Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Online .50/1 Hand

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    #61
    Originally posted by Winning! View Post
    Yeah but we didn't know we were going to be called lol, so how can we know we're bluffing? We're obviously ahead of a BTN 3betting range, and most of the time will just win it preflop, so if I understand poker it's pretty hard to be bluffing when our hand is probably best...
    Not knowing what will happen is irrelevant. When you decide to 4bet, you have to know why you are doing it. Even on auto-pilot, there is reason its a +EV bet.

    There are only ever two reasons to bet. Ever.
    1. For value. when you expect worse hands to call.
    2. As a bluff when you expect better hands, or those with reasonable equity, to fold

    There are secondary benefits to betting, keeping your range wide, dead money etc, but each time the primary reason to bet is only ever one of the two above. A semi-bluff, is still a bluff at when the bet is made.

    In the hand in question, why is AK 4betting?.
    Worse aces won't be calling.
    Some pocket pairs call. This isn't what we want, as contrary to the common perception we aren't flipping. We are 50/50 all-in to the river. But as we are so deep and their is betting on the flop and turn, a PP has a big edge over us.
    Some mid pocket pairs fold. This is what we want, and its where our value comes from.

    The fact that we have the best hand isn't important. If you bet, and taking it down is the best outcome, then its a bluff. The fact that we have outs verses strong hands like QQ makes it a semi-bluff, but it is still a bluff.

    Comment


      #62
      Originally posted by fuzzbox View Post
      Hey,
      Your thought process is a good one, and this is definitely some multi-level thinking going on here.
      However I contend a couple of points.
      1. If villain is the thinking player that you allude to, then he also has to make sure that hero is a thinking player who is capable of folding QQ/KK here. Many times, I've made plays such as this, only to find that my opposite number makes the call anyway, even though *I* think that he shouldn't.
      I mean this is true and without more info its hard to say much more about the hand. I will say that I think even the most average player questions his hand strength after the action in this hand.

      Originally posted by fuzzbox View Post
      2. This is an extremely specific set of circumstances to support a possible bluff at this level, with large stacks. Most often, in my experience, people put truck loads of money into the middle when the have a big hand. QQ is not a big hand Vs the range that pumps truck loads of money into the middle. For villain to do this as a bluff, we have to believe that he is capable of all the thinking that you describe above and that he believes that we will fold something like QQ to all his heavy action.
      Couple of points that would be ringing in my head. I don't know the specifics of the 10,8 hand but I think its safe to assume that he has been fairly active if he has been three betting stuff like this.

      Perfect spot for a 4bet bluff with the CO/BTN dynamic.

      Specifically his value range pre flop is so small. I actually think lots of the time people aren't even happy to get KK in pre so his range for value is tiny.



      Originally posted by Mellor View Post
      Not knowing what will happen is irrelevant. When you decide to 4bet, you have to know why you are doing it. Even on auto-pilot, there is reason its a +EV bet.

      There are only ever two reasons to bet. Ever.
      1. For value. when you expect worse hands to call.
      2. As a bluff when you expect better hands, or those with reasonable equity, to fold

      There are secondary benefits to betting, keeping your range wide, dead money etc, but each time the primary reason to bet is only ever one of the two above. A semi-bluff, is still a bluff at when the bet is made.

      In the hand in question, why is AK 4betting?.
      Worse aces won't be calling.
      Some pocket pairs call. This isn't what we want, as contrary to the common perception we aren't flipping. We are 50/50 all-in to the river. But as we are so deep and their is betting on the flop and turn, a PP has a big edge over us.
      Some mid pocket pairs fold. This is what we want, and its where our value comes from.

      The fact that we have the best hand isn't important. If you bet, and taking it down is the best outcome, then its a bluff. The fact that we have outs verses strong hands like QQ makes it a semi-bluff, but it is still a bluff.
      This isn't altogether true as you can have a merged range when its not clear whether you are betting for value/protection or as a bluff.

      Opr

      Comment


        #63
        Very interesting and informative thread, there’s not much that can add to an already thorough analysis.

        Originally posted by The Stickman View Post
        Can anyone give me their thoughts on this hand?I dont have exact figures but i'll try my best.
        Why don’t you have the exact details and stats on villain, if it’s because you don’t use software? This puts you at a serious disadvantage versus .5 / 1 regs. Either way you give very little in the way of reads on villains tendencies.

        Originally posted by The Stickman;
        I was playing on PP saturday with a chipstack of $216. I pick up QQ on the button and 3 bet an inital raise from the cutoff to $11.
        Assuming co raise is 3x, your 3b ip to 11x is a little on the large size and would prefer a 3b to 9x .

        Originally posted by The Stickman View Post
        The small blind (chipstack around $200) 4 bets to $38
        Obviously dependent on your button 3b tendencies but this is a great spot for sb to 3b bluff.

        Villain’s 4b size is huge and I would expect a competent player to 4b to ~$24, based on that small scrap of info I would tend to think villain was less than competent. Again, a read on what the bigger 4b might mean would be helpful.


        If we are 100 bb’s deep here our decisions are much less complex. Versus a competent opponent you would expect to be behind here a huge amount of the time when getting 200 bb’s in with a hand this weak.

        So reads as to villain’s competence and tendencies are super important if we are to make a correctly informed decision.
        Last edited by TheSnapper; 12-08-11, 15:25.
        "Being wrong is erroneously associated with failure, when, in fact, to be proven wrong should be celebrated, for it elevates someone to a new level of understanding."

        Comment


          #64
          Originally posted by Mellor View Post
          Not knowing what will happen is irrelevant. When you decide to 4bet, you have to know why you are doing it. Even on auto-pilot, there is reason its a +EV bet.

          There are only ever two reasons to bet. Ever.
          1. For value. when you expect worse hands to call.
          2. As a bluff when you expect better hands, or those with reasonable equity, to fold

          There are secondary benefits to betting, keeping your range wide, dead money etc, but each time the primary reason to bet is only ever one of the two above. A semi-bluff, is still a bluff at when the bet is made.

          In the hand in question, why is AK 4betting?.
          Worse aces won't be calling.
          Some pocket pairs call. This isn't what we want, as contrary to the common perception we aren't flipping. We are 50/50 all-in to the river. But as we are so deep and their is betting on the flop and turn, a PP has a big edge over us.
          Some mid pocket pairs fold. This is what we want, and its where our value comes from.

          The fact that we have the best hand isn't important. If you bet, and taking it down is the best outcome, then its a bluff. The fact that we have outs verses strong hands like QQ makes it a semi-bluff, but it is still a bluff.
          This is all pretty well stated. It's often hard to see the wood from the trees, I would never have considered this a bluff of sorts preflop, but technically speaking I guess it is. If we ever get looked up by AQ it becomes a bet for value too though right, granted it's not gonna happen much, but is rather player and situation dependent.
          "c'est en faisant n'importe quoi qu'on devient n'importe qui"

          Comment


            #65
            Originally posted by fuzzbox View Post
            If you think about it, from villains perspective, what fold equity does he have when the turn falls?

            TT/JJ are now sets, AA/KK should be expected to call. QQ is the only decision. Does villain shove AK precisely to hope that QQ folds?
            Seems like a reach.
            I just read through the thread again and I remembered this point was never addressed thoroughly. Some myself included stated that bad players would shove here cos they aren't thinking enough to put us on a decent range and make a proper decision on how to proceed, which is perfectly true but ignores another possibility. What if this guy is just capably aggressive as was suggested? Why would he shove the turn here knowing he may get looked up too often to make it mathematically correct?

            It may seem bad in a vacuum, but essentially it balances his range in this spot perfectly, such that when he takes this line in future with the nutted end of his range we will have to give him credit for a bluff some % of the time and pay him off. On the other hand if he always c/folds his bluffs here after one barrel we can easily own him later by folding when he shoves knowing he only ever reps the top of his range, and his play in large pots becomes easily exploitable. This is massively -EV long term and will cost him much more money than what he risks right now by shoving to balance.
            "c'est en faisant n'importe quoi qu'on devient n'importe qui"

            Comment


              #66
              Originally posted by Winning! View Post
              I just read through the thread again and I remembered this point was never addressed thoroughly. Some myself included stated that bad players would shove here cos they aren't thinking enough to put us on a decent range and make a proper decision on how to proceed, which is perfectly true but ignores another possibility. What if this guy is just capably aggressive as was suggested? Why would he shove the turn here knowing he may get looked up too often to make it mathematically correct?

              It may seem bad in a vacuum, but essentially it balances his range in this spot perfectly, such that when he takes this line in future with the nutted end of his range we will have to give him credit for a bluff some % of the time and pay him off. On the other hand if he always c/folds his bluffs here after one barrel we can easily own him later by folding when he shoves knowing he only ever reps the top of his range, and his play in large pots becomes easily exploitable. This is massively -EV long term and will cost him much more money than what he risks right now by shoving to balance.
              All very well reasoned and makes total sense but.....

              Is this level of thinking a step too far for the default average player at these stakes and thus, is there really any value in being balanced?
              "Being wrong is erroneously associated with failure, when, in fact, to be proven wrong should be celebrated, for it elevates someone to a new level of understanding."

              Comment

              Working...
              X