Defending vs cbet in 3bet pots on K-high flops

  • NL BSS
  • NL BSS
  • $500
  • Shorthanded
(9 Votes) 8562

JOIN NOW TO VIEW THE FULL VIDEO

Free membership

Join now
 

Description

Mbml starts with a hand that he got hero called in a 3bet pot and dissects whether his opponents are in fact exploiting him. He creates a decision tree with a focus on the postflop game on K64s and how often he should be defending his range.

Tags

3b button vs blinds CREV defend face3bet GTO hero calls resteal Steal

Comments (26)

newest first
  • VytenisN

    #1

    Quality content. However, you could make quick preparation beforehand as you make some mistakes. It's great that you are able to correct them though.
    Also I'm interested what's the theory behind raising the flop with not a polarized range as I don't understand why some hands in our raising range is neither bluffs, neither for value.
    And the last thing: how do we come up with "raising 50% of KQ,KJ combos" in game, as I feel it's quite hard to get those frequencies while playing.
  • GingerKid

    #2

    Hi, I think the video looks more like CREV tutorial, than what content of video should be. Imo you could prepare ranges and just visualize them, then explain everything, it could be done in 5-10 min. For me it is very tiring to follow how you constructe ranges in CREV, and iteratively correct your mistakes, then CREV has so many numbers and colors, and you are clicking very fast.

    Regarding ranges, I understand that you want to raise more agro on flop, but somehow it makes more sense to me to defend only by calling because board is dry and SB has nice equity advantage. Also, why do you think that EV of raise for KQ, KJ is > than EV of call flop? What also doesnt make sense to me, is that you assume SB cbets 100% range? I would cbet KQ+ for value, check 2nd pairs and rest of Kx, KK so I think you cant raise KJ, KQ for value, it is just bluff catcher. Also, if you raise 50% KJ, KQ, then SB gets even bigger equity advantage on turn, you have less bluff catchers and less fd, bdfd, so hard to continue on turn and river.
  • GingerKid

    #3

    Would it be ok to create a thread in advanced forum discoussion like it is done for nemesis video? I find commenting video here not practical, because I dont get notification if someone answers.
  • matusko

    #4

    Hi, I agree with GingerKid, its very tiring to watch you correct all the mistakes in CREV.
    Also I rly dont understand why you would want to have a raising range on the flop? Equity protection is not that important on Kxx and SB has the range advantage.
    At the start of the video you are saying, that you would want to raise some of your combodraws for foldequity with no other reasoning or proof of why it could be good to develop such a range?

    Also: why does a small equity advantage for the SB on this board give you the licence to defend less than 1-alpha on the flop?
  • GingerKid

    #5

    Imo the only reason why we should defend less than 1-alpha, is if we cant defend enough combos +EV. I think it is the case mostly on boards where villian hits board better plus the board is dry. if hero would want to defend 1-alpha, he would need to flat some very unplayable hands, which are very likely -EV. Also if hero wouldnt have raise range on flop, he would need to defend much more than 1-alpha, as villian realizes equity of bluffs 100% of time, and all bluffs have equity.
  • matusko

    #6

    Well the point i am trying to make is what "hitting the board better" really means. I am pretty certain you cannot just compare raw equity range vs range(it is easy to come up with extreme examples where it is clear that this approach cant be right).

    Also on the topic of the raising range: Villains bluffs dont have that much equity on this board vs our calling range(compared to a board like J95ss).
    So to sum up what we are doing by raising a texture like this with a capped 3bcalling range:
    +we protect our equity and villain doesnt get to realize 100% of equity with his bluffs
    +we widen our defending range, by raising hands that we couldnt call profitably
    -we probably lower the EV of our KJ/KQ type hands by raising(where calling should be higher EV)
    -we weaken our calling range, so that villain can valuebet much thinner(and bluff accordingly) for 3 streets when we just call-this hurts our equity realization/capability to get to showdown when we just call, since villain get be much more agressive

    I dont see how we have a clear conclusion that having a F raising range is better.
  • GingerKid

    #7

    Matt Janda in his book "applications of no limit holdem", for comparing ranges using raw equity together with % of strong hands in range. It can be that ranges have equal equity, but one player has many medium strength hands and no strong, while other player has many low and high equity hands and less medium hands (almost polarized range).
  • GingerKid

    #8

    I agree on what are the consequences of having such raise range. By the way, Mbml said in the video that he wants to have raise range because some hands like nut bdfd play better in raise range. He also said that when he was bluff raising, villians were calling with very weak hands, so maybe he is merging his range exploitatively. Also he is raising 50% of KJ and KQ (I think it would be better to raise 100% KQ and to call KJ, because then villian has less equity with his KJ, KQ when barreling).
  • mrbestrafer

    #9

    poor audio quality! playing nl500 but cant afford a good headset?
  • mbml

    #10

    #1: I cannot give u an explanation for the 50% thing, it just feels right and allows us to have a wide raising range. Alternatively you could do it like what Gingerkid suggests (only raise KQ, always call KJ), I just prefer to have a mix but it's not a big deal.

    You would probably want to design your ranges such that villain has 50% with a medium strength bluff catcher (2nd pair perhaps) on the flop.


    Raising with thinner value hands (KQ/KJ are thin but still pretty damn strong on the flop with so much equity against villain's flop cbet range). It forces villain to fastplay some of his nut hands (his response would be to always flat all value hands if you were super polarized between only nuts and air)

    To give you a preflop analogy, if someone is only 3betting KK+ and bluffs, would you want to 4bet QQ?

    Having a wider raising range is also superior in many ways. If you recall 1-a, having a raising range allows u to defend fewer hands (since villain will be forced to fold immediately with his pure bluffs and will not be able to realize his equity with those hands). This allows you to not have to defend so many crappy hands.

    Raising wide also forces IP to check back many hands which might prefer to cbet the flop (2nd and 3rd pair) and check back the Turn (1 bet goes in anyway if you bet Turn or if he bets Flop, but he gets to control the bet size and also bet for protection vs your random JT type of hands with his A3 on K35r)
  • mbml

    #11

    #2: Maybe some arguments could be made for no raising range on rainbow board but on a flush board I think you clearly need to have a raising range. Anyway even on rainbow boards I think having a minraising range sometimes is good (as suggested by Internet). If not it's really difficult to defend wide enough.

    About the 100% cbet thing, I don't really think it's all that important to give villain an actual betting range. I was merely analyzing this situation from Hero's POV. Also, I think it's fair to say that most balanced players do check back a similar amount of air/value combos, meaning that their betting range has similar air/value ratios as well.
  • mbml

    #12

    #3: Some hands play better with a raise, combo draws being one of them. They retain their equity well even when called and will be glad to take the pot down.

    Not raising gives IP so many advantages which were already mentioned previously in #10 and #11 so I'll not repeat myself
  • mbml

    #13

    #9: I'm overseas at the moment and I did not bring my headset with me so the recording was done with the laptop mic.

    I shall take note of the feedback for future videos, but pls note that I tend to produce videos in sets (3 this time)
  • mbml

    #14

    One more thing, I would like to challenge you guys to try exploiting my known strategy. I do have fewer KQ/KJ combos but note that
    1. board can change a lot on future streets with a ton of draws possible
    2. I do have some sets still

    KJ still cannot be treated as a TPTK hand (intentionally mixed KJ/KQ instead of only checkraising KQ) and probably cannot value bet as thinly as you think (still def cannot overbet for sure)
  • GingerKid

    #15

    "You would probably want to design your ranges such that villain has 50% with a medium strength bluff catcher (2nd pair perhaps) on the flop."

    Why would villian cbet 2nd pairs? There is no need to cbet TT-QQ for protection, nor for value, imo it is very standard check. He might cbet weaker 2nd pairs like 88, 99 but they are poor bluff catchers so I dont see why would he call them after you raise. Did you analyse here specific opponent, or general good reg?
  • GingerKid

    #16

    "(his response would be to always flat all value hands if you were super polarized between only nuts and air)"

    Can you please define "super polarized", because it doesnt make sense to me for this hand? How can villian1 be super polarized with raise range, if there are fd in both rangee, meaning that all draws have around 20-40% equity to outdraw strong hands.
    So since that is the case, villian can still 3bet his AK, AA, it is also good if you fold your good draws, and you can call your good draws.
  • GingerKid

    #17

    "Having a wider raising range is also superior in many ways. If you recall 1-a, having a raising range allows u to defend fewer hands (since villain will be forced to fold immediately with his pure bluffs and will not be able to realize his equity with those hands). This allows you to not have to defend so many crappy hands."

    Yes, on flop. But since you raise 12 combos KJ, KQ, it means that on turn and river you will have to call with more weak bluff catchers which might not be soo bad, but what is bad is that villian can value bet 3 streets his KJ now which means he can use more bluffs in his balanced range. Another bad thing is that since you have more weak bluff catchers like 2nd pairs, A high on turn call range, then villians bluffs have higher equity vs your range.

    I think that 1-a concept for having raise range is observed only for single street, and not what will happen on future streets, which will often lead to mistake (we cant blindly follow, if I have raise range here, It means that I can defend less combos on flop comparing to not having raise range).
  • GingerKid

    #18

    As I said I would check KK, weak Kx, TT-QQ, AcKc, KcQc, KcJc, KcTc). So I would cbet as bluff only KQ, AK, AA (30 combo) together with around 60 combos of (fd, bdfd, 6x, 4x).

    Vs your min raise range I guess I need to defend around 65% range (90 combos * 0.65 = 58 combos), I would shove AA, KQ, AK without club together with appropriate % of bluffs like 7s8s, A6s, A4s, 76s, 56s. I would call the rest of AA,KQ, AK (having club, meaning no need to protect), would also call the rest of draws, and would have to float some AsTs-AsQs. Here are imo our ranges interesting, all my "bluff catchers" like AA, AK, KQ are beating all your value hands, but I am callling them only to be able to flat draws, 4x, 6x, and AsTs-AsQs.

    If you ask about how can I exploit it, as I remember you used 1:1 value/bluff ratio. I am not sure if you fold all your bluffs vs shove? I guess you call nut fd. I didnt do exact calculation of required FE when I shove vs your raise range, but I think hands like fd, 6x, 4x would need around 30% FE, and I think they all have them. So I would shove all 6x, 4x, 78s, then AQ, AJ (which block your value part and can still improve)


    Regarding your call flop range, on turn and river there is no huge place for exploits, still you can defend enough bluff catchers if I would cbet bluff heavy, but only difference is that I could cbet river KJ for value, meaning that I dont have to check it on flop and can use for those 12 combos value, 24 combos bluff on flop which would be otherwise in check range. Thats not exploit, but 24 combos of bluff is significant % of flop range, around 10%, which means it really lowers your EV and increases mine.

    So my conclusion is, that with your raise range you get increased EV of your bluffs in raise range, and imo decreased EV of KJ, KQ, and this way you flat less weak combos starting from flop which lowers EV of my bluffs and increases EV of KQ+ (because they are nuts and this way they get more money in). Also with your raise range I get to cbet KJ for value and 24 additional bluffs in balanced range which significantly decreases EV of your bluff catchers because I will cbet with greater frequency.
    I would say that those 24 bluff combos and 12 value have the biggest impact on EV.

    If you would raise all combos KJ and flat KQ (I think it makes most sense), then I wouldnt be able to cbet KJ for value, and you would still have your desired raise range. Drawback is that now I can shove KJ+ for value vs your raise range which is imo not that big impact on EV because you anyway raise very rare comparing to call and fold.
  • GingerKid

    #19

    I hope that it is ok range analyses as I did for my own cbet range, instead 100% cbet range. I didnt want to analyse 100% cbet range, becuse it is like "here you have maniac bluff heavy cbet range, try to exploit me".
  • GingerKid

    #20

    By the way, whats the point of raising KJ, KQ instead of sets :) ? Why would you call sets and let villian outdraw you and take your stack (you cant fold sets), but you can fold KJ on bad runout). Raising KJ, KQ is similar as if I would be 3betting 2nd pairs vs your raise range. Imo it makes only sense vs maniac cbet range as you analysed.
  • mbml

    #21

    #15: I nv said anything about him having to cbet 2nd pair. I was just saying that we want to make it such that a 2nd pair hand has ~50% equity. These 2 statements aren't the same. And besides, it's perfectly reasonable to cbet QQ or A6 on a K64 board.

    #17: I mean air, draws and 2p+. If your range is too weighted towards 2p+ and air, villain just flats everything IP. If your range contains thin value CRs and draws, he is now incentivized to 3bet AA on the flop.

    #18: As I said earlier, I want you to try coming up with counter strategies. Yes in theory our flatting range becomes weaker on later streets. But in practice
    -It's hard for our opponents to know this for sure
    -Even if he did it's not that easy to exploit. Maybe KQ and KJ can bet a little thinner but that's about it
    -My main argument is that the benefits from raising is worth this tradeoff. Obv we can't have the best of both worlds. Using this sort of logic, we might as well say that we should never 3b AA preflop to protect our capped calling range.

    #16:
  • mbml

    #22

    I think your suggestion to shove any 2nd and 3rd pair is pretty bad as it's pretty easy to counter-adjust by widening my thin value CR range and snapping your 3bet jams.

    as for whether to raise a mix of KQ/KJ, KQ only or KJ only, I'm not too sure. There are def tradeoffs for both

    -KQ is simply a larger equity favourite and you want to build the pot with a strong top pair.
    -But if you never have KQ in your flatting range, villain is able to treat KJ and KQ as TPTK and valuebet much thinner

    My suggestion to use 50/50 of both was simply a way of dealing with either of these issues.
  • GingerKid

    #23

    "Using this sort of logic, we might as well say that we should never 3b AA preflop to protect our capped calling range."

    I dont 3bet MP vs UTG at all, for range protection (my range is narrow) and because 4 players can sqeeze behind, and because having 3bet range would be very cappt and easy to play against. If it is CO vs BU then I 3bet allways because ranges are wide, so slowplaying AA helps very little for protection of range.
  • GingerKid

    #24

    "I think your suggestion to shove any 2nd and 3rd pair is pretty bad as it's pretty easy to counter-adjust by widening my thin value CR range and snapping your 3bet jams."

    You asked how can we exploit it, I gave you an answer now you say you can counter exploit it :) Can you name me any kind of exploit, that is not easy to counter exploit it if you know what opponent is doing? Now since you would widen your thin value and snap call shoves, I would not bluff raise any more, but only good fd we can do it +EV and value that beats your call range. So this doesnt make sense, because if we continue this way, we reach soon the equilibrium point. So if you are asking, try to exploit my range, and I tell you how it can be exploit it, then it doesnt make sense to say your exploit it bad because I can counter exploit it
  • mbml

    #25

    #24: Your suggested strategy is easily exploited. On the other hand, it's not as though you would be completely crushing my strategy by jamming all your pairs here as I would still have plenty of combodraws, nut flush draws, top pairs and 2p+ to snap your jams off.

    I wouldn't even call your suggested strategy a true exploit, and yet it's easily countered.
  • mbml

    #26

    to give a preflop example:

    Jamming 22-66 could be profitable vs a player's default strategy of 4betting TT+/AQ+ for value, assuming his range is designed in a way that contains 1:1 bluff:value ratio. But the 4bettor only needs to make a very simple adjustment of adding 88/99 to his value range and now the 5bettor's strategy of jamming 22-66 becomes terrible.