hben

I have opened this thread because I am not sure of my saying (and in his answer BigFiszh not aggreed on this).

But if I have to try to explain why I said that :

When in a given spot, I (hero) have more strong hands than vilain I can start extract value by developping a betting/raising range. If vilain have less or no nutted combos, I can (eventually) use a big sizing and put in the amount of bluff I am allowed to. So, in a way I can use my "range advantage" as a lever and vilain have to facing my aggression with a weaker range.

In my first exemple on T66, if sb c-bet at a very high frequency, as I have more 6x than him, I may develop a raising range of 6x + bluff. (I can split my 6x between raising and calling as I have more than him).

Thanks for answer, I agreed with you. I will try to find threads talking about range building and better understand logic behind it because I have to work harder on it.

Thanks for your answer Ben, I can see that the "solution" (as often) is in a mix strategy and the good use of it ... (mix strategy and frequencies associed are tricky for human's brain imo ^^). I will use your advice and play a little with CREV to see how we can articulate that :)

Thanks for answer.

• I dont think we can value bet very thin here because our range contains a lot of clear value and not so much bluffing hands

• About of sizing, assuming vilain is capped (again I am not sure he should ?? ) whatever sizing does "ok". But what is the best sizing in such situation ? I mean if we were polarised, betting big and do it with the majority of our range is the clear answer. Here, we are not pola, our range is composed of nuts/strong hands (flush, str8, set), made hands that we can possibly v-bet (DP, good tp), and weak holding (sd-value hands and few air) : how to build our betting range theory-speaking ?

• Also when in a given spot our betting range is "too strong" (not enough bluffing combos whatever sizing we use) : is it better to bet very small pushing vilain to react (calling or raising wrongly because he should just fold) or bet big hoping he calls from time to time ...

• The last part is a general question I think, in some area of our game plan we leave us with a weak checking range because of another action (for exemple here we will bet nearly all our strong hands). This weak range is exploitable in "a vaccum" but I am not sure vilain can always possibly exploit it because of the low-frequency of the spot and/or because of vilain's range (not enough combos to exploit us). That is the idea but if some GTO-guys can put some logical thoughts and numbers on it, will be very helpfull to recognize when we should defend a range and when we don't really care ...

I think there is no clear answer without reads on vilain.
- If vilain is a nit who a) fold too much on 3bet b) 4bet a too tigh range : there is probably no merit to 3bet this hand in the first place.
- If vilain is a bit laggy spewy with a lot of 4bet (4bet too much) 3b-5bai happily and print money.
- If vilain is kinda balanced with raisonnable frequency, it's a close spot imo :
a) You 3bet for value because his opening range otb is wild and TT doing very good versus his continuing calling range.
b) But when he 4bet, I think TT doesn't make a lot of money on average now, you have to choose between fold/call/5b. My guess is that is quite close with fold < 5b < call (how vilain plays AQoff is important)

I agree. 

I feel bad because of the asymmetrical ranges. But I guess it's part of the game especially in 6max on certain runouts it's difficult to defend and so we have to tighten up .... If you have some thought on this in a more general way, feel free to share ;) 

the friday's gift  :)

On the flop :   As you said, not a very good board to c-bet and too weak to x-call. What do you think about x-raising ? It protects our x-ing range (we maybe have to often check on this flop).

On the turn : Agreed it is tricky because it's difficult to define both vilain's range and yours. (what do you think about your range here ?). If I have to guess, I will say your range is stonger than his : you probably have more sets (he 3bets some TT, may shove flop with others sets), also he can hold KhJh, KcJc. So bet turn seems good imo.

On the river : He is pretty capped so in theory you should bet big. But it's kind of a vaccum spot (because cbet-3bet flop, and then x-x turn is rare) so if you find an exploitive sizing, you should go with it imo.

Definitely some "interesting" :)  content there, also I learn some things and it gives some ideas, thoughts ... 

But same time I feel a little embarrassed because we are watching two bots playing in their own world, and we try to learn some stuff from it but its difficult because : 

a) we are not sure how good/bad they are

b) it's hard to appreciate bots' strategy because some of their play can seem very "fishy style" (donking very small sizing,...) but I am aware it's possible than those lines are part of an overall effective strategy. Indeed their main strength is their ability to use mixed strategy, multiple sizing, ... while equilibrating this with the right number of combos .....

I will be very curious to watch one of those bots play hu vs a top human player and see that happens. But bot vs bot is a little weird for my weak human brain :)

Im not sure why when talking strategies vs 4-bets people always only mention stack size as a decision factor when the direct odds you're getting ie the 4-bet sizing you're facing is far more important

The way I see it, you have to watch direct odds and compare to your equity vs vilain's 4-bet range but also (and it's maybe the more important and tricky part) to estimate how much of your equity you will realise post-flop. I am not an expert by any mean to work on it .... But I think stack size is a factor (among others as position, initiative, ranges,...). I mean having implied (or reverse implied odds) will impact on the % of equity we will realize on average.

while I am writing this Jonna did a great job with CRev. Probably more efficient lol

I am quite a beginner doing those calculs but I will try and feel free to correct me. Here I share how I will doing it for a given 3betting range.

So we opening 3bb on the cut-off  with AQ, otb 3bet 9bb with his 3betting range.We choising between flatting his 3bet or 4bet 22bb and call off his 5bet (assuming he will never call the 4bet)

For this exemple I give to vilain this 3 betting range  TT+,AK for "value"  (46 combos) and (k9,q9,q8,j9,j8,t8,t7,97,96):xx for "bluff" (36 combos).  For a total of 82 combos (6.18% 3b range).

AQ have 47% vs this 3bet range and 31,6% vs the value part

1) 4bet 

ev = (36/82)*13.5bb + (46/82)* (0.316*101.5bb+0.684*(-78bb))

ev = 0.44*13.5 + 0.56 *(32.074-53.352)= -5.98bb

 2) call 3bet

pot is 13.5bb and we have to call 6bb. Giving a 19.5bb pot if we call

AQ have 47% vs vilain's range. So if we realise 100% of our equity (r%).  ev = (19.5bb* 0.47*1)-6bb = 9.165-6 = 3.165bb

I dont really know how to estimate r% but we can guess witch factor are in our favor or not. In this spot we are oop, without initiative .... so probably r% < 100 %. 

For r%= 80%, ev = (19.5bb*0.47*0.8)-6bb = 1.332bb

Bienvenue !! Good video.

I particulary appreciate :

- when you take time to explain on a certain spot how you will play your entire range and why.

-eventually how and why you can deviate from your "standard" line to an exploitative line (as 98cc hand at 16min).

-when you expose what you think regulars doing bad in their general game plan.

These stuff are very valuable to find in training video.

I am ok with this lead (but I may be very wrong).

My point is : 

a) in multiway pots pfr c-betting range tend to be stronger for obvious reasons (also depends on relative position and flop texture but the idea stays the same)

b) so I dont really want develop a (wild) bluff x/raising neither to x/r thin for value >>> so my (hypothetic) x/raising range is very strong (I mean "too strong" > nearly face-up on set and some very huge draws)

c) also given a) I can't really float (peel weak draw or weak pair)

d) that why I like donking here with a range including strong hands, draws, and eventually some weak made hands (kind of protection and can turn into bluff on some turn and river)

Here we flatting preflop very wild (pot odds) so I like donking with range as (99,44,33,43:xx,94:xx,FD, A2,A5,56,6d7d,TdJd,7d8d,9*) 

Any thought ?

Also when you hit the flop way harder than your opponent.

Lets say, you open co and vilain flat bt   >   flop is AhKd9h    > (AA,KK,99,AK,AQ,A9:xx) are in your range and not in vilain's range (or very rarely). That being said, is it change the way you 'll play something as (98:xx,9T:xx,KT,A2) I mean possibly bet and barrel turning it into a bluff ?

I like all those spots where you decide to check as pfr because I have to improve a lot on it. I think I used to bet too wild in those spots and value-cut myself quite often ... I am more aware of it now, so I am checking more oop as pfr, obviously I try to balance my range but I still have trouble on how doing it. (plus I have unconscious feeling of being capped and exploited ^^)

For exemple:

 - do you like checking some slowplay (DP, set,...) or you just want to bet with the stronger part of your range

- you said you tend to bet TP+bd draw and check naked TP, it's make sense to build pot with hands that can improve to something very strong but on the other side having some bd draw with your TP (when checking) make it easier to defend as it's not only a pure catcher (can improve).

-something as bottom pair + bd seems good to include in checking range but what about lets say bottom pair + oesd (or fd)

Well, I am aware it's way too general question as it can drasticly change fonction of board texture and ranges (position of both players) but if you have some more thought to share, its always welcome ;) Thx for great video !

first ! like in the dark ;)

Solid video. Looking for more range building content like it, its always good stuff to think

I don't think 3betting is standard here.

I mean if he opens 17% you have about 54% vs his range and I think your playabilty isn't so bad even oop if you flat. 

Now if you choise to 3bet :

 - it can't really be for bluff because a) he folds 44% which is quite low   b) you can choise better hand to 3bet bluff (AJs seems to good to turn into a bluff in this spot)

- for value a) you don't want to be 4bet here with AJs but vs 17% it will happens quite often ..  b) vs his continuing range AJs have about 46%, as he probably 4bet the stronger part, you should have about 50% when he calls .... So I think its more close than you expect.

Thanks for answers, I agree and it all makes senses.

Was just asking me if some theoretical stuffs exist : like having 2 slightly winners in a game is better/worse than having 1 big winner and 1 big loser. 

Obviously depend on so many factors so is may not consistent, but I was thinking about it so I'm posting ;)