If SB can adapt aggressively, I think he can easily resteal 22+, A2s+, A4o+, K9s+, KJo+, QTs+, JTs. If he had a smaller stack he'd probably even have SC in his range.
Without getting into too detailed calculations I think for our range, 77+, AJ+ will give us a safe margin imo. We can probably expect nearly 90% FE from BU after we push, and this range gives us about 5% edge against teh range I gave SB.
btw, here is a small update on the index.
Xarry’s coaching review thread
*PG1 *
05/28 > Cbet and 2nd barrel
06/11 > Playing tighter OOP, big stack freeplay – turn and river alternative lines.
06/18 > Cbetting loose opponents, cbetting freeplay, cbetting multiways with OC
> reducing cbets rather than pushing OOP.
06/25 > 3x 3bet vs direct push
07/02 > Playing against donkbets
*PG2 *
07/09 > Downswings; Isolating and delayed c-bet.
07/16 > Pre-flop equity
07/23 > Post flop play: balancing c-bet lines etc.
07/30 > Squeeze-move; cbet trash into 2 loose opp.; ex. For students
08/06 > Pre-flop Equity; c-bets; Cocktail special: The Mojito
08/13 > Extracting value turn and river; draw in multi-way limped pot. Cocktail special: The Sex on the Beach.
08/20 > Stealing, restealing and defending against small steals – extensive analysis
Extra link: (05/07 Adv. SSS Coaching - Calling Resteals). Cocktail special: the Bombay Crushed
08/28 > Isolation raises, determining limping ranges. Cocktail special: The Daiquiri
09/03 > Table image, cbet. Cocktail special: the Pina Colada.
*PG3 *
09/10 > 3 barreling with nothing. Cocktail special: Caipirinha.
09/17 > Blind steals and blind defense: image, history, adaptation and readaptation. Cocktail special: the White Russian.
09/24 (wrong date, says 09/10 again) > Reliability of stats, considering the sample sizes Cocktail special: Licor 43.
10/03 > Playing against SB completer, defending BB passively. Cocktail special: The B-52.
10/08 > Cbet and delayed cbet. Cocktail special: The Dragon Life.
10/15 > Considerations on ch/r vs leading and direct push vs normal raise. Cocktail special: Cucumber Collins.
10/22 > Playing against a flop raise. Cocktail Special: Tequila Sunrise
*PG4 *
11/05 > Defending BB passively. Cocktail Special: Mai Tai
11/12 > When to cbet.
>>Extra post: Considerations on 3betting: small raises vs direct push
11/19 > Pushing looser pre-flop vs limpers
11/26 > When are check-behinds instead of cbets appropriate
12/03 > Pushing T4s against BU open limp
12/12 > Check/raising monsters, considerations about steal/resteal situations.
12/17 > Check/raising monsters, considerations about steal/resteal situations.
01/07 > Playing against donk-bets
01/14 (wrong date, says 01/07 again) > How to treat min-raises on mid-stakes.
*PG5*
01/21 > Squeezes, EV calculation.
01/28 (wrong date, says 01/21 again) > Semibluff-resteals
02/04 > Post-flop evaluation: playing UI on 3way (cbet or not); possible flop lines for PP when there is 1 OC.
02/11 > EP OR Ranges – Extensive analysis
02/20 > Pre flop equity: 3 betting AJo – extensive analysis.
*PG6*
02/25 > Pre-fop equity: steal vs resteal
03/04 > Defending BB passively OOP
03/11 > Bluff resteals: extensive analysis
03/18 > Post flop lines, Isolation raise.
03/25 > Calculating equity against a ch/r – extensive analysis.
** Extra post: Xarryu’s new Chart Collection - explanation and demonstration.
04/01 > Restealing equity calculation.
Adv SSS Coaching - 12/02
There were a lot of interesting questions in the last coaching. Some I'm going to review here.
Thx to all question-posters 
i have a situation that happens way too often to me imho....we open or isolate, one guy CC, board is random and we dont hit...we cbet oop and he reraises us....we only need, if we cbet 2/3 pot and didnt have an increased stack around 30% eq to call...and i have that most of the time with OCs+bdfd or something like that....what do u do normally in this case?
If you find yourself in the descirbed situation it is formally profitable to call the raise and go broke. But with a closer look you will see that you only maneuvered yourself into this profitable spot. However this does not mean the overall play has a profitable EV though. E.g. its not profitable to always raise 8BB preflop and say: according to pot odds I have a profitable call. You just commited yourself to the pot, you can not get our of it any longer because you already invested too much money.
Well, what can you do about that? I prefer to raise only 3BB+1 preflop for example. Consequently the flop potsize will be smaller as well as your remaining stack will be bigger. You now can find a way out of the pot more often. Further I think its not always appropriate to cbet 2/3 potsize. having a flexible cbetting size depending on your opponent(s), the board... . I.e. on a dry heads up flop I mostly just cbet 50-55% or just ~60% on a semidrawy board. By doing so you also reduce the situations where you commit yourself.
Nevertheless there will be spots where the gap between a profitable call and a fold is very small. You then need to be able to evaluate your remaining equity, teh pot odds and your opponent's play correctly - and quick. Therefore you should always practice such spots in your theory sessions or discuss critical hands in the forum or with friends. Finally whats most important: don't just cbet any HU pot. Its the most essential thing in poker to knwo and understand what you're doing. Thus, every time you face a decisions weigh the pros and cons and consider which possible actions could happen after your decision. I.e. if you face a drawy board and an aggressive opponent I think its often best to make decisions like:
-I definetely cbet/fold in order to use the remaining foldequity and not play around for my stack
- I cbet/call since I think villain will raise my cbet pretty loose
...
What are your thoughts on moving up the limits vs increasing the tables you play?
On one hand our winrate decreases but the $ value increases. Though we have less bad players the higher we go, and as we increase tables we will play more hands and we keep a better total winrate/h but the value of BB is less than if we had moved up?
My own opinion on this spot can be summarized by saying: play on the limit you feel comfortable and have fun
What leeds to feeling comfortable is definetely worth discussion here. What comes to my mind first is wether you are able to beat the opponents on a limit. If you play NL 100 but currently don't think you can beat NL 200 it may be the better decision to just increase tables on NL 100 and to work on your game until you feel strong enough. On the other hand if you feel bored on your limit you should not increase the tables further. this will only lead to more boredom and ABC-play on your side. Its mostly much better to challenge yourself with a higher limit - maybe with just a few tables so you have got all the time for your decisions and time to get to know the new opponents. Another aspect is the meaning poker has in your life. If you play for fun basically you can risk going up a limit and maybe have lees winnings the next weeks/months. If you however make your living from poker its highly risky to move up if you don't feel absolutely sure its time to. in this case I rather recommend to increase tables in order to have more total$/h. Further than this you can still make some 2-4 Table sessions on the higher limit to gather experience and still have the more secure winnings from the lower limit.
My recommendation for the long term is: your top goal should be to improve your game and make the best possible decisions. If you stay on a limit too long you may miss going up soon enough and many other players already have overtook you with their better skills. Stagnating on a skilllevel will lead to losses in the long run! What comes together with this is that the table number correlates with the understanding of poker. The more tables you play the less time you have to think. And it is thinking about every hand - wether you're involved or not - which gets you further in poker.
Best regards,
xarry
Hey Xarry
You still didn't give us answer about the resteal from the bottom of the last page
Hey!
I won't forget! I'm currently skiing in austria, that's why I will post the answer as well as the review from wednesday on tuesday nest week.
cu,
xarry
Originally posted by xarry2
Known players: (for a description of vp$ip, pfr, ats, folded bb, af, wts, wsd or hands click here)
[tg]Position_Stack:hands/vp$ip/pfr/af/wts/ats/foldbb/w$sd;Hero$62,00:///////;SB$90,10:///////;BU$1047,94:///////;[/tg]
2,00/4,00 No-Limit Hold'em (7 handed)
Hand recorder used for this poker hand: Texas Grabem 1.9 by www.pokerstrategy.com.Preflop: Hero is BB with K♠, A♦
4 folds, BU raises to $12,00, SB raises to $90,10 (All-In), Hero calls $58,00, BU calls $78,10.Flop: ($242,20) 2♦, Q♥, 6♣
Turn: ($242,20) A♠
River: ($242,20) 8♠Final Pot: $242,20
I decided to go broke with AK against the resteal since the SB easily has a restealrange which I beat with AK. My question to you: which is the loosest hand you would push here?
Stats helping you:
BU: 31/15, BU ATS 63%
SB: 10/9, SSS player but able to adjust to different playersImo its most realistic to only assume value resteals from SB against the fishy BU and then finding out which hands have an edge against this range.
I will post the results as soon as I have got some answers
best regards,
xarry
Here's the answer:
The range dandycal mentioned is already pretty likely. It is important to realize that SB can resteal a lot against the super-aggressive BU. Dandycals range was 22+, A2s+, A4o+, K9s+, KJo+, QTs+, JTs. this is basically all value hands he can resteal. Consequently we could push with 77+, ATs+, AJo+. 66 and ATo still have 51-52% equity against SBs restealrange but we still have to consider the BU who will go broke with at least AQ/TT+. Therefore 51-52% equity won't be enough to ensure a longterm profit against SB and BU.
Besides the value hands SB could still resteal with some speculative hands like suited connectors or weaker broadways. It is however much more difficult to estimate such hands. The only thing which helps you there is observation and noting down all you can find out about SBs resteal plays. You will soon get to know how loose SB can push in this spot. Further it really helps to know a bit about SBs level of thinking. E.g. if he is able to adjust his restealing hands to a loose-aggressive player. This would mean a definite focus on value hands in SBs range since the fishy BU will usually call to loose for speculative resteals beeing profitable.
best regards,
xarry
Adv SSS Coaching - 12/09
Hey! Finally I find the time for this review have fun!
Here's another question from the coaching channel:
If we are preflop agressors, our hand is JJ on K72r board, and we are in position; can we sometimes check behind to induce bluff, if we face an agressive opponent?
we can balance this line with checking top pair but then our cbets won't get credit
The underlying problem is that even though JJ is except Kx hands one of the strongest hands you can have on such a board it is hard to continue against a checkraise. Thats why we often have to cbet/fold which makes the difference between a bluff and this valuecbet pretty small. In order to still get some value from worse hands an to avoid the checkraise checking behind seems to be a good line to achieve both goals.
And yes, against weak opponents who don't think to much about their opponent's lines it will work. We can checkbehind and call 2 bets which will be bluffs or worse hands often enough to ensure a profit for us. The borad is also perfect since it is dry and does not provide many draws - therefore giving freecards isn't problematic.
As soon as your opponent is thinking about your lines checking behind may lead to problems though. What thoughts will come through our opponent's mind? If he's good he'll quickly say: you checkbehind on a K hi board which you usually cbet in like 90%+ of all times. especially if you had a trash hand this would be the ideal board to use the foldequity with a cbet. So, what you have isn't trash. usually you will also cbet your good hands here. So, without any further information your opponent can put you on a semi-strong hand which has enough value to call one or two bets IP but is not strong enough to stand a checkraise usually. Well, excatly thats what we hold: JJ. This means against a good player you so to say play your cards face up.
The big problem resulting out of this is that bluff induce won't work that well. Many opponents will reduce their bluffs on this board and simply valuebet Kx, 22 or 77 hard. if you now say, I checkbehind and call since villain could be bluffing you will loose much money. And even worse, if he plays one level further, you can't find out what his bets mean. if you give him enough credit and know he thinks about your lines then you also have to give him 2 bluffbets again. He will say: you know that you play your hand face up and consequently you assume I know your holding and your plans to catch my bluffs. So if I bet 2 times with my bluffs again it will be very hard for you to tell which bets are bluffs and which are for value.
We are now trapped in a guessing game spot.
What can we do now? One possibility is excatly what you said. We have to balance our checkbehinds with good hands as well. This puts pressure on our opponent since he will have to adapt again. He will now pay much for his bluffs. So if he now knows your checking behind top pair as well he jsut can't bluff that often against you and consequently if he bets 2 times you can be more sure that he really has a hand. At least this makes the spot a bit easier again. There's one problem though. The more we checkbehind with top pair the less credit we will get with our cbets. It is now very important to divide your "total credit" on your cbets and checkbehinds - in a way which suits to your opponent. Against fishy players its simply best to put all credit on cbets in order to maximize foldequity. But against thinking players it has to be divided on checkbehinds as well, always depending on the level of thinking of your opponent. If your opponent is content with seeing you checking behind top pair once and then stops bluffing mostly you don't need to balance that much in future. But there are also players who have realized the dynamics in poker. Against them you have to balance a bit more.
Finally another possiblity is to find out as much as you can about your opponent's checkraising plays. It is not enough to just say he's aggressive so I will checkbehind since I can not call a checkraise. In fact I would say it is possible to play cbet/call with our hand if we know villain bluffs often enough. On the board you mentioned good players will actually bluff quite a lot. They know we cbet this board with all our trash, thus they also have foldequity for a bluff and we have to give a checkraise extreme credit since there are no draws out. As soon as you have figured out this way of thinking in your opponent's lines the playing bet/call may be a good play sometimes, too. Thus history and reads are of vital importance as well.
Fortunately most opponents you face on low and mid limits won't think that far. So to sum up I think having some checkbehinds with hands like JJ and balancing the a bit with top pair should be totally enough against most opponents. It is only important to know against whom and against whom not.
best regards,
xarry
I've just seen that my coaching is listed with bronze status today. So, if you can't find it turn filters off. Let's see how many bronze member join today
the next 2 coachings (23.12 and 30.12) won't take place due to my christmas holidays. I'd be glad to see you at next years first coaching on January, 6th 19:00 gmt+1 time (18:00 pokerstrategy server time)
Best regards, Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year,
xarry
Hello I have just started playing some SSS,naturaly I have been reading your reviews and came across your new chart collection.Both IE and firefox time out trying to upload the files,saying the link is broken,and my antimalware protection is not happy with the link.
Can you help me out , I would really like to see your charts.
Hey qcjunior!
I'm sorry for answering late... I've been on a trip without internet 
I just downloaded the chart with IE. works perfectly. Just retry the link in the first post of this thread. Ifit still doesn't work you can send me a message with your email adress over the ps community and I'll send it to you.
best regards,
xarry
Hi Xarry,
I'm a hand jugde of polish sss section and recently one player posted this hand:
VPiP/PFR/3Bet/hands
UTG: 13/9 (8% EP)/4.5/2.1k
UTG2: 12/9/4.2/302
MP2: 21/10/2.7/3/1.1k
BTN: 21/12/-/34h; 18% call open
---
Everest Poker $200.00 No Limit Hold'em - 9 players - View hand 439463
The Official DeucesCracked.com Hand History Converter
BTN: $168.00
Hero (SB): $38.00
BB: $169.16
UTG: $380.08
UTG+1: $123.70
UTG+2: $199.00
MP1: $271.00
MP2: $214.80
CO: $26.45
Pre Flop: ($3.00) Hero is SB with Q 
Q 
UTG raises to $7, 1 fold, UTG+2 calls $7, 1 fold, MP2 raises to $25, 1 fold, BTN calls $25, Hero raises to $38
There was a big discusion what should we do here, push or fold. The biggest problem was MP2 squeeze range, is 2,7% QQ+ AK? I think he could squeeze here with wider range, smth like JJ+ AK, maybe AQ even, but I'm not sure about it. We have no fold equity against BU i MP2. Still there is a problem with BU's range, he coldcalls a squeeze, so he could be traping with KK-AA, but I also think that there are many lower pocket pairs in his range, as he see large implied odds if he hits a set when he is in position. We need smth like 29% equity here and I'm quite sure we have it with our Queens.
There is also a situation where openraiser goes all-in, probably with range that dominates us - KK+, if someone (BU or MP2) calls him - it would be also KK+. In this situation we have 16-18% equity and we need 28% equity. But KK+ is a 1% range, so if he raises from UTG with 8% range, he will have KK+ here one of eight times. Is my resoning correct?
Could you help me with this hand?
Hi Aimboy!
thanks for this interesting hand.
let'S take a look at the hand without the BU coldcall first: MP2 squeezes vs UTG and UTG+2 which is not a spot where bluff squeezes are likely. Thats why MP2s range will be like JJ+, AKo/s. Since UTG is really tight in EP looser hands are extremely unlikely. Well, some very good players are able to bluff in this spot as well since it looks so strong and makes UTG fold almost everything. However MP2s stats don't look like that at all. I further think 2.7% 3bet is quite low. It would therfore be much more interesting to know MP2s 3bet% vs UTG. Its essential that you take the most precise stats you can get since espceially with 3bet ranges there are extreme differences between the single positions. 2.7% my mean 1%vs UTG, 2-3% vs MP, and 3-5% vs late positions.
So lets say MP2 squeezes JJ/AK here, all opponents fold to us. QQ have 47.4% equity. The EV of the case UTG/UTG+2 always folding, MP2 always calling would be:
EV = Pot*Foldequity + (1-Foldequity)[(eff.Stack+Deadmoney)*Equity – ((eff.Stack-Blind)*(1-Equity))]
EV = (38$+1$+2$+7$+7$-3$)*0.474 – (38$-1$)*0.526 = 5.19$
when UTG+2 folds 100%, UTG continues KK+ either with a call or push and MP2 goes broke with his JJ/AK the EV is:
- UTG FE = 1-0.9%/8%=88.8%
- our equity vs KK+ and JJ/AK = 16.7%
EV = [(38$+1$+2$+7$+7$-3$)*0.474 – (38$-1$)*0.526]*0.88 + 0.12*[(38$+1$+2$+38$+7$-3$)*0.167 - (38$-1$)*0.833 = 4.57$ -2.03$ = 2.54$
This still looks good but: what if MP2 squeezes tighter? maybe QQ+ only which is also possible since he doesn't want to isolate himself against UTGs monsters with hands like JJ or AK.
Against QQ+ we have 20.7% equity. Our EV is then:
EV = [(38$+1$+2$+7$+7$-3$)*0.207 – (38$-1$)*0.793]*0.88 + 0.12*[(38$+1$+2$+38$+7$-3$)*0.143 - (38$-1$)*0.857 = -16.35$ - 2.38$ = -18.73$
You see that our EV decreases extremely as soon as MP2 squeezes tighter. It would thus be vital to know the exact 3bet% of MP2 vs UTG in order to evaluate wether QQ+ or AK/JJ+ is likely. But if we weigh the two alternatives we have a marginal win vs a desatrous loss. Due to the insecurity of our estimations I fold QQ in this spot.
Well, let's now take a look at the hand as played. It is hard to tell what button may have here but when we look at his stats and his stack we can see a fishy tendency. With only 34h its difficult to say much but I would treat him as a looser player. I would give him AQ, AK, TT+. If he really calls looser is hard to say. lower pairs ect. are possible but without more reads we can't assume them.
Which constellation to calculate now is difficult as well. We can first assume the same as before, UTG+2 folds 100%, UTG continues KK+, MP2 continues 100% (either JJ/AK or QQ+) and BU continues AK/JJ+ and folds TT/AQ to pushs. The spots we have then are:
UTG folds, UTG+2 folds, MP2 pushs, BU calls AK/JJ
UTG folds, UTG+2 folds, MP2 pushs, BU folds
UTG pushs, UTG+2 folds, MP2 pushs, BU calls AK/JJ and
UTG pushs, UTG+2 folds, MP2 pushs, BU folds
- BU FE = 1-3%/4.7%= 36.2%
- UTG FE = 1-0.9%/8%=88.8%
MP2 with QQ+:
EV = [90$*0.170-37$*0.830]0.888*0.638 + [77$*0.207-37$*0.793]0.888*0.362 + [121$*0.127-37$*0.873]0.122*0.638 + [108$*0.143 - 37$*0.857]0.122*0.362 = -8.73$ - 4.31$ - 1.32$ - 0.72$ = -15.08$
MP2 with JJ/AK+:
EV = [90$*0.327-37$*0.673]0.888*0.638 + [77$*0.474-37$*0.526]0.888*0.362 + [121$*0.153-37$*0.847]0.122*0.638 + [108$*0.167 - 37$*0.833]0.122*0.362 = 2.57$ + 5.48$ - 1.00$ - 0.56$ = 6.49$
What we see is that the deadmoney portion of BUs coldcall increases our EVs. But as long as we can't say accurately what MP2 is squeezing it is still highly risky to go broke with QQ here.
Consequently I would fold QQ here. It is not worth risking a big loss with so many insecurities. As soon as you can say MP2 most likely squeezes AK/JJ+ here pushing QQ is of course a nice play then.
=> we need MP2s 3bet vs EP stat to decide wether to push or fold
I hope you don't find too many faults in my calculations ♦
best regards,
xarry
Hey xarry,
Thank you for the answer it was really useful. The main problem here was to precise MP2's squeeze range, either it is JJ+,AK or QQ+. We cannot use MP2 3bet vs UTG, because we have only 1,1k hands, so we have to guess.
I have also a doubts about this situation:
"UTG pushs, UTG+2 folds, MP2 pushs, BU folds"
MP2 doesn't look like a total donkey, so could fold hands like JJ, AK here, maybe QQ even. Still the main problem is we have only 1.1k hands for MP2, so we can't be sure about his 3bet/call 4bet push range.
Anyway user who posted this hand, placed MP2 stats from HM:
He also wrote his squeeze was 6% (of 68 posibilities).
Thanks for the answer once again, if you have more thoughts about this hand, post them here, I would love to read them
Regards,
Aimboy
nice
with the additional stats I would favour the QQ+ range now which he will push/call vs any action. thus we should really fold QQ here.
concerning MP2s folds vs an UTG push it is definetely possible he plays squeeze fold with AK or JJ. However this isn't a smart play. Usually you should not make squeeze/fold plays with value hands since you put in so much money but basically give up all your value against a 4bet.
but once again, its more likely he calls AK/JJ only with his stats.
best regards,
xarry
Hi Xarry, happy new year I've been reading couple of pages of this thread and I really like your analysis and thoughts. I now play NL100 FR in PokerStars and I'll go for SN and 400k vpps this year.
I'm looking forward to start joining your coaching sessions regularly soon and learn more to beat NL100 and move on to NL200 and then maybe to the SH tables 
Me and many members do appreciate your work a lot, keep it hard! 
Regards from Argentina,
Enzo.
hey enzo!
thanks for your praise. all the best for your poker career!
cu soon in the next coachings!
best regards,
xarry
Adv SSS Coaching - 01/06
Known players: (for a description of vp$ip, pfr, ats, folded bb, af, wts, wsd or hands click here)
[tg]Position_Stack:hands/vp$ip/pfr/af/wts/ats/foldbb/w$sd;SB$99,00:///////;Hero$40,00:///////;[/tg]
1,00/2,00 No-Limit Hold'em (7 handed)
Hand recorder used for this poker hand: Texas Grabem 1.9 by www.pokerstrategy.com.
Preflop: Hero is BB with 8♣, K♣
5 folds, SB calls $1,00, Hero raises to $6,00, SB calls $4,00.
Flop: ($12,00) 7♠, 2♣, A♦ (2 players)
SB checks, Hero bets $7,40, SB folds.
Final Pot: $19,40
SB unknown, but I don't give him credit due to his medium stack and therefore treat him as a weak, and due to his SB opencomplete, loose player. Definetely we need stats/reads to adapt further.
During this coaching there were a lot of questions regarding how to treat SB opencompleters.
pro raise:
- you have a value hand (e.g. strong Ax, good broadways, medium to high pockets)
- your hand is weaker but still has a good equity against a loose completingrange (e.g. weak to medium Ax, weak broadways, good suited connectors and low pockets)
- you have a trash hand without much potential to hit good flops but
a) see the possibility to make your opponent fold preflop
b) see some chances villain folds preflop, but ensure yourself the iniative and therefore higher foldequity for the postflop game (i.e. contiuationbets get much more credit than your bets in unraised pots)
pro check:
- you know villain is very tight/passive and holds very strong hands in his completing range as well
- your opponent likes to limpraise much in this spot, i.e. you will have to fold to his reraises with all weak hands
- you have trash and see no chances at all to make your opponent fold pre/postflop
- you have a weak hand but with potential to hit good flops and see not much chances to make your opponent fold preflop
Well, these are the most important points we need to consider before checking/raising a completer. Let's apply them to our sample hand.
We have no strong value hand but a hand which can have a decent equity (like 40-45% against a loose completer) which speaks for a raise. As said before I give SB a wide range in this play since we just have signs indicating a weak/loose playing style. The other two aspects from "pro raise" are more difficult to evaluate. We don't know much about the foldequity we can create against him. But as soon as we take initiative and raise preflop we will get a lot more credit postflop and will also make loose players fold more often. I would judge this as neutral, either checking or folding are possible. We don't know anything about his limp/raises so this point can't be considered. But we have a hand which has potential for a good flop, e.g. we can hit flushdraws. Again we can't really estimate the foldequity however. But I think K7s is not a hand which will hit good flops too often and will have a much better playability when we are preflop aggressor.
To sum up, for experienced SSS players I definetely recommend the raise for initiative. If you are a player who feels uncomfortable raising such a weaker hand the unraised pot in position is also a good alternative.
The advantag of raising gets clear on this board however. After the preflop raise where we show strenght already it is easy for us to represent the Ace. If we just checked many players will not give us an Ace too often since we would raise most aces preflop. The result is we will make our opponent fold much more often. Also the likelhood for a checkraise gets smaller since our opponent will - with this action - usually only checkraise top pair+. In case he check/calls we still could improve to a flushdraw with another clubs and can decide in position what to do on the turn. Overall we gain much more control of the hand with a preflop raise.
Known players: (for a description of vp$ip, pfr, ats, folded bb, af, wts, wsd or hands click here)
[tg]Position_Stack:hands/vp$ip/pfr/af/wts/ats/foldbb/w$sd;Hero$38,00:///////;CO$353,61:///////;BB$92,81:///////;[/tg]
1,00/2,00 No-Limit Hold'em (7 handed)
Hand recorder used for this poker hand: Texas Grabem 1.9 by www.pokerstrategy.com.
Preflop: Hero is SB with 2♦, 2♠
3 folds, CO calls $2,00, BU folds, Hero calls $1,00, BB checks.
Flop: ($6,00) 2♥, J♠, J♦ (3 players)
Hero bets $5,00, BB calls $5,00, CO folds.
Turn: ($16,00) T♣ (2 players)
Hero checks, BB bets $11,00, Hero calls $11,00.
River: ($38,00) 9♦ (2 players)
Hero bets $20,00 (All-In), BB folds.
Final Pot: $58,00
BB 19/10, 21 Hands
CO 18/10, 92 Hands
I'd like to emphasize that slowplaying isn't always appropriate with monsters. Why not in this hand?
I think the main goal with monsters is to get as much money as possible into the pot, e.g. we want to get it all-in. Thus we have to chose the line which makes this most likely. Many players check the flop, the turn and since nothing really happens place a bet on the river. In the end they are happy to show a monster but don't see they missed much money with this line. The problem is this line only works if you are sure your opponents are aggressive and - especially - like to bluff a lot. With the stats we have we can really say we are facing aggressive players. Besides the preflop action would be uncommon for strong hands. A CO openlimp is very often just a weak hand since most players raise their strong hands in late position. And BB who is facing the weak CO limp and my - well, obviously weak, complete - would raise any good hand as well. So we find ourselves in a small unraised pot where strong hands and much action from our opponents aren't likely. Therfore it is essential that we start to build the pot with a flop bet. if we don't do that we will never get it all-in unless somebody has a Jack, which will work with almost every line, but getting as much money as possible into the pot against weak made hands here is making the difference. Imagine someone holds a pocket pair like 33-88 here. we check the flop, the pair may bet the flop. we check the turn in false hope for more action, but usually the pair will checkbehind. so we lead the river and maybe! get a call. with this line it is easy to put us on a monster or a good pocket pair and thus most weak pairs will simply fold the river.
If we bet the flop we will get a call from all the other pairs, maybe also from overcards ect. We can also determine the betsize and it should be strong. This is an advantage to playing c/c as well since sometimes we face minbets or 1/2 potbets and would get less money into the pot. On the turn its essential not to bet. The board is dry and there are no reasonable draws out so we will scare away all unpaired hands in villains range and further most weak pairs like 33,44,55 and 66. So, we just have to ask ourselves: "how can we get more money in against such hands". A standard play is simply checkraising the turn. If our opponent makes another bet with his weak pairs or bluffs we can gain it by checkraising. Mostly this line motivates players to bet the turn much more often than if we play c/c. Especially if we check rather quickly so it looks like if we just tried to steal the pot but gave up on the turn. (of course I know that timing tells could also be interpreted differently, but this is the most common and "natural" timing tell since most players with the monster would either bet quickly or think longer how to maximize their win)
Netto, we often gain a bet more than with c/c flop, c/c turn. A disadvantage is however that we show much strenght with this line. Nothing else like a monster is reasonable with bet Flop, checkraise Turn on this board. Thus we will get the bet from weaker made hands but no all-in usually. I therefore decided to chose a "donkey" line. We c/c the turn since its still a dry board and we don't have to fear reasonable draws. The result is we just have ~1/2P bet left. Still assuming our opponent will checkbehind all weak made hands on the river pushing is the best play. By giving our opponet such good odds he will have a hard time folding his weak pairs. Even though this line would also be rather obvious for good thinking players it will work much more often against bad or weak players. And with the stats we have, as well as the buy-in-read my opponent could be one of them. Those worse players will excatly interpret the play as a "donkish" play. On first glance it looks stupid, senseless. And therefore, together with the good odds many players will make a call with a weak pair again.
To sum up, most important is to build up the pot in situations where action is unlikely. Further you should try to maximize the money you get from your opponents range and consider his playing style - stats will help a lot there of course.
best regards,
xarry
thats the article I was talking about: unfortunately just in german
http://de.pokerstrategy.com/strategy/weekly-no-limit/1702/1
Adv SSS Coaching - 01/20
Known players: (for a description of vp$ip, pfr, ats, folded bb, af, wts, wsd or hands click here)
[tg]Hero$92,50:///////;MP2$489,12:///////;[/tg]
2,00/4,00 No-Limit Hold'em (7 handed)
Hand recorder used for this poker hand: Texas Grabem 1.9 by www.pokerstrategy.com.
Preflop: Hero is BB with 8♥, 9♥
MP1 folds, MP2 raises to $16,00, 4 folds, Hero raises to $92,50 (All-In), MP2 calls $76,50.
Flop: ($187,00) K♠, Q♣, Q♥
Turn: ($187,00) J♣
River: ($187,00) T♣
Final Pot: $187,00
MP2:
16 VPIP, 14 PFR, MP openraise 23% (30spots), fold vs3bet 50% (2spots), 236 Hands
Villain can be judged as a regular TAG player. Nevertheless its worth mentioning that he's already on the aggressive side with his 16/14 stats. Such players are perfect victims for beeing reraised by us. Since they openraise pretty loose mostly we can 3bet a lot of hands profitable. But against such players we have more optoins than just a value 3bet.
The play you see can be called a speculative or maybe light 3bet. The reason for such a 3bet is not an equity edge but the high chance of making your opponent fold to a push - and in case you get called you can still win sometimes. All pockets, and suited connectors are for example good hands for such a 3bet since the arent dominated that often an keep a good equity even when they play against a much better range. If you want to know more about this type of 3bet just scroll back the posts in this thread. You will find many examples and instructions.
What I just have to add is, that a fully understanding of equity, foldequity, table image, history and much game experience is need to make this play in the right spot and frequency. Obviously pushing around with such hands too often, can't bring profit.
Well, I want to start examining the hand and do some calculations. First of all its important that villain raises a loose range since then he has to fold a lot to our 3bet. The samplesize can definetely be criticized. With just ~250 hands the variance of the stats is still pretty big. In such a case its often not appropriate to make speculative plays like this since you're not sure wether the evaluation of your opponent is accurate or not. However in the few hands I observed villain all hands suited to the "TAG-regular" image. 23% openraise in MP overall will usually mean a 15-20% openraise in MP2. Due to playability/deception players don't raise the top 15% however. Its rather somethink balanced like this:
15%: 22+,ATs+,A5s-A2s,KJs+,QJs,T9s,98s,87s,76s,AJo+,KJo+
20%: 22+,ATs+,A5s-A2s,KTs+,QTs+,JTs,T8s+,97s+,86s+,76s,65s,54s,ATo+,KJo+,T9o,98o
The exact range varies a lot from player to player of course. That's why observing your opponents openraises is quite important for adjusting and optimizing these ranges.The calculations assume different foldequities in order to compare the EVs. The basic formula is the following:
EV = Pot*Foldequity + (1-Foldequity)[(eff.Stack+Deadmoney-Rake)*Equity – ((eff.Stack-Blind)*(1-Equity))]
with the values from the hand:
EV = 22$*Foldequity + (1-Foldequity)[(92.5$+6$-3$)*Equity – ((92.5$-4$)*(1-Equity))]
15%:
30% FE: => he calls 10.5%: ~22+,ATs+,A5s,KQs,AJo+ => we have 38.1% equity
EV = 22$*0.3 + 0.7[95.5$*0.381 – 88.5$*0.619] = -6.28$
40% FE: => he calls 9%: ~33+,AJs+,AJo+ => we have 37.1% equity
EV = 22$*0.4 + 0.6[95.5$*0.371 – 88.5$*0.629] = -3.34$
50% FE: => he calls 7.5%: ~66+,AJs+,AJo+ => we have 34.3% equity
EV = 22$*0.5 + 0.5[95.5$*0.343 – 88.5$*0.657] = -1.69$
60% FE: => he calls 6%: ~77+,AQs+,AQo+ => we have 31.7% equity
EV = 22$*0.6+ 0.4[95.5$*0.317 – 88.5$*0.683] = 1.13$
70% FE: => he calls 4.5%: ~99+,AQs+,AKo => we have 27.3% equity
EV = 22$*0.7+ 0.3[95.5$*0.273 – 88.5$*0.727] = 3.92$
80% FE: => he calls 3%: ~JJ+,AKs,AKo => we have 28.3% equity
EV = 22$*0.8+ 0.2[95.5$*0.283 – 88.5$*0.717] = 10.31$
20%:
30% FE: => he calls 14%: ~22+,ATs+,A5s-A2s,KJs+,QJs,JTs,ATo+,KQo => we have 38.7% equity
EV = -5.50$
40% FE: => he calls 12%: ~22+,ATs+,A5s-A3s,KQs,ATo+ => we have 38.7% equity
EV = -1.58$
50% FE: => he calls 10%: ~22+,ATs+,KQs,AJo+ => we have 37.9% equity
EV = 1.62$
60% FE: => he calls 8%: ~55+,AJs+,AJo+ => we have 35.3% equity
EV = 3.78$
70% FE: => he calls 6%: ~77+,AQs+,AQo+ => we have 31.7% equity
EV = 6.35$
80% FE: => he calls 4%: ~TT+,AQs+,AKo => we have 27.9% equity
EV = 10.17$
The most important result is that our EVs are way better with a 20% openraisingrange. The looser villain raises the more weak hands he will hold and have to fold against our push. Vs 15% we are breakeven with around 55% foldequity and vs 20% with ~45%.
Evaluating the foldequity is probably the most difficult thing in this whole calculation. I will briefly talk about 2 basic ways to do so.
What pot odds does villain get?
(16$+2$+92.5$)/76.5$ = 1.44:1 and this equals 40.9% breakevenequity for villain. This means he should call the push with all hands which have more than this equity against our 3betting range. Against his 15% openraisingrange I would probably 3bet like 77+, AJs+, AQo+ for value. This would mean he can call my 3bet profitable with 99+, AQs+, AKo which is 4.2% and we'd have 72% foldequity.
This is a very theoretic way and in itself alone mostly not appropriate since most players don't play exactly to pot odds. But the more you'Re opponent is playing ABC the more this method is giving goo results. To sum up, this is a method using all information you can get out of stats and pot odds.
From another point of view you could add the involved positions and the table image as well as history into the consideration of foldequity. BBvsMP2 is not a stealing/restealing spot. Thus we will get more credit for our push and achieve more foldequity than if it was BBvsBU. Further I did not have any similar hands in the history with villain and I wasn't very active at this table so for. This speeks for more foldequity as well.
Anyway, to get to a conclusion, as soon as MP2 openraises more than the 15% which is really a bit to tight, our 3bet can achieve a nice winning. He must call looser than 22+,ATs+,KQs,AJo to make our play -EV. I don't think reasonable TAGs can do so withour good reads on us.
Well, MP2 calls us and we had to show 98s. It is very important to note down what we did in this spot. When we're facing this opponent the next time we know that our credit will be pretty low for a while. The best thing would then be to push our monsters in exactly the same way.Most likely our opponent will feel pushed around and may show some very loose hero calls which in the end increases our payout extremely - as long as we manage to just sometimes throw in such a light 3bet.
Best regards,
xarry
