boywonder - $200 NL

[boywonder]

Originally Posted by Branman

I agree with Kman's critique. I don't understand why you wouldn't want to induce if you give him a defined range of pairless hands. Lower variance is cool, but we're going for maximum exploitation. Also, I don't completely udnerstand your reasoning for folding ace turns. First of all, is it realistic to expect AJ to float oop? Second of all, the A is a great bluff card for you, so why wouldn't you expect the villain to check to you when a great bluff card hits? This is especially true because it's goign to be so easy (based on stack sizes) for him to shove the river if you check back the turn.

So I am very impressed with the play, and the video in general, but that hand seems to warrant a further explanation.

Yes, it is. Especially in the sense that it is the only hand he´ll float the flop with that we will have beat. Once the Ace hits, at best we will have 5 outs against the bottom of his range.
As for bluffing the turn, bluff him out of what? Any pair shoves flop, and also check out the stack sizes one more time. Fold equity is gone baby, it's gone.

[sAviOr]

Really liked the vid. Few questions:

With regards to your routine, you said that you wake up 10-12 then review hands and then start playing. How long do these sessions usually last? Is it just one a day?

Also you were making the video on ladbrokes with which you were unfamiliar - what is your normal site? also do you think it is worth specialising on a particular site so you know the regulars on as deep a basis as your thought process seems to suggest you do, or is it worth having say a secondary site for game selection.

I think I have seen you mention before in the 2+2 thread that you generally play something like 4-8 tables - probably this is player dependent but would you say over 8 would be the limit at which autopilot takes over, or is it simply that its hard to play over that amount of tables profitably in general unless there are plentiful fish

Also fwiw I don't really consider 25/20 that TAG.

Thanks again, got a lot from this.

[boywonder]

Originally Posted by sAviOr

Really liked the vid. Few questions:

With regards to your routine, you said that you wake up 10-12 then review hands and then start playing. How long do these sessions usually last? Is it just one a day?

Also you were making the video on ladbrokes with which you were unfamiliar - what is your normal site? also do you think it is worth specialising on a particular site so you know the regulars on as deep a basis as your thought process seems to suggest you do, or is it worth having say a secondary site for game selection.

I think I have seen you mention before in the 2+2 thread that you generally play something like 4-8 tables - probably this is player dependent but would you say over 8 would be the limit at which autopilot takes over, or is it simply that its hard to play over that amount of tables profitably in general unless there are plentiful fish

Also fwiw I don't really consider 25/20 that TAG.

Thanks again, got a lot from this.

I play roughly 2-3 sessions per day.

As for my normal site, I play and have played on most of the major sites, have not played much at Stars. The american sites overall are diificult for Swedish players due to tax legislation.

One persons TAG is another persons LAG I guess, that´s just life and we´re all trying to live it.

Over 8 I feel that I can't think as deeply and take as much time with my decisions, it might be more profitable to play 10-12 tables but it will be more of a grind. I still actually really like the game of poker, and would probably play most days after work if I had a dayjob and basically made little to no money from it. Once upon a time I used to do this, and I think we all tend to to forget that a lot of people still do this.

[Zaitsev]

Originally Posted by boywonder

99+? There are a few of those pairs there that capable players rarely 4-bet in the first place, 99 being one of them. Why would I 4-bet that hand? The only argument for the AQ and AJ hands are card removal, which is the reason so many 5-10+ regs play any Ax in this manner.

I think 99 can be played both ways depending on gameflow etc. So for the sake of argument, we can just remove all combos of 99 and focus on TT+ and AK. AQs has 34% equity against this range, and 22 has 29% and 76s has 28.5%. It still seems playing AQs as a bluff is more profitable than 22 and 76s as a bluff.

[K_Man]

Originally Posted by boywonder

K_Man, very good point, my version of stove had expired and I thought we had less equity against that range than it turns out.

Ok sure, but this has very big ramifications with much of your analysis. I guess it's a good reminder of the benefits for studying equity calcs.

Originally Posted by boywonder

As for the point of 4-betting the nines however, your statement is so very flawed.

You would 4 bet because you are apparently 4 betting a very wide range of air, and if it isn't balanced with a wider value range it is ridiculously simple for him to combat (by 5 betting a very wide range). Then, when he starts to shove a range that does well against your 4 bet calling range, it will invariably include 88-22 and you will be able to get it in 99 with very good equity.

Nothing personal, but to the intial assumption on which the rest of the argument is based on I´d ask: how would you or the villain know that I am apparently betting a very wide range of air?

When describing your options for that hand, you say that, because you feel like his range is so wide, that you can't bring yourself to fold even the bottom of your range "because you have too much fold equity", giving the implication that you are defending the hand in some fashion almost 100% of the time. You go on to say you would defend anything playable like broadways or one gapper suited connectors and four bet your trash/ good hands.

Given that you are, again only by your information, opening a very wide range on the button, that leaves a very wide range of hands you are 4 betting. Also given the fact that you find 4 bet calling 99 unthinkable, it means that your wide 4 betting range it is made up principally of air.

How would I know this? Well I've seen your video so that helps. But how would he know this? Because he's seen you flat 99 before, and your 4 betting percentage in this spot is very high. If you're only 4 bet calling with AK+ JJ+ that is 3% of hands. If you are actually four betting with the frequency that you seemed to suggest, which if you don't have any intention of folding 74o sounds like at least 10%+ and maybe 20%+, then yes it is very obvious that you are 4 betting bluffing a lot.

Originally Posted by boywonder

Also, what about balancing my calling range? After all, that is what I´ll be doing most of the time in position?

I absolutely agree that you should be balancing your calling range as your primary means of combating his high 3 bet percentage. But you can't have everything your own way. If you want to be 4 bet bluffing so much (again, correct me if you actually just exaggerated this in the video), then you simply have to widen your value range to compensate. Otherwise, yes it is very simple for your opponent to start profitably shoving with almost any two that he 3 bet with.

Also, how perfectly is this guy reading me to pick up on this in the first place - how many regulars would I give that much credit, not to mention a random?

Like I say, it's not a really difficult read to obtain, all the guy needs is a HUD that tells him you 4 bet with a very high frequency, coupled with a showdown of one hand that would conceivably be in your 4 bet value range.

Even if he where to get an idea of my range, it still wouldn't be "ridiculously simple" for him to combat, as I would have the option of readjusting my tightening by 4 bet range after his third shove.

Of course we can adjust, and then he can re-adjust and we can re-adjust and so on. But that first adjustment of 5 bet shoving light is a very simple play to make.

Finally, is it commonplace to see strong regulars at limits 5-10 + shove and and call of with ranges of 22 - 99? Calling a 5-bet with 99 against someone who is somewhat decent and expecting to have "very good equity" is something at least I have never done, regardless of their image or mine.

Perhaps I'm wrong, and please 5/10+ guys correct me if so, but in a word, yes? I mean it is absolutely standard in aggressive HU games to 4 bet call with say 77, and if you're playing high stakes aggressive 6 max games then in many cases surely you'll find a similarly aggressive pre flop dynamic between two regulars.

Sorry for the rant K-man, just my opinion on this one specific hand example. Oh, and congrats on the team Poker Star Online Pro selection

Thanks

EDIT: This is all assuming you are not only talking about this exact example in this exact spot with exactly zero history, of course, in which case you can do anything the first time without the worries of narrowing/widening ranges.

[davisimo]

First off I'm pretty excited you've joined leggo and I'll get to see your videos. I remember the first threads you made on 2+2 and how much I related to them (as in I was everything you criticized... a slave to my emotions and not fully mindful) so they were a big influence them years ago

As for the video I enjoyed the analysis and depth very much and looks forward to your next. For the sake of discussion my argument to this point:

Originally Posted by boywonder

Nothing personal, but to the intial assumption on which the rest of the argument is based on I´d ask: how would you or the villain know that I am apparently betting a very wide range of air?

If you are 4betting with a decent frequency and a villain has seen you 4bet/fold even once then he knows you are capable of 4bet bluffing, and there fore that your range must consist of a fair amount of air? He sees you 4bet/folding multiple times and he will be certain.

And regs flat 4bets oop w/ 76s 100bbs deep???

[Branman]

I still have absolutely no idea why you assume that the villain would shove the turn with AJ if he hits his ace. He shoved the K turn because he thought he had fold equity and didn't want to let you fire on the perceived perfect barrel card. So if he had had AJ, and he somehow is stupid enough to float OOP, then I very very strongly suspect he would have checked to you in order to let you barrel since that's what he indicated he was scared of in the first place with the actual hand!

in short, he wants to get the last bet in with drawing/bluff hands, and wants to let you get the last bet in with made hands. It might be donk logic, but it is logic nonetheless.

[peten2toms]

Thanks for this! Awesome video, wish it was longer. By chance will you discuss your pre-game preparation in more depth in a blog or forum post? I was actually quite shocked when you said you wake up between 10-12. I was expecting you to be an early riser. Do you wake up to an alarm or just whenever? As for your study time I was curious of the length of time? Also any meditation during your day? Do you have a session length which you find optimal for you or do you play as long as you feel sharp?

[dat328]

Amazing video, please make a lot more! Great job Leggo for adding you!

[HQuality]

AAAwesome! Ben, r u playing now on PS as ur main room?