blonde poker forum

2/4  No Limit Holdem 
FullTiltPoker (http://weaktight.com/ftp/) 
3 Players 
Hand Conversion Powered by weaktight.com (http://weaktight.com/) 
Table Veyron 
 
Stacks: 
BTN  crazy engineer (156) 39bb 
SB  rene1683 (407) 102bb 
BB  pleno1 (1,194) 298bb 
 
Blinds: 2/4 
 
Pre-Flop: (6, 3 players) pleno1 is BB :9c :7h 
crazy engineer folds, rene1683 raises to 8, pleno1 calls 4 
 
Flop: :7d :tc :7c (16, 2 players) 
rene1683 bets 8, pleno1 raises to 28, rene1683 calls 20 
 
Turn: :4d (72, 2 players) 
rene1683 checks, pleno1 bets 44, rene1683 calls 44 
 
River: :6s (160, 2 players) 
rene1683 checks, pleno1 bets 108, rene1683 goes all-in 326, pleno1 folds 
 


villain is readless, around 20 hands.

Looks like a clear fold to me. We have plenty of full houses in our range, plus straights and better 7s to use as bluff catchers. This specific hand is close to the bottom of our value betting range on the river. And we should be folding more than half of our range to his jam since he has risked 326 to win 268.

Not going into the whole 'players rarely c/r bluff rivers' line of exploitative thinking. It is probably true as a population read. But even without this assumption it is a fold just based on theory.

Kk thanks. Check the am I the worse thread and let me sleep pls

snap him off, we are playing 100bbs effective and have trips

This is my thinking too

fyp

clear fold though, as honeybadger says

Noooo! This is such a bad way of thinking about things. You are thinking in terms of absolute hand strength rather than relative hand strength and ranges.

Try to think what our value range is to bet this river, and where 97 sits in this range (clue: pretty close to the bottom).

Also, think about what value check-raising range villain has on the river, given how strong our range has become once we have raised the flop then bet both the turn and the river. Villain should not ever be check-raising worse for value. When we don't beat any of his value range, but do beat his bluffs, we have a bluff catcher. When villain check-raises the river he has turned every hand in our range that is not at least a full house into a bluff catcher.

Bluff catching on the river is a relatively easy theoretical spot. And we are readless, so should use theory rather than try to make exploitative plays (in fact, the exploitative play - based on likely population reads - is to fold even more of our range than theory suggests but let's ignore this). We must call with a frequency that means villain is indifferent to bluffing.

Villain has risked more than the size of the pot to win the pot with his check-raise. Thus we must call with less than half our river-betting range (typing on iPhone so can't do exact maths) in order to make him indifferent to bluffing. We can fold all our bluffs, but only around 28% of our river-betting range should be bluffs (again, can't do exact maths right now). That is not enough folding, given that we need to fold over half our river betting range to the check-raise. So we have to fold a chunk of our value hands too (most of our value range has become a bluff catcher, and we need to fold some of these bluff catchers). I am simplifying here, since the blocker effect plays a small part, but basically we should fold the worst x% of our bluff catchers in order to get to the required folding frequency.

It is pretty obvious that 97 is WAY down the bottom of our range, so it is a really super clear fold.

Yeh I mnow it was. Was in middle of long session and just needed somebody to confirm as was like 6am

And I wasn't obviously trying to justify it because of I optical stack sizes.

Just fido don't think he shoved as light as perhaps 98otr and couldn't give him all that many value combos.

Yeah villain should not have that many value combos. I can't be arsed to work it out combinatorically, but probably jamming a straight would be spewy from villain. Our range is just too strong by time we have raised the flop, bet the turn and bet the river.

But just because he doesn't have huge amounts of value jamming combos, this does not mean he is mainly going to be bluffing here. It just means he won't be jamming very frequently. Readless we cannot make any assumptions about his propensity to bluff too much or too little, so we should just make sure we call the jam with the correct frequency to ensure that he is losing money if he bluffs either too much or too little.*

* N.B. If he bluffs too little then he is losing money in an indirect and counterintuitive way. He is actually making more money the times we do call him with the 'correct' % of our bluff catchers (and exploitatively we should fold all bluff catchers if we know he does not bluff enough). The way he loses money is through the times he allows us to to win the pot with the weakest parts of our river-betting range... the parts we would have folded if he jammed.

Honeybadger meet Outragous.

Good post tho!

Lol. Oh we've met before!

If he cant jam 98 then we are losing vs T7\74/TT/76? Seems so few combos.

Also, our range can't get that much stronger betting down apart from 98 getting there because we raise X amount of air otf anyway but if villain doesn't believe I guess he would call otr but he might have to shove, seems kinda doubtful though. Basically I'm saying I don't see how our range gets that much stronger even though we give up x% on each street because our bluff range on flop is pretty wide. I've really tried to understand this and get why you guys say fold, it makes sense it is near the bottom of our value range etc. Maybe I'm overestimating the number of combos pads raises on the flop. I think a key part is in the other spot I would expect most regs to keep betting no matter what having raised the flop, but I don't have that population read @400nl.

P.S prob won't reply for sometime but it will get read, just in case I've convinced someone to make a reply and they think I've ignored it.

I do know what you mean Adam - the absolute strength of our value hands has not increased hugely. But as you say, we should have let some bluffs drop out of our range on each street so that we should be very value heavy by the river. This means that opponent has no incentive to 're-bluff' us - his only reason to bluff is to balance his nutted hands and thus turn the weaker part of our value range into bluff catchers.

Obviously if there is a dynamic between the two participants then things can be adjusted. For example, if hero has been out of line with his bluff raising and barrelling frequencies then 97 might be much higher up in his river betting range since this range contains far more bluffs than it should (or would be perceived by villain to do so). But Patrick said he was readless, i.e. no crazy dynamic.

It seems pretty clear that villain should not be jamming worse for value. Thus we have a bluff catcher. We have no idea at all if villain is going to bluff too much here, or bluff too little. So what we need to do is to call with a frequency that makes him indifferent to bluffing - i.e. make the EV of his bluffs = £0.

One important point to note is this: The fact that villain does not have many value combos in his range does NOT mean that he is likely to be bluff heavy when he jams. It just means that he is not going to jam very often.

If we fold our 97 and it turns out that villain was bluffing his entire range then we have not lost the pot in a Galfond Bucks sense (i.e. range vs range). We just got 'unlucky' to have the part of our range that we have to fold. We will still be making money vs villain if we ran this spot (from when we raise the flop) a million times with his range vs our range - we just lost this run, that's all. Obviously, if we knew that villain was bluffing far too frequently then we would win even more since we would call with all our bluff catchers. But we don't have any such read, therefore we just go with GTO play and let the inner-maths of the situation win us money if villain is not as balanced as us.

nh