blonde poker forum

Annoying spot, seems all too easy for him. Best long term decision? Seems reggy 288 hands 20/17.

Poker Stars $0.50/$1 No Limit Hold'em - 6 players -
The DeucesCracked.com Hand History Converter

BTN: $255.61
Hero (SB): $100.00
BB: $100.00
UTG: $192.84
MP: $104.58
CO: $96.50

Pre Flop: ($1.50) Hero is SB with Tc Ts
3 folds, BTN raises to $3, Hero raises to $10, 1 fold, BTN calls $7

Flop: ($21.00) 3s Kd Ks (2 players)
Hero bets $12, BTN raises to $24, Hero

Just calling down generally, sometimes soul read turn. In zoom its tempting to just fold alot as you just get used to folding a chunk of the one ak people try and raise flops a lot when generally they don't rep a lot. 200b deep is prob 3bf the flop but here I'd just call down.

why would you 3bet the flop 200bb deep??

It makes life a lot easier and villain will play v v face up and honest. If we play passively then we give up initiative and guess on a lot of turns an rivers.

Keeping initiative and protecting is inportant, generally peoples ranges to c/r here will be pretty polarised.

Barring very specific reads, 3betting the flop when 200bbs deep is ridiculous. The only thing it achieves is that it makes the hand feel like it is easier to play. The problem with this is twofold. First, making a hand 'easier to play' is NOT the same as playing a hand in the most profitable manner. Second, and more important, it does not really make the hand easier to play... it just appears to. This is mainly because we get a lot of folds (all the times our opponent is bluffing basically) and so we feel great about things. Having the initiative is a comfort blanket and gives us a tempting illusion of good play in spots like this, but that is all it is... an illusion.

By 3betting we fail to maximise vs villain's turn/river bluffs since he will fold the flop. Plus we give villain a chance to 4bet as a (semi-)bluff which would lead to us making a FTOP mistake by folding the best hand. Obviously if you have a read/dynamic/gut-feeling that opponent is going to be 4betting widely on this flop then by all means 3bet to induce. But I assume if you get 4bet you are planning to fold against a standard reg at 100NL, esp when deep?

Yes, we gain protection for our hand... but really what are we protecting against? Many flush draws are favourites vs our hand because they have overcards too - so we don't even have the 'best hand', which makes it tough to justify betting for protection. And most of his other 'bluffs' only have between 2 and 6 outs against us. It is these 2-out to 6-out hands that we are protecting against, and we are risking a lot to prevent them realising their 5%-25% equity - especially given that villain might semi-bluff jam forcing us to fold. Unless we know that villain will rarely bluff the turn or river with these hands then we maximise vs these hands by playing to encourage and then pick off his bluffs (ofc if we know he never bets again unless he outdraws us then obviously 3betting purely for protection becomes more interesting since there is now no value at all in bluff-catching).

Yes we are guessing on the turn and river, and so the hand FEELS harder to play. But this is not sufficient reason to 3bet. Plus it is merely another illusion. What happens when we 3bet the flop and villain calls? Now how do you feel about the hand... it doesn't feel so easy to play any more, right? What happens when he clicks it back or jams... does it feel easy to play now? It only feels 'easy to play' when he folds his bluffs... which is actually the last thing you want him to do!

Obviously if you call down and opponent has a King, or gets there with a flush draw, you end up feeling that you played your hand badly in some way. And if he is bluffing with QJo and hits a Jack on the river to win the pot, you might feel even worse. But all this is merely an illusion... the opposite type of illusion that having the initiative creates.

Totally disagree but replying on phone is going to be troublesome!

Agree I think. I haven't looked at the actual hand under discussion, but I agree with the general assertion and have bolded part of pleno's post to say that in general when opponents are polarised you should tend towards less aggressive lines.

Lol... I am an old git and I write over half of my extremely long posts on my phone. You are a cool young dude... get that finger working!

I am in the mood for a heated debate tonight  :kiss:

Actually I am not... I am going to bed soon. But still shocked and disappointed at your phone excuse ;)

Damn was looking forward to seeing how you would size your piano sandwich.

:D the main point of the argument is the reaction I our flop 3bet which is completely honest. Gotta find out where you are obv! And the fact that people c/r FDs on paired boards alottttt less from my experience.

Yes, especially with the mid-strength parts of your range as in the actual hand. If villain's raising range is polarised here we should also be polarised with our 3bets. Nothing else makes sense.

Patrick, when you get raised on this flop you have a bluff catcher. So play to catch some bluffs. You can't 3bet for value, you are very unlikely to make a better hand fold, and I have already explained why betting purely for protection is not as good as it 'feels'.

I realise that TT is 'vulnerable' on this flop - i.e. there is a flush draw, plus lots of overcards to TT can hit turn/river. But these are merely problems that you have to deal with in the process of playing your hand in the most profitable manner.

:D

You can't be serious here, surely? I'm not even going to reply to part of this because you're just going to post and say "Come on sucker, I was joking obviously... how could you believe I think that 3betting in this spot to 'find out where you are' is a good play?"

Also, why do we want to force our opponent to act completely honestly with his weak hands? I'd much prefer him to keep bluffing with hands that have little equity vs our TT.

BTW... villain is in position so it is not a c/r. Granted I am in pedantic mood tonight, but it is also kind of important! Tbh though, if we were in position then flatting the c/r would be even more clearly the best play, and it would not even be remotely close between flatting and 3betting IMO.

I'd rather have k5 and axss in my bluffcatch obv range than 10s. 10s is a really bad hand to have as a bluffcatcher here with potential pot to stack ratio and vulnerability of having to call down a considerable amount of bbs with no initiative and massive vulnerability.

I understand come rely your argument and once probably would flat 10s in this spot but now to me with the current state of the games and the reactions I've seen to flop 3bets on paired boards deep and the amount of times I've been in absolute coffin spots I think it's an easy flop 3bet.

I also understand we all have certain game plans and it could be possible that flatting for you is fine whilst 3bettong for me is fine, although I think I 99% of people went for the flop 3bet in a vacuum in these kind of spots they'd make more money.

I agree with Patrick here.

Reason being is he turns his range face up once we 3bet the flop and it doesnt just 'appear' to be easier to play. It is actually a whole lot easier to play.

How do you expect him to react to a flop 3bet with diferent parts of his range? Once you answer that you will realise why 3betting the flop is the absa nizzles :D

Yeh.

Seriously, I'm pretty sure Callum (justinsayne) an I have 3et more flops than probably anybody in poker (seriously :D) and there's times which hae probably been terrible, but generally now we'd agree that in almost 100pc of spots on this texture it's a 'snap 3bet and really not close at all' or of we were sweating we'd do it and other would either say yeh or not even reply as we'd just take it as standard.

Poker kinda develops with who you disuss poker with. Callum and I almost always take the aggressive/initiative taking line or we make a hero fold, ofc we call down etc too but there will be groups of friends who have really good callin ranges an generally never ever 3bet flops and I'm sure their strategy is v successful too which why a lot of the time in mid stakes hands it's really hard to give feedback because...... It depends!

Patrick (and JustinSayne)... three really important questions:

1. Are you ever expecting to fold out a better hand when you 3bet?

2. Are you ever expecting to get called by a worse hand when you 3bet? (I am not counting FDs as a 'worse hand' BTW)

3. What are you planning to do if he continues vs your 3bet? Either by flatting or 4betting.

If you give me the answers to these questions then I might be able to see the way you are thinking, without them I have no idea. For example, if you say "If he 4bets we are getting the money in, we have induced right?" then I understand the 3bet (I may not necessarily agree with it - it would depend on villain reads etc - but at least I would understand it).

thoughts on folding?

It doesn't matter if we know he's goog to fold 100pc of the time then we'd take it. You're worrying too much about future extraction or playing vs different parts of his range which is necessary for 95pc of problems. Needs to be a reason why we are betting etc, but we want to protect our equity, win a nice amount of bbs in the pot and then also develop and understand how game flow changes an adjust quicker than the opponents.

Like I say stu, completely understand your thought process/line and in lots of ways don't disagree with it but just from playing these spots a tonne of times I won the pot a massive amount of times and of somebody could say to you when you are raised on this spot oop/deep with a bad bluffcatcher and huge vulnerability would you take winning this pot a MASSIVE amount of he time would you take it? I think so right?

Don't like it much.

imo 3bet flop> fold > call

Yeh I agree. Although this is just in a vacuum depending on villain the latter tow options will generally change.

Yes, I am certain this is correct. And all those times you won it felt good, and clean and easy. But this is just an illusion! Pretty much every time you 3bet here and opponent folds you would have had a better EV by simply calling. When he folds he is almost always bluffing, and you are usually going to win the hand anyway! That's where the illusion comes from. The only subset of hands that 3betting wins the pot immediately against is precisely that subset of hands in which the most profitable play is NOT to win the pot immediately. But it feels GOOD to win pots immediately, and there is a lot of positive reinforcement that comes through that. Which is why it is so easy to be fooled by the illusion and not see what is really going on with the range vs range dynamic here. And this positive reinforcement leads to thoughts like "I have 3bet this spot thousands of times and have won the pot most of the time, therefore it is the best play".

Im pretty sure this is most important par and the fact that you never lose a big pot and win a medium sized pot a massive amount of time vs  sometimes losing a big pot, but usually folding turn or river and sometimes winning at showdown. Or winning when it gets checked down on a blank.

This is very optimistic. I would feel better holding AQ then TT if I was going to call the flop. Atleast that way I still beat his draws and when he checks back the turn/river with his Qx/Ax of spades I will win.

Good debate here but i agree with honeybadger.

I'd imagine if you played alot of hands with the same players, you would get heavily exploited with this 3b flop really wide approach compared to someone who adopts a non 3betting the flop approach (assuming both players have the same VPIP). Whenever your decreasing the PSR with frontdoor aggression it actually hinders your ability to run bluffs as FE is decreased and ranges are narrowed.

In this spot you can fold vs some players OTF,call or raise but i'd imagine the play which is going to lose the least is going to be calling. Poker isn't easy but the majority of the money made from the game isn't from making sick plays/bluffs etc but from making the fewest mistakes.

It isn't particularly optimistic if the villain is polarised. If you think 3b > fold AND villain is polarised, then it is almost a logical impossibility that call isn't better than 3b.

His range:

1. Trips Kings or better.
2. Flush draws (often with overcards to TT).
3. Pure bluffs and other low equity hands (hands with between 2 and 6 outs).

Versus a 3bet:

1. Trips Kings or better is never folding and will either 4bet or flat as a 'trap'. We have succeeded in putting more money into the pot against a better hand. And if he 4bets we don't even get a chance to spike our two outer on the turn!

2. Most flush draws will continue in some way, either by floating or 4bet semi-bluffing. We have no way to prevent opponent realising his equity since we must fold if 4bet, and must check the turn if villain flats. Villain can choose to take a free card if he wants, or he can bet the turn and we will most likely have to fold (given that villain can flat our 3bet with trip Kings or better). We are going to be a substantial dog to win the pot vs a flush draw, since he will either a) 4bet flop, b) flat flop and hit a flush (or his overs) on the turn or river, or c) bluff us on the turn/river. Winning the pot vs a FD requires a parlay - that none of these three things (a, b or c) must happen. And the mathematics of parlays is such that this is fairly unlikely. So we have put additional money in the pot with a hand that is fairly unlikely to get to showdown and win, partly because of it's slight equity disadvantage vs something like AsJs and partly because it is going to get bluffed out of the pot a decent amount.

3. His bluffs will almost always fold and we will win the pot. Every now and then villain will get his spew on, grow a pair, and make a suicidal zero-equity bluff... and we will lose the pot since we can't call! But mostly we will just win right away. As I will explain below, this is not as good a thing as it 'feels'.

Versus a flat:

1. Trip Kings or better is still going to win the pot almost all the time, although we HAVE slightly improved our chances of hitting a two outer. What is the difference? None really, oh... except that we have put less money into a pot that we are not going to win!. This HAS to be a good thing, surely? Think about this: we can even call turn, fold river, which seems dodgy at first glance - until you realise that this has cost exactly the same as 3betting the flop and then folding to a 4bet. By flatting we force villain to fire two further barrels at us with a well-constructed range (going to be difficult/impossible to do on this flop unless his preflop range is insanely tight, and in this case we'd just fold the flop!) and we get to see at least one more street than we do if we 3bet the flop and get 4bet.

2. FDs are not going to get a chance to 4bet the flop. Villain is going to have to make a tough decision about whether to bet the turn when we check to him, knowing that we have a TON of Kx hands in our range so he might be check-raised when his equity is now very poor. Yes, against our PRECISE hand it is good for villain if he bets the turn since we are never c/r him and so he gets to see the river, and we might fold. But we are playing a RANGE, not a hand. Villain might well bet the turn, but that is fine since our range is very Kx heavy and he is just lucky to run into this part of our range. But villain is going to be under incredible pressure to check back the turn here, which means that we get to showdown pretty often. Yes, villain gets to realise his equity, but SO DO WE... and remember, villain actually has a BETTER HAND than us if he has a flush draw in position, so getting to showdown without having to put a lot of money in is a GOOD THING.

3. With his bluffs/low equity hands, villain will assumedly continue bluffing some % of the time. Obviously we hope his frequencies are as high as possible here. We make money versus his bluffs. We would not have made this money if he folded the flop. Yes, villain will outdraw us somewhere between 5% and 25% of the time, depending on his exact hand. This is a shame. However, it is likely to be adequately compensated for by the profit we make the times when we pick up money from his turn/river bluffs and he fails to ourdraw us. And of course, remember that we were NOT guaranteed to even see the river if we 3bet our hand since villain has the option of 4bet bluffing us. This also counter-balances the fact that villain will outdraw us with his bluffs some of the time.

Ok, so that's the likely ways in which villain will respond with different parts of his range vs a) a 3bet and b) a flat.

It's pretty clear that 3betting is a disaster vs his trips Kings or better hands, and thus flatting is definitely better than 3betting. If you don't agree with this you are INSANE lol!

It's also pretty clear that 3betting does not gain anything vs villain's flush draws. Yes, he may perhaps fold some of the tiny flush draws, and we gain there. But he is normally AT LEAST going to flat our 3bet with his FDs (assuming we don't do something stupid like 3bet really big). And when he does this we are in a REALLY REALLY tough spot, and have just succeeded in increasing the size of a pot in which we are not a favourite to win! (see the explanation on parlays above) Flatting is clearly better than 3betting vs most of his FDs, given how the hand is likely to play out. It's not like we can even raise for value and protection vs AsJs... because that hand is better than ours on this flop.

So it all comes down to his bluffs. You 3bet you 'always' win the pot (except for every now and then when he goes crazy). Feels great, right? Wrong! It shouldn't feel great. You don't want villain to be folding his bluffs... you want him to continue to barrel with them! You do let villain outdraw you some of the time, but you more than make up for this through picking off his bluffs.

The hand is NOT easier to play if you 3bet. It really is an illusion. As I have pointed out, it is going to be pretty hard to play when villain floats your 3bet! Yes, you do gain information by 3betting... but this is the sort of information you don't want! You have to fold to any further action after 3betting, so what have you gained information-wise? You could have got to the river by flatting and it wouldn't have cost you any more than 3bet/folding. And then you'd be forcing villain to triple barrel you to MAYBE make you fold!

The only part of villain's range against which 3betting perhaps makes the hand 'easier to play' is the bluff component of his range. This is because it ends the hand right away, so we don't have any further decisions to make and it all feels nice and cosy and warm. The problem is that this is precisely the part of his range against which it is more profitable NOT to end the hand right away! Yes, we are going to have to make some guesses and get in spots which 'feel' uncomfortable. But they are not really uncomfortable, this again is just an illusion. As long as we remember we are playing our range vs his range, and our HAND vs his range - suddenly it is not an uncomfortable spot any longer... it is just a hand played in the most profitable manner.

To sum up, it is pretty clear that against trip Kings+ or a FD 3betting is going to work out TERRIBLY... and I assume you are both going to agree with me. I have also demonstrated why it is most profitable not to 3bet versus the bluffs, even though 3betting is obviously profitable versus bluffs and might make things a little 'easier'.


Additional: Here is a different way of explaining it. Two bets have so far gone in on the flop, and we are considering a third bet going in at some point in the hand. We are considering the two options for how this third bet should go in: either we 3bet the flop, or we flat the flop then c/c the turn. We need to ensure that this bet is made in as profitable a spot as possible. A third bet is going to be made and matched either way if villain has trips or a FD, and both of these are not good for us (trips is a disaster, a FD is still not very good as explained above). But it doesn't really matter since that bet is going to be made (and matched) whatever line we take. So let's focus on the other part of his range - the air. We want a third bet to be MATCHED (not just made) vs his air. If we make that third bet it is NOT going to be matched since our opponent will fold. However, if we give the opponent an opportunity to make that third bet, and then WE match the bet, we have achieved our aim of getting that third bet into the pot. Basically... by calling the raise we KEEP OUR OPPONENT'S RANGE WIDE, and by 3betting we narrow his range to only hands that either have us crushed or are drawing very well against us (i.e. the FDs which often have a small equity advantage and always have a LARGE 'playing advantage' down the streets).


Edited to say: Obviously all this is based on the fact that VILLAIN IS VERY LIKELY TO BE BLUFFING ON THIS FLOP. It's pretty clear that this is the case, since it is such a hard flop to have a value hand on and so it is likely that any opponent who raises this flop has far too many bluffs in his range. That's why, without any read/dynamics, most good players would not raise this flop. They would flat with their entire continuing range unless they had a specific reason to adjust. Obviously, if we have a read that villain is very unlikely to be bluffing and his range is almost exclusively FDs and Kx or better... well all this discussion about 3betting or calling is irrelevant. We should just fold.

Wins

Oh and also... in case you are thinking, "Yeah, but what happens when we flat, then the turn comes a Q, J or Ace and villain bets again? We are in a horrible spot now aren't we? That's why we should just 3bet the flop to make him fold all his air!" This is wrong, wrong, wrong!!

If I flat the flop and then face a turn bet I'd MUCH rather the turn was an Ace, Queen or Jack than any other card (apart from a T or a K)! Yes, these turn cards hit his range for bluffing the flop. But they do not actually hit his range for for betting the turn! Imagine you had QJ, had bluffed the flop and now hit a Q... are you REALLY betting when checked to on this turn? When I have a ton of Kx in my perceived range? Of course you're not... you're going to check back and hope to get to showdown. Same same even if you had AsJc and hit an Ace on the turn... you are checking it back right? If this is not how you would play, then at least put yourself in the shoes of an average reg playing these stakes and accept that this is how they play.

On the other hand... if this average reg has the AsJc and the turn comes a Q, or he has the QJ and the turn comes an Ace (or whatever), he is very often going to barrel these cards. He thinks, "Oooh, a scare card. I will bet now because bluffing is good when scare cards hit, right?"

I would not exactly be ROOTING for an Ace, Queen or Jack to turn, because they do hit his range well. But once they hit the turn I would not actually mind too much if villain bets since he is still likely very polarised - he is not likely to bet a turned pair of Aces, Queens, or Jacks given that our perceived range is very Kx heavy. So we can bluff catch on these 'scare-cards-which-actually-are-not-really-scare-cards' and FORCE opponent to fire again on the river if he is to make us consider folding what he hopes is not a Kx hand (which means opponent is playing guessing games too, it is not all one-way traffic!).

Incidentally... if turn comes an Ace, Queen or Jack and opponent checks back the turn, then we can consider turning our hand into a bluff. The reason we might feel the need to do this is that, as mentioned above, these cards do often mean we have been outdrawn (esp if they are not bet on the turn!). The reason we might feel this play would work is because we can credibly represent a TON of Kx hands, and opponent most likely does not have a Kx hand himself now that the turn has checked through.

Although it wasn't intended to be... if I do say so myself, this post above ^^^ is a pretty good explanation of the sort of approach and thinking that allows us to deal with the 'difficult' turn/river issues in a profitable way. Knowing when a scare card is not really that scary, knowing when we can turn our hand into a bluff on certain board run outs, keeping our opponent's range wide, taking advantage of our perceived range ... all this stuff is how we can make more profit through flatting the flop with TT here rather than 3betting. And when you understand this kind of stuff it means you no longer have to 3bet 'to end the hand right now' or 'to make it easier to play'. Instead you can play it in the most +EV manner possible.

</thread>
</pha>

edit: although I do think I put it more succinctly

Lol EVERYONE puts things more succinctly than me! I am completely unable to be that guy who says few words but whose every word counts.

Not convinced that this isn't a level from pleno and callum

Pretty sure this is not the case!

Thing is, there IS a logic behind their reasoning. It is +EV to 3bet the flop with TT here. And it does take down the pot right now by folding out villain's air. It also makes it nice and easy to play vs his air (since villain will just fold and we can move on to the next hand). The issue is that it is more +EV to flat the raise.

The problem is, I think, that Patrick has got fooled by the fact that he will win the pot more often when he 3bets, and has not quite understood that winning the pot most often does not always equal winning the most money. This should be obvious, otherwise it would be optimum play to open shove every single flop lol! But it is sometimes easy to get confused on this, especially when not winning the pot right away will lead into murky waters and what appears at first glance to be guessing games.

One thing that must be pointed out is that flatting the raise and then c/c the turncosts exactly the same as 3betting the flop. Plus it guarantees that you get to the river. And it keep villain's range wide. It also forces villain to either fire multiple barrels at us, or to meekly give up.

Tbh, the more I think about this hand... the more I think the nut line against standard 100NL regs is to call the flop raise and then check-fold if villain bets the turn. I can see a lot of 100NL regs often trying a cheap bluff raise on this flop (however silly that may be). And I can't imagine many of them are going to be firing the turn again often as a bluff once we check-call. Plus the mid-strength part of our range (TT etc) is well protected from reckless zero-equity barrelling by the high proportion of Kx hands we also have in our range. So it's not like we can be massively exploited even if a particular reg picked up on this tendency (however unlikely this would be).

If I am correct in my assumption about how most 100NL regs play (i.e. they try one-and-done bluffs quite often but don't barrel 'enough') then BY FAR the cheapest way of 'finding out where you are' (as Patrick wanted to do) is to simply call the flop and check the turn. And you find out without putting loads more money into the pot.

So, I think the best lines in order are as follows

call flop, c/f most turns > call flop, c/c most turns > 3bet flop, have no idea what to do if hand reaches turn > fold flop

The possible exception would be if an Ace came on the turn. This is such an 'obvious' scare card (even though it is not really scary) that I'd expect many robot regs to pluck up their courage and fire a turn barrel. So I might prefer to c/c on an Ace turn, and c/f most other turns.

N.B. This is all exploitative play of course, not GTO stuff. Also, just to note ... everything I have been discussing is when we are deep. With 100bbs it is much simpler.

Yeah I agree with you Stu, just all looks to be a pretty standard and is so for the reasons that you give?

I'm sure that proving this with some numbers would be pretty simple, but maybe not at 5am.

Yep Dan, I got a bit carried away with myself on this thread. Partly cos I was in that kind of mood. And partly cos I really, really want Patrick to 'get it'. I hope it does click for you Patrick.

Anyway... sleep!!!

lol

i feel like the biggest question here is not who is right about the hand but how hard pleno is levelling/trying to level.... couldnt really agree with honeybadger more

I had a very similar hand that I played on skypoker that was shown on TV and watched by just me and the other two people in the hand.  I had TT in the SB, button raised with 99 or 88, I called from the SB and BB called with either 88 or 99 (i know the hands were 88 and 99, just not sure who had which.  I checked the flop, BB checked and button put out a small bet.  I check raised this and both folded. 

The studio expert said I played it well, but I was irritated as I had the best hand and had made the other two fold.  I then tied myself in knots trying to work out if I would have won if I had 88 and did the same against 99 and TT, or whether I was unlucky to come across a pair of nits!   

Apologies for the derail.       

zzzzzzzzzz disco to all of your pleno ool aggressive posts. pretty boring.

honeybadger also said that he didnt doubt 3betting the flop would show an initial profit/be +ev why would karl/dan both think this was a levelling attempt?

also pretty shame that a debate has to become into a "he must be levelling" finale as prob puts people off in future. ill just stick with conservative lines n the future

couple of things you said just seemed very level like and i wasnt exactly the only one who thought it if you read through...

if you think that 3betting here is the best option then good for you, but it is my humble opinion that honeybadger is way on point with this and that 3betting here would be a mistake.

FWIW Patrick, I did not ever think you were levelling... only comment that made me even suspect it was the 'got to find out where you are' comment.


Two quick points here before I have to go out for the night:

1. It's not a question of sticking to the 'conservative lines', honestly it isn't. I do not always agree with some of the aggressive lines that you advocate, but I admire the fact that you are giving them a go (and making them work a lot of the time!). Even the times they don't work out you will be learning a lot more than a robot reg just taking standard line after standard line. However, in this particular thread your thinking is just clearly wrong IMO, and it is actually a really important issue, not just for this exact type of spot, but for an overall philosophy of poker type of thing that can come up in a TON of different spots.

2. Actually the whole 'conservative line' phrase here is a bit out of context. To some extent, it is 3betting the flop that is the 'conservative line'. That's the way a lot of old school guys would play: they'd think (to oversimplify things) "I am likely ahead here, so I will raise to keep the lead and to protect my hand". And they are likely ahead here of course, so their 3bet usually 'works' (it doesn't really 'work' of course, but it appears to because they usually win the pot immediately). I play regularly in a live game with a VERY VERY strong player who is most definitely old school... and I know 100% that he'd 3bet the flop here for the above mentioned reasons. He's a MUCH better player than me and I will never, ever be as good as him. But he is wrong on this sort of spot. Yes, it works for him... but flatting would work EVEN BETTER. To a great extent, flatting the 3bet is the more 'adventurous' play.

Got to go now but I'd really like to carry on this discussion. I think it is really important.

The find out where you are was a level ofc but it basically is what te play achieves I was tryin to e funny, should have used a smiley obv.

Pleno is a legnd. off his head, but a legend.

+1

+1 to that, lots of heart

Poker Stars $0.25/$0.50 No Limit Hold'em - 6 players - http://www.handconverter.com/hands/1914680
The DeucesCracked.com Hand History Converter

Hero (CO): $58.97
BTN: $50.00
SB: $2.98
BB: $58.42
UTG: $56.08
MP: $160.62

Pre Flop: ($0.75) Hero is CO with 9s 9c
UTG calls $0.50, 1 fold, Hero raises to $1.75, BTN calls $1.75, 2 folds, UTG calls $1.25

Flop: ($6.00) Kc Kh 8c (3 players)
UTG checks, Hero bets $4, BTN raises to $8, UTG folds, Hero calls $4

Turn: ($22.00) 7s (2 players)
Hero checks, BTN bets $10.25, Hero calls $10.25

River: ($42.50) 8d (2 players)
Hero checks, BTN checks

Final Pot: $42.50
Hero shows 9s 9c (two pair, Kings and Nines)
BTN mucks Qd  Ahrt
Hero wins $40.59
(Rake: $1.91)
 
:)

A very well played hand IMO muckthenuts

100bb deep single raised pot vs a fish ≠ 200bb deep 3bet pot vs a reg

We don't know BTN is a fish, but it is not the same spot obviously... although similar principles apply.

You still sticking to your guns on the original discussion Callum? I spent a load of time writing what I think is a pretty conclusive argument for my side, and have heard very little back from Pleno in response, and nothing from you...

In particular, I did exactly what you asked me to do when you said this:

And it did not make me think that 3betting was the nizzles!

BTN in last hand was a reg, hand in op is nl100

but stacks are totally different and its a literal min raise, not comparable.

Stacks/SPR is very similar actually, that's the effect of the first pot being 3bet w 200bbs and the second pot being single-raised with 100bbs. Not saying it is the same, in particular ranges change a LOT in a 3bet pot vs a single raised pot. However, despite it not being exactly the same, there is still a similar principle at work.

Basically, when raised in this sort of spot YOU HAVE A BLUFF CATCHER. Why would you ever want to 3bet with a bluff catcher? You are just putting more money in the pot the times you are crushed - which is a disaster of course. And are not gaining anywhere near enough compensation for this by protecting your equity the times you are way ahead (esp given that you will win the pot anyway somewhere between 95% and 75% of the time, depending on what villain is bluffing with).

I think what this thread has shown us is that you should not try to run a Dubai bluff* on Stu Barnett.

*A Dubai bluff: "Don't be a sheep; think outside the box like me. Think about the other guy's range properly and you'll see why I'm right"

The problem I am having is its really hard for me to articulate my thoughts on this spot.

My overall thought is. Vs anyone with a brain we are going to find it impossible to get to showdown if we flat flop. We also can expect him to play extremely straight forwards vs our flop 3bet. Because he can not have a 4betting range since he almost always 4bets pre with AK.

As I said before. If I only had the two options of call and fold. Folding would be right at the top of the list over calling. Im just throwing a curve ball in there with a flop 3bet

Callum, this is very often a signifier that your thinking is incorrect/illogical. It's not always the case of course, but I strongly believe that in this case it definitely is.

You (and Pleno) have not addressed at all the lengthy logical analysis that I have given. I don't know whether you have properly read it through and thought about it, but I hope you have because it was intended for the two of you - hopefully to give you both a 'lightbulb moment'. You have both also seemingly ignored James' wonderfully succinct comment, that pretty much disproves your argument in one short sentence:


It's like someone hearing a clear and logical explanation of something and then seem to not listen to/ignore all the points made and just say, "yeah, but... (insert something that has already been logically shown to be false)". This is essentially what you are doing when you repeat that folding is better than calling, without giving any reasons for this and ignoring the fact that James has shown this to be completely flawed.


This does not make any logical sense, although it sounds good upon first reading. It implies that you think villain is going to be bluffing a lot on the turn and river, and this will thus prevent you getting to showdown. Well if that's genuinely what you think then simply... do not fold! If instead you think villain is likely to be one and done on the flop then simply call flop and fold many turns. If you think villain will double barrel but pussy out on the river then call turn and fold most rivers. You are using your poker skill through the streets to make good decisions and gain an advantage on your opponent, whether that is by making good calls or good folds. Finishing the hand right away by 3betting does not allow you to do this. And, very importantly, it plays into your opponent's hands the times when he has the strong parts of his range.

If you don't know villain's tendencies then you make the best judgement you possibly can given your assessment of general population tendencies in the games you play in, and then adjust from there in later hands if the hand goes to SD. This is another way in which you are using your skill. I agree that when you don't have much info on an opponent's frequencies it is  sometimes good to play a hand in such a way that you don't make any mistakes on future streets. But this applies mostly to spots where:

A) There is an information asymmetry - i.e. your opponent has more info on your tendencies than you have on his. Thus he is likely to make fewer mistakes than you are on later streets. And,

B) The spot is very close anyway, so you might as well take the option that likely leads to fewer mistakes.

Neither of these is the case here.

Remember that we have a protected range here. We have a LOT of Kx in our range when we flat the flop raise. We are NOT turning our hand face up as a medium pair. So villain cannot just go barrelling us willy nilly. And of course, if you think he will still do so... well then, simply DON'T FOLD!

I get the strong impression that you and Patrick feel much happier playing with the initiative, and are perhaps more than a little uncomfortable when playing without the lead. This is not the worst leak to have by any means, because many spots are indeed more profitable to play with the lead. But this is not true in all situations, and this is definitely one of those in which it is untrue  (or more accurately, the price of re-taking the lead is too high compared to the 'benefits' that it might offer). I think your overall assessment of this hand is clouded by your dislike of playing without the initiative and that your judgement is being affected by this. It is why you are having trouble explaining yourself properly... because your 'gut feeling' is telling you that you don't like a certain line, yet you can't justify this feeling. Your feeling is caused by a preconceived preference for having the lead. And in this case it has led you to the wrong conclusions.

I have read all stu and taken in/agreed with a lot. I even called in exac same spot today (folded river obv) I guess I really need somebody to go into great depth about how we play turn and river on run outs/sizings etc etc as I have. Little experience here and feel v uncomfortable thunprobaby not playing fantastically, probably making negative decisions an thus dot want to put myself into these very hard situations and currently goog to opt to take the easy way out an 3b.

I really do thank you fr all f he contributions itt and sorry for opt for slight derail.  If you do want to expand about turns and rivers then I'm all ears but Similarily if you also honk you sort too mug contributing here then I completely understand and very grateful for time spent here

Def agree that Stu needs to stop honking his mug

Thanks for the comments Patrick.

Tbh I am playing live poker right now, and typing on my iPhone so can't write too much. But I can offer a few brief thoughts on turn and river play. Most will just be repeating what I have already said, but at least it will put it all in one place...

First, note that it costs approximately the same to flat flop and then check-call turn as it does to 3bet the flop. Think carefully about this fact, because it is really important when comparing the two options, and should help you visualise the postflop 'EV equation' more accurately.

Second, note that many robot regs at 100NL (and likely up into mid stakes too) will be one and done on this flop a lot. They'll make what they consider a cheap one time bluff and then completely give up. The fact that you have lots of Kx in your range once you call makes giving up with their air seem very reasonable. It also makes checking back the turn the times they have a FD seem very reasonable too. Against these guys it is very clear that calling the flop and then folding most turns is by far the best line. You find out exactly the same information through flatting as you would through calling, and it costs you a lot less.

There are more aggressive villains that are prepared to barrel the turn sometimes too. Against these types we need to read the board and consider how it interacts with their range. If a second flush draw turns, for example, we should often consider check-calling again since villain should be randomising the frequencies of his turn barrels through equity. If an Ace (and to a lesser extent a Q or J) turns we should also be inclined to call a reasonable chunk of the time. I have already given the reasoning for this. Basically it is that when these turn cards appear villain is actually very unlikely to bet when he hits them (e.g. he is bluffing the flop with AJ and hits an Ace on the turn) since your range is Kx heavy and he will want to get to SD without facing a c/r or suchlike. On other hand, when the turn comes an Ace and villain still has air he is likely to think "great scare card, I'll barrel cos that's a good thing to do on scare cards isn't it?" Finally, if the turn comes a complete blank, no overs and no turned draw... well you might choose to very often fold. This is based on the assumption that villain is NOT a complete maniac and will be randomising his bluffs through equity as well as betting scare cards. Thus villain is much less likely to grow a pair on complete blank turns.

Now I can see you thinking, "Ahhh, but if I am villain I can therefore barrel all the brick turns since this will look super strong and my opponent will therefore have to fold a lot." Well this is the levelling war of course. But the thing is... Villain cannot get too out of line with his reckless zero-equity barreling for the simple reason that you have a lot of Kx in your range. So if villain barrels a blank with complete air and you incorrectly fold... well good luck to him! He has simply been fortunate to run into a part of your range that you are folding. But he is playing vs your range, not just your hand, and he will lose a lot of money when he runs into the strong parts of your range (zero equity barrels are very expensive when they fail since you get no 'discount' on your bluff through having pot equity when called). Of course, if you have a strong read that villain is a maniac and is likely to be recklessly barrelling you here then go ahead and call the turn even on complete blanks.

On the river, you are going to have an even stronger range than you had on the flop and turn, both in perceived range terms and actual range terms. This is because you will have chosen to fold some parts of your range on the flop, and some more of it on the turn, leaving you with mostly very strong stuff left plus some medium stuff. So when you get to the river you can fold a large chunk of the bluff-catcher parts of your range without being 'exploitable'. Villain has had to put a LOT of money in with his air in order to get into a river situation in which he is still only HOPING (guessing) that you have a bluff catcher and will fold it. And considering you will often have a very strong hand by the river you can happily fold many of your bluff catchers without worrying that villain is somehow outplaying you (he isn't!).

Of course, you also use your reads and your understanding of board texture on the river too. If you think that villain is crazy and reckless then by all means adjust and call more often with your bluff catchers than vs more 'normal' opponents. Or if the river comes, for example, an Ace then you might also choose to call a bit more often if you feel your opponent will mindlessly bluff this scare card but would not often value bet thinly if he had actually hit the Ace.

In all this, keep in mind the point I made at the outset... that you can get to the river by calling for close to the same price as 3betting the flop.

What you are doing by playing this way is giving yourself the opportunity to use your poker skills through the streets to make the right decisions. You use your understanding of boards texture, ranges, equities and opponent tendencies to make good calls and good folds as the turn and river play out. And you also use any dynamics and history that you may have with villain to inform your decisions. You cannot be scared to 'play poker' through the streets without the initiative. And you cannot be fearful of having to make tough decisions and judgement calls. Finally, you can't be afraid to 'get it wrong' - especially when very often you have not really got it wrong, you have just been unlucky to run into a particular narrow segment of villain's range. Just as important, you must also realise that your opponent is also having to make difficult decisions and 'guesses', especially considering that you have plenty of strong hands in your range.

I'm going to stop typing now cos it is tough on an iPhone and whilst playing. I realise this is very incomplete. But I hope it has given you a few things to think about playing the turn and river.

Cinema but will reply quickly lols

The pice of 3betting the flop is generally wayyyyyyyyy smaller than calli a turn bet.

This may be partly true, but not 'wayyyyyy smaller'... although of course it depends on his sizing. Doesn't really change the overall points though. Pretend I said "not too far from the same price" or something like that. My bad for being a little sloppy with my points.

Lol at both of these posts :-)

Love the 'Dubai bluff' thing. Also, when you get old like me the only pleasure you can regularly depend on is honking your mug.

Honks his mug like no-ones business that Stuart.

Lots of Hero's ITT loving the discussion (finally had enough time to actually read Stu's posts!) I have a lot of respect for both Stu's fantastic grasp of poker theory and Pads' relentless quest to "re-shape the wheel" I think both are excellent and whereas it's not possible ever to really "combine" the two being able to read the two contrasting views in the same thread has made great reading for level 2 players like myself :)

WP for posting the Hand muck!

Agree! Great thread.

+1, some sick responses in the thread. I folded the bet/folded the flop in the op purely because i didn't know wtf else to do but seriously, picked up a ton from the discussion here. Ty guys

Great thread.

As you mention a few posts ago, the spot is very close, you also said that right now it is clear that 3betting the flop shows a clear +ev decision therefore a profit decision, i.e everytime we 3bet the flop we profit from the decision. I really think that you have udnerestimated initative vs pot size here and thus underestimated how difficult a lot of turn and rivers will be.

When we 3bet the flop, we have established that, as a fact basically, we are showing a profit and thus NOT MAKING A MISTAKE. Whilst calling the flop theoretically sounds nicer and perhaps from a GTO perspective makes a lot mroe sense, I'm very unconvinced that you or I will be able to play every turn and river comfortably and profit from making 2 more good decisions that will essentially be for alot more money than our initial +ev decision and thus potentially will be burning money once or maybe even twice. Without formulating a gameplan for the turn and river here, which is extremely difficult as there are so many varying factors and things that don't make our decisions easily justified, combined with the potential outlay that we are risking I think its pretty clear that 3betting the flop > calling the flop.

Here is the hand again:

Poker Stars $0.50/$1 No Limit Hold'em - 6 players -
The DeucesCracked.com Hand History Converter

BTN: $255.61
Hero (SB): $200
BB: $100.00
UTG: $192.84
MP: $104.58
CO: $96.50

Pre Flop: ($1.50) Hero is SB with Tc Ts
3 folds, BTN raises to $3, Hero raises to $10, 1 fold, BTN calls $7

Flop: ($21.00) 3s Kd Ks (2 players)
Hero bets $12, BTN raises to $24, Hero

Lets say we make it $58 otf with a clear +ev flop 3bet.

Now lets say we call the flop, on the turn there is going to be $75ish in the pot, lets say villain bets $42 this means there is now $84+$75 = $159 with a stacksize behind of $120ish thus an spr of 1.325 which is a super vulnerable stack size to play and one we are never coincident or in control of and thus making decisions that we simply don't know are +ev as a result of giving up initiative.

Simply, playing against good players and giving up initiative is trouble, I understand you will say yes but if we are x about his y range and GTO it makes sense to call, simply keeping initiative, exposing weaknesses in villains game such a c/r these kind of boards and future adjustments that would take pages and pages of writing to really go as deep as it deserves (most important thing in poker :) )

If in 3 years we are super super confident about our turn and river play (I doubt we will be) then fine lets call turns and play like wizards down the street, in a game where edges are factually very small and most struggle to actually beat the game, giving up an initial profit in a very clear spot is going to be a mistake when we don't have a really solid game plan for the future streets that is not exploitable and easy to play against without punting massively huge exposure with such a weak hand (relatively)

Wrote on phone so apologies if any spelling probs or if I missed something you wrote etc..

just saw reply ^^ there too which i missed some out of.

But if we're flatting 10's here I assume we're flatting pretty wide so I disagree with your comment about us having a lot of Kx in our range, I think combotronically we really don't and if he gets a price of us folding everything but Kx on the river then I'm sure he's happy with the amount of combos he needs to fold out to show a profit and its a pretty clear turn/river bet/jam for him and thus makes our flop call bad.

btw generally I'd never argue theoretically with Stu as he probably crushes anybody in the world theoretically as alot of it is just GTO which I assume he is peerfect with.

I think simply in 2012 playing GTO is not enough and actually there are lots of spots where we have to pass up potentially future +ev lines and tough +ev decisions to show immediate profit and sidereal our immediate equity and not put un-needed stress on a pretty weak range and thus forcing massive exposure (200bs) with a relatively weak holding that if played perfectly by villain will be folding alot (losing money)

Remember jsut because your flop call may make you money long term if your turn and river calls are losing money then your initial decision doesn't matter as you will be losing more money throughout the whole hand than you will be making with the initial decision. If we were playing vs somebody with clear reads (op wasn't) that took this line as a bluff then ofc there immediately becomes a lot of value from taking the higher initial profit with the intention of seeking further and larger value for the rest of the hand.

My last comments on the hand btw.

havent read through everything you have written yet, but this part "When we 3bet the flop, we have established that, as a fact basically, we are showing a profit and thus NOT MAKING A MISTAKE" is very illogical and in itself is a leak.

you can be making a mistake in that you are not maximising your profit, even if you are winning a little bit.... extreme example, sb limps in 10,000bb deep you shove aces from the bb and he folds...... by the logic you suggested this would not be a mistake because you are making a profit despite effectively minimising your profit in all but a minute amount of circumstances.

anyways... onto reading the rest

Patrick, I am in process of putting the kids to bed so really can't respond to your detailed posts properly yet. And they deserve a PROPER analysis since you have spent loads of time and thought on them. I will look at them properly and give my views later tonight (or maybe tomorrow).

Just quickly though, I'd like to point out something. You start off by saying:


I said the opposite of this actually, and I don't think the spot is very close:


Last point:

This is so far from true it is a joke! I am only starting out on GTO stuff, and am very very very far from being expert in it - and deffo don't crush anybody in the world!! I have had plenty of NLHE coaching from a guy who IS an expert in theory though, which is why I likely think about poker (well NLHE anyway) in a rather different way to most players. In other ways I am more old school than a lot of you guys though. I am an old git and started playing before people talked about things like polarised ranges, equity or floats. Even the term cbet was not invented yet!

Thing is... the vast majority of the stuff I have written in this thread has been nothing to do with theory and everything to do with practical poker play. Obviously there is an element of theory behind any post that anyone makes, but I haven't really been thinking in GTO terms at all, I have just been thinking logically.

This line also suggests you don't really grasp what GTO means. If you're suggesting the game is evolving past GTO then you're wrong, as the game gets tougher the correct play will tend more and more often towards the GTO line as people have fewer leaks to exploit. When you deviate from GTO you have to be doing it to exploit a leak in your opponent, if you don't know what that leak is then you're essentially just guessing and likely to be exploited yourself.

In this example, you say in general people have a leak where they raise this board too often, you think the exploitative line with TT is to 3bet them, Stu thinks the exploitative line is to call. The argument isn't about theory vs flair or art vs science etc, it's just that you disagree which line is most exploitative. It should be easily settled within a couple of pages of maths. At the minute I happen to agree with Stu but would like to be persuaded otherwise as I would definitely have learnt something new if you could.

Complete and unreserved +1 for everything James says above ^^^

The first point I was going to make later tonight was the one that James starts off with ... that Patrick looks to have misunderstood what game theory is all about.

As I said though, and as James has reiterated, this whole thread has not really been anything to do with GTO stuff. It has been about practical exploitative play.

As regards the idea of it being 'just too difficult' to play turn/river if the hand continues, I simply don't agree with this. I did write a long post on this last night, with plenty of ideas and concepts to think about when playing the turn and river. So I am not sure quite why it is still judged as being so difficult.

Tbh... I strongly suspect that if we had our default line as call flop then check-fold most turns, and rarely deviated from that, we'd still do pretty well. And almost certainly better than 3betting the flop. And of course, if we then add in a bit of finesse and use our skills to deviate some of the time we can do even better again.

phone makes it very hard for me to give justifications of a good response.

Quick notes:

1) It doesn't matter about being exploitable if they won't exploit us, I guarantee you that nobody will exploit your flop 3betting tendency. If and its a very unrealistic if, somebody does try to exploit you I promise it will be less than 1 in 100 people.

2) Regarding James GTO line, very difficult to quote but something along the lines of: edit:quoted.. When you deviate from GTO you have to be doing it to exploit a leak in your opponent, if you don't know what that leak is then you're essentially just guessing and likely to be exploited yourself.

We know what the leak is in this instance and its that regs are c/r paired boards with a range that is weighted WAYYYY heavy for bluffs WITHOUT THE ABILITY (or balls) TO READJUST AND EXPLOIT US. Its very very very far away from just guessing its from probably the last 200k hands I've played and seen the trend and the inability to readjust vs my (what i assumed to be) very easy adjustment.

I just really can't agree with Tbh... I strongly suspect that if we had our default line as call flop then check-fold most turns, and rarely deviated from that, we'd still do pretty well. And almost certainly better than 3betting the flop. we have already agreed that a flop cbet is showing a profit, if we are regularly calling flop and c/f turn how can this ever be better?

Reverting back to Stu for a second, whilst you think I've failed to grasp your points, I totally have, understand and realise exactly what you're saying, the reason we disagree and I think you're wrong is because of.. As I said though, and as James has reiterated, this whole thread has not really been anything to do with GTO stuff. It has been about practical exploitative play. this is just really wrong and we don't need to be concerned about practical exploitative play.

I've said it a few times but again, we are showing an immediate profit in a really difficult spot, I am known to probably be the most flairy player this side of the moon but I am settling (after tonnes of experimenting and experience) to realise this initial profit rather than seek future gain here.

Again James, totally disagree with The argument isn't about theory vs flair or art vs science etc, it's just that you disagree which line is most exploitative. as I said before people don't get close to adjusting accordingly vs us here and thus exploitation is not a factor, if anything our call can be very exploitative due to the fact of future exposure as I mentioned in the previous few posts.

Anyway like I said to Callum today my style is v different to almost any reg at mid/high stakes, if people saw my stats over the last 100,000 hands then I don't doubt they would be able to find some leaks in my game, but the fact is that I'm trying to find out trends/spots where people either over adjust or underadjust and profit from those.

Thanks for discussion guys and whilst I really appreciate the time you both put in to it, we just will simply have to agree to disagree.

Good luck in WCOOP btw James.

Patrick... you need to re-read this part of what you wrote and think carefully about it. Because you have TOTALLY got this wrong! You have made a logical jump that is completely false.

I will explain why if you need me to... but really it is so easy that if you think about it for a second you will just go, "DOHHH!! Oh yeah..."

THIS IS NOT A DUBAI BLUFF BTW! ;)

Hint: Take it to an imagined extreme and assume you somehow know villain will NEVER EVER bluff the turn if you call the flop, and will only bet again if he has TT beaten. If you make this extreme assumption then it will suddenly become very clear why your logic is wrong. And then simply extrapolate from this imagined extreme to include more reasonable assumptions.

Edited to say: Please don't come back and say, "yeah but we cannot possibly know that villain will never ever bluff, this is a silly assumption so there is no point in thinking about it". This would be missing the point completely. It is about making an extreme assumption (an imagined extreme) in order to more clearly 'see' the logic of a situation.

And here you have missed James' point completely because you are getting confused over usage of 'exploitative' and 'exploitable'.

Exactly the same misunderstanding here (I think):
.... What you are saying here is "we should not be concerned about how to exploit our opponents". I know you don't mean to say that (I assume not anyway), but that is what your words mean. The problem is that you have misunderstood what James and myself were meaning when we used the word 'exploitative'. What I am saying in the bit you bolded is "this is not really to do with GTO, it is to do with ways to exploit our opponent"

The thing is... given that you have completely misunderstood these things (in fact thought myself and James were meaning the OPPOSITE of what we were really saying) it makes me worry about how many other things I've said that you've completely got the wrong end of the stick about. I wonder if this is part of the problem with why you keep seeming to miss the obvious stuff in front of your eyes.

Tbh, maybe like you say we should just agree to disagree. It is becoming hard work now. I love you man, but you appear to be well and truly 'Aaroned' here (your wonderful phrase lol) ;)