Polished Poker Vol. I Study Group

[Alucard]

Is it reasonable at any time to flat vs a 5 bet here? How deep should you be even to consider flatting??

Spoiler

PokerStars - $0.05 NL FAST (6 max) - Holdem - 6 players
Hand converted by PokerTracker 4: http://www.pokertracker.com

BTN: 186.6 BB (VPIP: 32.73, PFR: 24.55, 3Bet Preflop: 9.80, Hands: 115)
Hero (SB): 148 BB
BB: 148 BB (VPIP: 20.65, PFR: 14.29, 3Bet Preflop: 2.06, Hands: 250)
UTG: 106.6 BB (VPIP: 34.67, PFR: 26.67, 3Bet Preflop: 12.90, Hands: 80)
MP: 93.8 BB (VPIP: 17.46, PFR: 9.52, 3Bet Preflop: 0.00, Hands: 63)
CO: 158 BB (VPIP: 18.37, PFR: 14.29, 3Bet Preflop: 0.00, Hands: 52)

Hero posts SB 0.4 BB, BB posts BB 1 BB

Pre Flop: (pot: 1.4 BB) Hero has Kh Ks
fold, fold, fold, fold, Hero raises to 3 BB, BB raises to 9 BB, Hero raises to 27 BB, BB raises to 54 BB, Hero raises to 148 BB and is all-in, BB calls 94 BB and is all-in

Flop : (296 BB, 2 players) 2h 4s 7c

Turn : (296 BB, 2 players) Qh

River : (296 BB, 2 players) 4c

Hero shows Kh Ks (Two Pair, Kings and Fours)

BB shows Ac Ah (Two Pair, Aces and Fours)

BB wins 283.8 BB

And is this a fold on river??? I think the price is right for a call.

Spoiler

PokerStars - $0.05 NL FAST (6 max) - Holdem - 6 players
Hand converted by PokerTracker 4: http://www.pokertracker.com

BTN: 115 BB (VPIP: 37.50, PFR: 25.00, 3Bet Preflop: 33.33, Hands: 9)
SB: 91.6 BB (VPIP: 50.00, PFR: 45.45, 3Bet Preflop: 28.57, Hands: 22)
Hero (BB): 104 BB
UTG: 559.6 BB (VPIP: 24.62, PFR: 18.46, 3Bet Preflop: 7.14, Hands: 70)
MP: 115 BB (VPIP: 34.21, PFR: 23.68, 3Bet Preflop: 8.33, Hands: 40)
CO: 114.2 BB (VPIP: 29.58, PFR: 21.13, 3Bet Preflop: 10.71, Hands: 72)

SB posts SB 0.4 BB, Hero posts BB 1 BB

Pre Flop: (pot: 1.4 BB) Hero has 9h Kh
fold, fold, fold, fold, SB raises to 3 BB, Hero calls 2 BB

Flop : (6 BB, 2 players) 9c 3h 4h
SB bets 3 BB, Hero calls 3 BB

Turn : (12 BB, 2 players) Ah
SB bets 5.8 BB, Hero raises to 14 BB, SB calls 8.2 BB

River : (40 BB, 2 players) Ad
SB checks, Hero bets 23 BB, SB raises to 71.6 BB and is all-in, Hero calls 48.6 BB

SB shows Ac 4d (Full House, Aces full of Fours)
(Pre 55%, Flop 14%, Turn 9%)

Hero shows 9h Kh (Flush, Ace High)
(Pre 45%, Flop 86%, Turn 91%)

SB wins 175.6 BB

 

[BuzzKillington]

I have some trouble 4-betting light against frequent 3-bettors, i.e., villains with a wide (possibly polarized) 3-bet range. I rarely see myself 4-betting them, except when I have QQ+. I tend to flat a 3-bet even with AKs. I have studied the polarized 4-bet range in your book a bit, but these ranges seem really wide, and yet the goal is to 4-bet no more than 8% of the time? How do I know if the villain is going to fold their 3-bet if I have no specific fold to 4-bets statistics on them? Supposing, of course, that their VPIP and PFR stats are about average for a good player, so there is no obvious leak.

I came up w/ the numbers after writing down when I thought reactions were going to happen after being aggressive, and tracking those over long periods of time. That initial calc is somewhat subjective of course. There's way too many things happening in holdem to come up w/ a perfect calc here. Like I said, this should be used as a general guideline and should just be a part of the decision making process, but it shouldn't be used as the final word.

If you can come up w/ a better calculation here, please share. Everything is revisible.

I see. I understand. I doubt I can come up with something better, but if I happen to be able to obtain some reasonable results with Bayesian probabilities, then I will let you know.

 

[Alucard]

I want to clarify whether it's profitable or not to call a 3bet in position & set mine.

Here are 2 spots I missed clear value. I usually tend to fold even on position cause they are most of the time hit or miss. But seeing I'm missing so many juicy pots I have to get this confirmed..
BTW I had no trouble 3 bet callin at 2NL but at 5NL I'm mostly leaning towards a fold

Spoiler

PokerStars - $0.05 NL FAST (6 max) - Holdem - 6 players
Hand converted by PokerTracker 4: http://www.pokertracker.com

BTN: 215.6 BB (VPIP: 50.00, PFR: 50.00, 3Bet Preflop: -, Hands: 2)
SB: 131.6 BB (VPIP: 24.53, PFR: 22.64, 3Bet Preflop: 4.76, Hands: 53)
BB: 141.2 BB (VPIP: 35.71, PFR: 26.79, 3Bet Preflop: 12.50, Hands: 58)
Hero (UTG): 207 BB
MP: 154 BB (VPIP: 11.11, PFR: 11.11, 3Bet Preflop: 0.00, Hands: 9)
CO: 99.6 BB (VPIP: 28.30, PFR: 21.70, 3Bet Preflop: 6.52, Hands: 108)

SB posts SB 0.4 BB, BB posts BB 1 BB

Pre Flop: (pot: 1.4 BB) Hero has 2c 2h
Hero raises to 3 BB, fold, fold, BTN calls 3 BB, SB raises to 14 BB, fold, fold, BTN calls 11 BB

Flop : (32 BB, 2 players) 2d 4h Ad
SB bets 11 BB, BTN calls 11 BB

Turn : (54 BB, 2 players) 5c
SB bets 26 BB, BTN calls 26 BB

River : (106 BB, 2 players) 7h
SB checks, BTN checks

SB shows Qd Qs (One Pair, Queens)
(Pre 68%, Flop 15%, Turn 10%)

BTN shows 8c Ac (One Pair, Aces)
(Pre 32%, Flop 85%, Turn 90%)

BTN wins 101.6 BB

Spoiler

PokerStars - $0.05 NL FAST (6 max) - Holdem - 6 players
Hand converted by PokerTracker 4: http://www.pokertracker.com

BTN: 108.2 BB
SB: 100 BB (VPIP: 16.95, PFR: 16.95, 3Bet Preflop: 8.33, Hands: 119)
BB: 138.8 BB (VPIP: 33.33, PFR: 28.21, 3Bet Preflop: 18.75, Hands: 41)
UTG: 187.4 BB (VPIP: 32.89, PFR: 25.00, 3Bet Preflop: 6.67, Hands: 77)
MP: 223.6 BB (VPIP: 21.05, PFR: 17.54, 3Bet Preflop: 7.41, Hands: 59)
Hero (CO): 150 BB

SB posts SB 0.4 BB, BB posts BB 1 BB

Pre Flop: (pot: 1.4 BB) Hero has 6c 6d
UTG raises to 3 BB, fold, Hero calls 3 BB, fold, fold, BB raises to 13.6 BB, UTG calls 10.6 BB, fold

Flop : (30.6 BB, 2 players) 3s 2h 6s
BB bets 18.4 BB, UTG raises to 41 BB, fold

UTG wins 64.6 BB

edit - So I thought of set mining. And this happened. So I'm changing my stance to flatting more now

Spoiler

PokerStars - $0.05 NL FAST (6 max) - Holdem - 6 players
Hand converted by PokerTracker 4: http://www.pokertracker.com

BTN: 100 BB (VPIP: 11.76, PFR: 5.88, 3Bet Preflop: 0.00, Hands: 34)
SB: 126.6 BB (VPIP: 100.00, PFR: 50.00, 3Bet Preflop: 0.00, Hands: 2)
BB: 100 BB (VPIP: 27.78, PFR: 11.11, 3Bet Preflop: 0.00, Hands: 19)
UTG: 100 BB (VPIP: 30.00, PFR: 20.00, 3Bet Preflop: 16.67, Hands: 10)
MP: 70.4 BB (VPIP: 29.17, PFR: 18.18, 3Bet Preflop: 0.00, Hands: 24)
Hero (CO): 215.2 BB

SB posts SB 0.4 BB, BB posts BB 1 BB

Pre Flop: (pot: 1.4 BB) Hero has 3c 3h
fold, fold, Hero raises to 3 BB, fold, SB raises to 10 BB, fold, Hero calls 7 BB

Flop : (21 BB, 2 players) 5c Js 3s
SB bets 20 BB, Hero calls 20 BB

Turn : (61 BB, 2 players) Ts
SB bets 30 BB, Hero raises to 185.2 BB and is all-in, SB calls 66.6 BB and is all-in

River : (254.2 BB, 2 players) 2d

SB shows 4s 4d (One Pair, Fours)
(Pre 80%, Flop 17%, Turn 23%)

Hero shows 3c 3h (Three of a Kind, Threes)
(Pre 20%, Flop 83%, Turn 77%)

Hero wins 243.6 BB

 

[BuzzKillington]

Well, you only have a ~12% probability of flopping a set. When you call a 3-bet, you do not know whether you will flop a set. More likely than not, you will miss the board. What do you do when you miss the board with a small pair like 22 or 33, given that you called a 3-bet? Just fold? That can get expensive very quickly. And when you finally do flop a set, after a couple of expensive folds, are you sure you will be paid off? If your opponent has nothing, they will probably fold to the smallest bet on the flop.

 

[Alucard]

given that you called a 3-bet? Just fold?

yeah. calling a 3 bet doesn't mean you have to continue on flop. Plus people 3 bet very light from the blinds & there's a chance you are ahead.

 

[BuzzKillington]

yeah. calling a 3 bet doesn't mean you have to continue on flop. Plus people 3 bet very light from the blinds & there's a chance you are ahead.

But how will you know if you are ahead? With such a small pair and no set, any card that comes on the board has a chance of forming a pair with one of your opponent's hole cards that will beat your small pair.

 

[Alucard]

But how will you know if you are ahead? With such a small pair and no set, any card that comes on the board has a chance of forming a pair with one of your opponent's hole cards that will beat your small pair.

you are in position at it has all to do with player readings & stats. Hope John would explain a lot better than this

 

[BuzzKillington]

you are in position at it has all to do with player readings & stats. Hope John would explain a lot better than this

Yeah. I'm just explaining my own thought process about it. I guess you're right that position, readings and stats matter as well. Maybe I'm thinking about it in the wrong way.

Interested to see what John has to say about it.

 

[John A]

I want to clarify whether it's profitable or not to call a 3bet in position & set mine.

Here are 2 spots I missed clear value. I usually tend to fold even on position cause they are most of the time hit or miss. But seeing I'm missing so many juicy pots I have to get this confirmed..
BTW I had no trouble 3 bet callin at 2NL but at 5NL I'm mostly leaning towards a fold

So a quick answer on both of your hands is, yes.

Factors - Stack depth, and opponents.

Now if you're 100bbs deep, then no way. But IP/OOP doesn't matter so much when you're calling a 3-bet w/ a small pair. Stack depth #1 most important thing (over ~135bbs, let's go), and #2 how bad your opponent is. The worse they are, the more shallow you can go.

 

[Alucard]

Thanks!
Got an interesting hand. I snap called the shove but any thoughts? According to zeebo's theorem the V got the maximum out of it. But still in the same situation again, I don't think I can find a fold

Spoiler

PokerStars - $0.05 NL FAST (6 max) - Holdem - 6 players
Hand converted by PokerTracker 4: http://www.pokertracker.com

BTN: 100 BB (VPIP: 0.00, PFR: 0.00, 3Bet Preflop: 0.00, Hands: 10)
SB: 100.4 BB (VPIP: 22.22, PFR: 22.22, 3Bet Preflop: 22.22, Hands: 19)
BB: 108.8 BB (VPIP: 40.00, PFR: 20.00, 3Bet Preflop: 0.00, Hands: 5)
UTG: 44.4 BB (VPIP: 100.00, PFR: 0.00, 3Bet Preflop: 0.00, Hands: 1)
Hero (MP): 249.6 BB
CO: 102.2 BB (VPIP: 0.00, PFR: 0.00, 3Bet Preflop: 0.00, Hands: 7)

SB posts SB 0.4 BB, BB posts BB 1 BB

Pre Flop: (pot: 1.4 BB) Hero has 3c 3s
fold, Hero raises to 3 BB, CO calls 3 BB, fold, fold, fold

Flop : (7.4 BB, 2 players) 2c 5h Qd
Hero bets 4 BB, CO calls 4 BB

Turn : (15.4 BB, 2 players) 2h
Hero checks, CO checks

River : (15.4 BB, 2 players) 3d
Hero bets 10 BB, CO raises to 95.2 BB and is all-in, Hero calls 85.2 BB

CO shows 2d 2s (Four of a Kind, Twos)
(Pre 20%, Flop 88%, Turn 100%)

Hero shows 3c 3s (Full House, Threes full of Twos)
(Pre 80%, Flop 12%, Turn 0%)

CO wins 197.2 BB

 

[John A]

Thanks!
Got an interesting hand. I snap called the shove but any thoughts? According to zeebo's theorem the V got the maximum out of it. But still in the same situation again, I don't think I can find a fold

Spoiler

PokerStars - $0.05 NL FAST (6 max) - Holdem - 6 players
Hand converted by PokerTracker 4: http://www.pokertracker.com

BTN: 100 BB (VPIP: 0.00, PFR: 0.00, 3Bet Preflop: 0.00, Hands: 10)
SB: 100.4 BB (VPIP: 22.22, PFR: 22.22, 3Bet Preflop: 22.22, Hands: 19)
BB: 108.8 BB (VPIP: 40.00, PFR: 20.00, 3Bet Preflop: 0.00, Hands: 5)
UTG: 44.4 BB (VPIP: 100.00, PFR: 0.00, 3Bet Preflop: 0.00, Hands: 1)
Hero (MP): 249.6 BB
CO: 102.2 BB (VPIP: 0.00, PFR: 0.00, 3Bet Preflop: 0.00, Hands: 7)

SB posts SB 0.4 BB, BB posts BB 1 BB

Pre Flop: (pot: 1.4 BB) Hero has 3c 3s
fold, Hero raises to 3 BB, CO calls 3 BB, fold, fold, fold

Flop : (7.4 BB, 2 players) 2c 5h Qd
Hero bets 4 BB, CO calls 4 BB

Turn : (15.4 BB, 2 players) 2h
Hero checks, CO checks

River : (15.4 BB, 2 players) 3d
Hero bets 10 BB, CO raises to 95.2 BB and is all-in, Hero calls 85.2 BB

CO shows 2d 2s (Four of a Kind, Twos)
(Pre 20%, Flop 88%, Turn 100%)

Hero shows 3c 3s (Full House, Threes full of Twos)
(Pre 80%, Flop 12%, Turn 0%)

CO wins 197.2 BB

Yeah, this is maybe the one place you can fold a fold because nothing else makes any sense. It's going to be QQ/55 and quads an extremely high % of the time. It's still an extremely hard fold to make of course, because... you have a FH! But these are the ones you want to get away from. You got lucky in respect to you not have 55 in this hand. If you had 55, you couldn't have folded. But because you had bottom set w/ no other real hands that would make sense, this is one of those 1 in 10 spots where you need to find the fold button.

Not at all easy though.

 

[John A]

Happy holidays everyone!

Sorry I've been a little slow in this thread lately. Lots going on.

 

[Alucard]

Hey John! Having a little discussion about this hand.
Is the check call/fold line better here than bet fold?? Cause of WA/WB?? But we are OOP.

pokerstars - $0.05 NL FAST (6 max) - Holdem - 6 players
Hand converted by PokerTracker 4: http://www.pokertracker.com

BTN: 105 BB (VPIP: 41.67, PFR: 16.67, 3Bet Preflop: 0.00, Hands: 13)
Hero (SB): 110 BB
BB: 202.4 BB (VPIP: 24.76, PFR: 19.05, 3Bet Preflop: 5.41, Hands: 108)
UTG: 187.2 BB (VPIP: 27.78, PFR: 16.67, 3Bet Preflop: 7.14, Hands: 55)
MP: 133.4 BB (VPIP: 29.59, PFR: 23.47, 3Bet Preflop: 10.00, Hands: 101)
CO: 271 BB (VPIP: 27.27, PFR: 9.09, 3Bet Preflop: 16.67, Hands: 12)

Hero posts SB 0.4 BB, BB posts BB 1 BB

Pre Flop: (pot: 1.4 BB) Hero has Kd Ks
UTG raises to 3 BB, fold, fold, BTN calls 3 BB, Hero raises to 13 BB, fold, UTG calls 10 BB, fold

Flop : (30 BB, 2 players) 4c Tc Ad
Hero bets 17 BB, UTG raises to 48.4 BB, fold

UTG wins 61.4 BB

 

[John A]

Hey John! Having a little discussion about this hand.
Is the check call/fold line better here than bet fold?? Cause of WA/WB?? But we are OOP.

PokerStars - $0.05 NL FAST (6 max) - Holdem - 6 players
Hand converted by PokerTracker 4: http://www.pokertracker.com

BTN: 105 BB (VPIP: 41.67, PFR: 16.67, 3Bet Preflop: 0.00, Hands: 13)
Hero (SB): 110 BB
BB: 202.4 BB (VPIP: 24.76, PFR: 19.05, 3Bet Preflop: 5.41, Hands: 108)
UTG: 187.2 BB (VPIP: 27.78, PFR: 16.67, 3Bet Preflop: 7.14, Hands: 55)
MP: 133.4 BB (VPIP: 29.59, PFR: 23.47, 3Bet Preflop: 10.00, Hands: 101)
CO: 271 BB (VPIP: 27.27, PFR: 9.09, 3Bet Preflop: 16.67, Hands: 12)

Hero posts SB 0.4 BB, BB posts BB 1 BB

Pre Flop: (pot: 1.4 BB) Hero has Kd Ks
UTG raises to 3 BB, fold, fold, BTN calls 3 BB, Hero raises to 13 BB, fold, UTG calls 10 BB, fold

Flop : (30 BB, 2 players) 4c Tc Ad
Hero bets 17 BB, UTG raises to 48.4 BB, fold

UTG wins 61.4 BB

So this is how I approach these spots in general. If someone is passive to somewhat passive, then I just bet/fold here. I don't expect these players to bluff often enough to warrant c/cing or calling down. I'm just giving them free equity, even if they have say QQ/JJ in this spot. It's just pointless to do, and checking will end up w/ the general same result (maybe they call one street).

The general WA/WB argument assumes you won't get bluffed off your hand often enough. That's just not true. So if I'm facing an OK reg, someone I don't think is capable of multiple street bluffs in this spot, I lean heavily towards C/C. The WA/WB applies here and I don't have much fear of getting blown off my hand.

Against aggressive, or good regs, I usually will check/call and lead the turn OOP in single raised pots. Against aggressive opponents, I can get them to bet their entire range applying WA/WB, and generally unless they are hyper aggressive they won't bluff raise the turn or bet the river as a bluff. Sometimes I will just bet/fold against them as well, but like everything, it depends. Rarely will I c/c, and then check/hope on the turn against a competent player.

3-bet pots it depends on stack depth and texture a lot because I don't want to commit myself on the turn unnecessarily. But like a lot of things in poker, it depends. These are just my general guidelines. WA/WB when OOP has to be in spots where you can't get bluffed off your hand. If you're WA and someone pushes you off a hand when you have 80%+ equity vs them, that's a travesty.

 

[AlexTheOwl]

John, your response is thoughtful but noncommittal.

How would you actually play this specific hand? Or is more information needed?

FWIW, I check / fold against this opponent, at this buy-in, 6-handed.

When I look at equity calculations, we have 45% against {AK+,TT+} and only 33% against {AQ+,TT+}.

The big gap between the villain's PFR and VPIP makes me suspect he has calling station tendencies pre-flop, and is likely to have a lot of AQ (or weaker Aces!) in his range.

It's a big pot, but hero is OOP and it's very difficult to tell where he stands. If I get bluffed off the best hand here, so it goes. Show me a player who never gets bluffed and I'll show you a calling station.

But it's not an easy decision for me, and I could be persuaded that I'm wrong. :hmmmm2:

 

[braveslice]

Hey John! Having a little discussion about this hand.
Is the check call/fold line better here than bet fold?? Cause of WA/WB?? But we are OOP.

Interestingly enough we have now supporters for check/call, check/fold, and bet/fold. I’m truly surprised no-one has shout check/raise yet :icon_rend This would imply there are multiple solutions to this case and the flop decision is not as important than it feels. The turn might be more important street to study then over flop decision.

Maybe John could give us least favorite line of the three choices? That might be more clear.

 

[John A]

John, your response is thoughtful but noncommittal.

How would you actually play this specific hand? Or is more information needed?

FWIW, I check / fold against this opponent, at this buy-in, 6-handed.

When I look at equity calculations, we have 45% against {AK+,TT+} and only 33% against {AQ+,TT+}.

The big gap between the villain's PFR and VPIP makes me suspect he has calling station tendencies pre-flop, and is likely to have a lot of AQ (or weaker Aces!) in his range.

It's a big pot, but hero is OOP and it's very difficult to tell where he stands. If I get bluffed off the best hand here, so it goes. Show me a player who never gets bluffed and I'll show you a calling station.

But it's not an easy decision for me, and I could be persuaded that I'm wrong. :hmmmm2:

I'm trying to cover some generalities about WA/WB situations. No situation is exactly the same, so offering specific advice would be flawed. I'm sharing generally how I think and approach these kinds of spots.

As far as equity and ranges though, hero is likely closer to 66-60% overall in a spot like this, but that's not what constitutes a WA/WB. By your post I'm not sure you're totally understanding that, maybe you are, but I'll just state it any ways. When you're ahead, you're way ahead (when our opponent has smaller pairs), and they have little equity, and when we're behind, we're way behind with little room for improvement. So overall equity isn't the main thing you're thinking about here, because for sure, you're ahead. We want to consider how we're maximizing value and minimizing losses in a very polarized spot.

Also, my point about being bluffed is important. It's one thing to get bluffed when you have a small equity gap. It's another thing to get bluffed when you've got 90%+ equity on your opponent and you fold. You should always be making sure you're not giving up and folding in such cases (and again, this is why there's some debate about wa/wb spots). If you were giving up 5-10% equity on a fold, it's not as big of a deal, especially in an OOP spot where you're expected to lose realized equity.

Any ways, that was my 2 cents. We can break down some more specific scenarios about these if people want. I think the default, and commonly accepted lines by the poker community for these situations is c/c, and c/f. Just an fyi.

 

[AlexTheOwl]

Thanks for the response. I understand that you are trying to teach a person how to fish rather than giving them a fish, as the saying goes.
But I have to confess that after reading your comment I wasn't sure "how to fish" according to your recommendations in this specific situation.

And honestly I'm still not 100% sure. Are you agreeing with me and the poker consensus that c/c and c/f is the correct line here?

As far as equity and ranges though, hero is likely closer to 66-60% overall in a spot like this, but that's not what constitutes a WA/WB. By your post I'm not sure you're totally understanding that, maybe you are, but I'll just state it any ways. When you're ahead, you're way ahead (when our opponent has smaller pairs), and they have little equity, and when we're behind, we're way behind with little room for improvement. So overall equity isn't the main thing you're thinking about here, because for sure, you're ahead.

I'm surprised to see that you think the hero is ahead for sure in equity. Villain has an overall PFR of 17. He raised UTG (narrowing his range), and called a large re-raise (narrowing his range further).

What range are you giving the villain here that puts the hero ahead in equity on the flop? Are you giving him pairs lower than TT? Including KQ but not AJ? Or are you narrowing his range?
If I narrow the villain's range to {AK,JJ+} I get 52% equity for the hero on the flop, still well short of the 66-60% range you suggest.

. . .

If it doesn't make sense to discuss overall equity when WA/WB, then does it make sense to put the villain on a range and count combinations?

For {AQ+,TT+} I get 36 combinations that are way ahead of the hero (AA,AK,AQ,TT), and only 12 that are way behind the hero (QQ,JJ).

If we go with {AK, JJ+} for the villain's range, the hero is now WA of 12 combinations and WB 9.

As noted in my earlier comment, I think the villain's range likely contains AQ, and the hero is probably WB.

. . .

Regarding bluffs, I understand why it would be painful to be bluffed when the specific hand the villain holds is way behind.

But thinking about ranges and combinations, if the villain here occasionally bluffs the hero with QQ or JJ, surely that is better than having the hero donating chips to the villain every time, IF the hero is more likely to be WB than WA?

My instinct is that if I think I am probably WB, I can live with being bluffed occasionally when WA if that is what it takes to keep me from being a payoff monkey. But I'm mostly a tournament player online, and maybe that's tournament-style stack preservation thinking.

If we believe we are likely to be WB, what concrete actions should we take to avoid being bluffed when WA?

A flop c-bet may persuade the villain to fold instead of bluffing, but I'm not sure how to compare:
- how much we save by preventing bluffs
to
- how much we lose by giving up additional chips when we are WB.

 

[John A]

Thanks for the response. I understand that you are trying to teach a person how to fish rather than giving them a fish, as the saying goes.
But I have to confess that after reading your comment I wasn't sure "how to fish" according to your recommendations in this specific situation.

And honestly I'm still not 100% sure. Are you agreeing with me and the poker consensus that c/c and c/f is the correct line here?

If there's something you're confused about in my first response, then you're welcome to ask specific questions. I outlined 3 general lines and why to take them against specific opponents.

And no, I don't agree with c/c and c/f. I attempted to explain why that is in my first post.

I'm surprised to see that you think the hero is ahead for sure in equity. Villain has an overall PFR of 17. He raised UTG (narrowing his range), and called a large re-raise (narrowing his range further).

What range are you giving the villain here that puts the hero ahead in equity on the flop? Are you giving him pairs lower than TT? Including KQ but not AJ? Or are you narrowing his range?
If I narrow the villain's range to {AK,JJ+} I get 52% equity for the hero on the flop, still well short of the 66-60% range you suggest.

His 17% overall open and UTG facts don't really factor in much because his 3-bet calling range isn't really going to differ. We can "maybe" say (and I wouldn't in this specific case because we need more hands), that someone's specific hands in their calling range will include X subset of hands. Example, someone with 25% open and a reasonable 3-bet calling range CAN have more suited connectors than someone that is tighter. Again, nothing is absolute when you're talking about calling and opening ranges. You're making logical deductions based on available data that can have variance.

So any ways, we can add AJs and put in more KQs type hands. But it won't matter too much. A rough calling range would be something more like:

This hand driven to you directly from DriveHUD Poker HUD & Database
Board: 4c Tc Ad Xx Xx


Equity Win Tie Hand Range

60.1153% 58.9833% 1.132% [ KdKs ]

39.8847% 38.7527% 1.132% [ 88+(100), AQs+(100), AKo(100), JTs(100), T9s(100) ]


We can probably add 77 and even AJs, but it will float around this equity. At my stakes, it would be much higher and closer to 65%.

If it doesn't make sense to discuss overall equity when WA/WB, then does it make sense to put the villain on a range and count combinations?

For {AQ+,TT+} I get 36 combinations that are way ahead of the hero (AA,AK,AQ,TT), and only 12 that are way behind the hero (QQ,JJ).

If we go with {AK, JJ+} for the villain's range, the hero is now WA of 12 combinations and WB 9.

As noted in my earlier comment, I think the villain's range likely contains AQ, and the hero is probably WB.

Combinations do matter of course. It's better to look at combos than overall equity for hopefully obvious reasons. You want to justify the line you're taking based on the number of combos that have low and high equity against your hand.

Regarding bluffs, I understand why it would be painful to be bluffed when the specific hand the villain holds is way behind.

But thinking about ranges and combinations, if the villain here occasionally bluffs the hero with QQ or JJ, surely that is better than having the hero donating chips to the villain every time, IF the hero is more likely to be WB than WA?

My instinct is that if I think I am probably WB, I can live with being bluffed occasionally when WA if that is what it takes to keep me from being a payoff monkey. But I'm mostly a tournament player online, and maybe that's tournament-style stack preservation thinking.

If we believe we are likely to be WB, what concrete actions should we take to avoid being bluffed when WA?

A flop c-bet may persuade the villain to fold instead of bluffing, but I'm not sure how to compare:
- how much we save by preventing bluffs
to
- how much we lose by giving up additional chips when we are WB.

You're not WB though. We can just say, Hero is betting when he has the equity edge. If you, or any poker player wants to say, no, Hero is only facing a range of JJ+/AQ, etc... that's your prerogative. I'm just here in this thread to be a sounding board and offer advice based on what I've encountered in my playing career. My experience tells me that range will have you making a lot of bad folds. And like I said, it's one thing to fold when there's a narrow equity difference. And it's an entire other to do it when the equity gap is large.

But the bottom line is, however you choose to approach a WA/WB situation, make sure you have a plan and you're considering flop texture, and the type of opponent you're against. Don't just have a default line of saying I should always X in Y spot. That's not how to maximize value in poker.

 

[AlexTheOwl]

If there's something you're confused about in my first response, then you're welcome to ask specific questions. I outlined 3 general lines and why to take them against specific opponents.

And no, I don't agree with c/c and c/f. I attempted to explain why that is in my first post.

You see the villain as passive, likely to be behind, and unlikely to bluff? So you'd bet here? Do I understand correctly? Thanks for clarifying.

His 17% overall open and UTG facts don't really factor in much because his 3-bet calling range isn't really going to differ. We can "maybe" say (and I wouldn't in this specific case because we need more hands), that someone's specific hands in their calling range will include X subset of hands.

So if I understand correctly, you are going with population tendencies here rather than the actual PFR, because of the 55 hand sample size being too small?

I agree that his 3-bet calling range pre-flop is probably not much different from his raising range.
The villain's PFR and position are the main factors I'd use when estimating his range, even if I only had 25 hands of data. Maybe I'm wrong.

This hand driven to you directly from DriveHUD Poker HUD & Database
Board: 4c Tc Ad Xx Xx


Equity Win Tie Hand Range

60.1153% 58.9833% 1.132% [ KdKs ]

39.8847% 38.7527% 1.132% [ 88+(100), AQs+(100), AKo(100), JTs(100), T9s(100) ]


We can probably add 77 and even AJs, but it will float around this equity. At my stakes, it would be much higher and closer to 65%.

I have no doubt that at your stakes the population tendency for the UTG opening range would be closer to Nash, which would include a lot more pairs, and hands with two broadway cards.

But that range in your example seems really bizarre to me. JTs and T9s but no AQo? Why? Other than the fact that it gets us to 60%? What am I missing?

I get your general point that you have fewer Ax hands in your estimated range for the villain than I do, and therefore think the hero is more likely to be WA than WB.

You haven't convinced me that the hero is probably WA. But I do appreciate you taking the time to explain your thinking, and I found this exchange useful!

P.S. As a Bovada / ignition Card Catcher customer and an IT professional, I'd just like to say thanks for how quickly Ace reacted to the change in the software!

 

[braveslice]

"But that range in your example seems really bizarre to me. JTs and T9s but no AQo?" imo, he is estimating the number of combos of types of hands. Like he has AKo, no AKs. It's pain to input combos to most equity analyzers.

Btw, very interesting discussion, thanks for that.

 

[AlexTheOwl]

"But that range in your example seems really bizarre to me. JTs and T9s but no AQo?" imo, he is estimating the number of combos of types of hands. Like he has AKo, no AKs. It's pain to input combos to most equity analyzers.

Btw, very interesting discussion, thanks for that.

He has AQs+, which includes AQs and AKs.
But you could be right in general about it being a shortcut for the tool he is using.

 

[John A]

You see the villain as passive, likely to be behind, and unlikely to bluff? So you'd bet here? Do I understand correctly? Thanks for clarifying.

I'm not saying this particular villain is passive. I'm saying when facing a passive villain, it's better to just bet, since you're ahead of their range and checking only gives them a chance to improve (even if it's a small chance). It's not going to change your ability to get value later.

So if I understand correctly, you are going with population tendencies here rather than the actual PFR, because of the 55 hand sample size being too small?

I agree that his 3-bet calling range pre-flop is probably not much different from his raising range.
The villain's PFR and position are the main factors I'd use when estimating his range, even if I only had 25 hands of data. Maybe I'm wrong.

No, his hand sample doesn't have anything to do w/ my comment about his 3-bet calling range. What I'm saying is someone who is opening 10% vs someone who is opening 18%, their 3-bet CALLING range will not be that different (other than what I previously noted about some hand distributions). It will still be right around the 5% range.

I have no doubt that at your stakes the population tendency for the UTG opening range would be closer to Nash, which would include a lot more pairs, and hands with two broadway cards.

But that range in your example seems really bizarre to me. JTs and T9s but no AQo? Why? Other than the fact that it gets us to 60%? What am I missing?

I'm making a rough distribution based on the fact I want X% of suited connectors that are reasonable that approach around a 5% calling range. We can add AQo, but then I'd take out AQs and reduce the AA percentage. I've explained in here how to build ranges in the past, maybe I need to go over this again. But look, I'll show you multiple ranges:

This hand driven to you directly from DriveHUD Poker HUD & Database
Board: 4c Tc Ad Xx Xx


Equity Win Tie Hand Range

52.6129% 51.5502% 1.0627% [ KdKs ]

47.3871% 46.3245% 1.0627% [ 88+(100), AKs(100), AQo+(100), T9s(100) ]


This hand driven to you directly from DriveHUD Poker HUD & Database
Board: 4c Tc Ad Xx Xx


Equity Win Tie Hand Range

48.1684% 47.1058% 1.0627% [ KdKs ]

51.8316% 50.7689% 1.0627% [ 88+(100), AQs+(100), AQo+(100) ]


And so on... but including AA/KK 100% as a call, an no suited connectors is incorrect imho.

I get your general point that you have fewer Ax hands in your estimated range for the villain than I do, and therefore think the hero is more likely to be WA than WB.

You haven't convinced me that the hero is probably WA. But I do appreciate you taking the time to explain your thinking, and I found this exchange useful!

P.S. As a Bovada / Ignition Card Catcher customer and an IT professional, I'd just like to say thanks for how quickly Ace reacted to the change in the software!

Well, I'm pretty bad w/ hand ranges historically. So you're probably correct. So let's go w/ your ranges and talk about what lines make the most sense then. Let's take your tightest range, which I personally don't think is a realistic and representative range, but perhaps you're 100%. You have: only 33% against {AQ+,TT+}. (it's actually about 35%, but we'll say 33% regardless).

So taking our example hand, what do we do? If we check and call and villain makes any bet that is slightly over a pot sized bet, we should be folding correct? What % of the time will villain be betting with worse for perceived value? He'll have no bluffs based on your range. But you should be folding correct? Of course, generally speaking, our opponent won't pot the flop. Typically they'll be betting 50-63% of the pot. But my point main point is, if he won't have any bluffs based on your range, then why even take that chance? Just bet. There are times where opponents will over shove, or do other things. Why allow that to happen?

Now let's say instead we bet 35% of the pot. We just made a Nash equilib bet correct (really you should be betting around 45%)? Whether our opponent calls or folds, it doesn't matter. But now we set the price. If our opponent raises, we fold. I don't bet this amount, but I bet a similar small amount in 3-bet pots for precisely this reason (and because in a spot like this I know we have more equity than this). I can bet a wider range and include more bluffs. Anytime you're the aggressor in a spot like this, you allow your opponent to make more mistakes. When they fold out 88-TT in this spot, vs my bluffs, that's a huge amount of long term EV I switched to my side. Lastly when I do have a big hand I can setup bets vs. bad players that they tend not to fold to. If I bet say 44%, then 42% and then I'll have just under a half sized pot bet typically on the river, so I can goad bad players into 3 streets of value. I don't do this vs. decent regs of course.

So say our opponent calls our flop bet, if we check the turn, they will likely check behind w/ their whole range. Board texture and turn card play a big role here, but that's the likely scenario. So we're in check down mode expecting that our opponent might turn some hands into bluffs on the river. This is probably a separate discussion on the river spot, but I think you get the general point here (I hope). In one scenario, you potentially priced yourself out, in the second, you made an ideal bet and controlled the pot.

So now let's say you check and your opponent checks. If they check in this spot, it's likely because they have a smaller pair and you just gave them free equity for no reason. You bet the turn, and they are likely calling. Are you betting the river? What changed and why?

 

[AlexTheOwl]

I'm not saying this particular villain is passive. I'm saying when facing a passive villain, it's better to just bet, since you're ahead of their range and checking only gives them a chance to improve (even if it's a small chance). It's not going to change your ability to get value later.

Ok.

No, his hand sample doesn't have anything to do w/ my comment about his 3-bet calling range. What I'm saying is someone who is opening 10% vs someone who is opening 18%, their 3-bet CALLING range will not be that different (other than what I previously noted about some hand distributions). It will still be right around the 5% range.

I understand now and I agree.

I'm making a rough distribution based on the fact I want X% of suited connectors that are reasonable that approach around a 5% calling range. We can add AQo, but then I'd take out AQs and reduce the AA percentage. I've explained in here how to build ranges in the past, maybe I need to go over this again. But look, I'll show you multiple ranges:

This hand driven to you directly from DriveHUD Poker HUD & Database
Board: 4c Tc Ad Xx Xx


Equity Win Tie Hand Range

52.6129% 51.5502% 1.0627% [ KdKs ]

47.3871% 46.3245% 1.0627% [ 88+(100), AKs(100), AQo+(100), T9s(100) ]


This hand driven to you directly from DriveHUD Poker HUD & Database
Board: 4c Tc Ad Xx Xx


Equity Win Tie Hand Range

48.1684% 47.1058% 1.0627% [ KdKs ]

51.8316% 50.7689% 1.0627% [ 88+(100), AQs+(100), AQo+(100) ]


And so on... but including AA/KK 100% as a call, an no suited connectors is incorrect imho.

I haven't read your book yet, or all of this thread, but I think I understand. As I think braveslice suggested, your range is not literally the cards you think the villain may have, it's a shorthand way of entering the approximate distribution of WA and WB hands you think are in the villain's actual range.

Well, I'm pretty bad w/ hand ranges historically. So you're probably correct. So let's go w/ your ranges and talk about what lines make the most sense then. Let's take your tightest range, which I personally don't think is a realistic and representative range, but perhaps you're 100%. You have: only 33% against {AQ+,TT+}. (it's actually about 35%, but we'll say 33% regardless).

So taking our example hand, what do we do? If we check and call and villain makes any bet that is slightly over a pot sized bet, we should be folding correct? What % of the time will villain be betting with worse for perceived value? He'll have no bluffs based on your range. But you should be folding correct? Of course, generally speaking, our opponent won't pot the flop. Typically they'll be betting 50-63% of the pot.

If the hero doesn't c-bet, the villain may bet QQ or JJ because he reads the hero as weak, or may bet for value. I'd say the latter is more likely.

Isn't this where the tricky part of discussing WA / WB using equity kicks in?
If the hero is likely to be WB and most of the villain's bets are going to be for value, I don't think we can say the hero should call if the pot odds are less than ~33%.
If we check and the villain bets, his range is heavily weighted toward hands that crush us.
And there is a playability concern - our own hand is unlikely to improve on future streets, making it difficult to call any future bet.
If we check the flop, I'd fold to any non-trivial bet by the villain.

But my point main point is, if he won't have any bluffs based on your range, then why even take that chance? Just bet. There are times where opponents will over shove, or do other things. Why allow that to happen?

The chance that the villain gains equity on a later street?
The chance that the villain bets with a hand that is WB us because he thinks we are weak?
The chance that the villain makes a bet that gives us poor pot odds? As noted just above, I think it doesn't take an overbet from the villain to give us a -EV situation.

All of the above, I suppose, and those are all valid reasons I think.

The argument for not betting is simply that the hero would be building a bigger pot when he is probably WB, and probably unable to bet or call multiple streets even if he is WA.

Now let's say instead we bet 35% of the pot. We just made a Nash equilib bet correct (really you should be betting around 45%)? Whether our opponent calls or folds, it doesn't matter. But now we set the price. If our opponent raises, we fold. I don't bet this amount, but I bet a similar small amount in 3-bet pots for precisely this reason (and because in a spot like this I know we have more equity than this). I can bet a wider range and include more bluffs. Anytime you're the aggressor in a spot like this, you allow your opponent to make more mistakes. When they fold out 88-TT in this spot, vs my bluffs, that's a huge amount of long term EV I switched to my side. Lastly when I do have a big hand I can setup bets vs. bad players that they tend not to fold to. If I bet say 44%, then 42% and then I'll have just under a half sized pot bet typically on the river, so I can goad bad players into 3 streets of value. I don't do this vs. decent regs of course.

You may be overestimating the importance of post-flop range balancing at the $.05 BB level in a site with a massive player pool.
I have no doubt that what you say is true at your usual blind level, and there is some non-zero value to post-flop balance even at this level.

So say our opponent calls our flop bet, if we check the turn, they will likely check behind w/ their whole range. Board texture and turn card play a big role here, but that's the likely scenario.

For the sake of argument, you are giving the villain a narrow range pre-flop. After calling a flop bet, the villain's range is almost entirely Top Pair Good Kicker or a set of tens.
All the hero has done is make a standard flop c-bet.
There are two clubs on the board. I'd guess the odds of a bet by the villain on the turn here are close to 50/50 if we check.

So we're in check down mode expecting that our opponent might turn some hands into bluffs on the river. This is probably a separate discussion on the river spot, but I think you get the general point here (I hope). In one scenario, you potentially priced yourself out, in the second, you made an ideal bet and controlled the pot.

I think I understand your argument pretty well, thank you again.

So now let's say you check and your opponent checks. If they check in this spot, it's likely because they have a smaller pair and you just gave them free equity for no reason. You bet the turn, and they are likely calling.

Good!

You say I gave the villain free equity for no reason.
I gave him free equity to avoid building a big pot when I was probably behind.

Now, in the unlikely event that we have reached the turn after both player check the flop, I am in a much better situation:
- I know I am probably WA
- it is harder for the villain to know where they stand. So far I have 3-bet pre and checked the flop.
Am I just betting now with a medium pocket pair or KQ because they showed no strength? Slowplaying a monster? Semi-bluffing with a draw?
The villain's range is mostly QQ and JJ now if we agree for argument's sake that he has a narrow pre-flop range.
I am probably ahead, and my range here in the villain's eyes includes many hands they might beat.

Are you betting the river? What changed and why?

Depends on board texture (hopefully we have avoided clubs, Queens, and Jacks), but generally yes, I am betting.
Nothing has changed since the turn, and I have no reason to believe this player is tricky. I'm probably ahead here and will get calls from weaker hands.

 

[John A]

You may be overestimating the importance of post-flop range balancing at the $.05 BB level in a site with a massive player pool.
I have no doubt that what you say is true at your usual blind level, and there is some non-zero value to post-flop balance even at this level.

Well, I've sweated plenty of sessions for people who play these limits for 13+ years online. I think I have a pretty good understanding of the player pool, and the fact you really don't need to balance your range much at these limits. I'd advocate heavily against it. So we're going to agree to disagree, and I'm sure you know much better than I here.

For the sake of argument, you are giving the villain a narrow range pre-flop. After calling a flop bet, the villain's range is almost entirely Top Pair Good Kicker or a set of tens.
All the hero has done is make a standard flop c-bet.
There are two clubs on the board. I'd guess the odds of a bet by the villain on the turn here are close to 50/50 if we check.

Lots of contradictions in your thinking here honestly. If players at 5NL are so balanced and understand your range so well, why would they think they need to bet the turn after calling a "standard c-bet"? That makes no sense. If they understand their equity vs your range, they would check for pot control nearly always, even w/ TP.

I think I understand your argument pretty well, thank you again.



Good!

You say I gave the villain free equity for no reason.
I gave him free equity to avoid building a big pot when I was probably behind.

Now, in the unlikely event that we have reached the turn after both player check the flop, I am in a much better situation:
- I know I am probably WA
- it is harder for the villain to know where they stand. So far I have 3-bet pre and checked the flop.
Am I just betting now with a medium pocket pair or KQ because they showed no strength? Slowplaying a monster? Semi-bluffing with a draw?
The villain's range is mostly QQ and JJ now if we agree for argument's sake that he has a narrow pre-flop range.
I am probably ahead, and my range here in the villain's eyes includes many hands they might beat.

Again, this makes no sense. How in your mind is this harder for your opponent to understand your range when you just gave them information? You think checking the flop is creating confusion for your opponent? Look, if a person wants to bluff this flop, their ideal spot is to bet the flop and likely barrel the turn. Both players checking the flop doesn't change anything. You're both saying, I have a hand I like, but I don't want to over invest. My whole point of what I was saying about betting the flop has to do w/ the fact you're not going to get more than 1 street of value vs. opponents who are behind in this spot unless they are bad.

The flop goes c/c... now your opponent has JJ/QQ, what hand are you now betting the turn and river that they beat in their mind? Maybe in a single raised pot what you're saying might apply more, but not in a 3-bet pot.

Maybe I should have just said one line to start. You're not getting more than one street of value when your opponent is behind, so it doesn't ****ing matter what street you bet. Maybe that would have saved us all some time.

Depends on board texture (hopefully we have avoided clubs, Queens, and Jacks), but generally yes, I am betting.
Nothing has changed since the turn, and I have no reason to believe this player is tricky. I'm probably ahead here and will get calls from weaker hands.

Well, if you're getting 2 streets of value in this spot vs. JJ/QQ in a 3-bet pot you're picking good tables. Good for you man. WP.