Home
(0 votes) 
November 28, 2015
Offline
WPN, 225/450 blinds, 45 ante No Limit Hold’em Tournament, 8 Players
Poker Tools Powered By Holdem Manager – The Ultimate Poker Software Suite.
SB: 9,440 (21 bb)
BB: 17,505 (38.9 bb)
UTG+2: 27,300 (60.7 bb)
MP1: 13,607 (30.2 bb)
MP2: 31,194 (69.3 bb)
MP3: 9,910 (22 bb)
CO: 8,570 (19 bb)
Hero (BTN): 13,938 (31 bb)
Preflop: Hero is BTN with A T
4 folds, CO raises to 1,193, Hero calls 1,193, 2 folds
Flop: (3,421) 6 8 K (2 players)
CO checks, Hero checks
Turn: (3,421) 5 (2 players)
CO bets 1,711, Hero calls 1,711
River: (6,843) A (2 players)
CO checks, Hero checks
Results: 6,843 pot
Final Board: 6 8 K 5 A
CO showed A 9 and lost (-2,949 net)
Hero showed A T and won 6,843 (3,894 net)
July 24, 2018
Offline
Well, his exact hand is calling, but what other hands that you beat can he call with? You lose to a lot of Ax hands. I guess Villain could have a strangely played Kx that you beat as well. Pretty thin either way, and if it is that thin, the EV can’t be too much.
November 28, 2015
Offline
Ok, excellent. Thank you.
February 8, 2017
Offline
FWIW, I would prefer to 3bet this hand against a 19bb opener. ATs should be ahead of their CO raise-get it in range, and we have plenty of fold equity. We’re deep enough that we can fold to a shove from the blinds, whereas if we flat and one of them squeezes, we’ll be in a really tough spot if we think they’re ever bluffing, and they should have a bluffing range (even though many players will not).
It helps that we’re in position, but when effective stacks are this short, we’re often going to end up in post-flop situations where we either 1) decide to call with little clarity about villain’s range or 2) decide to fold when we had the best hand and/or a lot of equity. For example, we’ll have a pretty hard time calling if villain fires again on any river that isn’t an A or T.
As played, I think we are rarely beat when villain checks this river, probably will see AJ occasionally and maybe AQ. Not that it doesn’t happen, but I think the villain would be making a mistake by trying to check-raise or induce with their strongest hands on the river. They’re too likely to miss value, which is criminal with a 19bb stack.
Personally, I like going for value here, but I guess it’s relatively thin. I don’t think this is anything like the ‘mandatory’ value bet with QJ from a little while ago, but I think betting is bound to be +EV. I won’t have a ton of hands that need to bluff here, because I’m rarely flatting BTN v CO at 19bb effective, but I think it is a (small) mistake to check back here. I don’t think we’re getting check-raise bluffed often enough by most players to worry about re-opening the action.
Many players will have some Kx combos in their OOP flop checking range, I definitely mix it in with KJ – K9 at this stack depth (sometimes even AK), trying to induce bluffs or get paid wider on later streets. I don’t put much emphasis on protection once I’m this short, unless ICM is becoming a factor. This board is relatively dynamic, but I expect BTN to flat a lot more suited broadways than middling cards at 19bb effective. I’m more than willing to risk a bad turn card if I think it’s more profitable than betting.
As CO I’m probably calling this river with my kings more often than not. All the draws missed and an Ace is a card that many people will bluff fairly frequently given how the hand played out. Bottom line, I don’t think you missed a ton of value vs. range, but I think you probably want to bet something here. Against recreational players and unknowns, I would bet small. I would probably shove against stronger players.
November 28, 2015
Offline
I see what you’re saying. I want to be a little more clear, when you say 3-bet, does this include a possible fold to a 4-bet shove or since his stack is 19bb ATs is strong enough to make the call (assuming all other villains fold)? Because I know one of the things I need to focus more on is getting a better understand of how to play vs. shove stacks. I think my general understanding at this point, from a tighter perspective, is we can call against shove stacks depending on hand strength, in this case AT+, probably KQs I’d say, maybe even 99+ ish. So I guess I answered my question, assuming this is accurate anyway.
February 8, 2017
Offline
I can’t get into exact ranges as I’m out the door in a sec, but yes I’m always calling a shove from the original raiser and almost always (unless they seem crazy) folding to a shove from either blind. I don’t think you need to go large, ~2800 – 3k should do the trick.
February 5, 2015
Offline
I’m betting the river for value.
OTF I dont put him on a K as he didnt cbet. It is possible he has a monster though, have to look at the clues down the road.
V bets the seemingly innocuous turn. He might have a strong 2 pair style hand or maybe he is betting a pair lower than KK for thin value. I don’t think it is a good spot for him to bluff with A9, if I were in his shoes Id be happy with the A high showdown value here. Also, hero didnt bet the flop when checked to, so from v’s point of view we probably have something, otherwise we’d have probably capitalised on a great bluffing spot IP on this board.
I’m not a fan of your turn call, although I dont think it is the end of the world either.
When V checks the river though, Im discounting his strongest 2pair plus hands. Even AQ or AJ Id expect him to bet, to get value from our holding, which will possibly pay him off, as we called his bet on the turn, and as the A is a great card for V to rep.
TLDR we are ahead enough here that a value bet is good imo.
TPE Pro
December 6, 2012
Offline
Easy bet. Just go small and you’ll get called by plenty of Kx.
February 8, 2017
Offline
I should correct a few things from my first post. First, although I think 3betting ATs is very profitable, and you’ll be in ok shape against CO shove range, you’re very likely to have less than 50% equity. Still always calling when CO shoves, and the 3bet will still be profitable. We either have a lot of fold equity or CO will be shoving a range that we are actually ahead of.
When I said I would probably shove river against a good player, in hindsight that was an exaggeration. I would at least consider shoving river as a bluff after this action, so I would at least consider shoving for value. That being said, I think we’re looking to get called by a lot of marginal hands rather than expecting to frequently get hero called for stacks by a bluff-catcher, and I’m probably more likely to make a small bet. I like somewhere in the 2600 – 3100 range.
November 28, 2015
Offline
Greg, I agree with you. Perhaps thin value here, I don’t HATE my river check but def. a spot I need to be more conscious of in the future.
September 3, 2018
Offline
I don’t have a problem with just checking it down on the river since you now have good (but not great) showdown value. A small bet also seems OK, but if you are going to go that route you need to know ahead of time what you will do if he jams. If you aren’t going to call a jam to your small raise then just checking it down makes more sense. You don’t have a monster, but your hand does have value so I think it is a close call whether to value bet thin. As played, though, I think the ace on the river is way more likely to give you the winning hand than it is to have you beat given how the hand was played.
TPE Pro
December 6, 2012
Offline
rppoker said
If you aren’t going to call a jam to your small raise then just checking it down makes more sense.
Why do you say that?
September 3, 2018
Offline
If I am reading this right, there is 6,843 in pot. Villain has 5,621 remaining. Hero has 10,044 left. Villain checked on the river. If hero bets small, let’s say one-third pot, that is 2,258 chips. If villain check-raises, that is only an additional 3,363 chips for hero to call. I can’t really see bet folding in this scenario. In essence it would be 3,363 chips to call a pot that would have 14,722 chips in it. I just don’t see how you could fold at that point. That is why I say that if you would fold there (which I wouldn’t) then you should just check it back on the river. In my opinion the play is to raise on the river and then, mildly reluctantly, call an all-in re-raise. I am not advocating a raise fold. What I am saying is that if you would be inclined to raise fold here, then I’d just check it down since there is a lot of equity in your hand.
TPE Pro
December 6, 2012
Offline
What you’re leaving out is how frequently Villain will check-raise. Let’s suppose that you bet 2258, as you say. V check-raises 10% of the time, folds 30%, and calls 60%, and that you always win when he calls. Let’s also suppose that when he check-raises, you will fold, but as it happens he’s always bluffing (the worst case scenario). 10% of the time you lose a pot you would have won plus 2258 more, so about 9000 chips. 60% of the time you win 2258 more than you would have by checking. .6 *2258 = 1354.8, meaning that this bet gains you about 450 chips in EV (you lose .1 * 9000 = 900 chips on average to the check-raise). Note that if he folds, you win the same that you would have if you checked (assuming he never folds a better hand), so we can ignore that case.
September 3, 2018
Offline
Foucault said
What you’re leaving out is how frequently Villain will check-raise. Let’s suppose that you bet 2258, as you say. V check-raises 10% of the time, folds 30%, and calls 60%, and that you always win when he calls. Let’s also suppose that when he check-raises, you will fold, but as it happens he’s always bluffing (the worst case scenario). 10% of the time you lose a pot you would have won plus 2258 more, so about 9000 chips. 60% of the time you win 2258 more than you would have by checking. .6 *2258 = 1354.8, meaning that this bet gains you about 450 chips in EV (you lose .1 * 9000 = 900 chips on average to the check-raise). Note that if he folds, you win the same that you would have if you checked (assuming he never folds a better hand), so we can ignore that case.
So are you saying if we raise small, and villain check raises, we should call or fold?
February 8, 2017
Offline
For the math that Andrew gave, he is assuming that we fold every time we face a check-raise. It’s a purely hypothetical scenario but it demonstrates the +EV nature of value betting. Personally, if I make a small bet and face a check-raise, I’m probably folding most of the time. There will be a few villains strong (or crazy) enough to bluff here, but most players aren’t frequently check-raising rivers as a bluff. I don’t think they’re likely to make their rare bluffs with a stack so short that they can’t stop us from getting an excellent price.
It seems trivial to call 3363 to win a pot of 14722, but it’s still worth doing the math.
3363/ (2*3363 + 11359) = 18.59%
So we don’t need to be winning frequently for a correct call, but I’m not confident that most villains will be bluffing 18.6% of the time. I’d want them to be bluffing at least 20% of the time because each chip we lose is worth more than each chip we win. Against an optimal opponent we’d be catching a bluff exactly 18.6% of the time (or maybe 20% if they adapted to MTT conditions), and thus we’d be indifferent to calling in the long run. My opinion is that most players under-bluff in spots like this.
I think most players would benefit from value betting thinner. It wouldn’t surprise me if the most common leak among intermediate players is missing value bets. I know I do it all the time, even though I’m trying to get better at it. I think it is related to loss aversion. If I know that I’m going to win the pot very frequently, the idea of missing value doesn’t seem as threatening as the idea of getting raised and not knowing what to do. However, if we estimate the frequency of each possible negative income, missing value bets is almost guaranteed to hurt our bottom line more.
Not trying to say that we want to value bet every top pair, or any time we might have the best hand, but if it seems like a close spot I think most players should opt for a value bet much more frequently than they do.
September 3, 2018
Offline
DuckinDaDeck said
For the math that Andrew gave, he is assuming that we fold every time we face a check-raise. It’s a purely hypothetical scenario but it demonstrates the +EV nature of value betting. Personally, if I make a small bet and face a check-raise, I’m probably folding most of the time. There will be a few villains strong (or crazy) enough to bluff here, but most players aren’t frequently check-raising rivers as a bluff. I don’t think they’re likely to make their rare bluffs with a stack so short that they can’t stop us from getting an excellent price.It seems trivial to call 3363 to win a pot of 14722, but it’s still worth doing the math.
3363/ (2*3363 + 11359) = 18.59%
So we don’t need to be winning frequently for a correct call, but I’m not confident that most villains will be bluffing 18.6% of the time. I’d want them to be bluffing at least 20% of the time because each chip we lose is worth more than each chip we win. Against an optimal opponent we’d be catching a bluff exactly 18.6% of the time (or maybe 20% if they adapted to MTT conditions), and thus we’d be indifferent to calling in the long run. My opinion is that most players under-bluff in spots like this.
I think most players would benefit from value betting thinner. It wouldn’t surprise me if the most common leak among intermediate players is missing value bets. I know I do it all the time, even though I’m trying to get better at it. I think it is related to loss aversion. If I know that I’m going to win the pot very frequently, the idea of missing value doesn’t seem as threatening as the idea of getting raised and not knowing what to do. However, if we estimate the frequency of each possible negative income, missing value bets is almost guaranteed to hurt our bottom line more.
Not trying to say that we want to value bet every top pair, or any time we might have the best hand, but if it seems like a close spot I think most players should opt for a value bet much more frequently than they do.
Interesting. Gives me a lot think about. Thanks for the insight.
November 28, 2015
Offline
I think in the overall scheme of things (as I am trying to improve my game), the way this hand played out, I will be firing a thin value bet here a lot more often than not. I think in game, during this hand specifically, I really only thought about my hand and not enough about my opponents hand. I don’t see a case to bet big on the river, maybe somewhere around 2500-3500. Lovin’ the discussion tho, fellas.
let’s say we keep all the percentages the same as Andrew has hypothesized and we change the sizing to say 2899, then the math would look something like this .6*2899=1739.4 as opposed to .1*9000 =900 that means my plus EV would be an extra 389.4 more than the 450. (I’m only doing this for a little practice with this formula). Can you guys explain the 9000 though? so the pot is 6843 and we are adding the 2258 to get the roughly 9000 chip pot im guessing? if that is the case, then my math is off because the pot would be about 9600(when we add the 2899 opposed to the 2258 or whatever) so the negative EV would be 960(.1*9600) but it’s still close to about an extra 250 in EV. (If I am understanding this correctly). Wow, this formula kinda changes the way I’ve viewed this game in the past. God, I love posting on here!! Thanks fellas.
February 8, 2017
Offline
Finding ways to calculate the Expected Value of a play based on estimating the frequencies of each possible outcome is a fundamental part of advanced strategies. It’s actually the bulk of what solvers are doing (way quicker than a human ever could) when they try to reach GTO play.
I will avoid the temptation to go off on a long tangent, but this is how humans make all of our decisions, even if we don’t think about them in this way. However, we tend to be illogical about where we assign expected value, we’re very bad at predicting the outcomes of our actions, and we’re prone to assuming that situations are drastically simpler than they actually are. I think we’d all benefit from having a PIOsolver for life decisions.
You’re correct that 9000 is the approximate sum of the pot and our bet. So if you change the bet sizing to ~650 more, you’re actually losing 9650 when we get bluffed off the hand. However, if our opponent’s call/fold/raise frequency were to remain constant, betting larger is always the better play when going for value (eg. 60% of 650 is a lot more than 10% of 650).
Unfortunately, that is rarely the case in Holdem, which is part of why bet sizing can be so difficult. As much as there are board textures which should be very inelastic, there are always inflection points which can drastically affect how opponents react to our play.
November 28, 2015
Offline
So basically the margin of error becomes a lot greater than the true possibility of certainty because of the ‘estimation’ factor. So (what I think) you are saying is basically it becomes much harder to accurately predicate an outcome due to unmeasureable circumstances that surround the possibility of one making a decision. Ie, if we are saying Villain will ck/raise 10%, this (as an estimation) can not be predicted accurately because of the insurmountable variables that could have potentially influenced any one specific situation; so on this particular day, at this particular moment (because villain ate apple pie this morning) he currently has irritable bowel syndrome which drastically decreases his 10% check/raise to less than 1%.
Basically, stuff that we can not account for could potentially sway any one particular situation. But, because of the fact that everything is an estimation, we only need villain in this case to ck/raise 10% of the time for everything else to be +EV? I could be way off, but this is what my brain has led me to believe from what you are saying.
So this also kind of implies that we need to look a lot deeper in “estimating the frequencies of each possible outcome as a fundamental part of advanced strategies” for reasons of just having almost a (and I don’t want to say this as meaning; this is but for the sake of this discussion) standard reaction to a set of actions that occurred previously in order to remain on the plus side of EV.
Please forgive me if this is just rambling, I really made an attempt here to understand this (which I vaguely remember reading in the past but never really understood). But at the very least, I can now see an almost MUST in using a piosolver due to the potential of being well prepared for future ( almost common but never the same) sets of situations and how to respond in a profitable manor.
September 3, 2018
Offline
Foucault said
What you’re leaving out is how frequently Villain will check-raise. Let’s suppose that you bet 2258, as you say. V check-raises 10% of the time, folds 30%, and calls 60%, and that you always win when he calls. Let’s also suppose that when he check-raises, you will fold, but as it happens he’s always bluffing (the worst case scenario). 10% of the time you lose a pot you would have won plus 2258 more, so about 9000 chips. 60% of the time you win 2258 more than you would have by checking. .6 *2258 = 1354.8, meaning that this bet gains you about 450 chips in EV (you lose .1 * 9000 = 900 chips on average to the check-raise). Note that if he folds, you win the same that you would have if you checked (assuming he never folds a better hand), so we can ignore that case.
Foucault said
What you’re leaving out is how frequently Villain will check-raise. Let’s suppose that you bet 2258, as you say. V check-raises 10% of the time, folds 30%, and calls 60%, and that you always win when he calls. Let’s also suppose that when he check-raises, you will fold, but as it happens he’s always bluffing (the worst case scenario). 10% of the time you lose a pot you would have won plus 2258 more, so about 9000 chips. 60% of the time you win 2258 more than you would have by checking. .6 *2258 = 1354.8, meaning that this bet gains you about 450 chips in EV (you lose .1 * 9000 = 900 chips on average to the check-raise). Note that if he folds, you win the same that you would have if you checked (assuming he never folds a better hand), so we can ignore that case.
You said that if he folds you win the same that you would have if you checked (assuming he never folds a better hand), so we ignore that case. Why do we assume there is 0% chance he folds a better hand? While I agree it is highly unlikely that he folds A-J is the percentage really zero? In much the same way as you have to assign a small percentage to an opponent spaz/punting with a bluff when he leads out, don’t we have to assign a small percentage to an opponent nit folding the best hand? I’m not saying a very high percentage, but something more than zero. Or is it so small as to not be worth adding to the equation? Maybe I am overthinking this. Thoughts?
February 8, 2017
Offline
Maniackid11 said
So basically the margin of error becomes a lot greater than the true possibility of certainty because of the ‘estimation’ factor. So (what I think) you are saying is basically it becomes much harder to accurately predicate an outcome due to unmeasureable circumstances that surround the possibility of one making a decision… Basically, stuff that we can not account for could potentially sway any one particular situation. But, because of the fact that everything is an estimation…
Yes and no. I overemphasized the errors of human decision making, it wasn’t relevant to my actual point. Poker decisions are usually straightforward enough that, with a lot of work, we can usually overcome most cognitive bias based decision-making errors. Also, poker is never a game of ‘absolutely certain’ or trying to be right every time. The best we can do is estimate the incomplete information (ie villain’s range, how they act with each part of that range, etc.) and make decisions based on that. Trying to figure out the exact answers is pointless, there are way too many variables.
A lot of the skill in exploitative poker comes from knowing when to adjust our baseline estimations for a situation based on the info we gather on our opponent. Still, we’re never absolutely certain that our adjustments are correct. Like everything in poker, we do our best to understand the percentages (eg. 80% chance this guy is a donkey, 10% chance he’s amazing and out-leveling me, 10% chance I’m drunk and should go home) and make decisions based on maximizing our expected value.
TPE Pro
December 6, 2012
Offline
@rppoker,
It was mostly to keep the math simple. Of course betting is only going to get more profitable if there’s a chance the opponent folds a better hand, and my point was to show that betting can be quite profitable even if getting raised sucks. In this particular situation, though, I do actually think it’s quite unlikely that any better hand folds.
November 28, 2015
Offline
Yes and no. I overemphasized the errors of human decision making, it wasn’t relevant to my actual point. Poker decisions are usually straightforward enough that, with a lot of work, we can usually overcome most cognitive bias based decision-making errors. Also, poker is never a game of ‘absolutely certain’ or trying to be right every time. The best we can do is estimate the incomplete information (ie villain’s range, how they act with each part of that range, etc.) and make decisions based on that. Trying to figure out the exact answers is pointless, there are way too many variables.
A lot of the skill in exploitative poker comes from knowing when to adjust our baseline estimations for a situation based on the info we gather on our opponent. Still, we’re never absolutely certain that our adjustments are correct. Like everything in poker, we do our best to understand the percentages (eg. 80% chance this guy is a donkey, 10% chance he’s amazing and out-leveling me, 10% chance I’m drunk and should go home) and make decisions based on maximizing our expected value.
Yes, that’s kind of what I was trying to say. So, if we use situational based percentages when calculating potential lines, we are better able to come to more correct plays than we would if we just decide “oh, I don’t want call a raise because he always has it”. Basically, it just enables us to see what the most EV route would be, based on estimations of frequencies. I like it though, because doing work away from the table helps understand that (in this particular hand) even though we checked river, we could have potentially gained more profit by firing a bet. And, (probably obvious to you guys but becoming increasingly more obvious to me) allows us to become more aware of similar spots in the future.
Thanks guys.
Most Users Ever Online: 2780
Currently Online:
40 Guest(s)
Currently Browsing this Page:
1 Guest(s)
Top Posters:
bennymacca: 2616
Foucault: 2067
folding_aces_pre_yo: 1133
praetor: 1033
theginger45: 924
P-aire 146: 832
Turbulence: 768
The Riceman: 731
duggs: 591
florianm1: 588
Newest Members:
CSerpent
KJ
Tillery999
sdmathis89
ne0x00
adrianvaida2525
Forum Stats:
Groups: 4
Forums: 24
Topics: 12705
Posts: 75003
Member Stats:
Guest Posters: 1063
Members: 12010
Moderators: 2
Admins: 5
Administrators: RonFezBuddy, Killingbird, Tournament Poker Edge Staff, ttwist, Carlos
Moderators: sitelock, sitelock_1
