[NL2-NL10] NL10 SH; BTN v BB vs. Reg

Hello inlovewithamsterdam,

Preflop: If you are opening so many hands why do you open-raise with 4xBB? Vs that nitty opponent not sure if I would be calling in first place, doesn't seem to be that huge 3bet either -> rather towards value 3bet.

As played
Postflop: Why do you Call the flop??? It hardly hits his 3betting range and of course shoving the river doesn't make sense at all, doubt that you are making better hands to fold.

Best Regards.

Originally posted by veriz
Hello inlovewithamsterdam,

Preflop: If you are opening so many hands why do you open-raise with 4xBB? Vs that nitty opponent not sure if I would be calling in first place, doesn't seem to be that huge 3bet either -> rather towards value 3bet.

As played
Postflop: Why do you Call the flop??? It hardly hits his 3betting range and of course shoving the river doesn't make sense at all, doubt that you are making better hands to fold.

Best Regards.

I open 4x because there is a fish in the blinds and I wanted to get max value. If the fish wasn't in the blinds, I'd open to 3x, or even to 2.5x (if I was expecting plenty of 3bets from the Reg).

I know, I played it badly! However, I don't take the 5% 3bet as the actual value, I suspect he 3bets more, since he's a Regular with a decent stats+winrate.



So if he did 3bet wider than that (7-9%) how would we play the hand?

Thanks
Matt

I called pre because I open about 45-55% on BTN and as a Reg,...

I want to be sure I understand poker terminology correctly,
"called"? - As far as I know, what you did - was made a bet.
Am I wrong coaches?

Btw, what is "Reg"?
I couldn't found that term on glossary.


Anyway, I'm guessing what you meant was, you tried to steal blinds, right?
If so - did you check BB's "Fold Big Blinds to Steal" stat?

...he's sure to have noticed and 3bet bluff.

Noticed what? That you often try to steal blinds?

I would still fold cause I don't have any dynamics vs him. He is a nit for me and even a huge nit. Why would I want to play back with a hand what is often dominated?

Fair enough, thanks Veriz!!

Matt

Originally posted by gigenieks

I called pre because I open about 45-55% on BTN and as a Reg,...

I want to be sure I understand poker terminology correctly,
"called"? - As far as I know, what you did - was made a bet.
Am I wrong coaches?

Btw, what is "Reg"?
I couldn't found that term on glossary.


Anyway, I'm guessing what you meant was, you tried to steal blinds, right?
If so - did you check BB's "Fold Big Blinds to Steal" stat?

...he's sure to have noticed and 3bet bluff.

Noticed what? That you often try to steal blinds?

I made a raise, and then I called a 3bet (i.e. a raise of my raise).

A Reg is a Regular, i.e. a player that takes the game seriously and one that I meet regularly at the tables (hence the name). Regulars are also most likely to play back (bluff) at our steals, cbets etc., since they will often be more poker competent than the rest of the players.

Yes, I was saying he was likely to notice I open wide on the BTN = steal a lot of blinds.

Thanks for explaining!


Before I answer:

His bet on the turn confused me completely, though.
How would you proceed with the hand?

I need to know what you meant by saying:

...and donk turn when checked to.

Can you explain?

Originally posted by gigenieks
Thanks for explaining!


Before I answer:

His bet on the turn confused me completely, though.
How would you proceed with the hand?

I need to know what you meant by saying:

...and donk turn when checked to.

Can you explain?

No probs mate!

Donking is betting without initiative - I think you can find that one in the glossary.

So basically I intended to call his Continuation Bet, and when he checks to me on the Turn, bet into him (donk).

OK, here goes my detailed analysis:

1)

...there is a fish in the blinds and I wanted to get max value. If the fish wasn't in the blinds, I'd open to 3x..

I don't understand this, but maybe I know what is the idea behind this:
If that fish called your 4x bb bet, you assume it would be easier him to call rest of your bets?

I have better question - do you think that 1-1.5 bb makes such a difference? Isn't it safe to assume if fish called your preflop bet, he will call you in later streets no matter how much he invested: 2.5 bb or 5 bb? Well, because he is fish.

Anyway, lets go further:

2) You said:

I don't take the 5% 3bet as the actual value, I suspect he 3bets more.

You have more than 350 hands on him, I don't get why are you suspicious of HM "3-Bet Preflop" accuracy?

Answer? :

since he's a Regular with a decent stats+winrate.

How does villain being Regular and having decent winrate falsify his "3-bet preflop" statistic??!


3) As veriz already pointed and I agree you shouldn't called his bet in flop. Why?
Because you had "enough" evidence to believe he has a stronger hand than yours:

1. He 3bet's you preflop ("3-bet preflop" = 6%)
   
2. He makes continuation bet, and seems like flop only helped him (taking into account his possible hand range).
   

I mean you have nothing, not even a pair, only inside straight possibility. OK, you thought his continuation bet stat is quite high - he has nothing you have Ace high (3-bet preflop - 6% - nothing?) so you called.


4) It's turn. Comes 2nd King, which doesn't help you at all, wheras it could helped him a lot (if he has K). He bets, you call.

5) It's river. Comes 3rd King, which doesn't change anything. You suddenly decide to go all-in??! Why?
You don't have even a pair...

I would like to ask: are you familiar with concept: Pot Control?

If not, I will quote Harrington on this matter:

Pot control is a concept that arises on the turn and the river. The basic idea is to keep the pot small with a hand which may be the best hand, but which is not strong enough to commit your whole stack.

While I did this analysis even I didn't play your hand I become aware I have done same mistakes as you - this certainly helped me, I hope it served you as well!

Quite a damning analysis that!

I will not engage in a full-on discussion with you on this (even though I completely agree with two of the things you pointed out - that the flop hit his 3betting range and that 6% doesn't indicate a super-loose range) because - frankly - I don't feel like being schooled by someone who doesn't know what a donkbet or a raise/bet is.

Just to point some things out:

Regarding the varying of bet/raise sizes, this is something that is practised widely among good players, not only preflop, but also postflop (the general idea is getting more money in the pot with a strong hand against weak players - they'll call you with the same frequency if you make it 3xBB or 4-5xBB - because they're first level thinkers)

I'd also point out that 350 hands, while definitely a sample bigger than what's usually available to those using the HUD, is a v. small sample in general. Especially if we consider that we're interested in a specific situation here - the 3bet - the opponent didn't face a raise 350 times, but a lot less, so the data that we're getting on the 3bet is scarce. That's where my doubts came from.

I didn't shove it for value (I did it as a bluff) therefore the concept of pot control doesn't apply. I advise you to familiarise yourself with basic concepts (like e.g. betting for value/as a bluff) before you attempt to contribute to a discussion.

I've got more comments on what I think was - for the most part - a poor and somewhat arrogant attempt at an analysis, but I think I've spent enough time on this post.

Best of luck and please make an effort to sound less patronising next time!
Matt

I don't feel like being schooled by someone who doesn't know what a donkbet or a raise/bet is.

I can assure you I'm not trying to "school" you.
In fact, this analysis is more for me than for you!
By this detailed analysis I didn't want to say I'm somehow better than you; I'm sure I'm not!

350 hands is a v. small sample in general.

Yes. But some HUD statistics converges faster than others; Harrington says "3-Bet Preflop" doesn't mean many, many hands.

I've got more comments on what I think was - for the most part - a poor and somewhat arrogant attempt at an analysis, but I think I've spent enough time on this post.

I'm sorry you take this so personal - that was not what I tried to achieve here. I apologize!

Best of luck and please make an effort to sound less patronising next time!

Thanks for advice. As my primary language is not english, I did my best to say the things I said. I just didn't know how to make my post less arrogant.
Sorry!

Don't worry mate! No offence taken.