$109 Win Hand History Review with Daryl “aaaaaaaa” Jace (Part 4)
[Total: 9 Average: 9.7/5]
You must sign in to vote
MORE IN THIS SERIES : Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 5
Concepts In This Video: 3-Betting • High Stakes • HUD • Late Stages • Popular MTTs: Sundays • Post-flop • pre-flop • Single Table
loxxii
A4s hand at the end of the video.
My mind = Blown. gg brain.
I’ll probably be digesting this for the next 2 weeks. Not giving up, but I’m just not there yet.
I took a ton of notes and learned a lot so far. If you guys are not taking advantage of this series you are really missing out.
DJRog00
Please look back at these videos early next week Daryl, I will be posting answers, ideas and questions early next week. I’ve been really busy but would love to get the chance to pick your brain a little. This series is so insightful, as all of yours have been. You are most definitely one of the main reasons I’ve become a better player. You are very well spoken this time around and much more confident IMO. Though that never really took away from your other videos for me, it was always the content. Looking forward to the last part!
DJRog00
Also, is there a reason I can’t rate videos anymore?
TiltedEV
I don’t know a single person that hasn’t turned their tweet emails off.
Jon_Allan
Seems I have to go to the list of videos to be able to rate them (in Firefox at least)
Jon_Allan
N.B. Claydoh @ 10:40 has 3bet jammed a 15-22bb stack a couple of times already but now with 19bb in the HJ instead 2x’s his KK. In the future we can pretty confidently take the top off his range when he 3b jams this stack size.
Jon_Allan
…and of course the converse.
Jon_Allan
27:25 KTo…
I guess you are opening something like 55+,A2s+,K9s+,Q9s+,J9s+,T9s,A7o+,A5o-A2o,KJo+,QJo
maybe a little tighter.
You say you 4b to get it in with about 5%, something like 99+,AQs+,AQo+
and bluff with about 4%, maybe A5o-A2o,KTo
And go on to say the low suited aces are too good to use for bluffing. However if you decide you are 4b to fold (i.e. bluffing) and there is some chance (albeit very small) he flats wouldn’t it make more sense to bluff with the next best 4% rather than the worst 4% of your range? So something like 88-66,AQs-A8s,KQs,AQo (the key, of course, being that you have decided to fold to a 5b)
Jon_Allan
…still does not include the low suited aces in your bluffing range, but my question still stands 🙂
Jon_Allan
Oh and for the above question we need to ignore the fact that the effective stack was too shallow to be 4b to start with (at 25bb) – make it 40 or whatever.
aaaaaaaaa
Can we fold all those hands to a 5bet? they might have too much equity vs his 5b range.
aaaaaaaaa
Question still stands for the top of that range. I like the bottom end of the hands u suggested a lot better ( as 4bets) now tho and prob would 4b them sometimes.
Jon_Allan
Edit: AQs should not have been in the range I gave in the above post.
If his 5 bet range is basically the nuts – something like the top 3.5%
say 50% of TT, JJ+, AQs+, AKo
then we do not have the required 31.57% with any of the non-pairs in the range.
So maybe remove the pairs and replace them (very nearly, combinatorially) with A7s and AJo which also do not have enough equity to call vs the nutted range.
From what you said you feel his 3 bet is pretty nutted, so would you say this translates to him not 5 bet bluffing here ever?
…In which case we can definately use this new range – AJs-A7s,KQs,AJo+ to bluff with.
If, however, we think that villain throws in 33% bluffs (which is 12 combos)
…then we do have the required equity to call a 5 bet jam with all the hands discussed (the pairs and the entire new range), even if he merges his bluffs by 5 bet bluffing with AQo, ATs, AJs, KQs which is the worst case scenario for all the hands discussed so far, except for the KTo that started the debate which can /conceivably/ be in worse shape (for example when his 12 bluffs are KQo and KJo). A9s is the worst performer of the rest against the merged range and is very close to b.e. at 31.597% but I have not come up with a range with 33% bluffs ontop of the aforementioned nutted range that is not one we should be calling with any of the hands I have given, in the scenario played (effective stack of 24.8bb).
…Hence we should not use any of these hands to bluff with in the scenario from the video.
Now, if it were a more standard spot where the effective stack is 29-40bb…
…vs. the nutted range we certainly would not be getting the required price with any of the hands (at best we are offered 34.16% at 29bb) [although the pairs are all within 0.2% of this minimum requirement] and can therefore use all of the new range, AJs-A7s,KQs,AJo+, as our 4 bet bluffs, giving ourselves a better hand if we happen to get flatted.
…vs. 33% bluffs
– hands that have good enough equity to call up to 40bb eff given the merged bluff range are the pairs and AQo
– hands that have good enough equity to call up to 40bb eff given a non-merged bluff range are AJs, ATs, KQs, and AJo
– the rest (A9s-A7s) are not good enough to call unless the vilain uses a non-A heavy bluffing range, like nutted range + polarised semi-bluffs, e.g. bluffing with 87s, 76s, 65s, 87o.
This all really goes to show how having some tendencies from history can help construct one’s range.
—
Appendix:
Villain’s ranges:
v = TcTd, TdTh, ThTs, JJ+, AQs+, AKo (i.e. value)
m = v + AQo, ATs, AJs, KQs (i.e. merged)
s = v + A9o, A8s, JTs, QJs (i.e. semi-bluffs)
p = v + KQo, KJo (i.e. polarised)
c = v + 87o, 87s, 76s, 65s (i.e. polarised semi-bluffs)
Hero’s equity for calling given the effective starting stack in the video:
v
s
m
d
p
88
33.973
40.852
40.660
40.718
46.472
77
33.960
40.612
40.433
40.654
42.493
66
34.034
40.479
40.449
40.530
40.705
AQo
30.534
44.161
40.138
44.535
42.839
AJs
30.857
44.505
35.989
44.410
43.716
ATs
30.000
42.974
33.226
42.436
42.927
A7s
29.769
34.291
31.908
41.199
42.202
A8s
29.630
34.985
31.807
41.081
42.232
A9s
29.366
37.644
31.597
41.122
42.072
KQs
30.682
38.746
33.014
41.062
44.089
AJo
26.903
41.473
32.031
41.312
40.470
Maximum effective starting stack size (in bb) with which one can profitably call the impending 5 bet:
v
s
m
d
p
88
28.65
50.87
49.81
50.12
133.34
77
28.63
49.55
48.60
49.77
62.19
66
28.76
48.84
48.69
49.11
50.05
AQo
23.43
80.21
47.12
85.76
65.24
AJs
23.84
85.29
32.90
83.82
74.47
ATs
22.78
66.51
27.33
61.71
66.06
A7s
22.51
29.25
25.28
52.91
59.83
A8s
22.35
30.64
25.13
52.20
60.07
A9s
22.05
37.43
24.84
52.45
58.84
KQs
23.62
41.18
26.98
52.09
79.22
AJo
19.61
54.64
25.46
53.61
48.80
Jon_Allan
YUCK.
The HTML tables looked great in the preview!
Jon_Allan
harder to read than the aligned tables but easier than the above!
…
Appendix:
Villain’s ranges:
v = TcTd, TdTh, ThTs, JJ+, AQs+, AKo (i.e. value)
m = v + AQo, ATs, AJs, KQs (i.e. merged)
s = v + A9o, A8s, JTs, QJs (i.e. semi-bluffs)
p = v + KQo, KJo (i.e. polarised)
c = v + 87o, 87s, 76s, 65s (i.e. polarised semi-bluffs)
Hero’s equity for calling given the effective starting stack in the video:
v s m d p
88 33.973 40.852 40.660 40.718 46.472
77 33.96 40.612 40.433 40.654 42.493
66 34.034 40.479 40.449 40.530 40.705
AQo 30.534 44.161 40.138 44.535 42.839
AJs 30.857 44.505 35.989 44.410 43.716
ATs 30.000 42.974 33.226 42.436 42.927
A7s 29.769 34.291 31.908 41.199 42.202
A8s 29.630 34.985 31.807 41.081 42.232
A9s 29.366 37.644 31.597 41.122 42.072
KQs 30.682 38.746 33.014 41.062 44.089
AJo 26.903 41.473 32.031 41.312 40.470
Maximum effective starting stack size (in bb) with which one can profitably call the impending 5 bet:
v s m d p
88 28.65 50.87 49.81 50.12 133.34
77 28.63 49.55 48.60 49.77 62.19
66 28.76 48.84 48.69 49.11 50.05
AQo 23.43 80.21 47.12 85.76 65.24
AJs 23.84 85.29 32.90 83.82 74.47
ATs 22.78 66.51 27.33 61.71 66.06
A7s 22.51 29.25 25.28 52.91 59.83
A8s 22.35 30.64 25.13 52.20 60.07
A9s 22.05 37.43 24.84 52.45 58.84
KQs 23.62 41.18 26.98 52.09 79.22
AJo 19.61 54.64 25.46 53.61 48.80
Jon_Allan
arrrg, then I copy the wrong key! Should be:
Villain’s ranges:
v = TcTd, TdTh, ThTs, JJ+, AQs+, AKo (i.e. value)
m = v + AQo, ATs, AJs, KQs (i.e. merged)
s = v + A9o, A8s, JTs, QJs (i.e. semi-bluffs)
d = v + KQo, KJo (i.e. polarised)
p = v + 87o, 87s, 76s, 65s (i.e. polarised semi-bluffs)
aaaaaaaaa
Jesus man thats a lot of work. I’ll get back to u by tonight.
aaaaaaaaa
I’m not sure what to exactly comment on. I think its v good to work on fundamentals like this and im pretty impressed with the amount of work u put into this.
Jon_Allan
So:
1. Do you think villain should ever 5 bet bluff in the scenario in the video (24.8bb);
2. Do you think villain is ever 5 bet bluffing in the scenario in the video (24.8bb);
3. At what effective starting stack do you think villain should be thinking about their 5 bet bluffing range?
W1ispher
Jesus Jon have you swallowed a calculator?
Jon_Allan
Heh, something like that.