elbabbelino

OTF:
Can you explain me why a CB makes your hand easier to play on later streets than a XC?
(In both cases you don’t beat his valuerange. He has more blufs OTT vs a XC line than when you CB. Therefore your EV should be higher (and playability better) OTT when you XC rather than CB)

OTT:
- What factors are important when estimating effectiveness of a XR OTT?
1. Strength of range villain OTT pre-betting (How is villain his range constructed? Frequency of TP+, Frequency of weak hands like floats)
2. Bet vs Missed CB (and agg%) OTT, the likelihood of him betting when checked to.
3. Stickyness vs XR (fold v XR, WTSD%, Does Hero perceivably represent value When XR OTT)
In general the more likely villain is to fastplay strong hands OTF, the lower the frequency of TP+ (And esp. 2P+) OTT. The less strong hands, the more effective your XR will be OTT and OTR.
The more likely villain is to BvMCB OTT, the lower the frequency of strong hands in his turn betting range, so the higher the FE tends to be.
The less inclined villain is to defend vs a XR without a strong hand naturally, and the more Hero represents value in the eyes of villain, the higher the FE OTT.

Were you to have TPTK+, XR is a strong option OTT when villain is likely to BvMCB with high frequency. and even more so when he is sticky vs a XR. The majority of villain his range will only call were you to CB OTT and now you can get an extra street of value in.
(Seeing the hand of villain he appears to be a perfect example of a player against who this works out great).

OTR:
- I agree the king is a better card for your range than for villain.
- Your big sizing is polarising, which is not neccessarily bad (It is conditional upon how wide your value XR range looks OTT and how wide villain will call OTT and OTR), but it seems to make your valuerange quite narrow. In my experience, people don’t often show QJo down in Hero his shoes.
- That said, I don’t think your river bluf in practice is bad versus population, it should be a profitable bluf and the best play, irrespective of sizing. Only with specific reads on the villain it could become a bad or even horrible play in my opinion.

Depending on tendencies (and preflop range) of villain:
Flop CB and XC are both strongEV candidates (XR only vs very specific sort of crazy and bad player)
Turn CB and XC are both strongEV candidates (now XC is versus a bigger part of population highest EV play compared to CB again)
River XF is versus largest part of population correct.
Versus opponents who have either/or wide preflop flatting ranges and who are (very) sticky OTF vs cbets and tend to be agressive (bluffing) on later streets XC becomes the more interesting.

As others observed, turning SDV hands into blufs is not a common 10NL thing OTR in such spots. His big sizing pretty much removes him value-cutting OTR vs your specific hand.
Therefore, his likely bluffing range consists of hands that are A-high or worse OTR.
A tighter player simply doesn't show up with those hands (enough), as others indicated.

Yet, there are player types who call preflop and OTF significantly wider, which lets them arrive OTT with a (sometimes) significant frequency of weak A-high or worse hands. (even though they "shouldn't")
Versus such a player, the relevant factor that remains is their likelihood to bluf when checked to OTT (and OTR).

At 2NL-25NL
My approach would roughly be opening ATC versus nits.
Opening 80%ish vs tight regulars.
Opening 60%ish vs loose(r) players with low 3B
Opening 40%ish vs wide defenders with aggro 3B (or anyone who adjusts to Hero because picking up on high steal game)
Make sure you have your different openranges in your head.
Overfold to 3bets without changing raise first percentage until they showdown specific hands they 3B that pretty much guarantee a high3B% to which you have to adjust.

Random remarks:
There are no REGs at 2NL: this must be an assumption to make. Treating anyone as a reg will hurt your winrate. Don’t expect people To adjust their normal game to you radically, until you see evidence. Then, and only then, adjust. With no info, exploit the general weaknesses you can expect of 2NL players. With info, hyperexploit the playerspecific leaks to the absolute max. Don’t adjust until they show you you have to, certainly not before.

I lean towards checking back OTF. Nonetheless, I do like the sizing IF you are to be betting.
Your hand is a bit on the edge, too strong to check and too weak to get it in comfortably.
You already have a lot of overpairs to valuebet and get it in which have to bet, in particular JJ and QQ.
And you also have so many hands that cannot cbet and have to give up on later streets. Using your Tx 3B blufs as XB flop to blufcatch seems a play that works out Well for your EV in a vacuüm as Well as for your overall strategy.

Turnbet is really good and important with 66 here. 👍
It would be a big EVloss if you would forego that play.

Tilt in the sense of shift/pivot

Valuebetting up to halfpot seems better than checking back,
since it is micro stakes and he is an unknown.
You have to be aware of the smaller half pot sizings OTF and OTT, which keep villain his range wider and weaker. As played by villain I don’t expect too many Kx or better OTR after he checks.
The bulk of his range is Ahigh/22-44/77-88 and a few 9x (a9/k9), slowplayed 6x and Kx (discounted heavily).
You need ( some) A-highs to call OTR to have >50% vs calling range OTR. Therefore, I prefer 33% sizing OTR. The king is a scarecard and betting bigger will likely tilt him to call narrower, thereby plunging the EV of your riverbet.

Hey..
Since you only have 28 hands it is not easy to give a definitive/reliable answer to this.
Yet Lets assume you had 2800 hands on him with these stats.
The thing to look out for here is his raise first in%, the high Total vpip% only tells you he is a weaker player who is likely to make a lot of mistakes at any point during the hand. It doesn’t neccessarily means his raising range is too wide, if wide at all.
How wide would his raise first range from that position need to be to make 3B for value more valuable than merely calling? This is what you should focus on. Were the 7% be his true pfr statistic, then calling is better.

On a side note: I don’t understand why you push all in on the flop. Yes, you get him to fold equity when he doesn’t have an ace, most likely. But he never folds an ace or better and then you are drawing extremely thin, plus more importantly, you still need to beat utg. Risk seems way too big for the reward.

With the preflop and, especially, the flop call you implicitly claim to have plusEV calls there.
For that to be true, you need to be able to realize a sufficiënt portion of the pot on all runouts.
This is an above average runout range vs range after the flop. (Your equity should be higher OTR before action then it was before the turn was dealt.)
Therefore you should be able to realize a reasonable portion of the pot OTR, either by him checking back worse hands and/or by blufcatching.
Do you call OTR or fold? That Depends on your construction of his betting range. However, IF you decide to fold here (while being able to profitably call The 3B pre and OTF), it must be that villain were to be checking a good bit OTR. So after cbetting he should put the majority of his blufs in the check back turn plus check back river range.

Reconsider your strategy for the SB and BB, you're surely missing out on (heaps) of profitable spots there to either defend (BB) or open (SB).
You are playing too passive (from what I've seen in the 10 minutes of footage I watched), for sure with value and/or protection, but also sometimes cbet bluffing spots.
From what I've seen you like to XC rather than valuebet or bluf, whereas on these stakes people often bluf too little and valuebet too narrow against you. I would suggest you to do it exactly the other way around, look more for thin valuebet and bluf spots and IF you check, be ready to check/fold more often.

Folding preflop seems better than calling without good reason to expect significantly higher EV than in general.

Postflop all three your decision points are pretty interesting.
OTF I guess XC is the safe and standard play, but XR could be better versus a decent amount of villains.
The turn usually isn’t neccessarily Great for Hero, however since you have JTs in your range where I wouldnt this might be a fine card range vs range for you. Versus villains that tend to check back OTT with their overpairs (low turn barrel frequency in general) leading is an interesting option. Not sure about your polarizing sizing, might be fine? You balance this with blufs? (JJ/TT?) or just purely with nuts as an exploit?

I totally agree with Samu his line of thought OTR. Not sure if you can valuebet, but surely valuebet must be better here than XC.

I like your sizing OTR; since you do not want to bet a sizing where villain can fold all his non-Tx without allowing Hero to, at least, break-even on a bluf.

important things to consider OTR:
Can villain represent AT? Yes, both offsuit and suited.
Do you have AT in your range? Most people would fold or 3B bluf ATo, but ATs is definitely possible.
Would you (ever) checkback OTF with ATs? Seems logical for most players to sometimes check and sometimes bet OTF. Frequencies probably vary wildly between players.

The likelihood of villain XR OTR with Tx imo Depends on how he perceives Hero his range. When he figures Hero has hardly ever AT, then XRing is pretty much with impunity and allows extra value either directly, folding out chops, or whenever holding AT, when Tx calls down. In your specific situation, I do not think villain is likely to XR Tx OTR.

The likelihood of villain bluffing OTR Depends on his idea of Hero his range for checking back OTF to raise OTT and barrel OTR. The more non Tx Hero has the better. But more so, it matters how likely Hero is to fold Tx to a XR OTR. On lower stakes, I am quite skeptical about most players their ability to fold Tx here OTR faced with a XR, so I do not advocate for bluffing OTR in villain his shoes.

In game, I would need a specific relevant note that makes it “possible” for villain being capable of doing this sort of thing without a FH. Maniacs aside, this sort of overbet is pretty much FH+ and therefore probably even 88 is a fold.

Problem for villain bluffing here is that he must be extremely sure hero (1) will barely ever have FH’s OTR as played and (2) wont herocall a reasonable frequency with worse than a FH. This, because otherwise his bluf would be minus EV, even if Hero would fold only FH (and/or straights). At this stakes, I am too skeptical of this to pull the overbetbluf trigger in villain his shoes

The funny thing is that in this spot I would actually overfold in Hero his shoes faced with this bet OTR to a degree where villain would actually be printing money were he to bluf. Still, I pretty much have never encountered a bluf the times I do end up calling (and I have a FH). Therefore, I fold any non-FH and happily allow villains an opportunity to exploit me for doing so.

Some people in Hero his shoes will have FHs here so infrequent OTR, that I can understand why you would think of calling down with a hand like 99 here to prevent yourself from folding 95% of the time or so faced with this bet. Yet this only becomes relevant when people actually are capable of bluffing OTR.

Barracuda, I used the example of CUT-BUT where we have AKo on the cut off, so Hero is OOP.

Thanks for bringing the full extent of the blocker effect to my awareness, weird how I missed that one.

Is it within your expertise to make a rough estimate of the difference in EV between 4betting and calling the 3bet, given the stated assumptions? That would definitely help me. For example, how much percent of the pot do you expect to realize on average with AKo OOP after 4betting and BUT calling the 4betting with the TT-QQ,AK range (even though this should theoretically never be his call4b range, esp. in these spots)? Moreover, how much percent of the pot will AKo win OOP after flatting the 3bet versus a 10% lineair and/or polar 3betting range?

Cheers

This time I'll share the first halve of my preflop tendencies during the challenge

I've been scrutinizing the following pre-challenge observations + exploits today:
- High skip CB OTT / Fold OOP -> Exploited by -> Overstabbing OTT IP with blufs, floating wider OTF, because of the FE when checked to OTT
- Valueheavy B/X/B line -> Exploited by -> Overfolding (blufraising works reasonably well)
- Extr. fold frequency vs B/X/X line OTR -> Exploited by -> Always bluffing

The output:
Single-Raised Pot:

3Bet Pot:

Results:
- Villains XF OTT 54% of the time in SRP and 63% of the time in 3BP.
This is reflective of the observation that they have a high skip CB OTT / Fold OOP
Villains CB OTT 52% of the time in SRP and 44% of the time in 3BP.
These are not exceptionally wide (could even consider them low!)
This, in combination with the high XF when skip CB, leads me to believe that my exploits most likely are effective, viz to (1) overstab OTT IP with bluf and (2) float wider OTF because of the FE when checked to OTT.
- Villains B/X/B frequencies are 27% in SRP and 38% in 3BP.
The number of SD's I had facing B/X/B when I'm IP was very low (only 6 times total), in which I only encountered one bluf. Not reliable, still does point towards being valueheavy, especially combined with the extremely low betting frequencies OTR and their high fold after missing CB OTT.
So during the challenge I don't picked up a reason to believe that my observation is flawed. If any, I would say the outputs of this challenge made it more likely that the observation is correct.
My responses vs B/X/B lines were folding 57% of the time in SRP and 83% of the time in 3BP. Since my ranges were mostly blufcatcher (middle value) heavy OTR this demonstrates I was willing to indeed overfold vs this B/X/B line.
After this review I maintained my belief that this overfolding exploit is an effective one to make.
- Villains B/X/XF frequencies were 59% in SRP and 83% in 3BP.
This is reflective of my observation of them having an extreme fold frequency in that line.
Given these high folding frequencies my exploit of always betting my blufs OTR definitely is a valid one.

Yesterday I posted my "turn vs pfr" data, now I'll follow it up with my "river vs pfr" stats of the challenge.

- Does anyone have input on judging the River Call Efficiency?
My personal view at the moment is that I should take any +EV Rivercall, when I have the chance. So a too high of a river call efficiency seems to point towards me not calling down often enough. Another way to look at it is thinking I arrive OTR with a very strong range (which is kinda true in general) so it makes sense to have a high River call efficiency. This would point more towards me calling too tight on flops and/or turns it seems to me. Also you could argue that sometimes rivercalls are so hugely +EV, that this potentially skews the output of the rivercall efficiency. Finally one could argue it's a factor of strong hand reading (folding when behind / calling when ahead), based on timing, sizing etc. etc.
Hopefully someone can illuminate me on this subject :-)

Today we'll further investigate turnplay, now with the focus upon "Turn&River vs Flop Cbet".
My initial assumption was that villains at microstakes have value-heavy B/B and B/B/B lines, which I planned on exploiting by overfolding vs those lines. We'll find out the villain tendencies both IP and OOP in single raised pots as well as 3bet pots.
The output of this exploration is as follows:


- Was the observation reflective of reality?
I would answer this with a definite yes. Even though villains had an extreme high bluf% OOP in SRP when B/B OTF+OTT (12 VB and 10 blufs), in all other categories villains were extremely valueheavy in the hands that went to SD after cbetting twice.
I would like to put emphasize on the fact that whenever I folded, I did so for the reason of expecting villain to be (even more) likely to have a valuehand.
Therefore I reason that most likely, if the results are skewed, they will be more likely to be skewed in the direction of being too blufheavy, not valueheavy.
In the future I would like to see myself continuing overfolding vs agression, esp. OTR.

Today I'll start of this post with sharing my turn tendencies vs pfr, which includes the main subject I address next.

This 5th part of the HM database review explores the validity of the following observation of villain's tendencies and my intended exploit to it:
High skip CB/Fold turn IP -> Exploited by -> Overstabbing OTT OOP with blufs
The results "Turn OOP vs Missed Cbet" are as follows:

Interesting results:
- My BvMCB Turn OOP bet frequency was 37%.
This seems way too low at first glance.
This had one main reasons (me checking A-h and all 1P blufcatchers)
Reason behind checking all A-h was twofold (1) Being able to realize EQ very often and (2) Lower BvMCB frequency, so less obvious I'm overbluffing OTT
One of the key factors of realizing my EQ with A-highs is villain having low betting frequencies after me checking OTT, however villains delayed cbet% were 50%, which was significantly higher than I would have expected.
- 47% FE when BvMCB OOP OTT
This makes (semi)-bluffing at a very high frequency an interesting proposition, especially when taking into account being confronted with a bet 50% of the time if we check OTT.
- 63% FE when XR vs delayed Cbets
Delayed Cbetting range seems to consist mostly out of 'weak' (1P) valuehands and some blufs, so XR-bluffing and XR-value are interesting line. The 50% frequency appears to imply that villain will bet most hands they were planning on calling anyways, so XR with my valuehands OTT frequently is definitely worth considering.
- 30% FE OTR after BvMCB OOP OTT
Villains appear to prevent me from bluffing profitably OTR in most spots. Therefore, I like to see myself betting disproportionately often for value in this spots and give-up most blufs. Because of the high FE OTT this isn't a big deal, the blufs already profit by the substantial FE they received OTT.

Conclusion:
My initial observation seems to reflect reality.
A high bluf% vs missed Cbets appears to be an effective exploit.
Going forward I'd like to make the following new strategic adjustment:
- The higher than expected delayed cbet% seems to make (weak) A-high hands strong new candidates to add to the BvMCB line, since the EQ realization when check OTT is lower in reality than I expected it to be prior to the challenge.

Thanks for providing me with more clarity tackling these spots in the future. More combinatorics understanding is definitively needed in my game. When starting to count the actual combinations of valuehands and blufs, it is so much the more obvious where the tresholds are, especially in spots with narrow ranges. Appreciate your help!

Donkbluf becomes appealing because the FE is high enough where the blufEV gets bigger than its (negligible) SDV EV when checking.
I do not fully grasp at the moment how This is more the case when the EV of donkvalue gets closer to checking value on the river, than when the difference between valuedonkinh and checking is bigger.
To me it seems that for increasing donking value EV:
- villains XB too many inferior valuehands that would call a donkbet.
- villains XB too many blufs (low SDV hands)

So, for the EV of checking and donking getting closer:
- villain will VB the inferior hands higher frequency
And/or
- villain will bluf more
And/or:
- villain folds the inferior valuehands to a donkbet at high frequency

Only this last action will make donk bluffing more appealling, while still allowing the EV of donkvalue and checking to get closer, as far as I see at the moment.

Could you elaborate on this?

Were hero to hold QQ in this exact spot vs this exact villain, would you still call?
Given your assumption we are then beat by 12 combos, so villain would need to either bet worse valuehands (JJ/TT) or blufs (AdKd/AdQd or 'random' AK/AQs) at a somewhat decent frequency.

Personally, I don't expect this player type to bet both of those parts of his range (nearly) enough to warrant calling. You agree?

I would never ever justify a play at NL10 as "because I need to protect my range" - no, you don't, not until you play v good players who will exploit you, that's just not NL10.

My choice of words wasn't the best, I meant 'optimal' in the sense of most +EV in a vacuum vs that player type indeed.

In-game I was afraid I missed out on much EV by him checking back with many hands that would call a bet and thinking this EV-loss wouldn't be compensated nearly enough by picking of blufs vs a check.

Cheers! Would you fold QQ given his general postflop tendencies and now 12 combos beating us, or do you think those tendencies do not effect how he plays big pairs in this sort of a spot?

In hindsight, I am less confident in that read. However, I still feel like villain will have a narrower (value)betting range than the ones outlined by most commenters in this thread, because of:
- positions of both me and 3better
- very passive postflop (barrel)tendencies
-> blufs (also AdKd and AdQd) are rarely ever triple barreling with his postflop style
-> tendency to check back (too) strong valuehands is definitely present at 10NL and this player seems like a player who very Well may be such a one

Folding KK is indeed still a huge mistake, I am on board with that conclusion, for sure. Even the MUBS syndrom remark is appropriate for this fold. He just has enough QQ and the unlikely bluf or JJ or whatever to even consider folding.

However, If I were to have QQ here, I would prefer folding here and do not think it is that close. I just do not see this kind of player triple barreling at a decent frequency with JJ here and now he has 12 combos beating me.

If we take a 3% 3B range as a given, plus his (extremely) passive, esp. Turn, barrel tendencies I would not be surprised to see him checking >33% of the time OTT/OTR combined with QQ.

You think his barrel tendencies will not influence how he plays his premium pairs (JJ-QQ esp.) postflop on dry runouts? What is the worst valuebet you expect him to make? QQ? JJ? TT?

Today, I'll add for the second time some of my Challenge frequencies. Being OTF vs pfr is the subject.

This part 4 covers being IP OTF vs pfr, in particular faced with a check, to investigate how much FE we generate when we bet IP vs this skipped cbets and on later streets when we barrel. I've splitted the analysis between Single Raised Pots and 3Bet pots. Futhermore, I was specifically interested in the folding frequencies BB-SB when the SB checks over to me in the BB, so I added this scenario as well.

Flop IP vs PFR

Single-Raised Pot:
CB%: 57%
Hero response: F 46 / C 45 / R 8
Hero BvMCB IP OTF: 44%
Villain response: F 45 / C 46 / R 9
Hero BvMCB IP OTF+OTT: 56%
Villain response: F 54 / C 36 / R 10
Hero BvMCB IP OTF+OTT+OTR: 50% (10-hands)
Villain response: F 60 / C 40 / R 0 (5)

BB-SB Hero BvMCB IP OTF: 45%
Villain response: F 51 / C 43 / R 8
Hero BvMCB IP OTF+OTT: 62%
Villain response: F 63 / C 25 / R 12
Hero BvMCB IP OTF+OTT+OTR: 100% (2)
Villain response: F 50 / C 50 / R (2)

3B-pot:
CB%: 73%
Hero response: F 52 / C 39 / R 9
Hero BvMCB IP OTF: 55%
Villain response: F 38 / C 50 / R 12
Hero BvMCB IP OTF+OTT: 50% (12)
Villain response: F 50 / C 17 / R 33 (6)
Hero BvMCB IP OTF+OTT+OTR: 100% (1)
Villain response: F / C 100 / R (1)

Interesting results:
- Pretty much in all scenario's there's heaps of FE throughout after facing a check IP OTF vs pfr
- In particular, it's important to notice the high FE OTT to second barrels.
This, because I tend to give up often after betting OTF with air, whereas they seem to have profitable second barrels as well.
- Seeing these results, I'd like to see myself increasing my BvMCB % OTF, esp. in SRP.
44% just seems way overly passive, in a player pool where villains are folding so often after X'ing OTF.

In this third HM review post I'll examine the river-agression of villains both during the challenge and in a bigger database sample and the way I responded to it.

For feasibility and conductability reasons I decided to take the example when I'm flatting the BB and see the flop HU, me always being OOP (small blind opens filtered out).

BB SRP OOP:

Villain CB:

- B/B/B line:
Hero response: F 17 / C 66 / R 17
Observation in challenge:
- 46% bet frequency OTR
- Of showdowns, only 1/6 blufs shown (which was a min-bet by a recreational player)
Bigger database observation:
- 32:13 VB/bluf ratio (of the so called blufs, 6 of them were 'value-blufs' [seemingly clear XB's with some SDV])
- Hero-calling seems out of the question, only 7/45 'pure' blufs.
Have to keep in mind that the times I call, mostly there is 'above average' likelihood of villain bluffing so it's very likely they are bluffing way less often overall!
As a consequence, I prefer overfolding significantly in these spots

- B/X/B line:
Hero response: F 50 / C 10 / R 40
Observation in challenge:
- 31% bet frequency OTR
- 0 blufs shown by villain at SD
- 50% FE on XR (4 hands)
Bigger database observation:
- 40:6 VB/bluf ratio (all blufs were on scarecards OTR [Ace;King;5432-board;], yet NONE on 4-flush board out of 10 times!)
- Good part of valuebets is 'thinnish' (toppair kinda), so XR bluffing is fine play here (71% FE in database!)
- Extreme overfolding is neccessary

Villain doesn't CB:

- X/B/B line:
Hero response: F 56 / C 44 / R 0
Observation in challenge:
- 38% bet frequency OTR
- 50% (4 hands) blufs shown by villain at SD
Bigger database observation:
- 27:11 VB/bluf ratio OTR
- 50% FE when XR as a response (14 hands)
- No hero-folding, but tend to overfold rather than hero-call/blufcatch.

- X/X/B line:
Hero response: F 80 / C 13 / R 7
Observation in challenge:
- 37% bet frequency OTR
- 0 (2 hands) blufs shown by villains at SD
Bigger database observation:
- 11:13 VB/bluf ratio OTR !!
- FE on XR is 55%
Even though it's a small sample, and I haven't actually been shown blufs at SD during the challenge I feel like 80% folding frequency is (way) too high and I should blufcatch way more, especially when villains have wider pre-flop ranges, even more so since my range is very SDV heavy OTR after checking myself OTT+OTR (more on this in another review-post)

Overall, the observation of overfolding makes sense, especially:
- Faced with B/B/B line
- Faced with B/X/B line

Furthermore, hand with SDV seem to be able to realize their EQ rather easily overall (especially after calling a CB), so for turning hands into a bluf OTR we need huge FE.

The philosophy behind opening tighter than optimal is that the EV-loss of folding slightly +EV hands is counter-acted by saving time and (mental energy).
However, this doesn't imply I'm eager folding hands that are significantly +EV opens.

Your AQo in UTG is an interesting example. Since my database (even though it's 500k hands) can't provide a definitive answer whether or not it's a significant winner (especially when taking into account playing 8-tables at once) while opening UTG, I decided to just open-fold it.

I'm totally open for changing this strategy, if one can show me why I am too incentivized opening certain hands (from all positions) where I decide to let those opportunities pass.

@fefe It does to a certain degree, but there is another important factor to consider here imo, which is that there is a non-insignificant frequency of donkbetting OTT (and/or OTR) going on by villains, even after getting raised on the previous street. I have not explored this in depth so far, but my intuitive idea is that this is weigthed heavily to the stronger party of their ranges.

So still it can be quite tough to determine how profitable, if profitable at all!, a blufraise OTF is in combination with a follow up turnbet. What IS pretty likely imo, is that not following through with a bluf OTT after raising OTF a mistake is in most cases.

Poignant observation of the sizing OTR, that's true, makes sense!