sizing tell? You are capped to lower sets and A5, while he is not right?

I block most of his nut hands, KK, KQ and 56, I think its enough, K5 would be better but I think K6 is a great hand to bluff here too
and I dont think people are used to see bluffs like this at these stakes so I feel like I can get away with it much more often than I should

your reasoning is solid and i like the bluff in a spot where its hard to have many of them. wp, although obviously much of the time when he folds he is folding worse (ie folding a bluff)

I don't understand this line at all. Your goal is to get him to fold with K6-AK specifically right?

We just have to look at the situations where you opponent folds the best hand, or calls, since we are comparing this to a call, and if you have the best hand you win the pot anyway.


Combos that call your jam:

Two-Pair - KQ, K4, K3, K2; Q3, Q4, Q2; 34: 24 + 27 + 9 = 60 combos
Sets - 33, 44, KK, QQ: 10 Combos
at least 56dd, 56cc, and possibly even 56o. For now lets give your bluff the benefit of the doubt and say = 2 combos

72 combos that will call you and you will lose

Hands better than you that fold

K7-KJ, AK = 48 combos that fold

48 times, you are + $183 instead of calling and being -$91, so bluff is +$284 compared to a call.
72 times, you shove in the rest and are -$300 compared to a call..

EV = (48*284-72*300)/(48+72) = -$66



From what it looks like to me, a jam here is ridiculously bad. Do you think he will be folding most 2 pair combos to this bluff or something?

Now if you had Q6 or something things would be very different. You block the same amount of hands if you think he'd bet a queen all 3 streets, but there are many more hands you fold out that are ahead of you. I think the play might be good with Q6, though I haven't gone through any calculations.

Dunno why are u putting hands like Q4 and K4 in that range as if he bets them on the flop... I am about 99% sure he ll xback all low kicker Kx Qx

On December 09 2014 16:02 HungarianGOD wrote: I don't understand this line at all. Your goal is to get him to fold with K6-AK specifically right?

pretty much

Hungariangod you are neglecting a few important factors

He will not have all of those 2pair combos at a 100% frequency; they should be discounted i think to some extent. He may FOLD 2pair; Hero is clearly polarized to the point that there isn't much difference between AK and smaller 2pairs to him. Both hands need to catch a bluff to win.

He will have a wider betting range than you propose because you included zero bluffs. He will be bet/folding some bluffs in addition to the range of hands you present as thin valuebets (Kx) that are also bet/folding.

im pretty confident he folds most 2 pairs, in his shoes I rather call with AK because I block A5 than with a hand like Q2
also, he doesnt have lots of hands that u put in his range, Q4, Q2, 34, 24, 32 he almost never cbets the flop ( maybe he doesnt even have some of this in his pf range )

that said Im not really sure if I like my bluff, but for different reasons

why would villain 3 street mid pair (3barrel Qx)

^not sure if this question was for me
just realized I posted a very similar hand a few days ago

http://www.liquidpoker.net/h/1046832

Hungariangod you are neglecting a few important factors On December 09 2014 16:23 traxamillion wrote: He will not have all of those 2pair combos at a 100% frequency; they should be discounted i think to some extent. He may FOLD 2pair; Hero is clearly polarized to the point that there isn't much difference between AK and smaller 2pairs to him. Both hands need to catch a bluff to win. He will have a wider betting range than you propose because you included zero bluffs. He will be bet/folding some bluffs in addition to the range of hands you present as thin valuebets (Kx) that are also bet/folding.

We didn't need to consider hands he was bluffing, or betting thinly for value when you were ahead. In these situations, you win if you call, and you win if you turn your hand into a bluff, so though these will have a significant effect on the overall EV of your decision to bluff vs call (because the denominator is larger), they will not affect whether the EV of your play is negative or positive. That's why I only looked at the subset of hands that are affected by your decision to bluff vs. your decision to call.

For me playing heads-up, 2-pair is pretty much the nuts. I just assumed that any 2-pair would snap you off when not that many draws got there, and you are only 100 bigblinds deep. If you think he would be folding many or all 2-pair hands, then clearly the play is MUCH better. I just didn't think that would be the case. I certainly could be wrong though.

On December 09 2014 16:12 Spitfiree wrote: Dunno why are u putting hands like Q4 and K4 in that range as if he bets them on the flop... I am about 99% sure he ll xback all low kicker Kx Qx

Why would you assume someone wouldn't bet that on the flop? You've flopped a really good hand, it's not like you are playing full-ring and flopped 2nd pair shitty kicker. Flopping any pair headsup pretty much puts your hand in the top half of your range. You are ahead of so many hands your opponent was likely to have called with preflop...


Trax, I do agree that betting river with just a queen would be a bit questionable. Especially a bet that is pretty much close to pot... I don't think valuebetting river with 2nd pair is always bad, but on this run-out, perhaps it's not so good.

Or wait a minute... Was your decision to either bluff or fold? I assumed that if you didn't turn your hand into a bluff, you were calling.

I'm getting the feeling that I'm an aggro-maniac here <_< Perhaps I have no idea what I'm talking about.

betting Q4/Q2 on the flop is pretty nonsensical. K4/K2 is possible, but think everyone at these stakes are way more likely to check.

Why is betting a weak queen nonsensical? It is pretty high up in the upper half of your range.

Hell, I would have thought it was correct to continuation bet a weak 3 :-p

yeah i see it, we're not really repping anything though, really have to give villain no credit or know whats up to make this good.

On December 09 2014 17:31 HungarianGOD wrote: Why is betting a weak queen nonsensical? It is pretty high up in the upper half of your range. Hell, I would have thought it was correct to continuation bet a weak 3 :-p

ask yourself the following questions:
if i get raised after cbetting, can i continue often enough?
if i check back, can i continue vs a turn lead often enough?

and when you have specifically Q4 on a KQ3r flop, the following things are important:
1) you have a very small chance of improving
2) you arent afraid of almost anything coming on the turn
3) while some worse hands do call, they arent likely to put in a lot of money unless they decide to bluff, which you dont want.

it sounds like youre playing 2006 poker to be honest and just mashing cbet with 95% of your range. its ok vs really bad players, but good players fold to cbets infrequently and know how to take advantage of unbalanced ranges. if we see you are cbetting too much, we will lead 100% on the turn, raise your flop bet with every reasonable hand (think backdoor straight draws, backdoor flush draws, overcards, gutshots, etc) and barrel too much for you to continue.

you want to split your ranges in a way that leaves very few exploitable spots.

this is my HU raising range: 85.52% 22+, A2s+, K2s+, Q2s+, J2s+, T2s+, 92s+, 82s+, 72s+, 62s+, 52s+, 42s+, 32s, A2o+, K2o+, Q2o+, J3o+, T4o+, 95o+, 84o+, 74o+, 64o+, 54o, 43o

i would check KK (maybe 50%),K6,K5,K4,K2,Qx,JT,some Ax and total garbage hands like 97hh that have no equity whatsoever.

so basically im cbetting stuff like K7+, 2 pairs, QQ, 33, J9, T9, A2ss/cc/dd, A4ss/cc/dd, A5ss/cc/dd, 42ss/cc/dd, 52ss/cc/dd, 54ss/cc/dd, 64ss/cc/dd, 65ss/cc/dd, 74ss/cc/dd, 75ss/cc/dd, 76ss/cc/dd.

so i cbet a range of good top pair+, gutshots, backdoor draws and check some top set, good open ender that doesnt love being raised, lots of mid pairs and all of my total shit hands that cant turn anything like 87s, 97s, 87o, 96o, etc. they make up lots of hands.

3x can kinda go in either range, some people prefer checking, others prefer betting. same goes for your good Qx like AQ QJ etc, those are fine to bet as well. im unsure what i like best for either. but the point is, you have strong hands in both ranges and youre not just wildly exploitable. this is a decent board to cbet, but id still probably only cbet like ~65% on it. id have written this in greater detail but heading out the door

I like how u split that range bigballs although i would split some Qx and some 3x into the cbet category as u did with Kx as well (maybe 1/3rd of those combos; less Qx and more 3x i would cbet) for further balance and some value

I like to cbet the 3 because especially on a board like this you can get multistreet value from ace highs and there are tons of good runouts. improving is also quite disguised and can lead to a lot of inaccurate range assessments from villain, aka you get a lot of value when u hit

seems like one of the few times you could be bluffing and get called by worse

On December 09 2014 21:10 traxamillion wrote: I like to cbet the 3 because especially on a board like this you can get multistreet value from ace highs and there are tons of good runouts. improving is also quite disguised and can lead to a lot of inaccurate range assessments from villain, aka you get a lot of value when u hit

i cbet the 3 as well, but im not sure its correct. im pretty sure pokersnowie would, but i dont think ike/wcgrider would.

So much intelligence.

I HOPE THE VILLAiN WAS FUCKING DRUNK

Is AK234 a straight?

this is just straight up bad

On December 09 2014 23:27 Daut wrote: Show nested quote + On December 09 2014 21:10 traxamillion wrote: I like to cbet the 3 because especially on a board like this you can get multistreet value from ace highs and there are tons of good runouts. improving is also quite disguised and can lead to a lot of inaccurate range assessments from villain, aka you get a lot of value when u hit i cbet the 3 as well, but im not sure its correct. im pretty sure pokersnowie would, but i dont think ike/wcgrider would.

Why do you think Ike and Wcg wouldnt? because they have a more GTO approach?

overall you should always have some combos of 3x that cbet the flop, one of the main reasons would be for board coverage, especially now that theres a trend in donkbetting turn when the botton card pairs

I just played this hand here, the villain is one of the best 5k+ regs:

Submitted by : drone666

PokerStars Hand #126604310399: Holdem No Limit ($2/$4 USD) - 2014/12/10 6:13:15 ET
Table Wendeline V 2-max Seat #1 is the button
Seat 1: muumipoiss ($482.47 in chips)
Seat 2: Hero ($402.77 in chips)
muumipoiss: posts small blind $2
Hero: posts big blind $4

Holecards(Odds)
Dealt to Hero
muumipoiss: raises $6.08 to $10.08
Hero: calls $6.08

Flop(Odds) (Pot : $20.16)

   
Hero: checks
muumipoiss: bets $14.43
Hero: calls $14.43

Turn(Odds) (Pot : $49.02)

   
Hero: checks
muumipoiss: bets $36.01
Hero: calls $36.01

River (Pot : $121.04)

   
Hero: checks
muumipoiss: bets $90.03
Hero: raises $252.22 to $342.25 and is all-in
muumipoiss: calls $252.22

Showdown
Hero: shows (two pair, Jacks and Fours)
muumipoiss: shows (three of a kind, Fours)
muumipoiss collected $804.54 from pot

Summary
Total pot $805.54 | Rake $1
Board  
Seat 1: muumipoiss (button) (small blind) showed and won ($804.54) with three of a kind, Fours
Seat 2: Hero (big blind) showed and lost with two pair, Jacks and Fours

On December 09 2014 20:46 Daut wrote: ask yourself the following questions: if i get raised after cbetting, can i continue often enough? if i check back, can i continue vs a turn lead often enough? it sounds like youre playing 2006 poker to be honest and just mashing cbet with 95% of your range. its ok vs really bad players, but good players fold to cbets infrequently and know how to take advantage of unbalanced ranges.

You might be correct in saying that I have an exploitably large c-betting range, although perhaps it's more correct to say my PF raising range is too wide? In position my PF raising range is 100% of hands, and even if I'm c-betting 100% of my draw and pair combos (and I'm counting overcards as draws on dry boards), my c-betting frequency isn't much higher than 75% . When I'm raised on the flop it approximately folds out my bottom/mid pairs, and I call with top-pair + and the better half of draws. I don't mind being raised too much. However, as you said, when I check back I very rarely can continue against a turn lead, so good opponents can pretty much always bet turn correctly against me.

Do you guys ever put rule constraints on you when are practicing? To try to learn more about the game, I will sometimes make a plan and play a session with a specific extreme adjustment, for instance say 'out of position I will never donk-bet ever' checking blind every flop oop, then after playing a day or 2 like that, switching to 'any hand that would be good enough to call or raise with oop, I will lead out instead', so then I'm never NOT donk-betting. Clearly adding these sorts of rules cannot be good for your winrate, but I sometimes feel that it forces me out of my comfort zone and helps me improve faster than I otherwise would have.

BTW this hand thread is awesome; many insightful comments from a lots of different people. Thanks all

x

Well i was gonna respond but then Daut pretty much did it 10x better so ye

On December 10 2014 10:11 HungarianGOD wrote: Show nested quote + On December 09 2014 20:46 Daut wrote: ask yourself the following questions: if i get raised after cbetting, can i continue often enough? if i check back, can i continue vs a turn lead often enough? it sounds like youre playing 2006 poker to be honest and just mashing cbet with 95% of your range. its ok vs really bad players, but good players fold to cbets infrequently and know how to take advantage of unbalanced ranges. You might be correct in saying that I have an exploitably large c-betting range, although perhaps it's more correct to say my PF raising range is too wide? In position my PF raising range is 100% of hands, and even if I'm c-betting 100% of my draw and pair combos (and I'm counting overcards as draws on dry boards), my c-betting frequency isn't much higher than 75% . When I'm raised on the flop it approximately folds out my bottom/mid pairs, and I call with top-pair + and the better half of draws. I don't mind being raised too much. However, as you said, when I check back I very rarely can continue against a turn lead, so good opponents can pretty much always bet turn correctly against me.

yes, your check back range is too weak. and youre very likely being blown off the best hand too often when raised.

a more extreme example that is a bit more instructive: often in PLO its correct to check call or check back top+bottom pair instead of cbetting.


im curious what pokersnowie says about cbetting the 3 here. im guessing it plays some strange mixed strategy where it cbets some of them and checks some of them. if anyone has it, play around and post the results.

im pretty sure any well balanced range will have some 3x in both ranges
if I would have to guess in numbers, i would say checking back 66% and cbetting 33%