You bet here vs. Reg or wanna have it into your check-backrange?

Id check back vs a reg here

we have 38% equity vs the range you proposed, its not the same as the Ev of our bet but still the GAP between 50% we would need and 38% is big enough to almost assure that we do not have a +EV valuebet

I think another important part of the equation is if and how often you expect him to raise the turn instead of calling and what the composition of his raising range would be. If it is value heavy it would be good for us because we can fold and cant try to bluff the strong part of his range on the river. If on the other hand his raising range contains enough bluffs we would be very unhappy because we have exactly the type of hand that does not want to see a raise.

Originally posted by yegon
Id check back vs a reg here

we have 38% equity vs the range you proposed, its not the same as the Ev of our bet but still the GAP between 50% we would need and 38% is big enough to almost assure that we do not have a +EV valuebet

have shown this hand already other ppl and it seems that checkback is better, but rly not for this reason - the whole "wanna have >= 50% eq vs callingrange" is in many spots irrelevant when youre OOP with still street/cards to come - but you know this.
Anyways, checkback seesm to b better for this hand and you can call most rivers and vs good ppl aslo heart-rivers cause they will b good enough to turn then their lowest-ranked hands into a bluff (such as 7h7x on a 2h or anything)
Ah and would you agree with my range-estimation or would you change there mb something?

I think another important part of the equation is if and how often you expect him to raise the turn instead of calling and what the composition of his raising range would be. If it is value heavy it would be good for us because we can fold and cant try to bluff the strong part of his range on the river. If on the other hand his raising range contains enough bluffs we would be very unhappy because we have exactly the type of hand that does not want to see a raise.

2nd part of your post is imo very important.
I think this specific villain would mostly delay his action to the river and not split his range OTT too much.

I wonder if opening JTo from the CO is profitable with all regs behind you, especially 200bb deep with BTN? It might be; I'm not sure.

In response to your question, I think this is a bet. First of all, I think villain's calling range is wider than you mentioned--I don't expect him to fold any 77 or 88, plus he can have ALL Axhh and probably a lot of Kxhh and T8s as well, especially since you essentially minraised pre. Maybe you even get another street from A6. Most of these are hands that a) you can get value from, b) you don't want to give a free card to, and c) action killers can easily come on the river to prevent you from getting any more value.

edit: plus it's fine/nice to get him to fold the 5-outers he has.

Originally posted by IronPumper
have shown this hand already other ppl and it seems that checkback is better, but rly not for this reason - the whole "wanna have >= 50% eq vs callingrange" is in many spots irrelevant when youre OOP with still street/cards to come - but you know this.

yes but we are IP here so it is relevant, I'd actually say that Ip we might need more than 50%.

the reason why less than 50% (sometimes significantly less) is enough OOP is because betting prevents us from being bluffed. When we are IP though we can only be bluffed if we bet, never when we check back. This should make us bet less thin for value which means we should beat quite a bit more than 50% of villains calling range if there is risk of being bluffraised.

Originally posted by IronPumper
Ah and would you agree with my range-estimation or would you change there mb something?

played around with it and your range seems very narrow for his pf 12% cc - he would have to be massively exploitable (folding flop and/or turn too much) if he got through with only those hands, I would expect him to call this for sure on the turn

Group 1: Pair of nines or better
TT-99, 66, 44, ATs-A9s, KTs, QTs, JTs, T9s, 98s, 87s

Group 2: Flush draw
AQs-KQs

but this only makes up around 50% of his range on the turn so he will have to add some hands to avoid folding too much, he can do this by adding either 88/77 (pair+GS) or KJ/KQ (overs+GS+our bluffcards)

I tested both these options but still could only get to around 40% equity for us

If you had opened to a standard 3bb preflop size I would of been inclined to checkback turn or flop but since you opened 2bb i would definitly bet the turn since hes going to defend much wider range then he would normally vs a co.

Originally posted by oblioo
I wonder if opening JTo from the CO is profitable with all regs behind you, especially 200bb deep with BTN? It might be; I'm not sure.

nah, i think usually it is profitable or of coure if a fish is in the blinds, preferrably in the BB,
but here your point is very fair and I did just not pay attention to it although I already thought about this once ago in the past:
You have to tighen upa bit your openingrangers when there is a good palyer behind you who have position on you and is effectively deep with you and will enter with you in a decent % the pot - and all of these was the case here - so youre right, the opening here w JTo was imo a mistake - thx for spottin this pit, that helps me to try to remind myself of putting some effort in game regards to paying attention to this detail cause imo it is an important detail.[B/]

In response to your question, I think this is a bet. First of all, I think villain's calling range is wider than you mentioned--I don't expect him to fold any 77 or 88, plus he can have ALL Axhh and probably a lot of Kxhh and T8s as well, especially since you essentially minraised pre. Maybe you even get another street from A6. Most of these are hands that a) you can get value from, b) you don't want to give a free card to, and c) action killers can easily come on the river to prevent you from getting any more value.

Rly? - would agree in BBvsBTN and there it is a turnbwet imo, but coldcallranges in SBvsCO are way way tighter and this is correct - exspecially here if he was thining-wise aheadof me and realized that my co-range should be tighter cause of the BTN and has given me credit to spot this as well - ok, this i a guess - but even if this guess is not true, coldcallranges are as default here way way tighter and do not include mayn Axs and exspecially not many Kxs...

edit: plus it's fine/nice to get him to fold the 5-outers he has.
yeah sure - that is why when it is close I always tend to take the aggressive action (not saying that it is best here, but when Im not sure in game, then I think it is better to bet here and analyze it later on, offgame...

thx,
for post^^

Originally posted by yegon

Originally posted by IronPumper
have shown this hand already other ppl and it seems that checkback is better, but rly not for this reason - the whole "wanna have >= 50% eq vs callingrange" is in many spots irrelevant when youre OOP with still street/cards to come - but you know this.

yes but we are IP here so it is relevant, I'd actually say that Ip we might need more than 50%.

No!!! also IP it is absolutely not the main concern in evaluating the EV when "unrelaized" EQ still palys a role!

the reason why less than 50% (sometimes significantly less) is enough OOP is because betting prevents us from being bluffed. When we are IP though we can only be bluffed if we bet, never when we check back. This should make us bet less thin for value which means we should beat quite a bit more than 50% of villains calling range if there is risk of being bluffraised.

Originally posted by IronPumper
Ah and would you agree with my range-estimation or would you change there mb something?

played around with it and your range seems very narrow for his pf 12% cc - he would have to be massively exploitable (folding flop and/or turn too much) if he got through with only those hands, I would expect him to call this for sure on the turn

Group 1: Pair of nines or better
TT-99, 66, 44, ATs-A9s, KTs, QTs, JTs, T9s, 98s, 87s

Group 2: Flush draw
AQs-KQs

but this only makes up around 50% of his range on the turn so he will have to add some hands to avoid folding too much, he can do this by adding either 88/77 (pair+GS) or KJ/KQ (overs+GS+our bluffcards)

I tested both these options but still could only get to around 40% equity for us

regards to your testing:
believe me:
40% EQ vs the callingrange OTT being IP is often very nice and a lot when there is also a lot of value in protecting our potEQ -CREV could help you to figure out such stuff...

Originally posted by ZioMio
If you had opened to a standard 3bb preflop size I would of been inclined to checkback turn or flop but since you opened 2bb i would definitly bet the turn since hes going to defend much wider range then he would normally vs a co.

standard 3BB-size from he Co?
Sry,
you know we are in the year 2013 and not like in idk, 2007 (even before my career?)

edit:
did not wanna come off like a jackass, just was surprised by this statement which makes me curious where you play? - when ppl open indeed 3BB from Co as a standard and mb 4BB from UTG as a default (lol)at your pokersite, then plz pm me the info where you play and I will pay for it and wann treat the info discrete - thanks:)

There's no way a good player will fold any Axs from BB vs. a CO minraise, imo. I also think he should still have a lot of Kxs and T8s etc.; I really think you're putting him on too tight a range.

Also, what's wrong with opening 3x from CO as a default?

Originally posted by oblioo
There's no way a good player will fold any Axs from BB vs. a CO minraise, imo. I also think he should still have a lot of Kxs and T8s etc.; I really think you're putting him on too tight a range.

Also, what's wrong with opening 3x from CO as a default?

it is not wrong , but it is not the standard anymore considering the playerfield.

Can you plz post here a passive-defendingrange in BBvsCo which you find all right with following infos:

- effectively 100BBs
- oR Co 25-30%
- solid postflop
- fodl to 3b (Covsblinds: 60%)

I know i depends on more stuff, but i wanna ust get an idea how wide you wanna be here cause I remind that once siete777 (also coach here and certainly a good player) advised a way tighter range there then you do, as a default (with infos you can of course deviate from the default)

Also, how does this change to you vs. a 2,5x-Stealsize?

Was siete777 referring to facing a minraise? Defending ranges should be significantly wider vs. a minraise than vs. 2.5x or 3x; it's true that CO has a tighter range than BTN, BUT: a) if CO is minraising, he should have a wider range than if he is 2.5xing, and b) you're still getting 3.5 to 1.

If you want to post a defending range I can tell you what I'd add, but I certainly would never be folding Axs, and I'd also be defending most if not all aces, suited kings, decent suited connectors and gappers, broadways, etc.

Also, btw, plenty of good players still 3x from the CO

Originally posted by oblioo
Was siete777 referring to facing a minraise? Defending ranges should be significantly wider vs. a minraise than vs. 2.5x or 3x; it's true that CO has a tighter range than BTN, BUT: a) if CO is minraising, he should have a wider range than if he is 2.5xing, and b) you're still getting 3.5 to 1.

If you want to post a defending range I can tell you what I'd add, but I certainly would never be folding Axs, and I'd also be defending most if not all aces, suited kings, decent suited connectors and gappers, broadways, etc.

Also, btw, plenty of good players still 3x from the CO

yeah, i do not say that opening 3x from Co is bad or aynthing - you likely then just should openraise tighter, fundamentally speaken - mb more like 24% instead of 30-35%

The thing with siete777 is that iirc (canno guarantee this 100%), he was referring indeed to >~Minraise-sizes from the Co.
Though he said that vs. Minraises he would defend a bit wider - whatever "a bit means"

What I will do is now this:
I will post here a passive-defending-range vs. a tighter Co-stealrange with a size > Minraise, which siete was advicing:

TT-77,AQs-ATs,KTs+,QTs+,JTs,T9s,98s,AJo,KQ - those are only 7%
(so at this point I already have the hope that I indeed defended too static and too tight vs. ~Co_Minsteals and could fix a leak here with the help of you and this thread)

In addition to this coldcallrange, we woul 3b for value JJ+, AQo+, AKs and light 3bets ome Axs, Kxs and some SCs/SOGs which we do no have anymore in your coldcallrange...

Ok,
so my questions would be now:
1.) How you would correct/optimize now my coldcallrange vs. Co-Minsteals vs a Co-stealrange of bout 30% - again Im looking for a startingpoint, so we have no infos on Villain`s postflopplay (I will post here my suggestion).
2.) How does this change when youre in the SB w
- a fish in the BB
- good Reg in the BB

My suggestion for a coldcallrange in BBvsCo (<=2,3x-Openraise) agaisnt a 27-32% Co-range:

TT-66,AQs-ATs,A5s-A2s,K9s+,Q9s+,J9s+,T8s+,98s,87s,76s,AJo,KQo

Im not sure bout if we rly wanan call here A6s-A9s, stuff like ATo and KJo and worse SCs/SOGs and worse Kxs, Qxs, J8s-hands.
You agree that small PPs willl usually not show a profit here?
It is jsut tthat still we are OOP vs. a ~30%-range, not a ~60%+-range, what would be oftentimes the case in BBvsBTN...

After you have posted your corrrections:

How have you found you default-Defendranges here?
Mb throughout DB-analysis, talkin with other strong players, etc...?

First of all learn to read, I never said it was wrong to open 2bb from co, did I? All I said is that he's going to defend wider vs your 2bb open and that for that reason I would of bet the turn. I do open 3bb from co, and I have no idea where you got the 4bb from utg thing?

So why is or why should opening co 3bb be so bad (I assume this is what you were meaning by its not 2007, if not then my bad)?

Originally posted by ZioMio
First of all learn to read, I never said it was wrong to open 2bb from co, did I? All I said is that he's going to defend wider vs your 2bb open and that for that reason I would of bet the turn. I do open 3bb from co, and I have no idea where you got the 4bb from utg thing?

First of all, do not come across like an asshole cause I never have insulted you + I had never stated that you said openin 2BB is wrong - so mb you learn to reaad, hm?
2.) you have written this, right?
"If you had opened to a standard 3bb preflop size "
This made me logically believe thatyou think a big %-tage of palyers today over the filed are opening 3BB from Co - what is just wrong and I have made this clear

3.) the 4BB-thing was clearly a joke and a soft neg - so I hope it did not hurt you too much:)

So why is or why should opening co 3bb be so bad (I assume this is what you were meaning by its not 2007, if not then my bad)?

No, this is not what I was meaning.
I have already pointed out in my previous posts (plz read the thread- posting w/o eading previous posts is disrespectful to users!) that it has nothin to do with being bad or good.
All I meant is just that based on the numbers in % regards to the current playerpool, way more ppl open from Co <3BB than to 3BB - that is all.

Allthe other stuff which I have written down to you have been meaningless, non-offended, soft negs - when you have a problem with this I will remind it, am sry that you felt offended and will let it be in the future - still not a reason to offend me and mb risk my thread gets ruined.
Because expecially regards to the question how wide you should defend
BBvssmall Co-steal, there seems to be a lot of value for me and certainly also for other readers.
So plz do not post offtopic stuff anymore - if you wanna discuss soemthing, then just pm me - Im of course open for it.
Here I wanna to get back on topic.

I doubt that most regs don't open 3x from CO. I open 3x and I doubt 2x is better. 2.5x might be ok aswell. It just depends a bit on your opening ranges from CO and what is the general field.

Dude it was you who sounded like douche, you even almost addmited or said it coud be intreppreted as such. I was just trying to give some feedback, you could of just said I dont think 3b open from co is standard anymore.

I play on eurosites and I can tell you that 3bb is aboslutly standard, I dont play Stars and FT for tax reasons so there I wouldnt know. Do you know for sure that its standard to op <3bb from co on all sites or just on stars? Also I'm allways open that I could be wrong in any aspect of my game or how I see the game.

You were patronizing in your first post and even thou you said you didnt wanna come off as a jackass its exactly how you did came off, instead of giving some constructive critic and not just by saying this is not 2007.

But ok, I'll drop the arguments, I just felt you were coming at me for no reason when I all I did was giving my thoughts about the hand.

Oh yeah, I forgot to say that I also think opening 2bb from cutoff could be good if you have aggro 3betting button.

Originally posted by IronPumper
What I will do is now this:
I will post here a passive-defending-range vs. a tighter Co-stealrange with a size > Minraise, which siete was advicing:

TT-77,AQs-ATs,KTs+,QTs+,JTs,T9s,98s,AJo,KQ - those are only 7%
(so at this point I already have the hope that I indeed defended too static and too tight vs. ~Co_Minsteals and could fix a leak here with the help of you and this thread)

In addition to this coldcallrange, we woul 3b for value JJ+, AQo+, AKs and light 3bets ome Axs, Kxs and some SCs/SOGs which we do no have anymore in your coldcallrange...

Ok,
so my questions would be now:
1.) How you would correct/optimize now my coldcallrange vs. Co-Minsteals vs a Co-stealrange of bout 30% - again Im looking for a startingpoint, so we have no infos on Villain`s postflopplay (I will post here my suggestion).
2.) How does this change when youre in the SB w
- a fish in the BB
- good Reg in the BB

My suggestion for a coldcallrange in BBvsCo (<=2,3x-Openraise) agaisnt a 27-32% Co-range:

TT-66,AQs-ATs,A5s-A2s,K9s+,Q9s+,J9s+,T8s+,98s,87s,76s,AJo,KQo

Im not sure bout if we rly wanan call here A6s-A9s, stuff like ATo and KJo and worse SCs/SOGs and worse Kxs, Qxs, J8s-hands.
You agree that small PPs willl usually not show a profit here?
It is jsut tthat still we are OOP vs. a ~30%-range, not a ~60%+-range, what would be oftentimes the case in BBvsBTN...

After you have posted your corrrections:

How have you found you default-Defendranges here?
Mb throughout DB-analysis, talkin with other strong players, etc...?

I'd like to get opinions from others about this as well, but BB vs CO minraise I think we can be defending something like K5s+, all suited aces like I said (yes A7s is plenty strong enough to flat with), 76s+, 97s+, J8s+, K9o+, 22+, A8o+, and obviously the hands you mentioned. No I don't agree that small PPs will not show a profit: assuming villain will usually cbet, we are effectively getting approximately 6.5:1, and the odds of flopping a set are ~7.5:1, so we're almost getting direct odds to setmine.

To answer your question about how it changes from the SB, without getting too specific, it should be significantly tighter (i.e. we should be folding a lot of these hands since we're getting worse odds and we're not closing the action), and we should be 3betting more with hands that we generally don't want to play multiway OOP or get squeezed with. With a fish in the BB we can flat more, especially high card hands, and with a reg in the BB we can tighten up and 3bet more.

Originally posted by ZioMio
Dude it was you who sounded like douche, you even almost addmited or said it coud be intreppreted as such. I was just trying to give some feedback, you could of just said I dont think 3b open from co is standard anymore.

I play on eurosites and I can tell you that 3bb is aboslutly standard, I dont play Stars and FT for tax reasons so there I wouldnt know. Do you know for sure that its standard to op <3bb from co on all sites or just on stars? Also I'm allways open that I could be wrong in any aspect of my game or how I see the game.

no, Im not.
why don`t you play btw. for tax-reasons on stars?Just curious cause stars has in all regulated countires a licence...You do not have to answer of course if this quetions appears to be too indiscrete..

.

and yeah,
let`s forget the small beef, Id say peace^^