nl100 Ato zoom

Hi,

pre flop good,

on this flop generally we have a pretty big range advantage so we should bet often and bet big, betting potsize here is not a mistake and it could be better than a regular size.

Turn is close, we should be definitely keep firing with AK/AQ/AJ and draws, I'm not too sure about AT, I would just keep firing but it's okay to give up.

River I think we should have a bunch of weaker hands to bluff here (random overs we cbet flop and give up turn) so if we bluff AT we are bluffing too much IMO. And having the A is not ideal either. And you should bet bigger, you're repping Kx, bet at least 13$.

Hey, is it really that important to take care about my range here? I mean villain is unk and is repping 77 at best. Do you want to give up here, cause your stats will be too agro if you bet and more regs will start to call you down in many spots like that?

Anyway if you have here KQ, do you really want to bet river for 13$? Wouldnt it isolate us against AK most of the time?

thanks

Originally posted by sandraardnas
Hey, is it really that important to take care about my range here? I mean villain is unk and is repping 77 at best. Do you want to give up here, cause your stats will be too agro if you bet and more regs will start to call you down in many spots like that?

Anyway if you have here KQ, do you really want to bet river for 13$? Wouldnt it isolate us against AK most of the time?

thanks

Well, villain also has 99-JJ in his range. If you make a population read that most regs are folding their range more than they should on most rivers, then by all means, bet 3 times with a lot of overcards. But you have to realize that this a very unbalanced way to play. The more you climb up the stakes the more you should be mindfull of this, it's okay to play very unbalanced as long as you know you are and why.

I don't think villain has that many AK in his range, we shouldn't assume he flats 100% with that pre flop. And again, if you wanna play with a more balanced betsizing strategy you should definitely betting biggish on the river since it hits a lot harder than villain (you do have a bunch of KJ/KQ/KT and he does not) and you still have a lot of bluff combos, so the bigger you bet the more bluff combos you can add to your range.

Again, you could play exploitatively and bet smallish with Kx and biggish as a bluffs if you think that works well, just be aware of what you are doing.

Hey, I only meant river play after checking turn, so Im not arguing that 3 barrel is better.
So on the river he usually cant have 99-JJ, because he would bet turn with those.
As you said he also doesnt have all AK, cause he would 3b pre some of the time.

So, his range is very weak on the river and mine is very strong (comparing to his range).
Why should I then bet big because mine range is strong instead of betting small because his range is weak?

Originally posted by sandraardnas
Hey, I only meant river play after checking turn, so Im not arguing that 3 barrel is better.
So on the river he usually cant have 99-JJ, because he would bet turn with those.
As you said he also doesnt have all AK, cause he would 3b pre some of the time.

So, you are pretty much saying that his range is only 77 and not much else. Okay, if we can narrow his range so hard then it's quite easy to play. He has a bluff catcher, so in theory we have a Polar VS Bluffcatcher situation. In that case if you wanna optimally, if you bet potsize you should have 2 value combos for 1 bluff combo. If you bet less than potsize you should have less and less bluff combos accordingly. This is assuming villain plays somewhat of a near optimal approach. If you think he always folds 77 then by all means, bet smallish with your entire range since you expect to have 100% FE (that way you loose less money if he ends up showing AK from time to time).

Originally posted by sandraardnas
So, his range is very weak on the river and mine is very strong (comparing to his range).
Why should I then bet big because mine range is strong instead of betting small because his range is weak?

Well, this a theory topic. My understanding is that this is close to a poler vs bluffcatcher situation where your value hands always win agains his bluffcacthers and your bluffs always loose to his bluffcacthers. In that case you wanna keep a bet size that let's you bluff with all your air. So if you bet potsize you should have 2 value combos for every bluff combo. If indeed your range is so strong that you don't have enough bluff combos to balance your value combos than it makes sense to bet small (so that value to bluff ratio is bigger). But I don't think that's the case at all, villain range is weak but it still wins against your bluffs, so if you bet 50% pot with 2 value combo to 1 bluff combo villain should definitely call you 100% of the time with his bluffcatchers.

But I don't think that's the case at all, villain range is weak but it still wins against your bluffs, so if you bet 50% pot with 2 value combo to 1 bluff combo villain should definitely call you 100% of the time with his bluffcatchers.

Well, of course he should call always if I have too many bluffs, especially if my sizing is small.
But This spot wont happen too often and he will never know if I have too many bluffs (unless he sees that I have some crazy stats or he saw weird showdowns vs me), so having said that Id rather like to know your opinion if this bluff is going to work often in a vaacum, where we can stop looking at our hand and range and start to take more care about villains range which is weak (77,55,33, AJ, AQ, AK and maybe 78s).

I hope that makes sense.
thanks

Originally posted by sandraardnas

But I don't think that's the case at all, villain range is weak but it still wins against your bluffs, so if you bet 50% pot with 2 value combo to 1 bluff combo villain should definitely call you 100% of the time with his bluffcatchers.

Well, of course he should call always if I have too many bluffs, especially if my sizing is small.
But This spot wont happen too often and he will never know if I have too many bluffs (unless he sees that I have some crazy stats or he saw weird showdowns vs me), so having said that Id rather like to know your opinion if this bluff is going to work often in a vaacum, where we can stop looking at our hand and range and start to take more care about villains range which is weak (77,55,33, AJ, AQ, AK and maybe 78s).

I hope that makes sense.
thanks

That makes sense, absolutely, you should just be aware of what you are doing. If villains snap calls you with 77 you should not think "oh what a fish" and move on.

If villain gets to the river with a range similar to that one (and I think that's reasonable) and if you think he will only call you with AK (which he might not even have all the combos) then of course it's a very good bluff. And in a vaccum yes, I think typical villain will fold enough. Once he calls with 77 or 55 you readjust and play more balanced.

Originally posted by double2

Originally posted by sandraardnas
Hey, I only meant river play after checking turn, so Im not arguing that 3 barrel is better.
So on the river he usually cant have 99-JJ, because he would bet turn with those.
As you said he also doesnt have all AK, cause he would 3b pre some of the time.

So, you are pretty much saying that his range is only 77 and not much else. Okay, if we can narrow his range so hard then it's quite easy to play. He has a bluff catcher, so in theory we have a Polar VS Bluffcatcher situation. In that case if you wanna optimally, if you bet potsize you should have 2 value combos for 1 bluff combo. If you bet less than potsize you should have less and less bluff combos accordingly. This is assuming villain plays somewhat of a near optimal approach. If you think he always folds 77 then by all means, bet smallish with your entire range since you expect to have 100% FE (that way you loose less money if he ends up showing AK from time to time).

Originally posted by sandraardnas
So, his range is very weak on the river and mine is very strong (comparing to his range).
Why should I then bet big because mine range is strong instead of betting small because his range is weak?

Well, this a theory topic. My understanding is that this is close to a poler vs bluffcatcher situation where your value hands always win agains his bluffcacthers and your bluffs always loose to his bluffcacthers. In that case you wanna keep a bet size that let's you bluff with all your air. So if you bet potsize you should have 2 value combos for every bluff combo. If indeed your range is so strong that you don't have enough bluff combos to balance your value combos than it makes sense to bet small (so that value to bluff ratio is bigger). But I don't think that's the case at all, villain range is weak but it still wins against your bluffs, so if you bet 50% pot with 2 value combo to 1 bluff combo villain should definitely call you 100% of the time with his bluffcatchers.

if villian would reallly never check back with sets and KX, then each Kx+ is apsolute nuts. Hero most likely has plenty of bluffs in his range on river unless he cbets flop value heavy or cbets turn bluff heavy (so not many bluffs in check range).
In that case, it makes most sense to go all in. With that, we can have the max number of bluffs in balanced range, which means all those hands are winners, and avarage hand EV in range is exactly the amount of Pot because villian is indifferent of calling and folding. So what ever bet size we use, in each case average EV of hand in range is exactly pot size, so with bigger size you get more hands in that winning balanced range.
Off course, if with all in we would be value heavy, then we choose max bet size such that we can use max number of bluffs and have correct ratio.

You can argue, what is the point of going all in if villian never ever calls, well in balanced range it doesnt matter what villian does, if he allways calls or fold, you have the same EV anyway.
You can also argue, why would I try to be balanced in this case if he is unknown, you should, because you dont know his defend frequencies so you cant exploit him maximally, and in that case balanced range is best you can do vs unknown frequency or vs perfect villian.

Yes, in perfect Polar vs Bluffcatcher situations, the polar range should always overbet all in.

But in this case we are not sure if that's true since villain might have some combos of AK. So exploitatively speaking we are better off betting a size that we think makes villain fold weak bluffcatchers like 77.

Sure, it totally depends on villian's range on river. All we have is assumption about his range, so we cant do it perfectly. Still, even if he has few combos of AK, we can still find maximum bet size for which we have value with Kx hands, which would be optimal bet size.

If we would give him range on river:

Board: 2♠4♣6♣ 8♥ K♠
       Equity     Win     Tie
MP2     6.67%   6.67%   0.00% { 77, 55, 33, 87s, 76s, 65s, AsKs, 9c8c, AsKd, AsKh, AsKc }
MP3    93.33%  93.33%   0.00% { KTs, KTo }

He has 35 combos of bluff catchers, which means if we go all in, he needs to defend 85% range, which means 5 combos. In that case we cant shove all in Kx hands.

If we want to find max bet size so that all Kx have value, then villian needs to defend at least 9 combos because there are 4 combos AK, and 5 combos would be worse than our Kx hand. if he defends 9 combos from total 35 combos, it means that he defends 75% range (0.75 * 35 = 9 combos). Now from 75% we can find what that bet size is:

FE = bet_size / (pot + bet_size)
0.75 = bet_size / (17.5BB + bet_size)
bet_size = 52.5BB

So with 52.5BB we would need 75% FE, which means villian should defend 75% of his range (exactly 9 combos) to make us indifferent of bluffing. So this should be optimal bet size. Agree?

Could this thread be posted in advanced poker discussion, or if you could ask other coatches to tell their opinion? I would really like to hear opinions from more people. Or if Uri Peleg could answer it like last time, i like him the most, he is my idol and I would like to be like him when I grow up

we can still find maximum bet size for which we have value with Kx hands, which would be optimal bet size.

This sentence is wrong, and you could see that if you try a different betsize instead (try betting 2x pot, compare the ev and you will see it is ~2bb higher than your betsize)

Rest of your calculations are fine but unfortunately not very relevant given your wrong premise, sorry...

Finding the optimal betsize is not that easy and probably requires a computer (you can't do it by hand).

This sentence is wrong, and you could see that if you try a different betsize instead (try betting 2x pot, compare the ev and you will see it is ~2bb higher than your betsize)

Yes, now I also see it is wrong. I did calculus for hands that have 100% equity, and saw that with max bet size the EV is max (assuming villain defends according to Nash equilibrium), and I thought it holds also for hands <100% equity, but it is not true.
Thanks for pointing this out.
I also didn't include the fact that villain can raise, and that his raise frequency changes with the change of our bet size, which makes the calculus much more complex and probably pointless to calculate because raise range for different bet sizes is unknown variable (or has to be assumed which would be still not much useful in practice).

Finding the optimal betsize is not that easy and probably requires a computer (you can't do it by hand).

It is not a problem, I have 2 computers
Well, I know it requires computer to do calculus and that it is impossible to do it while playing multi tables, but I can practice offline with a help of computer program, e.g. 3 different bet sizes, 33%, 75%, 200% pot size bets and get a feeling which bet size has highest EV for those 3 bet sizes.

If Uri is your idol I hope you already sent him a video for him to review in his coachings

Ok i will do it on weekend, good idea, thanks