This post has been edited 3 time(s), it was last edited by patszerdonk: 01.11.2013 14:38.
abbreviation for my notes:
PF = preflop
F = Flop
T = Turn
R = River
PSB = Pot Size Bet
0.5 PSB = 0.5 size of the pot
3b = 3 bet
x = check
c = call
-c = call small bet
+c = call bigbet
r = raise
-r = raise small
+r = raise big
f = fold
s = suited
o = offsuit
x/c = check call
x/+c = check call big bet
x/+r = check raise big
fd = flush draw
tptk = top pair top kicker
ai = all in
aipf = all in pf
ip = in position
oop = out of position
atc = any two card
A,K,Q,J,... = Ace, King, Queen, Jack, ...
Ax = Ace and any kicker
AX = Ace and broadway
Axs = Ace suited
Axo = Ace offsuit
Kx = King and any kicker
BB = two broadway cards
This post has been edited 5 time(s), it was last edited by patszerdonk: 01.11.2013 14:40.
Blind War: Steal and Re-steal
Blind war is about adjusting. There is no fixed rule and we have to adjust every time. But in vacum:
Steal at least 25%. If next players fold to much, we can increase up to 50%.
Steal at least 33%. If blinds fold too much, we can increase up to 80%.
follow defend rule above post
SB: There 2 ways to play.
1. 3b or fold unless we see good reason to call. Why? because I hate to play oop + no initiative. That's sucks unless we know villain leaks postflop. If villain c3b alot, that's no problem because we have initiative, uncapped range, and we manage to narrow villain range.
Other reason to not calling is we don't sure how BB act.
Note that at micro people rarely 4b light so do not get into 3/4/5b war. After we get info about villain tendencies, we adjust. (later)
2. We could have calling range, but we have to willing to bluff x/r postflop. (later)
Call with dominating hands. 3b or fold else
at genaral maybe with ratio c:3b = 1
This post has been edited 5 time(s), it was last edited by patszerdonk: 09.10.2013 06:39.
donk flop= no range
ideal IP = 70% OOP = 55%
1. dry board with one high card: ideal for IP and OOP because pf raiser range usually stronger. Be careful thinking TAG
2. low dry flop: cbet vs >10% calling range, dont vs <7% calling range
because they have many % of pp in their range
3. paired board: same with #1 above. Good spot to 2nd barrel vs wider range or calling station.
4. Wet flop: On these flops, position is going to be more important. Now floating and bluff raising in position become more viable for opponents because they can represent a wider range of value hands and draws. You also can get paid off somewhat lighter because when you fire barrels your opponents can put you on a draw and be suspicious. On a wet flop your opponents are a lot more likely to have hit unless their range is very pair heavy. I only bet these boards if I have a pair or better, a gutshot or OESD, or a flush draw. I check fold a lot more frequently on these flops. In position, these can be good to bet with the intention of firing multiple streets. Your opponents are going to be raising their strong hands so when they call they either have weak made hands or weak draws. I would still start off with a reasonable range for c-betting though
5. with 8 outs or more we can cbet for value
ideal 10% for value + 10% for semi bluff = 20%
condition for semi bluff:
1. Equity of my hand.
I want at least some equity when I c/r with some decent outs to improve (I think 4 or more is probably a good starting point). Why? Well, because I want to win big pots, of course.
2. Villain c-bets a decent amount.
I think around >65% as a standard, but of course it depends on villain, board texture, dynamic, etc. I want to make sure that my villain is c-betting wide enough that I can attack his range easily, and often get lots of folds on flop/turn. Don't want to try and make nits fold their goods!
3. Villain needs to fold vs. raise.
Harder to get decent sample of this but villain doesn't even need to fold that much in order for us to make auto-profit with a 3x c/r. In fact, we just need a fold of >60% (based on std sizings).
4. Villain needs wider pre-flop range.
No need to start bluff c/ring someone who's playing 12/12 or something.
This post has been edited 4 time(s), it was last edited by patszerdonk: 01.11.2013 14:41.
i have hard time when facing donk bet especially with weird size. vs fish my default answer usually depend on his image and size of bet. that's why i make this post to summarize what i have read.
basically reg have no donk bet (hu otf and ott), so when a reg do it we have trouble how to react. this is main advantage to donk bet. otoh, by donk bet we give information about our hand strength. it's between air and nuts. so in order to incorporate donk bet to my arsenal we have to consider above.
Against a recreational player who will not exploit your weak checking range and will not c bet a lot then donking is fine. The better players will recognize that you're slightly weaker when you check call or check raise and exploit you by value betting thinner when you check.
If you are thinking about donkbetting strategy, you might be playing oop too much.
I have AdJd and flat a MP open.
flop comes JsTs2c. Do I really want to let him peel the turn for free? What if he has AsKs. Do I want to let 99 off the hook when a spade hits freesing my action when I maybe get a call on the flop?
OK, and what if I flat preflop from the CO with 9d9c vs an open from MP, and the flop comes; 2s3s4h. It's super easy for him to have two over cards, nine spades, and the other 3 5's. He likely has between 6 and 18 outs (but I don't know which) Do i want to let him draw for free and fail to define opponents hand?
Why don't I want to donk bet my middle pairs (As8s) on Td8c2s?, for instance. Is it because my opponent would likely have cbet letting me just call and get the same money in vs a weaker range? If so then why not donk bet bluff with 33 on that same Td8c2s?
If my donk bet will be read as weak then why not do it with big hands?
If my donk bet looks to strong then why not do it as a bluff?
The reason I object to donk-betting is because it skews the mathematics of the hand in our favor: say the flop is 7BB on the flop, and we expect the PFR to put in a cbet of around 5BB almost always. Then he cbets, and now we can decide to fold, or to call, making the pot 17BB, or to raise. You can see that we can get out cheap (paying nothing), keep the pot in a medium size, or try to make it bigger: three options, spanning three sizes. If, however, we were to donk-bet, then villain would be able to fold immediately, not even putting in 5BB, and he is able to call, keeping the flop medium-sized, and he can of course raise.
This description was qualitative, but I'm pretty sure you can come up with a model and do the quantitative math to back it up. Essentially, waiting for the cbet lets us have control of the pot size and take options away from villain. Which is, I guess, not surprising given that being OOP here actually gives us "effective position". Of course, the less often villain cbets, the more we should consider donk-betting, so if villain cbets, say, 50% of the time or less, donk-betting is probably a vital tool. This discussion also shows why we should not cbet too much, at least against thinking opponents: cbetting close to 100% gives our opponent "effective position" on the flop, and more control of the hand.
1) Perceived range and actual range absolutely do matter when you're leading, when you lead your perceived range is weaker than when you either check/raise or check/call because leading is typically considered a type of "cheap bluff" or "blocking bet" in various poker videos and poker literature and their recommended course of action is to raise them aggressively. If you're not using hands in your range that can lead/call, lead/3bet or lead, barrel, barrel for value then you may as well not be leading at all because villains will put pressure on your leading range by raising as a default and this is actually where a lot of the value of leading compared to check/raising boards comes from - inducing bluffs -
Essentially, it's vitaly important for you to realize the bias of regulars against leading, their most common reaction to leading and then exploit leading as a leveling tactic for value where they would perceive it as a bluff. If you generally begin your 3betting strategy in position with bluffs because your opponent is ill suited to challenge your 3bets out of position, then you need to generally begin your leading strategy with value because your opponent is biased towards raising your bets in position with air.
2) You absolutely do not construct your leading range based on your check/folding range, if you are usuing leading as a general tactic instead of as an adjustment to villain's check/back range then you need to have a leading range that contains equity relative to the board. Leading 22 on 874r is not acceptable, however leading KQss on 874r with a back door flush draw is acceptable because you are leading a hand that can draw out to your villain's calling range on either the turn or river and value bet cleanly. The hands you want to be leading as a bluff on low, dry boards are typically the same hands you'd want to check/call as an OOP float or check/raise as a bluff sans Ace high. It's extremely important that you have hands that allow you to turn top pair and value bet cleanly, because leading ranges are typically considered to be polarized between sets and two pair, flush and straight draws and air by the time you reach the river, so being able to add value hands to your barreling range on later streets by turning and rivering top pair will take advantage of their tendency to either bluff catch vs. you or bluff you on later streets.
It's extremely important that you don't lead with non-equitable hands or hands with insufficient equity to call a raise, for instance JTs on 874 is a terrible hand to lead compared to check/raise because bet/folding a gut shot is a much greater loss of equity than bet/folding 2 overs.
I also generally tend to avoid leading hands with Aces in them because they should be checked for showdown value and either check/called or check/raised if the opponent bets, they also have a terrible habbit of turning top pair, good kicker when the opponent turns two pair and getting you stacked when you lead them which happens less when you check/raise them because they fold bottom pair, Ace kicker more often to your check/raise than they do to your lead.
3) I disagree that leading is only an adjustment to an opponent who Cbets less and checks back more, altho' it's obviously a good adjustment against that opponent type. Leading as a default strategy against other regulars can generate more value than check/raising depending on how they respond to leading and it's a viable option on almost all low boards fwiw. Sthief09 is right in the sense that having both a check/raising range and a leading range allows us to play back with a disproportionate number of hands with one range skewed towards value and the other range skewed towards bluffs, however because of the nature of leading and check/raising I really recommend that you skew your leading range towards value and your check/raising range towards bluffs because they are going to fuck with your leading range MUCH more than with your check/raising range.
4) One of the ways I tend to decipher whether or not a hand should be lead or check-raised is based on the flop texture and the presence of over cards with a back door flush draw. Very often when you check/raise 763ssh with KJhh, you'll turn a back door flush draw and have to bet/fold vs a turn shove. If you lead with KJhh on 763ssh instead, the appearance of a draw heavy board will give your lead range more respect because you have more combinatorics of draws to prevent your opponent from bluff raising you, villains rarely raise the turn vs leads because they can't close the action with their raise given the increased SPR of BTN vs blind battles so your back door flush draw and overs get to the river more reliably. Likewise when you turn the K, you're just straight up getting paid off because your range appears to be so draw heavy.
5) The main advantage of leading as a default instead of as an adjustment in my mind is that it makes you much more irritating to play against, a player who has multiple tactics is more difficult to combat than a player who has a set strategy and the unfamiliarty of a regular leading against you will cause more mistakes than the familiarity of a regular check/raising you. The more aspects of the game you refine and use against your opponent, the greater his informational disadvantage is and the sharper your edge gets. It also reduces your overall check/raise %, which has some obvious benefits in making you look like a nittier check/raiser than you actually are.
This post has been edited 3 time(s), it was last edited by patszerdonk: 14.01.2014 17:57.
The reason I ask this is because often I'll 3bet a depolarized range (broadway suited, high broadway offsuit, etc.) for value against my opponents weak raising range. He'll flat in position however and the flop will come 9 5 4ss and then i'll wind up c/fing and feel like i'm burning money. Is this -EV unless I start checkraising or get better postflop skills?
3betting for value is always good, if you're sure there's actually value there. However, if you're usually not cbetting a flop of 9 5 4ss against a villain such as the one you described, then I have to seriously question that you're actually 3betting there for value. Why would you avoid cbetting here? If villain missed, which is most of the time, then you usually take it down. And if villain hit, then you have two streets to catch up. Do the math. Against passive villains, cbetting here is a must. The only types of villains where you shouldn't always cbet here are ones that float or rebluff, and ones that won't let you see a free river card if you check on the turn if they have, say, bottom pair. All of those are exploitable in other ways. But against the vast majority of bad loose players (which are usually passive and fit-or-fold as well), cbetting here is a must. It's essentially treating KJ as a semibluff with 6 outs.
1. targeted to high RFI and/or high F3b
2. more IP than OOP because people defend lighter
3. hand choices: "blockers type" when you expect him to either 4bet or fold
"playability type" when you expect him to call a decent amount
This post has been edited 3 time(s), it was last edited by patszerdonk: 01.11.2013 14:41.
HUD and Stats:
AFq = Aggression Frequency percentage; (bet+raise)/total; high AFq mean bet often
AF = Aggression Factor; (bet+raise)/call; high AF mean rarely x/c.
high Agg% + high AF = bluff-induce is good (Maniac)
high Agg% + low AF = bets much, doesn't fold (annoying Donk)
low Agg% + high AF = much FE, he often b/f (Nitfish)
low Agg% + low AF = no FE, his bets/raises are strong (CS)
Aggression Factor is calculated as -
Bets + Raises / Calls
The more I think about, the less relevant this stat becomes. It isnt really a measure of how aggressive a player is, but of how likely they are to call. You don't have to bet or raise a lot to have a high AF, you just have to call very rarely. The only thing I see this stat being an indicator of is recognizing when very passive players have a big hand.
This is why I find myself using the AgF or Aggression Frequency stat much more now. This is a measure of how often a player takes an aggressive action rather than a ratio of aggression to passivity.
Aggression frequency will return a percentage. The higher the percentage, the more your opponent is betting or raising. The more they are betting and raising, the more it is likely that they are trying to buy a pot.
When you see a player that has a high agg. factor (roughly over 2.5) combined with a low agg. freq (under 35%) - when they bet, they have a hand. Do not go up against this player in this situation unless you have a monster. "
According to HoHOCG:
1. notes have to be short and simple
2. note things not covered by HUD
3. use abbr:
4. Notes unrelated to specific hands: buy ins, multitable?.
5. Preflop: focus on how he respond on 3b/4b/ and AIPF
- floater? what kind of hand?
- unusual bet size?
- turn pot control?
- river is very important to note. is he capable to make big bluff otr?
capable to valuebet thin otr?
f: small bet = weak
f: aipf w/tptk oop
f: slop play set ip
f: ai = set, tptk, 2p (flop: allin with set, tptk, two pair)
t: ai = set
t: play draw aggro
This post has been edited 1 time(s), it was last edited by patszerdonk: 23.12.2013 01:18.
Calling Range Preflop:
Calling range is hard to predict based on HUD. a player with VPIP/PRF 30/8 doesn't mean his calling range = 30-8 = 22. NO.
Rules of thumb:
1. TAG only call 2% - 3%. (TAG: 17/14 or 20/16 or 22/18) add ~2% in micro limit players.
Range: 77-99 and 87s-JTs . It can be wider a bit, like small pp, ss, sometimes As
2. semi TAG on micro call 6% - 8%
Range: 66-JJ, suited brdway, ss,
3. Loose players calling range about half as wide as diff of 3b and VPIP. They call range tighter than open limping range, but call liberally with hands that a TAG will included in 3b bluff range. For example 32/10/4 will have calling range (32 - 4) / 2 = 14 percent
To make it simple, let's say fish calling range usually 50%-70% of his VPIP.
4. Calling range can vary depend on too many factor. So dont expect to predict precisely.