TPE Theory: Big Blind Defense with Andrew Brokos (Part 3)
[Total: 5 Average: 4.6/5]
You must sign in to vote
MORE IN THIS SERIES : Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 4
Concepts In This Video: Blind vs Blind • defending Big Blind • Hand EV Charts • Power point • Theory
Spronks
Hello Andrew. In the last hand (with the Q7), after leading the turn with our {Tx, 7x, J9, 89} and getting raised…
1)what about calling with our 7x, and some of our J9, 98 and then leading big on most rivers with them?
2) I think his check raise on the turn, is polarised. I think he raises with TT, 22, 7x for value (and maybe call with some of them, sometimes), maybe something like 89, J9, J8 as a bluff. I think he never raises with his overpairs, medium pairs(88-99),or top pairs there
Given the good price for the bluff that you pointed out, he gives him the incentive to do it.
What about calling there with our Tx and bluff catching on any non 6,8,9,J river?
3) I can’t find your “playing wide ranges” series. Did you rename them or something?
Foucault
Sorry, just saw this:
1. I don’t think this really helps us, given how polarized Villain is likely to be. The only way in which 7x benefits from taking this line is if we get hero-called because of the possibility that we’re bluffing a busted draw, but that would require V to have mid-strength hands in his range, which as you indicate in (2) he probably does not. So if he was bluffing, he’s not any more likely to call river just because draws missed, as he has nothing. And if he wasn’t bluffing, then he’ll get it in on the turn anyway (possibly to our detriment).
2. I think V chose his line well, to get maximum fold equity on the current street without needing to fire an additional barrel on his bluffs. But if we’re going to entice him to bluff again, I think it’s easier to do that by three-betting than by calling turn.
3. I don’t see it either, but it’s not because of any chance I made. I’ll ask TPE about it.