Pentathlon - Part 4a

  • NL BSS
  • NL BSS
  • $1000
  • Shorthanded
(6 Votes) 5084


Free membership

Join now


Somnius presents the fourth installment of his "Pentathlon" series featuring two mini-episodes. Part 4a will focus on the game from the point of view of the 3-Bet Caller, whereas part 4b will look from the 3-bettor point of view.


hand history review Pentathlon thematic video

Comments (9)

newest first
  • EuanM


    Enjoy part four with Somnius, your thoughts and feedback are welcomed as always!

    Part 3a:
    Part 3b:
  • IronPumper



    thing is though that many players would not perceive someone to jam this turn for valueheavy and would think that most ppl would just call on this turncard their valuehands OTT.
    So many ppl would never cbet/F here any madehand and form this point it gets close b/c he has not soooo many airhands which would B/F here.

    otherwise nice vid - thx^^
  • Somnius


    # Today plays like this are more read-dependant. If you are perceived as solid and tricky, the resolution of the opponent will determine if they are willing to call and potentially get out-leveled or re-sheath their sword and turn the cheek.

    The board is ripe for that mental battle, definately not a bad board to shove for value on a backdoor flushing A...
  • stylus20


    @KK hand:
    is that your standard raise size? 90->333 seems really big and you will probably never bluffraise with that size, right? do you play KQ w/o FD the same way?

    @QJp hand:
    the problem with your turn shove in my eyes is that you only get QJ,KQ (+pure air 2ndbarrels) to fold. i don't think that any reg i know (mid/highstakes stars) would b/f a made hand in that spot, since you shouldn't ship turned toppairs, cause raising those hands is just terrible for your turn calling range. if villain is folding enough vs your ship really depends on information we don't have (high 3barreling freq., high barreling tendencys etc.).

    having no stats, reads or whatever on villains makes it really hard to evaluate the plays.
  • IronPumper


    agree on the QJ-hand with stylus and he also pointed it out better than me, before:
    It isj ust that you haven`t provided us any info which shows that villain will B/F here vs. you more than you could expect.
    Here it is pointless to go in level/guessing-mode, when there is such a clean and clear technically correct option -> namely a turncall with your whole range OTT to protect the weaker parts of your flopcallrange...
    due to this, most ppl will just not give another solid, thinking reg cedit to jam here valueheavy, readless, imo.
  • Somnius


    KK - yes I potentially do raise that big with semi-bluffs, would definately at least make sense for an opponent to see it that way.

    QJ - Expectations today are a little bit different.

    Still, don't agree that the clear technical option is to call your whole range on the turn, and the reasoning you gave of protecting the weaker part of your flop calling range as justification is probably one of the least practically relevant if at all applicable (depends on your site/stakes).

    Barreling tendencies are much more important, and in most cases calling the turn is pretty bad. Of course if that is your best option then calling the flop may not be the best line.

    Showing these hands for technical merit but also to address how players apply metagame. Doesn't really matter that you don't know the read on that specific opponent, your thought process on the differing possibilities is what I'm more interested in addressing.

    Thanks for the in-depth questions let me know if youd like me to elaborate on anything.
  • IronPumper


    How can it not be a good option calling OTF w a hand like JTs??
    Not always the ace rolls of OTT.
    What you wanna do then w your Tx-hands OTT?

    It is just that exploiting is best when you have infos to exploit something.
    Otherwise it is usually best to fall back on balance and hence I would prefer a turnline I would take with the biggest parts of my Continueingrange when this makes sense.
    And I just have here a ton of weaker madehands OTT...
  • Somnius


    I never insinuated it wouldn't be a good idea to call the flop with a T.

    You like to fall back on "balance" without reads, I like to fall back on the reads concerning the general poker mindset of the time if lacking any other info. Which may very well mean you should be shoving your Ts on the turn initially.

    Either way we're both trying to "balance", you against default supposed equilibrium that likely doesn't practically exist even in the first hand vs an opponent, me against assumptions I'm happy to make.

    Exploitive vs Exploitative, many discussions about it around the internet. Still haven't been convinced the latter isn't more profitable at these stakes at least.
  • PonyStar