nl100 turned nut fd in 3b pot

Preflop is ok. It should be in our defending range vs a min-raise. Flatting is typically fine, although 3bet if we thin it's non-profitable to flat. Theoretically it's a defend somehow though.

X/c is reasonable if we also x/s some value hands. It's totally fine just to bet again as a semi-bluff though since we turn one of the better cards for our hand.

If opponent checks back I think we can just x/f river given we hold A-high still.

If he shoves vs turn bet it's just a math's problem depending on what we think his range is. If it's close I just generally lean towards folding and saving a little variance.

thanks for reply but what we think his range is?:)

Originally posted by w34z3lTheoretically it's a defend somehow though.

Please explain what you mean? Under what theoretic framework can you prove that this hand is a defend?

Originally posted by w34z3lX/c is reasonable if we also x/s some value hands.

Why is the EV of XC related to having other hands that XR?

Originally posted by w34z3lIt's totally fine just to bet again as a semi-bluff though since we turn one of the better cards for our hand.

The fact that we turn a "one of the better cards" does in no way lead to a conclusion that betting is "totally fine". Bluff on the worst card may be best, checking on the best card may be best (What metric do you use to determine good and bad cards?).

Originally posted by w34z3lIf it's close I just generally lean towards folding and saving a little variance.

I don't think this matters one bit. Can you show me a calculation how much making nitty folds at close decisions lowers your variance?

When it's close you try harder to find out what the best play is.

Hey Internet, thanks for the flame.

Originally posted by lnternet
Please explain what you mean? Under what theoretic framework can you prove that this hand is a defend?

Prove? I think neither of us can prove this. Unless you secretly solved the game and told no-one. Given our equity and the BTN min-raise it seems a pretty reasonable assumption that defending is theoretically ok.

Originally posted by internet
Why is the EV of XC related to having other hands that XR?

Sorry for the typo. "X/s is reasonable if we also x/s some value hands."We can't purely x/jam only as a bluff without reads.

Originally posted by internet
The fact that we turn a "one of the better cards" does in no way lead to a conclusion that betting is "totally fine". Bluff on the worst card may be best, checking on the best card may be best (What metric do you use to determine good and bad cards?).

Presumably we want to continue on the turn with an appropriate frequency to prevent our opponents flop floats from becoming insanely profitable. Naturally we want to continue on the better cards for hand. One metric is certainly turn cards which improve our equity. I did not directly compare the EV of x/s to 2barreling. The reason is I think the best option depends on how we play the rest of our range.

Originally posted by w34z3lIf it's close I just generally lean towards folding and saving a little variance.

Originally posted by lnternet
I don't think this matters one bit. Can you show me a calculation how much making nitty folds at close decisions lowers your variance?

When it's close you try harder to find out what the best play is.

I wouldn't read in to this too much. I'm literally saying if the situation is break even I have no issues folding. We might save ourself a little rake while reducing our standard deviation. I'm not however suggesting it will necessarily change our expected value pre-rake.

Sorry if it sounded too aggressive

Your points are much better, now you are on the point and not so wishy washy anymore.

Originally posted by w34z3l

Originally posted by lnternet
Please explain what you mean? Under what theoretic framework can you prove that this hand is a defend?

Prove? I think neither of us can prove this. Unless you secretly solved the game and told no-one. Given our equity and the BTN min-raise it seems a pretty reasonable assumption that defending is theoretically ok.

I can show almost irrefutably that calling preflop is better than folding. (Still wouldn't be a proof though, yes.) I think we both agree on that. However, this does not mean that 3betting must necessarily show a profit. Not at all.

Originally posted by w34z3l

Originally posted by internet
Why is the EV of XC related to having other hands that XR?

Sorry for the typo. "X/s is reasonable if we also x/s some value hands."We can't purely x/jam only as a bluff without reads.

OK. Still the same question of mine holds ♦

Why is the EV of a XR related to having other hands that XR?

Originally posted by w34z3l

Originally posted by internet
The fact that we turn a "one of the better cards" does in no way lead to a conclusion that betting is "totally fine". Bluff on the worst card may be best, checking on the best card may be best (What metric do you use to determine good and bad cards?).

Presumably we want to continue on the turn with an appropriate frequency to prevent our opponents flop floats from becoming insanely profitable. Naturally we want to continue on the better cards for hand. One metric is certainly turn cards which improve our equity. I did not directly compare the EV of x/s to 2barreling. The reason is I think the best option depends on how we play the rest of our range.

That is much better. Still not concise enough for my taste, but that makes sense.

Why it's not concise enough:

- Imagine limit holdem. Villain has a profitably float with any two cards on this board, there is nothing we can do about that, even if we barrel 100%.

- You measure equity against what? Against his flop calling range?
As5h may actually drop in equity on this card. Vs pairs the turn is rather blank. Put him on a flop calling range and see for yourself.

Some trashy hands may go up in equity on cards that don't really improve them. Like AK on this flop seeing a 4h turn improves it's equity vs calling range.

Strong hands may be best to slowplay on "good" turns than to barrel.

So you see the metric, improved equity, is hardly correlated to being a correct barrel. It's just a bad reason. You cannot say, that card improved me => bet it. It's certainly better than playing randomly, but it's not very good.

Originally posted by w34z3l
I wouldn't read in to this too much. I'm literally saying if the situation is break even I have no issues folding. We might save ourself a little rake while reducing our standard deviation. I'm not however suggesting it will necessarily change our expected value pre-rake.

Yeah, exactly, you are making a zero value statement. "If it's close, both option are similar, so that you can do option 1, and I think that is a good option.". I advocate more constructive discussion.

Hey internet, all is good. It's nice you took the time to post. This is probably benefiting me more than it is you.

Originally posted by lnternet
Why is the EV of a XR related to having other hands that XR?

I don't recall mentioning expected value in my statement. In a vacuum the expectation of x/r is unaltered. This was purely to do with balance.

Originally posted by internet
- You measure equity against what? Against his flop calling range?
As5h may actually drop in equity on this card. Vs pairs the turn is rather blank. Put him on a flop calling range and see for yourself.

In essence, measuring equity vs an average holding, not necessarily vs our opponent's range. GTO play is not generally concerned with our opponents range. I agree that we can make more effective decisions so long as our estimate of our opponents range is more accurate than it is not though.

Originally posted by internet
Yeah, exactly, you are making a zero value statement. "If it's close, both option are similar, so that you can do option 1, and I think that is a good option.". I advocate more constructive discussion.

I disagree that this statement has zero-value to everyone, even if it has zero value to you personally. It was included for a specific reason. Many players believe that if we have exactly the odds needed for a call then calling is mandatory. As you are aware it actually means that calling/folding just both have 0EV. Except we have to pay more rake if we call and also can increase our variance so technically folding can be better (especially in high rake games like the lower limits).

"If he shoves vs turn bet it's just a math's problem depending on what we think his range is."

so what do you think his range is?

Originally posted by w34z3l

Originally posted by lnternet
Why is the EV of a XR related to having other hands that XR?

I don't recall mentioning expected value in my statement. In a vacuum the expectation of x/r is unaltered. This was purely to do with balance.

Yeah, but no.

When you say an action A1 is better than an action A2, you are saying the EV of A1 is higher than A2. You can never have it any other way.

The turn XR in this hand will have some EV. It does not depend on other hands we check shove.

"Balance", uhm. The logic is like this. You try to estimate the EV of each line. If you think you found the highest EV line, you take it. If you think your estimates are poor, or super close, then you think about your whole range, and try to make unexploitable/GTO type arguments, that help you find out in which range your hand likely has the highest EV.

You do not ever play a hand in a certain way for balance. You always only play a hand in the highest EV line. The concepts of "balance"/unexplo/GTO is for finding that highest EV line.

Originally posted by w34z3l

Originally posted by internet
- You measure equity against what? Against his flop calling range?
As5h may actually drop in equity on this card. Vs pairs the turn is rather blank. Put him on a flop calling range and see for yourself.

In essence, measuring equity vs an average holding, not necessarily vs our opponent's range. GTO play is not generally concerned with our opponents range. I agree that we can make more effective decisions so long as our estimate of our opponents range is more accurate than it is not though.

The bolded part is completely the opposite. Correct play always depends EXACTLY on both players ranges. different range from your opponent, different strategy from you. Against an opponent who has the nuts 100%, you checkfold 100%, no matter how good or bad the turn card is for your range. Similarly, if you have the nuts almost always, you bet every card, even bad ones.

So no, the measure of your hand in equity vs a random hand is completely useless (unless villain's range is similar to a random distribution of course).

Originally posted by w34z3l
I disagree that this statement has zero-value to everyone, even if it has zero value to you personally. It was included for a specific reason. Many players believe that if we have exactly the odds needed for a call then calling is mandatory. As you are aware it actually means that calling/folding just both have 0EV. Except we have to pay more rake if we call and also can increase our variance so technically folding can be better (especially in high rake games like the lower limits).

Sure, rake (and rakeback) has to be factored in, but I assume we did that before we concluded that it's close :).

Soft factors like variance and table image (do you want a high WTSD or not), etc, can be debated. But IMO those things are way overvalued, and thinking about them won't help you get any further. Like image you didn't know folding a close spot was reducing variance, do you think you would be a worse player?

Originally posted by lnternet

When you say an action A1 is better than an action A2, you are saying the EV of A1 is higher than A2. You can never have it any other way.

Thing is, if you read what I wrote, nowhere did I actually say that one option was better than the other. Also I have noticed that you have not actually offered your thoughts on the hand. Why not answer ciachooooos question since you evidently have issues with how it's been answered thus far?

I think you are misunderstanding some of the points I am making. I'm in essence simply saying it's incorrect to only x/r bluffs on the turn and no value hands against a decent opponent. Do you disagree?

Originally posted by lnternet
So no, the measure of your hand in equity vs a random hand is completely useless (unless villain's range is similar to a random distribution of course).

I don't think it's completely useless. I think this is an exaggeration. Sometimes we just don't know what a guys range is. And obviously if we know exactly what someones range is we can make a stronger play - I was never disputing this and it's a pretty obvious statement.

I use what I consider to be a balanced strategy then deviate as I gain more information about opponents range. Do you think this is flawed?

In other words my default strategy would not allow me to x/r bluff the turn here if there were also no hands in my range that I felt the highest EV with them was to x/r for value. As I gain more info about villain's range and his tendencies I might heavily weight my x/r range towards value/bluffs. Do you feel this is incorrect?

Originally posted by internet
Like image you didn't know folding a close spot was reducing variance, do you think you would be a worse player?

In terms of EV no. Actually it's mainly a mindset thing. Guys swing around, they tilt, then they spew another 10 buyins. So for guys with mindset issues their future EV may be affected by embracing high variance decisions frequently.

Anyway, cheers for the free coaching ♦ I'm a fan and stuff.

Originally posted by w34z3l
Thing is, if you read what I wrote, nowhere did I actually say that one option was better than the other. Also I have noticed that you have not actually offered your thoughts on the hand. Why not answer ciachooooos question since you evidently have issues with how it's been answered thus far?

I think you are misunderstanding some of the points I am making. I'm in essence simply saying it's incorrect to only x/r bluffs on the turn and no value hands against a decent opponent. Do you disagree?

I may be putting some words into your mouth yeah, because I am projecting my thought process onto your statements.

The point is this. The XR on the turn is either correct, or it is not correct. In evaluating the hand, it does not matter if, which, or how many value hands we have there. Your initial statement, if you read it again, says, "XR value hands => XR bluff is good". And that logical connection is completely wrong.

Originally posted by w34z3l

Originally posted by lnternet
So no, the measure of your hand in equity vs a random hand is completely useless (unless villain's range is similar to a random distribution of course).

I don't think it's completely useless. I think this is an exaggeration. Sometimes we just don't know what a guys range is. And obviously if we know exactly what someones range is we can make a stronger play - I was never disputing this and it's a pretty obvious statement.

Re completely useless:

Show me a post on this forum, where evaluation the equity vs a random hand has helped someone find the best decision postflop.

Or make one up for that matter.

Originally posted by w34z3l
I use what I consider to be a balanced strategy then deviate as I gain more information about opponents range. Do you think this is flawed?

That's all perfect. I'd call it "best GTO approximation" instead of balanced, because it's unclear what balance means to me, but same thing.

Originally posted by w34z3l
In other words my default strategy would not allow me to x/r bluff the turn here if there were also no hands in my range that I felt the highest EV with them was to x/r for value. As I gain more info about villain's range and his tendencies I might heavily weight my x/r range towards value/bluffs. Do you feel this is incorrect?

That makes sense.

However, you are in this spot with A5 now. Much like your poker instinct may tell you to value bet KK there, it may tell you to XR A5. You believe both are the max EV plays. Do you, before every bet you make, think about your entire range? If you do, that's great, but it's incredibly hard to. Anyhow, if you did, why didn't you post "XR A5 is good, but also XR T9 and AsAx here as well", instead of what you did, which is just a generic statement with no value to it (sorry about the negative tone again, but that is exactly what it is. It is not helping improve the decision with A5 when you write what you did)

Hey Internet,

Thanks for the feedback. I will work on being a little less generic with my responses.

If you wouldn't mind, please can you review ciachooooo's hand and answer his question about what you feel opponent's range is? I'd love to hear your viewpoint.

Thanks,

Preflop call is usually better than 3bet. His stats are very nitty, which increases the EV of both calling and 3betting pre. Maybe 3bet is better, I doubt it, but it's certainly close enough that 3bet is cool.

Flop I would plan to

1) cbet and check/call turn. That works best with a small cbet that entices floats from all the possible KQ KJ and works best against laggy guys.

2) cbet and barrel. That works best with largish cbet size (like the $9 as played) and best against nitty guys that can fold pairs to turn bets.

3) check/call. That works best vs fish and some type of aggro regs, that bet too often, but don't really know what they are doing.

Here we are probably in 2), so cbet large and plan to bet every high card turn.

Turn, Ts is a solid card, certainly bet, and should be a river bluff push on most cards. Only downside of betting is that he can push over the bet. But given we chose this plan because he is nitty, I think he rarely shoves turn, and when he does, it's mostly a flush, so we have an easy fold.

XR turn makes no sense here because there is no better hands bet/folding. He may bet AJ or bet/fold 76s, but usually when he bets it's 87s, A3, A5, some float, or a hand that calls a push.

Check/call turn is a solid option. I don't like it too much, given we bet the flop big, so there are not that many floats like KQ KJ QJ in his range. But it's better than check/raising for sure.

Originally posted by lnternet
Preflop call is usually better than 3bet. His stats are very nitty, which increases the EV of both calling and 3betting pre. Maybe 3bet is better, I doubt it, but it's certainly close enough that 3bet is cool.

Flop I would plan to

1) cbet and check/call turn. That works best with a small cbet that entices floats from all the possible KQ KJ and works best against laggy guys.

2) cbet and barrel. That works best with largish cbet size (like the $9 as played) and best against nitty guys that can fold pairs to turn bets.

3) check/call. That works best vs fish and some type of aggro regs, that bet too often, but don't really know what they are doing.

Here we are probably in 2), so cbet large and plan to bet every high card turn.

Turn, Ts is a solid card, certainly bet, and should be a river bluff push on most cards. Only downside of betting is that he can push over the bet. But given we chose this plan because he is nitty, I think he rarely shoves turn, and when he does, it's mostly a flush, so we have an easy fold.

XR turn makes no sense here because there is no better hands bet/folding. He may bet AJ or bet/fold 76s, but usually when he bets it's 87s, A3, A5, some float, or a hand that calls a push.

Check/call turn is a solid option. I don't like it too much, given we bet the flop big, so there are not that many floats like KQ KJ QJ in his range. But it's better than check/raising for sure.

This post is excellent and cleared up a lot of my confusion, because I thought you were very aggressively suggesting to x/r turn which you were just trying to create discussion as to which is higher ev obv.

Obv I don't know any better than you either, but yea I typically would also call pre. As played my plan is also to barrel off here. I'm not entirely sure what the highest ev line is with a hand like QQ/JJ or AsK or AxKs or how about even a nut flush. If you read this would be great if you could elaborate on that.