[VIDEO] Playing single raised pots OOP - Oblioo

    • pleno1
      pleno1
      Coach
      Coach
      Joined: 19.11.2010 Posts: 5,596
      Video - Playing single raised pots oop
      Producer - Oblioo
      Length - 37 minutes

      Special focus on using Flopzilla and a big emphasis on theory and protecting our checking ranges in single raised pots.
  • 25 replies
    • oblioo
      oblioo
      Coach
      Coach
      Joined: 02.10.2012 Posts: 337
      folks,

      I am of course open to any comments/questions, but one thing I am particularly interested in discussing is the "checking 100% of our range" thing on AJ4r MP vs BTN. Does anyone have any thoughts on why this may not be a good idea? And if it is a good idea, in what other situations should we be doing it?
    • Ghostmaster
      Ghostmaster
      Global
      Joined: 24.05.2006 Posts: 39,937
      Interesting video. I was experimenting with this kind of approach in the last few weeks also, but lost focus on it.

      I think that approach could work better than the traditional approach if playing against good and aggressive players that tend to attack your range, can valuebet light and bluffbet with rather high frequencies.

      Another thing to consider is the value of the deadmoney - if you give up "the right of first initiative" on the flop OOP you pass on winning the deadmoney with for example A4s. So the expected value of X/C flop has to be significantly higher than just betting the flop.


      But there is strong reason why I support your approach a lot and will work into it deeper. I believe that "the right of first initiative" or "initiative" at all is a manmade concept - like everyone expects the preflopraiser to cbet certain boards with high frequency or everyone expects a good player to openraise and never openlimp buttons.

      On the other side everyone expects the preflop coldcaller to check to the preflop aggressor with a high frequency.

      => so my conclusion was indeed that a lot of dscisions depend on the ranges that meet on different board textures and not so much on the expected behaviour.
    • yegon
      yegon
      Silver
      Joined: 23.02.2012 Posts: 3,045
      Thanks for the vid. I like this approach of "solving" flops and developping balanced ranges and do this myself

      This will probably be all over the place, sorry but had a lot of notes to this video

      What i did not see in the video was some kind of a distinction when we want to use ranges like these and when not. For example you were talking about the first flop and your filter showed you that BTN has only 38% of hands he is happy to continue with past the flop, similarly on the 653r flop. In these situations I think we can deviate and just cbet too much as a bluff because it is hard for BTN to defend enough of his range and deny us a profitable cbet. I do not agree with you that we do not have enough fold equity (either on flop or on later streets) there.

      On the other hand the second flop (AQTtt) BTN has 60+% of midpair+/draws so this is imo a situation where we would really want to use a balanced range and not cbet too much because we really do not have fold equity and the board hits our opponent hard.

      You mentioned a couple of times that BTN has more sets or more 2 pair hands than the MP opener. No way has the BTN more sets on AJ4 or more overpairs on 563 - so probably you just meant to say that MP has more of those?

      You also used this as reasoning to not cbet a lot on AJ4/563. I am not sure what should be the deciding factor if we should or should not cbet a lot. You talk about what range hits better, but how big would the difference have to be? 2-3% doesnt seem to be that significant and also, you included midpairs in your filters and I can imagine a situation where BTN has midpairs 90% of the time and MP has TP+ 30% and still it should be MP who does the betting even though BTN has a big advantage in hitting the flop according to your filter.

      Or should the one who has a more polarized range do the betting? The one who has more really strong hands? Its probably a combination of the 2. The problem is in the video I did not see a single situation where the difference between the 2 ranges would be large and it would be obvious who should do the betting.

      In this respect I dont think you really made a case for not cbetting AJ4r on 563r because both ranges hit similarly and the the MP opener has more nutted hands in his range in both cases.

      If we check our whole range on AJ4 we have to give up a lot of our air, yeah we could get creative on later streets but it will be singificantly harder than cbetting.

      You mentioned x/calling KQ because we beat villains bluffs. I checked the numbers your flopzilla was showing and BTN has around 35% TP+ and only 25% non pair hands - so he cant even bluff enough. If he bets TP+ for value he simply does not have enough air to construct a balanced betting range. If he would want to make us call him light he would have to widen his bluffing range with paired hands and we do not beat those with KQ :) so imo we should be folding a lot if we are checking here.

      Checking robbs us of the opportunity to bluff out the part of his range that is 32% weak pair, 8% mid pair (on later streets) and 25% air so i am not really sure about this.

      The same goes for 563 his range is basicly overcards and you are saying that he does not fold enough. I do not agree, it is very hard for him to defend on this board, he will have to call with a lot of Ahighs maybe even worse - this again gives us a lot of value on the flop for our made hands and a lot of opportunities on later streets to go for value or to bluff. So on this texture i would look to cbet quite a bit.

      One more thing you did not consider when checking is that our perceived range for checking (in these crazy high cbet % times) looks very different on 795tt than on AJ5r, on the first one we are giving up a lot and villain will stab more, one the other one that everyone is monkey cbetting 90% of the time we look like we are never folding once we check so people will not stab nearly as often. I mention this because I noticed that you practically allways want to go for a x/r with a set - we could be loosing value with 55 on the AJ5r by doing that, on a 795tt I would allways do it :)

      One notice though, we probably should not x/r all sets, especially on wet boards. I like to cbet middle set because if we allways x/r sets we can not respond to a flop raise when we cbet. Imagine if you x/r all sets on 579tt, once you cbet and get raised you will have no hand to value 3bet the flop with so you will have to just call and even your calling range would be really weak. I like middle set for these situations because it does not block TP hands like top set does.

      One thing that could make checking flop with air on AJ4r good is the fact that we do not expect villain to bluff a lot, if he separates his range and bets all his TP+ hands and checks the rest then we can start bluffing on the turn against a much weaker range.
    • Farmarchist
      Farmarchist
      Bronze
      Joined: 27.12.2010 Posts: 14,640
      Very nice vid! :) Wish it was longer :P

      Time to buy flopzilla :)
    • oblioo
      oblioo
      Coach
      Coach
      Joined: 02.10.2012 Posts: 337
      Okay there is a lot to address here; I'll try to respond to most of it (my responses are in bold):

      Originally posted by yegon
      Thanks for the vid. I like this approach of "solving" flops and developping balanced ranges and do this myself

      This will probably be all over the place, sorry but had a lot of notes to this video

      What i did not see in the video was some kind of a distinction when we want to use ranges like these and when not. For example you were talking about the first flop and your filter showed you that BTN has only 38% of hands he is happy to continue with past the flop, similarly on the 653r flop. In these situations I think we can deviate and just cbet too much as a bluff because it is hard for BTN to defend enough of his range and deny us a profitable cbet. I do not agree with you that we do not have enough fold equity (either on flop or on later streets) there.

      I think you may be underestimating how often good players will float and/or bluff-raise. Often players will float or raise with any overcards+bdfd, any backdoor flush+straight draw, and just decent overcards in general (AJ+). So just because BTN only connects with a given board 38% of the time doesn't mean he is folding close to the other 62% of the time, especially if the board does not connect with hero's range particularly well either.

      On the other hand the second flop (AQTtt) BTN has 60+% of midpair+/draws so this is imo a situation where we would really want to use a balanced range and not cbet too much because we really do not have fold equity and the board hits our opponent hard.

      You mentioned a couple of times that BTN has more sets or more 2 pair hands than the MP opener. No way has the BTN more sets on AJ4 or more overpairs on 563 - so probably you just meant to say that MP has more of those?

      When I said that BTN has more sets or overpairs, what I meant is that the BTN has sets and over pairs more often than MP does. So on 563, for example, yes MP will technically have a few more combinations of overpairs (AA and KK), but overpairs make up a larger portion of BTN's range, so that's what I meant when I said "more overpairs." I should have been clearer; hopefully that clears things up though?

      You also used this as reasoning to not cbet a lot on AJ4/563. I am not sure what should be the deciding factor if we should or should not cbet a lot. You talk about what range hits better, but how big would the difference have to be? 2-3% doesnt seem to be that significant and also, you included midpairs in your filters and I can imagine a situation where BTN has midpairs 90% of the time and MP has TP+ 30% and still it should be MP who does the betting even though BTN has a big advantage in hitting the flop according to your filter.

      Or should the one who has a more polarized range do the betting? The one who has more really strong hands? Its probably a combination of the 2. The problem is in the video I did not see a single situation where the difference between the 2 ranges would be large and it would be obvious who should do the betting.

      You are right that ~2% is not a huge difference, so the other things to consider are position and yes, like you mentioned, who has a more polarized range. Generally the player with the more polarized range should be doing the betting and the other player should be doing the bluff-catching, but when things are quite close, I generally find it easier to check to the player IP instead of c-betting, otherwise the player IP will just be able to use his positional advantage to float, bluff-raise, slowplay, etc.

      In this respect I dont think you really made a case for not cbetting AJ4r on 563r because both ranges hit similarly and the the MP opener has more nutted hands in his range in both cases.

      If we check our whole range on AJ4 we have to give up a lot of our air, yeah we could get creative on later streets but it will be singificantly harder than cbetting.

      Yes, this is the one drawback I can see from checking our whole range here--having to give up with a lot of air. My thought is that perhaps we make up for it by all the extra value we make from our value hands when we don't have to cbet them, and also by the extra money we make from the air that we get to check/raise. We can also still go for a delayed cbet with some of our air, especially since we have all strong hands in our checking range.

      You mentioned x/calling KQ because we beat villains bluffs. I checked the numbers your flopzilla was showing and BTN has around 35% TP+ and only 25% non pair hands - so he cant even bluff enough. If he bets TP+ for value he simply does not have enough air to construct a balanced betting range. If he would want to make us call him light he would have to widen his bluffing range with paired hands and we do not beat those with KQ :) so imo we should be folding a lot if we are checking here.

      You are forgetting about pot odds. If villain bets 1/2 pot, then we are getting 25% direct odds, and we probably have around 33% equity vs. a betting range that includes air. We can also potentially turn our hand into a bluff on the river since we will also be check/calling so many Ax hands.

      One notice though, we probably should not x/r all sets, especially on wet boards. I like to cbet middle set because if we allways x/r sets we can not respond to a flop raise when we cbet. Imagine if you x/r all sets on 579tt, once you cbet and get raised you will have no hand to value 3bet the flop with so you will have to just call and even your calling range would be really weak. I like middle set for these situations because it does not block TP hands like top set does.

      Why do you think it's important to have a value 3betting range on that flop? We can still continue against raises by calling with hands in the top of our cbetting range. Also, if we are going to choose a set to cbet sometimes (which I think is okay), I would rather choose bottom set, since then there are more middle-pair hands we can also get called by. Why do you prefer middle set?

      One thing that could make checking flop with air on AJ4r good is the fact that we do not expect villain to bluff a lot, if he separates his range and bets all his TP+ hands and checks the rest then we can start bluffing on the turn against a much weaker range.

      Yeah, if villain is not bluffing his air anyway, then again it's not so important to be cbetting the flop; we can just make a delayed cbet on the turn and it ends up being cheaper because we get free information on the flop.
      Does that address your concerns? I am still not convinced 100% that checking our entire range there on AJ4 is best; what do you think now?
    • yegon
      yegon
      Silver
      Joined: 23.02.2012 Posts: 3,045
      thanks for the response, makes sense and gives me a lot of ideas for future theoretical work on my game - especially the nudge into playing more aggro in situations where both people do not hit the board well - basically full of shit vs full of shit range :)

      with the 38 vs 62% connectedness with the flop I wanted to express that if villain connects 62% we want to be well balanced in our cbetting. When villain only connects 38% we could get out of line because he has more trouble defending his range in that spot - yeah he could do it but his continuing range will be weaker which gives us more value and some future bluffing opportunities also. The lower the % he hits go the more we could get out of line. Or do you think we should never get out of line and always cbet a well balanced range when OOP?

      get what you meant by "he has more sets ..." now :) and yes on the AJ4r flop the difference is significant which would warrant us giving up initiative as you suggest. I will try to run some simulations to roughly estimate if there is a big difference between us checking our entire range or trying to cbet a balanced range in that spot and I will share the results/questions that arise

      I will also try to find out if capping our range severly by never cbetting sets makes us exploitable - basically if we can GTO bluffcatch our capped range vs the BTN uncapped and strong range

      You mentioned x/calling KQ because we beat villains bluffs. I checked the numbers your flopzilla was showing and BTN has around 35% TP+ and only 25% non pair hands - so he cant even bluff enough. If he bets TP+ for value he simply does not have enough air to construct a balanced betting range. If he would want to make us call him light he would have to widen his bluffing range with paired hands and we do not beat those with KQ so imo we should be folding a lot if we are checking here.

      You are forgetting about pot odds. If villain bets 1/2 pot, then we are getting 25% direct odds, and we probably have around 33% equity vs. a betting range that includes air. We can also potentially turn our hand into a bluff on the river since we will also be check/calling so many Ax hands.


      here I just think BTN has so little air in his range and so many value hands that he is easily able to construct his betting and barrelling range in such a way that we cant do anything about it. Actually he will have trouble adding enough bluffs to his valuebets especially on the flop so his range will be unbalanced a valueheavy and we should probably exploit it by folding too much. Will also check into this if my assumption is correct


      man a lot of work in front of me - but I love it, thanks :)
    • Varune
      Varune
      Bronze
      Joined: 24.04.2009 Posts: 5,068
      Nice video!
      I already used this alot in my own gameplan. As nowadays it's quite hard to get 3streets of value as you say with AK on AJ3.

      But i have a difficult time on when to do this, versus which opponent. Using the AK on AJ3r as a example:
      Vs quite straightforward tags i tend to cbet flop and ch/c most turns. to maximize value vs their air and valuehands. But the troublesome part is the river. They don't bluff that much on rivers and check behind alot of hands like AQ/AT Jx etc. So i think i miss value here, but donking the river is a superweird line. :(

      On the other hand this makes barreling a much better bluffline, as they have quite alot of floats in their range. And also have a hard time continueing with AQ or less. BUT if villain knows these tendencies of us, doesn't this make us very exploitable if we barrel twice? cuz our range is quite bluffhappy here?

      Vs bit more aggro(laggish) players i do ch/c from the flop. But the main problem i find here is: If we ch/c twice, it's super obvious we have sdvalue. And i always run into better hands on the river if they bet. So when do you advocate to ch/c three times?



      And a comment on the Q93tt board. If we Ch/R 99 and turn comes another club, completing the flushdraw. What do we do?
    • katewalker1
      katewalker1
      Coach
      Coach
      Joined: 05.11.2010 Posts: 5,659
      Originally posted by yegon
      What i did not see in the video was some kind of a distinction when we want to use ranges like these and when not. For example you were talking about the first flop and your filter showed you that BTN has only 38% of hands he is happy to continue with past the flop, similarly on the 653r flop. In these situations I think we can deviate and just cbet too much as a bluff because it is hard for BTN to defend enough of his range and deny us a profitable cbet. I do not agree with you that we do not have enough fold equity (either on flop or on later streets) there.

      I think you may be underestimating how often good players will float and/or bluff-raise. Often players will float or raise with any overcards+bdfd, any backdoor flush+straight draw, and just decent overcards in general (AJ+). So just because BTN only connects with a given board 38% of the time doesn't mean he is folding close to the other 62% of the time, especially if the board does not connect with hero's range particularly well either.
      Just some questions. In these occasions, we have to pay attention to "fold to cbet IP" stat. In this case, what is the minimum value of that stat to begin to cbet all the bluff range thanks the fold equity? And, in this case, do you think it's good to avoid cbet and make ch/raise for value with the same opponent who has an high "bet vs missed cbet", even if our cbetting range becomes very weak?

      The same question for AJ4 board. I agree with the theory against an opponent who is able to make float a lot of times, on the contrary if is folding many times to the cbet when he is IP I think that we've to cbet a lot. What is the minimum value of his fold to cbet thanks to which we should not apply this "checking 100% theory"? How much is important the bet vs missed cbet IP in this case? (obviously I know that the stats are only a way to understand how opponent can fold his air and his weak value, and how many time the opponent will bet his air after our check, it's just to have an idea)

      Originally posted by Varune

      And a comment on the Q93tt board. If we Ch/R 99 and turn comes another club, completing the flushdraw. What do we do?
      +1
    • oblioo
      oblioo
      Coach
      Coach
      Joined: 02.10.2012 Posts: 337
      Originally posted by yegon
      thanks for the response, makes sense and gives me a lot of ideas for future theoretical work on my game - especially the nudge into playing more aggro in situations where both people do not hit the board well - basically full of shit vs full of shit range :)

      with the 38 vs 62% connectedness with the flop I wanted to express that if villain connects 62% we want to be well balanced in our cbetting. When villain only connects 38% we could get out of line because he has more trouble defending his range in that spot - yeah he could do it but his continuing range will be weaker which gives us more value and some future bluffing opportunities also. The lower the % he hits go the more we could get out of line. Or do you think we should never get out of line and always cbet a well balanced range when OOP?
      In practice, when playing against weaker opponents, yes it's fine to be more aggressive when villain misses the flop often, but in theory it's more important to focus on who's range is stronger instead of how often one of the ranges miss, because a good opponent will understand that the flop misses your range even more often, and play back aggressively. So you're right, you don't need to worry about balance vs. weak players assuming you know where/when/how to exploit them.

      Originally posted by yegon
      man a lot of work in front of me - but I love it, thanks :)
      keep me updated ;)
    • oblioo
      oblioo
      Coach
      Coach
      Joined: 02.10.2012 Posts: 337
      Originally posted by Varune
      Nice video!
      I already used this alot in my own gameplan. As nowadays it's quite hard to get 3streets of value as you say with AK on AJ3.

      But i have a difficult time on when to do this, versus which opponent. Using the AK on AJ3r as a example:
      Vs quite straightforward tags i tend to cbet flop and ch/c most turns. to maximize value vs their air and valuehands. But the troublesome part is the river. They don't bluff that much on rivers and check behind alot of hands like AQ/AT Jx etc. So i think i miss value here, but donking the river is a superweird line. :(

      On the other hand this makes barreling a much better bluffline, as they have quite alot of floats in their range. And also have a hard time continueing with AQ or less. BUT if villain knows these tendencies of us, doesn't this make us very exploitable if we barrel twice? cuz our range is quite bluffhappy here?

      Vs bit more aggro(laggish) players i do ch/c from the flop. But the main problem i find here is: If we ch/c twice, it's super obvious we have sdvalue. And i always run into better hands on the river if they bet. So when do you advocate to ch/c three times?
      Well the situation you describe is just more of an argument for c/c flop instead of cbetting with AK there. And to answer your question, we can come up with a range to c/c once, c/c twice, and c/c three times, to prevent being exploited (and to extract maximum value). I think AK can very easily go into our c/c three streets range, especially because villain can be betting worse for value on the river (in addition to some bluffs). A hand like A2s might go into our c/c twice range, assuming we don't improve. Does that answer your question?

      Originally posted by Varune
      And a comment on the Q93tt board. If we Ch/R 99 and turn comes another club, completing the flushdraw. What do we do?
      C/c seems like the only thing that makes sense.


      Originally posted by katewalker1
      Just some questions. In these occasions, we have to pay attention to "fold to cbet IP" stat. In this case, what is the minimum value of that stat to begin to cbet all the bluff range thanks the fold equity? And, in this case, do you think it's good to avoid cbet and make ch/raise for value with the same opponent who has an high "bet vs missed cbet", even if our cbetting range becomes very weak?

      The same question for AJ4 board. I agree with the theory against an opponent who is able to make float a lot of times, on the contrary if is folding many times to the cbet when he is IP I think that we've to cbet a lot. What is the minimum value of his fold to cbet thanks to which we should not apply this "checking 100% theory"? How much is important the bet vs missed cbet IP in this case? (obviously I know that the stats are only a way to understand how opponent can fold his air and his weak value, and how many time the opponent will bet his air after our check, it's just to have an idea)
      Well the "fold to cbet IP" stat obviously does not take into account board texture, so it would have to be obviously exploitably high to want to be cbet bluffing 100%, and then like you implied we also have to balance that with the "bet IP vs. missed cbet" stat, because if that number is also high then we might make more money by check-raising. So it's tough to give exact numbers; we have to look at the board, think about how it connects with both ranges, look at the fold to cbet stat, look at the bet vs missed cbet stat, look at the fold to c/r stat, also look at turn stats, and compile all that information to make an educated guess about the approximate best play. So if someone is betting 100% vs missed cbet and also folding 90% to check-raises, then it doesn't matter how often they are folding to cbets; we should just check-raise with our air. But then again, if that same villain also barrels the turn 100% and folds to turn check-raises a lot, then maybe we should c/c our air on the flop and c/r the turn instead. So you see how it gets really complicated really quickly, and that's why I can't give you specific values for those stats. Maybe that helps some?

      cheers,
      d
    • Lackoogcb
      Lackoogcb
      Black
      Joined: 16.04.2008 Posts: 1,648
      hey oblioo!

      I really enjoyed your video!

      I have a few questions:

      :spade: (1) if we x/c flop on q93s and the turn is a flushcard, can we ever calling down? We don't have any flushdraws in our calling range and we will have a really hard time to calldown. And how could we decide to call 3 streets or just 2 or just 1? I mean if the villain has brutal agro stats and we calldown and sees the nuts, would you note that and change something about your future gameplan? If he is good, he may not try to bluff 3 street vs us, cause saw we don't fold, but he could think now we're afraid and do the 3 barell bluff :) I hope you understand my question, so how can we change plans based on histories. And we x/r all sets, so our x/calling range will look like exactly what is it.

      :spade: (2) on AJ4r I don't know... I think I rather choose a T86s type board to not have a cbetting range at all, because we x/folding a LOT, and then we can balance that by x/r a lot, and not have cbeting range. And the villain will more likely to stab because we look like we x/folding. Anyway I like your thought about AJ4r delayed betting, because truely villains will not stab as many times as they do on a connected wet board. But don't you think if there is so few draws, we should x/calling down with our sets as well instead of x/raising? But I think then we will lose a lot of value against top pairs.

      :spade: (3) about the bonus hand. I don't really understand you guys :) ) When he clicks 3bet it why couldn't we flat OOP and x/shove turn if we think he couldn't really have anything. And if he checks back turn we easily bet river and get down the pot, because we look really strong by flatting OOP. And I don't understand that guy, instead of 5betting he should just flat, because as you said about him, you can't really have anything either by 4betting :) So I would flat if I were him and raise AI turn or get down on turn.

      I think the cards are very good for a x/r but the board isn't. This spot would look like for everyone we are bluffing and we don't want to have too many bluffs in spots when usually they think we are bluffing :) yonomasayin, yonomasayin? :D

      Thanks for your answers!
    • yegon
      yegon
      Silver
      Joined: 23.02.2012 Posts: 3,045
      Originally posted by oblioo
      in theory it's more important to focus on who's range is stronger instead of how often one of the ranges miss, because a good opponent will understand that the flop misses your range even more often, and play back aggressively.
      When doing these analyses I first compare overall equity of range vs range - but this looks a bit useless as it is very rare to come up with a clear winner

      the filter you used (midpair+/good draw) is a bit better but still the differences are very small and probably so small that a simple 1-2 hands added or removed from one of the ranges could tip the scales and we can never be that sure about the accurateness of the range we assignn to villain - so this only seems to be usefull to check if both ranges hit or miss the board and it can show us where we would want to exploit weak players by cbetting too much but has little consequence for deciding who should do the betting

      the last thing you talked about was comparing the polarization of both ranges - this seems to be the most important to me and judging by the AJ4r example to you too. (question 1) So what is the methodology of comparing those. Which hands do you consider when comparing the 2 ranges for polarization? Is it who has more TPTK+, or do you want the hands to be even stronger? Overpair+ or 2 pair+? Or do you just go by what hands they would be ready to stack off on the flop? Would you add combodraws to that mix?

      (question 2) do you think it is more important to compare our perceived range rather then our actual range when checking who is more polarized? I ask because in the video we are never betting sets so in reality its as if we did not have them in our actual range, but our perceived range does contain them.
    • x3mwisp
      x3mwisp
      Platinum
      Joined: 31.03.2009 Posts: 3,604
      Hey!

      Regarding AJ4r flop. checking 100% definitely has it's merits and it's a very good line i would say. Although I don't believe you should always be doing it.

      What I think is that we should check out for the dynamics here.
      If villain is likely to go aggro on us I like it of course. But if not he'll just value bet 2p+ 3 streets and play for 2 streets only the hands he would call with 2 streets. Seems OK for now right, but a lot of guys triple barrel bluff these boards with like KQ,QT,KT,43 etc.
      Basically what you achieve by checking is like he raised from mp and you called from BU. I think if we find a value betting range - we would probably get away with more bluffs on such flops as most players just don't want to call with 4x or float or w/e.

      What do you think?

      PS: I saw what you answered on this question before I wrote this, so basically my only thought is that the lines are kinda similar. You just have to see which villain is more likely to do what. And y obnoxiously great video! Keep them coming!
    • oblioo
      oblioo
      Coach
      Coach
      Joined: 02.10.2012 Posts: 337
      Originally posted by Lackoogcb
      hey oblioo!

      I really enjoyed your video!

      I have a few questions:

      :spade: (1) if we x/c flop on q93s and the turn is a flushcard, can we ever calling down? We don't have any flushdraws in our calling range and we will have a really hard time to calldown. And how could we decide to call 3 streets or just 2 or just 1? I mean if the villain has brutal agro stats and we calldown and sees the nuts, would you note that and change something about your future gameplan? If he is good, he may not try to bluff 3 street vs us, cause saw we don't fold, but he could think now we're afraid and do the 3 barell bluff :) I hope you understand my question, so how can we change plans based on histories. And we x/r all sets, so our x/calling range will look like exactly what is it.

      :spade: (2) on AJ4r I don't know... I think I rather choose a T86s type board to not have a cbetting range at all, because we x/folding a LOT, and then we can balance that by x/r a lot, and not have cbeting range. And the villain will more likely to stab because we look like we x/folding. Anyway I like your thought about AJ4r delayed betting, because truely villains will not stab as many times as they do on a connected wet board. But don't you think if there is so few draws, we should x/calling down with our sets as well instead of x/raising? But I think then we will lose a lot of value against top pairs.

      :spade: (3) about the bonus hand. I don't really understand you guys :) ) When he clicks 3bet it why couldn't we flat OOP and x/shove turn if we think he couldn't really have anything. And if he checks back turn we easily bet river and get down the pot, because we look really strong by flatting OOP. And I don't understand that guy, instead of 5betting he should just flat, because as you said about him, you can't really have anything either by 4betting :) So I would flat if I were him and raise AI turn or get down on turn.

      I think the cards are very good for a x/r but the board isn't. This spot would look like for everyone we are bluffing and we don't want to have too many bluffs in spots when usually they think we are bluffing :) yonomasayin, yonomasayin? :D

      Thanks for your answers!
      thanks!

      1. Who said we don't have any flush draws in our c/c range? In terms of dividing our range into c/c 3, c/c 2, and c/c 1, we just have to make an approximation based on how aggressive villain is and how the board runs out. KQ, for example, will almost always go into my c/c 3 range, and we can definitely have a few flush draws, then we can have like JJ to c/c twice with, and some A9 stuff to c/c once for example. I am just naming these hands off the top of my head; you could probably construct more precise ranges. If villain is good I wouldn't change too much based on one hand that happened, but obviously adjust when you notice that villain is either too aggro or not barreling enough.

      2. Yes, T86 might be another board we don't need a cbetting range on, although I would be more worried about giving free cards on that board with certain parts of my range (i.e. Tx, JJ). And yes like I said I like c/cing with top set, but if we don't c/r the other sets then it will be tough to defend enough checks (because then we won't be able to have any c/r bluffs).

      3. I don't really want to talk about this hand--I explained what was going through my head and yes it could have been played other ways as well. I mostly included it because I thought it was fun/goofy, not necessarily because I feel like I played it optimally.
    • oblioo
      oblioo
      Coach
      Coach
      Joined: 02.10.2012 Posts: 337
      Originally posted by yegon
      When doing these analyses I first compare overall equity of range vs range - but this looks a bit useless as it is very rare to come up with a clear winner

      the filter you used (midpair+/good draw) is a bit better but still the differences are very small and probably so small that a simple 1-2 hands added or removed from one of the ranges could tip the scales and we can never be that sure about the accurateness of the range we assignn to villain - so this only seems to be usefull to check if both ranges hit or miss the board and it can show us where we would want to exploit weak players by cbetting too much but has little consequence for deciding who should do the betting

      the last thing you talked about was comparing the polarization of both ranges - this seems to be the most important to me and judging by the AJ4r example to you too. (question 1) So what is the methodology of comparing those. Which hands do you consider when comparing the 2 ranges for polarization? Is it who has more TPTK+, or do you want the hands to be even stronger? Overpair+ or 2 pair+? Or do you just go by what hands they would be ready to stack off on the flop? Would you add combodraws to that mix?

      (question 2) do you think it is more important to compare our perceived range rather then our actual range when checking who is more polarized? I ask because in the video we are never betting sets so in reality its as if we did not have them in our actual range, but our perceived range does contain them.
      question 1: I generally consider 2pair+ (and sure, strong combo draws) the strong part of a polarized range, whereas top pair is more part of a bluff-catching range.

      question 2: I find it easier to think about our actual range when determining who's range is more polarized, especially because this stuff mostly applies when we're playing against solid regulars, and our perceived range generally won't be TOO different than our actual range, so there's no reason to level yourself.
    • Farmarchist
      Farmarchist
      Bronze
      Joined: 27.12.2010 Posts: 14,640
      I just gave 35 bucks to Scylla :s_cool:
    • oblioo
      oblioo
      Coach
      Coach
      Joined: 02.10.2012 Posts: 337
      where's my commission ?(
    • Farmarchist
      Farmarchist
      Bronze
      Joined: 27.12.2010 Posts: 14,640
      :f_biggrin:
    • franeczek
      franeczek
      Global
      Joined: 22.03.2009 Posts: 2,439
      Originally posted by Farmarchist
      I just gave 35 bucks to Scylla :s_cool:
      In case someone is a money nit as me you can buy it 10$ cheaper (so 25$) from pokervip.com (it also the case if you are looking for cardrunnersEV)
      link
    • 1
    • 2