FinciNeedsFood

By initiative I meant firstly we gain the stronger range and also the ability to generate more FE post flop. But I agree. Actually after some thought it may very well be that i'm a little lazy in single raised pots in this spot and should focus more here.

Oblioo, Im sure your right that these hands can be played profitiably too, particulary because of the closing the action factor. I'm just sure that 3betting them has a higher EV, when you take into account fold equity, range advantage and skill edge.

How do you determine which has the highest EV without using some kind of Solver program as in reality I don't see the relevance of using a solver program unless your sitting at a table of all equally skilled players, which is just a hyperthetical scenario, a scenario that isn't really going to occur in a cash game, or shouldn't.

Fold equity/initiatve and skill edge are all factors that make these hands good 3bets. When we call I feel we are just giving weaker opponents an easier time with the bottom of our range?

What's long run? WIll 4+ million hand suffice? :)

Probably the fact that I play below my skill level and at smaller sites with no real strong players makes a difference too.

Guacan. All those 63s type hands are profitable for me as 3bets. That's not in question, its just a fact. Also we do have to fold to a 4b sometimes.

So I can't play those profitably by calling but that whole group of hands are making money for me as 3bets. The next group up are making money for me as calls.

So, I take all the hands I can call profitable and the turn all the hands I cant into money making defends by 3betting them. That just seems like common sense and logic to me.

The bluff part of my 3b range (the 63s,74s type hands) are all profitbable 3bets in my database. I'm not sure they are profitable calls though, maybe they are.

It make sense to me that certain hands are going to be more profitbaly for me to 3b. I'm going to play better than my opponent post flop but I feel giving up intiative + plus giving him a position, and range edge means im just making his life easier and reducing my edge. So doesn't it make sense to 3b the hands I dont think i can play profitably OOP in single raised pots, thus turning them into profitable hands.

I actually used a polarized 3b range from BB, mostly because I feel alot of hands can be called profitably and those that don't lke the under 8x suited cards Im don't think are.

But Im not convinced a polarized range is best from BB at all

Just run the range through equilab first. That the first thing to do. Then we can see how our equity shapes up.

Looking at the bluff portion of his range it certainly looks like he has all the suited 6x in his range but then that probably means he flats most of is Kxs other than Ak and KQ so im not sure our Ks is all that important?

He will bluff sometimes on the river in 3b pots, if not very often. I would guess this hand is a fold but lets see what Equilab comes up with anyway?

As played what other hands are you calling river that calls turn other than sets?

It's a pretty bad board for BB to be bluffing on as that's your turn card not his although he should have a fair amount of 6x in his polarized 3b range, I doubt he 3bets A6o. I know you have A7o as a 3b instance but looking at his overall range construction I wouild say that hand is anomly and probably not part of his usualy 3b range. He should be 3b hands like 63s 64s 65s 76s 86s, maybe 96s T6s J6s by the look of it.

He should also have alot of backdoor flush draws also and a few Tx.

Run his range through equilab and the see what result you get.

I would very much doubt the Ev of calling KK is higher than 4b. AA probably but KK not so sure.

Thanks. So the high stakes thread on 2+2. Was this before anyone understood what the stat meant? Or possibly the stat was calculated incorrectly back then as they all (I assume most in that forum where winners) had ratios of between 2 and 2.5

The coach in the PS thread I quoted said about 1.5 seems to be correct too.

Assume you meant 38% folds? - 2.5/4 = 0.625. Otherwise i'm confused and math hurts me head enough as it is!

ok so I just filtered 2 hands where I called river and lost and called river and won

Hand won - RCE 2.69 (55% pot)
Hand Lost - RCE 0 (55% pot)

This seems to indicated that its correct, RCE is the ratio between $ put in pot and $ returned. Meaning a RCE of 1 is break even. So around 2-2.5 seems good.

It seems so?

http://www.pokerstrategy.com/forum/thread.php?threadid=197930
http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/18/high-stakes-limit/river-call-efficiency-stat-590961/

Yes, AK is going to be a big part of his value range here. 1% 3bet, UTG opens 4x. I'd be shocked if this player 3bets AK in this spot.

As for checking back flop, yes it has merits but we can't be checking back all our Ax here and we need to have every hand strenght in our range for every line that we take.

So we need to have an Ace here when we bet 3 streets, when we check back flop and bet T/R and when we bet/check/back and also when we check back flop and turn

So, My default gameplan in this spot (UTG v BB - dry Axx) will be to bet 3 streets with AK, check back A2-A5s and mix up how I play ATs+ AJo+ between Bet/check/Bet - Check back/Call/Call or Check back/Bet/bet

AK should probably always be a bit otherwise what other value hands can we bet 3 streets with ?

Against this player, given our 4x utg open and BBs tight 3b range AQ would mostly likely gointo my flop check range or my bet/check/call range

What is the reasoning behind raising turn? What goal are you achieving here? But folding flop is best on this board. It just smacks the range that cold calls a 3b.

Just for the record you have to be very vigilant and not overvalue statistics over meaningless sample sizes. What I mean is villian in this hand may well be loose agressive. He may just as equally be a tight 18/15 or a standard 22/18 type of player. You just cannot possible determine this in 16 hands.

In today's games, as more people have a better theortical knowledge I feel emotional control is one area where we can develope an edge over our opponents.

defending only 14.5% would mean we are way over folding to 3bs though right? Surely if we only fold something 55% then we are defending about a 22% range?

I wouldn't reallly say SB has WAY more Ax combos. Surely the only combos the 3b range has that the BU range doesnt have would be just AK and AA, and BU will have those combos too at some frequency?

Seems to me though that to determing whether a hand is profitable as a call or not is largely down to our equity realization factor but I don't know how to estimate this?

Thanks for the answer. I'm pretty sure your 3b range is better. I'm just not sure that for me and the field I'm up against it's all that necessary to actually defend optimally and that I can notch and tighten my range up a touch, putting the very bottom of my 3b range (the worse 62s, 94s etc hands into my folding range).

But maybe my thought process is incorrect. Maybe I should be playing more hands when I have skill edge but I don't know.

I actually play a mixed strategy too with AT-AQs and some of the middling hands like T9s, QTs etc which sometimes 3b, sometimes call.

Do you some kind of RNG to determine this or is the decision purely gameflow/player dependent?

Or is that not really a huge issue in the grand scheme of things?

Thanks Paul

My ranges will be way tighter as im playing smaller sites Nl100 mostly so don't really face many strong players. This has made me realise how important it is to try and determine as far as possible how villians construct their own ranges.

With regards to amount of Ax in your 3b range. Does this not cause a problem with your BB flat call range on Axx? I've been considering removing ATs, AJs from my 3b range for this reason as otherwise it seems very difficult to have a good hand on Axx when facing 3 barrells?

I did a little digging on this statistic too. However it appears from browsing the high stakes thread on 2+2 that this means that eg. 1.1 means you get $1.1 back for every $1 you put in.

So given that we are getting around 2.5/1 on river calls this should be around 2.5. 1 means alot of or calls are losing.

Most of the players in that thead had ration of around 2.0 - 2.5

So I don't know if this stat has changed since then defination wise but it makes sense if its as they were saying.

SB you can still steal WAY more in FR, 60% minmum vs most FR regs.

9% is about right in a 10 handed online game too.

But I would be folding on turn, even though im sure we should be folding on flop.

This is a spot where you can just laugh and thank MP for playing his hand so badly and save a buy in.

Player types of those in hand? Otherwise its impossible to even begin to answer this question.

Although it's going to be hard to justify stacking off here against most player types.

Looking at action though it appears MP is a reg ad BB is a fish. What hands do you think an MP reg raises here mulit way vs a UTG range?

9% and 20% are both way too expoitable, especially the latter. 15-17% seems reasonable in somewhat reggish games but obviously open way more when you are the best player at table full of recreational players etc

I hope I can help with a little persepective.

I've played somewhere in the region of 4million cash game hands with an overall (all formats) of 5bb/100.

My most profitable game is full ring where I have an 8bb/100 wr over approx 3million hands. So its safe to say im a above average winner in the games I play (mostly NL100, some NL200/Nl50)

Now comes the but... if we only look at my Full ring hands - the best results - over that same sample I have had multiple 100k break even/slightly losing ro break even periods and at least 30k stretch where i've lost more than 10bb/100.

So I would say the short term is anything under 100-200k hands and results for any smaller samples are not too important. Sure its enough to give us an overall picture of our game and our leaks but its sill a relatively small sample.

One of the most important lessons I've learnt from Poker is that we should embrace and welcome downswings, these are the times where we learn the most, about poker and about ourselves (which is a big part of poker). So downswings are valuable. Why not twist your way of thinking to see this period as an opportunity for growth, to improve, rather than be stressed and see this as a disaster?

Sorry I meant: Order of best flops for 3bettors range:

K52r
J52t
Q52r
Now we drop to just below 50% equity vs calling range
A52r
T52r

A52 seems to be a bit of a problem. Am I not 3betting enough Axs maybe? I do feel these hands are better as calls and rather put hands like 75s etc into the bluff component of my 3b range.

Hi, I enjoyed your video. I would be interested to know which ranges you use for question 5 as Qxx has always struck me as almost the but worst flop for the OOP 3bettor given that a) BB vs BU equities run closest on this board and (b) We have less Qx than BU.

Using the ranges ive included below our equity comparison is :

Q52 BB 52% vs BU 48% BB Top pair/Overpair combos 36 vs BU combos 33
J52 BB 55% vs BU 45% BB Top pair/Overpair combos 39 vs BU combos 24
952 BB 51% vs BU 49% BB top pair/Overpair combos 33 vs BU 18 Combos

Using:

BB 3b range:
99+, AQs+, KQs, J6s-J5s, T6s-T5s, 96s-95s, 86s-85s, 73s+, 63s+, 53s+, 43s, AJo+, KJo+

BU flat 3b range:
99-22, AQs-A2s, KTs+, Q9s+, J9s+, T7s+, 97s+, 86s+, 76s, 65s, AQo-ATo, KQo

My analysis of 3b vs 3b call ranges is that for the OOP 3bettor, 1 high card, 2 blank flops are best for us in this order

Axx
Kxx
Jxx
Txx
Qxx

Me too re: CRev. This video made Crev really enjoyable to watch