TPE Theory: Making Better Continuation Decisions with Andrew Brokos (Part 5)
[Total: 11 Average: 8.6/5]
You must sign in to vote
MORE IN THIS SERIES : Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4 | Part 6 | Part 7
Concepts In This Video: C-Betting • HUD • Late Stages • Mid Stages • Pokerstars • Popular MTTs: Sundays • Post-flop • pre-flop • Theory • WCOOP
Pippo Inzaghi
Re the “KQ” hand (roughly 7 minutes into this video) in which Andrew flops two pair.
Andrew opted to flat a cbet from the initiator rather than raise. In as brief form as possible I undertook to summarise why this play was appropriate in the circumstances:
Premise 1
If we are to raise, we expect action from the following hands we defeat:
1. A number of [Ks, AA] – We will apply “x” to describe the size of this range
2. A number of [Draws] – We will apply “y” to describe the size of this range
Premise 2
If we are to call, we expect action from the following hands we defeat:
1. >x [Ks, AA]
2. >y [Draws]
Premise 3
Calling induces action from a wider range of hands (we defeat).
Conclusion
Therefore, wrt generating value, calling is better.
In words:
If we raise we extract value from strong Ks and AA (a range defined as x) but we potentially force weaker Ks (from either villain) to fold.
By calling, we extract value from x plus an indeterminate number of weaker Ks.
E.g. Villain on the BB may fold KT or worse on the flop after a raise from Hero but call/shove such hands if Hero flats.
If we raise, we extract value from strong draws (a range defined as y). These include all Ace high flush draws and flush draws accompanied with a straight draw, namely JhTh, Th9h, Jh9h.
By calling, we extract value from y plus an indeterminate number of lesser draws such as bare flush draws (e.g. 8h6h, 9h6h) and broadway draws (mainly JT) that might otherwise fold to a raise from Hero.
E.g. Villain on the BB may fold a bare flush draw or oesd (JT) to a raise from Hero (after all, he’s not even guaranteed to have 35% equity) but call/shove such hands if Hero flats.
The advantage of inducing this “additional” action outweighs the disadvantage “failing to charge draws” in the classical style of Sklansky, Harrington etc.
Foucault
“Charging draws” is overrated IMO. I don’t know that it’s fair to say that that’s the “style” of Sklasky or even Harrington.