victorbynite

Thank you, all.

Hello,

I have not posted on RIO for ages, for the following reason: I have been busy by a career change, which finished almost one year ago and, since then, I am a dealer at a gambling club in Paris, where I deal games such as blackjack parisian style, Punto Banco, Ultimate poker and also poker, both in Hold’em and 4-card Omaha (the only variants now allowed in gambling clubs in Paris, like in casinos in France), both in cash game and tournaments. Because of my new job (which I love), I have had much less time to grind (even though it is less true with the current quarantine, the French authorities having ordered casinos and gambling clubs to close).

Hello,

PF, with 98s, this is a basic fold UTG. If you want to open UTG with 98s, make sure all players IP are nit and/or there is at least one recreational player in the blinds. And, unless some particular readings or notes taken about similar situations, I do not think a reg defends a large range on the BB vs UTG: always remember that you are representing a strong range when opening UTG, therefore a reg on the BB will nitify the defending range, particularly at Zoom tables. I see the following defending range : { 99-22, AQs-AJs, AQo-AJo, KQs }, maybe { JJ-TT, ATs, KJs, KQo, QJs, JTs }.

As played flop, thinking of my hand versus the villain’s range, I would check, since the villain has the range advantage; thinking of my range versus the villain’s one, I would c-bet lower (1/3 pot), since I have QQ, AQ and KQs in my range and the board is pretty dry.

As played turn, once we are called, I would check back and take my free card.

Generally, before considering sending three barrels in bluff, ask yourself: which better hands than yours do you want the villain to fold? And before overbetting, think of the villain’s range and ask yourself: is the villain’s range capped? is the villain scary? can I make pressure on parts of the range such as a second pair or lower? And don’t you think the villain has something strong enough to call you twice and may make a hero call on the river with a club used as a blocker, all the more as you do not block any bluff catcher?

In other words, I am afraid you committed a bluff which is too sophiscated for micro-stakes. I do not say you must never bluff in micro-stakes, but micro-stakes, IMHO, are not the best ones to make triple barrels in bluff.

Hello,

Do you have any information about the villain? Is the villain a passive recreational or a solid player with leaks?

PF, nothing to say.

As played flop, I would c-bet higher (at least 2/3 pot) since we do not block any FDs and want to value Jx such as KJs, QJs or J9s+, and hands such as A5s which can call at least once.

As played turn, I think it depends on the villain. Of course, FDs have hit; but, we still have hands to value such as Adx and Kdx with one diamond and maybe some AQ and KQ. The problem is we do not have FE and a c-bet OTT has rather to be an overbet, especially if the villain can be scary or is a passive recreational (versus a passive recreational you can play the Q as a scare card).

As played river, since you checked OTT, your 1/2 pot bet is fine to seek any Qx, maybe TT-66. If you had c-bet OTT, since we do not have a hand to send three barrels with, we would X / C many bets from the villain (until 1/2 pot undoubtedly, a higher bet depending on the hand equity versus the range), in which case we let the villain save some missed draws and Qx without any diamond.

Some Flopzilla (in case of a solid player with leaks):

[Flopzilla v1.8.4] [Use Ctrl+I to import into Flopzilla] [www.flopzilla.com ] [JBOTwd1UoJEHVyo5sFHmgK83iWHgk99qld2tnNeEx1DMqlCMTK] [OoQeV5byyzRJ+5522AiF9EeoDJlbInFwujlXSRsqTRMvMGLlxc] [CmwFNCttDzTIOMjPlhP1c2Hah2Tr0uGUVTmNYzzcm5o2DVBktJ] [mKWq9+K3AbLutwo04KKQBMaV7sMWIcfSsY19OcSVDBj39xYn2k] [H3feuU4PWJE5H+31IkG8Bes3sv5CzzNnhKbmeJ2piFogobsKFb] [pn243Kh9L6omttePgfx7+b+7mvgU29wTx6z]

Some Flopzilla (in case of a passive recreational player):

[Flopzilla v1.8.4] [Use Ctrl+I to import into Flopzilla] [www.flopzilla.com ] [JJLZxbPVpLEHQGgbtGFn9Sa4uTIasbaCdbXDh+rww2FNvzFBUD] [ZxKfWgezIzTJ4e833IaP8wgyABtcJrGzCjn3PTEvWRJo+PVosZ] [EulyiPbiDARMIXgOhmN3aPF2q44uQGUzF2BKWCC9edd6x3skEB] [qD6kh2J2CeKywynZ7JMTwM337nMXIbfRsZ14ulRLcsVacq1q1t] [z2keuUcH2DMZH+31Im+3Deu0tq4IvAEs9qdtXRKpjytdndlSxk] [htZd+JgaS0uisUaQfaq74718mshY4Qx+x2Dk7PjIu5LVQEBz1M] [FJ3oPqrNaWPrRb7HOR8JHlQfOpN8yuYicGMti4clZ9RRH5sGwU] [AaL5DKOLsSBqvM54juH1buPWaWCCbFb5jVErdeGKlpCR01NFV9] [kePjIv]

Have a nice new year’s eve. ;-)

Is it standard to call 3bets OOP with 22-77?

Versus a 3-bet, to set mine in a profitable way with a PP like 77-22, you have to be able to earn 15 times the amount to call when OOP (12 times when IP). In this hand, the villain could call your 3-bet with any PP easily, since your stack is deep enough and the villain needs to be able to earn $1.80 (15 * $0.12 to call).

Hello,

Is the villain a recreational player or a reg? How often and on how many opportunities does the villain open-raise from the HJ and fold to a 3-bet?

PF, I would just have called with 87s. The problem is that, when 3-betting with 87s versus HJ, you will very often isolate yourself versus the villain’s calling range from HJ, which is strong enough (QQ-22, AQs-AJs, AQo, KQs, KQo, maybe ATs, sometimes AK if not 4-bet). And let us not talk about a 4-bet after your 3-bet… If you want to 3-bet with a polarised range, 87s is better suited when you are OOP and the open-raiser from CO or Btn; in other words, the polarised range I would use to 3-bet IP would be { A9s-A2s, K9s-K2s } rather than SCs.

As played flop, your check back is fine, since the flop hits the villain’s calling range in a 3BP.

As played turn, since the villain checked again, I would bet just to earn such an orphan pot. Concerning the sizing, I would make an overbet (1.2 time the pot), since the card revealed on the turn is a brick, which means that a classical sizing would not give you enough FE. And in case the villain called my overbet, I would not do anything on the river and would fold in case of X / R.

Hello,

Concerning study routine, try to ensure that 1/3 of the time dedicated to poker is dedicated to work on your game. To review your hands more efficiently, try to define one theme to work on per week or per month (for example, this week, you decide to work on 3-bet steals from Btn vs CO), which means you create a tag dedicated to this theme on your tracker and tag only hands concerning this theme ingame or, better, at the end of each session, applying filters with your tracker to select the specific hands you want to review.

In other words, to review hands and work on the game efficiently, it is important not to review hands with different kinds of situations at the same time. By tagging so many hands to review without selecting on which aspect of the game your want to work on first, you will feel confused, lost and will not improve at a pace you would like to.

Hello,

PF, I would 3-bet to 0.45.

As played flop, it seems fine to c-bet low on a dry board to keep the villain’s range as large as possible.

As played turn and river, which better hands than yours do you want to make fold? Don’t you think a second barrel will just make hands you are already beating fold? I would check back: JJ has hit a set and it will be difficult to make the villain fold, apart from TT and lower PPs. Without any information about the villain, it is better not to 3-barrel in bluff, even less in a 3-bet pot. In other words, feel lucky if the villain ended up folding on the river.

Some Flopzilla:

[Flopzilla v1.8.4] [Use Ctrl+I to import into Flopzilla] [www.flopzilla.com ] [LyNOxi2LrzFEVyp+uFFohK7etNxgt+bAm1WBnNhEvTELAmvJUA] [QwR4XccoAGJPdcZ6bBkS7rfvsKs4Ltvszjf0FItwVWVp1Yu7Gk] [znundHm9DATEOX9XeqH9fTO4r+VuTBz2SOsG2tH9ebh6v1skvJ] [iK4ihTRYIcDBuDf64GSLAFaW7oMY1f9Zo214ulULbsSa5yUp2l] [HWk9CU5PWJM2H131IpB8EeSVmIY0sK5kbqfq5QJokxsco4sTxj] [iuXc4Jp9M6tjtveOgfv70bq2hAbW]

Hello,

Nothing to say about this hand.

Hello,

Since everybody has checked on the flop, your delayed c-bet on the turn is not so that bad, but I think I would have bet higher (maybe pot) as I would do when dealing with orphan pots. The X / C option is not so that bad, too, since we can let the villains IP bluff with Ax wanting to earn an orphan pot.

Versus the raise all-in from the CO, to risk $2.05 to be rewarded $3.57 in a profitable way (and if I did not miscalculate), you have to win the pot at least nearly 36% of the time, which means you must have 18 outs at least with only one street to come. Concerning your outs, I do not think overcards are clean outs (you can face ranges containing AQ, AT and KQ, maybe KTs), which means you have at last 12 outs, which give you 24% equity only, which is not enough to call in a profitable way. In addition, the villain from the HJ still has to make a decision after you. So, this is a good B / F.

Hello,

With 33, just call PF. To know if a set mining can be profitable, in a single-raised pot, you have to be able to earn 20 times the amount to call OOP, 15 times IP. With $0.06 to call, the effective stack is enough to call and set mine. In addition, 33 is part of the hands you like to play in a MWP in hope to see a huge pot and stack the villains off when you hit your set on the flop.

As played flop, this is a set-up, even if you have 7 outs to beat the villain’s flush (10 on the turn if you have not hit a full house or quads). Anyway, should you have made a classical raise or a raise all-in, the SPR led you to commitment.

Hello,

In BB vs SB, raise PF: even if you are the coolest person IRL, tell the villains that, if they want to see a flop for cheap from the SB, they will have to call an extra.

Versus a X / R all-in, the question to ask is not with which hands to call, but with how much minimal equity to call. And the answer is got by calculating first the risk-reward, then the number of outs, finally the outs equity. If you do not know them yet, here are the formulas:

• the risk-reward formula: risk ÷ (risk + reward);

• the outs equity on 1 street to come: number of outs x 2;

• the outs equity on 2 streets to come with less than 9 outs: number of outs x 4;

• the outs equity on 2 streets to come with 9 outs or more: number of outs x 3 + 9.

You are told to risk $9.85 to be awarded $10.20, which means you need 49% equity to call (9.85 ÷ [9.85 + 10.20] ≈ 0.49). You have 15 outs on 2 streets to come, which give you 54% equity (15 x 3 + 9 = 45 + 9 = 54). That means you have enough equity to call. In other words, as played flop, this is an easy call.

The villain may X / R all-in not only with two-pairs, sets or straights, but also with just a TP or MP in a panic and even a single FD (depending on how fishy the villain can be).

By the way, nice straight flush. ;-)

Hello,

How often does the villain make a RFI from HJ? I am not sure you can call from BB with JTo vs HJ in a profitable way, unless the villain has insane RFI stats.

As played flop, I would prefer a X / C to a X / R: when making a X / R, you make all the parts of the villain’s range you are already beating fold: overcards and bluffs; and, once called, the villain’s range becomes strong enough to beat you.

As played turn, prepare yourself to check on the river, since the board gets very connected.

As played river, once you are called, I think you are dead and I am not sure the villain only has overpairs, but can also have Axs which can block some SDs, and even two-pairs and sets if the villain is a passive player. In other words, I do not think this is a good bluff.

I think the best postflop plan here is to X / C once or twice, on the flop and turn (if the turn is not an overcard hitting the villain’s range, of course), then X / F.

Some Flopzilla:

[Flopzilla v1.8.4] [Use Ctrl+I to import into Flopzilla] [www.flopzilla.com ] [HCOOui0UnHuIUHl7sFHnhQ7dlWIhj0iCm1VBoXfwu3MCrvEKKB] [XxH63d2qHHIB8476bAnN0AepzJmbInGwrek3KPqlMS5O+HYS2O] [mWrkgLj9GyQGRMg+enFc7+R3oU0rVEB+LWpF5vG3nad7z0sltI] [kLWpiTQWJ6KCmDh64GSLAFa28vE1FD6TCXk5tkUJkj+b7xUqUs] [B3beDMcI2DM6z6Y9HmH2I7z2nz0HTsFBaKcr4NHxiFkjfcmTwj] [qm154EoaS6tgtAbWaft74672mUbT2My]

Hello,

On the flop, I would c-bet higher (2/3 pot): the villain’s defending range has many FDs and we do not have any spade to block part of FD combos. As played flop, versus the villain’s X / R, I would 3-bet shove with top two-pair and never mind if the villain shows JJ or 44.

On the turn, I am not sure you can call, even if the sizing is rather low (a little less than 1/2 pot) : you only have 14% equity versus { JJ, 44, AJs, AJo, KTs+, KQo, QTs, T9s, 97s+, 86s+, 75s+, 65s, 53s } (and I am not sure the villain called PF with all these hands mentioned). So, I am not annoyed with your fold on the turn.

Thanks for this deep explanation. I got it.

My pleasure. :-)

But let's suppose we had a bluff there. We need to generate the maximum fold equity possible, right? and in this case we don't wanna minimun risk-reward instead of when we have a value hand as in the hand posted. So, would be better to just x/R 2x to generate enough fold equity when we'll have more than 60% pot behind? I'm talking about in general spots.

Generally, when you do not have enough fold equity and want the villain to fold a better hand than yours, you must overcome your fold equity deficit by the sizing: most of time you will overbet, especially when you think the villain’s range is capped. In this case, in terms of risk-reward, when overbetting 1.2 time the pot, you need to succeed 54% of the time (60% when overbetting 1.5 time the pot).

But, this move is easier to make when the villain checked or when you are the first to talk. As played turn here, it would be tough to raise in bluff in a 4-bet pot.

Could you explain more detailed?

If you have not learnt it yet, you must learn a formula called risk-reward. This formula is the following one: risk ÷ (risk + reward); it gives you the minimum percentage of success for a risk to be a profitable one. Some examples:

• when you are open-raising to 3bb in BVB, such a move has to succeed 62.5% of the time to be profitable: you are risking 2.5bb (your SB does not belong to you any longer) to be rewarded 1.5bb (the amounts of the SB and the BB), which gives 2.5 ÷ (2.5 + 1.5) = 0.625 and means the villain must defend the BB in BVB more than 37.5% of the time to prevent you from making an immediate profit;

• when you are c-betting 1/2 pot, you just need to succeed 1/3 of the time to have an immediate profit: 0.5 ÷ (0.5 + 1) ≈ 0.33 (you are risking 1/2 pot to be rewarded the pot);

• as played river on your hand, when facing the villain’s X / R shove, the risk is $3.99 (the amount to call) and the reward $16.65 ($5.66 in the pot when the river is being dealt + your $3.50 bet + $7.49, which is the amount of the villain’s X / R adjusted to the effective stack, as your stack is $3.98 lower than the villain’s one), the formula says 3.99 ÷ (3.99 + 16.65) ≈ 0.193, which means your hand must have at least 19.3% equity to call in a profitable way;

• now, imagine the villain decided to c-bet shove on the river instead of making a X / R shove: in this case, you would have had to risk $7.49 to be rewarded $13.15 ($5.66 in the pot when the river is being dealt + $7.49, which is the amount of the villain’s X / R adjusted to the effective stack), the formula says 7.49 ÷ (7.49 + 13.15) ≈ 0.363, which means your hand would have had to have at least 36.3% equity to call in a profitable way.

As your hand had 80% equity versus { KK+, KQs, KQo } on the river, these two last examples do not make any difference, but they would make one if your hand had only 25% equity versus the villain’s range: the risk would be profitable when risking $3.99 to be rewarded $16.65, but not at all when risking $7.49 to be rewarded $13.15. In other words, if you had raised on the turn and bigger, the amount you would have had to risk on the river would have been lower for a bigger reward.

But I wanna know why you raise OTT 3x or 4x, if we raise 3x pot will be something about $12 and we'll only have between $4 ~$5. Is it better to raise 2x and shove $7 in a pot of $9? I mean, we'll be committed when we raise of 3x or 4x on a non-brodway diamond river.

The bigger you raise on the turn, the lower will be the minimal equity required by the risk-reward to go broke on the river in a profitable way.

Hello,

Before considering 4-betting in LP versus blinds, it is important to check the villain’s style. How often and over how many opportunities does the villain 3-bet versus a steal from the CO? Does the villain tends to be TAG, and even nitty, or to be rather LAG? The decision of 4-betting PF or just calling the 3-bet with QQ depends on the answer to these questions. Remember QQ has only 40% equity versus { QQ+, AKs, AKo }. If the villain seems to be nitty in terms of 3-bettings, then it is better to just call the 3-bet; but, if you think the villain is able to make polarised 3-bets, your 4-bet is fine.

PF: I can 4 bet bigger here, something like $1.30.

A 4-bet sizing must generally be 2.5 times the 3-bet sizing. So, you need not 4-bet bigger.

As played flop, your check back is fine: you have not hit a monster nor had an interesting draw, which means a c-bet on a 4-bet pot with such a flop is an easy way to waste your winrate. And I am not sure you have a huge range advantage here: the villain can call a 4-bet with Axs and Kxs, using the A and the K as blockers.

As played turn, I would raise 3 or 4 times the villain’s bet, in order to have an interesting SPR to shove on the river. The villain can call a raise with FDs, KJs+, maybe AK (if the villain did not 5-bet shove PF with such a hand) and KQo.

As played river, KK is the only hand which beats you and the villain may have 5-bet shove PF with such a hand more often than just called your 4-bet. QQ has 80% equity versus { KK+, KQs, KQo }; so, your call all-in is fine and never mind if the villain has trapped you a little with KK.

Some Flopzilla:

[Flopzilla v1.8.4] [Use Ctrl+I to import into Flopzilla] [www.flopzilla.com ] [KyNNvf0NszDxTFp+qFydgTZ5sXw7k8nAfc7BeXoyv1FMzpDJKF] [WxKbT33zQRUAd4rPjsiGavenBBs4LlEztie5LREnUKVxUSOjl8] [zpundMkdDyREOOhPloF950JapTYlZBD0NTiL2uH5muh1DXzlBJ] [mKWq9+K3AbLutwo04KKQtN124wG0HkaZM0WcqjZJjj02br2h1t] [A2cfxTdP2IG6G343HiH7Dfu2Mu+Hvy]

Hello,

This is my first post here, take it easy with the newbie french guy ;-)

Welcome aboard. And do not be ashamed: nobody is perfect, all the less as I am French, too. ;-)

So, we are on the french network

Since this seems to be a 5-handed hand, I suppose you are on Winamax, aren’t you? ;-) Even though Winamax is a great poker room for its rewards program and the great quality of its software, its main problems about NLHE CG tables are the 5-handed format and a greater percentage of regs compared to other rooms, even on micro-stakes (I do not say Winamax tables are unbeatable, but you will expect a lower winrate than when playing 6-handed and you will take more time over moving up the stakes).

You say the villain has 10% 3-bet overall. But over how many 3-bet opportunities? And how often does the villain 3-bet versus Btn and over how many opportunities? These questions are very important because when you say 10% 3-bet without any precision, you say nothing special: if you 3-bet only once while you have already had 10 overall oppotunities to 3-bet, your overall 3-bet stat says 10%. ;-)

saw him 3bet 10bb SB vs CO w/KQo

Such a move is standard, all the more as the player on the CO attempts to steal often and the one on SB does not want to play such a hand OOP on a MWP.

PF, your iso raise versus the limper on the CO is fine. When facing a 3-bet PF and having a medium or low PP, to set mine in a profitable way, you must be able to win 15 times the amount to pay when OOP, 12 times when IP; on this hand, you must win €15.60 (12 * €1.30) to set mine in a profitable way; but, when looking at the effective stack, you see nobody has a remaining stack of at least €15.60: the limper has €5.63 left and the 3-better €8.39, which means the implied odds are not enough to set mine in a profitable way; so, the best decision is to fold to this 3-bet.

As played flop, I would just call. The villain can c-bet with FDs (AJs+, KJs+, maybe A5s, A3s, 97s+, 86s+, 75s+, 65s, 53s in case of a polarised 3-bet) and maybe OESDs, GSs and a pair in case of a polarised 3-bet (A5s, A3s, 97s, 86s+, 75s+, 65s, 53s, maybe A4s, 64s, 54s, 43s and I am not sure the villain c-bets with A2s), but surely c-bets with better overpairs than yours (TT+). When you just call, you are facing a coin flip versus the villain’s range, even if the villain is c-betting full range; but, when raising, you make the villain easily fold the part of the range you are already beating and, if called, you can be sure to be almost drawing dead.

Some Flopzilla:

[Flopzilla v1.8.4] [Use Ctrl+I to import into Flopzilla] [www.flopzilla.com ] [HAMQweZNqGByTxg7rvAkhJ1ekXw8u0jrdcVCdOqwvTDNrwtBVK] [PtQi35cxBHRC9c+2bBjNZvdwsHh1Av2XDjovtCBnXMSp+HTdvY] [zxkr6SehGzQGRUd+gnFccVR6oUZrQCC+KUhKXAy9n3l+EWAluI] [jLWpi+L3DbDCmDg60JaJv0tVcPCWSD5Ps0ZducZHjj02br2h1t] [A2cfxTdI1CN5D7Z8AqG2Jaymot4DxBMjimjk5JJqkxsjgclTzj] [qm164JlaN5mnsvfRfzw1474]

Comme "wifi" avec l'accent Francais? =)

Tout à fait. ;-)

Puisqu’on parle de tapis, en France, le mot boîte est également employé pour désigner la décision de faire tapis. D’ailleurs, je connais un joueur pro français (qui est aussi coach en cash game pour un site de poker francophone) qui dit souvent « Boîte » à son chat, qui lui répond par un miaulement (sachant que son chat est un chartreux, une race pourtant réputée pour miauler très peu). :-D

Salut,

En France, nous employons couramment les termes de flop, turn, river, range, sizing, gutshot et flush. En revanche, pour parler d’OESD, nous parlons plutôt de tirage quinte par les deux bouts. Bref, il n’y a pas que pour le panneau « Stop » (« Arrêt » au Québec ;-) ) que nous autres, Français, employons des termes anglais (avec notre piètre accent, cela s’entend toujours :-p ). :-)

Hello,

Just to add a precision to the previous post with which I agree, with AK, you block half of KK+ combos.

Hello,

If the villain’s range is capped, this is only because the range does not have any straights: the villain would have c-bet on the turn with a straight, and even on the river with KQ. Since you checked back on the turn, it is difficult to tell the villain you have hit a straight on the river: the 7d is a brick and, concerning bluff catchers, you block AJs and ATs, but not TT nor KJs; the villain may make an easy X / C on the river with a set, an overpair and maybe TP with a blocker such as KJs. In other words, if you wanted to bet, you should have done it on the turn rather than on the river to try to make the villain fold anything lower or equal to a set and deny equity to the part of the range wanting a free card (by the way, the villain does not have many straights: KQs, KQo, maybe 87s if the villain has 3-bet in a polarised way).

You can also bet 1/3 pot. Actually, the sizing is a little secundary in this context, since you have enough FE on such a board for the reason I mentioned above whatever the c-bet sizing.

Hello,

I agree with Jbarez and frontdoorbackdoor : versus a reg who does not defend blinds so much or who is weak, you should c-bet this kind of board with full range (2/3 pot), all the more as your stealing range hits such a board more than the villain’s defending range.