JJ vs QQ Cindy vs Iceman

Submitted by : Stroggoz

PokerStars Hand #175484338207: Holdem No Limit ($50/$100 USD) - 2017/09/10 19:45:24 ET
Table Kacivelia II 6-max Seat #2 is the button
Seat 1: OhHeyCindy ($24085.81 in chips)
Seat 2: LLinusLLove ($10000 in chips)
Seat 5: OBORRA ($10235.83 in chips)
Seat 6: ICEMAN2710 ($28534.25 in chips)
OBORRA: posts small blind $50
ICEMAN2710: posts big blind $100

Holecards(Odds)
OhHeyCindy: raises $115 to $215
LLinusLLove: folds
OBORRA: folds
ICEMAN2710: raises $785 to $1000
OhHeyCindy: calls $785

Flop(Odds) (Pot : $2,050.00)

   
ICEMAN2710: checks
OhHeyCindy: bets $1105.38
ICEMAN2710: raises $2194.62 to $3300
OhHeyCindy: raises $4669.38 to $7969.38
ICEMAN2710: raises $19564.87 to $27534.25 and is all-in
OhHeyCindy: calls $15116.43 and is all-in
Uncalled bet ($4448.44) returned to ICEMAN2710
*** FIRST TURN ***
*** FIRST RIVER ***
*** SECOND TURN ***
*** SECOND RIVER ***
*** FIRST SHOW DOWN ***
ICEMAN2710: shows (a straight, Six to Ten)
OhHeyCindy: shows (a straight, Seven to Jack)
OhHeyCindy collected $24109.31 from pot
*** SECOND SHOW DOWN ***
ICEMAN2710: shows (two pair, Queens and Tens)
OhHeyCindy: shows (a straight, Seven to Jack)
OhHeyCindy collected $24109.31 from pot

Summary
Total pot $48221.62 | Rake $3
Hand was run twice
Board  
Board  
Seat 1: OhHeyCindy showed and won ($24109.31) with a straight, Seven to Jack, and won ($24109.31) with a straight, Seven to Jack
Seat 2: LLinusLLove (button) folded before Flop (didnt bet)
Seat 5: OBORRA (small blind) folded before Flop
Seat 6: ICEMAN2710 (big blind) showed and lost with a straight, Six to Ten, and lost with two pair, Queens and Tens

Seems like a great position to call the c/r IP, gutty to the nuts and blocking nut straight and allows bluffs to continue..

I wish this hand was on the podcast

Link to podcast?

the QQ puzzles me far more than t he JJ

Not sure what people 3bet here oop 240bb deep. I would guess a strong linear-ish range?, i would think any decent reg flats extremely wide vs 3bets here. I think you should cbet this flop very rarely, maybe less than 10%. and you should be checking back JJ IP a decent amount. I would just c/c overpairs as well, instead of c/r. I guess i am a nit haha. I know the game has gotten very equity protection based but even still, pretty sick stack off.

bump, still no analysis to this and i put it on runitonce as well.

bet1: the whole hand = not bluff or value bet thing, but in this case most +ev
bet2: same thing, more value weighted. most +ev
bet3: this time, im turning my hand into a bluff because i need bluffs here
bet4: most +ev
5: im calling

ohc : "oh...so yeah there i bet 1/2 pot bc...i need an amount to bet...and i have it on half pot..."

maybe the analysis is something like that.

@stroggoz i definitely dont think its just strong linear. Theres many v high equity bluffs to pick from. I mean as low as 45s etc. Being linear here deep would not be much of an advantage imo. Though definitely v little low equity/low-playability hands which perhaps is what you were saying and im misinterpreting. But id imagine its a sizable distribution of suited aces + some % of suited connectors and 1 gap connectors. If we were too strong and linear here though it would bode worse for us OOP deep imo. We definitely dont want an overly strong range vs someone flatting too wide IP IMO. Even though that might seem weird. We need bluffs in order to punish them for folding on boards that are strong for us and value on boards that are otherwise bad for us. Especially if they are of the mind they are gonig to overcall PF expecting our range to be strong and have a lot of play ability vs an overly strong OOP range. Plus i mean the amount of fold equity needed to make 3bs +EV really isnt as much conventional wisdom back in the day thought. So long as we aren't getting 4b too much robbing us of our equity we can justify a fair amount of bluffs still.

I feel like iceman is just saying ok im not gonna have a bet range on this board and play everything out of a cking range. Then cindy expects him to have a lot of lower equity bluffs and solid equity vs everything else. That said though JJ blocks sooo many of his bluffs i find it confusing. So id imagine he expects icemans bluffs to be lower equity types like KQdd or something that iceman feels needs to be in the CR range because they are just too weak to ck/call (which if he is playing a ckall range he needs to be using some of these or he wont have enough bluffs). But still have solid equity vs his exact hand. V V interesting hand those of you guys railing these stars games keep em coming. These hands are just awesome to try and decipher ^_^

I ran a sim on Simple Postflop, but there are a few pitfalls; Firstly, the ranges I used were from the Simple Postflop preflop pack which are based on 100bb preflop solutions, given this hand is 240bb deep to start the hand the solutions clearly wouldn't look the same. Secondly, there's a maximum effective stack size of 200bb in Simple Postflop, whereas in the hand there's going to be 230bb effective remaining after the flop. In any case, maybe the solution and ranges will be accurate enough to learn something or at least get some idea of whether the two player's plays in this hand were any good.

I assigned both players 3 bet sizes on each street, 33%, 2/3rd pot and 150% and a raise size of 1/2 pot.


- OOP chose to Check 40.49% of the time, bet 33% pot 59.51% of the time and never bet 2/3rds or 150% pot.
With QQ specifically, OOP favoured betting over checking by a small margin, choosing to bet 63.56% of the time.
When QQ checked it called 93.21% of the time and raised 6.79% of the time.
Against the 3bet QQ was mostly fold or jam and it was split roughly 50/50, with a slight preference towards folding.

- Facing a check, IP chose to Check 58.20% of the time, bet 33% pot 2.71% of the time, bet 2/3rds 39.08% of the time and never bet 150% pot.
With JJ specifically, IP checked 49.72% of the time, bet 33% pot 3.58% of the time and bet 2/3rds pot 46.70% of the time.
Facing a check raise JJ chose to call 66.16% of the time and 3bet/get it in 33.84% of the time.


Heading out now and haven't thought much beyond simply looking at the numbers so I have no extra input for now, you guys can make of the findings whatever you will. I can upload the file later if anyone wants to look/play around with it.

alright, i ran it in pio. typically simple postflop seems to play a bit more aggro. I looked at deep stack oop 3bet ranges from 3 different regs. Linus/baron is strongly linear, cindy has some weird shit in there like JTo, KTo. they all have some suited connectors but not many. The preflop ranges are extremely significant and i'm not sure if 40bb would make much of a difference.

Stabbing with JJ is relatively standard. Pio far prefers c/c flop with QQ than c/r. The interesting part of the hand is the flop 3bet and jam. Both players are not really looking at in terms of 'bluff' and 'value'. Rather JJ and QQ both simply do well or have decent equity against each others ranges and how the game tree might run out. JJ could 3bet flop as a 'merge' or whatever. there will be some value from getting random T9s/JTs/99/98s to call, then it has outs, and it blocks J9s, and protects against c/r with Jxs and 9xs. Pio will jam or fold QQ as well, relying on weaker hands to call and it kinda sucks to flat against semi bluffs like AJo, KJs that can just check back the turn and realize their equity.


One thing to note is that people used to think or still do think that you shouldn't raise as a bluff and then call a stackoff. This is not believed to be true anymore, and pio calls the jam with hands like A9s, T9s, JTs, and JJ

On November 02 2017 00:46 Stroggoz wrote: alright, i ran it in pio. typically simple postflop seems to play a bit more aggro. I looked at deep stack oop 3bet ranges from 3 different regs. Linus/baron is strongly linear, cindy has some weird shit in there like JTo, KTo. they all have some suited connectors but not many. The preflop ranges are extremely significant and i'm not sure if 40bb would make much of a difference. Stabbing with JJ is relatively standard. Pio far prefers c/c flop with QQ than c/r. The interesting part of the hand is the flop 3bet and jam. Both players are not really looking at in terms of 'bluff' and 'value'. Rather JJ and QQ both simply do well or have decent equity against each others ranges and how the game tree might run out. JJ could 3bet flop as a 'merge' or whatever. there will be some value from getting random T9s/JTs/99/98s to call, then it has outs, and it blocks J9s, and protects against c/r with Jxs and 9xs. Pio will jam or fold QQ as well, relying on weaker hands to call and it kinda sucks to flat against semi bluffs like AJo, KJs that can just check back the turn and realize their equity. One thing to note is that people used to think or still do think that you shouldn't raise as a bluff and then call a stackoff. This is not believed to be true anymore, and pio calls the jam with hands like A9s, T9s, JTs, and JJ

thats very interesting. Do you have more details on what this strong linear ranges are that linus and baron are using in these spots? im super interested ^_^

i got some pics. i'm not actually sure what the cutoff to say it is 'linear' is. There are some suited connectors. I thought there might be less the more deepstacked it is, but not too sure. the sample isn't very big

Here are screenshots of 3betting from sb/bb vs co/utg+1/utg. 150bb-250bb deep.

baron https://gyazo.com/37dae173bad9f1e7e44cfdd2a0961c65
linus https://gyazo.com/981237cb1ce6b0323e980689e77cbed8
cindy: https://gyazo.com/80d00724a3f862d40c7778bfa4169eb8 (7 hand sample)
oborra: https://gyazo.com/5e91efecd9922de864c55a13249b7218
1invoker: https://gyazo.com/65e590a5bc71285f1364956d268601b7


100-150bb

1invoker: https://gyazo.com/f697963a315b2c3feea61bda65a06af4
linus: https://gyazo.com/e76f3fbb561c65e30212c230c19f47af
baron: https://gyazo.com/0a3999e983727297c80657ad2d8a7478

these pics might not mean much because it is not measuring effective stack size. villian can be 100bb deep in them

not sure if the difference is really that big, basically 65s/75s weak suited connectors dont seem to show up as much.

Its a bit weird but actually seems reasonable.

OHC raises from the cutoff, and being deep in position is probably calling the 3bet with a very wide range.

While Iceman (as the BB preflop raiser) has a stronger range due to higher concentration of overpairs, the cutoff has a more nutted range (J9s, 77,88, TT). Its close though, you might be able to make the argument those hands are 3bet more often than not in an aggressive high stakes game. Point is mainly just to show that checking this flop is perfectly reasonable.

So BB presumably has a lot of complete whiffs on this board (AJ-AK, KQ), but given that the cutoff is calling wide, the cutoff also has a ton of whiffs. So you have an air vs air dynamic on the flop, and generally the most aggressive player is going to win that battle. Of course bet/3bet/fold is an extremely awkward line to take with your air, but simply bet/folding is a bit weak and predictable, a bit too regfishish. So by c/ring your air its your opponent who is put in a tough spot if they carelessly stab at the pot with their air. The idea is mainly to fold out something like 55 or AQ, but even a hand as good as AT will be uncomfortable. So if that play is in your arsenal, or at least perceived to be, on occasion you should be adding in some thin value-raises to take advantage of your opponent adjusting and being a bit more stubborn with his flop stabs (though I would hardly call betting JJ to be a "stab" here).

The weirdest play of the hand IMO is probably the JJ min 3bet on the flop. Seems way too ambitious to think that this a blocker bluff like its PLO, and villain (BB) will actually fold an overpair. I think the idea here is the JJ player feels like he has to go with it, but doesn't really want to give free cards or face difficult turn decisions (K,Q, A,T turn). So the 3bet is an effective shove, but the small raise just keeps a small window open for your opponent to get it in with some worse hands while an actual shove moves out any rebluffing possibilities. I much prefer just calling the initial flop raise though.

The QQ 4bet - shove seems normal given the check-raise in the first place. I suppose you can make a case that you're check/raising to induce calls and just punish the flop bet and the plan isn't really to induce raises, but if you're value betting thin because "my opponent won't believe me" then you have to expect some bluff 3bets will be a part of that.

The calloff with the JJ is pretty much just forced at that point with the money in.