Hi guys, today its readless again, PF its standard, but what to do on the flop?
I can raise, but I doesnt have good equity to call his push, and imo in this kind of flop he is capable to raise and push a lot.
So I decided to check/call, he should bet all his air.
River I did call just beause my range looks very weak. The problem is to define villain´s range, he could easily check back flop with 64s and do some action on later streets, or something like that...
http://www.handconverter.com/hands/2506279
Thank you very much! :)
Fisrt of all, I like to 3bet bluff to 90 chips, you need less succes and you are gonna barrel cheaper postflop. I know you are gonna get action more often than not, but readless I think people play more hit or fold on 3bet pots, they call a lot but fold a ton postflop, so I dont care if I get called.
Secondly, on the flop I would just bet/broke something like 1/3 of the pot and induce a bluff because if he has a Jack I expect him to call, so if he raises it's pretty much 89, 9T, and random bluffs. Ofc you have to include some better 7x, but against all that range you are priced in.
In my opinion, population tendencie is to play very passive the 3bet pots, do not check because they are not gonna stab that often.
Checking the flop it's too spewy imo, just play straight forward.
As played I would fold the river as the board runs out terrible and hits ALL his middling range, you do not beat ANY SINGLE HAND imo.
Hello, when I put my key, and appears a start and I can not change, this is my key Product ID D9AA-6C30-93A3-9985-859D-2896-B3DE-4CF3. What can I do?
I don't think preflop is "standard".
72s is usually in our BB folding range pre without reads villain is opening his button very wide.
As played postflop, villain's line looks quite strong and the board ran out very favourably for a NAI 3b flatting range.
Not going to be profitable to call the river imo.
Can probably cbet flop and fold out a ton of equity vs what will usually be a fairly fit or fold flop strategy.
That said, there are better hands to polarise your preflop 3b range with => so the usefulness of analysing postflop is devalued by the low frequency with which you should find yourself in this spot.
Well, my newbie 2 cents
I would never 3bet 72s readless PF.
So no decision for me postflop as I would fold PF.
But assuming I may have misclicked 3bet 100...I would probably lead 1/3 or 1/2 pot postflop as I do not want to give Villain a free T, Q, K, or A on the turn (even 8 and 9 would worry me turn)
If raised on my lead turn, I would either fold to a raise shove with a still decent stack or reraise shove to a NAI raise.
If called on my lead turn, I would probably drop it and check/fold river.
But fold PF is the key to no headache here
Cheers
PokerPuker
HU Hyper Tilter
Folding PF is a pretty significant mistake--it's not even very close to a fold. There's some room to argue between flat and 3b, but my analysis of the population points towards 3betting being better. As for t90 vs t100, t100 gets more folds and slightly fewer 4b (but it costs more)--overall I think the equities will run very close, but personally I believe t100 is slightly better (and it's what i use readless in this spot).
Flop is quite close between x/call and cbetting. I prefer cbetting because it's a flop where we get a very high fold % even when we use a small sizing (something ~1/3 of pot is going to work well) and we fold out a lot of equity share--most of his folding range will have 2 overs and almost none of it will have 2 unders to our 7. This allows us to effectively value bet very thin since our sizing is so low, fold % very high, equity when called is decent, and equity vs his folding range isn't massive. Still it's definitely on the thin side so x to bluff catch will definitely be close in equity and on many other textures it will be fine with this type of hand--here tho I prefer betting. Note that once we cbet, we probably fold to almost any raise since it's not a texture that leaves villain with many pure bluffs to raise us with especially if we use a cheap sizing that allows him to call with his marginal holdings rather than raising. Stove a range in this case though, it might be close depending on his sizing, but I'm fairly confident that it's a fold to basically any raise (randoms tend to raise flops with value heavy ranges and all of the value in his range crushes us).
As played x/call turn is fine, but river is a clear x/f given the run out.
Hi CoffeeYay,
As a newbie, I am surprised to see that folding 27s is a "significant mistake" here, but I have read many of your valuable threads and posts and I am curious to learn.
Could you elaborate why this is a mistake readless ?
To my view, hand does not play well postflop, even too weak for a flushdraw, likely to be beaten by higher flush.
Flop will always contain higher cards.
Facing an unknown Villain, why riskinng 3bet PF with such a weak hand to probably fold post flop ?
I can't imagine 2 or 3 barelling bluff vs unknown villain with this hand.
Could you give more details as to why this hand should be played PF ?
Thanks a lot.
PokerPuker
HU Hyper Tilter
Maybe you should watch some coffeeyay´s free videos, where he explains this very well.
Thanks for the advice. I will.
Any particular video you would recommend ?
Cheers
PokerPuker
HU Hyper Tilter
Every one video from coffeeyay is great investment :)
Thanks for reply coffeeyay, Im just not confident if villain will raise the flop with Jx, Imo he will almost always just call my cbet with trips, so his raising range probably consists of 7x, 98,9T,T8 and random bluffs. Against this range we have good equity (40%+). From my experiences, villains very often raise my cbet in 3bet pots...
But yeah, its all about if he has Jx in his raising range on the flop.... .
Can you post your analysis please?
Especially of flatting having better expectation than folding with a hand like 72s.
Cdon check the free vid 20-25bb play or something like that
but basically between 20-25 bb nothing suited should be folded read less( as read less the avg opponent is opening reasonably wide) and nothing with 2 cards over 8 and at these lower levels i definitely prefer 3 betting the bottom of my range than just flatting due to the tightness of the population at the low levels v3bets
also u flop a flush draw approx 10% of time
and the hand plays easy post flop, if you face any aggression its an easy hand to fold
The population I have played against (about 5k games @ $3.5-$15 level) min raises about 46% of hands @ 20-25BB.
They raise about 54% but there are a ton of fish who 3x the top of their range and a lot of players will open jam low pocket pairs as standard.
This min raising range isn't super wide by any means.
I can understand in more reg infested population putting 72s in a readless 3b bluff range, but vs the tight passive players @ micro stakes, its expectation goes down significantly.
What I am not convinced of is that flatting would have better expectation than folding as proposed to be "not even very close" by Coffeeyay.
~ 6% of the time you flop top pair or better => happy times
~ 11% of the time you will be playing your FD aggressively and best case scenario he cbet folds.
~ 9% & 19% of the time you flop 2nd & 3rd pair respectively which will be difficult to realise your equity on OOP without hero calling down.
~ 55% of the time you have flatted preflop to build a pot to lose post flop if you let your hand strength dictate your ranges.
There might be another say 10% of boards you can try to bluff at postflop including using some of the ~ 6% of boards where you have at least a gutshot to a straight plus some randomised bluffs independent of your equity on boards where no one has anything.
Or if villain caps his range you might have opportunities to bluff and take down the pot.
But this is pretty difficult to do OOP.
Vs a min raise we need to call 1BB to see a pot of 4BB on the flop.
So it's easy to see that if the min raise was all we had to call, we should always be calling pre given we probably have about 35% equity vs villain's min raising range.
That said, it's not all that we need to call vs the population tendencies. The population cbets very frequently and barrels a ton vs c/c lines.
Something like flop 70%, turn 50%, river 60%.
Which means that we have to call a lot more than the 1BB to get the weak hands we will make postflop with 72s to showdown to realise the equity we premised our preflop call upon ...
Which means the equity we require, and more importantly the ranges which we plan to partition this hand into on the flop, turn and river vs villain's associated strategies should drive the decision far more so than the raw preflop equity.
28 / 45 ~ 62% of our fundamental playability postflop will unfavourably interact with the population's postflop tendencies.
3b bluffing is significantly better than flatting vs wide openers because they tend to fold too much to 3b.
I completely agree with that.
But readless @ $3.5 level it is a pretty marginal play because their min raising ranges are significantly contracted.
Convince me that flatting has better expectation than folding based on your plan for the rest of the hand?
Cheers,
cdon
From my experiences, on 3.5s readless they fold pretty much to t100 3bet, certailny more than 50%, moreover I would say its something like 66%...
at the 3.5 stakes i found that the players fold way to much to 3 bets especially the passive players as such i can exploit there willingness to fold way to much with these hands. if the villain is capable of, or 4 bet jams alot from the button then i would not be 3 betting this hand but the tight passive players tend to be just that way to tight even with their smaller raising range they simply don't 4 bet jam or call any where near enough i see alot at and over 70% Ft3bet even when they only PFR 55-60% from the button that's a big leak from alot of tight passive players. i am not sure about calling i guess this would matter more on their cbet % but again i am not so sure why it is "not even close" to a fold v a tighter player i am too am curious as to why it is far better to call than fold but i can see why a 3 bet is better at least from my experience.
all that said i do think that i don't need to 3bet bluff someone only raising less than 60% which is close to the pop tendency, however read less the population tendency is to also fold out to 3 bet to much, so read less i would be 3 betting this hand and adjust my ranges as the game progresses to what the villain is actually doing.
i believe that going into a game with the more aggressive 3 bet gives me the opportunity to find and therefore exploit more weaknesses of the population so until i know for sure the player is too tight for a 3 bet here, read less he has not seen me 3 bet so wide and on avg they fold too much when it is read less for us both. its better than just folding and never knowing if villain will fold to 3 bets alot and miss the opportunity to be picking up easy chips when read less.
Bump.
No one can explain why flatting 72s @ 25BB would be better than folding?
I can't, I agree with you about adding this hand into our folding range just to do not appear over agressive and keep our opponent folding, anyway if Im playing this hand obv Im 3bet bluffing, not calling lol.
I'm kind of interested also.
Hello, when I put my key, and appears a start and I can not change, this is my key Product ID D9AA-6C30-93A3-9985-859D-2896-B3DE-4CF3. What can I do?
Regarding 3b bluffing, it's not for preflop fold equity--it mostly exploits too tight ranges on flop and turn. I'm 2 barreling like 80+% of the time. Even vs the population minraise frequency (which you correctly describe cdon) 3b bluffing + barreling is incredibly profitable--to the tune of around 1 SB better than folding with suited hands based on empirical evidence!
With regards to flatting, it's just an issue of computing a capture factor--ie how much you think on average your hand will capture of the flop pot. For example, how often we hit 2p plus how much that wins, plus how much we hit flushdraws and how much that hits, etc. It's a complicated process, but it gives you some idea of how good calling is. In the end if you run this kind of analysis you'll find that it's really hard for a suited hand to get less than 25% capture factor given that flushdraws always capture significant chunks of the pot (usually somewhere between .5 and 1 times the pot) and backdoor flushdraws help with realizing other hands you hit.
This logic makes sense.
Say you capture approx 0.8 of the flop pot based on an assumed cbet call of 30% and winning about 1/3 of the remaining 30% of times villain cbet calls.
That's fine, but when you're flopping a FD 11% of the time, the extent to which it contributes to a "capture factor" is only 0.11 * 0.8 = 0.09
Which means to justify calling a min raise pre, you still need to capture another 0.25 - 0.09 = 0.16 of the flop pot.
If you're playing against a passive "one then done" postflop player, you will be able to get your weak made hands to show down enough that you will be able to make up the differential.
In order to get a better guage of preflop calling expectation you would also need to apply the same "capture factor" to the turn and river wrt villain's turn and river frequencies and how they affect the size of the pot which you need to capture to profit from your call.
I agree, it starts to become very complicated to model ...
I guess what I can imply from you saying you think you can flat such hands is that you perceive the population's turn and river betting ranges to be value oriented ...
So if that assumption holds then the unquantified uncaptured flop pot differential becomes less material.
I think you're both overcomplicating some things and simplying somethings.
Regarding approximating turns, if you directly approximate flop capture factor you don't have to worry about turn play at all--it is already taken into account in your flop valuation. So turn play only matters in approximating the flop capture factor--but here you can just guesstimate a bit more by using equities as a starting point--draws earn more than their equity, weak made hands less, storng made hands more, nuts much more, and go from there. Will Tipton does a great job explaining this kind of stuff in his Vol 2 book.
With regards to understanding turn play, you're actually simplyfing things a bit too much here--most of the time you can call turn with pairs, on rivers vs high bluffers you can still call, you're missing all the times you hit 2p+, and missing times you might turn a flushdraw. On top of that you're missing times when you get to probe because they missed, or x/r bluff on a good board or whatever. So even when you miss flop you're still going to caputure more than 0% of the pot on avg. So you don't need people to not bluff turns rivers, because when they do it too much you can call down lighter and/or make more money with 2p+. Things tend to average out fairly well since you're just not going to be playing against very balanced barreling frequencies--especially at the 3.5s ;)
Likewise, if you map out how your preflop range develops and interacts with villains' tendencies over all 4 streets your preflop decisions already take into account future streets.
You're implicitly differentiating between preflop and postflop play.The notion of a "flop capture factor" which incorporates turn and river frequencies is effectively, modeling your strategy as a 2 street game using simplifying assumptions. Wrt hyper turbos, for practical purposes this would likely be pretty close to the way player's think about the game and therefore suitable for modeling your strategies.
How you want to model the game to practically improve your strategy only matters so much as the marginal complexity added yields a material improvement to your edge over your opponents. That said, theoretically, you're entire strategy: the resultant of your subset [preflop, flop, turn and river strategies] should be designed to explicitly exploit the spots where villain plays with exploitable frequencies.
In order to do this we need to have an idea of how villain plays his entire range on every street. My point was, if we put 72s in a flatting range preflop, we will be conditionally expanding our bluff catcher range on the flop, turn and river. The extent to which this interacts favorably (to the tune of recouping our 0.5BB preflop call plus some) with villains' postflop frequencies is still largely unquantified.
I've recently been running a lot of simulations to build more profitable strategies. I will put this problem on my to do list.