I think when you don't bet the double flush draw 2 broadway turn that it's virtually impossible for you to have a strong hand so I'm gonna guess you get looked up by Qx JJ 99 etc by a real opponent.
I strongly disagree that you have showdown value on turn. You have some equity that you might want to realize for free but I don't think there's much chance you win if it checks down.
Oct. 25, 2020 | 3:36 a.m.
Honestly I think snowie is crap and would avoid using it. I paid for it, used it for a couple weeks and wasted the next year of my subscription
Oct. 23, 2020 | 4:29 p.m.
I'm not sure it follows that they aren't flatting AA, OP seems to have assumed that they are not.
But yeah I think I agree that our adjustment may be to 4bet/fold but their continue against 4bet seems high enough that we have a profitable 4betting situation.
Oct. 21, 2020 | 4:43 p.m.
Yeah those are the most quick to converge stats. I think it's fine to keep fold 3bet to help keep track of big outliers and you can always mouseover to see sample size.
I'd also add positional open raise stats. Those converge somewhat quickly and there is a common type of LAGfish that seems to prefer to "steal" from EP.
Also I'd add Agg Freq. It suffers sample issues with tighter players but when I spot a player with like 40+ VPIP and a Agg Freq over 1, I know they're capable of bluffs in a lot of spots that you might not normally think they are.
Many of the common stats are still pretty useful to more easily spot leaks in loose players because they see so many more opportunities to make various plays than TAGs do.
Oct. 21, 2020 | 5:21 a.m.
I don't think it's reasonable to play 4bet or fold so you have a calling range and a 4betting range to balance. TT we aren't really thrilled to get all in but is definitely way too strong to fold so I think even if you aren't following solver ranges it would be mixed in some way.
But it sounds like they're playing solver ranges if they're calling with that kind of stuff and you should probably do the same against them. Which means TT is mixed about 50/50 call and 4bet OOP v BTN 3bet.
It's probably also a loss in EV to flat 3b OOP with AA against players that you know have a linear 3betting range and a calling range against 4bets.
Oct. 21, 2020 | 5:13 a.m.
You mention sample size in this post but want to rely on fold to 3b of 100. That's a stat that takes a while to converge.
The sample size to start with is 110 hands. His PFR is 18. So we're down to a sample of 20 already. Then consider there's maybe a 20% chance he gets 3bet on any of those open (this is probably high). Now we're down to 4 hands. Too little to draw any conclusions from IMO
Oct. 20, 2020 | 5:08 a.m.
Converter and grabber are two different things.
Converter takes Bovada/Ignition HH files and converts them to PokerStars format. You only need to do this if importing into a tracker that doesn't support Bovada hands like Hand2Note.
Grabber reads your tables as they are running, creating HHs in your DB and allowing a HUD to be displayed. Zone the players change every hand so the HUD would be useless. But also I think the way hands transition on Zone with the sideswipe animation screws with the grabber. If you ever have a regular table break and get moved the same animation happens and your HUD won't work on that table anymore.
I can't say whether or not PT4 is recording HHs for Zone while you play. Sounds like maybe it is. Which is nice for immediate session review, but I like just requesting my hands later so I get all hole cards.
Oct. 19, 2020 | 8:15 p.m.
It affirms no such thing. The strategies people have given here are correct for the raise sizes they actually see in game. In any event, I wouldn't fully trust Snowie outputs.
You consistently make low effort posts and it's not helping you or anyone else.
Oct. 19, 2020 | 7:04 p.m.
Our thread is getting so long I can't see your post and reply at the same time so continuing here.
- Yeah the nodelock is probably too optimistic. Seems pretty reasonable to try to segment range like that on river but I still suspect we want to use a larger size for value.
- Not sure if you're suggesting that x/r is good against Ax heavy range. I think it folds out too many combos that we can get another bet out of on river either by checking or leading. I think b/b/b is certainly fine but I don't like the small turn bet. I think b/b/b even with small sizing looks stronger than b/x/b AND if you size up the river bet to 75% or more it puts more money in the pot than 25/25/25
Oct. 17, 2020 | 8:11 a.m.
Yeah preflop estimation is very important if you want to exploit.
AJo I would not at all be surprised to see at ~100% freq but even if it is 0% then there's probably some AK combos in his range and some A5s/A4s combos to make up for it and I didn't even count 88 and 33. It's still quite easy for him to have more combos that beat you than call.
You can go much bigger than 1/2 on river after a check back. In my sims playing with nodelocking turn so that he bets most of his Ax, his range becomes so unbalanced that you get to bet 125% with more than half your range on river. Of course caveat is that preflop ranges are difficult to be exact with in this spot.
If he doesn't protect his check back range AND doesn't make hero calls on river then you have a profitable river bluff with any two cards.
So I think attempting to play a balanced strategy on turn opens up some really nice exploits for us. Checking range might be a reasonable simplification, I doubt it misses much value.
Turn doesn't seem like a good spot to checkraise because villains range is really heavy in bluffcatchers and doesn't have enough hands to stack off with in a spot where it is difficult to put us on bluffs. Maybe as an exploit we could start checkraising KQ and maybe specifically A8 likes it for value/protection?
Anyway I'd rather XC turn with my entire continuing range and against this guy's river aggression freq I'm probably creating a leading range for small sizing
Oct. 16, 2020 | 11:53 p.m.
99-QQ is only 24 combos. Just ATs-AQs and AJ-AQo gets him to 27. A bet is going to be hard pressed to have better EV than a check.
I would expect most players not to have enough bluffs when checked to on turn AND to bet their Ax too often. This means that you get to overfold turn, yes including KK most of the time. And then when he checks back you get to size up on river with a high frequency of overbets
Oct. 16, 2020 | 5:57 a.m.
Mostly leaning folding because our hand plays very poorly against the tight 3betting range. He doesn't have enough hands that we dominate or are even flipping with to be happy even when spiking an A or Q but the SPR will be low enough that we can't reasonably find folds either.
And the rec doesn't appear to be a whale so I don't think that staying in hoping for punts from him is going to outweigh the dynamics with CO.
Oct. 12, 2020 | 6:07 p.m.
If you think you need him to find folds with AK and/or QQ to make jamming profitable, then it probably isn't and you should call or fold. I'd lean fold with AQo. Villain is also incentivized to call some of the lower parts of his 3betting range to play a pot with the weaker player so his range may be even stronger than normal here.
Calling AA multiway against a tight 3betting range seems like a huge mistake to me unless the guy that already called is an absolute whale, and even then make some stupid 35bb 4bet and he probably calls that too.
Oct. 12, 2020 | 6:38 a.m.
Seems like a fine bluff. That said, I generally find river checkraises pretty ineffective. In spots like this tight players don't seem to bet/fold very often at least not without facing an overbet.
Re: Not wanting to checkraise T8ss on turn to avoid "isolating against stronger hands". Isolating against stronger hands is really only a problem when your hand has a good chance to get to showdown and win otherwise. I don't think an 8 is good on that board nearly as often as you think it is, some better hands can fold, you get protection against overcards which can either suck out or bluff you on ~20% of rivers.
Oct. 12, 2020 | 6:23 a.m.
What changed is that villain flatted us which begins capping his range. This is really simplistic thinking. We're still uncapped against a partially capped range so we have some hands that really want to get more money in the pot for value/protection.
Anyway, I simmed this hand and given the option of 33, 66, or 125% pot ATcc goes with the 2/3 bet 80% of the time and checks the rest. Lots of hands in our range like the 33% bet. Mostly thin value, sets, 2pr, and Kxcc. Our best Kx and AA strongly prefers the 66% sizing.
Oct. 12, 2020 | 6:14 a.m.
I did run a sim for this and ATcc bluff jams river ~30% of the time. Probably varies some based on the ranges, I used solver ranges for both opponents, but looking at the range we get to river with, it would be hard to come up with enough bluffs if we don't sometimes bluff most of our Axcc
Oct. 12, 2020 | 6:01 a.m.
I doubt this hand raises at much of a frequency. You have a weak bdfd and a draw to a straight draw. If villain over cbets then it could be fine of course.
I doubt small bet turn is very common. Strong hands need a lot of protection and want to avoid action killing cards. Pair + draw almost certainly likes a free card better than a small bet. Same with many draws. If you're going to bet turn with this one and I think it's good to mostly bet, I think you need larger sizing.
By your own logic of which hands like small bet, most of them don't want to bomb river so your line doesn't make much sense and I'd expect to get snapped by a jack.
So if you want to bluff 3 with this hand, which seems reasonable, then we need to tell a consistent story which I think means betting big on both turn and river.
Oct. 12, 2020 | 5:01 a.m.
Just simmed this, it's not perfect because this hand wasn't HU but hopefully gives some idea.
88 is not in the checkraising range. Which I guess makes sense, it has both showdown value and the ability to improve. And you have lots of other bluffs to choose from if you're calling appropriately from the BB. You should have lots of 86s 85s J8s Q8s Axd for high equity bluffs and you're expected to turn stuff like 22-66 into a bluff at some frequency.
On turn we're giving up on a LOT of bluffs, checking 65% of the time. Most of our betting range is now 7x, some flush draws, and some straight draws.
River gets shoved about 60% of the time.
Oct. 12, 2020 | 4:46 a.m.
He is betting into two players so should be stronger than normal. I think the checkraise is fine and maybe even good since it seems most opponents cbet too much multiway (even if it's less than they cbet HU). Blocking 87s and 98s is a very small effect. That's only 8 combos before accounting for card removal and they shouldn't be pure opens UTG. But you likely have the best hand, need protection, and can improve to some more nutted hands by the river.
Turn is interesting. You both frequently improve on this turn. I expect we don't have a ton of fold equity on turn so should plan to follow through on bluffs very frequently. I suspect you probably need this hand in your range to get enough bluff combos on this card.
River, why are you block betting? When the flush draw misses I don't think even a 9 folds to a small bet and villain likely has very few worse hands he can call you with. I think you need to either jam or check and hope he checks back a missed flush draw.
Oct. 12, 2020 | 4:21 a.m.
Well, that's what solver ranges are - everyone playing "optimally".
But even in circumstances where you have worse players left to act, the EV of the hand isn't going to skyrocket. These bottom of range hands are still going to be very close to zero EV except maybe at a really weak tight table.
In a normal cash game sure whatever open it every time at a weak table. In zoom, probably just mix because mostly you can move on to the next hand and maximize hourly rather than fight out that 0.001BB edge
Oct. 11, 2020 | 2:12 a.m.
I think 4betting to defend also has some interesting implications that mean we actually have to defend less often. It I don’t fully understand this and can’t recall what video I heard it in a while back.
Oct. 10, 2020 | 5:02 p.m.
Preflop is super standard. Solver ranges have 54s opening like 25% but always calling 3bet. A 12% 3bettor is going to be playing something approaching solver ranges so it is important to call hands like this to avoid him being able expand his range even wider and to have board coverage.
Your other posts in thread show a misunderstanding of ranges and how total EV comes together from ALL branches of the game tree. We don't need to be fist pumping when all the money goes in in order to keep a hand in our range. Getting all in on the turn this way is just one small branch of the game tree. Considering removing a hand from our range because it isn't the stone cold nuts even in favorable situations is missing the forest for the trees.
Typically when the money goes in, both ranges are very strong and it's natural to question the weakest parts of our range.
At equilibrium villain should never raise flushes here. Basically winning another bet from all your AQ type hands and some additional bluffs is worth more than protecting against a 4th diamond or board pair killing his action. And even when I node lock you still have to defend all your flushes here otherwise you won't ever meet MDF.
The equilibrium has villain doing a lot of 3betting flop with AxKd type hands. I expect most players to call these much more often than they should. So villain is going to get to the turn with a lot more bluff candidates than equilibrium. I also expect most players to jam AA and 99 more than they should on turn. So I think even in the real world we're not getting away from flushes on the turn against someone that appears to be an aggro reg.