Veteran coach zZzTILT, in addition to producing his latest video pack, has also put together a long sequence of reviews of various players' hand histories ranging from the $15 to $60 levels in hypers. Tonight's video is the first part of this series of reviews, featuring Matt's first nine hand analyses.
For more from Matt, be sure to take a look at his latest premium effort, zZzTILT Presents Crushing Regs: The Way to Beat Tough Opponents, a production of over six hours.
I was the hero here and got a lot out of this.
Especially:
- the comment about villain's flop checking back range containing a lot of Ax / Kx which can often hero call a river pairing card
- couple of spots where a smaller raise might be better vs villain's range
- limped pot leaving too much money behind to jam over w vulnerable top pair
Thanks very much.
On the first hand, at these stakes villains play very straight forwardly vs cbets on A hi boards.
They will tend to only continue vs a cbet here with Ax, 9x, 4x or a FD.
Additionally, many players if have the tendency to
- be scared of the FD when holding Ax and would play it fast by putting it in their c/r range
- play draws passively (c/c rather than c/r)
On the turn, I don't think 9x and 4x continues much without a FD to go with it and I have a blocker to 9x combos so I thought the range villain would continue with was heavily weighted to flushes.
If I bet and get raised I'm in a gross spot.
Whereas if I check back and villain checks to me on the river I can bet for value vs his single pair holdings.
If he leads the river I can call on non spade rivers as long as the ratio of Ax to flushes is high enough (conditional on his 3b jamming range which I likely didn't know much about first hand) and can fold spade rivers assuming people don't bluff those run outs enough.
It seems your advice to barrel the turn is premised on the assumption that villain's continuing range vs a cbet is quite wide here.
But I don't think it is and I think villains' tendency to play straight forwardly on this flop conditionally reduces the ratio of villain's turn continuing range vs a barrel which we're ahead of.
I think we have to bet fold the turn and have to fold to a river donk if called on the turn.
Whereas, I think weak single pair hands are more inclined to bluff catch vs a bet check bet line than they are to call a 2barrel here so we do better vs them by checking back the turn.
Am I being too nitty?
Or assuming villain plays more straight forwardly than the I should expect the population to?
Cheers,
cdon
Hi,
"Am I being too nitty?
Or assuming villain plays more straight forwardly than the I should expect the population to? "
I guess both. ;)
From my personal experience and the hands I see in coaching sessions people tend to c/c any pair, draws and any two broadway cards often times in this spot and most people don't like to fold pairs on the turn and sometimes even not on the river. Also a lot of of those KJ,KT,QT type hands pick up either a flushdraw or a pair with the Ten, so it's really a must barrel with two pair on the turn.
Against a passive opponent / standard weak player I would b/c turn against a jam but fold vs a c/minraise as I expect this range to pretty nutty. If he would donkjam the river, a fold would probably be best aswell. But most of the time he will just call you down with a weaker hand if you bet/bet/jam.
Hope that helps.
Cheers
Matt
I'm very impressed with how clearly and succinctly you can explain your thought process.
I agree with the conclusion you came to given the assumptions you made about villain's flop continuing range.
But I don't have as strong conviction as you do that they are correct => maybe I'm a lolbad nitfish :(
If villain calls the flop as wide as you suggest, I agree the turn is a clear 2barrel.
I'm struggling to give villain such a wide flop continuing range on this board.
I think it's a bit of a far cry to expect hands like QT to call here with Q hi + BD draws.
If it was ATx tt instead of A9x tt I would 100% agree with you.
The gap between the cards on the flop significantly decrease the amount of gutshot combos which would likely peel and so I feel like 2barrelling the turn is quite thin.
But maybe there are a lot more K hi combos which do continue, increasing the amount of combos which can pick up equity on the turn and hence the value of 2barreling.
Or are you also assuming that in villain's position this would be a good spot for him to peel with overcards to the 9 because he would perceive that I would be barreling often on them? (I usually don't think beyond level 2 because most of my opponents are on level 1-1.5)
One of things I struggle with is objectively separating my thinking from the way my opponent thinks.
For example, your turn comments about the way typically c/r NAI and c/r jam villain ranges are very different ranges.
I would hesitate to ever make a c/r NAI because it doesn't credibly represent any bluffs and conditionally weakens the other lines I take in that spot if I put all my nutty holdings in that range.
So my approach would be to partition the top of my range into either my c/c or c/r jam range. That is, I would prefer to take less discrete lines, but make each less transparent to play against.
If I project this thinking onto my opponent it means my assumption is that when he takes a non c/r NAI line (eg. c/c or c.r jam), I assume that he doesn't c/r NAI anyway. So his c/c and c/r jamming ranges are conditionally strengthened.
But I agree with bet calling the turn vs c/r jam because I expect he will put his Ax or pair + draw combos in that range.
Do you have any tips for getting better at building an opponent model without projecting your own cognitive biases onto your working assumptions?
It seems like your strategy recommendations are designed to explicitly exploit tendencies you have identified about how people tend to play their various holdings on different boards.
Did you identify them heuristically through experience or did you reconcile raw hand distribution frequencies with the frequencies with which people take various lines?
I feel somewhat competent at designing exploitative ranges / strategies, but feel like my information collection & integration to build accurate opponent working assumptions + on the fly adjustments is quite weak. Would really appreciate some feedback on how you developed this part of your game?
Thanks again for your time.
I hope you're making lots of video sales :)