lIlCitanul's avatar

lIlCitanul

801 points

I haven't read the Grinder's Manual so I can't compare.

Oct. 1, 2020 | 2:21 p.m.

I agree that it's hard for him to find natural bluffs. Often has to turn a pair into a bluff for our call to become solid.
If you don't think this guy can find those bluffs then exploit fold seems good.

Not sure that means we start checking back set here as there are still some of pair+plus flush draw available

Hard to say. Normally when we're at a disadvantage our cbet jumps down a lot. The disadvantage here is only a few combo's so might not be significant enough for our cbet to lower a lot.

Oct. 1, 2020 | 2:20 p.m.

I also think that at microstakes it makes sense to default towards 3bet or fold preflop because of the very high rake.

I tried 3bet or fold for the same reason but didn't find it to work out for me. By playing 3bet or fold I was denying my opponents a lot of mistake opportunities. A common one is where they cbet too often OOP. When we 3bet or fold we deny that opportunity.
But it's an ok strategy.

I was trying to understand the logic behind constructing a "read-less" 3bet or fold range

Ok, so when we 3bet or fold it's lineair. So we choose from the best hands. The question then becomes about just how often we should 3bet. What should our 3bet % be.

How many players are left to act (vs EP we 3bet a different range from MP or BT)

This is a correct assumption. When we 3bet the other players that haven't had to act yet can have a strong hand as well. They have a cold 4bet range. Due to this you enter the pot less often. Even if you had a calling range, you call less often because of possible squeezes.

Who opens (from SB we 3bet a different range vs EP than vs BT)

Yes. Because their opening range is different so their continue range will be different.
If we assume they call 50% off the time we can see that vs an RFI of 18% or 45% the difference in their range would be 9% and 22.5%. Big differences. So when they raise first in later we can 3bet wider for value. Which causes us to 3bet more often overall.

Our position (vs CO, we may 3bet less from SB than from BT, because we would be OOP - not sure about this, but it seems likely)

Also true. It isn't our position on the table but our relative position compared to the initial raiser.
This mainly plays a part for our sizing. But also because people are more inclined to call wider when they have position.

So basically, I would like to understand how the 3 points above affect a linear 3bet strategy

I would start looking at RFI ranges. Could use the ones you get with the course.
Then cut those down to 50%. And based on those ranges create a range for yourself that you would feel comfortable 3betting and playing with against those newly created opponent ranges.

One small thing though. My population analysis has shown me that the earlier position people open the less likely they are to be folding to a 3bet.

Oct. 1, 2020 | 8:42 a.m.

It is very hard for you to ever have a flush. Ad, Qd, Td all on the board. So you have what? KJdd for a royal, and maybe some lower suited connectors at a low frequency?
The same is true for him, except he generally has suited connectors at a higher frequency. Maybe J9dd as well.

I think this turn is a spot we should be very carefull with betting and are betting a low % off the time. So when you do bet and get jammed on I can't see us folding this. Decent regs should be willing to apply a lot of pressure here. Issue is that the main hand I estimate them doing it with is KdQ, which we block heavily.

Oct. 1, 2020 | 7:29 a.m.

So 3betting here is probably a better option.

What do you think happens the most when you 3-bet? We want whale in the pot so we have to hope he calls. When he calls the BTN then gets nice odds to call and will call often. When we see a flop when we 3-bet it will still be multiway, oop, but in a bigger pot.
If positions were reversed with the reg first and the fish later then a standard squeeze play would be great.

Me and the whale check and button bets extremely small. We are obviously not going anywhere - calling is optimal.

Seems standard for multiway pots.

TURN ANALYSIS

Hard to say what's right here. I tend to default to basics here and just consider that passive players don't do this with air. It's hard for us to improve. And I just overfold. They're not going to exploit us, they're fish.

Oct. 1, 2020 | 7:10 a.m.

Looking good! Soon you'll be at higher stakes for sure.

Oct. 1, 2020 | 7:05 a.m.

I liked it a lot. The content is better compared to random essential videos in my mind.

I'm already subscribed to Essential.

Not an issue. You'll get credit added to your account equal to an Essential subscription. So next time you subscribe with essential you won't have to pay.

Oct. 1, 2020 | 7:04 a.m.

Is there a reason why you are looking for a book? You seemed to like "The Grinder's Manual", why not buy From the Ground Up? Also by Peter Clarke, comes with a month of Essential subscription as well.

Sept. 30, 2020 | 2:09 p.m.

Comment | lIlCitanul commented on GTO+ skype group

What do you mean with not a lot of information out there? Are you not sure about some things?

Sept. 29, 2020 | 11:07 a.m.

First we'd need to talk about which type of range we want to construct. Lineair, polarized, or merged.

we don't know the thinking process that led to creating this range

It's been a while since I've watched the series but I'm sure Peter talks about why he creates which type of range. It mainly has to do with the reaction of your opponent. Let's start with the beginning though. You first have to decide if you have a calling range or not. If you play a 3-bet or fold strategy then your range will be lineair. You just 3-bet the best possible hands and fold the rest.

Let's say we have a calling range. Our standard against unknown people would be a merged range. This means we 3-bet strong hands, weaker hands but also the ones in between at some frequency. So for example QQ, KK, AA, AK, AQ always as the strong hands. 65s, A5s, 78s as the polarized bluffs. But also KQs, KJs, KTs, JQs, JT, AJs as the merged at some % off the time. This is because we also have KJs, etc in our flatting range.

If we have information on our opponent we would expect them to fold to 3-bet around 50%. If they fold much less then they are underfolding. When they underfold your bluff range 87s etc isn't as appealing to bluff anymore as it isn't getting enough folds. So we still have the value bets left. But when your opponents continue more than they should our definition of value range changes a bit. KJs might as well get called by a lot of worse hands now and be considered a value hand. So this leads to a lineair 3-bet range. We are 3-betting the top part of our range and when we want to expand we just move to the next strongest hand. This means KQs, KJs, QJs etc now become 100% 3-bets. They are no longer in our calling range.

If instead your opponent overfolds to 3-bets then your bluffs suddenly become much more valuable. Hands such as KJs etc become less interesting. This is because when they do get called they are in a bad spot. Because the continueing range from your opponent is stronger than normal. So we cut the merged hands out of our 3-bet range and move them to the call range. Which results in a range of very strong hands or weak bluff hands, nothing in between. So a polarized range.

I'll get to specific hand selection for the range construction later. Just keep in mind which type of range exists, why these ranges occur, and the three types of hands in those ranges (value, merged, bluff).

suppose we'd estimate that we should 3bet linear from MP/HJ/CO or BT vs another position than CO, there are no ranges and no way to come up with ways to construct them

Now that we covered that, let's look at how position plays a part in this.
First there's the position against the initial raiser. So when the hand continues we can have position (everything up to the BTN) or we can be out of position (SB, BB).

I'll start with OOP first and break these up as well.
The BB generally is a polarized strategy but recent ideas have made these more merged. Why would the BB be polarized if all the rest is merged? It's because the BB already has invested one BB. A lot of hands get a good price to see a flop and there's no action left. Once you call a flop will be seen. A bunch of these hands just call instead of 3-betting. So the line between value and bluff becomes clearer.

Then there's the SB. SB is a though position to just call a hand. First there's still the BB that has an action. Calling from the SB allows the BB to either come in for better odds or allows him to 3-bet us and us not even see a flop. Because remember, we are 3-betting strong hands. Our call range barely has strong hands if any. A common strategy for SB is a 3-bet or fold strategy. Which as we discussed earlier is a lineair range.

IP we want merged as standard. The earlier their position the stronger their range is. Which means that our definition of value shrinks and therefor our amount of bluffs also shrink. Example: AJs on the BTN vs CO could be seen as a value 3-bet. But against UTG open it isn't.
The earlier our own position the more people still have to act. Because let's not forget that we can get cold 4-bet.
These are the two main factors that play part for IP. These also matter for OOP obviously.

How do I decide which hands to 3bet?

Let's now see how to construct a range.
We have defined three types of hands. Value, bluffs, merged.
All we need to do is categorize hands and then select from them. I suggest you grab a tool that allows you to create hand matrixes. Such as Equilab (free), Flopzilla (paid).

Value: Hands that get called by worse hands. Seems easy to do. We consider a default range for the position that opened. Consider 50% calls us and see if our hand has enough equity against that continue range. So let's say UTG opens 18% and continues 50% off the time. So the continue range would be 9% off all possible hands. The hands we consider value have to do good against that 9%. If instead CO opens. That's a wider range. Let's say 28%. Now 50% continues so 14% off all possible hands. Our hands we consider value has become wider.
The only way to see which hands are value against those ranges is to input the opponents estimated range (can just input a %) and your hand you want to look at.

Bluffs: Bluffs are hands that prefer if the opponent folds. And hands we don't have in our calling range. That last one is important. If you have ATs in your calling range then it makes no sense to also add them in a 3-bet bluff category.
A good bluff contains cards that your opponents would have in his continue range but also doesn't block the folding range of your opponent. For example: Your opponents UTG continue range contains a lot of Ax. Which means you'd want your bluffs to have these cards. Your opponents UTG folding range is a lot of suited connectors, weaker broadway cards. So you don't want these cards. A2s-A5s are good candidates as they are too weak to call, block Ax and don't block folding range.
It gets complex fast though. Hands such as T9s for example block continue range of TT-99. But also block some folding range ATs, 98s.
Just keep in mind that a bluff generally wants a solid blocker for continue hands. Or not block too much of the folding range.
As ranges get wider from later positions the importance of blockers becomes less relevant.

Merged: Merged hands are hands we have in our calling range. Just 3-bet your calling range a small % off the time and you're done.

Sept. 28, 2020 | 9:57 a.m.

Sept. 26, 2020 | 8:55 a.m.

Comment | lIlCitanul commented on Call River Winrate

The stat I use is river call efficiency.
Everything above 1 means my calls on the river are profitable.

Sept. 25, 2020 | 3:03 p.m.

When you study you generally study for 100bb effective stacks. The theory becomes different at other stacksizes.
So if you aren’t as studied at higher stack depth it makes sense to lower it.

Sept. 24, 2020 | 12:26 p.m.

You don’t need that. Have a strategy, preferably simplified. And the discipline to stick to it.

Sept. 24, 2020 | 5:11 a.m.

KQ, AJ, QJ, JT.
What are you even bluffing with here for this size? And if you use this size what are you calling with? Only full house?

Sept. 23, 2020 | 5:55 p.m.

Shove river, don’t look back.
As played, call.

Sept. 23, 2020 | 3:41 p.m.

Good luck. Looks like this could become interesting!
Are you dticking with Pokerstars ir GGpoker?

Sept. 22, 2020 | 5:38 a.m.

I would still bet turn.
As played bet river is solid. Can size down but depends on your 3-bet range preflop. If you have lots of possible bluffs on the river then sizing up makes sense.

Sept. 21, 2020 | 5:18 p.m.

You don’t check turn to fold here.
I don’t get why we check turn though.

Sept. 21, 2020 | 5:11 p.m.

Going south is doable on Runitonce? Cool.

I tend to do this at Zoom as well. I’m just not experienced with deeper stacked poker.

Is there aspecific reason that you dislike that ratholing is possible?

Sept. 21, 2020 | 4:03 p.m.

Just changing flop betsize and looking at the overal EV isn’t going to do much.
Solver has options on two more streets to make up for the betsize mistake on flop. So the difference will often be minimal when looking at EV.
On top of that 1/3rd and 1/2nd is only a 17% size difference.

Choosing either flopsize will work fine on lots of flops.

Sept. 21, 2020 | 2:38 p.m.

Comment | lIlCitanul commented on Carotters

Glad you liked the course. I watched it as well and just like you found it amazing. I progressed a decent amount because of it. Hope the same will be true for you. There’s a subforum to discuss the course or ask questions about it. It’s not that active but I try to look at it for any questions.

Good luck at the tables.

Sept. 21, 2020 | 8:26 a.m.

Did my comment not go through? Sorry if this becomes a double post.

While it’s a draw heavy board a SB shouldn’t have all of them. 56s, 89s might not even be in his range, especially 56.
When we raise we can deny equity from some off those draws. But we also deny him the opportunity of keep on bluffing. And the draws that do continue have a decent amount of equity. Just think of AXhh.

My go to would be calling down.

Sept. 21, 2020 | 7:28 a.m.

When a hand is -EV it is do for a combination of a lot of small factors.
Common ways it can become +EV:
Opponent overfolds against 3-bet.
Opponent overfolds against cbets.
Opponent opens wide but plays rest correct. But this means his continue range is wider than normal and your hand now became value against that range.

But it’s opponent dependant and not easy to find a general rule.

Sept. 21, 2020 | 7:21 a.m.

Comment | lIlCitanul commented on D

Good luck!
Writing this out and having something to look at when you feel like relapsing into old habits might get you there!

What I always tell people “it’s a marathon, not a sprint”. Small changes every time is easier to do compared to a full change all of a sudden.

Sept. 21, 2020 | 7:15 a.m.

Given your post about overbetting and this one I feel like you are trying to implement strategies you don’t fully understand the reason for.

When we 3-bet and then come to a postflop situation the “advice” to cbet small is because of the stack to pot ratio. Despite having a small flop size you can still get all the money in with more regular turn and river bets.
So the advice you’ve been given mainly applies to the flop.

There is a correlation between betsize and frequency if betting. The smaller your betsize the more frequent you bet. You also bet with more average hands such as 2nd pair, 3rd pair,... . Because of the smaller size your opponent is forced to play more hands as well. Which causes your 2nd pair to be considered a value bet for example. This is often referree to as a merged bet. Hands of lots of different strengths.

When you increase your betsize your frequency of betting goes down. And the hands you are betting are pushed mire to the extremes. very good hands or very weak Hands. The bigger the size the more these extremes are looked for. These type of bets are referred to as Polarized.

Other factors play but this idea should be a good start for your journey.

Sept. 20, 2020 | 8:08 p.m.

It always has to be exploit wise. Because the definition of gto doesn’t allow us to play more EV.

A common thing you see in live play is donking on rivers that brings in the flush with flushes. From GTO it doesn’t do this often if at all. Because your opponent adjusts properly and checking becomes better. But if they don’t adjust it could become higher EV.
You always get the same in cooler situations. And the EV of their extra calling range from hands they else would check back has to be higher than the EV we get of the hands they Normally bluff when we check.
So when you donk here it would be maximuzing current EV because at this moment this way is highest EV. If they don’t adjust or don’t okay you iften enough to adjust this can be viable.

I’m giving this example because my population analysis of winning regulars has them donkbetting rivers at 8% with almost all value hands.

Sept. 20, 2020 | 6:22 p.m.

I suggest you ask gto+ support. Scylla is rather fast in replying.

Sept. 20, 2020 | 6:16 p.m.

I don’t get the same result when I solved 163 different flop types.

But yes, compared to a solver the 1/3rd cbet is overused. The reason is that it’s a simplification. You can’t play like a solver. So you make your action humanlike but still decent.

Sept. 20, 2020 | 6:14 p.m.

SPR and stacking off is based on pot odds.
So in a normal game if your spr is low it’s likely you are going to get all the money in the middle. Because even if your opponent has a bunch of strong hands, your equity and pot odds still mean you have to get it in.

In your example the spr has to be super low. Basicly as low where getting it in with 2 outs is still profitable enough. But as soon as you add very few bluffs in the 88,55 range you will notice getting it in becomes profitable despite him holding 88,55 at a high frequency

Sept. 20, 2020 | 5:57 p.m.

Load more
Runitonce.com uses cookies to give you the best experience. Learn more about our Cookie Policy