This was like watching your average weak 50nl regular play imo.. You defend shit like T3s to 3x pre, 3b/call K8s OOP, check back a ton of dry boards and fold to turn bets etc. You seem to undervalue just taking down pots on the flop w/ hands like Q9 on AK7 which is certainly a +EV bet even though you don't fold out alot of better hands I dont see how a check is better than a bet against pretty much anyone who doesnt check-raise like a maniac. Same with A/Khigh hands, even though you don't fold out much better in alot of spots you can just win the pot OR bluff out better hands on good run outs. Weak/passive postflop play like this is certainly a strategy i'd prefer playing against over someone having beeing more aggressive w/ wide value ranges/bluffs. Give us Aejones/Flippity HU vids!
Sorry you didn't like the way I played. For preflop, I do play a lot looser in the BB than most small and midstakes players. This is mostly due to analysis away from the table that I've done that supports those decisions. Post flop, most of my decisions were based on my default gameplan which is designed to hopefully do well versus a wide variety of opponent strategies. As it turned out I ended up seeing many different opponents who played varying strategies post flop ranging from what I suspected was too tight, to a guy who seemed to raise any time I bet or raised. Vs a few players I thought I had enough of a read to start bluffing more, and I did. I guess I'm less aggressive in thin exploitative opportunities than other players. Anyways, thanks for watching, and sorry again at you didn't like my play
There's a spot in the vid where you ch back KQ on like 954r, call A turn and then fold on 7 river. I think its a potential spot to bluff raise considering it's the btm of our range and we have blockers to the best 9x hands villain can have although we rep pretty thin. Do you think it works enough in practice to be +EV assuming we 3x his bet?
Maybe he's good.. Just did so much weird and passive play that I wouldn't expect from a 200nl+ HU player. That b/c w/ QTs for instance is pure spew. I also think it's abit flawed logic to think about habitual cbetters (70%+) as having "Implied value" w/ a wider range, because he's it's going to be harder for you to realise your equity/get to showdown vs these guys compared to guys using strategies like yourself, whom I'd be much more likely to defend wider against cause you give up on so many pots, even on dry textures and put your hand relatively face up in a lot of spots.
There's a spot in the vid where you ch back KQ on like 954r, call A turn and then fold on 7 river. I think its a potential spot to bluff raise considering it's the btm of our range and we have blockers to the best 9x hands villain can have although we rep pretty thin. Do you think it works enough in practice to be +EV assuming we 3x his bet?
Yea I like that actually.
Maybe he's good.. Just did so much weird and passive play that I wouldn't expect from a 200nl+ HU player. That b/c w/ QTs for instance is pure spew. I also think it's abit flawed logic to think about habitual cbetters (70%+) as having "Implied value" w/ a wider range, because he's it's going to be harder for you to realise your equity/get to showdown vs these guys compared to guys using strategies like yourself, whom I'd be much more likely to defend wider against cause you give up on so many pots, even on dry textures and put your hand relatively face up in a lot of spots.
Actually it's much tougher to defend the bb vs someone who has high turn and river cbet frequencies (that are also balanced)who also defends his check backs. What most people do is have a high flop cbet % that makes their betting range unbalanced and their check back range unbalanced. Some people bet a linear range on flop, which means they are first betting made hands that have higher EV checking back, and then their checking range is exploitable to turn leads, which further increases the EV of calling hands preflop. Other people check back the made hands they should be but dont check back any air. This makes their betting range too bluff heavy, so one of two things happens. Either they have a high turn and river cbet which makes them exploitable to light call downs, or they give up, which makes them exploitable to flop floats plus betting river. Either way they allow me to defend more hands. Fwiw its pretty easy to figure out exactly what an opponent is doing with this too, you just need a few showdowns plus the right stats in your hud. I try to design my default gameplan to not fold to turn or river leads an appropriate amount while also keeping my turn and river cbet high enough to make them indifferent to floating me on the flop with a hand at the threshold. That's the goal at least. To be honest this is something that I have spent dozens or hundreds of hours figuring out with models in CREV. As far as the QT call, like I said in the video it's probably at best just barely ok, but I also think it can't be a big mistake either.
Pay for Leggo, get videos with comercials, really?
Leggo let's me promote what the flop, and I have in my last several videos, which I'm guessing you didn't watch. I did try to make the video a little longer than my normal length to make up for it.
Henrik, I'm on ipad right now, will respond to your comment when I can watch the vid
17 mins- 'you say we probably have to defend this on the flop'
id really like to hear you explain why this is the case
So we call a 3bet, flop K64r, we face a bet of 18 into 28. Usually my starting place if I dont have any reads, which I dont, is ok he bet X into Y, how often do I think I need to defend. In MOP they came up with a calc for this for the river, and while its a static single street calc, its about as good a starting place we have for dynamic multi-street play, so I start there. So he's risking 18 to win 28, we need to defend 61% of the time (again approximately). Preflop I probably defend wider than most, but I'd be defending about this range of hands vs a 7bb 3bet :
Then on the flop, if I defend
-any 4,6,K,77-TT
-Any gutter/OESD
-Any A7-AQ
I am only at 52% of my range
So I need an additional set of hands. I could start with the QJ/QT stuff, A2,A3,A5 or maybe things like JThh, T9dd, etc, stuff with multiple backdoors. I think the A2,A3,A5 are probably the worst hands to defend (its possible the weaker Ax hands that I listed as defends are worse than QJ/QT/Stuff with backdoors). I think probably the stuff with the backdoors is a little better than the QJ/QT stuff, so if I had to go back, I may fold this one. But the idea is that I think outside of the standard range to call with on this board you need to bluffraise and/or float with a wider set of hands that are pretty weak
Obv if I think he is giving up on this board too often, or has a top heavy betting range, then I can fold more hands. K64r is usually a flop everyone cbets too often though
What most people do is have a high flop cbet % that makes their betting range unbalanced and their check back range unbalanced. Some people bet a linear range on flop, which means they are first betting made hands that have higher EV checking back, and then their checking range is exploitable to turn leads, which further increases the EV of calling hands preflop. Other people check back the made hands they should be but dont check back any air. This makes their betting range too bluff heavy, so one of two things happens. Either they have a high turn and river cbet which makes them exploitable to light call downs, or they give up, which makes them exploitable to flop floats plus betting river.
Seems to be working pretty well for Aaron and the likes. He cbets like all pairs and shit both IP and OOP and is a huge crusher so it's weird for you to bluntly say it's more +EV to check back in those types of spots.
Seems to be working pretty well for Aaron and the likes. He cbets like all pairs and shit both IP and OOP and is a huge crusher so it's weird for you to bluntly say it's more +EV to check back in those types of spots.
Seems to be working pretty well for Aaron and the likes. He cbets like all pairs and shit both IP and OOP and is a huge crusher so it's weird for you to bluntly say it's more +EV to check back in those types of spots.
I dont think it's weird. Every huge crusher makes mistakes (not speaking directly to aaron, since I never watch his videos/play- sorry Aaron!). We each have our own opinions though, we'll likely never know for sure!
Agreed, no reason to throw insults. Discussing these types of things is exactly the point of having the video thread
Sure it is. But if you would want a worthwile discussion you'd not come in and say "OMG, that looked like an average weak 50NL reg..." ,etc.
Even after the explaination about why to not cbet certain boards with specific parts of your ranges, countinuing with a such douchy argument like "AEJones does this, he crushes, so you are wrong" without even thinking about it for a single second just annoys me.
I don't mind questions, or questioning plays, but you can do it in a way more constructive way than he did.
going back to the above post- I think Id rather call gutters, OESD's, A7-AQ before the QJ/QT/backdoor hands that I also feel I need to defend. Like I mentioned I think Id rather bluffraise the JThh as opposed to the QJo, so I'd fold this hand looking back on it now. Floating could have some value if I had a stronger read on his turn strategy. That read will take some time to develop probably, since we first have to be in a 3bet pot, and we also need to see the turn (and have this happen atleast several times). I could also try to infer something about his strategy in 3bet pots, from his strategy in SRP's. If he has a high fold to river bet after checking back turn (and hopefully not a very high turn bet), then maybe that gives me some clue that my flop float will have the chance to work often enough.
Even after the explaination about why to not cbet certain boards with specific parts of your ranges, countinuing with a such douchy argument like "AEJones does this, he crushes, so you are wrong" without even thinking about it for a single second just annoys me.
I'm a fan of the Jones, sue me. I did think about it and I'm obviously going to question the guys' strategy when it differs so incredibly from most of mid/high-stakes players. Seriously though would be cool w/ a bit of a discussion between Aaron/D2themfi concerning the stuff I pointed out, since your postflop strategies are so different. For instance I know Aaron would like never raise anything on lockdown textures like A35 or K72 IP in 3b pots while you raise these boards w/ both bluffs and value hands and he rarely has much of a checking range on these boards in SRP's. Have at it!
I'm a fan of the Jones, sue me. I did think about it and I'm obviously going to question the guys' strategy when it differs so incredibly from most of mid/high-stakes players. Seriously though would be cool w/ a bit of a discussion between Aaron/D2themfi concerning the stuff I pointed out, since your postflop strategies are so different. For instance I know Aaron would like never raise anything on lockdown textures like A35 or K72 IP in 3b pots while you raise these boards w/ both bluffs and value hands and he rarely has much of a checking range on these boards in SRP's. Have at it!
I, personally, think it's very hard to balance/play the guessing game on dry boards such as the ones that you mention. I see no reason to play WA/WB situations aggressively, for the most part. Now a million things can make this change (recent history, or just me knowing that my opponent knows I should never have a value hand, so I think there's more equity in him getting to CiB as a bluff or even float OOP)-- but that doesn't mean that the way I play it is definitely correct. I like to think it is perfect as part of my gameplan*, but I could easily be convinced there is merit to only raising bluffs on certain board textures or raising certain types of value hands.
*Let's just say my gameplan in NLHE is: There's no reason to raise dry boards (eh, the only real boards this is true of is paired boards and ace high [and maybe king high] dry boards, with like 942, although dry, there is merit to protection, and in the example given [3-bet pot, in position] I could see a reason to raise with the weaker part of my value range, say all 9x hands where x
I think in general being able to have a raise range on these boards results in a much more robust strategy. Most of these dry boards are fairly hard to connect on, and people generally use smallish betsizing. This means you end up having to defend flop bets with very weak floats if you never raise. This wouldn't be the worst thing if it wasn't often also people's strategies to bet both wide for value (or really more for "protection" )and nearly all their bluffs. On top of this, by never raising we allow the BB to always realize at least part of his equity with his bluffs, increasing the amounts we have to defend to avoid giving up EV (and potentially getting destroyed if we both don't float light enough and also never raise).
If we introduce a raising range we help fix both of these problems. First because we take what would be profitably floats only under very favorable assumptions, into bluff raises that now put the pressure back on villain who also has to deal with the fact that these boards are tough to have TP+ in, and now has to play a potentially huge pot for stacks with lots of bluff catchers, to avoid us exploiting him through frequent bluff raises on the flop.
So I think from a standpoint of trying to have a strategy that won't give up much no matter what type of strategy villain is playing, having a raising range on these boards makes sense. Add in that many, many people (as evidenced by this thread) just prefer to bet out as the 3bettor with 80%+ of their range, and our strategy also makes more exploitatively (unless they also play very passively on turn, then it may be close) vs the most common opponent strategy you see on these boards
You say you want to defend about 61% on this flop vs his betsizing. But looking at your 3b call range, your range looks kinda capped, since you 4b every JJ+/AK combo. Assuming villain does have all of those, I think trying to defend 61% is kind of a stretch and should probably be lowered quite a bit given how equity's are distributed. What do you think of this?
I should edit to say that I do not recommend playing a hand like that very often. If you never play a hand like that hand you will almost certainly win more money than if you sometimes play a hand like that, if that makes sense ;).
I think in general being able to have a raise range on these boards results in a much more robust strategy. Most of these dry boards are fairly hard to connect on, and people generally use smallish betsizing. This means you end up having to defend flop bets with very weak floats if you never raise. This wouldn't be the worst thing if it wasn't often also people's strategies to bet both wide for value (or really more for "protection" )and nearly all their bluffs. On top of this, by never raising we allow the BB to always realize at least part of his equity with his bluffs, increasing the amounts we have to defend to avoid giving up EV (and potentially getting destroyed if we both don't float light enough and also never raise).
If we introduce a raising range we help fix both of these problems. First because we take what would be profitably floats only under very favorable assumptions, into bluff raises that now put the pressure back on villain who also has to deal with the fact that these boards are tough to have TP+ in, and now has to play a potentially huge pot for stacks with lots of bluff catchers, to avoid us exploiting him through frequent bluff raises on the flop.
So I think from a standpoint of trying to have a strategy that won't give up much no matter what type of strategy villain is playing, having a raising range on these boards makes sense. Add in that many, many people (as evidenced by this thread) just prefer to bet out as the 3bettor with 80%+ of their range, and our strategy also makes more exploitatively (unless they also play very passively on turn, then it may be close) vs the most common opponent strategy you see on these boards
Let me ask you this: would you ever raise a hand like 444, 666, or KKK on the flop?
Although I am open to being convinced otherwise, I feel it would be insanely bad. Stacks will get in by the river very easily (in this hypothetical), he probably has single digit equity against us, and we will need to protect against our light flop calls (I mean we're calling a lot of A highs on the flop, certainly ones with backdoor flush draws, and a lot of second pair type stuff-- most of that is VERY unhappy on the turn).
So, what are we happy to stack off with? Any king? Something worse? Only two pair or better? How often are we defending 64s and K6s to a 3-bet? Always? Never? Which of these do we want to raise? Which of these do we need to raise?
I feel like the answer to the last question at least is none, since only a hand like 6x or 77 has to protect against hands like AQ, and then we have to make sure that by either getting it in or not getting it in we aren't making an FTOP mistake.
So, if my assumptions that we do not have to protect and that if we are not raising weak value hands for fear of stacking off light (or making an improper fold to a 3-bet) are true, we have no "fundamental" reason to raise hands on the flop, right? You mentioned it makes us tougher to play against or makes us more balanced I believe, I'm not saying I disagree with you, but my thoughts are that basically we want to play as many streets as possible while in position. When PSR deeper and more decisions made in position wins, when we open up the betting again by raising we are allowing him to "get the last bet in" and negating our positional advantage... am I wrong here?
At this point I'd say that my only reason to raise the flop is because I guessed what level he'd put me on ("he must have it!" "he must not have it!") and then did the opposite (if that makes sense). If I start a click it back war, I'd like to know if I should have it or if that is just not necessary.
Btw, I didn't see it mentioned in your post about our flop defending range being like 50-60% of our 3-bet defending range, but what 3-betting range are you giving him? The difference between him 3-betting 15% and 30% is obviously huge in this case, if he's 3-betting the former, my gut says calling that wide on the flop is not correct (I'd fold most of my ace highs I feel like, probably call AJs with bdfd). If the latter... well, then you've got mucho options. Apologize if this was addressed in the video or I missed it in the post.
You say you want to defend about 61% on this flop vs his betsizing. But looking at your 3b call range, your range looks kinda capped, since you 4b every JJ+/AK combo. Assuming villain does have all of those, I think trying to defend 61% is kind of a stretch and should probably be lowered quite a bit given how equity's are distributed. What do you think of this?
I think that would only be the case if my range were at a significant disadvantage versus his range. Even though I dont have AA, KK, AK in my range, I do have 64s, K6s, K4s, 66, 44, all hands which he most likely doesnt have. I don't think our range is really at a disadvantage here. On top of this, exploitatively, I think most people's strategies as the 3bettor do not include bluffing too little on this flop, so there's no reason to tighten up
So, what are we happy to stack off with? Any king? Something worse? Only two pair or better? How often are we defending 64s and K6s to a 3-bet? Always? Never? Which of these do we want to raise? Which of these do we need to raise?
Theoretically, when we raise, we should have hands that make more money raising than calling, but also when they get 3bet on the flop, are approximately 0EV versus his flop raise. The most likely hands that fall into that category imo would be weak Kx. I am not sure what the optimal strategy on this board is 100bb deep IP, but my guess would be that some hands would be played with a mixed strategy, which means they would have the same EV with either line (versus an optimal opponent), raise or call. But the idea is that if we didnt raise them, and villain happens to be playing a strategy where he cbets very often (which happens to be quite common), then we are losing value, by letting him realize most/all of his equity (Since he realizes well less than 100% of his equity when he checks bluffs, he should prefer to bet until our fold to cbet is very low, assuming we neve raise), and also by not punishing him for betting hands "for protection"(which individually lose more value when betting, the more often we raise better hands). Off the top of my head, my strategy would look something like
Raise:
-64s, KQ, KJ, 100% of the time
-Raise K6s, K4s, K7-KT some X % of the time, maybe 50%
-Raise a bunch of hands with backdoors such that my bluff to value ratio on the flop is somewhere between 1:1 and 1.5:1 (would have to do a bit more work to find a more exact frequency, but making hi indifferent where he should be, is probably somewhere between those two values, my guess)
(just a guess, haven't looked through this hand with software, outside of the calcs, I did earlier in the thread)
If I am fairly confident he is cbetting near 100%, very depolarized, then I would probably include K2-K6 hands too (some X %), and probably to take the line of raise, check back turn, and then vshove or call river after I check back (since I have to check back some of my bluffs on the turn usually)
On the turn, we check back some of the bottom of our value range, plus any of our backdoor hands which make middle pair, and enough of our bluff hands so that our betting range is balanced in a way that makes him indifferent to calling or folding with bluff catcher X. On the river after checking back, we may not be calling a river bet >50% of the time, but as long as we have a high enough turn bet % after raising, we can still make villain indifferent to floating us on the flop with whatever hand we need to make him indifferent with (hopefully)
Then as we get deeper and deeper stacked, I think my range would shift to a lot less Kx hands, and many more sets/twopairs, as well as now raising some OESD/gutters possibly, if the SPR is quite deep. The nice thing about 100bbs, is even if our flop call range takes a hit by raising some hands (although remember by raising, we now don''t have to float nearly as light either, so our worst turn calls usually aren't significantly weaker), the SPR is so low, that we don't really lose much value to a maximally exploitative villain.
I feel like the answer to the last question at least is none, since only a hand like 6x or 77 has to protect against hands like AQ, and then we have to make sure that by either getting it in or not getting it in we aren't making an FTOP mistake.
If I were you I'd stop thinking about protection for any of my decisions. Outside of really low SPR situations, I don't think it matters. I've also never really understood the merit of FTOP, it seems kind of weird/silly to me to approach situations like that (hand vs actual hand)
So, if my assumptions that we do not have to protect and that if we are not raising weak value hands for fear of stacking off light (or making an improper fold to a 3-bet) are true, we have no "fundamental" reason to raise hands on the flop, right? You mentioned it makes us tougher to play against or makes us more balanced I believe, I'm not saying I disagree with you, but my thoughts are that basically we want to play as many streets as possible while in position. When PSR deeper and more decisions made in position wins, when we open up the betting again by raising we are allowing him to "get the last bet in" and negating our positional advantage... am I wrong here?
At this point I'd say that my only reason to raise the flop is because I guessed what level he'd put me on ("he must have it!" "he must not have it!") and then did the opposite (if that makes sense). If I start a click it back war, I'd like to know if I should have it or if that is just not necessary.
I mean, I just don't approach situations like this. Maybe that costs me EV? I'm not sure. But I am much more comfortable sitting with my analytical software and spending time coming up with a strategy that does ok vs many different strategies. All I can say is that when you have no raising range in any given spot, you better hope that villain isn't betting often, or doesn't have bluffs available to him.. If he does, then it's likely you are getting exploited.
If you wanted to sit here and tell me that vs the avg 200, 400 or w/e HUNL player that never raising this flop for value, and only raising it as a bluff was the correct exploitative thing to do, I wouldn't argue with you, you may be right. I usually wait for specific opponent reads though with my play, and up until that point I try to play a strategy that gets a lot of value no matter what villain does. So if he does bet/fold too much, then my bluffs gain, and my value hands would have been better played as a call. If he thinks my raises are full of shit, then my bluffs lose, but my value hands likely make more money raising than calling. If he plays perfectly once I raise, then I'm likely close to indifferent between many different strategies
Btw, I didn't see it mentioned in your post about our flop defending range being like 50-60% of our 3-bet defending range, but what 3-betting range are you giving him? The difference between him 3-betting 15% and 30% is obviously huge in this case, if he's 3-betting the former, my gut says calling that wide on the flop is not correct (I'd fold most of my ace highs I feel like, probably call AJs with bdfd). If the latter... well, then you've got mucho options. Apologize if this was addressed in the video or I missed it in the post.
Again, once I have a better read, I can make an exploitative decision based not only on his 3bet %, but also its composition. A 15% polarized range of 99+, AJ+, KQ, plus all medium/low card bluffs, is different than a linear 15% of hands on most boards, just like a 30% range is different. If A7-AQ highs aren't profitable calls on the flop, then that likely means villain is not bluffing very often.
Also, even if you defend tighter than me preflop, if you don't have a raising range, and also don't call most of A7-AQ's on this board, then you are giving up a ton to anyone who c-bet bluffs this board often. Another possibility is that he bluffs a fair amount, but bets all/most of his paired hands, and we exploit this strategy by folding more than we should, which completely wrecks the EV of betting bottom/middle pair hands
I think in general being able to have a raise range on these boards results in a much more robust strategy. Most of these dry boards are fairly hard to connect on, and people generally use smallish betsizing. This means you end up having to defend flop bets with very weak floats if you never raise. This wouldn't be the worst thing if it wasn't often also people's strategies to bet both wide for value (or really more for "protection" )and nearly all their bluffs. On top of this, by never raising we allow the BB to always realize at least part of his equity with his bluffs, increasing the amounts we have to defend to avoid giving up EV (and potentially getting destroyed if we both don't float light enough and also never raise).
If we introduce a raising range we help fix both of these problems. First because we take what would be profitably floats only under very favorable assumptions, into bluff raises that now put the pressure back on villain who also has to deal with the fact that these boards are tough to have TP+ in, and now has to play a potentially huge pot for stacks with lots of bluff catchers, to avoid us exploiting him through frequent bluff raises on the flop.
So I think from a standpoint of trying to have a strategy that won't give up much no matter what type of strategy villain is playing, having a raising range on these boards makes sense. Add in that many, many people (as evidenced by this thread) just prefer to bet out as the 3bettor with 80%+ of their range, and our strategy also makes more exploitatively (unless they also play very passively on turn, then it may be close) vs the most common opponent strategy you see on these boards
What does this do with your calling range though? Anyone decent should probably barrel you a ton when you call since your range consits of all floats/weak pairs, no?
What does this do with your calling range though? Anyone decent should probably barrel you a ton when you call since your range consits of all floats/weak pairs, no?
well, it will increase the number of hands he can bet for value, but not by as much as you would think- Actually not by a ton, if you do it correctly. Remember if we dont raise flop, than he realizes his equity with his bluffs much more effectively, which increases the total number of hands we need to continue with on the flop.. So if we can add in a raise range of 8-15% on the flop, we can fold some of the weaker hands we have to call on flop.. which strengthens the range we need to call on the turn, and so on. So the net effect is usually small, as long as u dont go crazy on the flop, raising alll your strong hands
- I just checked in CREV the raising range I gave. The value portion would be 9% of my preflop range, so that is actually higher than I would like. So Id maybe go with like 25% of my K7-KT here by default then, and end up having a raising range of about 10-15% by default on the flop
Heres what I might raise (might even go a little less frequent, both for value and bluff) and call on this board
On say a turn 9h (just clicked random in CREV, heres what my turn strat may look like
And here on the river, we would need to call with 9x+, 30% of 6x/88/77 to make villain indifferent to bluffing river (roughly)- we may need to call less often to make him indifferent to betting flop as a bluff or checking though, which is really what we should try to find out, but that would take me way too long
Plus, the idea is that, on the river with SPR1, its not quite as bad to have a range of a lot of bluff catchers, as opposed to SPR 2+ (where villain can overbet)
Also another option is to have a slightly lower flop raise (I actually like this better), like 10-12%ish, and then have turn raise be slightly higher (around 10-12%ish again)
Ok so lets say we don't raise this flop. That means we probably have to defend more hands total, something like (I think this is slightly conservative, we may need to call a couple % more)
Now on the turn, what if we called again with the range we needed to defend when we DID have a flop raising range?
Its only 58% (for my turn range in the last post, I used a turn betsize of $200 into $320 (5/10 numbers). Given that betsizing, the MOP calc would tell us to defend 61.5% of hands. Again, assuming we dont have a turn raising range, we are exploitable to turn bluffs here. So we need more hands
Again we may need to float a few more hands, but close enough Im guessing
Now on the river, the only difference in our bluff catch range, is we can probably drop the 30% of 3rd pair/88/77 hands, which is only about 5% of our river range (and about 10% of our river call range)
So like you can see it doesnt make a huge difference in the hands we call down with
What it makes a bigger difference with would be the range that villain can vbet turn/river with. But as long as we dont go overboard on flop/turn then I believe we'll be better off with a flop and turn raise range
You say you want to defend about 61% on this flop vs his betsizing. But looking at your 3b call range, your range looks kinda capped, since you 4b every JJ+/AK combo. Assuming villain does have all of those, I think trying to defend 61% is kind of a stretch and should probably be lowered quite a bit given how equity's are distributed. What do you think of this?
Just a follow up on this too- this argument usually breaks down, when you consider that, if we decide we need to fold more than what is "optimal" that means that villain should bet every single bluff hand less than a certain threshold (dependent on just how much more we are folding than optimal). There's probably very few flops, if any, where if villain bet every single bluff hand in his range, that exploitatively we shouldn't be calling at least what we think is a 'GTOish' range. Meaning there really hardly any boards, if any, where villain can bluff flop 100% of the time unexploitably.
So we are at a range disadvantage on this board, villain's range has 55-60% equity probably on K64r. But there's really no optimal strategy pair for both players that could ever include us folding 50% to cbets on the flop. The range disadvantage would have to be much greater. All it means, is because our range is weaker, villain can likely bet this flop a much higher % overall than other boards where either our ranges are more equal, or we have the advantage.
edit: also if we did in fact have to fold that often on this board, that is probably indicative of our preflop range being wrong/too loose, as im guessing dry Kxx boards (and similar boards) happen often enough that if we are consistently getting owned, then our worst preflop calls are -EV instead of 0EV or slightly +EV
The other side of this for villain, is that he may also want to check hands to us that have >50% equity when called/raised, since we can also bet IP. That's definitely a lot more complex to figure out (his threshold for betting flop for value), but its good to remember. Obviously the thinner he bets for value, the thinner we should bet for value when checked to, which then increases the EV of checking his marginal betting hands, to where at some point checking>betting. And of course the equilibrium would be somewhere in between
I'm not saying I disagree with you, but my thoughts are that basically we want to play as many streets as possible while in position. When PSR deeper and more decisions made in position wins, when we open up the betting again by raising we are allowing him to "get the last bet in" and negating our positional advantage... am I wrong here?
This is definately very true, and another reason I don't like this type of an aggressive strategy in position as an overall gameplan.
D2themfi, I can't see you taking cbet/3bet percentages into account in your calculations which is pretty freaking vital I would think. It's not like you have to defend 60% on all boards when villain bets 1/2 pot or w/e and you'll be exploited. Even if we are "exploited" on a particular dry board like Kxx, the EV we lose in these situations are regained whenever he check-folds like 67Tss and the likes. Alot is about him having the stronger range against us and vice versa on different boards is more how I would look at it. It's obviously valueable to be able to calculate and think about ranges the way you do, but there's just more to it than that.
This is definately very true, and another reason I don't like this type of an aggressive strategy in position as an overall gameplan.
D2themfi, I can't see you taking cbet/3bet percentages into account in your calculations which is pretty freaking vital I would think. It's not like you have to defend 60% on all boards when villain bets 1/2 pot or w/e and you'll be exploited. Even if we are "exploited" on a particular dry board like Kxx, the EV we lose in these situations are regained whenever he check-folds like 67Tss and the likes. Alot is about him having the stronger range against us and vice versa on different boards is more how I would look at it. It's obviously valueable to be able to calculate and think about ranges the way you do, but there's just more to it than that.
Well you have to separate the two styles of analysis right? One is exploitative, the other isnt. Non exploitative analysis, doesn't depend on anything that our opponent does, its based purely on avoiding exploitation. For myself (and others like Sauce), that's where I start, and then as I gain reads I move to more exploitative lines, such as folding more or less on certain boards.
edit: and fwiw, exploitatively there's tons of opponents and dynamics we want to have a raising range on (although if we go for pure exploitation, usually it will be 100% value, or 100% bluff- again I usually dont use those types of strategies, more of a blended balanced/exploitative gameplan)
The argument that we can be exploited on certain boards and be ok with it, because we make up for it on other boards, obviously doesn't make any sense though, not sure what else to say about that.
Also, as you might have noticed, I said over and over again in my posts, things along the lines of "especially since on this board people tend to cbet a lot"... So if we were talking about a T76ss board, I think we would be having a much different discussion (although ironically, people think you should raise those boards, even though people bet much more polarized lol).
Also the quote you quoted from aejones in regard to how he approaches these situations... I mean he's a feel player, I am a math player (whatever those things mean). Up to you who you trust more I guess
Hey Danny, can you explain to someone like me why it doesn't matter what % he's 3-betting? I can see having a GTO flop calling range or w/e based on the assumption that he has 10% of hands or 35% or hands after 3-betting, but I can't see that not mattering. How can GTO type stuff just surpass something that is seemingly so important?
So like, I could see how it'd work for preflop or something (like, what % of buttons to open, or what % to 3-bet) based on static assumptions, but once we get a little deeper I start to get pretty confused (like, how can we know the GTO answer to step 2 without knowing what step 1 is?)... it's possible what I'm saying makes no sense, but if it does, feel free to answer it!
Hey Danny, can you explain to someone like me why it doesn't matter what % he's 3-betting? I can see having a GTO flop calling range or w/e based on the assumption that he has 10% of hands or 35% or hands after 3-betting, but I can't see that not mattering. How can GTO type stuff just surpass something that is seemingly so important?
So like, I could see how it'd work for preflop or something (like, what % of buttons to open, or what % to 3-bet) based on static assumptions, but once we get a little deeper I start to get pretty confused (like, how can we know the GTO answer to step 2 without knowing what step 1 is?)... it's possible what I'm saying makes no sense, but if it does, feel free to answer it!
I think a lot of those questions are really good, and difficult to answer definitively since we dont have the solution to any NLHE game. The basic idea tho would be that if villain is playing in some way that makes our strategy bad, e.g. he never c-bets air, therefore many of our flop calls are -EV, then we make up for it some other way- in this case it would be that his checking range is very air heavy allowing us to bluff and/or bet for value with a much higher frequency... The same would be the case for preflop. We play a guy who 3bets 5% which lets say is suboptimally low by 15%. All the mistakes we make postflop is offset by the value he loses by making suboptimal preflop decisions with those 15% of hands
But yea, basically we are guessing at most things since we cant solve the whole game tree. So it ends up being this mix of gto and exploitative elements. That would be my take on it atleast
I havent watched the video, but read the comments and theres some really valuable information here.
I'm definitely implementing a raising range on these dry Axx Kxx boards IP in 3bet pots after reading through all the posts. Being very convinced that this is the correct thing to do in general.
Good discussion guys. Some really good points made by Danny ITT.
Danny, would you agree that having a call-only strategy in reraised pots is more practical at 6max?
FWIW my general approach (6max) is to have no raising range on most flops in reraised pots, and then have a smallish turn raising range on most boards. Seems to work well but maybe I just run good :)
Good discussion guys. Some really good points made by Danny ITT.
Danny, would you agree that having a call-only strategy in reraised pots is more practical at 6max?
FWIW my general approach (6max) is to have no raising range on most flops in reraised pots, and then have a smallish turn raising range on most boards. Seems to work well but maybe I just run good :)
What makes you think that its theoretically correct to not raise flops in 3bet pots in 6max, but not HU? I haven't thought about much but I would think the same concepts apply. Exploitatively its possible its correct vs most of your opponents, I don't really know though. I am all for turn aggression too though
I read back over the thread and I agree that many of the points you mentioned apply to 6max as well. I feel like part of the appeal of having a raising range HU in reraised pots is this: since our open range is so wide, and therefore we defend so many hands to a 3bet (compared to 6max), it becomes very difficult to defend vs a cbet enough by only calling, since on many boards it means we end up calling with some serious garbage. At 6max, our ranges are often such that defending the required amount isn't nearly as difficult.
Even as I write this out, I realize a strong argument can still be made in favor of having a raising range in 6max/reraised pot situations. I'm kind of torn, but may have to consider reincorporating these plays into my game. Thanks again.
I read back over the thread and I agree that many of the points you mentioned apply to 6max as well. I feel like part of the appeal of having a raising range HU in reraised pots is this: since our open range is so wide, and therefore we defend so many hands to a 3bet (compared to 6max), it becomes very difficult to defend vs a cbet enough by only calling, since on many boards it means we end up calling with some serious garbage. At 6max, our ranges are often such that defending the required amount isn't nearly as difficult.
Even as I write this out, I realize a strong argument can still be made in favor of having a raising range in 6max/reraised pot situations. I'm kind of torn, but may have to consider reincorporating these plays into my game. Thanks again.
Yea I am not sure, havent done as much work with 6max ranges. My guess is even as your range strengthens, you would still want to be able to raise all boards with some frequency, if possible.
