But feel free to throw some hands in this thread for another opinion/a second perspective. No promises on how much I'll be able to help/how much time I'll have over the next couple weeks, but I'll try to stop by once in a while. mers
But feel free to throw some hands in this thread for another opinion/a second perspective. No promises on how much I'll be able to help/how much time I'll have over the next couple weeks, but I'll try to stop by once in a while. mers
what do you think about a raise/calling strategy vs good regs? (minimal limping) i feel like a lot of regs have started to understand the strategy of limping mid-connected hands, and respond reasonably well to it (not saying that limping is -ev or anything...just curious if we have a better option).raising a wide pfr and adjusting our raise/calling range based on his 3bet tendancies/gameflow seems like a strategy that would give certain regs a lot of trouble - basically, a lot of thinking players deal with aggression very poorly...esp aggression that doesn't fold when played back at too often. i'm just imagining myself 21bb deep raising J9s in sb vs a reg who i think given gameflow and other info is likely to be 3bet jamming a polarized range. after raising pre, we need 45.23% to call his jam...not very hard vs a slight wide polarized jamming range (esp when that range doesnt include AA/KK). so raise/calling J9s should show better expectation than folding for sure.on the other hand, played in a vacuum, it makes sense to me that limping J9s would likely show better expectation than raise/calling.in terms of an overall longterm gameplan vs this thinking player though, do you think it can be likely that a raise/calling strategy is going to lead to villain adjusting more poorly overall? when you did the session for my Barcelona camp, you mentioned that a good way to find leaks in your game is to think about "how you would develop a strategy that would exploit your own game". well, i think i'd adapt pretty poorly to someone raise/calling a range like this given my typical 3bet tendancies. this then got me thinking about pop tendancies of good thinking players...i think a lot of good thinking players would have similar trouble as me oop vs this strategy - many of them would become more passive oop, thinking that they are pwning villain by 3bet jamming a pure value range (too tight of a range, plus a good villain will adjust his raise/call range).thoughts?**last thought: i think the key to this strategy is that the vast majority of good regs aren't good enough theoretically that they would view raise/calling J9s as the correct play. they will tend to think it's awful imo. they will tilt easier, adapt poorly bc of ego, etc. i think if there is a strategy u can use that a lot of regs will think is -ev, but it's actually +ev that it has to be a good thing. but still, it has to show better expectation than limping :)
^v good question that I thought about before. I find it hard to recognize his 3b shoving range (for ex. some regs 3b nai wider, and some have tighter 3b ranges) w/o playing at least a couple of games.and about 3b bluffing readless, would be great if you could give your thoughts:http://www.husng.com/content/3b-bluffing-readless-do-it-or-not-do-it
Any hand you can profitably raise/call against your opponent's 3bet jamming range, you want generally want to raise/call. That definitely means widening out your raise/calling range, snapping off jams 20bb deep with QTs, etc.J9s seems pretty wide to me 21bb deep. Doing the math the lazy way, we'd need the big blind to be 3bet shoving his top 50%, and even then we're talking borderline. Obviously, when you make it polarized, and when you take out aces, kings, queens, expecting a 3bet to induce, the math changes. But it's still a pretty steep mountain to climb.The more you see your opponent 3bet jamming with Ax, low pp, and suited/conntected junk, while 3betting non-allin with premium pairs and KQJT9pick2, the more you can consider raise/calling it off with J9s. Hokie, your point about "how to react to this strategy" is definitely a good one. I'm a strong believer that one of the reasons R-Q and H2olga 3bet jam wide and open to t45 and some other things like that is that people react really poorly to those plays. So it's true that raise/calling it off light can have benefits in extended duels with regs. I'll keep it real on the 3bet bluffing readless - I didn't do much of it in my career, and unfortunately don't have much of a sample because of that. However, the sample I do have is very positive, and I have information that suggests very positive samples from other people. As long as you're adjusting to what you're seeing in the first few hands and not just spazz everytime you see 85o or J3s, I suspect it's better than folding.
after opening t40 at 21bb stx, we need 45.23% equity to call a jam.against a polarized reshoving range of (28.5%):QQ-22,A2s+,KTs+,K2s,QJs,Q4s-Q2s,J3s-J2s,T3s-T2s,93s-92s,84s,74s,64s,54s,A2o+,KJo+,86o,76obasically all AX, some good KX, pp's excluding KK/AA, and mostly suited 3bet jamming hands (a decent amount overall, but this would be in a spot where i think im getting reshoved pretty light).J9s has 45.97% vs that range, so it would be a call right? getting down to 17/16bb deep where we need just ~44% equity, villain doesn't really need to have that wide of a 3bet shoving range for a call to be ok it looks like.am i thinking about this right? when you said "he needs to be 3betting ~50%" did you mean for our call to be +ev (not just better than folding)?thanks
just to make sure, i wasn't implying that i would be raise/calling hands like J9s as a standard. if villain were 3bet jamming 20 deep with the top ~30% of hands, J9s has only 40.5% vs this range. obv that's a lot of times to be raise/folding J9s, so i'd def assume limping has way better exp in that case.
If it were purely the top x% of hands, it would need to be the top 50%. But you're right that it's more complicated than that, and you're thinking about it right to try to break it down into more precise ranges. It would be a call against the range posted, we have the equity.Expectation limping depends a ton on his response to limps so it's not an easy comparison.
Hey mers have two match questions. We are readless first hand 25bb deep. [SB, Q4o on T95r] When we decide to CB on this board and get called, how do we calculate our average EQ vs villains calling range? Because if he has any pair we have about 14% EQ considering backdoor straight. And if he is on a draw we are flipping. And how does that conclusion matter to our action/thought process? Obv if we CB half pot our CB needs to work less often depending on how much EQ we have right? But how do we estimate how often our CB needs to work on that board to be breakeven? [BB, 64hh on AQ8hh] When you decide to check call here, are you actually getting the right odds to call if you expect him to 2barell since you dont rep the top of your range on this board? How does your calling odds change if you expect him to barell two streets? Isnt it a fold on the flop then?
Hand 1: I've honestly never thought about that type situation in terms of an equity calculation. Part of the reason is that a good bit of your equity from c-betting comes from being able to barrel against check/calls. I'm also not sure about the "if we have equity the c-bet doesn't have to work as often" logic. If we have equity, we're just in a better situation, period. Expectation is better both from cbetting and not cbetting. What matters is the comparison and expectation going forward.'Another example of this is when people say things like "if my opponent is playing more than 50% of hands from the big blind, I can't just profitably raise any two". 50% (ignoring card removal) makes you +EV even pretending we are forced to muck our hand once our opponent calls from the big blind. That's a silly assumption, and in reality, even if your opponent is only playing 55% of hands, you still should be raising any two. That's why I'd caution against analyze a flop cbetting decision by ignoring what's going to happen on future streets, asking if he's folding the right percentage then and there. I think it's far more important to develop a good intuitive sense of what makes a board good to c-bet. Second hand: Do the math, but it seems highly unlikely to be a flop fold. We're getting not crazy far off from direct odds on the flop and the implied odds easily make up for it. Regardless, if you really are expecting that high a percentage of a double barrel, the answer to the theoretical question is pretty clear: check/jam the turn.