DTD £300 DEEPSTACK ... MAY

[George2Loose]

sorry for not answering all the questions I didn't know I was supposed to be in the well this week..

Last time I played live (last Sunday) I made the f/t from 150 players, last time I played a £300 I made the f/t, last time I played a £1k I made the f/t. Range is 99+/AQ+ for the next 3 orbits at least although that may change if the dynamic changes.

Easy to see over the last few pages who's got the credible ideas and who the trolls are...

Is this your 3 bet range?

If it is then basically you're looking at letting the aggro player totally run this bubble because you aren't going to hit this range very often at all.

I assume also that without QQ+ or AK you're not looking to call a shove or shove over a 4 bet?

So effectively you're going to wait for a big hand before 3 betting and then lay it down if you come up against any resistance?

This strat is very exploitable mate especially when the blinds and antes are big.

What does 3 orbits have to do with anything? Are you trying to create a tighter image or do think it is more likely that you can pretend to have a good hand if you haven't 3 bet for a while?

You're looking at the game like it's a HU match. Why go after the CL as first choice at making chips? Sure the button will try and exploit us. And we try and exploit the shorter stacks. All this he will run the bubble if we let a bet through is rubbish. Two players can make chips at a table. We can't raise every hand if we want a credible image, so choosing the highest tariff difficulty first is senseless. We know from the pace of the game that we wont be exploited for long. So no need to dive in where every advantage is with our oppo just to prove exploitation. And yeah in a few orbits time I figure my 3bet carries more credibility. At the moment Claire says she expects a wide 3bet so 3betting wide does what your oppo expects. So you may still get exploited anyway.

It's a bit ambitious to go through a poker game thinking you will always be the one exploiting and will never be exploited. Using chips in areas where you can exploit the most and be exploited the least is a profitable strat imo. BTW if I 3bet I'm not folding, I'm just not bluffing the CL in a spot where I don't think a bluff makes a profit in the game overall. Also consider the other chaps have a range of premium and air. I just don't agree with the air bit. They've got the same range as me + a bluff that fails. You think that strat is better?

Thank god I'm not playing tonight otherwise you'd have tilted me.

If you 3-bet you're not folding?! Not ever? That seems real real bad. Just 3-bet with a plan.

wow you'd be easy to play against from the way you write. These £1k & £300 events that you last played and made the finals of, where they in 1974 or just FPP events?

Btw

Basically mantis is a nit.

[MC]

Last time I played live (last Sunday) I made the f/t from 150 players, last time I played a £300 I made the f/t, last time I played a £1k I made the f/t.

mbn

[Skgv]

Mantis01 is not James Keys ? all getting confusing this debate?

[skolsuper]

OK so Mantis you complained of contributing all the actual strategic content to this thread (unfortunately for those reading it) but now you've stuck your neck out a bit and given us a range and some semblance of a strategy then I'll try to return the favour.

This situation is all about leverage, the idea that you can force someone to a commitment decision using a relatively small number of chips. The button has a lot of leverage on you in the big blind because of all the short stacks and the final table bubble. I know you're feeling the leverage because even facing just a simple 2.7x button raise you're thinking about protecting your stack and problems with <88/AJ etc and basically wanting to give up on this situation entirely, curl up into a ball in the corner and wait till the bubble has burst. I don't blame you, it's perfectly healthy to be cautious at this stage. The problem with your strategy as described is that it plays right into the button's hands. I'm assuming you don't just muck 88 and AJ so I guess you must be flatting them and other similar hands, but now the leverage is even worse on the flop and you're just playing fit or fold, you're gonna be check folding a lot of flops and with your mid strength hands when you do go with a flop and get called, you'll often be in pretty bad shape. The straightforward, level 1 adjustment to make when the button has leverage on you like this is to play tighter, but there are often other, better adjustments that can be found.

Example problem: A certain villain never folds flop to cbets

Level 1 adjustment: Stop cbet bluffing, value bet more.
Level 2 adjustment: Value bet more but bluff just as often, double barrel more.

It is finding these better, more aggressive adjustments that separates the players who crush from the grinders who never move up. In our situation, you as the bb can exert nearly as much leverage back on the button because of your big stack, since their losing all in to us is nearly as much of a disaster for them as busting out is for us. A 3bet from then ought to make the button feel like they may have to commit their whole stack to get to a showdown and hopefully that should discourage them from calling. However, in this case you have mentioned a number of times in your posts that our read on the button said they would call 3bets so perhaps they won't be discouraged as we'd hoped. No matter:

Problem: Villain calls most 3bets

Level 1 adjustment: Stop 3bet bluffing
Level 2 adjustment: 3bet a merged range of premiums and hands that flop well, then make a leveraging cbet a very high percentage of the time

So, if the button calls our 3bet to 75k, there's 160k in the middle and we have 375k effective, a cbet of 80k (or even less) will force the button to a commitment decision on the flop. If they call that, we can shove the turn. If we do that with a balanced range of bluffs and value bets, say we're only bluffing 30% of the time on the turn if it gets that far, slightly more on the flop and slightly more preflop, our opponents are gonna be tied up in knots, no? Also, because this strategy is well balanced and aggressive, I don't have to worry what people I've never played before know about my game through talking to mates/reading forums etc, whereas with your strategy, ok it's fine while no-one knows what you're doing, but if someone knows your strategy they're gonna exploit you to death in those first 3 rounds while you're "building an image".

Just so I don't get hoisted by my own petard, my 3betting range would probably be something like 22+ AK, with some suited 1-gappers thrown in there. I would only  flat suited connectors and good broadways.

[TightEnd]

and I can see what is going to happen here

So in advance.

No flaming. Please debate civilly and with respect for others whatever their opinions.

thanks

Guys please...re deleted posts. No personal flaming or insults

[EvilPie]

and I can see what is going to happen here

So in advance.

No flaming. Please debate civilly and with respect for others whatever their opinions.

thanks

Guys please...re deleted posts. No personal flaming or insults

In my defence I put a smiley wink thing after mine thus making it ok.

Mantis also knows that I actually like him and that any light hearted name calling is tongue in cheek.

[MANTIS01]

OK so Mantis you complained of contributing all the actual strategic content to this thread (unfortunately for those reading it) but now you've stuck your neck out a bit and given us a range and some semblance of a strategy then I'll try to return the favour.

This situation is all about leverage, the idea that you can force someone to a commitment decision using a relatively small number of chips. The button has a lot of leverage on you in the big blind because of all the short stacks and the final table bubble. I know you're feeling the leverage because even facing just a simple 2.7x button raise you're thinking about protecting your stack and problems with <88/AJ etc and basically wanting to give up on this situation entirely, curl up into a ball in the corner and wait till the bubble has burst. I don't blame you, it's perfectly healthy to be cautious at this stage. The problem with your strategy as described is that it plays right into the button's hands. I'm assuming you don't just muck 88 and AJ so I guess you must be flatting them and other similar hands, but now the leverage is even worse on the flop and you're just playing fit or fold, you're gonna be check folding a lot of flops and with your mid strength hands when you do go with a flop and get called, you'll often be in pretty bad shape. The straightforward, level 1 adjustment to make when the button has leverage on you like this is to play tighter, but there are often other, better adjustments that can be found.

Example problem: A certain villain never folds flop to cbets

Level 1 adjustment: Stop cbet bluffing, value bet more.
Level 2 adjustment: Value bet more but bluff just as often, double barrel more.

It is finding these better, more aggressive adjustments that separates the players who crush from the grinders who never move up. In our situation, you as the bb can exert nearly as much leverage back on the button because of your big stack, since their losing all in to us is nearly as much of a disaster for them as busting out is for us. A 3bet from then ought to make the button feel like they may have to commit their whole stack to get to a showdown and hopefully that should discourage them from calling. However, in this case you have mentioned a number of times in your posts that our read on the button said they would call 3bets so perhaps they won't be discouraged as we'd hoped. No matter:

Problem: Villain calls most 3bets

Level 1 adjustment: Stop 3bet bluffing
Level 2 adjustment: 3bet a merged range of premiums and hands that flop well, then make a leveraging cbet a very high percentage of the time

So, if the button calls our 3bet to 75k, there's 160k in the middle and we have 375k effective, a cbet of 80k (or even less) will force the button to a commitment decision on the flop. If they call that, we can shove the turn. If we do that with a balanced range of bluffs and value bets, say we're only bluffing 30% of the time on the turn if it gets that far, slightly more on the flop and slightly more preflop, our opponents are gonna be tied up in knots, no? Also, because this strategy is well balanced and aggressive, I don't have to worry what people I've never played before know about my game through talking to mates/reading forums etc, whereas with your strategy, ok it's fine while no-one knows what you're doing, but if someone knows your strategy they're gonna exploit you to death in those first 3 rounds while you're "building an image".

Just so I don't get hoisted by my own petard, my 3betting range would probably be something like 22+ AK, with some suited 1-gappers thrown in there. I would only  flat suited connectors and good broadways.

You say the key is leverage and that is theoretically so in a vacuum. The actual key is the fact the button, Claire, expects the bb to be 3betting fairly wide before she opens. We know that to be a fact. But it's no great surprise tbh, I would expect the bb to be 3betting fairly wide, you would expect the bb to be 3betting fairly wide, the bb Morgan? says he would be 3betting fairly wide. So this leverage point you're talking about is no great secret.

That said talk to me about your plan for opening the button when you expect the bb to be 3betting wide? Because that's actually the key in this hand. I would suggest that you could apply everything you've just said in reverse if you open from the button and as expected get 3bet. For your strat to be effective the button must be opening without expectation or a plan and that just isn't the case. My 4-bet jam range would be wider than my 3bet range so eg those 8's you mention I would definitely 4bet jam from the button where I wouldn't 3bet from the bb. If I'm not prepared to do that there seems little point opening 8-8 from the button vs someone I expect to 3bet wide. So you can see it's not about curling up and dying on the bubble even if it suits your purpose to portray my strat as weak. It also suits your strat to suggest the button only ever calls. This is a level 3 adjustment btw.

It's all good with the banter as well Tighty. We're having fun right?

[BAM]

Is this Ariston ?

Rich can we put mantis in the well plskthx

[skolsuper]

It's not that wide. Pairs and suited hands don't make that many combinations, so 22+ AK 57s 68s 79s is still only 8% of hands. Because of the unfavourable situation in the bb I'm probably only calling another 8% on top of that so I'm still folding >80%. When it's folded to the button there is 20k out there in blinds and antes so a raise to 23k only needs to work ~55% of the time to be profitable in and of itself, so with both blinds folding 80% I'm likely still raising pretty much any two even if I know the bb is 3betting as wide or even wider than I outlined. As for 4bet shoving, that involves risking 425k to win 110k, AK and JJ+ is always snapsville in the bb, and if I think that the button will 4bet light then 99 and TT are also calls which makes 3.9% of hands or roughly half the time I 3bet, so you can see that for a 4bet shove to be profitable your hand has to hold up reasonably well against the range 99+ AK. With 88:

EV = 1/2(+110k) + 1/2(30%*900k - 425k) = -22.5k

Oh and re: this statement: "Two players can make chips at a table.", if I were the chip leader here and the other stack took this attitude, I would open every single hand.

[DMorgan]

those 8's you mention I would definitely 4bet jam from the button

I'm pretty skeptical about that....you'd 4bet jam 88 from the button but you don't agree with doing it with AK?

The bottom line is that <40BBs deep, getting AK vs KK 5 handed against an aggro player is a cold deck. You should be going broke with the AK 100% of the time. End of story.

[MANTIS01]

those 8's you mention I would definitely 4bet jam from the button

I'm pretty skeptical about that....you'd 4bet jam 88 from the button but you don't agree with doing it with AK?

The bottom line is that <40BBs deep, getting AK vs KK 5 handed against an aggro player is a cold deck. You should be going broke with the AK 100% of the time. End of story.

Sorry, where do I say I don't agree with doing it with A-K?

[skolsuper]

That said talk to me about your plan for opening the button when you expect the bb to be 3betting wide? Because that's actually the key in this hand. I would suggest that you could apply everything you've just said in reverse if you open from the button and as expected get 3bet

Oh and no, this is wrong. Leverage is when you use some of your chips to force your opponent to make a decision for all of theirs. After the 3bet, even just clicking it back will leave the button committed, so we're basically making a decision for all our chips to win the smaller amount that our opponent has bet, the opposite of leverage.

[MANTIS01]

That said talk to me about your plan for opening the button when you expect the bb to be 3betting wide? Because that's actually the key in this hand. I would suggest that you could apply everything you've just said in reverse if you open from the button and as expected get 3bet

Oh and no, this is wrong. Leverage is when you use some of your chips to force your opponent to make a decision for all of theirs. After the 3bet, even just clicking it back will leave the button committed, so we're basically making a decision for all our chips to win the smaller amount that our opponent has bet, the opposite of leverage.

And when you 4bet smash from the button how do you think that affects your leverage for the rest of this bubble dynamic? You think the rest of the players will be 3betting light vs you? To say a 4bet risks your stack and means winning just what's in the pot is again playing the hand in a vacuum.

[skolsuper]

That said talk to me about your plan for opening the button when you expect the bb to be 3betting wide? Because that's actually the key in this hand. I would suggest that you could apply everything you've just said in reverse if you open from the button and as expected get 3bet

Oh and no, this is wrong. Leverage is when you use some of your chips to force your opponent to make a decision for all of theirs. After the 3bet, even just clicking it back will leave the button committed, so we're basically making a decision for all our chips to win the smaller amount that our opponent has bet, the opposite of leverage.

And when you 4bet smash from the button how do you think that affects your leverage for the rest of this bubble dynamic? You think the rest of the players will be 3betting light vs you? To say a 4bet risks your stack and means winning just what's in the pot is again playing the hand in a vacuum.

define leverage

[the sicilian]