Does this turn 2barrel jam get enough folds to be profitable?
I think villain has a lot of Jx or Tx when he flats the cbet in 3b pot.
No Limit Holdem Tournament • 2 Players
$14.69+$0.31
Hand converted by the official HUSNG.com hand converter
| SB | wibescu | 540 | |
| BB | Hero | 460 |
Effective Stacks: 23bb
Blinds 10/20
Pre-Flop (30, 2 players)
Hero is BB
wibescu raises to 40, Hero raises to 100, wibescu calls 60
Flop (200, 2 players)
Hero bets 80, wibescu calls 80
Turn (360, 2 players)
Hero goes all-in 280, wibescu folds
Final Pot: 360
Hero wins 640 ( won +180 )
wibescu lost -180
Readless as this hand is, I doubt that the 3bet itself is profitable.
Hi.
Can you explain what you mean please?
pot before 3b = 10 + 20 + 30 = 60
3b 100
EV(bluff) = f * (60+100) - 100
to breakeven on pure fold equity of light 3b villain needs to fold
f = 100 / (160) = 62.5% of time
=> or continue > 37.5% of time
+ I also have some equity when called
top 37.5% of hands looks something like:
[AA-22,AxKx-Ax2x,AxKy-Ax3y,KxQx-Kx2x,KxQy-Kx8y,QxJx-Qx5x,QxJy-Qx9y,JxTx-Jx7x,JxTy,Jx9y,Tx9x-Tx7x,Tx9y,9x8x,9x7x,8x7x]
I don't think most villain's are continuing (either 4b jamming or calling) with this many hands.
So I think the 3b is profitable.
You mention nothing about the opponents opening ranges, therefore I am not asuming that he is openraising a 100% range, because this would be pretty unusual for 'unknown' players.
On the flop you asume that he might hold Tx, yet you tell that a range where 8x7x is the 'bottom' unlikely to continue therefore and therefore asum that he is more unlikely to hold 8x7x then Tx2y.
Hi.
Sorry I should have mentioned he had minraised 4/4 buttons at this stage.
Q3 is a horrible hand to 3bet NAI. against someone who is opening a lot on the button, it´s a really good hand to 3bet shove though. if villain is opening tight, just fold it.
Why would you prefer to 3b jam it over NAI 3b?
Is it because we are often dominated by a NAI 3b flatting range?
I would be more inclined to 3b jam Q3s rather than Q3o as a light 3b vs a very wide button opener because the additional equity when called is pretty significant.
I take it the cbet and turn jam decisions don't matter so much because I wouldn't be making them if I 3b jam or fold pre?
Q3s is of course far better to jam, no question about that.
i don´t like to 3bet NAI, because many villains are pretty loose when it comes to calling these, but rather tight when callin a shove. Q3o is a mere bluff and as a bluff i´d rather 3bet a hand that has no high card value at all, like 84o. the main reason you already mentioned: Q3o is dominated by a lot of villain´s calling range and we can´t confidently stack off on a Qhigh board.
i am not so sure about your postflop decisions. it somehow feels awkward for villain to call the flop and fold the turn on that board. he actually should make the decision to stack off on the flop. calling a Jack and folding it on the turn is just bizarre. or calling a gutshot and folding the turn. he should decide on the flop if he wants to go with his hand or not, so i am maybe a little more inclined to fold here.
cheers
s.
If I was going to add to my 3b bluff jamming range I would probably make it hands like 9x8x.
They have a lot better equity when called than stuff like Qx3x and because it will be in a bigger pot when called we prefer to be less of a dog.
(that said, villain needs to be opening very wide to make 9x8x a 3b jam rather than a call because it plays so well flatted too)
NAI 3b bluffing I think most players play too tight.
Especially players who open every button.
They have very imbalanced continuing ranges vs 3b => most players I've encountered tighten up and don't have 4b bluffing ranges.
Which we can exploit by light 3b.
A hand like Qx3y is going to be at the top of our folding range, or bottom of our flatting range so its a good hand to add to our 3b bluffing range.
Additionally the Q acts as a blocker to villain's continuing range, increasing our fold equity when we 3b.
At a guess, most villains tighten up vs 3b such that they will have a continuing range of something like:
- 4b jams: value range good Ax + PP + some KQ stuff
- flats: middling, mostly suited stuff that they feel like they can flat in position with good speculative hands which benefit from implied value + some of their monsters like AA & KK
From what I've seen I'd estimate villains typically continue with something like:
[AA-22,AK-A8,KQ-KT,QJ-QT,JT,Ax7x-Ax6x,Kx9x-Kx7x,Qx9x,Jx9x,Tx9x,9x8x,8x7x]
Note that this is only about 23% of hands.
So if villain is opening every button, we can profitably 3b any two cards (req folds of 37.5%).
Note we can find how often villain has one of his continuing range using propokertools query:
select count(inRange(PLAYER_2,'AA-22,AK-A8,KQ-KT,QJ-QT,JT,Ax7x-Ax6x,Kx9x-Kx7x,Qx9x,Jx9x,Tx9x,9x8x,8x7x')) /* How often PLAYER_2 match hand range AA-22,AK-A8,KQ-KT,QJ-QT,JT,Ax7x-Ax6x,Kx9x-Kx7x,Qx9x,Jx9x,Tx9x,9x8x,8x7x */ as COUNT1
from game='holdem', syntax='Generic',
PLAYER_1='Qx3x',
PLAYER_2='**'
With Qx3y, villain holds his assumed continuing range 23.5% of the time.
With 8x4y, villain holds his assumed continuing range 24.2% of the time.
There is a small blocker effect of about 0.7%.
What does this mean for our expectation of 3b bluffing vs a 100% button opener who continues with the above range?
fold equity(bluff w Qx3y) = 0.765 * (3 + 5) - 5 = 1.12 BB
fold equity(bluff w 8x4y) = 0.758 * (3+ 5) - 5 = 1.064 BB
Pure fold equity, Qx3y is 0.056 BB / hand better than 8x4y to 3b bluff.
+ Any high card value we have w Qx will rarely be realised due to villain's high cbet frequency
+ If we flat and hit top pair vs a dominated Qx what's the difference between a single raised pot and a 3b pot? We are at a lower SPR so it would be mathematically more correct to stack off in the 3b pot. (I understand that we have narrowed villain's range to more dominating holdings so it happens more often as a % of his entire range, but it doesn't affect the raw % of times villain simply starts with a dominating holding). So does it materially matter in the case where we are comparing flatting pre and 3b bluffing ?
My preflop 3b here was largely motivated by the fact that villain had opened all of his buttons so far in the game. But was playing somewhat tighter OOP. I was getting a reggy feel from him so figured he would be tight vs a light 3b.
When the flop came AJT r, I can represent the A easily but was concerned that the J and T do hit villains 3b NAI flatting range quite hard.
The decision to jam the turn was tough for me but I figured he would find calling off with a J here pretty tough when so much of my perceived 3b range would be Ax or better (even KQ has a straight). Villain timed down and eventually folded so I suspect he had Jx.
The sensitivity around villain's opening range is tough to guage at the table.
But if we give villain a static continuing range vs a NAI 3b as described above of 23% then we can see how often he is continuing as a subset of various arbitrary opening ranges:
Open
Cont / Open
100%
23%
80%
29%
60%
38%
40%
58%
Notice, that until he reduces his opening frequency to ~ 60%, if he is only continuing with the static assumed range, we can profit by 3b any two cards from the pure fold equity. That is, at an opening frequency of 60%, his 23% continuing frequency becomes unexploitable with respect to how often we need folds from pure fold equity.
I am very interested to hear why you would prefer to 3b NAI bluff 84o over Q3o?
And your thoughts about the average villain's continuing range vs NAI 3b?
Your overall equity is a result of your preflop (foldequity) and your postflop equity. If you surrendered your hand every time postflop and would invest no more chips, the hand might be profitable due to preflop equity alone. But you don't do that, you try to bluff him off his hand and this will influence your postflop equity, which now will increase or decrease and therefore change the final result. If you do it wrong, your postflop equity could be so bad that your overall equity goes into the negative numbers.
Hi.
I think Q3os is a very nice hand to make a non all-in 3-bet against a frequent opener and winning player (which he is). This hand plays not so great out of position and I think the expectations are better when you 3-bet this. Why would you shove these hand? I do not think you get that much more folds than if you 3-bet this against a regular and I do not think you should start 3-bet shoving these kind of hands. His calling range after shoves will dominate you pretty hard. The point of this hands is to make advantage of his wide range and start to 3-bet non all-in with hands that play poorly out of position. Basically you do a 3-bet non all-in because the hand plays poorly out of position and you want to put more pressure on his wide range. Also you will get a lot of credit after the flop, which is also a good point of this hand because you will hit not only some high boards but also some low boards.
I did not like your turn move by the way. I do not believe you will get folds enough on these kind of boards. Especially because a lot of regulars like to call with there weak aces and some middle hands.
LVT
two times
LVT
At first look I thought the ev between checking and betting turn was close so i ran a simulation of the hand to check the ev of both plays. Id rather just fold this preflop but once you 3bet nai to t100 your gona have to show some heart to win the pot.
Villian shouldnt have a hand to call your jam enough of the time to justify your play on this board. Hes going to have a lot of bottom pair or gutshot type hands that has to fold to that turn card once he doesnt improve as it looks like your just shoving to protect and not as a total bluff, only the biggest of calling stations should call here with 10 x and all gutshots should fold. The expectation on the turn is close between checking and betting with betting half pot showing slightly better expectation than shoving ( +2.18 vs +2.27) . I guess the fold equity of both is almost the same vs the type of hands we expect villian to fold and we save some chips the time he calls and we save ourselves some chips.
Also 3bet shoving q3 offsuit for 23bbs is defs a no no , there is a lot better hands to 3bet shove in hypers as bluffs that have better equity when called.
Thanks for your analyse on the turn, I really thought it was a check. I am always a bit carefull on the turn after a 3-bet and c-bet, exspecially on these board. I have a question, would you fold this hand when villain is min-raising between 70 and 80% and is a winning regular? I think you can basically 3-bet any bad hand against him. Maybe I would even 3-bet 2-3os when his min-raise is steady above 80%. Or is this to crazy. I tend to 3-bet these 80% min-raise regulars like crazy with a very polar range.
LVT
Yeah and sometimes you are right to think like that, there are some boards were we will just be cbetting and not putting another chip in the pot when bluffing. This board is different though as it hits our percieved 3betting range and villians range is pretty capped at 10x or gutshots and have to fold to a 2nd barrel.
Yeah i would fold this to a minraise, we are only playing top pair with the queen as when 3x hits the flop there is gona be overcards so we will put ourselves in a position we are facing barrels with bottom pair, also when we flop Queens sometimes we are gona be outkickered, so i just prefer to fold this and most charts will show q 3 as a fold to a minraise in hypers. Q3 suited though will show flatting and 3betting to be more profitable than folding though.
I like you have a polar 3bet range but I think you should change your bluff ranges to suited hands, when you get checkraised after 3betting pre with 2 3 offsuit and flop nothing theres nothing you can really do, when you have a hand like q3 suited and flop is 9 34 with 2 diamonds and get checkraised you can just shove over expecting fold equity and when your called your hand is a flip or sometimes favourite vs most of villians range.
In saying that vs some players 3betting any 2 cards will be profitable if villian folds to 3bets a ton or when calls just plays fit or fold on the flop vs a small cbet, but vs players that will 4bet shove or call and float your cbets or checkraise frequently and in general contest the pot more I think there are better adjustments to beat those kind of regs.
Thank-you very much for your explanation. I am going to think a bit more about my range against regulars. Especially at higher BI this is going to be of vital importance as good players will counter way more.
LVT
Thanks for your comments guys.
Really helpful feedback for thinking about the preflop and postflop decisions.
Much appreciated :)