffent candidates for bluffing KJo, 87s, A9s - where I assume that we agree on 87s being the hand with best playability and least reverse implied odds if villain calls and KJo being the one with least playability and most reverse implied odds.
If we look at the 3 different hands and how they affect villains opening/continuing/folding-range

A: His range when you are holding KJo.
Assumption A1: Villian oppening range.
[AA-77,AKo-AJo,AKs-A5s,KQs-KTs,QJs-QTs,JTs,T9s] 10,4% 128 comboes of 1225 possible.
Assumption A2: His range that continues aginst you either by calling or 4betting.
[AA-TT,AKo-AQo,AKs-ATs,KQs,QJs] 5,31% 65 comboes of 1225 possible
Continuing with 50,7%

B: His range when you are holding 87s
Assumption B1: Villian oppening range.
[AA-77,AKo-AJo,AKs-A5s,KQs-KTs,QJs-QTs,JTs,T9s] 11,4% 140 comboes of 1225 possible.
Assumption B2: His range that continues aginst you either by calling or 4betting.
[AA-TT,AKo-AQo,AKs-ATs,KQs,QJs] 6,37% 78 comboes of 1225 possible.
Continuing with 55,7%

C: His range when you are holding A9s
Assumption C1: Villian oppening range.
[AA-77,AKo-AJo,AKs-A5s,KQs-KTs,QJs-QTs,JTs,T9s] 10,0% 123 comboes of 1225 possible.
Assumption C2: His range that continues aginst you either by calling or 4betting.
[AA-TT,AKo-AQo,AKs-ATs,KQs,QJs] 5,31% 65 comboes of 1225 possible.
Continuing with 53,1%

So you get 9,8 % more folds when you bluff with KJo instead of 98s and 4,7% more when you bluff KJo instead of A9s.

I would argue, that the +EV of getting these few more folds is worth quite a bit less than the than upside of more board coverage and less reverse implied when you 3betbluffing-range is constructed like [A9s,A5s-A4s,KTs,QTs,J9s,98s,87s,[50]T8s,97s,76s,65s[/50]] (the same amount of comboes as you proposed).
Regards
/J

First or all. I like the format of your video.

In the first part of the video you mention, that if the ranges are tighter or/and if we raise bigger, we should have a higer value/bluff-ratio (lower bluff/value-ratio).
In the AKo (SB vs good reg that UTG1-open 31,06bb deep), your value/bluff-ratio is 1:1
and in the
in the 52s (BBvs good reg that BU-open 49,64bb deep) your ratio is 8,3:6,9 (roughly 1:1.2).
Do you think that is the appropriate? - If would think that you would need to either bluff wider in the second instance or bluff less in the first instance. But I have not looked at the math behind it in a while so I might be wrong.
Regards
/J

Nice video Steve Paul.
As always well structured and well paced!

A counterintuitive takeaway from your video:
Assumption: 1 One should make deals to minimize bankroll variance.
Assumption: 2 Chipleaders are punished be ICM-deals
Assumption: 3 (from my experience) ICM-deals are the gold standard rigth now and nearly all opponents in at least low and middle stake large field mtts think that you are greedy if you ask for more than ICM as the chipleader - hence it is hard to negotiate for more.
1+2+3 = One should avoid high variance spots even more in the endgame since it is less advantagesly being chipleader in the current ICM-focused dealmaking enviourment.
Regard
/J

Hey Nikki.
I don't know about different stack depths but I'm playing with an overall EVbb/100 = 10 at av stake 22$. Sorry if that's not what you asked for :)
Regards
/J

8-8-12-?-3r-55

Thank your for taking the time to answer Jeremy :)

Im glad to hear, that you made the C/R T9o (flop QQ7hxh at least partly as an expolitative play, though you don't really elaborate on your assumptions of him having too high a C-betting frequency in the video - I do find it hard to see from your stats on him (82hands, CB: 67 percent (most likely 2/3) that you can assume with any degree of certainty that he is C-betting way too wide.
In your reply your write
"....but we do have many more Qx combos than we would ever expect him to have (86 to 35). You are correct in stating that Qx is a larger part of his range than it is of ours since we're defending so wide and also stating that we have a range disadvantage on this flop, but we also have a significant advantage in nutted combos containing Qx than he ever should have and that is what allows us to check raise this flop with some frequency."

I do hope that you'll agree that the absolute number of combinations of Qx do not matter, but only the (numbers of combinations of Qx)/(number of combinations in whole range) is of interest. So even though we have 86 combinations we only have 8,67% of trips while he has 11,8% (should be 12,5% because your 9To should be placed in the dead cards catagory).
About the nutted combinations: It is wrong as you can see on your flopzilla analysis.
He has 1,39% full house+ while you do have 0,98%. (His full house+ is really 1,56% because your 9To should be placed in the dead cards catagory).

To summaries:
You have a substantial range disadvantage and nut disadvantage on the flop and make an explotative play base on a CB frequenzy of 67% in a hand sample of 82 hands.

Sorry for sounding like I'm berating you, that is in no way the intention - I'm just very baffled by your logic behind the play.

Regards
/J

@MoeGreen.
You are very right in questioning that logic :)
I meant to write "so I would do it with a hand like 65cc instead so you don't block parts of his range that don't contain a "Q" - in line with what I wrote 2 lines above: about "9To blocking parts of his range that we want to fold". But the blocker effect goes both ways, since some of his Qx hands contain T and 9 - so the effect is really not that big
When we have 9To - 13,7% trips+.
When we have 67cc - 30,3% 13,1% trips+.

But more important 56cc has way more turns where we would want to continue bluffing.
Turn: [8;4,Ac;Kc;Jc;Tc;9c;3c;2c] (13 combinations): would be turns where we for sure would be bluffing with 56cc.
While [J] (4 combinations) is kind of the only turn for 9To where we for sure would be bluffing.

But when all that is say -
I don't think we should have a C/R line on this flop because of the range and positional disadvantage!
....unless we have a strong read on the opponent or on population tendencies that tells us that villian would overfold here.
If hero do have that, then go ahead and exploit, but then use that logic and not things like "we have much more queens in our range than he possible could ever have", since that is proveable incorrect.

tinyelvis58
Villain don't need to play back with air - he just needs to call the whole range he is continuing with here since Heros range is polarised. And since villain is offered extremely good odds he can call with a range like this more or less.
148/226 hands (65,5%) [picture 2]. That is not 1-alpha but close enough in my view.
By calling he puts hero in a very though spot on the turn with any hand that is even as strong as 7x, since villains do have an uncapped range with 62[A7+,77+,Qx] out of 148 calling range (42%) beating 7x.

On the turn the SPR would be 2.15. And that would leave hero in a very though spot with T9o here.

Turn examples 1:
Lets say it's a blank turn [2d]. If hero shoves villain needs to call with 31% of his range to make hero indifferent (if we view this as the last street, which is not correct, but an ok assumption taking heros T9o into consideration) (villain needs 40% equity to be more correct).
Villains range on turn is 145 hands with 31,7% quads, sets and overpairs and trips [picture 1].

Turn example 2:
In conclusion - by taking the C/R line in this exact situation we are making life though for ourselves and easy for villain.

Sorry for the long post and incorrect grammar!

/J

Thank you again very much for taking your time Brokenstars :)
/J

OK.
Thank you for taking your time.
It was exactly that type of database analysis I was interested in - but even though you say that it is well know, I don't see the numbers from analysis like that as common knowledge, not even here on RIO.
And btw flatting 45o don't have to be profitable - it just have to be doing better than loosing 100 big blinds per 100 hands. But I guess you know that and implicit included that in your statement
I guess it must be a leak I have then :)
Regards
/J

So if I can defend slightly wider than they open and a bit more if there is a IP caller how much do that amount to, would you think?
I am quite sure that hands like 36s, 24s, 45o-T9o can be played with an EVbb/100>-100 in that situation and then reasonable constructed range I am above 30% But I guess the negative respons to my range in here gives me the explanation to why I don't see "the weakest 20% of this range in my opponents overcalling range when the situation is reversed and I am the opener or the IP-flatter.the weakest 20% of this range in my opponents overcalling range when the situation is reversed and I am the opener or the IP-flatter."
But anyway :)
Thanks for taking your time
Regards
/J

Hey Jeremy.
Interesting topic. And a very important topic since BBvsRFI is a very common situation.

I have a problem with your checkraise in the very first hand. I'll try to elaborate on the reason why.
7:18 You say that:
"we have all the queens in the deck as you can see"
"we have much more queens in our range than he possible could ever have"
The 1st statement is as you know wrong sine you don't have QQ and AQ and not every KQs/QJs here.
The 2nd statement is more problematic.
If for a start we take the calling range against EP opener you described at 2:19 and expand it a bit to cover your calling range against a CO opener (picture 1) you are facing. Then you have a total of 881.5 combinations on the flop of which 77,5 combinations contain a Q (picture 2).
So lets say that we give your opponent a range (picture 3) consisting of AA-22,AKo-A9o,KQo-KTo,QJo,AKs-A2s,KQs-K8s,QJs-Q9s,JTs-J9s,T9s-T8s,98s,87s (226 combinations on the flop taken your exact hand into consideration) and 28 comboes of these that contain a Q (picture 4).
So on the flop 8,79% of your hand contain a Q and 12,39% of your opponents hand contain a Q. So you have a big range disadvantage on this flop!
Because of this C/R T9o is bad in my oppinion - especially since T9o are blocking hands you want to fold (99,TT,AT-A9,K9s,) I don't really think you should be checkraising anything on this flop because of the range disadvantage. But if I wanted to C/R I would do it with a hand like 65cc instead so you don't block parts of his range, that contain a Q.
Ofc the range I have given the opener can be dicussed but that doesn't really change the numbers a lot.
Regards
/J

Picture 1

Picture 2

Picture 3

Picture 4

Thank you for your comment.
That might be correct against an open from the UTG and a 4 folds to you in the big blind. But surely you will have to call/play wider than 14-16 % against a UTG 3x open and a IP caller. Would you really fold hands like 35s-57s 96s-J8s in that situation?
/J

Thank you for your comment.
Yeah the offsuit one gappers like 79o-J9o er the bottom of the range and should most likely by dropped.
The reverse implied odds of calling with A2o-A9o in this situation, makes me awry of calling with them. I do believe it is way easier to realise the equity of hands like T6s-96s / 89o than a hand like A4o.
/J