I think postflop play in 3b pot is all pretty standard (although villain's cbet sizing was a little concerning).
Do you think flatting the NAI 3b in position w Q6s @ 25BB is profitable vs typical villain tendencies in 3b pots?
No Limit Holdem Tournament • 2 Players
$6.85+$0.15
Hand converted by the official HUSNG.com hand converter
| SB | Hero | 500 | |
| BB | Tuts72 | 500 |
Effective Stacks: 25bb
Blinds 10/20
Pre-Flop (30, 2 players)
Hero is SB
Hero raises to 40, Tuts72 raises to 100, Hero calls 60
Flop (200, 2 players)
Tuts72 bets 120, Hero goes all-in 400, Tuts72 goes all-in 280
Turn (1000, 2 players, 2 all-in)
River (1000, 2 players, 2 all-in)
Final Pot: 1000
Hero shows a straight, Eight to Queen
Tuts72 shows two pair, Jacks and Nines
Hero wins 1000 ( won +500 )
Tuts72 lost -500
Not really. Nice example but how often can you call his cbet? Not often imo.
A disciplined fold or 4bet shove is probably better.
By including calling you are making your responses more polarised.
By dividing your calling hands into either a fold or a 4 bet shove you are more likely to get called when you acquire a very strong hand.
This example demonstrates the heart of the game which is that hand strengths increase exponentially rather than linearly.
So for any given street, whether it be preflop or post flop, the end expectation of current hand strength increases exponentially.
And so the key to playing a winning strategy is not to behave in a unique way when you have a disproportionally high chance of winning.
For example if we only 4bet shove with AA preflop we will never realise its disportionately high ev.
And likewise if we only ever raise post flop with the undisputed nuts the same applies.
How much does balance matter if you play against an unknown opponent? A 4-bet with Q6s against an unknown player would not be my advice. How much FE do you think you would get?
LVT
You're unknown to each other until precisely hand number 2.
Indeed I would fold this specific hand.
Calling a 3-bet with Q6s can be questioned. I would no make the call if he did not 3-bet that much, I perceive the 3-bet non all-in range as pretty strong. Maybe even stronger than the 3-bet shove. Your queen with the low kicker will make sure that in future calls you will get in serieus problems.
LVT
Ok, let me clarify exactly what I was asking.
When I get NAI 3b @ 25BB, readless I am generally assuming I am up against a strong value range.
As you both correctly pointed out.
Readless, 4b jamming this hand would be terrible.
Spewmonkey awful, without reads that villain 3b light.
So what was I really asking?
I am considering flatting in position and will play one postflop street vs what I am assuming is an overt value range.
I was really asking about typical villain tendencies in 3b pots.
Why? Because hyper turbos set up really interesting 2 street games which solutions can be approximated for.
I min raise, villain 3b to 100.
Lets see how the stacks get set up (all numbers are in units of big blinds, BB)
SB = 0.5
BB= 1.0
P0 = 1.5 <<== pot after blinds posted
r = 1.5 <<== min raise
P1 = 3.0
3b = 4.0 <<== 3b to 100
P2 = 7.0
c = 3.0 <<== flat 3b
P3 = 10.0 <<== pot on flop in 3b pot after min raise and 3b to 100
Villain will often cbet, maybe something like half pot, 0.5P3 = 5.0 BB
So if I jam over his cbet, he will be layed (25-5-5) / (2*25) = 30% equity to call off
=> which if he (as we expect) has a value oriented 3b NAI range, he will usually have
=> a 0.5P cbet will often be pot committing for villain
=> hence, I believe that flatting a NAI 3b preflop, can yield potentially high implied value postflop if we pick and choose which flops to stack off on
If I flat a NAI 3b will see a flop:
- vs a range of [3b] => assume [AA-66,AK-AT]
- against which I have 32.089% equity preflop but my flop equity distribution looks like this:
http://www.propokertools.com/simulations/graph?g=he&h1=Qx6x&h2=AA-66%2CAK-AT&s=generic
and I want to know: Can I flat his 3b and play fit/jam or fold on flops where I flop sufficient equity to do so compared to simply folding to his NAI 3b and have better expectation?
If I fold to his 3b NAI, I will end up with a stack of (S-3) = 25 - 3 = 22.0 BB
To be indifferent between folding now, or flatting and seeing a flop, I need the rest of the decision paths to yield an expected stack > 22.0 BB.
To simplify the analysis, I will give myself only one option on the flop facing a cbet, jam or fold.
Additionally I will limit myself to jamming it in when I have the equity to call a jam anyway.
When I see the flop with (25-5) = 20.0 BB behind, I can call a cbet jam if I have 20 / (2*25) = 40% equity vs villain's cbet range.
Let's use that as a benchmark.
This is, of course a fairly extreme assumption, so lets make it a bit more realistic by also assuming villain will also sometimes cbet his 0.5P and then fold to a jam.
This is a heavily restricted implied value game.
Which with the particular holding I have and the stack set ups of hyper turbos, could be a very close approximation to how it is played.
=> which could answer my original question :)
So villains options are:
- cbet and call jam, cb-c
- cbet and fold to jam, cb-f
- check to me and call jam, c-c
- check to me and fold to jam, c-f
- check to me and I check back
How often will I make the 40% equity required to stack off vs villain's preflop 3b NAI range?
From the flop equity distribtion, we make this about 27% of the time.
So we will be jamming on the flop 27% of the time.
And if we calculate the area under the curve between 0 and 27, then divide it by 27, we get our average equity the times we stack off.
Or, with propokertools, we can simply run an equity stat breakdown with the additional restriction that hero has HvH equity of >=40% on the flop.
select /* Start equity stats */
avg(riverEquity(PLAYER_1)) as PLAYER_1_equity1,
count(winsHi(PLAYER_1)) as PLAYER_1_winsHi1,
count(tiesHi(PLAYER_1)) as PLAYER_1_tiesHi1,
avg(riverEquity(PLAYER_2)) as PLAYER_2_equity1,
count(winsHi(PLAYER_2)) as PLAYER_2_winsHi1,
count(tiesHi(PLAYER_2)) as PLAYER_2_tiesHi1
/* End equity stats */
from game='holdem', syntax='Generic',
PLAYER_1='Qx6x',
PLAYER_2='AA-66,AK-AT'
where minHVHEquity(PLAYER_1,flop,0.4) /* PLAYER_1 have hand vs. hand equity of at least 40% on the flop */
Which comes out as equity = 71.339% ~ 71%
So we now know that 27% of the time, we can stack off and on average we will have 71% equity vs villain's pot committed range when we do.
Understand why I might be interested in villains' tendencies in 3b pots?
For each of villains' possible actions we can calculate our expected stack:
- cbet and call jam, cb-c => E(S) = 2Se, with frequency x1
- cbet and fold to jam, cb-f => E(S) = S+10, with frequency x2
- check to me and call jam, c-c => E(S) = 2Se, with frequency x3
- check to me and fold to jam, c-f => E(S) = S+5, with frequency x4
- check to me and I check back => find average equity vs villains range for other section of flop distribution curve when equity < 40% = [16.869%] => E(S) = (10)e, with frequency x5
If we can assign probabilities to each of these trees, we can find the expectation of calling a NAI 3b, with the plan to jam over the times we have enough equity to do so vs villain's range.
For example, if villain cbets and calls a jam with his entire range preflop 3b NAI range (not unreasonable given such a tight range), x2 = 1
and we find our expected stack after calling a NAI 3b is:
- times we have sufficient equity and jam = 0.27, with e = 0.71 and E(S) = 2Se
- times we do not have sufficient equity and fold = 0.73 and E(S) = S-5
E(S) = 0.27 * (2*25*0.71) + 0.73 * (25 - 5) = 9.56 + 14.6 = 24.16 BB
If we raise and fold to NAI 3b, we end up with stack of (S-2) = 25-2 = 23 BB
Against this villain's tendencies, if we flat and pick and chose which flops to stack off on, we end up with 24.16 BB
Against this (extreme) villain, we do 24.16 - 23 = 1.16 BB better by flatting the NAI 3b with Qx6x against a very tight overt value range than we do by folding.
If we can build assumptions about how villains' tend to play in 3b pots, we can calculate whether calling NAI 3bs is better than folding or not.
^^ Does this clarify the intent behind my question?
This approach might work but I feel that you would have to stop 4betting in order not to polarise your calling range.
If not he will have the edge on you with his cBetting post flop.
And I'm not sure losing the strength of 4betting would be worth it.
however, given the depth of your analysis on this point which I know you have spent alot of time considering recently I will give it a decent amount of thought as well and then post something more considered in due course.
"given the depth of your analysis on this point which I know you have spent alot of time considering recently I will give it a decent amount of thought as well and then post something more considered in due course."
Thanks, I would appreciate feedback from other players :)
"This approach might work but I feel that you would have to stop 4betting in order not to polarise your calling range."
"And I'm not sure losing the strength of 4betting would be worth it."
Readless, we assume we are up against a value oriented range. As such, we assume villain is basically NAI 3b and calling a 4b jam all the time. Therefore we will only be 4b jamming a value range against his 3b NAI range that gives us an expected stack size greater than min-raise-folding vs villain's NAI 3b range. If we develop the read that villain is 3b NAI with a wide range, including many bluffs, then we can consider building an exploitative 4b jamming range, including some bluffs.
The hands we are considering flatting a NAI 3b with which benefit from high implied value, will not conditionally affect our 4b jamming range. Our calling range will not be polarised => it will be full of marginal hands which benefit from high implied value. However, our flop equity distribution will be polarised (if that's what you meant?), which is exactly the point of doing this implied value modelling.
"If not he will have the edge on you with his cBetting post flop."
We accept that we will simply be folding to villain's flop cbet lot of the time. We are playing for implied value, leveraging our position and pot committment considerations vs an assumed overt value range. In the example I posted previously, we had enough equity to stack off only 27% of the time. So 73% of the time we would fold to villain's cbet. And, vs his assumed tendencies in 3b pot, we managed to do slightly better than had we simply folded to villain's preflop NAI 3b.