Submitted by coffeeyay on September 18, 2012 - 00:53
Coffeeyay continues his leakfinder at the $60 level on PokerStars, discussing how to break down an opponent's hand range and find ways to be aggressive.
Submitted by coffeeyay on September 18, 2012 - 12:43.
Glad you enjoyed the video :)
Rake is a sunk cost. We've already paid it, at that point we just want to maximize our win rate in the sng so rake isn't a factor, we just want to make our stack bigger and if by limping we end up with .1bb more than open folding it then we are most likely increasing our winrate by taking that action--and rake plays no part in our discussion.
Submitted by zachaser on September 18, 2012 - 18:50.
5:50(A7): Do you think checking back is better than betting forthin value on the 889hhQss board? In my mind villain has Qx a lot when he flats the 899 flop (QT, QJ, sometimes QK), so I feel like a lot of the time we're value owning ourselves when we bet turn.
9:30(KJ): Why are we stabbing turn on a drawy board with showdown value? I don't undersand what we are trying to get folds from. Agree with your river line, seems best when the worst card in the deck hits.
12:57(Q7o): I never fold to a double raise at this stack depth without really solid reads, do you think this is a leak? I'm surprised you advocate folding when we only need 25% equity and villain is a bad fish.
16:40(K5o): 2 questions: 1. What's the lowest Kx you're flatting at this stack depth? 2. Given villain's wide raising range on the HUD, what stack depth do you think jamming over with K5 will be better than flatting? For example, we're ~16bb in the hand, I would think jamming is very profitable if he's raising wide and hard to do better flatting.
20:23(KcJc): What's the lowest suited Kx you're 3bet/calling with here? Unsuited? Is this standard play for you or because of the read we have on this villain that he minraises wide from the button?
21:09(9c7c): I understand your point about gameflow, but I think assuming that jamming is better than flatting such a playable hand here is optimistic. Wouldn't you rather have something that plays slightly worse post like 95ss or J2cc so you don't waste the postflop expectation from hands like 97cc?
Submitted by Katipo on September 19, 2012 - 10:55.
How wide would you shove over a limp readless @ ~25bb? What about A2o? Also, how would you try to best get value with a hand like JT or QJ vs a limp ~12-15bb?
Submitted by KamikazeMan1 on January 10, 2013 - 17:59.
KJos at 10 minute mark: In this hand you mentioned that you didn't like the hero's river 2 barrel on this board because the bet will not fold enough of villain's range in that spot. If you actually think about it you are probably folding out the vast majority of his range here on the river because hero can rep any piece of this board. Villain actually reps very little on that board unless he had some sort of 8x hand that he strangely didn't Cbet on the flop. You can't put villain on anything else here because any flush draw, 9x, and some 6x hands will be Cbetted on this flop and if villain had a low 6x hand that he chose not to Cbet, then he would have raised the small bet on the turn when another 6 came down. But villain only flatted the small bet on the turn, which steers his range primarily to unpaired overcards. I really like the small bet size on the turn because it gives you solid information so you can act correctly on the river, because villain will rarely 3Bet the turn bet as a bluff on this kind of a board, and can really only raise for value from a hand mysteriously slowplayed on the flop or 6x. So when villain calls on the turn and the 3rd diamond hits as well as adding 4 to a straight on the river, hero's decision to 2 barrel is actually a brilliant play because villain's perceived range of overcards will fold almost always unless villain has A10, K10, or Q10, but not J10 because J10 is probably Cbetting the flop. I can almost guarantee that the hero was putting villain on overcards when he decided to 2 barrel the river or possibly a random 8x hand hoping that he folds it out.
Submitted by coffeeyay on January 11, 2013 - 09:00.
Hi Zach, sorry I missed this. I’ll go through thoughts on each of your hands in detail, and with an added amount of experience since it’s been so long :D
5:50(A7): Do you think checking back is better than betting forthin value on the 889hhQss board? In my mind villain has Qx a lot when he flats the 899 flop (QT, QJ, sometimes QK), so I feel like a lot of the time we're value owning ourselves when we bet turn.
Yeah so looking back at the hand I think it is closer than I say it is because you’re right that a large fraction of those draws improve on the Q--QJ QT JT. Because of that I think you’re right that the fraction of hands we beat drops and likely we are value owning ourselves a bit. However, his range will still have flush draws (2 different ones are on the board), T7 T6 87 86 67 in it as well as flush draws so it is still very close. It’s definitely a very close spot though and I think that the difference in equities will be very small especially once we factor in the later street implications of betting. Our bet will function as a bit of a blocking bet and saves us from getting bluffed off our equity on the river some % of the time as well. Plus we still have A high that can improve past a pair of queens so we will get some semibluff equity (if he doesn’t raise his Qx). Overall I think that the spot ends up incredibly close (definitely much closer than I imply in the video) and we can go either way, it’s very hard to say what’s actually best here but since it is so close I wouldn’t worry much about it since it won’t really make us more $ to get it right.
9:30(KJ): Why are we stabbing turn on a drawy board with showdown value? I don't undersand what we are trying to get folds from. Agree with your river line, seems best when the worst card in the deck hits.
I’ll comment on this hand in detail in my next post since the next poster had questions about it as well.
12:57(Q7o): I never fold to a double raise at this stack depth without really solid reads, do you think this is a leak? I'm surprised you advocate folding when we only need 25% equity and villain is a bad fish.
Yeah I do think this is a leak, though it depends on the population. I’ve found that the population tends to be *very* nutted when 3b nonallin, particularly to this sizing. This means that the only hands we should be flatting are hands that can get good implied odds. With Q7o we hit flops very rarely and when we do we don’t actually pull that far ahead of his range since he will always have at least one over card, and often enough it will be two overs + draws. That’s of course when he doesn’t have KK or AA and we will almost never be good on the flop. I’m calling here with connected hands, especially suited ones but not these off suit disconnected ones--respect the small 3bets imo ;)
16:40(K5o): 2 questions: 1. What's the lowest Kx you're flatting at this stack depth? 2. Given villain's wide raising range on the HUD, what stack depth do you think jamming over with K5 will be better than flatting? For example, we're ~16bb in the hand, I would think jamming is very profitable if he's raising wide and hard to do better flatting.
1. It depends a ton on our reads on villain--specifically how tight do we think he’s opening? readless it’s probably around K4o, with reads that he opens wider than average at this depth K2o. With reads that he’s tighter it can go up to K7o though usually K6 and K5 will be a flat. 2. Interesting question. i think many people overvalue the equity of shoving weak Kx. It will take a very wide opening range to make us want to shove it 16bb deep, particularly since we can’t expect KT+ or any Ax to fold. Playing around with ICMIZER a bit at 16bb we need villain to be opening over 60% to make it +EV compared to folding, and over 65% to be convinced we’re doing better than flatting. And even if villain is opening around 67% if villain is minr/calling a wide inducing range like Ax K9+ K8s+ QJo QTs+ JTs 55+ we’re back to being only marginally better than folding. At 16bb when players are limping as standard nowadays these are *very* wide opening ranges even for regs, so be very careful when 3b shoving off suit Kx, it’s usually not a very good idea.
20:23(KcJc): What's the lowest suited Kx you're 3bet/calling with here? Unsuited? Is this standard play for you or because of the read we have on this villain that he minraises wide from the button?
KTs+KQo if we 3b (and we’re not min 3betting or something wacky) we should be calling the shove just due to pot odds. It’s been standard for me for a while but I’ve never been convinced whether 3betting it in the first place it’s better than flatting (or even jamming), all the evidence I’ve found is that it is a very close decision readless. With reads that villain flats more than avg vs 3bets it is definitely a 3bNAI/call with those hands (and I like to use a big sizing to get max value). When shallower ~20bb we can add in KJo to this range and it too will be a call vs a 4b if villain does jam.
21:09(9c7c): I understand your point about gameflow, but I think assuming that jamming is better than flatting such a playable hand here is optimistic. Wouldn't you rather have something that plays slightly worse post like 95ss or J2cc so you don't waste the postflop expectation from hands like 97cc?
Versus a 70% opening range and a fairly standard calling range 97s has really solid expectation shoved, more than 0EV from start of hand, so in this case it will be hard to do better. Our villain has been opening even more than that It’s really doubtful you’ll get more equity flatting it--look up what you get flatting it versus the population, then factor in that a villain who opens wider than average likely is more aggressive on the button so we probably don’t do quite as well with 97s than vs the population. 95s and J2s are also shoves in this situation fwiw (with 97s>95s>J2s) and I’d shove all 3. I’m flatting that hands that have marginal expectation shoved in worse scenarios (like wider calling ranges)--like 97o is definitely a flat for instance. With hands like KQ it’s a much tougher argument as they will play post flop significantly better than 97s and don’t have that much more equity shoved, so it’s hands like that that I’m flatting.
Submitted by coffeeyay on January 11, 2013 - 10:52.
Regarding KJ hand: Zach asked:
9:30(KJ): Why are we stabbing turn on a drawy board with showdown value? I don't undersand what we are trying to get folds from. Agree with your river line, seems best when the worst card in the deck hits.
Kamikaze asked about the river barrel and argued that it we should barrel.
First, regarding the turn bet, I think we should be betting because we do fold out some equity share, we get thin value from draws, and most importantly because it sets up profitable two barrels to fold out checked back weak equity share. This is a spot where villain’s range will almost always be very capped and so we can two barreling very profitably. The fact that we have showdown value means that we don’t always have to two barrel, which is a nice benefit, and it also makes our hand into more of a semibluff. That being said looking at the hand in retrospect I really don’t like the small sizing--it definitely will have a tendency to induce and will give us less credit for protecting an equity hand and get fewer folds both if we two barrel and if we don’t. t50 is definitely a better sizing. As for the actual river barrel--while I think Kamikaze is right that this is a scary river and so we do increase our fold equity versus 8x and Ax, the issue is that it greatly increases the number of value hands in villain’s range. Many over card hands hit that T either through the straight or just as a pair. Plus we really shouldn’t exclude flushes--fish do cback flush draws. This means that the only hands that we end up folding out that we don’t beat are Ax and 8x (since worse Kx and Qx that didn’t hit the T will check back and let us showdown a winning hand anyways so we don’t care about folding them out). This makes his folding range too narrow given that his value range increased and we are value owning ourselves into it since none of his value range is likely folding there (ie he never folds Tx, 6x, straights of flushes). Kamikaze I think you’re overthinking the situation a bit in terms of perceived ranges and what not--a fish does not perceive any range in general. Occasionally they will put us on a hand. Mostly they just look at their own hand strength. Because of this we really can’t expect him to fold Tx or any other hands and so we just end up not getting enough folds given that we still beat some equity. I would be barreling a lot of other turns because they will leave villain with fewer value hands where folding out 8x and Ax begins to be very important, but on this river I think the added number of value combos makes it likely -EV. It’s still a very close spot though and I could be off on my combinatorics--the best way to look at this in more detail is to use a tool like Flopzilla, however the major difficulty is in weighing villain’s checkback range. Overall though I think your insight into the hand is correct and it’s definitely much closer to a bet than I suggested in the video. This means it’s a very close spot and so definitely not a mistake on the part of my student.
Comments
HI Coffeyay. U made again a
HI Coffeyay. U made again a great video w good analysis and clear voice. well done.
At 25 minute u sayd that we should minraise or limp 83o and that is close to brake even point.
Dont we lose value out of the sng (paying rake),
playing a hand at first level blinds that doesnt give us edge?
Glad you enjoyed the video
Glad you enjoyed the video :)
Rake is a sunk cost. We've already paid it, at that point we just want to maximize our win rate in the sng so rake isn't a factor, we just want to make our stack bigger and if by limping we end up with .1bb more than open folding it then we are most likely increasing our winrate by taking that action--and rake plays no part in our discussion.
5:50(A7): Do you think
5:50(A7): Do you think checking back is better than betting forthin value on the 889hhQss board? In my mind villain has Qx a lot when he flats the 899 flop (QT, QJ, sometimes QK), so I feel like a lot of the time we're value owning ourselves when we bet turn.
9:30(KJ): Why are we stabbing turn on a drawy board with showdown value? I don't undersand what we are trying to get folds from. Agree with your river line, seems best when the worst card in the deck hits.
12:57(Q7o): I never fold to a double raise at this stack depth without really solid reads, do you think this is a leak? I'm surprised you advocate folding when we only need 25% equity and villain is a bad fish.
16:40(K5o): 2 questions: 1. What's the lowest Kx you're flatting at this stack depth? 2. Given villain's wide raising range on the HUD, what stack depth do you think jamming over with K5 will be better than flatting? For example, we're ~16bb in the hand, I would think jamming is very profitable if he's raising wide and hard to do better flatting.
20:23(KcJc): What's the lowest suited Kx you're 3bet/calling with here? Unsuited? Is this standard play for you or because of the read we have on this villain that he minraises wide from the button?
21:09(9c7c): I understand your point about gameflow, but I think assuming that jamming is better than flatting such a playable hand here is optimistic. Wouldn't you rather have something that plays slightly worse post like 95ss or J2cc so you don't waste the postflop expectation from hands like 97cc?
Nice video, keep up the good work!
How wide would you shove over
How wide would you shove over a limp readless @ ~25bb? What about A2o? Also, how would you try to best get value with a hand like JT or QJ vs a limp ~12-15bb?
Coaching page + Blog
KJos at 10 minute mark
KJos at 10 minute mark: In this hand you mentioned that you didn't like the hero's river 2 barrel on this board because the bet will not fold enough of villain's range in that spot. If you actually think about it you are probably folding out the vast majority of his range here on the river because hero can rep any piece of this board. Villain actually reps very little on that board unless he had some sort of 8x hand that he strangely didn't Cbet on the flop. You can't put villain on anything else here because any flush draw, 9x, and some 6x hands will be Cbetted on this flop and if villain had a low 6x hand that he chose not to Cbet, then he would have raised the small bet on the turn when another 6 came down. But villain only flatted the small bet on the turn, which steers his range primarily to unpaired overcards. I really like the small bet size on the turn because it gives you solid information so you can act correctly on the river, because villain will rarely 3Bet the turn bet as a bluff on this kind of a board, and can really only raise for value from a hand mysteriously slowplayed on the flop or 6x. So when villain calls on the turn and the 3rd diamond hits as well as adding 4 to a straight on the river, hero's decision to 2 barrel is actually a brilliant play because villain's perceived range of overcards will fold almost always unless villain has A10, K10, or Q10, but not J10 because J10 is probably Cbetting the flop. I can almost guarantee that the hero was putting villain on overcards when he decided to 2 barrel the river or possibly a random 8x hand hoping that he folds it out.
Hi Zach, sorry I missed this.
Hi Zach, sorry I missed this. I’ll go through thoughts on each of your hands in detail, and with an added amount of experience since it’s been so long :D
5:50(A7): Do you think checking back is better than betting forthin value on the 889hhQss board? In my mind villain has Qx a lot when he flats the 899 flop (QT, QJ, sometimes QK), so I feel like a lot of the time we're value owning ourselves when we bet turn.
Yeah so looking back at the hand I think it is closer than I say it is because you’re right that a large fraction of those draws improve on the Q--QJ QT JT. Because of that I think you’re right that the fraction of hands we beat drops and likely we are value owning ourselves a bit. However, his range will still have flush draws (2 different ones are on the board), T7 T6 87 86 67 in it as well as flush draws so it is still very close. It’s definitely a very close spot though and I think that the difference in equities will be very small especially once we factor in the later street implications of betting. Our bet will function as a bit of a blocking bet and saves us from getting bluffed off our equity on the river some % of the time as well. Plus we still have A high that can improve past a pair of queens so we will get some semibluff equity (if he doesn’t raise his Qx). Overall I think that the spot ends up incredibly close (definitely much closer than I imply in the video) and we can go either way, it’s very hard to say what’s actually best here but since it is so close I wouldn’t worry much about it since it won’t really make us more $ to get it right.
9:30(KJ): Why are we stabbing turn on a drawy board with showdown value? I don't undersand what we are trying to get folds from. Agree with your river line, seems best when the worst card in the deck hits.
I’ll comment on this hand in detail in my next post since the next poster had questions about it as well.
12:57(Q7o): I never fold to a double raise at this stack depth without really solid reads, do you think this is a leak? I'm surprised you advocate folding when we only need 25% equity and villain is a bad fish.
Yeah I do think this is a leak, though it depends on the population. I’ve found that the population tends to be *very* nutted when 3b nonallin, particularly to this sizing. This means that the only hands we should be flatting are hands that can get good implied odds. With Q7o we hit flops very rarely and when we do we don’t actually pull that far ahead of his range since he will always have at least one over card, and often enough it will be two overs + draws. That’s of course when he doesn’t have KK or AA and we will almost never be good on the flop. I’m calling here with connected hands, especially suited ones but not these off suit disconnected ones--respect the small 3bets imo ;)
16:40(K5o): 2 questions: 1. What's the lowest Kx you're flatting at this stack depth? 2. Given villain's wide raising range on the HUD, what stack depth do you think jamming over with K5 will be better than flatting? For example, we're ~16bb in the hand, I would think jamming is very profitable if he's raising wide and hard to do better flatting.
1. It depends a ton on our reads on villain--specifically how tight do we think he’s opening? readless it’s probably around K4o, with reads that he opens wider than average at this depth K2o. With reads that he’s tighter it can go up to K7o though usually K6 and K5 will be a flat. 2. Interesting question. i think many people overvalue the equity of shoving weak Kx. It will take a very wide opening range to make us want to shove it 16bb deep, particularly since we can’t expect KT+ or any Ax to fold. Playing around with ICMIZER a bit at 16bb we need villain to be opening over 60% to make it +EV compared to folding, and over 65% to be convinced we’re doing better than flatting. And even if villain is opening around 67% if villain is minr/calling a wide inducing range like Ax K9+ K8s+ QJo QTs+ JTs 55+ we’re back to being only marginally better than folding. At 16bb when players are limping as standard nowadays these are *very* wide opening ranges even for regs, so be very careful when 3b shoving off suit Kx, it’s usually not a very good idea.
20:23(KcJc): What's the lowest suited Kx you're 3bet/calling with here? Unsuited? Is this standard play for you or because of the read we have on this villain that he minraises wide from the button?
KTs+KQo if we 3b (and we’re not min 3betting or something wacky) we should be calling the shove just due to pot odds. It’s been standard for me for a while but I’ve never been convinced whether 3betting it in the first place it’s better than flatting (or even jamming), all the evidence I’ve found is that it is a very close decision readless. With reads that villain flats more than avg vs 3bets it is definitely a 3bNAI/call with those hands (and I like to use a big sizing to get max value). When shallower ~20bb we can add in KJo to this range and it too will be a call vs a 4b if villain does jam.
21:09(9c7c): I understand your point about gameflow, but I think assuming that jamming is better than flatting such a playable hand here is optimistic. Wouldn't you rather have something that plays slightly worse post like 95ss or J2cc so you don't waste the postflop expectation from hands like 97cc?
Versus a 70% opening range and a fairly standard calling range 97s has really solid expectation shoved, more than 0EV from start of hand, so in this case it will be hard to do better. Our villain has been opening even more than that It’s really doubtful you’ll get more equity flatting it--look up what you get flatting it versus the population, then factor in that a villain who opens wider than average likely is more aggressive on the button so we probably don’t do quite as well with 97s than vs the population. 95s and J2s are also shoves in this situation fwiw (with 97s>95s>J2s) and I’d shove all 3. I’m flatting that hands that have marginal expectation shoved in worse scenarios (like wider calling ranges)--like 97o is definitely a flat for instance. With hands like KQ it’s a much tougher argument as they will play post flop significantly better than 97s and don’t have that much more equity shoved, so it’s hands like that that I’m flatting.
A2o is the widest I would
A2o is the widest I would shove over a limp readless. 12-15bb with JT or QJ raise/call NAI vs a limp vs fish, shove vs a limp vs regs.
Regarding KJ hand: Zach
Regarding KJ hand: Zach asked:
9:30(KJ): Why are we stabbing turn on a drawy board with showdown value? I don't undersand what we are trying to get folds from. Agree with your river line, seems best when the worst card in the deck hits.
Kamikaze asked about the river barrel and argued that it we should barrel.
First, regarding the turn bet, I think we should be betting because we do fold out some equity share, we get thin value from draws, and most importantly because it sets up profitable two barrels to fold out checked back weak equity share. This is a spot where villain’s range will almost always be very capped and so we can two barreling very profitably. The fact that we have showdown value means that we don’t always have to two barrel, which is a nice benefit, and it also makes our hand into more of a semibluff. That being said looking at the hand in retrospect I really don’t like the small sizing--it definitely will have a tendency to induce and will give us less credit for protecting an equity hand and get fewer folds both if we two barrel and if we don’t. t50 is definitely a better sizing. As for the actual river barrel--while I think Kamikaze is right that this is a scary river and so we do increase our fold equity versus 8x and Ax, the issue is that it greatly increases the number of value hands in villain’s range. Many over card hands hit that T either through the straight or just as a pair. Plus we really shouldn’t exclude flushes--fish do cback flush draws. This means that the only hands that we end up folding out that we don’t beat are Ax and 8x (since worse Kx and Qx that didn’t hit the T will check back and let us showdown a winning hand anyways so we don’t care about folding them out). This makes his folding range too narrow given that his value range increased and we are value owning ourselves into it since none of his value range is likely folding there (ie he never folds Tx, 6x, straights of flushes). Kamikaze I think you’re overthinking the situation a bit in terms of perceived ranges and what not--a fish does not perceive any range in general. Occasionally they will put us on a hand. Mostly they just look at their own hand strength. Because of this we really can’t expect him to fold Tx or any other hands and so we just end up not getting enough folds given that we still beat some equity. I would be barreling a lot of other turns because they will leave villain with fewer value hands where folding out 8x and Ax begins to be very important, but on this river I think the added number of value combos makes it likely -EV. It’s still a very close spot though and I could be off on my combinatorics--the best way to look at this in more detail is to use a tool like Flopzilla, however the major difficulty is in weighing villain’s checkback range. Overall though I think your insight into the hand is correct and it’s definitely much closer to a bet than I suggested in the video. This means it’s a very close spot and so definitely not a mistake on the part of my student.