This is a conversation I had on AIM with husng.com owner ChicagoRy/Rypac. Talking strategy with other thinking players is a great way to check-up on your game and challenge your thought process. It seems you guys are doing that a good amount on Skype already, but most importantly I just wanted to show you that I still do it quite a bit myself - and don't plan to ever stop. It keeps me sharp.
Also, I think there is a lot of interesting stuff in this convo...so thats +ev too! These hands will take place in my upcoming video.
HokieGreg HU
(3:30:05 PM):
heyHokieGreg HU (3:30:18 PM): want your opinion on a hand if u have as ec
HokieGreg HU (3:30:20 PM): for vid
RyPac (3:31:50 PM): sure
HokieGreg HU (3:32:24 PM): k limped pot 700 stx i have K3, flop is KJ8hh i lead 40 into 60 villain calls
HokieGreg HU (3:32:34 PM): turn 8 i barrel 90 villain calls
HokieGreg HU (3:32:55 PM): so pot is 320, remaining eff stx are about 570
HokieGreg HU (3:32:57 PM): river is K
HokieGreg HU (3:33:05 PM): so tons of missed flush and straight draws
HokieGreg HU (3:33:14 PM): relatively readless on villains vbetting tendancies
HokieGreg HU (3:33:20 PM): i think check/shoving is pretty clearly the best
HokieGreg HU (3:33:25 PM): to allow missed draws to bluff
HokieGreg HU (3:33:34 PM): 8X to always vbet and JX to vbet a good amount
HokieGreg HU (3:33:57 PM): i think even if villains check back JX some its probably still best to check/shove bc missed draws will bluff so often
RyPac (3:34:46 PM): i think even if he 100% checks Jx it can still be correct to check (the variable would be how often he has draw type hands that take this line and how often he'll bluff them, prolly more so how often he has them bc most ppl bluff them a fair amount when they show up w them a lot)
RyPac (3:35:01 PM): so if you're not sure what Jx does i really think it's clearly a check
HokieGreg HU (3:35:03 PM): ya i mean i think on tihs board he shouldhave all of them almost
RyPac (3:35:11 PM): if you somehow knew Jx 100% checks i'd look at the bluff play
HokieGreg HU (3:35:11 PM): would be a wierd board to spaz-raise most draws limped
HokieGreg HU (3:35:16 PM): since nothing has overs
RyPac (3:35:27 PM): ye ai mean like some ppl play some draws aggressively, some ppl are insane weak to doubles w draws, but yea i think usually you're checking that river
HokieGreg HU (3:35:37 PM): i think its interesting bc most people autopilot bet river huge bc they has a full house
HokieGreg HU (3:35:54 PM): also
RyPac (3:36:04 PM): it can definitely be a huge difference i would estimate too
HokieGreg HU (3:36:07 PM): i c/r bluffed a frequent cbettor with Q9d on A32dd
HokieGreg HU (3:36:18 PM): i basically got caught bluffing had to c/f river
HokieGreg HU (3:36:29 PM): next time oop i c/r semibluff J52 with A3 same villain
HokieGreg HU (3:36:46 PM): my argument is basically, even tho i just got caught his cbet frequency is so high that he cant have hands often enough to continue
HokieGreg HU (3:36:54 PM): and most people are afraid to play back at a 2nd c/r
HokieGreg HU (3:37:31 PM): its a fun game, im super active in and look borderline spewy in a lot of ways so thats sweet
RyPac (3:38:27 PM): oh yea, i think if you had not semi bluffed there it would likely be you putting too much weight into "i did this last time, this time i can't do it again" or whatever
RyPac (3:38:38 PM): an outleveling mistake over a fundamental +EV math problem
HokieGreg HU (3:38:44 PM): ya
HokieGreg HU (3:38:58 PM): villain still has to have a hand to continue
RyPac (3:39:00 PM): it's like not 3bet bluff shoving 2x in a row vs a 100% raiser at 15bb, you should definitely 3bet bluff 2x in a row in spots there
HokieGreg HU (3:39:09 PM): and when he raises like 80% and cbets 100% on a dry board, he cant continue enough no matter what
HokieGreg HU (3:39:16 PM): ya
RyPac (3:39:24 PM): yes, and theoretically he can go crazy in your example and rebluff
RyPac (3:39:27 PM): but, we both know that rarely happens
HokieGreg HU (3:39:37 PM): it just feels lame bc i end up checking turns in both hands and c/f river
HokieGreg HU (3:39:47 PM): but turn on A32dd was a 9 so i picked up sd value
HokieGreg HU (3:39:56 PM): river was 4 i c/f to a big bet
HokieGreg HU (3:40:04 PM): and on J52 turn was a 5 which is worst card int he deck really
HokieGreg HU (3:40:07 PM): so i c/f turn
RyPac (3:40:27 PM): i feel better about those runs these days, i mean if you back up your decision making objectively, you're bound to lose 8 hands in a row sometimes or play 7/10 hands passively in a rare stretch
RyPac (3:40:30 PM): yea both of that makes sense
HokieGreg HU (3:40:29 PM): actually pretty interesting hands tho bc i think a lot of people make a lot of diff mistakes in them
RyPac (3:40:34 PM): 5 is brutal
RyPac (3:40:48 PM): and 9 is only a bet vs a very loose passive player i'd say
HokieGreg HU (3:40:49 PM): like i didnt c/r J52 bc barreling any turn was +ev
RyPac (3:40:57 PM): (or at least a loose player that only fastplays very strong hands)
HokieGreg HU (3:40:58 PM): i c/r bc he cant continue flop enough and i have eqiuty
HokieGreg HU (3:41:16 PM): same thoguht process when you 3bet bluff pre vs a tight caller with 74s and flop si QJ9, ur better off just c/f
HokieGreg HU (3:41:38 PM): alright cool thx
RyPac (3:41:55 PM): i agree completely
RyPac (3:42:13 PM): you can't fall into the fallacy of results when the reason you made the decision has already happened
HokieGreg HU (3:42:18 PM): ya
HokieGreg HU (3:43:07 PM): i flatted A9cc oop and flop was Q55cc, villain cbets 40 into 80
HokieGreg HU (3:43:21 PM): a lot of times ill donk that flop to bet/3bet bc a lot of guys will bluffraise
HokieGreg HU (3:43:34 PM): but this guy cbets a ton and i thought he might level himself and spew whne i c/r a board like that
HokieGreg HU (3:43:41 PM): so i c/r to 130
HokieGreg HU (3:44:26 PM): what do you tihnk of size? sets up pot of like 300 and stacks of 1300 on turn so seems fine to me...i think there is a decent amount of value in knowing that QX will play passively, 5x will slowplay a lot, and i dominate a ton of flush draw combos
HokieGreg HU (3:44:49 PM): so even tho i dont do that great vs a get it in range on the flop, i think i just dont get 3bet that often at all by most peopole
HokieGreg HU (3:45:05 PM): and i think the times i do get 3bet its going to be weighted to bluffs a good bit
RyPac (3:46:11 PM): if you don't know about his barrel tendencies i like CR and size, it's a size that gets rebluffed prolly near max (compared to say 160 or 100 or something... like 100 may get bluffed more but not much more to go down that small imo)
RyPac (3:46:26 PM): so combination of good size + max chances of rebluff seem good there
RyPac (3:46:42 PM): the smaller CR sizes i think are better when stacks are shorter when you want to induce
RyPac (3:46:55 PM): it seems deeper most players react similarly to 2.5 or 3x type sizings i'd say
HokieGreg HU (3:46:55 PM): def
HokieGreg HU (3:47:29 PM): ya like on a K52 board if i flat K9 oop at like 900 stx, villain cbets 100 i'll c/r to like 230
HokieGreg HU (3:47:35 PM): really small
RyPac (3:48:21 PM): yea, but like first level even to induce you wouldn't CR a 60 chip bet into 120 to 130, prolly closer to 160-210 range for most situations
RyPac (3:48:39 PM): good stuff
HokieGreg HU (3:48:42 PM): ya def not
HokieGreg HU (3:48:44 PM): one more
HokieGreg HU (3:48:58 PM): i cbet Q5 on KQJss villain calls, chk/chk 7 turn
HokieGreg HU (3:49:02 PM): river 9 villain checks
HokieGreg HU (3:49:27 PM): hes thinking player enough to have a somewhat transparent range, but not thinking enough to hero handread that well
HokieGreg HU (3:49:33 PM): i overbet shoved 725 into 240
HokieGreg HU (3:49:37 PM): needs to work 74%
HokieGreg HU (3:50:01 PM): i just dont think that people check a T ever after a check/check turn, and i tihnk most people will vbet there 2 pair combinations at least some size
HokieGreg HU (3:50:13 PM): and it puts his KX/2pairs in a ridiculous spot to call
HokieGreg HU (3:50:28 PM): just not sure if i risked too much
RyPac (3:50:31 PM): yea against described villain i think they find a fold easier than others for sure
RyPac (3:50:38 PM): 74% seems reasonable on first glance
RyPac (3:50:49 PM): especially if he doesn't take a year to check
HokieGreg HU (3:50:53 PM): ya i think so
HokieGreg HU (3:51:02 PM): damn, lots of interesting spots
RyPac (3:51:23 PM): like taking a long time to check i think weights more towards 2 pair and straight (not solely, but increases chances of those holdings which is bad)
RyPac (3:51:33 PM): maybe that's too thin
HokieGreg HU (3:51:41 PM): ya i mean i do have QX too
RyPac (3:51:51 PM): i mean my observation could be too thin on the timing
HokieGreg HU (3:51:51 PM): but i think hes going to show up with better a lot
RyPac (3:51:59 PM): i think your play is good still though vs described villain
HokieGreg HU (3:52:10 PM): like i wouldnt jam AQ
RyPac (3:52:13 PM): like i wouldn't make that play on a really good player or plenty of bad types of players
RyPac (3:52:22 PM): but vs your standard mid stakes reg or marginal HS reg that makes sense to me
HokieGreg HU (3:52:30 PM): so Q with a kicker that doesnt play is best i'd turn into a bluff basically
HokieGreg HU (3:52:31 PM): ya
HokieGreg HU (3:52:33 PM): cool
RyPac (3:52:36 PM): it works even better if they don't really know you though
HokieGreg HU (3:52:40 PM): ya def
RyPac (3:52:42 PM): bc i think ppl find folds much easier then
HokieGreg HU (3:53:33 PM): but also, like mers says with obetting is nash eq, if im playing a thinking player who knows me i can jam 50% bluffs and 50% value there and they should be indifferent between calling/folding
HokieGreg HU (3:53:45 PM): and they will likely call way too often eventaully and i can just weight my range way more to value
HokieGreg HU (3:53:47 PM): adn thinner value
HokieGreg HU (3:54:29 PM): actually my numbers are wrong but w/e
RyPac (3:54:41 PM): i know waht you mean
RyPac (3:54:46 PM): that's the pefect situation and where poker is headed
RyPac (3:54:48 PM): little trap games like that
HokieGreg HU (3:54:51 PM): if villain needs to be right 45% of the time on his call
HokieGreg HU (3:55:02 PM): then 55% of my range or more should be value
HokieGreg HU (3:55:03 PM): right?
RyPac (3:55:15 PM): 55% of your range or more should beat him yea
HokieGreg HU (3:55:37 PM): ya, thats the whole point of his article right, it was really over my head at the time
RyPac (3:55:42 PM): or you should have 55%+ equity when he calls you with your range
RyPac (3:55:49 PM): (which on the river means what i said the first time)
HokieGreg HU (3:55:51 PM): right
RyPac (3:55:52 PM): since you're 100% or 0
RyPac (3:56:03 PM): yea i'm pretty sure it is, and that's something skates used to talk about a ton
RyPac (3:56:15 PM): i'd bel ike "what the hell are you doing doubling that bottom pair or K hi"
RyPac (3:56:34 PM): and he'd say something like "he can't really win unless he does x, and he'll never do x, i'm automatically making money here"
RyPac (3:56:46 PM): he said that's what skilled did so well for awhile
HokieGreg HU (3:57:13 PM): vs some thinking players, when i cbet a 3bet pot flop with KQcc on 962cc they flat - turn is 7c pot is like 1100 stacks are 700, i am checking turn a ton now
RyPac(3:57:16 PM): just barreling really good frequencies that take very hard adjustments to be correct (and later said heybude did that too, just made it really tough to play correctly vs him bc his ranges were so good and hard to adjust to)
HokieGreg HU (3:57:32 PM): bc even tho it sets up bad stacks it underrreps me so much that they either spaz on turn to protect or they levle themselves on river when i rep nothing
HokieGreg HU (3:57:49 PM): bc if i bet like 320 on turn they just know its never a bluff
HokieGreg HU (3:58:28 PM): and i have an overbet shove leading range too which would be like big hands that need to protect equity + strong draws so like Ac or KcT on that board or something
HokieGreg HU (3:58:40 PM): but i either overbet shove or check basically
HokieGreg HU (3:58:50 PM): a lot harder to deal with imo
RyPac (3:59:58 PM): yea it'll drive people nuts
RyPac (4:00:05 PM): i think that deserves a lot more exploration
RyPac (4:00:19 PM): it starts to push the math side of it a bit, bc it's not just finding out profitable spots to do it
RyPac (4:00:22 PM): it's comparing that to other lines
HokieGreg HU (4:00:29 PM): ya
RyPac (4:00:35 PM): and that gets complex fast when you talk about ranges and sizing and frequency and uncertainty in villain's range
HokieGreg HU (4:00:41 PM): its just a spot where i dont have a bet/folding range
HokieGreg HU (4:00:42 PM): so im not capable
HokieGreg HU (4:01:01 PM): wihch makes my leading range of 320 kind of easy to play
HokieGreg HU (4:01:55 PM): also if i c/r at <20ish stacks on a wet board i just check/shove if im playing a thinking player with a tight cbet range on a wet board
RyPac (4:01:56 PM): yea you shouldn't have a turn bluff range there vs most villains though right?
HokieGreg HU (4:02:00 PM): bc i dont have a c/r bluffing range and they know it
RyPac(4:02:05 PM): i mean most villains won't float enough flop hands that will fold turn
HokieGreg HU (4:02:07 PM): ya i wouldnt bluff there
HokieGreg HU (4:03:42 PM): pretty intersting stuff imo
HokieGreg HU (4:03:49 PM): amazing how husngs have changed the past few years
HokieGreg HU (3:48:58 PM): i cbet Q5 on KQJss villain calls, chk/chk 7 turnHokieGreg HU (3:49:02 PM): river 9 villain checksHokieGreg HU (3:49:27 PM): hes thinking player enough to have a somewhat transparent range, but not thinking enough to hero handread that wellHokieGreg HU (3:49:33 PM): i overbet shoved 725 into 240HokieGreg HU (3:49:37 PM): needs to work 74%I like the shove because of the overbet equilibrium thing but who cares how often it needs to work ? If you´re checking behind and winning 80% of showdowns anyway a shove that turns your hand into a bluff should not be just +ev(since checking back is too) but bluff out hands that are ahead of you too or create a better dynamic. Since you explained it well afterwards i´m not trying to teach you but i though some1 else might read this and start doing stuff like that in the wrong spots just because it gives enough Foldequity. HokieGreg HU (3:36:46 PM): my argument is basically, even tho i just got caught his cbet frequency is so high that he cant have hands often enough to continueHokieGreg HU (3:36:54 PM): and most people are afraid to play back at a 2nd c/r the second part is something i have been thinking about a lot lately. The general populations seems to have reached a point where everybody expects his opponent to go batshitcrazymonkeytilt everytime he(the opponent) loses a big pot and people who open a 100% or defend 90% tend to fold after they won big pots because they think i might tilt shove or something...So instead of doing the same i started opening up my ranges in those spots because i feel like they are a lot more honest, when they think people suspect they might be on tilt.To sum it up: I feel like the population has reached level 2 and we have to move forward to level 3 in those spots.
Definitely, against some players, especially what I like to call "light thinking players" (players that kind of follow their own style and strategy, but it's a winning strategy), you'll find spots like that where they just narrow their ranges to such an extreme that it truly is +EV to shove ATC or do something that a tilted opponent would only likely do.There's also the fallacy of "I'll just get it in when I have a good hand" at play. Just make sure you exploit that fallacy by taking advantage of fold equity with a maximum amount of hands. For example, if an opponent is minraising a wide range of hands but waits for a stronger hand than usual to get it in (usually while having a lead/just winning a big pot), you wouldn't just bluff a few hands, you would bluff a lot of hands, perhaps as much as any two. So my point is just to make sure you get the most out of situations where your opponent is so extremely tight/weak, they are giving up a lot of prospective value.And the above is fairly specific, I personally call much lighter after winning a big pot, the average opponent still tilts/gets it in light I feel.
So do you mean that after villian won a pot/have the lead, that he is gonna tighten up?I feel the opposite. I feel like they play back more as if they where in the flow.
Thats what i was trying to say mostly yes. Its not just a random pot or about the lead though. its more about big pots that induce frustration in some1. Like if you c/r flop,barrel turn and have to check/fold river. That kind of stuff. Maybe its an ipoker thing though..
"So do you mean that after villian won a pot/have the lead, that he is gonna tighten up?I feel the opposite. I feel like they play back more as if they where in the flow."It of course varies from person to person, but I absolutely think that aside from maniacs, the average opponent will play more aggressively when they have just lost a big pot than when they have just won one (and even when having a lead vs not having a lead).You see a ton of posts on big forums about "protecting the lead" and "having trouble finishing him off, he just gets aggro and I never get a hand" and I think that those types of fallacitical thinking (I'm not sure of fallacitical is a word) really point towards a larger trend.I can't remember hearing anybody say that they tighten up and wait for a hand when they are losing.Plus tilt doesn't inspire tightening up, and players tilt way more often when they are losing. Desperation, emotions, etc. set in when you lose at a much higher frequency than when you win ("you" means average player in this context).
Ya, now it all makes sence. Thanks for clearing that up.Do you think people tend to tilt in ST aswell, or just in reg speeds? :)
People tilt in STs too. There's a difference there, but I can't quite put my finger on it right now.
the second part is something i have been thinking about a lot lately. The general populations seems to have reached a point where everybody expects his opponent to go batshitcrazymonkeytilt everytime he(the opponent) loses a big pot and people who open a 100% or defend 90% tend to fold after they won big pots because they think i might tilt shove or something...So instead of doing the same i started opening up my ranges in those spots because i feel like they are a lot more honest, when they think people suspect they might be on tilt.To sum it up: I feel like the population has reached level 2 and we have to move forward to level 3 in those spots.i think this is a brillaint way of explaining this. i agree completely.
People tilt in STs too. There's a difference there, but I can't quite put my finger on it right now.I would say this:In reg speeds/turbos - people tilt more postflop with deeper stacksIn Super Turbos - people do more of their tilting preflop with spitecalls/openjamming/wide 3bet shoving.