[Closed] nl100 A3s bluff 5bet shove

how big is the sample and what's the history between of you Tim?

^^
Just 400 hands. No specific history that HEM shows...

If he 4bet/calls with JJ+,AK (3% range) you still have 30% equity in the pot.
In case you get it in your EV is -89+0.3*200=-29.
a is the percentage you get called, b the percentage he folds (you win $38 if he folds):
a*(-29) + b*38=0
<=> 38*b = 29* a <=> 1.31*b = a

So he needs to fold 1.31 times as often as he calls which means the total is 1+1.31=2.31.
So 1.31/2.31=~0.567=56.7% of the time he needs to fold.

So additional to his 3% valuerange he needs to have another 4% of bluffs.

It's close, but since he might even trap sometimes with AA, KK, AK the shove can't be so bad assuming he has a 4bet-bluffrange.

Btw against an opponent like him you should consider not 3betbluffing OOP since he will probably give you a very hard time preflop as well as postflop.

I like your 5bet pre against this opponent. On the other hand it is generally better move for NL200 than on NL100 because on NL100 there are much less 4-bet bluffs pre than on NL200.

btw there is only one CERTAIN truth about this move (5bet pre as a bluff) and it is - this is high variance play! If you are tilting or being overplayed by opponent, do not 5-bet pre. I 5-bet pre in spots where either

1) I saw him 4bet bluff / fold pre.
2) it is obvious from the stats that he is capable of 4-bet/fold. Recently I started to tighten up my 5-bet range and I only make a plan to 5-bet bluff if he both raises loose from LP (which is usually the case) and 4-bets more than 8% on FR. So on SH you can decide to plan 5-bet bluffs if he 4-bets 10% and more hands. (I used to 5-bet if he 4betted 5% and more on FR but it is too lose move and I lost some stacks recently doing 5bet).

You should choose very carefully the spot for 5-bet move because it costs one whole stack. And 1 whole stack is quite a lot so play this move with caution, otherwise it becomes a leak. You should also take into account your image - e.g. I am very light 3-better pre so regs tend to challenge with 4bet bluff pre but they frequently fold to 5bet. BUT on the other hands if the reg already knows me he will only 4-bet spots where he is willing to go broke after his 4bet (which would make 5bet bluff VERY bad in logterm).

And this leads me to the fact that you must behave exactly like that - it is really important to plan your ENTIRE plan PRE even BEFORE you 3-bet. When you are 3betting you MUST already have a plan in your head what you are doing if he 4-bets. If it looks close and you are not sure whether it is a good plan to 3-bet / 5-bet bluff, you SHOULD NOT 3-BET at all and just muck it pre where you only lost your blind

Frankly speaking, I lost many stacks with wrong 5-bet shove pre but I also won a lot with it. The best hands for that move are PP and suited connectors , small ace is worse for this move due to smaller equity if you get called - and you get called when he has AK, AQ or premium pair. Sometimes you get even called with 88-JJ. Look at equilator and give it some thought. Looking forward to discuss your experience with it - but be careful with this move on NL100.

Just to tell you my experience:

1) if Villain John opens 15% and more from LP AND folds to 3bet 80% and more, it is ALWAYS a good spot to 3-bet WHERE you already plan what to do PRE if he 4bets yet before you 3-bet (see 2 and 3).

2) If I see that this Villain John has 4-bet range 2-4% my plan is to 3-bet / fold. Calculating EV for just PRE for 3-bet it is EV = 0,8*4,5$ (already lying on the table) - 0,2*9,5 (if you are SB you need to invest additional 9,5) = 3,6 - 1,9 = +1,9 EVEN IF YOU GIVE UP ALL THE FLOPS WHERE JOHN CALLED. I calculated it that you c/f all the flops in these 16% where he calls you. In reality it is even more profitable because you win by C-bet about 50% on flop or even more.

3) If the same Villain John has 4-bet percentage 10% and more, it means that he has some 4-bet bluffs in his range, so I profitably 5-bet hands that are good for it (PP and suited connectors or sometimes even Ax) and see him fold or enjoy some gamble with John . So my plan is to 3bet / 5bet.

I repeat that I develop all this plan before I 3bet - and you can do it in 2secs if you have some experience already with that.

btw I don´t 3bet opponents who have fold to 3bet 75% and less. I just muck it pre. In fact nowadays I only 3-bet if he has 80% and MORE because than it is clearly EV+ see my calculations above.

And note also that I play FR, where people are happy to steal from LP with worse hands if there was no action before them and they are more likely to fold pre because they have nitty mindset just becuase they are FR players. I don´t know the dynamics of SH, so please consider my comments relatively freely as you are SH player.

ninja editaments

My fold to 3bet is 75,7% on NL200 FR over 100k hands. I think it is quite standard, whereas if he has 80%, it means he is tight and good target for light 3-bet.

What´s your experience?

Mine is like 58% @ NL100 SH I think and I don't rly defend all that light, just adjust my open raising ranges a lot depending on the table. (maybe even over adjust) Most good regulars seem to have it between 60 and 75 or so. And 75 looks very high to me but I guess fine for full ring where people don't 3bet as light.

Originally posted by NightFrostaSS
Mine is like 58% @ NL100 SH I think and I don't rly defend all that light, just adjust my open raising ranges a lot depending on the table. (maybe even over adjust) Most good regulars seem to have it between 60 and 75 or so. And 75 looks very high to me but I guess fine for full ring where people don't 3bet as light.

Thx for comment and the figures. I don´t play SH at all so I only give figures for FR. It´s obvious that it is completely different world pre ♠_cool: ♦

Thanks for all your advice, guys.

Best of all:

And this leads me to the fact that you must behave exactly like that - it is really important to plan your ENTIRE plan PRE even BEFORE you 3-bet. When you are 3betting you MUST already have a plan in your head what you are doing if he 4-bets. If it looks close and you are not sure whether it is a good plan to 3-bet / 5-bet bluff, you SHOULD NOT 3-BET at all and just muck it pre where you only lost your blind

This is a big problem for me. I used to just 4bet light 3bettors and then wonder what to do when they shoved.

Or, 3bet from the blinds and wonder what to do if they 4b.

So you are absolutely right - I need to know what I will do even before I 3b to begin with - otherwise Im burning $

Yep, exactly. Happy to give you good advice

Originally posted by jekyll001
The best hands for that move are PP and suited connectors , small ace is worse for this move due to smaller equity if you get called - and you get called when he has AK, AQ or premium pair. Sometimes you get even called with 88-JJ. Look at equilator and give it some thought.

I disagree with this.

Assuming the opponent 4bet/calls a "standard" all-in-range like {JJ+, AK} it is true that we have 28.3% equity with 98s whereas with A3o we only have 25.98%=~26%, so 2.3% less.
But with Ax you block combinations in from his range which is more important: {JJ+,AK} has 6*4+16=40 combinations if we dont have Ax, whereas it only has 6*3+3+12=33 combinations if we actually have Ax.
So his valuerange decreases by 7/40 = 17.5% whereas our equity only decreases by 2.3/28.3=8.1%.

This effect is more important due to the fact that we need the bluffingpart of his 4bettingrange to be as big as possible to have maximum foldequity - the foldequity is where the money comes from in this spot.

When it comes to pocket pairs it's a bit closer because we now have 33.3% against {JJ+,AK}. Especially if we think he'll get it in with some of his AQ combos I'd probably prefer a hand like 88 because against {99+,AQ} we have 35.6% with 88 compared to 26% with A3o.

Yep, but please also take into account that you are not afraid of AK (you have 52% w PP and 41% with Suited Connectors against AK), so the only positive impact for you to have Ax is that AA has less combos which is not that relevant, so card withdrawal is not the key here imo

Actually you WANT more AK and AQs in his 4-bet range because you have higher equity against them than against premium pairs. And AK/AQ hands is much more combos than JJ-AA. That´s why PP and suited connectors really should be better than Ax imo.

He most likely has AK in his calling range so you want to avoid being dominated if he calls. (i.e. Ax worse than PP or SC)

I don't know what the answer is about which is better - Ax or pps, but jekyll001, I think Bierbaer is saying it's a mistake just to focus on the equity when we get all in here.

If we have 1 Ace, then there are less value combos in his range. This means that the proportion of bluffs in his 4bet range is increased and he folds more to the 5 bet.

Basically, when we have pp, sc or low suited ace, we don't want to get it in pre anyway - so it's not right to say we're not 'afraid' of xxxx, because actually when we get it in, we're never ahead and always lose $. We make $ only when he's capable of laying down some of his 4bets and this becomes more likely when we have Ax.

Originally posted by Tim64
I don't know what the answer is about which is better - Ax or pps, but jekyll001, I think Bierbaer is saying it's a mistake just to focus on the equity when we get all in here.

If we have 1 Ace, then there are less value combos in his range. This means that the proportion of bluffs in his 4bet range is increased and he folds more to the 5 bet.

Basically, when we have pp, sc or low suited ace, we don't want to get it in pre anyway - so it's not right to say we're not 'afraid' of xxxx, because actually when we get it in, we're never ahead and always lose $. We make $ only when he's capable of laying down some of his 4bets and this becomes more likely when we have Ax.

Exactly.
As I said, the +EV of this spot comes with foldequity.
With Ax the foldequity increases so much that it outweighs the decrease of potequity (in case he doesn't get it in with worse Ax than AK!).

In other words: Once he calls your 5bet the SCs do better than the Ax, but he doesn't get it in as often against the Ax, so the overall-EV is still better with Ax.

Just to help clarify it to jekyll001.
We obviously prefer to 5bet with a range of hands that give us maximum FE.
The more you have blockers to premium in his hands -> the more he fold -> the more you have FE.
I'd look a wider calling range that consists TT+,AQ+. Mathematically we are looking at:

6 * 5 combos of pp + 2 * 16 combos of AK and AQ = 62 combos

1.with Ax where x < T we block 3 combos of AA and 8 combos of AK and AQ =
(total 11 combos blocked) villain calling range reduces to 51.

2.with Ay where y = T,J we also block 3 combos of yy =
(total 14 combos blocked) villain calling range reduces to 48.

3.with KQ you block 6 combos of QQ and KK and 8 combos of AK and AQ =
(total 14 combos blocked) villain calling range reduces to 48.

4. with a suited connector we block 0 combos.

5. with a PP we block 0 combos.

Lets look at the equities of these hands:

1. A6o 25.9% , A6s 29.9%

2a. ATo 26.2% , ATs 30.2%
2b. AJo 27.7% , AJs 31.7%

3. KQo 27.5% , KQs 31.4%

4. 87s 31.205%

5 77 37%

conclusion:

The maximum FE is achieved with KQ and AT,AJ which reduces villain calling range by 22% (14 combos out of 62).
The maximum equity is achieved with a PP.

now lets do an equity compare between 5bet jamming 1(Ax) and 5(pp)
the general formula is:
fe*37bb + (1-fe)* (equity*200bb - 90bb)

If we put the numbers both in both formulas we give us positive results.

Now:

1. we gain extra 22% * 37bb ~= 8bb for the extra fe.
5. we gain extra 7% equity from 200bb = 14bb.

In order to determine which range has more ev we need to know what's our fe. this fe is actually the range of hands that villain 4bet bluff with them.

so in order to decide when ev of 1 is > ev of 5 we need to solve:

for 1 -> equity * 200bb -90bb = -30bb
for 5 -> equity * 200bb - 90bb = -16bb

8bb + (1-fe) * (-30bb) > (1-fe)* (-16bb)

1 > 5 <-> fe > 0.42 , that means that we need villain to 4bet bluff with a 42% frequency to make 1 > 5.

Now that brings us to the question of whether do we even 3bet with those hands at the first place, I'd leave that question open to anther discussion.

edit: correction of the general formulas.

Beginning is clear. But I don ´t get how you reached this formula? Why 50bb and why 200bb-75bb.. I can´t follow you from this to the below.

Originally posted by maya1984

now lets do an equity compare between 5bet jamming 1(Ax) and 5(pp)
the general formula is:
fe*50bb + (1-fe)* (equity*200bb - 75bb)

But I am still pretty sure that you are wrong. Thinking that 5bet jamming is better with Ax than PP is imo total bullshit ♦ I will do calculation with my consideration..

empty post

Yep sorry about that, the dead money is only 37bb (assuming you 3bet to 10bb and villain 4bet to 25bb)
I'll correct my original post. One more thing, I didn't say that jamming Ax is always better then jamming pp, it depends on villain's 4bet frequency.

Anther thing I should mention, with a calling range of TT+,AQ+

In order that jamming Ax will be ev+ we need our fe to be:
fe*37bb+(1-fe)*(-30bb) > 0 <--> fe > 0.44

In order that jamming a pp will be ev+

fe*37bb +(1-fe)(-16bb) > 0 <--> fe > 0.3