Main villains in this hand are a very loose player in MP and an unknown on the button
We are the effective stack in the hand with about $700
UG opens to $15
Hero raises to $150 in BB with red KK
MP calls (Loose Spewy player)
BU calls (unknown)
Pot: ~$525 we have about $550 behind
action checks round
action checks round
action checks round
Spewy shows down QTs for the win.
Not really sure how I should be playing this hand OOP multiway with such low stack depth. My biggest concern is the play on the turn and so I'm most curious to hear peoples thoughts about that.
July 24, 2018 | 5:13 p.m.
JACKraceLUKE I agree that the flop bet might be a bit contentious for sure. Like I said I decided to make the bet because I thought it was hard for me to find bluffs in this spot but you could be right in that I don't actually need that many bluffs in a multiway spot like this.
To your point about not being exploited with a weak checkback range though I would generally agree but not against this particular LAG in the BB. He has generally seemed to follow the strategy of 'you check I bet'. The fact that there are 3 players in the pot might or might not prevent him from running this strategy but I wouldn't count on it from what I'd seen from him.
July 10, 2018 | 3:45 p.m.
Another consideration I made in the hand was the fact that I unblock flushes which I think can find folds to a jam here. I'm really not sure about this either and curious what everyone else thinks. Would it be better to block flushes so villain will find it harder to hero call or am I right in thinking that villain will likely fold at least their weaker flushes if not all their flushes here and so unblocking them is a benefit? My uncertainty about this is another thing that lead to the very small randomized bluff percentage that I picked.
July 9, 2018 | 5:14 p.m.
$10 UTG straddle on
I start the hand with about $650
SB: Unknown ~$400 behind
BB: Very loose and aggressive type player, has me covered
UTG/Staddle: Another laggy type player also has me covered
Dealt 5c5d in CO open to $30
SB, BB, UTG all call
Flop: As Js 7
SB, BB, UTG check
I bet $60
BB bets $110
I jam (about $560) for approximately a pot sized raise.
Curious what everyone thinks of this play. I haven't run it through any solvers or anything yet so these are just my raw thoughts on the hand:
I'm betting this hand on the flop because I should crush this board and I have position. I have all sets, all AJ, A7s and AK, AQ. I also have all nut flush draws. Also the J on the board will give me a lot of middle pair and remove a lot of typical bluffing hands from my range. I think that means a hand like 55 which I play as a check back on many board textures will get put into my bluffing range or else I risk under-bluffing this flop. Given my line and the fact that UTG is a very loose I would assume they are putting quite a few hands into their calling range otf. At the bare minimum they have any pair and FD that has connected and perhaps some broadway and lower gutshots as well.
On the turn Villain's range becomes weighted towards flushes and maybe some T8. Given that they will have more than normal flush draws in their preflop calling range (because they are very loose) I think this means that the EV of betting my sets and two pairs is going to be much lower than against a tighter range of FDs and so I will be checking these hands a decent amount, continuing with K high flush, a small percentage of my two pairs and sets and some blocker bluffs like KsQo though these can also sometimes check to outdraw. 55 without a blocker becomes something I'm giving up on.
On the river my range becomes much stronger. Villain's flushes now have to contend with the sets and two pair I checked back on the turn that have boated up. Villain's boats should be discounted because they could reasonably have check raised flop with two pair or 77 or even 3bet 77 pre. Also villain's flop calling range contains many hands that are weak pairs and some busted gutshots that will need to bluff this river. Obviously I'm jamming the sets and two pair I checked turn with so I should be bluffing here occasionally as well. The question is what are good bluffing candidates? In the hand I thought that it was very hard if not impossible for me to have any bluffs that have good blocker value here. The only ones that come to mind are hands that block A9 like T9s, 98s which I am only thinking of now. I might have bet 97s otf but likely would have checked my bottom pair so I don't think 97s is a bluffing candidate though it would be very nice to have here. These are probably my best bluffing candidates and likely I could have bluffed with just these and been balanced however I didn't think of these while in the hand. I ruled out bluffing a hand like KsQ since I don't think blocking flushes is my goal on this runnout. I don't think turning Ax into a bluff here is a good idea and would rather use it as a bluff catcher which leaves mostly the garbage that I gave up on on the turn. Because I don't really know how many hands this is and because it's also possible that I have missed some better bluffing candidates I decided to randomize my bluff to 8% bluff, 92% fold (Second hand between 12 and 1 on my watch).
July 9, 2018 | 9:45 a.m.
Also, if we are going to say that the population is making the mistake of not reaching optimal bluffing frequencies then we probably also have to admit that population will not be flatting much QT, 66 and TT vs the x/r otf but 3betting instead. If this is the case and villains range is strongly capped but has a lot of draw equity then why is it wrong to make them both fold their draw equity and either a) over-fold by folding out too much Qx or b) call in a situation where they are likely crushed?
Also if we expect villain to under-bluff then aren't we are losing value by bluff catching?
June 28, 2018 | 11:23 p.m.
Bingo 123 I don't think we are necessarily looking to get called by worse a significant portion of the time here. This is a very drawy board and we are out of position meaning we can get outplayed much easier. Villains range is quite capped here (probably) and overly weighted towards draw equity which makes playing rivers quite dangerous for us. We will be able to get blown off our hand when villain puts in a large enough bet on most any spade, K, J, 9 or 7 and have very difficult decisions on an A river. That's a metric fuck ton of the deck that we're unhappy with. I want to negate my positional disadvantage as fast as possible and make it more difficult for villain to outplay me. Also, since villain has so much draw equity to fold here it theoretically makes it much more difficult for them to fold the top pairs in their range. If villain has played correctly then I will get called here by QT, 66 and TT here sometimes but I think these hands are often 3betting flop. If I'm wrong about this I suppose I'll pay for it but it's the assumption I was working with when playing the hand.
June 28, 2018 | 3:36 p.m.
Squeeze to 30-35. This is you're best hand. If you're not squeezing this then your squeezing range is likely very unbalanced. Squeezing AA is the main reason you can squeeze bluffs.
June 27, 2018 | 5:47 p.m.
HawksWin yes I think this is a check raise for value. Villain certainly shouldn't be folding things like naked Qx and might have some Tx that they bet otf that will probably have to call once. Villain should probably even stab-call with AJ with a single flush blocker. Villain should also have a lot of draw equity that can stab call here. While I don't really like bloating a pot when I'm this deep and villain can outdraw/outplay me IP I still need to seek value from the top of my range. I have a lot of hands that need protection here (JJ, AT, KTs, JTs, T9s 99, 88, AK, AJ, K9s., you get my point) so I need to disincentivise villain from bluffing me here and x/ring is a good way to do that. I also have a few decent draws when I do this like combo draws, nut flush draws and straight draws so that I am protected on board changing turns.
However I now agree with your ranging of villain on the turn. I do think that it would be correct for them to flat their monsters here to keep their range playable across all turns and protect themselves from turn cards like this one. I think that it would be a mistake for villain to call with only draw equity otf. Because they have too many hands with draw equity it is correct for them to protect those hands with some big hands. Also I should have QQ here a lot more often than villain so 3 betting TT and 66 can pretty bad for them. That being said I don't think anyone at these stakes is considering that very much and will be prone to get it in on the flop with something like 66 or QT here so I do think their range is very capped and I am putting them in a tough spot. Here's some screenshots from Snowie to show what it thinks.
June 27, 2018 | 3:09 a.m.
SB: $22.09 (Hero)
SB wins and shows a pair of Queens.
SB wins $40.20
Rake is $1.50
June 26, 2018 | 2:57 p.m.
Good fold I think.
I think I'd try to check raise this flop against a short stacked weaker player.
As played otf I think your turn and river play is correct. You should definitely have a huge amount of flushes and sets in your range on this runnout here so folding AA with no blocker is totally cool imo.
June 24, 2018 | 8:38 p.m.
Tough to say, your getting a decent price to peel against some middling pocket pairs that I've seen make this move. Sucks to not be closing the action but it's very unlikely that UTG is going to back raise again here. I'd peel for sure. You'll be in a very small SPR otf which people generally play as an unconditional GII which I wouldn't do with AKo here. For this reason you'll need to be calling with JJ, QQ, and maybe a small amount of KK and/or AA. Since villain will have somewhere between a 1 and 1.5 PSB behind (depending on if BB calls) you'll have a well protected range across all boards with a range of AK, QQ and JJ.
June 23, 2018 | 9:15 p.m.
How deep are you starting the hand? Is the third player in the pot in the blinds or in position on you and the other player? These are definitely important aspects of this hand but here are some general thoughts I have about it.
First it's not obvious that you should be betting very often on this flop. You're likely leaving behind a lot of hands in your checking range (meaning it's quite weak and easily exploitable when you check) for example what are you doing with hands like AK-A2cc, KQ-K9cc, QJ-Q9cc, JT-J9cc, or all those in spades, AK-ATo, KQ-KTo, QJo, what do you do with your backdoor flush draws? You have a lot of garbage hands on this board and they need protection because if you bet all of them you can get raised quite easily and if you check them all without some strong hands checking you'll get exploited when you check.
That being said JJ with a flush draw blocker is a decent candidate for a bet. As you said it needs protection but I don't agree that you should 'charge draws'. In my opinion the correct hands to 'charge draws' with is Axhh. Then they're fucked ;). JJ needs decent protection but not a ton. If villain is calling with hands as weak as KQo then for sure protection should be on your mind but otherwise you'll be up against some AQ that is drawing to 6 outs. I think when you have TT, 99, 88 you need more protection from hands like KJs, KTs etc. So I kind of think you should be checking a decent amount here and betting some smaller pairs, some flush draws and maybe some higher pairs like JJ-AA with the flush blocker but definitely not always.
After the flop it's difficult to say since I don't know what else you're getting to the turn with. It seems to me like the turn is a bit of a clearer bet though. You have two good blockers and can still get called by hands like 88, TT, and some sticky weaker pairs like 66, 55 and maybe some A4. Getting villain to fold AQ here is a win for you. So double barreling JJ here is good I think.
River is even harder since I have even less of an idea of your range but I think you might need to be calling. Villain can have lots of Axhh that is bluffing. Even though these hands are probably supposed to be 3bet or fold pre a lot of people will flat their Axs so you beat all those. I'd say esspecially if you think villain can have Kxhh then they can certainly have hands like Axhh. Your specific hand does make for a pretty bad bluff catcher as you block AJ, QJ, JT, J9, J8 missed draws. It really depends on how much Kx you have in your range. I think it's possible for you to have some Kxhh or something like AhKd.
June 23, 2018 | 8:58 p.m.
I agree with JACKraceLUKE. It's very important in these situations to understand your preflop ranges and flop check back ranges to not allow yourself to be exploited. Even shitty spazzy players have strategies that are 'exploitative' even though they aren't thinking that way. So you need to know how often you have AA, Ax, JJ. If you have JJ then you probably also have all QQ and (obviously) KK which means you have 12 combos that need some serious protection on this flop. Did you check back enough hands to protect those weaker holdings?
Villain only needs to win about 25% with their turn bet to exploit you so if your range is AA(3), JJ(3), AK(12), KK(6), QQ(6) that's 30 combos and you need to call 22-23ish. That means some KK and/or some QQ can fold here but only if you checked back all your nutty hands on the flop. If your range after the flop is only KK and QQ you have put yourself in a very bad spot because you haven't protected your range.
June 19, 2018 | 3:33 p.m.
I'm not a fan of x/r this combo as I don't think you block enough of villains continuing range. Maybe AsT is a good x/r here along with some KsQ type combos. This combo I prefer the blocker bets as suggested above. You block enough AJ to make profitable small bets (I think). River is probably a good since villains range is more Jx with your flop sizing.
June 18, 2018 | 1:25 a.m.
Brokenstars You said that you tried it two years ago, have you looked at it since then? They have made some rather large changes to the AI. It now has more bet sizing options which has drastically changed it's game and could make emulation of it's game a much better option.
May 9, 2017 | 6:01 p.m.
Yes I think PIO will certainly give widely different results from Snowie when different ranges are used and don't really think that's very surprising. I'd be curious what PIO would spit out if you put in Snowie's exact button open range. Would it be close then?
Also this is actually a weakness of PIO's I think. I'm assuming you're trying to determine the BB range preflop when BU has opened but the specifics aren't important. Since PIO is giving you an optimal solution vs one range it could open up very large holes if you have made a bad assumption of villains range. Snowie on the other hand is building ranges that hold against all ranges and so cannot make this error.
May 9, 2017 | 5:58 p.m.
Yes, I've seen a lot of stuff like this but it's not quite the data I'm looking for.
What I mean is that the article on Zeljko just says that he used PokerSnowie to improve but it doesn't say if he tried to emulate it or just used it's preflop strategies or what. No one has documented how to use it very well and what type of results you can expect from using it in a specific way.
May 9, 2017 | 5:53 p.m.
I've been trying to decide if I want to use PokerSnowie to improve my game and have been looking into what other people have said about it. So far everything I read about it just seems like a bunch of opinions and no one had done the work to find out if emulating Snowie correlates with a decent win rate over a large sample. For example if you played at an average error rate of 6.0 or something over a significant sample does this give you a good win rate? Basically I have yet to see any data one way or the other on this program and am curious if anyone knows of someone who has tried to play a large sample with a small Snowie error rate and charted the results.
Thanks for any help.