Polished Poker Vol. I Study Group

[John A]

So balancing... pg 94. If you're a micro player, you're not going to want to worry about this really very much. There can be some regulars in your games though that you build some history with, and you do want to make sure you understand this concept, especially if you're trying to move up. This section is intended more for small stakes players. Mid stakes player tend to understand this concept pretty well (although I've coached exceptions here).

Pages 94-98, we go through balancing on a dry board and provide an example (small error in the math of the example and most of you probably don't have the corrected version. Changes the EV from 1.1 BB to 1 BB). The example at the end of the section. If you're against opponents that understand balancing, then CR this flop won't work quite as well. You'd want to incorporate that line more as a level. Against someone who does understand balancing a little better. It would server you better to c/c that kind of flop, and bet large on most turn cards. It's not a bad line to take if you already do have an established showdown that you did CR top pair, but most players won't do this.

Let me make sure everyone is up to speed and not make any assumptions. Why would it be better to c/c against a competent regular in the example on pg 97?

 

[HomeBrewer]

Let me make sure everyone is up to speed and not make any assumptions. Why would it be better to c/c against a competent regular in the example on pg 97?

I will take a stab at it....

Not to make it overly simple, but is it really for pot control? We are thinking that he is not going to lay down any worse hands (thus we don't want to build a large pot), and since we have so many back door draws we keep the pot size manageable so we can reassess on the turn? So simply because we are assuming that the reg will be calling our 3bet with his entire range we have no reason to?

 

[John A]

I will take a stab at it....

Not to make it overly simple, but is it really for pot control? We are thinking that he is not going to lay down any worse hands (thus we don't want to build a large pot), and since we have so many back door draws we keep the pot size manageable so we can reassess on the turn? So simply because we are assuming that the reg will be calling our 3bet with his entire range we have no reason to?

Good answer, and you do want pot control here, but that's not the primary reason. If you're against a decent regular, he will likely assume you're mostly FOS if you CR a board like this. But at most micro and some small stakes games you'll get folds from opponents who don't understand this (unless of course they have a hand). You'll also get calls from players with their mid-pairs and hands that now their hand can essentially be WA/WB (way ahead way behind) at this point. So you would fire any turn spade, K, J, and you can c/c or fire on an A or T as well. This is also why it's a great board to CR against good regulars when you go have a big hand because you'll be one level ahead of them in their thinking and can win a big pot in a lot of ways since they may also re-float your CR with air.

C/C this board looks much stronger, and again you can lead a ton of turn cards and really fire a ton of turn cards and bomb the river if you're called. Your line is going to get a lot more credit than CR against someone more competent.

Not sure what you mean by 3-betting though unless you mean the flop check-raise (this isn't a 3-bet). You get points for offering an answer.

 

[LD1977]

I think there is not much reason to chkraise a dry board with a made hand so it looks mega bluffy (or FOS ).

Meaning, this then goes into mutual perception and leveling and this is WAY beyond my current level of thinking.

So yeah, C/C seems to be much stronger looking line.

 

[HomeBrewer]

Right. 3 bet was not what I meant to say. And like LD said, this is way above my level of thinking online. But I will look to employ much of this live when I feel the atmosphere calls for it. Or when I make a big run at the micros.

I got points!

 

[John A]

I think there is not much reason to chkraise a dry board with a made hand so it looks mega bluffy (or FOS ).

Meaning, this then goes into mutual perception and leveling and this is WAY beyond my current level of thinking.

So yeah, C/C seems to be much stronger looking line.

I think at micros, especially against multi-tabling regulars, you can get away with this a good amount of time. The number of backdoor outs you'll pick up on turn will allow you to move your opponent off a lot more hands than you think with a turn bet.

Against some better micro stake and small stake players, this will look FOS, and then if you are aware that they are thinking at that level, then you start doing it when you do have a hand. But you obviously want to have a good read on their level of thinking and/or some history.

 

[Mvs]

i`m in!
i have read your book! great work!
but i have a lot to learn

 

[John A]

So the basic point with understanding board texture equity, is understanding what boards are generally more profitable to bluff, c/c, lead flop, c/c and lead turn, etc... you want to make sure you understand this because if you do, then you can execute bluffs in high equity spots, and capitalize on your opponents not understanding this.

If you're playing small stakes, and even mid stakes games, you should really study this section pg 93 - 104.

Any questions to this point because we're going to get into balanced deception?

 

[LD1977]

"Paired boards have increasingly become a game of "chicken" for no-limit players." so true!

I am pretty sure I am failing at these boards horribly if OOP. Chkcalling blindly is very scary and bluffy check raising works only vs nitty types and even then if they have overpairs it is tricky business.

I am going to try employing check calling and leading turn line a bit more often. I already did it a few times as a bluff against likely overcard hand if I saw something in the bet sizing that tipped me off.

As for the small cbet pot and big cbet turn line, in the micros a lot of people don't fold turns easily after they called flop so I am a bit skeptical not saying it is bad advice, just that it might not be applicable on my own level.

In position I float them with PPs and it often works since lots of micro players have sizing tells.

Presumably "don't bluff fish/calling stations" rule still applies and I should stick to bluffing TAGs and nits?

 

[DaYDreameR]

So the basic point with understanding board texture equity, is understanding what boards are generally more profitable to bluff, c/c, lead flop, c/c and lead turn, etc... you want to make sure you understand this because if you do, then you can execute bluffs in high equity spots, and capitalize on your opponents not understanding this.

If you're playing small stakes, and even mid stakes games, you should really study this section pg 93 - 104.

Any questions to this point because we're going to get into balanced deception?

Hi John,

Firstly thanks for doing this - Creating 'Polished Poker' and allowing it to be downloaded for free was great but this really is a cool thing to do for everyone - I'm sure we all really appreciate the time and effort you are going to in order for us to better understand the game.

Anyway, just a quick question about what you said c/c, then leading turn, bombing river - I take it this is the line you would take with all bluffs and monster hands on a similar 1 high card dry board? What cards, if any, would make you change your, lead turn, bombing river approach?

 

[DaYDreameR]

"Paired boards have increasingly become a game of "chicken" for no-limit players." so true!

I am pretty sure I am failing at these boards horribly if OOP. Chkcalling blindly is very scary and bluffy check raising works only vs nitty types and even then if they have overpairs it is tricky business.

I am going to try employing check calling and leading turn line a bit more often. I already did it a few times as a bluff against likely overcard hand if I saw something in the bet sizing that tipped me off.

As for the small cbet pot and big cbet turn line, in the micros a lot of people don't fold turns easily after they called flop so I am a bit skeptical not saying it is bad advice, just that it might not be applicable on my own level.

In position I float them with PPs and it often works since lots of micro players have sizing tells.

Presumably "don't bluff fish/calling stations" rule still applies and I should stick to bluffing TAGs and nits?

If I float OOP and the turn card pairs the board I've had quite a bit of success donk betting the turn. Usually on low to middle boards.

Generally I will float on paired boards if IP on the flop and re-evaluate, I think people give too much credit to people leading on paired boards. I guess it is a similar play to my turn donk but on the flop

 

[okeedokalee]

This is just what I'm looking for John, most generous of you, our community's ability has just leapt another level

 

[LD1977]

Question - Lets say I chkcall and lead turn and he calls. Give up?

 

[HomeBrewer]

Question - Lets say I chkcall and lead turn and he calls. Give up?

I think the strategy is to continue if that is the line they take. As has been mentioned, "bomb the river," no? But this is a great question as far as analyzing opponents action. We HAVE to lay down our hand if we get raised when we lead the turn right? I suppose that villain dependent there is still a shove over the top, but are we making that play in normal circumstances here? It would seem to me that we would be way behind almost always when we face a raise on the turn.

 

[John A]

"Paired boards have increasingly become a game of "chicken" for no-limit players." so true!

I am pretty sure I am failing at these boards horribly if OOP. Chkcalling blindly is very scary and bluffy check raising works only vs nitty types and even then if they have overpairs it is tricky business.

I am going to try employing check calling and leading turn line a bit more often. I already did it a few times as a bluff against likely overcard hand if I saw something in the bet sizing that tipped me off.

As for the small cbet pot and big cbet turn line, in the micros a lot of people don't fold turns easily after they called flop so I am a bit skeptical not saying it is bad advice, just that it might not be applicable on my own level.

In position I float them with PPs and it often works since lots of micro players have sizing tells.

Presumably "don't bluff fish/calling stations" rule still applies and I should stick to bluffing TAGs and nits?

That's interesting you say that people don't fold the turn a lot at your level. From what I've seen, and granted, I've never played micros myself but I have coached a few people and friends, there a TON of Look up artists (pg. 48), tons. They love calling the flop with just about anything, but will give up on the turn.

Are you mostly playing full ring right now? And what site because you said you don't have loose/passives, and now no look up artists? Seems pretty odd. I'm a little suspicious.

 

[John A]

Hi John,

Firstly thanks for doing this - Creating 'Polished Poker' and allowing it to be downloaded for free was great but this really is a cool thing to do for everyone - I'm sure we all really appreciate the time and effort you are going to in order for us to better understand the game.

Anyway, just a quick question about what you said c/c, then leading turn, bombing river - I take it this is the line you would take with all bluffs and monster hands on a similar 1 high card dry board? What cards, if any, would make you change your, lead turn, bombing river approach?

Yes, absolutely. It's a learning experience for me too, and hopefully I get to turn more people on to some of our products. I'd love to let all of the good regulars know that something like leak buster is more than just stat ranges, and there's a lot they can benefit from.

The question you're asking is a little abstract, but in general if the turn pairs the high card on the board, or the turn comes small with no real chance of helping my perceived range, or my actual range then I'd slow down. Anytime it improves my double barrel range, and I have a good understanding of where someone's range is against the board, as long as I can represent it in any way, then I'd bomb the river with my bluffs and value hands. As I build history with my opponents, my bombing range of my value hands gets wider. What I tend to do is always jot a quick note of what I bet for value against an opponent and what they called with. Super helpful in adjusting and knowing what range of hero calls they are capable of making so I can adjust my ranges accordingly.

 

[John A]

Question - Lets say I chkcall and lead turn and he calls. Give up?

This depends on how the board comes down versus the range they likely have. If someone is c/cing, they are either going to be super strong and trapping, or very mediocre. Especially if they c/c turn and check river. And you know that most of the time people will not have big hands.

At micros you're going to have a lot of passive players that will call with draws, so you can bluff obviously missed draws with your air as well. You open with Jc9c and get one caller to see something with a flop like: 2c 6h 7h. You bet, get called. Turn: Kd (obvious scare card, but you are going to rep this on the turn and river). You bet, get called. River is a Qs. Opponent checks, you bet. Obviously most of their range will be missed draw (that may beat you at showdown), 6,7, and small mid pairs. It may include some flush draws that turned or rivered a pair. But against the whole range, you can win the hand most of the time by the river.

So when I look at a flop texture, immediately I'm looking at how hard it likely hit my opponent. Then I'm looking at what kind of backdoor draws I have an how strong they are. I'm sizing and planning my bets right from the start in order to bluff or win the biggest pot when I do hit. So a different example, same concept.

I open As5s, and get one caller in position. Flop comes: Ks 4d Tc.

I know when I c-bet this board I'm going to get floated a ton. Awesome... because unless he has a big draw, set or 2 pair, I'm going to be able to rep a lot of hands by the river. I can rep AK/KK type hands more than my opponent can. That's a given. But I also have a backdoor nut flush draw, backdoor broadway, and backdoor wheel.

So any spade, Q, J, 2, or 3 and I'm doubling the turn. So knowing that, I'm betting around half pot on the flop (which I alternate between 1/2 and 2/3 c-bet sizing in single raised pots). Then I'm betting near pot on the turn so I can setup a lot of river shoves if I whiff.

Versus the first example where I'd bet 2/3rds, ~3/5ths on the turn, and bet the river. The flop texture, and the plan for bet sizing starts on the flop for the entire hand.

 

[dcor]

Well I'm a little late on reading...but im in, and read ch 9. Are there going to be any skype sessions or anything that might help simplify any points etc?

 

[John A]

Well I'm a little late on reading...but im in, and read ch 9. Are there going to be any skype sessions or anything that might help simplify any points etc?

Not likely... there will be a workshop coming up. I posted info in here.

 

[Angavar]

Let me make sure everyone is up to speed and not make any assumptions. Why would it be better to c/c against a competent regular in the example on pg 97?

I know I'm a bit late to this, but I think this question may apply more generally to this chapter.

Is some of the reason c/c is preferred that we expect a competent regular to have a more balance cbet range?

Most of the examples in this chapter seem to have opponent's cbetting 100% of their range - I know this makes the equity calculations easier, but how should we be taking into account how often a villain cbets and what that says about their range?

Thanks for doing this. It's all a bit above my level at the moment, but very interesting to think about.

 

[eBuddy]

How can we download the corrected version?

small error in the math of the example and most of you probably don't have the corrected version. Changes the EV from 1.1 BB to 1 BB

 

[aCutAbove]

Hello hello

Hi folks just saying gday and thanks John for helping the poker world improve our games.
I'm an ex sng micro reg, now play mostly Dons and MTTs NLHE, Omaha and PLO8.
I've been meaning to have a solid bash at 6max ring and recently devoted a portion of my roll to it.
Wow am i at the rigt place at the right time or what lol.

So glad you had the mention in Hem2 John, otherwise i never would have known.

Many thanks i can't wait to get involved. Cheers.:marchmell

 

[eBuddy]

I don't understand the last six lines on the bottom of page 97.

Even before your opponents have a better idea of what your range will be here, they'd have to continue with such a large portion of their range and call 48% of the time or more for it not to be a profitable play.

Is the calculation
14 BB hero check-raises with / (14 + 11.5 pot) = 54.9%?
If villain folds >= 55%, hero profits. Villain has to call 45% of the time or more for it not to be a profitable play, not 48%, correct?

As it stands, if we say that roughly 8% of the time, they'll rebluff you with their air range and you'll have to fold, the math would look like this:

-14 * 0.43 + 11.5 * 0.57 = -6.02 + 6.56 = +0.54 EV?

I understand that there is 11.5 BB in the pot (3 *2 + 0.5 + 5), but why does villain fold 57% of the time, i.e., how did you get the .43 number? Does villain 3-bet 43% of the time and you assume that hero has to fold?

Thanks again.

 

[John A]

How can we download the corrected version?

I'm finishing some things up today, so likely by tomorrow you can just download from the link in your e-mail.

 

[John A]

I know I'm a bit late to this, but I think this question may apply more generally to this chapter.

Is some of the reason c/c is preferred that we expect a competent regular to have a more balance cbet range?

Most of the examples in this chapter seem to have opponent's cbetting 100% of their range - I know this makes the equity calculations easier, but how should we be taking into account how often a villain cbets and what that says about their range?

Thanks for doing this. It's all a bit above my level at the moment, but very interesting to think about.

Good question, but the examples used are assuming a c-bet so that we can run through the different options (otherwise we'd be on the turn ). Heads up, people c-bet a huge percentage of the time, so while more competent regulars will understand when to check, it's still going to be a large portion of their range as you know.

Even if someone's c-bet % is pretty low, heads up in position it's going to be super high, as it should be. OOP a little tighter. So I'd assume this until someone proves that they understand texture and ranges a little better. I coached a 25NL game last week and watched a pre-flop raiser in a sandwhiched position (person before him, person after him), c-bet a TJx board with 2 hearts with A8o. And he had reg stats, so you're probably going to see bad c-bets at those kinds of stakes a lot. That wasn't the only or first time I saw regulars making bad c-bets also.

Any ways, for the purpose of the chapter I wouldn't concern yourself with it. It's something to keep in the back of your mind, and if you have someone who is super tight at firing, then just don't look to re-steal quite as much. Don't check/call with A high and then donk the turn looking to re-steal.