FriendlyCritter

Hey. Took a quick look through the "Lesson 1" on Twitch and I really liked it thus far! Will definitely watch through it and soak up whatever I can. (Doing some other analysis at the moment).

Suggestion: Please make it so that we can hear the student also! It would be much more rewarding to hear the whole exchange, and at times I'm sure some of the context is lost due to not hearing what the student is saying.

Thanks for the content!

Just a small thought/question. I should also mention that I'm not a potential customer, so this doesn't impact me. And the opinion of your customers are of course the only thing that matters. I'm just curious. You say:

"Teams will be grouped in fours by relevance - same sites and stakes."

Does it make sense to group same stake and (more importantly) same site guys in the same group? In terms of finding population exploits and such it definitely does. But if these fellas play vs each other on a regular basis, couldn't that end up stifling the discussion a bit?

Peace!

4-betting seems like the play. Even though they seem tight the sample size is so small. For instance, now UT will have opened 2/14 (14%) and CO 3-bet a bit more also (don't know sample so can't tell what his 3-bet percentage will be).

You block AA, KK and you should get folds sometimes from bluffs, still have decent equity when called. Given stack sizes you can't really 4-bet bluff that much here without being committed, unless you go very small like 2x (and even then just barely, you'd get like 35% vs a shove), so I prefer just shoving. Wouldn't shove at 100bb though.

As played just check/shove the flop. Calling the flop to fold a brick turn with 1 SPR, with a GS + FD and potentially good pairs outs and maybe a sliver of fold equity is not good. Just get it in.

On the river it's kind of odd. His turn checkback kind of removes many value hands except for nut slowplays, as they should be worried about protection and thus shove the turn. So giveups seem likely. As well as AK, potentially.

Shoving would be to get called by AK mostly, and you don't even represent many bluffs. Can't give a good answer without looking into it in detail. But I lean towards checking and hoping to induce a bluff. Just because I interpret the turn checkback as mostly give-ups or hands which won't call your shove anyway. With the exception of AK which might call, and which our check loses value against.

Judging by your presumed image you would probably do best not to think so much about when to bluff and what to bluff with, but simply bluff less and still always get paid when you have it.

Remember, that if you're overbluffing even slightly then it will be the correct play to always bluffcatch against you, and that's a pretty easy adjustment to make for any opponent. "This guy is crazy, he could still be bluffing here, I call". You exploit that by getting paid with your value hands and by not bluffing. If the opponent never folds a bluffcatcher, then all your bluffs will be super -EV. (This is likely the case in a lot of situations you play against regulars, assuming they have stats on you and/or have played with you a bit).

Your image by now has to be "madman" in the eyes of those you play regularly. So if you simply calmed down and bluffed less people would still call you down and it would probably take a while for them to catch on to that. And that would probably increase your winrate a lot, against regulars at least.

Yep.

A few things.

I wouldn't group together 22-77 and consider them equal. 77 is significantly stronger than 22 in any spot and also this spot. If you were to make a grouping then perhaps 22-44 would be closer in value, or maybe even 22-33 only. 77 is way better than 22-33. The same goes for the rest of the higher pairs.

I guess you could illustrate it better with actual numbers. Let's give a generic CO ~26% opening range:

22+,A2s+,A9o+,K7s+,KTo+,Q8s+,QTo+,J8s+,JTo,T8s+,97s+,86s+,76s,65s

Then look at the equity of those pairs vs that range:

77 | 53.0%
66 | 50.7%
55 | 48.8%
44 | 46.9%
33 | 45.0%
22 | 43.1%

That's quite a huge difference right there. And the same goes for playability post-flop, of course. Higher pairs always play better. (Less often face two or three overcards, can set-OVER-set rather than the opposite, can check down and win vs worse pocket pairs even on "bad" / scary boards, etc).

Calling 66 here should be fine and profitable in most scenarios (exception would be if the blinds squeeze a ton and you're forced to fold vs it, then maybe 3b is better.) It's probably the same for 55-44 but the lower pairs get worse.

In any case. If you hold a low pair here and question the profitability of calling, then they are definitely suitable 3b hands. So I like the reasoning that lead you to 3-bet this hand. (Although I think 66 is strong enough to call for sure, and would only 3-bet it if there were specific circumstances that makes it better, and/or I was 3-betting linear and not calling there at all).

Facing the 4-bet for that size I think you can probably call, but it's close. Haven't really figured it out myself so I can't say for sure, but I estimate it's slightly winning or slightly losing, depending on the 4-bet range. You're getting 28.6% odds or so, and have at minimum 35.9% equity even if the opponent never 4-bet bluffs (only QQ+,AK) and it quickly goes above 40% if you add some bluffs. Of course it's not that simple since we can't just expect to check it down, but sometimes flopping a set or straight draw or checking it down might be enough for us to call, not sure. If you're unsure, fold.

but she owned it and she actually managed to pull of the no hair-style
really well. Or what do you guys think?

Most definitely (Y)

Hi there. Just want to say that I enjoyed your story (first two posts) and wish Caroline the very best of luck in getting rid of that cancer!

I'm no expert, but from what I've learned our diet can have a huge impact on the body's ability to prevent and cure disease. Eating more plant based and less animal products is always good and most definitely supported by a lot of evidence and solid studies. I know that if anyone I know were to get cancer I would immediately recommend them a plant based diet, it's simply the most logical choice which gives the body what it needs to heal. So I feel compelled to share that now that I read about your girlfriend's cancer. Here's some great info regarding breast cancer specifically: http://nutritionfacts.org/topics/breast-cancer/

As for the poker, you seem to be doing very well. Is that USD or is it SEK? (Wondering since you're from Sweden and I know SVS is on Boss).

Very best of luck to you both!

Steady grinding and moving up in here. Thumbs up!

Two years ago you wrote:

"Flop c-bet IP/OOP: 46%/25%"

I'm curious how these have changed. Seems to me like frequent small IP betting is a lot more prevalent nowadays, partly due to Solvers. OOP I'm not sure of.

Thanks!

Is 11% 4-bet his 4-bet percentage or his 4-bet range? If it's the former then it's actually low-ish, if it's the latter then it's super high.

I don't think we can 5-bet for value (unless his actual 4-bet range is 11% over a significant sample and thus insanely wide). So I would call.

Easy call on flop. He could still be bluffing.

Nice thread, thank you.

"I can say with high confidence that almost every environment is incentivizing higher BTN and CO RFI than are advocated. 50% btn and 30% CO RFI are way too low for 200nl environments. ... To guys who are working their way up the ranks: get your RFI up from these positions."

This interests me. It's clear that a fair number of players underdefend their blinds. Although I haven't looked into what actual good defense should look like (can't afford pre-flop solver at the moment).

How high do you think we could push CO and BT RFI without being immediately exploitable in terms of not being able to defend (somewhat comfortably) vs 3-bets?

And what sizing would you suggest to open with from both positions with those wide ranges?

Look forward to your reply, really. Thanks!

Stating that 72o is equal to 66-22 in this situation is simply wrong for multiple reasons:

22-66 has 36-40% equity against a typical calling range.
72o has 23-24% equity.

22-66 already beat unpaired hands which call the 3-bet.
72o loses to every hand in the call 3-bet range and has to improve or bluff to ever win.

22-66 will flop a set or better at 12.6% frequency and then have 87% equity.
72o will flop two pair or better at 3.7% frequency and then have 84% equity.

Even when 22-66 is beaten on the flop by a better pair, they still have the potential to hit a set on the turn or river (if they see the turn or river) and then have the effective nuts given stack sizes. (I.e. two clean nut outs, most of the time).
When 72o is beat on the flop by a better pair then it's basically dead drawing to runner runner.

22-66 can also act as barrels on a few boards where we normally don't have many solid bluff barrels (for example 55 on A32r) and also has set outs as backup.
72o will very rarely have a good spot to barrel, for obvious reasons.

I'm sure we could find more reasons but these are well enough.

In conclusion, comparing 72o to 22-66 in this situation is not reasonable and pocket pairs are very, very significantly stronger than disconnected offsuit 4-gappers.

Fold to 3-bet is insanely high at 80%. I mean, even 60% would be high.

But on the button you're folding a whopping 77% vs 3-bets, allowing profitable 3-bets from a table cloth.

And the combination of opening SB widely (60%) and then basically always folding vs a 3-bet (89%!!!) is just disastrous.

You should do some work on creating decent default opening ranges from BT and SB specifically, in a manner that doesn't have you folding to so many 3-bets. This is a humongous leak.

Bet smaller. When you bet so big you don't give them much of a chance to call with KQ or Jx type hands.

Always best not to post results. (Although I did the analysis before scrolling down and looking, so my answer is not affected).

I wouldn't lead the flop but maybe it could be viable to do so on this texture, don't know.

MP's first raise is likely 44, 77, 99, unlikely TT-JJ (could go for thin value or some strange "find out where I'm at" play), even more unlikely JT or some 9x (JT would just peel for implied odds, 9x call and see what happens).

After getting raised, I agree with calling here, you cannot 3-bet for value, because only sets will continue and the already unlikely TT-JJ will fold.

BB's backraise is strange. 44 shouldn't 3-bet here (as it cannot do it for value) but it's possible. 99 is possible but he did only flat your lead with three people left, but the board isn't very wet, so it cannot be entirely discounted. Straight draw bluff is possible but very unlikely.

MP's 4-bet is 99 all day. He can't go for value with 44 here when you or BB is very, very likely to have 77 or 99. I think even the poor regs understand this. And who would bluff there? No one at these stakes would ever attempt this bluff with 9x blocker. Not to mention that it would be terrible since the vast majority at this stake is not capable of folding a set either (as this thread partly shows). And even if we think we should fold we probably go with it anyway.

So I think you can fold there. MP is playing his hand like 99, and he probably has 99. No other hand makes sense.

Once you do call, the turn donk makes no sense. You only give your stack to 99 by doing so. Yes there are draws, but since MP's range is basically 99 and nothing else it's not like there's a point in protection donking the turn. Just check and fold.

Yes, fold a set, both vs the 4-bet and on the turn.

Edit: If there's a small chance MP is a fish and/or is way overvaluing 44, definitely don't fold.

Edit2: Or if there's a chance that MP is 4-bet bluffing the flop (lel), which very few regulars would ever do.

Honestly, I don't feel qualified to give a solid answer when it comes to calling ranges because it's a part of the game that I have always just played by feel and haven't done much analysis on, and lately I've been doing a lot more 3-betting instead. But consider your pot odds, equity and the fact that you have three players behind you.

I don't think I can answer the second question either. But I would tell you not to focus too much on those numbers. Just try to play hands that are (or should be) profitable in every spot, and let those stats fall as they may. Some people do well with a tighter style and some with a looser style, so I don't think you should just set some number and aim for that. It would be better to investigate different pre-flop spots and try to play as loose as is profitable. (But it's better to start tighter and then gradually loosen up as your skill increases).

Myself, I end up at 28/22 or so, which is on the looser end. (Doing a lot of calling BB v BT and a ton of calling BB v SB). But I would say that 23/20 is definitely too tight on the calling. If you end up with those stats you're definitely folding your BB too much, especially against BT and SB.

I suppose it's important to note that many of these spots should depend on how you decide to play overall, for example if you even have a calling range in certain spots. In some of these spots I would only 3-bet and thus simply fold hands that aren't in the top X%. But if you had a calling range then maybe these hands can be used as light 3-bets (or 3-bet "bluffs") sometimes instead.

1. 100bb effective: Villain opens UTG 3x and Hero is next to act.
   a.) KQo? Fold or 3-bet. (3-bet bluff sometimes if you have a calling range)
   b.) AJo? Fold or 3-bet. (3-bet bluff sometimes if you have a calling range)
   c.) What do you do with KQs? Call or 3-bet. (3-bet only if you don't have a calling range)

(I almost never call from the SB so I haven't done any analysis on which hands can call profitably, but I think I have a decent understanding of which hands can 3-bet.)

1. 100bb effective: Villain opens UTG+1 3x and it is folded to Hero in SB.
   a.) What do you do with KQo? Fold mostly, call or 3-bet against nearing 25% open.
   b.) What do you do with ATs? Call or 3-bet. (Only 3-bet if you don't have a calling range)

2. 100bb effective: Villain opens HJ 3x and Hero is in CO.
   a.) What do you do with 98s? Fold. (Maybe 3-bet sometimes).
   b.) What do you do with AQo? Call or 3-bet.

Given your description of him - "he some weak rec or reg, no sample , he folded a lot pre HU, and not 3bet at all, and let me win any pot basically i guess" - it seems quite clear that he's not the type to go XR bluffing or go thinly for value. So his raising range should primarily be comprised of straights, sets and maybe the occasional combodraw. (I discount two pair because a more passive "weak" player will not consider 87s as very strong here and often XC instead - quite correctly so).

So your hand is not strong enough to 3-bet for value, so you should call instead. If he continues big on a blank turn we should probably find the fold button, with those assumptions. (You could only 3-bet this for value against an extremely aggressive XR strategy by the way).

Once you do make the (presumed) mistake of 3-betting and get shoved on, it's now a pot odds problem. Just calculate your odds and give him a range and investigate, no? It's an important part of regular analysis to simply put people on ranges and play around with it. I've been doing way too little of that myself but have realized that I need to do it daily to improve properly.

Against his presumed strategy I would only 3-bet the flop with straights and play the rest of my range face up, basically. Probably sigh-folding overpairs (or making the mistake of sigh-calling and folding turns). Calling with draws that are good enough, and also with sets and two pair.

Most important part of this hand is: y u call flop m8? :/

Your hand might be ahead against the super whale's random lead, but it's entirely smoked vs BT's calling range. He's not calling there without a decent pocket pair or better, and flush draws. (With both you and SB behind he should fold unless he has Jx+, but maybe he calls TT or something anyway, who knows). So your hand is already way behind, your odds are very poor, your outs are tainted, and so on. It's clearly -EV, to put it lightly.

Second most important part: y u call river m8? :(

Again, you may be ahead of the whale's random lead, but BT has you dead always. He's not calling there without Jx+. How could he? With you behind holding either Jx or a flush (or A5o apparently, but that shouldn't be in your range). So calling here is literally -16.2bb in EV, probably.

Shoving might actually work out, since BT will have trouble calling it off unless he's a mindless station or somehow manages to reason out that you're the player type which might attempt such a bluff. So that part would be okay probably. But it's pretty much irrelevant as far as making you play better. What's important there is the two hugely -EV decisions that happened on the flop and river.

So I'm interested in your flop and river reasoning, pls :)

Here's what you could do.

1. Estimate an opening range:
   22+,A2s+,A2o+,K2s+,K9o+,Q5s+,Q9o+,J8s+,J9o+,T8s+,T9o,97s+,86s+,75s+,64s+,54s (39.1%)

2. Estimate a 3-bet calling range:
   JJ-44,AQs-A2s,AQo-ATo,KTs+,KQo,QTs+,J9s+,T9s,98s,87s,76s,65s

3. Plug in the board and see your hand's equity: 78.55%

4. Estimate a flop calling range:
   JJ-TT,44,AQs-ATs,A4s,KTs+,QTs+,J9s+,T9s,98s,8c7c,8d7d,8s7s,AQo-ATo,KQo

I gave BT no raising range on this board, but that's up for debate. BT continues with Tx or better, any overcard gutshot (AQ), OESD (KQ, 98s), low gutshot with BFD (87s) and A4s. This has him continuing with about 40% of his range. (Although given your very big flop bet size, he should fold more probably).

1. See your hand's equity vs the calling range: 69.47%
   (RIO's strange formatting doesn't let me number this as 5, but switches to 1).

2. Plug in the turn card and see your hand's equity: 66.12%
   (Same here, wanted this to be no. 6 obviously)

At this point you should continue the analysis by considering which hands will continue when you bet the turn. But since you're only at 66.12% at this point and any bet will allow BT to fold his weakest hand's, it's likely you cannot value bet this.

Almost 30% of BT's range is two pair or better at this point, and he doesn't need to continue that much vs your big bets, so if you bet AA big here your hand will be a dog against his continuing range. (Why is that called a dog anyway? Dogs are nice). But do look into it yourself. This card also slams your range which has all AK, so he can fold more when you bet than he could on a brick, because he doesn't need to call that much to prevent you from bluffing profitably, when you don't even have that many bluffs.

Random facts:
- Worst turn card for AA is 9x.
- Best turn card for AA is 4x.

(Of course the analysis could also attempt to include your entire range and how it should play, among other things, but this works for your specific question to some extent).

Can't comment much on Snowie because I don't use it. But to my understanding it doesn't attempt a GTO/balanced strategy but rather some kind of "this wins" strategy against a population or itself, so I wouldn't take it's advice to heart if you do want to play a fundamentally solid and thus balanced strategy.

"i sometimes can be good there by x/calling down 3 streets if villain realizes that i bet all my strong hands, and then maybe even turns like A5s into bluff"

The problem with this analysis is that you focus on the river only. Why would A5s bet twice on this board when your range contains AQ, AJ, KK (maybe more better hands)? And then suddenly want to bluff this river? It betting flop and especially turn doesn't make sense. If A5s magically found itself on the river here then maybe it could bluff, since most people check/shove KK on turn and are likely capped at Ax. So in the isolated river case, maaaybe it could, but who would do it? But it wouldn't get there by betting twice unless villain is mindlessly stabbing. (Or your range is purely KK-JJ in which case it could).

Your 3B range seems too loose. A reasonable MP 3bb open range should be around 20% or so. In that case you're 3-betting more than half his range, which is too much. I wouldn't go above 40% unless he was very clearly folding too much to 3B.

"i thought like im at top of my checking range, so to call, or is problem at my weak checking range? or is it ok?"

I wouldn't focus too much on being at the top of your range or not in this spot. Because what's more important is the possibility of MP even having a bluff. What's he going to bluff with? I see very few potential bluffs but many potential value bets (AK, TT, ATs, maybe 44).

It's not like this is a hot bluff spot for him either, when your range looks like AQ, maybe AJ at worst (likely containing KK also unless you ship turn with that).

You're also not at the top of your range, since even without the attempt to play a solid balanced flop check-call strategy, KK should still be in there, as well as AA probably. I'm not going to comment too much on how I think your specific 3B range could play on the flop, since it's too loose, but AK should very likely check at some frequency too. Otherwise you'll be checking a face up range that will suck to play.

So, yes. 3B less. Consider what MP's calling range might look like and then look at your 3B range and how you could play it well on the flop. River should be an easy fold. He has plenty of value but very few potential bluffs. Even if he bets turn and shoves river with AQ for some strange reason, you're still smoked. (I should note that my post largely hinges on the assumption that he is not 4-betting AK pre-flop, if he is then I'd have to make a different analysis).

My recommendation would be to not take the 60% figure too literally. Different types of hands have different potential to realize their equity. Hands that can frequently make straights, flushes and draws likely realize their equity a lot better than hands which rarely do.

Saying that each hand will realize roughly 60% seems like an oversimplification. I tried to estimate (guesstimate) these things myself and came to the conclusion that 60% might be a reasonable estimate for disconnected offsuit hands (Ax, Kx perhaps) but that as connectivity increases and the cards are suited, that number goes up.

For example, T7s realizes better than T7o, clearly, because it makes more flushes. But T9s realizes even better, since it can make more straights as well. (Note that the following numbers are mostly guesses on my part). So T7o might have 50-60% or less, whilst T7s likely has at least 70%, and T9s 80% or more.

You can also guess/calculate yourself to some estimates.

Just pick a given scenario, as above: 50% BT open, 2.5bb. Pot odds: 0.2727

Would 54s be a profitable call? Probably. (38.20% EQ)

If we assume that 54s is profitable, we can calculate it's minimum R.

0.2727 / 0.3820 = 0.7139

So with the assumption that 54s is a profitable call; for it to be so we know that it has to realize at least 71.39% of its equity. (If it did not, the above equation would be false and it wouldn't be profitable). If it realized exactly 71.39% then it would be break even, if less - losing, if more - winning.

Then you can repeat that process for different hand classes, preferably with database information where you know for a fact that they are (or are not) profitable. Then you can gather some estimates for minimum R. (To be very precise, you should take into account rake also).

There's very likely a better way to do this, but this should give some estimations at least.

I did indeed misread the pre-flop action. I thought BT opened and called our 3-bet. I'll return with a proper reply later.

(Edit: Misread the action and missed the cold call, whops).

I think this situation is being approached in a far too nitty of a manner. We need to consider the situation here. We are the pre-flop aggressor. We have the range advantage. It's natural for us to play aggressively. And any sound theory and or solver would prove that it's also correct. So we bet. I mean, isn't this just a really, really standard bet?

A whole lot more could be said about it but I'm pretty tired now.

A good exercise:

• What range is SB 3-betting here?
• What range is BT (opening and) calling the 3-bet with?

Then look up the equities, and consider which hands can reasonably continue versus bets. And so on.

Pre-flop is fine. Base your play on how you wish to construct your default 3-betting range and opponent stats/reads.

Flop has to be a check/fold. Just consider what kind of range CO will get to the flop with like this, and how much of it connects. (Make an actual range and plug it into some software or count manually, should make for a good exercise).

You holding a 7s and 6s is also very bad for bluffing prospects as it blocks hands that would have folded to the bet such as 77, 66, 87s, 76s, 65s. Based on that you shouldn't get enough folds for most sizes, and your hand is more or less dead against the calling range. It also doesn't seem like a spot where our range is crushing enough for us to CB all of it.

Once you pick up a flush draw on the turn you need to keep bluffing but you will be getting very little folds. So many hands have either a pair and draw or better. So you are looking to make the flush or fold CO out on blank rivers by betting again.

Easy shove on the river as you shouldn't have that many bluffs here and it will be hard for CO to call down with less than two pair. Although he will definitely have it at a decent frequency.

Pre - fine. Flop - nope. Turn - yes. River - yes.

Villain opens for a min raise, which indicates a 50%+ range.
We get ~22% immediate pot odds.
Our hand has 38% equity against a 50% range (39% against a 60% range).

Given pot odds and 5% rake, we need to realize about 60% of our equity to have a break even call. Which seems pretty reasonable given positions and a somewhat connected hand. (It can at least flop a straight, for example - it's not T5o).

You seem to imply that it's a clear fold, which I disagree with. At worst, it's a close decision. Maybe we can fold if we are outmatched by our opponent and really want to avoid playing them OOP. But based on pot odds and equity alone, it seems like we should be calling.

Calling SB vs BT and then calling again vs a squeeze is certainly not a typical solid line from a reg. But I don't think that it's enough information to label SB a weaker player just yet. If his stack size were less than 100bb it would be a clear give-away, but not here. (It's slightly likely but not concluded I think).

For this reason, I weight his range towards middling PP's and suited connectors. Almost any player would 3-bet TT+ most of the time, along with AQ, KQs type stuff, even if they have a SB calling range. So his range for calling twice is likely 55-99 or maybe even weaker pairs, as well as QTs, JTs, T9s, 98s type stuff. (But he could also be a weaker player and have a super wide range, we don't know).

Flop is fine. But this turn really slams his range, so I would be inclined to check back and play the river. We give free cards to some stuff that would have paid off a bet, but he probably has 9-12 combos of sets, and 4 possible straight combos, and maybe even some two pairs. So I don't think we can value bet. (If TT-JJ was in his range we could, but it's probably not).

Another factor that goes somewhat against betting is - what would you really be bluffing with here? You likely keep betting JJ+ without much thought, but there are very few semi-bluffs in your range, apart from some Tx that squeezed. (And would they even be comfortable semi-bluffing here? Getting folds from what? JTs?).

So I'd check back the turn and call any non-4-straight river. (Losing a lot but beating the occasional JTs and random float).

As played I would really hate it and want to fold. If I was playing my top game I would begrudgingly fold. Normally I would sigh-call and lose. Chalking it up to yet another fold I should have made but didn't make.

I also prefer the two street sizing on this board against this opponent. Bomb the flop and shove good turns.

As played, I don't see why we would check the river here. We have half pot left. Just shove for value. Yes, he has better hands occasionally but he has plenty of worse as well (AJ, KJ, QTs/o, JTs/o, T9s/o, 98s/o, TT, 88). I don't think his distribution is such that we can't value bet or that he has enough missed draws for us to rather XC and bluff catch. By checking, we allow him to check back Jx, TT, 9x and maybe even QT, which is terrible for us with so little left. Just shove.