[NL20-NL50] NL25: K9s FD vs strong cBetting range

    • Avatars91
      Avatars91
      Bronze
      Joined: 18.12.2009 Posts: 2,689
      Party Poker $25.00 No Limit Hold'em - 5 players - View hand 1999786
      DeucesCracked Poker Videos Hand History Converter

      CO: $25.35 - VPIP: 24, PFR: 20, 3B: 5, AF: 1,9, cBetFlop: 39(23), Hands: 289
      Hero (BTN): $25.00 - VPIP: 22, PFR: 18, 3B: 7, AF: 5,0, Hands: 29854
      SB: $7.75 - VPIP: 20, PFR: 0, 3B: 0, AF: 1,0, Hands: 10
      BB: $32.75 - VPIP: 16, PFR: 12, 3B: 6, AF: 4,3, Hands: 454
      UTG: $10.68 - VPIP: 26, PFR: 16, 3B: 0, AF: 6,0, Hands: 19

      Pre Flop: ($0.35) Hero is BTN with 9 :spade: K :spade:
      1 fold, CO raises to $0.75, Hero calls $0.75, 2 folds

      Flop: ($1.85) 8 :diamond: 7 :spade: 5 :spade: (2 players)
      CO bets $1.00, Hero calls $1

      Turn: ($3.85) 6 :club: (2 players)
      CO checks, Hero bets $2.00, CO folds

      Villain: a reg that cBets with a seemingly stronger range.

      Even if he is cBetting a range that is somewhat strong, we still should prefer raising on the flop, right? Because we will be getting a free river card very often and with our equity that would be pretty awesome? Whereas we might often not have the implied odds to call his turn 2nd barrel.
  • 20 replies
    • veriz
      veriz
      Black
      Joined: 20.07.2008 Posts: 65,504
      Hello Avatars91,

      If you assume his CBetting range is strong then playing it this way is totally fine. Another option would be to raise the flop if we assume him having a lot wider range which may fold decent amount of hands.

      Would you go broke if he 3bets you on the flop after your raise?

      Best Regards.
    • Avatars91
      Avatars91
      Bronze
      Joined: 18.12.2009 Posts: 2,689
      Would you go broke if he 3bets you on the flop after your raise?


      I doubt that he is folding once he 3Bets, so I guess that no. Although it looks a bit close with us having the GS + sometimes live overcard outs.
      I just also think that he does not necessarily have a 3Betting range on this dangerous flop. At least on these stakes.

      If I assume that he becomes passive once I raise very often (is it a reasonable assumption, btw?), is it not better to raise even vs a strong range with little if any fold equity? That free river card sounds like such a juicy advantage after all.
    • EmanuelC16
      EmanuelC16
      Bronze
      Joined: 02.01.2010 Posts: 13,897
      Not liking the preflop flat actually. It can be done but it seems very close, you need to trust your postflop play and make some tight folds and some loose calls.

      As played, I think flop is a raise and hope to get more money in. You don't have implied odds when you hit and your equity drastically decreases if you miss the turn. Furthermore, what other hands besides a set can he continue with? Do you think QQ looks good on this flop? You are ahead of that actually. You flip vs AA and are just a bit behind sets. Even if he'd get it in with the nut flushdraw you have 4 gutshot outs and 6 live cards. That's 10 outs! I actually think he'd fold that more often that not and you get him to fold 60% of his equity. That's not a bad result at all!
    • Avatars91
      Avatars91
      Bronze
      Joined: 18.12.2009 Posts: 2,689
      hope to get more money in.


      Are you really suggesting going broke when he 3Bets? Sounds possible if we assume him to overplay some hands here but other than that why would we be happy about getting it in likely vs sets most of the times with this hand?

      Other than that I agree that raising the flop gives us more good than flatting.
    • EmanuelC16
      EmanuelC16
      Bronze
      Joined: 02.01.2010 Posts: 13,897
      We are OK vs sets with our combo draw - 35%

      There are 9 set combinations. Think how much of his range is better than us and has to fold. If he stacks of lighter you also don't mind it since you actually have bigger equity the more non-set hands he stacks off with. You are also playing a range, not just a hand. The bottom of your range is 35% against the top of his. Your range crushes is at least as good as his AND you pick up dead money a lot of the time. Making him fold diamond overcards, pairs, AK and all that stuff is still a good result.

      Do you think you can make him fold so many hands later on? How often? Do you think you have implied odds when calling flop cbet? He doesn't always 3bet vs our raise and he doesn't always call a 4bet shove. It's the same situation in which you 3bet/5bet QQ preflop although you get it in vs QQ+, AK. You pick up a bunch of money when he folds to the 3bet, calls the 3bet or 4bet/folds. You have 40% there yet you still get it in because of a succession of actions, you don't play just ONE round/step/street/hand at a time. :)
    • Avatars91
      Avatars91
      Bronze
      Joined: 18.12.2009 Posts: 2,689
      You misunderstood me. I agree with the flop raise.
      I disagree with going broke if he 3Bets vs our raise

      We are OK vs sets with our combo draw - 35%


      VS a range that consists of sets only we have 33,34% equity from which 0,45% is a tie:


      Board: 8:diamond: 7:spade: 5:spade:
             Equity     Win     Tie
      MP2    33.34%  32.88%   0.45% { Ks9s }
      MP3    66.66%  66.21%   0.45% { 88-77, 55 }


      I believe that such a range is rather reasonable because it is pretty tough for him to overplay an overpair/even 2pair in this spot if he is any good. And so far he has not really shown that he is terribly awful and horrible at all.

      So. Correct me if I have calculated this incorrectly, but we need ~38% to go broke on the flop profitably vs a 3Betting range on the flop that never folds.

      Math-wise, then, I fail to see why going broke once he 3Bets is good here.

      What we can argue about here then is whether or not a) I have calculated that percentage properly :D b) whether my assumption about him never folding once he 3Bets is correct.
    • EmanuelC16
      EmanuelC16
      Bronze
      Joined: 02.01.2010 Posts: 13,897
      What sizing for a 3bet did you consider?
    • Avatars91
      Avatars91
      Bronze
      Joined: 18.12.2009 Posts: 2,689
      I would raise the flop to $4.50 vs his cBet, so I guess that he 3Bets somewhere around the area of $11-$13 or, even more likely, just shoves. Either way, I find it really hard for him to fold anyway, because I doubt that people are bluff-3Betting there as a default. He is also kind-of committing himself there as well.

      Are my thoughts flawed?
    • EmanuelC16
      EmanuelC16
      Bronze
      Joined: 02.01.2010 Posts: 13,897
      If he just shoves I think that widdens his range to more than just sets. So then you probably get very promising odds to call it off.

      I think the 'problem' is we are approaching it from different perspectives. You just don't want to get it in behind with your hand which is reasonable. However, I advocate to think about your overall range as well.

      I will try and explain it although it's often misunderstood so please ask if something is unclear in the slightest.

      By having a balanced range not only you don't get exploited but you can use that to increase your aggression. When your bluffs have huge equity like this one has, you can actually add more lower equity bluffs in your range. If we assume that indeed your opponent never 3bet/folds the flop he still folds to a raise often (although his cbet frequency is on the low side) and probably mistakenly calls OOP too often. You have a range of sets and combo draws that you play aggressively and stack off. They will be around 50/50 vs his value range. Then you can raise fold some hands like backdoor diamonds to make him fold some good equity overcards and some pairs. His range simply cannot be too strong because a hand like AA becomes mediocre towards weak there vs such a range that I presented. If he 3bets it he gets it in behind vs your range and if he calls it OOP you still own him with your range (not specific hand). If the range you stack off is 50/50 compared to the range he stacks off with, you print money depending how often he folds. The beauty of having these strong bluffs in your stacking off range is that the more he doesn't fold to your raise, the better your stacking off equity is so you don't lose money.

      My main concern is not balance and it rarely is. I simply used it here as a tool to explain how you can increase your aggression and why you should consider range vs range comparison, not just hand against hand. If you are familiar with the Sklansky Bucks concept you have probably heard about G-Bucks as well. G-Bucks actually expands Sklansky's to ranges.

      Here's a simple example to illustrate:

      You have 6bb and have to shove or fold preflop. You shove a range of 88+ and AQ+ ( just in theory, not considering optimal play). Your opponent calls a range of 77+, AJs+, AQ+ and KQs. You are ahead of his range so long term you will make money. However, if you shove 88 and get called by AA you lose money on that specific encounter.

      This expands to postflop as well and if you get it in with your draw vs a set I consider it the equivalent of such a hand vs hand encounter in a range vs range battle. This will not outweigh the benefits of being aggressive imo.
    • Avatars91
      Avatars91
      Bronze
      Joined: 18.12.2009 Posts: 2,689
      If he just shoves I think that widdens his range to more than just sets. So then you probably get very promising odds to call it off.


      What do you expect him to 3Bet/go broke here vs a relatively unknown reg (me) who, knowing me, doesn't go too crazy with postflop bluffs as a default on these stakes?

      As for the range vs range/hand vs range considerations:

      Those are good thoughts you express and they definitely are to be taken into consideration. But do we have to worry about it on these particular stakes where the "overall standard" of bad/mediocre regs is to call and not 3Bet wide here? + It still is relevant only to a scenario where our opponent 3Bets (I hope you did understand that I agree with a raise on the flop vs his cBet) and that really is a range that is heavily nutted in vacuum.

      I mean, it's cool to have a great gameplan/balanced ranges/and all the benefits you basically mentioned. But why would I be worried about them if my opponents are likely still not thinking about it all that much on NL25, and why would I want to force a good gameplan via a (to my mind) -EV stack-off?

      He's still gonna pay me off quite frequently here when I have a monster and if he's gonna be the sort of guy that can lay strong pairs/2pairs down on this board texture then I will notice it and start including backdoor diamond/SD/overcard bluffs. If he realizes that I am exploiting him and if he starts 3Bet-bluffing or stacking off lighter, then, however, there suddenly is a point in going broke with our combo draw.

      But other than that why force such a meta-game?
      Let me ask it this way:

      Say we go broke with this hand in this spot vs his strong 3Bet range. What good things happen when we show the hand @ showdown?

      A very likely possibility is that he sees it, shrugs his shoulders and moves on because he doesn't care or doesn't know how to utilize this information ---> our -EV shove has achieved basically 0 results (and I think you just have to agree that this is very possible since we still are talking micros here).

      And even if he cares, how does he react and how does it benefit us? How do we make up for our -EV shove (take rake into consideration as well)?

      PS. thanks for your input. Some cool new thoughts appearing here and I like it :)
    • EmanuelC16
      EmanuelC16
      Bronze
      Joined: 02.01.2010 Posts: 13,897
      1. I'm not quite sure which is why I can't really play my hand vs a range. I know he doesn't fold sets but I doubt he never plays back with worse. The big problem tight preflop players have is letting go of hands postflop.

      2. Your opponent doesn't have to consider stuff I just expressed there. This is just 'how the game works' at a deeper level. The stack off won't be -EV because the EV is calculated based on your range and includes the dead money you pick up. Once you win the pot very often and then have like 45% equity or more when stacking off:


      Board: 8:diamond: 7:spade: 5:spade:
             Equity     Win     Tie
      UTG    47.54%  46.12%   1.42% { 88-77, 55, Ks9s }
      UTG+1  52.46%  51.05%   1.42% { 88-77, 55 }


      If you add a few more combo draws you drop about 2.5% but that's to be expected. By the same token if you add 2 overpair combosfrom the about 33 he has when cbetting imo (make it AA so our overs aren't good in our combo draw) you shoot up to being a small favourite when getting it in + you win the pot without a showdown very often.

      Compare it to you shipping in AK preflop. You know you are never a favourite vs a somewhat tight opponent but you do it and it's +EV. It's the same idea that you play your range and equity.

      The next problem is that if you just call with your hand you never have implied odds even IP. Four to a straight and flushdraw is just way to obvious. I think including these very strong combo draws in your stacking range is awesome and wins you the most money. There are some situations in which I would play it more passively but in order for me to consider that I have the idea of winning the pot later when I don't hit or increase my implied odds.

      For example, if you have the nutflushdraw 4way and there's a bet, I would always call here and never raise. I want people with weaker draws to come along and I overflush them. Change my hand to a medium FD and a GS and now I raise to get better flushes and made hands out of the pot and minimize my reverse implied odds, while still profiting with my overall range.

      In this specific case, even if your opponent never 3bet/folds, he does fold to the raise sometimes or calls it, both cases good for us. If he NEVER folds once he cbets, then we just increase our stacking off equity and get value with our combo draw. That's pretty cool since whatever happens we win!

      I would strongly argue against raise/folding this hand. You can't really flop better than this so if you really don't want to stack off (which I strongly believe to be the best play) then not raising at all is a better option than raise/folding imo. When you call you can potentially make him fold some of his air and weaker hands later but still believe you don't have implied odds when hitting. With your hand you don't need implied odds to call but it's a shame you don't get anything extra with such a strong hand IP.
    • Avatars91
      Avatars91
      Bronze
      Joined: 18.12.2009 Posts: 2,689
      The stack off won't be -EV because the EV is calculated based on your range and includes the dead money you pick up.


      It definitely includes the dead money we pick up (if by that you mean the money we get those times when he 3bet/folds) but why would the EV of a particular play with 1 concrete hand ever be calculated based on our whole range? What's wrong with looking @ our hand and its equity vs his range?

      Of course, if we add Ks9s to our stack-off range making it 88-77, 55, Ks9s, our whole range is still profitable (adding this hand to our range doesn't make our whole range unprofitable) because its equity exceeds the 38% equity margin that is necessary given the odds we get vs the 3Bet, assuming he folds on comparably rare occasions. But our range is still profitable vs his if we add 87s instead of Ks9s to our stack-off range here as well. Does that make going-broke with 87s on the flop good? It certainly is not +EV.

      G-bucks is an awesome concept but I am not sure it is entirely applicable to this situation.

      If we can agree at least that going broke with K9s here is not +EV vs an opponent who theoretically (because we can definitely argue/analyse what the situation may look in praxis) always 3Bet/ships a range of only 88-77, 55 and never 3Bet/folds then we can switch to discussing how this applies to praxis where, depending on whether we can agree on how often he 3Bet/folds and/or goes broke with other hands, I really may be convinced that going broke is +EV, provided that the maths behind it can prove it.

      On a sidenote I reread your posts and I have a few additional questions about what you have xpressed:

      By having a balanced range not only you don't get exploited


      Balanced = never exploitable?
      Balanced = a perfect (perfect = unexploitable) ratio of different strength hands?

      When your bluffs have huge equity like this one has, you can actually add more lower equity bluffs in your range.


      How does having such a bluff in our range make us more able to raise something like a backdoor diamond draw with overs?
      Why can't we do it as profitably when we don't have such bluffs in our ranges?

      if you really don't want to stack off (which I strongly believe to be the best play) then not raising at all is a better option than raise/folding imo. When you call you can potentially make him fold some of his air and weaker hands later but still believe you don't have implied odds when hitting. With your hand you don't need implied odds to call but it's a shame you don't get anything extra with such a strong hand IP.


      But I still don't get what's wrong with raise/folding if I assume that quite often I will see bad calldowns (value when we hit) on these stakes but not light go-broke ranges?

      PS. reread my posts as well: wanted to correct myself that I do think that people can still overplay overpairs aggressively and even bluff3Bet sometimes, it's just that I wouldn't expect that to be a very common sight. So we can debate about these frequency – whether they would be high enough to justify going broke.
    • EmanuelC16
      EmanuelC16
      Bronze
      Joined: 02.01.2010 Posts: 13,897
      I see imfromsweden (Oscar?) marked this as processing by him so I assume he'll post soon too. I'll try and return with a detailed post tomorrow evening. I promise I won't forget!
    • EmanuelC16
      EmanuelC16
      Bronze
      Joined: 02.01.2010 Posts: 13,897
      OK, got a couple of minutes on hand.

      1. We pick up money when he folds to flop raise only as well. There's his bet and what's already in the pot to pick up now with K high.

      2. In order to play only your hand vs his range you have to be very very certain of how he plays like 99% of each of his hand in his range. You basically have to read him close to perfection and even then you might want to take the 'easy way out' because it's just as profitable but easier. I don't advocate easy way out when the tougher play brings considerably greater profits but when the easy way guarantees good profits and hard way brings possible losses because of Hero mistakes or mindset issues (tilt when wrong/getting sucked out on, losing a flip, etc) I think the sure profits are to take.

      3. @87s vs K9s: K9s has very static equity, if we want to call it that, regardless of our opponent's holding. There are obviously the best and worst case scenarios but overall we have about 40% with the hand against whatever our opponent can have. 87s is slightly ahead or way behind our opponent's initial stacking of range we assumed to be sets only (which I doubt since he needs to stack off such a small percentage of overpairs it gets ridiculously likely just from tilt/spew of the average NL25 player).

      4. Balance is the estimation used in practice of G(ame)T(heory)O(ptimal) play. GTO means perfect ratio of value/bluffs based on equities and pot odds. It's so complex for more than one street and reasonable stacks I consider it impossible to acheive thus we estimate. G-Bucks is applicable everywhere because it is the core of how poker works.

      5. Raise/folding is bad because you are doing it with a hand that is near the top of your range based on equity against any other hand. You are never way behind and have position. If you raise fold IP here you allow the player OOP to negate your positional advantage since your opponent is not too likely (does it sometimes obviously) to call. If you were OOP, what hands would you think you can profitably call when getting raised from someone IP on a very wet board?

      Hope I touched all the things you asked about. I don't want to just convince you, like I said in the QT hand, I want to present ideas and you will eventually decide based on how you play as well since one good play for me won't always be for you as well.
    • imfromsweden007
      imfromsweden007
      Bronze
      Joined: 11.10.2008 Posts: 726
      Originally posted by EmanuelC16
      I see imfromsweden (Oscar?) marked this as processing by him so I assume he'll post soon too. I'll try and return with a detailed post tomorrow evening. I promise I won't forget!
      I think you covered it all now :) Nice analysis!
    • Avatars91
      Avatars91
      Bronze
      Joined: 18.12.2009 Posts: 2,689
      2. In order to play only your hand vs his range you have to be very very certain of how he plays like 99% of each of his hand in his range. You basically have to read him close to perfection and even then you might want to take the 'easy way out' because it's just as profitable but easier.


      The easy-way-out in this context = raise/folding, right?

      Do you think it is necessarily so that in order to estimate the profitability of a certain play with one particular hand we really have to know his exact range with a close to 99% accuracy?

      Why can't we still make broad assumptions about his range which, although general, still give us an approximate picture of the situation?

      For example, by looking at how our equity changes based on how many AA combos we include in his range, we can discover how close the spot really is and what proportion of such overpairs (QQ is a different case though as we have live overcard outs but for now let's not overcomplicate this) needs to be in his range for us to profitably go broke:

      No combos

      Board: 8:diamond: 7:spade: 5:spade:
             Equity     Win     Tie
      MP2    33.34%  32.88%   0.45% { Ks9s }
      MP3    66.66%  66.21%   0.45% { 88-77, 55 }


      2 combos

      Board: 8:diamond: 7:spade: 5:spade:
             Equity     Win     Tie
      MP2    35.88%  35.43%   0.45% { Ks9s }
      MP3    64.12%  63.66%   0.45% { 88-77, 55, AdAh, AdAc }


      4 combos

      Board: 8:diamond: 7:spade: 5:spade:
             Equity     Win     Tie
      MP2    37.25%  36.79%   0.45% { Ks9s }
      MP3    62.75%  62.30%   0.45% { 88-77, 55, AdAh, AdAc, AhAc, AsAc }


      6 combos

      Board: 8:diamond: 7:spade: 5:spade:
             Equity     Win     Tie
      MP2    37.90%  37.45%   0.45% { Ks9s }
      MP3    62.10%  61.64%   0.45% { AA, 88-77, 55 }


      We basically need to see him on average go broke with 7 AA/KK/87s (87s is similar in equity here) combos next to his 9 set combos for our all-in to be profitable, am I right?

      That's almost a 50-50 ratio. I'm not saying it's impossible. The truth is – I don't know. What I wanted to illustrate is that a hand vs range analysis is not useless even when we are not sure what his range is like.

      G-Bucks is applicable everywhere because it is the core of how poker works.


      Whereas G-bucks here, although applicable, cannot be used to determine whether or not we can push this hand (unless I misunderstood you). I just don't see the direct connection.
      It's cool to know that overall our whole range is +EV but what else does it say? It can't account for the profitability of one certain hand that is in our range. It may give us an idea that the hand is not radically -EV or extremely +EV when we see the changes in the equity that occur when we add/take out the hand of our whole range, but it is a very general approximate. That 87s example was meant to show my concerns that even though having such a hand in our range still doesn't make our range unprofitable, it doesn't mean that having this hand in our range is the way to go.
      ------
      To return to our decision: if what I say is correct and for each 9 set combos we have to see 7 AA/KK/87s combos to go broke here on average (we're still assuming that he is very very rarely 3Bet bluffing here, especially since his cBet is so low). Basically what we have to agree upon is whether or not we can expect that based on our perceived average of the NL25 fullstacked player field that cBets a nitty range (that's all we know about him, thus we include him in such a category).

      Which is where I no longer can find clear arguments speaking in favour or against going-broke. I mean, I have not messed anything up in my calculations have I? And if on average we see less than 7 of those combos we should raise/fold, right?

      And I guess that you believe that we will see at least 7 such combos for each 9 set combos, right? I mean, if you say so, I can indeed agree that going broke with this particular hand vs the average range of those people is +EV. Because I know now for sure that it is at least close :)


      A few additional thoughts about what we spoke earlier:

      Balance is the estimation used in practice of G(ame)T(heory)O(ptimal) play. GTO means perfect ratio of value/bluffs based on equities and pot odds.


      But then balance = not perfect. And not perfect = exploitable. Or no?

      since your opponent is not too likely (does it sometimes obviously) to call. If you were OOP, what hands would you think you can profitably call when getting raised from someone IP on a very wet board?


      This is where I am not sure I can agree. Did you really see only few people calling vs a raise on such boards with all sorts of hands in your NL25 days? I see them calling here all the time. Which is why I also think that we will see overpairs call here way more often than they would raise. Well, OK, on a board that apart from having a FD is also very connected I would expect folds mostly. But any 2pairs and overpairs call more often than they raise according to my limited and perhaps selective memory.

      There was one thing you missed (I don't blame you given these huge chunks of text):

      When your bluffs have huge equity like this one has, you can actually add more lower equity bluffs in your range.


      How does having such a bluff in our range make us more able to raise something like a backdoor diamond draw with overs?
      Why can't we do it as profitably when we don't have such bluffs in our ranges?
    • Farmarchist
      Farmarchist
      Bronze
      Joined: 27.12.2010 Posts: 14,640
      Sick discussion.

      I still have some flaw (flaw in your eyes at least :D ) in my head that says:

      "We should raise/fold if we do think we can't go broke +EV with this exact hand."


      And I'll give an example, you said:

      2. Your opponent doesn't have to consider stuff I just expressed there. This is just 'how the game works' at a deeper level. The stack off won't be -EV because the EV is calculated based on your range and includes the dead money you pick up. Once you win the pot very often and then have like 45% equity or more when stacking off:


      Board: 8 7 5
      Equity Win Tie
      UTG 47.54% 46.12% 1.42% { 88-77, 55, Ks9s }
      UTG+1 52.46% 51.05% 1.42% { 88-77, 55 }


      Let's say we have 57s and we raise this flop and he reraises. I just know that we can't go broke with 57s here allthough we still have enough equity with our whole range:

      nl.pokerstrategy.com
      Board: 8d7s5s
      Equity Winst Split
      MP2 40.23% 38.66% 1.57% { 88-77, 55, 75s }
      MP3 59.77% 58.20% 1.57% { 88-77, 55 }


      You see? :)
    • EmanuelC16
      EmanuelC16
      Bronze
      Joined: 02.01.2010 Posts: 13,897
      75s is the same idea as 87s but worse equity, Farma.

      If you do it with your range it becomes breakeven with YOUR RANGE which is usually not what you want. With K9s your range is still +EV. I didn't say we should raise/fold if we can't go broke. I say exactly the opposite: that we shouldn't raise here if we plan on folding to a 3bet and just play position to the max.

      @Avatars's last question:

      You can raise/fold diamonds because your range is strong enough to continue against his 3bets if you have sets and a good amount of combo draws because diamonds have like 5% equity, sets are doing pretty good and combo draws are roughly 40% so although the draws are bluffs (no made hand) they don't need to work as often as a 0% equity bluff.

      @Other questions:

      What you are doing is reverting to the hand vs range assumption. In other to do so you have to know his range really well to start with which if you are so sure it's the following question: Is raise/folding better than raise/calling (hand vs range and range vs range assumption) or is calling IP better based on his turn and river tendencies and your range?

      I know for a certainty stacking off with your range is +EV since you need very little, if any folding equity when you shove vs his 3bet, not considering you sometimes get called and still play a strong range IP.

      The short answer is it depends, it depends...
    • Avatars91
      Avatars91
      Bronze
      Joined: 18.12.2009 Posts: 2,689
      But where is my argument flawed when I say in theory that if on average per each 9 set combos we see less than 7 KK/AA overpair/2pair combos (if in theory we also don't assume to see QQ and worse) that 3Bet and go broke, our stack-off with this particular hand K9s here is already -EV vs his stack-off range.

      I mean, it looks so mathematically sound to me.

      75s is the same idea as 87s but worse equity, Farma. If you do it with your range it becomes breakeven with YOUR RANGE which is usually not what you want. With K9s your range is still +EV.


      With 87s our range is still +EV as well. That's the problem with range vs range analysis regarding this problem spot. Because according to what you say, it seems to follow that we could even decide to raise/call with 87s instead of playing it differenly and it would still be +EV. Because our range would be +EV.

      I say exactly the opposite: that we shouldn't raise here if we plan on folding to a 3bet and just play position to the max.


      I suppose that you assume that he rarely calls vs our raise on the flop and instead just goes broke, folds or sometimes 3B folds? Because then what you say makes perfect sense because by raise/folding we waste our hand. But I just don't think that they call so rarely on these stakes. Plenty of overpairs and draws even can still go for the call instead of folding or getting it in.

      You can raise/fold diamonds because your range is strong enough to continue against his 3bets if you have sets and a good amount of combo draws because diamonds have like 5% equity, sets are doing pretty good and combo draws are roughly 40% so although the draws are bluffs (no made hand) they don't need to work as often as a 0% equity bluff.


      What's the difference if we don't have K9s in our range? Then our overall range is even stronger and we should be able to raise/fold backdoor diamons or something similar anyway.
    • 1
    • 2