KTs - 4 bet pot

[RoadSweeper]

$0.50/$1 No Limit Holdem
4 Players
Hand Conversion Powered by weaktight.com

Stacks:
Hero ($108.10)
BTN ($98)
SB ($198.50)
BB ($50)

Pre-Flop: ($1.50, 4 players) Hero is CO
Hero raises to $3.50, BTN raises to $10, 2 folds, Hero raises to $26, BTN calls $16

Flop: ($53.50, 2 players)

Hero...?


I have no real reads on the villain other than he bought in for 100bbs and he seemed like a reg. I like to 4 bet the first 3bet, esp when its vs the btn.

Just looking for thoughts on a bet size here

[digiman]

This hand wouldn't really be in my 4b range. I would probably just rather fold it pre. I would much rather 4b a hand like a pocket pair that I don't want to fold pre but is going to be very hard to play OOP in a 3b pot without being the aggressor. Now I just bet $15/call and if he flats I shove every single turn. My bet would nearly always be really small here when 100bb deep.

[Moneymaker]

Yeah small bet and call it off, or shove the turn seems best. I'd bet $22-$28 or so.

I'm not liking the 4bet either.

[TommyGunne]

I think the 4b is fine. I'd prefer Ax, but there is absolutely nothing wrong with KTs to a 4b. Got the blockers for KK,TT and AK. Same as everyone else, bet real small and call. Bout $20 is what I'd go.

Digiman, I really don't like 4betting small pairs, particularly against aggro players. You have no blockers, and are actually priced in to calling shoves. That makes them really bad to 4b I think.

[ianmc38]

I'd expect him to have a monster here every time, but with the flush draw and two overs there's not much you can do really apart from get it in.

[RoadSweeper]

k, I'm not sure i get the no like for the 4bet

I cant call profitably and I've blockers to premiums.

Cbet wise, I was just wondering what ye thought was best and what would have max fold equity. Like, i dont think we want to get bluff shoved on with A high here? I know we are committed, but surely maxing fold equity is key.

Ian, Players just call 4bets now when they dont have a premium hand to shove and dont wanna fold the hand they 3bet with. Usually AQ and 88-TT imo, but depends on the player.

SPOILER

I cbet 12ish and he called and I jammed a Jo turn and he folded. It turns out he wasnt a reg and he said he folded AK

[Hectorjelly]

The 4 bet is fine in isolation, once you can't call the 3 bet profitably it makes little difference what your hand is, the better a hand it is the better for you on the off chance he cold calls, and does not shove or fold.

Whether or not you 4 bet here really comes down to game flow and dynamics, since he cold called AK and then folded it it seems like you got the timing right (he believed you had a big hand), but no-one here can help you with that without being at the table.

I personally would bet more on the flop, i really don't want to induce him into shoving Ax. Obviously you need to bet roughly whatever you normally bet in these situations.

[Hectorjelly]

Ian, Players just call 4bets now when they dont have a premium hand to shove and dont wanna fold the hand they 3bet with. Usually AQ and 88-TT imo, but depends on the player.

Yeah I was going to say that, im amazed at how often regulars cold call 4 bets these days, i think its terrible (usually)

[RedJoker]

The 4 bet is fine in isolation, once you can't call the 3 bet profitably it makes little difference what your hand is, the better a hand it is the better for you on the off chance he cold calls, and does not shove or fold.

Card removal has a pretty large effect although I'd agree that a hand like A4s is better than A4o for the times we're coldcalled.

Whether or not you 4 bet here really comes down to game flow and dynamics, since he cold called AK and then folded it it seems like you got the timing right (he believed you had a big hand), but no-one here can help you with that without being at the table.

I personally would bet more on the flop, i really don't want to induce him into shoving Ax. Obviously you need to bet roughly whatever you normally bet in these situations.

It's interesting that you're not worried about balancing your 4betting range (a situation that comes up relatively frequently) but want to keep a consistent bet size postflop in the 4bet pot (a much, much rarer situation).

[ianmc38]

Yeah I was going to say that, im amazed at how often regulars cold call 4 bets these days, i think its terrible (usually)

I havn't played a proper holdem session in ages apart form that rush poker so wouldn't really have a clue about what people would be calling 4bets with. Other than thinking that in terms of best practises calling with any non value hand seems like a massive leak without a very specific read on the 4bettors tendencies postflop, although I'm not sur ethat anyone could have that good a read on anyone's play in 4bet pots. (assuming 100BBs or less)

I actually would just shove postflop. I dont think his calling range changes at all. Like I dont think he will call a shove with 88 now and fold it to a half pot bet. It's one of those spots where if we bet and he goes allin (with a value hand) that he was going to call it off anyway, so i don't mind just shoving to give alittle extra fold equity.

[cardshark202]

I just shove the flop, really don't see the need to bet any other amount here. I'm surprised people are suggesting otherwise actually

[Hectorjelly]

I don't like shoving the flop because it makes your bluffs pretty expensive, a lot of the time here you are going to have nothing and be up against an overpair. I would bet/fold here most hands (Obviously not the hand in question). I would hate to shove 78o here and get called by jacks.

Yeah I agree Ian, at first the first few times people called my 4 bets I assumed they had AA and KK and check folded. Then I flopped a few big draws and just bet, they folded. Since then I bet most of the time, and most of the time they fold. When they don't fold they tend to have at an overpair though, or an improved AK/AQ/AJ.

This is all at 100 and 200nl against TAG regulars, I assume they aren't as stupid at higher stakes

[Hectorjelly]

Card removal has a pretty large effect although I'd agree that a hand like A4s is better than A4o for the times we're coldcalled.

I don't think it has that much effect at all. I remember a hand on 2+2 where riverboatking pulled an audacious bluff where he had A2o, he was trying to get KK to fold and had put his opponent on either AA or KK, the ace in his hand made it far more likely his opponent has kings than aces. In this scenario, yes it makes large difference, but thats because you are only dealing with 2 different hands, and the ace being removed makes has a large affect. In most 4 betting spots in this type of situation (ie not against a nit whose range is already tight) if you get the timing wrong your opponent (or you) is liable to shove any pair, Kx maybe even Qx etc etc, so the removal of one card really has little effect on his shoving range. The timing is far more important, IMO anyway. If he believes you he will fold, if he doen't he will shove. Your percieved range is what matters, not what you actually hold.

It's interesting that you're not worried about balancing your 4betting range (a situation that comes up relatively frequently) but want to keep a consistent bet size postflop in the 4bet pot (a much, much rarer situation).

My ranges are unbalanced in a lot of spots. Since my opponents are too stupid to figure them out, or how to to exploit that fact (and I would know if they did) it would be - EV for me to try and balance them. They are much more aware of betting sizes

[RedJoker]

I don't think it has that much effect at all. I remember a hand on 2+2 where riverboatking pulled an audacious bluff where he had A2o, he was trying to get KK to fold and had put his opponent on either AA or KK, the ace in his hand made it far more likely his opponent has kings than aces. In this scenario, yes it makes large difference, but thats because you are only dealing with 2 different hands, and the ace being removed makes has a large affect. In most 4 betting spots in this type of situation (ie not against a nit whose range is already tight) if you get the timing wrong your opponent (or you) is liable to shove any pair, Kx maybe even Qx etc etc, so the removal of one card really has little effect on his shoving range. The timing is far more important, IMO anyway. If he believes you he will fold, if he doen't he will shove. Your percieved range is what matters, not what you actually hold.

A lot of regs won't have small PPs, Kx or Qx in their 3betting range to begin with. I'm not sure how important it is whether he believes you or not, if he 3bet for value he will shove, if he 3bet as a bluff he will fold (usually). I don't think I've ever had somebody 5bet shove a small PP, Kx or Qx into me and I 3bet and 4bet a decent amount and pay very little attention to timing. I did have somebody shove 65s into me once though.

I don't think I've ever 5bet bluffed before, mathematically it makes very little sense to do so. If I think my opponent will 4bet me light then I'll widen my value 3betting range rather than 5betting a hand from my 3bet bluffing range.

My ranges are unbalanced in a lot of spots. Since my opponents are too stupid to figure them out, or how to to exploit that fact (and I would know if they did) it would be - EV for me to try and balance them. They are much more aware of betting sizes

Fair enough.

[RoadSweeper]

Some great stuff in this thread lads.

What bet size do you make RJ?

My ranges are unbalanced in a lot of spots. Since my opponents are too stupid to figure them out, or how to to exploit that fact (and I would know if they did) it would be - EV for me to try and balance them. They are much more aware of betting sizes

Fair enough.

Also, RJ, do you advocate playing a balanced game all the time opposed to an unbalanced game versus weaker opponents that wont adjust?

[Hectorjelly]

A lot of regs won't have small PPs, Kx or Qx in their 3betting range to begin with.

In order for me to 4 bet someone as a bluff, they need to have a wide 3 betting range and fold to 4 bets a certain % of time. Some guys once they 3 bet, that's it they are going with the hand no matter what, so you obviously don't want to ever try bluffing them. I imagine this is because most of their 3 betting range is for value, and they just don't fold any of it (or enough for us to 4 bet anyway

I'm not sure how important it is whether he believes you or not, if he 3bet for value he will shove, if he 3bet as a bluff he will fold (usually).

I don't think thats true, although i have no concrete evidence. I think you can tell a lot based on their timing. Instant shove is AK or a mediocre players AA, KK, QQ. Shortish pause is them working out if they believe you etc. Some of the people I play against with 3 bet JJ & TT and then make a decision whether to shove or fold if you 4 bet. Its obv pretty bad, but that's what they do.

I don't think I've ever had somebody 5bet shove a small PP, Kx or Qx into me and I 3bet and 4bet a decent amount and pay very little attention to timing. I did have somebody shove 65s into me once though.

I find that very weird. Yesterday I got all in with Ajo vs 57s, (button vs sb with entire table of limpers) and AK vs KQ (button vs BB). Both were against normal tags, and there was no history. It could come down to us playing in very different games (myself and you) Both times I was surprised without being shocked, if you know what I mean.

I don't think I've ever 5bet bluffed before, mathematically it makes very little sense to do so. If I think my opponent will 4bet me light then I'll widen my value 3betting range rather than 5betting a hand from my 3bet bluffing range.

I don't know why you wouldn't do both, it doesn't come up that often but I find there are good times to 5 bet bluff. I reckon i do it about once a week, so about once every 12k hands. It helps if you are a little deeper than 100bbs to lesson the chance of a spite call. it usually works, although its obv a small sample size (and timing is everything!)

[Ranges being unbalanced]
Fair enough.

Yeah I used to worry about this, and still do to a certain extent against good regulars, but there aren't many of them where I play (and I just try to avoid them)

[RedJoker]

Some great stuff in this thread lads.

What bet size do you make RJ?

I'd usually bet small and call a shove with most of my range and, while I'm not delighted with it here, there really isn't any great bet size.

Also, RJ, do you advocate playing a balanced game all the time opposed to an unbalanced game versus weaker opponents that wont adjust?

You'll probably need to be more specific. Against fish I won't be. Mediocre reg vs. good reg, I'm usually pretty balanced regardless. If I have a reason to make an exploitative play I'm definitely taking it though. Generally I'll try not to move too far away from balanced and keep most exploitative plays within a reasonable threshold of being balanced. For example, AX hands that can't call a 3bet are pretty much equivalent for 4betting so if I think a situation is decent to 4bet then I might take it even if it's not the very best candidate for 4betting. However, unless I have a very strong reason I'm pretty much never 4betting something like 65s.

In order for me to 4 bet someone as a bluff, they need to have a wide 3 betting range and fold to 4 bets a certain % of time. Some guys once they 3 bet, that's it they are going with the hand no matter what, so you obviously don't want to ever try bluffing them. I imagine this is because most of their 3 betting range is for value, and they just don't fold any of it (or enough for us to 4 bet anyway

O.k. but those players who will go with their hands no matter what typically don't have small PPs, Kx or Qx in their 3betting range.

I don't think thats true, although i have no concrete evidence. I think you can tell a lot based on their timing. Instant shove is AK or a mediocre players AA, KK, QQ. Shortish pause is them working out if they believe you etc. Some of the people I play against with 3 bet JJ & TT and then make a decision whether to shove or fold if you 4 bet. Its obv pretty bad, but that's what they do.

I agree that some regs still do this and that it's ridiculously bad. However, blocker value still has a significant effect here and I'm not sure what type of timing effect you're looking for that will let you know when they're ready to 3bet fold JJ or TT.

I find that very weird. Yesterday I got all in with Ajo vs 57s, (button vs sb with entire table of limpers) and AK vs KQ (button vs BB). Both were against normal tags, and there was no history. It could come down to us playing in very different games (myself and you) Both times I was surprised without being shocked, if you know what I mean.

I don't think I'd ever get AJ or KQ in preflop 100bb deep when there was no history. They just don't make it into my default 3bet or 4bet ranges.

I don't know why you wouldn't do both, it doesn't come up that often but I find there are good times to 5 bet bluff. I reckon i do it about once a week, so about once every 12k hands. It helps if you are a little deeper than 100bbs to lesson the chance of a spite call. it usually works, although its obv a small sample size (and timing is everything!)

12k hands is about 6 months worth of play for me

I don't 5bet bluff because there's rarely a reason to do it. If I thought he was going to 4bet bluff enough for me to 5bet bluff then I probably shouldn't have been 3bet bluffing to begin with.

If a short stacker opened the BTN I wouldn't 3bet bluff shove the BB against him and I wouldn't need to either for balance. My range would be entirely made up of the top of my range, there's no reason for me to ever be polarized here. Similarly there's no reason for me to ever polarize my 5betting range, if my opponent 4bets for value he should never be folding and if he 4bets as a bluff he should always fold to the 5bet. (not that he always will of course)

[Sledgejammer]

You'd never bluff shove v shortys, RJ? Some are just insanely exploitable, at least where I play. Opening the btn and sb to 2.5x when folded around to them literally around ~90% of the time over decent samples and calling with a fixed range of hands regardless of how people adjust to them

[RedJoker]

You'd never bluff shove v shortys, RJ? Some are just insanely exploitable, at least where I play. Opening the btn and sb to 2.5x when folded around to them literally around ~90% of the time over decent samples and calling with a fixed range of hands regardless of how people adjust to them

I'm still shoving the top part of my range there. There's no spot where I'd 3bet shove one hand but not a stronger one, e.g. 65o but not T9s.

Besides, I'm talking about competent short stackers who are playing a close to optimal short stacking game. Ridiculously exploitable tendencies have little use in a theoretical discussion, the solution is usually trivial.

[Hectorjelly]

O.k. but those players who will go with their hands no matter what typically don't have small PPs, Kx or Qx in their 3betting range.

I'm not so sure about that. Anyway it doesn't matter, since this is not the players we should be light 4 betting

I agree that some regs still do this and that it's ridiculously bad. However, blocker value still has a significant effect here and I'm not sure what type of timing effect you're looking for that will let you know when they're ready to 3bet fold JJ or TT.

I meant that I could tell afterwards, the timing gives away what they folded. Obviously this has limited value!

I don't think I'd ever get AJ or KQ in preflop 100bb deep when there was no history. They just don't make it into my default 3bet or 4bet ranges.

I had Aj, but not the kQ. The AJ was interesting. Whole table limps, I raise on the button with Aj. Aggressive player 3 bets from sb. I was fairly sure he thought I was just isolating and was squeezing, I make a very small 4 bet and he shoves. I call and he has 57s. I 4 bet to induce here, given my read I think its by far the best play.

The KQ was an opponent, it was button on SB, I raised, he 3bet, i 4 bet he shoved and I called. I don't like his play, (esp as I had AK!) but its not unheard of.

12k hands is about 6 months worth of play for me

I don't 5bet bluff because there's rarely a reason to do it. If I thought he was going to 4bet bluff enough for me to 5bet bluff then I probably shouldn't have been 3bet bluffing to begin with.

Again I don't like the sound of this. I think its good to sometimes be capable of 5 bet bluffing, it makes your opponents life harder. I'm very reluctant to light 4 bet someone who i know is capable of doing it, so they have taken away one the options at my disposal. Also it makes it harder for your opponent to make big folds. Its not really that important an issue though.

If a short stacker opened the BTN I wouldn't 3bet bluff shove the BB against him and I wouldn't need to either for balance. My range would be entirely made up of the top of my range, there's no reason for me to ever be polarized here.

I do this all the time. I find that most competent (ie not idiots, I doubt they are very good though) shortstackers raise/fold from from the cutoff & button constantly, so i 3 bet them any time I think of it and I have anything pretty, until I think they've adjusted, which they usually never do.

Similarly there's no reason for me to ever polarize my 5betting range, if my opponent 4bets for value he should never be folding and if he 4bets as a bluff he should always fold to the 5bet. (not that he always will of course)

You see this is interesting, and I think where we differ in a lot of respects. You are deciding whether or not to 5 bet based on your cards, but I'm deciding on it based on whether I think they are going to fold or not (assuming I'm not doing it for value). I couldn't really care less what hand I have since when I'm called I'm screwed anyway!

[cardshark202]

I don't like shoving the flop because it makes your bluffs pretty expensive, a lot of the time here you are going to have nothing and be up against an overpair. I would bet/fold here most hands (Obviously not the hand in question). I would hate to shove 78o here and get called by jacks.

Yeah I agree Ian, at first the first few times people called my 4 bets I assumed they had AA and KK and check folded. Then I flopped a few big draws and just bet, they folded. Since then I bet most of the time, and most of the time they fold. When they don't fold they tend to have at an overpair though, or an improved AK/AQ/AJ.

This is all at 100 and 200nl against TAG regulars, I assume they aren't as stupid at higher stakes

The guy is unknown, absolutely no need to balance here. You have a flush draw and overs, its imperative to shove here. If you want to balance, just shove JJ or something the odd time you get to a spot like this. You can still bet small with bluffs and AA etc, but you don't have to balance by doing it with a hand like this. Last think you want is him shipping in AK or something silly

[ianmc38]

Yeah in a spot like this, I don't see any need to balance at all. Like how many times will you be shoving postflop in a 4bet pot that this guy is going to see?

Bluff shoving here with 56o because you want to keep a balanced range would just be brutal and I actually think 99/100 players you play against every day aren't going to notice either way.

And also, just because you're shoving now with a draw and overs doesn't mean that you can't bet half pot next time with AA or 56o.

[Hectorjelly]

You have $75 left, a $75 push will have exactly the same Fe as a $40 bet, he isn't going to expect you to fold for your last $35. I cant see any reason to waste $35. Also a shove looks slightly more FOS

[Line Us]

Decent thread, I'd agree with shoving this flop too. No need to balance at all here, its such a rare spot and we will be rarely bluffing here anyway.

[cardshark202]

You have $75 left, a $75 push will have exactly the same Fe as a $40 bet, he isn't going to expect you to fold for your last $35. I cant see any reason to waste $35. Also a shove looks slightly more FOS

I don't understand what you mean here.

[Denny Crane]

i think a bet looks stronger than a shove, i just don't think you should bet really small or anything.

[Hectorjelly]

Decent thread, I'd agree with shoving this flop too. No need to balance at all here, its such a rare spot and we will be rarely bluffing here anyway.

Its not really balancing, its not leaking information with your bet sizing. I wouldn't shove aces here, so I wouldn't shove Kts either. (Although as other people have mentioned its not exactly a common spot so it doesn't make that much difference)

I don't understand what you mean here.

If you shove 78o here you are wasting $35, since you have the same FE

i think a bet looks stronger than a shove, i just don't think you should bet really small or anything.

yes!

[Line Us]

Its not really balancing, its not leaking information with your bet sizing. I wouldn't shove aces here, so I wouldn't shove Kts either. (Although as other people have mentioned its not exactly a common spot so it doesn't make that much difference)

I would shove AA and most/all my range here so thats probably where people disagree.

v
If you shove 78o here you are wasting $35, since you have the same FE

I wouldnt ever 4bet bluff 78o and presume you wouldnt often either. I dont think we have complete air like that very often in this spot so there's no need to bet small, we will usually have our value 4bet hands, JJ/QQ/KK/AA/AK (probably about 60% of the time) and the rest we'll have the likes of Axs and Kxs, which will have decent equity some of the time like in this hand. The only reason i can see for betting small is if you have alot of bluffs in your 4betting range and want to protect them, but in reality I dont think this is true.

i think a bet looks stronger than a shove, i just don't think you should bet really small or anything.

Because we mostly have strong hands here why would you want to make your range look strong, the majority of the time in this spot you'll want the villian to call surely.

[Hectorjelly]

I would shove AA and most/all my range here so thats probably where people disagree.


I wouldnt ever 4bet bluff 78o and presume you wouldnt often either. I dont think we have complete air like that very often in this spot so there's no need to bet small, we will usually have our value 4bet hands, JJ/QQ/KK/AA/AK (probably about 60% of the time) and the rest we'll have the likes of Axs and Kxs, which will have decent equity some of the time like in this hand. The only reason i can see for betting small is if you have alot of bluffs in your 4betting range and want to protect them, but in reality I dont think this is true.


Because we mostly have strong hands here why would you want to make your range look strong, the majority of the time in this spot you'll want the villian to call surely.

No I disagree, 78o is just an example, I was just using it as an example of hand where you are going to have close to 0% equity when called. I do find myself in these spots from time to time, I 4 bet more than most other tags, and with a bluff or a value hand I don't understand why you would want to start overbet shoving in spots this. I doubt it makes a massive difference though.

[RedJoker]

Again I don't like the sound of this. I think its good to sometimes be capable of 5 bet bluffing, it makes your opponents life harder. I'm very reluctant to light 4 bet someone who i know is capable of doing it, so they have taken away one the options at my disposal. Also it makes it harder for your opponent to make big folds. Its not really that important an issue though.

Just because somebody is capable of 5betting light it shouldn't make you any less inclined to 4bet light in isolation. Your opponent's overall 3betting range vs. what he'll shove with should determine that. If you felt that he was going to 5bet too much of his range to make a 4bet profitable that would be a valid reason not to 4bet light.

Assuming your opponent has a balanced range (you're indifferent to 4betting light or not), your opponent being capable of 5bet bluffing is fantastic for you. He's making a large mistake with his choice of range and you profit from this every time you have a value hand.

I do this all the time. I find that most competent (ie not idiots, I doubt they are very good though) shortstackers raise/fold from from the cutoff & button constantly, so i 3 bet them any time I think of it and I have anything pretty, until I think they've adjusted, which they usually never do.

That's not bluffing though. "Anything pretty" is the top of your range. There's no spot where you'd shove something non-pretty but not something pretty.

You see this is interesting, and I think where we differ in a lot of respects. You are deciding whether or not to 5 bet based on your cards, but I'm deciding on it based on whether I think they are going to fold or not (assuming I'm not doing it for value). I couldn't really care less what hand I have since when I'm called I'm screwed anyway!

I'd agree with this. The reason (generally speaking, not just the 5bet example) I don't make my decision based on if I think my opponent is going to fold or not is because most of the time I have no idea whether my opponent is going to fold or not (assuming competent, non-drooling reg). Things like game flow/timing/image/etc. all sound very vague and wishy-washy to me and are open to a tonne of biases (self-serving, confirmation, hindsight). I just don't see how you can tell that your opponent doesn't have a big hand this time but in an almost identical spot has a big hand the next time?

I play based on my cards because in a lot of spots I can show mathematically that no matter what my opponent's range I'll make a profit with my play. The further away my opponent moves from an optimal range the larger the profit. I couldn't really care less if he calls or folds because he's screwed anyway!

Talking specifically about the 5bet situation, the difference in equity between the bottom of my value range and a random 5bet bluff is pretty significant (and even more so when you include blocker value). Mathematically there's no reason for me to ever have this range so I'm not going to try and create one.

[cardshark202]

Its not really balancing, its not leaking information with your bet sizing. I wouldn't shove aces here, so I wouldn't shove Kts either. (Although as other people have mentioned its not exactly a common spot so it doesn't make that much difference)

I think the key is: the opponent is unknown, its 100nl so without any history I really feel the line you take here should not be affected by how you would play other hands in your range here. As I mentioned earlier I actually think a better way to balance is to just shove a made hand once in a while if you are desperate to balance here but again I would not be worried about it.

If you shove 78o here you are wasting $35, since you have the same FE

Ah you see when I saw you post it I thought you were referring to the KTs hand in particular which is why it confused me.

Just because somebody is capable of 5betting light it shouldn't make you any less inclined to 4bet light in isolation. Your opponent's overall 3betting range vs. what he'll shove with should determine that. If you felt that he was going to 5bet too much of his range to make a 4bet profitable that would be a valid reason not to 4bet light.

Assuming your opponent has a balanced range (you're indifferent to 4betting light or not), your opponent being capable of 5bet bluffing is fantastic for you. He's making a large mistake with his choice of range and you profit from this every time you have a value hand.



That's not bluffing though. "Anything pretty" is the top of your range. There's no spot where you'd shove something non-pretty but not something pretty.



I'd agree with this. The reason (generally speaking, not just the 5bet example) I don't make my decision based on if I think my opponent is going to fold or not is because most of the time I have no idea whether my opponent is going to fold or not (assuming competent, non-drooling reg). Things like game flow/timing/image/etc. all sound very vague and wishy-washy to me and are open to a tonne of biases (self-serving, confirmation, hindsight). I just don't see how you can tell that your opponent doesn't have a big hand this time but in an almost identical spot has a big hand the next time?

I play based on my cards because in a lot of spots I can show mathematically that no matter what my opponent's range I'll make a profit with my play. The further away my opponent moves from an optimal range the larger the profit. I couldn't really care less if he calls or folds because he's screwed anyway!

Talking specifically about the 5bet situation, the difference in equity between the bottom of my value range and a random 5bet bluff is pretty significant (and even more so when you include blocker value). Mathematically there's no reason for me to ever have this range so I'm not going to try and create one.

This is a very good post though I believe in a 5bet bluffing range though I hardly ever 5bet bluff as the opportunities to do it are quite rare, even at more aggressive 5/10 or 10/20 games. There are some opponents I play HU where I have to 5bet bluff as an adjustment if their adjustment to me 3betting them a lot is to 4bet more. Vs others I would just 3bet less often and maybe call and cr more flops or something. There is a lot to be said for the affect gameflow has, especially in HU imo.

[Hectorjelly]

Just because somebody is capable of 5betting light it shouldn't make you any less inclined to 4bet light in isolation. Your opponent's overall 3betting range vs. what he'll shove with should determine that. If you felt that he was going to 5bet too much of his range to make a 4bet profitable that would be a valid reason not to 4bet light.

I think I agree with this, although its a somewhat subtle point. Once I 4 bet light I don't really care what hand they are shoving, (since I'm not calling) either a bluff or for thin value.

Assuming your opponent has a balanced range (you're indifferent to 4betting light or not), your opponent being capable of 5bet bluffing is fantastic for you. He's making a large mistake with his choice of range and you profit from this every time you have a value hand.

I don't understand this, surely a balanced range means that his bluffs are accounted for. Also I doubt any of the people I play with have balanced ranges, they might not be terrible, but they are almost always somewhat exploitable. (mine more than most, but I'm aware of it and quite sure that its not being expoited)

That's not bluffing though. "Anything pretty" is the top of your range. There's no spot where you'd shove something non-pretty but not something pretty.

Yes there is! As I mentioned before my shortstack opponents position is more important to me than my hand, as is our history. If he raised and I shoved in the last orbit or two I'm not going to shove unless I have a decent hand. Anytime i shove 45s (or whatever) against anyone I'm definitely bluffing. Its not like I'm waiting for 45s or better to shove, i'm waiting for a good spot.

I'd agree with this. The reason (generally speaking, not just the 5bet example) I don't make my decision based on if I think my opponent is going to fold or not is because most of the time I have no idea whether my opponent is going to fold or not (assuming competent, non-drooling reg). Things like game flow/timing/image/etc. all sound very vague and wishy-washy to me and are open to a tonne of biases (self-serving, confirmation, hindsight). I just don't see how you can tell that your opponent doesn't have a big hand this time but in an almost identical spot has a big hand the next time?

Its just like the rest of poker, it comes down to numbers. For example, there are spots where psychologically, I know that a players range is looser than it should, or normally would be; usually because I can sense their frustration. Now unless they give away some time of tell (either timing betting or whatever) you can never be sure that they don't actually just have a hand, but you factor the whole thing into your calculations. Also, I think I have a very good feel for how much credit any given opponent is going to give me, based on our history together and their general tendencies. To me that is one of the most important skills an already winning player can learn.

Just because those things seem wishy washy and not exact, it doesn't follow that they are useless. Economics, psychology, almost any social science; these are all "wishy washy" subjects that are open to a tonne of biases, but i'd still rather have an economist run my bank than a hair dresser. (Actually as I write that I realize maybe we would of been better off with hairdressers! But you get my point). I have poker playing friends who are better mathamatically than me, quicker with numbers and probably cleverer than me, but I consistently do better than them because I understand people and their actions better than they do

I play based on my cards because in a lot of spots I can show mathematically that no matter what my opponent's range I'll make a profit with my play. The further away my opponent moves from an optimal range the larger the profit. I couldn't really care less if he calls or folds because he's screwed anyway!

I can't understand taking this approach at 100 or 200nl, where the players are almost uniformly exploitable. For example lets say I'm raising someone on the turn. I don't care if my range is balanced or not (in fact I know its not, it's ridiculously unbalanced). I specifically want my range to be unbalanced because when they are going to call me I want to have a good hand, and when they are going to fold I want a bad one. My decision is based on what they are going to do, not what cards I have. (This obviously applies mainly for bluffing)

Its not voodoo or anything magical, its just having a feel for how your opponents are going to react due to your history, or their mood I have plenty of examples, but most of them are fairly trivial.

For me, the ideal situation is to have your opponent think your range is unbalanced, and for it to be unbalanced, but the opposite direction that they think it is. I don't want my opponent to be mentally flipping coins, I want them to be tricked into making the wrong decision.

As you go up in stakes, and the better players improve exponentially, i can see the benefits to your approach; but I think its counter productive at these stakes. I read a really interesting study recently by a Science Major who analysed winners and losers at multiple different blind levels, and one of his conclusions was that it takes a very different strategy and mentallity to beat different stakes, to put it simply what works at high stakes will lose you money at lower stakes and vice versa. (not that im saying having a balanced range is going to lose you money, but it could certainly cost you money)

Poker is something that is far more complicated than people give it credit for, basically all advice is game dependent.

Talking specifically about the 5bet situation, the difference in equity between the bottom of my value range and a random 5bet bluff is pretty significant (and even more so when you include blocker value). Mathematically there's no reason for me to ever have this range so I'm not going to try and create one.

I don't see what you are getting at with your first sentence, the bottom of a 5 bet value range is usually still quite a strong hand, so its obviously better than a random hand. Plus you are planning on folding one and felting the other (I must be misunderstanding you)

[Maloney]

A+ Great thread need more these. Some great posts.