Kalupso Generally I have found that it is very difficult to split ranges when OOP on a double-suited run-out. Seems that the solvers love to check here quite frequently (likely a board coverage thing since there are so many types of run-outs). That being said, I think most players do some sort of splitting where they polarize and check weak give-ups. My thoughts are that OOPs range is going to be extremely weak after giving up and that the small size forces him into an uncomfortable spot in defending at the correct frequency. As for a solver play - you may be right but I would have to run a sim to verify as I really do not know this spot well.
Dec. 17, 2018 | 7:20 p.m.
Many connected boards have at least one static turn card.
Many monotone boards have at least one static turn card.
All I am seeing is MLL or LLL boards :)
Are we trying to find some counter intuitive boards, too?
Not necessarily, but that might make you think more. Have any ideas for counter-intuitive boards?
Dec. 14, 2018 | 12:28 a.m.
A few reasons I would use a stronger range with a small size here;
It is much harder to pile money in against 2 players. You want to force the first player into an uncomfortable spot as to calling or raising. He should be playing aggressively vs small bets but he will have 2 players left to act if he does. Betting large let's player 1 off the hook for having to play back as aggressively.
They will have a somewhat combined defense frequency (with more of the defense lying on the last person to act) so it will be much easier for them to meet minimum defense.
You want to force them to defend wider so OTR you aren't playing against the absolute nuts every single time.
Both players have nutted hands in their range. If you bet big they can punish your ranges EV by raising.
Players are likely fish and will under-defend by both calling and not raising enough if you use small bets.
It is easy to get blown off your equity against 2 players so choosing hands that can play 3 streets is going to be harder.
There are so many reasons small bets play better in scenarios such as this. I am sure other people can contribute here.
Dec. 14, 2018 | 12:20 a.m.
Just my opinion as this spot is 100% exploitative play (MW w/ fish).
Flop - Check-back at rather high frequency normally. With passive Cutoff I may up that frequency a tiny bit but not 100% cbet. Also, when betting I would choose a very small sizing [20-33%].
Turn - 33% bet then call shove feels like the best option. Check also feels fine. Medium and large bets feel fine versus wide range such as 44/3 in SB. If it was tight player medium and large bets would be too spewy.
River - Call. 44/3 with decent AF will def have enough bluffs here and/or sometimes he may show up with hands like K7 or AQ.
Dec. 13, 2018 | 9:07 p.m.
I assumed that a live 1-2 limping range was well understood to be on average wide. It may or may not be as wide as I am saying. I don't know. But I do know that live ranges at 1-2 do have a tendency to be alot wider than what I would consider reasonable, as I'm often shocked at how some players can show up with such weak holdings time and again.
I do believe some players can play 100% limping ranges but is it safe to assume that every fish plays 100% ranges and go nuts on every limper? Most definitely not. Without specific info on this player it is best to assume a range that creates the least exploitable strategy versus him. That is where my assumptions of his range came from. So, not tight but not insanely loose either.
To get to your concern, I would estimate that it's totally reasonable for villain to have right around 50% of starting hands in this situation, giving room for about 5-10% tighter/looser on each end.
Seems reasonable. I would assume on the tighter end of this spectrum to be safe but I think this is a decent assumption.
That being said, looking at this in Flopzilla, it does seem quite reasonable to check behind, because on this texture alot of those hands are likely going to continue vs a bet. Because of its wet nature, even a hand like J5s will likely continue, and not knowing villains exact strategy, it could be better to check behind and do some bluff catching against a wider range.
Most definitely! And holding the Ad means he will have less Ax and more Kx, Qx, Jx, etc and also more hands with clubs. Holding the 7d means he will have either lower cards (not too many of those in his range) or more 8x, 9x, Tx, etc and more clubs. So the removal effects of our hand are poor.
Not just that but many run-outs are difficult for our range to continue betting/defending which usually means this board is one of good EV for the opponent.
Overall, great response! Glad you took the time to analyze his range in flopzilla :)
PS It is hard to give constructive criticism/advice without coming off like a total dick so I tried my hardest to make it clear that I was not trying to be a dick. I am glad you understood that and took it as it was. One of the most difficult things to do these days online is just that :D
Dec. 13, 2018 | 6:53 p.m.
I mean this in a constructive way so don't take it as harsh criticism...
Can you construct his limping range in a program and post it when you post? It is as you have thoughts on what his range looks like but did not give us that information from the start then proceed with correcting our assumptions. If you have assumptions about his range then you should put that in the post. We cannot read your mind. Without the ranges you are assuming we default to our assumptions (which could be worlds different).
Making us ASSUME makes an ASS out of U and ME :) I always liked that quote!
Here is a post I made about this exact type of scenario because it seems to be a trend: https://www.runitonce.com/nlhe/constructing-better-posts/
Think its def profitable in a vacuum
I would like to note that just because a play is profitable does not mean it is the best play. Some plays are more profitable than others. It could still be a mistake to make a profitable play (EV mistake).
All that being said - it is probably a mistake to continue making assumptions about what you think about this persons style of play. If you post some limping ranges I will definitely analyze them for you.
Dec. 13, 2018 | 5:22 p.m.
Would like to add to this post. I think his play should use only a shove size OTT to reduce your ranges EV. So I believe he is probably making either an exploit or a mistake (likely the latter). We have seen this before where folding this strength hand in this scenario is too exploitable. The result from the node-locking I did was that villain has to have zero bluffs (even no straight flush draws) to make it a fold.
Dec. 13, 2018 | 2:58 p.m.
Nice job on the store!
Would love to see some fitted baseball caps. These went out of style a few years ago (for most companies) I assume because it is cheaper to produce a one-size-fits-all snap back. I would like to own a fitted 7 3/8 cap on top of the RIO snap back I own though. I always default to fitted caps because, well, there is nothing like being fitted.
Dec. 13, 2018 | 2:54 p.m.
Flop - It is rare that I would find a board to have a checking range OTF but this is one :P What do you unblock here? Everything points towards him having some sort of connection here.
Turn - Looks fine.
River - River is close but a call versus this smaller size.
Dec. 13, 2018 | 4:35 a.m.
Flop - Both options are fine [Check or Bet] and either small or medium size is fine if you decide to bet. Flop looks good.
Turn - IP's EV increases on this turn. Would be choosing the check option almost all the time. Call after check looks good.
River - This is a decent card for your range. Check/Call with this combo would be the play. You unblock most of his bluffs. Yes, he can merge a little to reduce the EV of hands like this but his stats point towards him being aggressive which tells me he is capable of bluffing enough here to make this call at least break even. If he goes too thin and decides to bet [88-99] for value then you can shift your strategy to one with more Check/Calls and Check/Raises to exploit him.
All said and done you played it okay. I would choose the sticky line as he is going to have a harder time exploiting you than you will countering him.
Dec. 13, 2018 | 4:25 a.m.
I personally love cash games and have played lots of everything. The reason is the complexity of the game at really deep stacks.
Since you live in brazil you probably have the best chance of running up a roll at MTTs though.
Dec. 12, 2018 | 3:40 p.m.
Most people make many mistakes trying to shift from their normal game to a game based around equilibrium strategies such as PioSOLVER. What you need to remember is that PioSOLVER is just a tool. Don't live and breathe equilibrium strategies but rather feel what the solver is telling you :) When working with solvers the best thing you can do is understand WHY it is doing something. Don't worry about mimicking it's strategies. Just worry about understanding why it is doing what it is doing - how the ranges interact.
And over all - have fun! We got in it for the fun of it so don;t let anything ruin that fun for you. If that means not using PioSOLVER right away or getting a coach for understanding the sims then do that.
I am not a someone to preach but one thing I think we can all live by is the fact that we are here for a short time so you should enjoy your stay. Don't do stuff that drives you insane.
Dec. 12, 2018 | 4:53 a.m.
Because they're using this strategy it only means it's the higher EV strat,
Not true at all. On certain textures and with certain pre-flop strategies range-bets can capture most of the EV of a full strategy but rarely will it capture all of the EV.
They use it because the players they are playing against are not responding correctly versus it (they should be Check/Raising or Raising more frequently and merged). If players respond correctly then range-bets are a horrible strategy in many scenarios.
but I don't want to blindly incorporate the strat in my game
Smart. Do the work yourself to find out which strategies are best in different scenarios and why.
It is a broad generalization to assume "range-bets" and "range advantage" go hand-in-hand. There are many factors that should go into every decision and with most anything in poker, "it depends".
Dec. 11, 2018 | 1:49 a.m.
Not necessarily specific to OPs post but...
Uncapped rake games should be nearly all "re-raise or fold" type strategies pre-flop as crazy as it sounds. I did some pre-flop solves with uncapped rake and it showed insane amounts of aggression to avoid the rake.
Dec. 8, 2018 | 7:27 p.m.
Turn - Thin value bet (33% pot) is fine. It is actually used at a decent frequency (~1/3 of the time) with this combo. Other hands which use this sizing are [AAh, KK, 99, AhQh, Ah5h] so if you decide to thin value bet a combo like this make sure be aware of your range.
River - This hand is a check.
Dec. 7, 2018 | 1:11 a.m.
Exploitatively I would jam it. Probably some frequency at GTO as well. Good combo for generating fold equity as a bluff, decent equity when called. His range is going to be generally weak here (one pair normally). Don't worry about him calling - he will likely fold often enough to make this shove profitable. Even if he does call with a hand like QJs, make note of it and jam thinner on him later on.
EDIT: He could be Raise/Calling a hand like [A5s, A4s, 54s] here as well. Seems to be a spot you should stick it in his face.