That would probably be a fold in places where I've played live poker. I don't know what the "general" rule is or if there is one. It's an interesting spot where I could see the ruling going either way. Tossing your hand without announcing action is considered a fold in general, but maybe that doesn't have to apply on the river in position given that there is nothing for IP to gain by doing that?
What ended up happening and how was the decision justified?
Jan. 26, 2020 | 1:26 p.m.
Cool, now we're on the same page.
Again, I think PIO nodelock is the perfect tool to figure these types of things out (coupled with some actual information about how your opponent is playing). But yes, I would say that there are definitely situations where pure raising is the most incentiviced strategy.
Jan. 26, 2020 | 1:22 p.m.
I think your question is ultimately too vague to answer, because choosing a sizing is a very complicated business and it all depends on the details.
Choosing a sizing with your entire range in mind is not that different from choosing a sizing based on your hand, because a single hand was never in isolation in the first place. "Playing your range" I guess is largely about learning a more theoretically sound approach to the game, which you can learn best by using solvers.
Jan. 26, 2020 | 1:10 p.m.
I would probably size down a little bit on the flop and use a smaller sizing on the turn aswell, we get more value from hands that we crush (88/99 with a spade, JT...). I think people often play these types of spots inpatiently, wanting to put the money in before the board turns bad or whatever, which I don't think is necessary and there are clear benefits to go for three streets.
Jan. 26, 2020 | 12:57 p.m.
Depends on a bunch of factors.
Incase this wasn't clear enough, not all spots are created equal. There are various spots where our strategy is supposed to have a lot of raises to begin with, therefore we need less deviation from our opponents side to make all of our continues raises. There are also some hands that simply don't benefit from raising as much as some other hands despite villain doing something radical. There are also spots where villain is supposed to be cbetting at a very high frequency, so we can't justify raising exploitative amounts based on their cbetting frequency alone. So I would say that there are spots where raising might be better with virtually all of our range, assuming villain is being very exploitative and the spot is a a high frequency check/raise spot to begin with, but we can't generalize all spots, there's too much deviation.
Jan. 26, 2020 | 12:38 p.m.
Whenever calling is -ev, we shouldn't call. I'm just questioning how often it actually is the case where callling with every hand has lower EV than raising.
In order to figure these things out you would basically need a solver. PIO nodelock is a perfect tool for this type of work, because you could for example see what happens to our defending range when our opponent decides to cbet 100% range instead of equlibrium strategy of 75% etc...
Jan. 26, 2020 | 11:17 a.m.
Yeah, I think investing on a tracking software such as Hold'em manager or Pokertracker is a very good idea if you're even slightly interested in taking poker seriously. Not only you get a hud but you also get to track your hands and stats and study your game off the tables.
Just make sure that the site you're using allows hud and/or hand tracking, some sites don't allow these. Partypoker for example disabled huds recently but hand tracking is still available I believe.
Jan. 21, 2020 | 2:55 p.m.
I don't really like calling hands with very few outs to improve to then fold them on brick rivers
Calling turn and folding river even with hands that are not going to improve too often on the river happens all the time in theory. Calling turn to fold river is bad only if villains river betting frequency is unreasonably high. If that's the case then we have exploitative incentive to either fold turn or call turn and call river.
Jan. 19, 2020 | 6:19 p.m.
Both options are fine preflop I think, TT is more of a pure call and QQ is more of a pure raise, JJ is in between.
I tend to not have a raising range in these situations in general, but if we ever raised something, JJ would probably be one of the better hands to do it with given the amount of protection there is to have. I would guess that equilibrium raising frequency is fairly low but contains some AT/JJ type of hands coupled with some flushdraws and tiny number of other things maybe.
Turn is close between two options again. Betting is fine but the sizing should probably be small, the idea is to get protection and also block.
River is again probably a mixed strategy in theory, I think most people fold these too quickly.
Jan. 18, 2020 | 9:35 a.m.
I'm basing my decision to check on the fact that in theory when you get called IP, you're generally supposed to mostly check instead of bet, because IP coldcaller (outside of BvB) is going to have a very tight and defined range unlike you who has all the hands you open with, so that results to us being forced to check more often than bet, and then there's the obvious fact that we're OOP so we're less incentivized to put money in voluntarily. I haven't done any solver work regarding multiway situations, but what I'm assuming to be true is that once you get another call and it's 3way to the flop, our checking frequency is supposed to go up even more. Since I already check almost automatically when I get called by the IP in a heads-up situation, I'm even more prone to do that 3way.
I think the most common hesitation towards checking comes from the fact that it is often considered to be "giving up", especially when you can imagine hands that you win againts by betting and so on. I would like to just point out that IP player is not going to be betting everytime when we check, so we get to see the turn fair amount and start betting if we want to. And if IP player is going to bet everytime, check/raising and check/calling become profitable. There's also the fact that betting doesn't win you the pot as often as you might think, it's fairly likely that we're going to lose the pot againts worse draws like QJ/KJ when we bet and now the pot is bigger, unless we triple barrel obviously.
All that said, I'm not necessarily opposed to betting as much as I am opposed to insistence on betting, if that makes sense.
Jan. 18, 2020 | 6:48 a.m.
Depends I guess. The thing is that it's pretty easy to underbluff in this spot if you're a reasonable but not super advanced player, and it's easy to bluff/valuebet too thin often enough for us to call a high flush if you're a fish.
Jan. 17, 2020 | 8:33 a.m.
3bet is too small, 3x would be the absolute minimum, I tend to go 4x or something.
I would rather just bet myself on the turn, I tend to assume that micro/low stakes opponents are going to be passive more often than aggressive, therefore being aggressive myself is more often incentivized than being passive. Checking turn is only good if villain responds aggressively, otherwise we're missing value.
River is meh, I would call with the assumption that an average opponent at NL2 is silly enough to bet silly hands often enough.
Jan. 17, 2020 | 7:05 a.m.
The way this spot works is that villains range has a lot of overpairs after calling flop and turn, so what your strategy should be againts that is to bet big with a range of trips or better and bluffs. If I wanted to bluff on the river, I would probably just shove. Half pot bet isn't gonna do much againts a range that contains so many good bluffcatchers and you're not incentivized to valuebet for thin value.
Jan. 17, 2020 | 6:59 a.m.
Not only set mining. While a big chunk of our EV comes from flopping a set, we can still play profitably in many spots without a set aswell. My general approach would be to call a cbet on the flop when we have an overpair or when we have a draw, call (a small) cbet on Txx Jxx and Qxx boards and fold to Kxx and Axx, AK hits these boards which is a big deal.
Jan. 15, 2020 | 5:48 a.m.
Flop: check/raise seems fine indeed, probably the highest frequency play in theory.
Turn: Check/calling seems fine. I'm not sure if I agree with the assesment that your hand doesn't have much showdown value. Being BvB, villain is going to have a bunch of offsuit straight draws such as J9o that are going to bet the turn and check river sometimes, assuming villain is not bluffshoving the river everytime with these hands. If he does then he is bluffing too often from a theory perspective, given how many of these hands villain can have.
River: I'm not a huge fan of the block bet. You justify it by saying that there are some hands such as TT that may want to do it, but I think that 99 and TT are literally the only hands that could conceivably block (and you probably want to check/shove most of those on the turn anyways given how much protection there is up for grabs), whereas the rest of your range is more interested in either shoving or checking. My approach would be to play according to what vast majority of my range prefers to do, which is to shove a range of straight or better and bluffs and check the rest. Keep in mind that there is way less incentive to protect your block betting range with strong hands when the SPR is so low, because your opponent is incapable of taking advantage of too weak block betting range by making big raises, because there isn't enough money left to make a big raise.
I obviously need to have some strong hands in this block bet range.
Not really true, atleast this is not equally the case in each spot.
Jan. 14, 2020 | 10:11 a.m.
Preflop is indeed a fold everytime.
Turn raise with a very bad hand makes no sense, especially after you determined that most of villains range is AK. You can't just put money in the pot with bad equity and bad fold equity to set up a river bluff, because part of that money you're trying to win on the river is effectively your money that you donated to the pot. It's like stealing money from a beggar you just gave money to.
River math kinda checks out I guess, but you're trying to win money that you put in the pot with too low equity as well as too low fold equity. You're also assuming that villain folds everything but the nuts every single time.
Jan. 14, 2020 | 9:38 a.m.
Seems fine, I like the river bet. I think we extracted a proper amount of value because I think that KQ/AQ are more likely to check the flop than AJ/KJ but it's not like villain cannot have the straight (so we can't bet big either).
Jan. 14, 2020 | 9:17 a.m.
I would probably check the turn, the turn card is one of the worst ones in this situation, improving villains range more than it improves ours. We cannot bet third time for value on most river cards and our hand doesn't require that much protection, so we don't have any clear incentive to bet.
Jan. 14, 2020 | 9:14 a.m.
Both spots seem fairly close. What you're missing, or atleast you didn't mention it, is the fact that with T8 hero is closing the action and with 87 there is still one player left to act who we can expect to squeeze hero out of the pot >5% of the time or something, which hurts the EV of flatting. And obviously there are exploitative reasons that can easily determine heros course of action in both spots. But yeah, both spots are close and I don't think that the 87s spot is better than the T8s one, atleast not by much.
Jan. 14, 2020 | 9:11 a.m.
Fold to a 4bet. I would continue something like 99+, AJs+ and AKo. 4bet is big so we're not supposed to defend that much and most of our continues are going to be 5bet shoves.
I would probably shove the river as played, villains range contains a lot of JJ-KK at this point.
Jan. 14, 2020 | 8:52 a.m.
Hard to go wrong raising a strong draw.
I would probably just bet (shove) turn and try to make villain fold some Ax. Your second pair shouldn't have much showdown value in and off itself, but it is a nice blocker to AK.