500 zoom interesting spot

[Honeybadger]

James, your last post ITT is completely brilliant. I loved two parts in particular:

I'm not 3b bluffing KQo, I think vs a button range of 35%+ we have a v profitable and GTO 3b/5b semi-bluff (so the 3b is for the 'value' from the 5b)

The explanation that the 3bet is for 'value' since you are intending to 5bet semi-bluff... I have never seen it phrased in that way before. Brilliant.

... and you can mop up the fish value another time. In a way, you're doing it here, because the fish has indirectly caused this super-profitable spot, but this way you protect the fish from losing all that EV to the reg and thus improve your future equity too.

This is a really deep insight, and I love this way of thinking about poker... seeing it from a bird's eye view etc. Love the idea that you in some ways are getting value from the limper since his limp caused this spot to exist. Also love the idea that you are 'protecting' him. Both these points are counterbalancing arguments to the suggestion that we should play in ways that keep weak players in the pot, rather than force them out.

That said, I still don't 100% agree with you in a couple of things (no big deal, just different philosophies I reckon).

I believe you are over-stating the case a little, and that the EV of flatting is not TOO different to the EV of 3betting. I almost always 3bet in this spot personally and your analysis has helped me understand more clearly exactly why I am doing this. But I certainly don't think it is a losing play to flat here. And sometimes it might be the clearly best play if the limper is a VERY weak player and thus you should be doing everything possible to keep him in the pot. It does not matter so much if your hand sometimes becomes face-up to the other reg if the presence of the limper in the pot makes this a 'protected pot'. I agree that in the hand in question it has partly worked out that way, but this won't always be the case. I guess what I am saying is that often 'correct' (i.e. GTO) play vs the regulars can be ignored in order to satisfy more pragmatic requirements such as trying to win the easy money from the bad players.

The other thing I disagree on from a practical point of view is the distinction you make between 3betting an iso after a weak player has limped, and 3betting after a reg has opened and a weak player has call the raise. Tbh, the second situation (reg opens, weak player calls) is actually an amazing spot to have a HEAVILY EXTENDED value range, which may include hands like KQo. You are indeed 'bluffing' against the reg, but not vs the weak player. The nut result is that the reg folds and then the weak player calls. Obviously this is mainly something you do when in position though.

Despite some small disagreements, I really enjoyed reading your excellent post. It clarified certain points in my mind, and made me think about a couple of things in a different way.

[Mondeoman]

James, your last post ITT is completely brilliant. I loved two parts in particular:

I'm not 3b bluffing KQo, I think vs a button range of 35%+ we have a v profitable and GTO 3b/5b semi-bluff (so the 3b is for the 'value' from the 5b)

The explanation that the 3bet is for 'value' since you are intending to 5bet semi-bluff... I have never seen it phrased in that way before. Brilliant.

... and you can mop up the fish value another time. In a way, you're doing it here, because the fish has indirectly caused this super-profitable spot, but this way you protect the fish from losing all that EV to the reg and thus improve your future equity too.

This is a really deep insight, and I love this way of thinking about poker... seeing it from a bird's eye view etc. Love the idea that you in some ways are getting value from the limper since his limp caused this spot to exist. Also love the idea that you are 'protecting' him. Both these points are counterbalancing arguments to the suggestion that we should play in ways that keep weak players in the pot, rather than force them out.

That said, I still don't 100% agree with you in a couple of things (no big deal, just different philosophies I reckon).

I believe you are over-stating the case a little, and that the EV of flatting is not TOO different to the EV of 3betting. I almost always 3bet in this spot personally and your analysis has helped me understand more clearly exactly why I am doing this. But I certainly don't think it is a losing play to flat here. And sometimes it might be the clearly best play if the limper is a VERY weak player and thus you should be doing everything possible to keep him in the pot. It does not matter so much if your hand sometimes becomes face-up to the other reg if the presence of the limper in the pot makes this a 'protected pot'. I agree that in the hand in question it has partly worked out that way, but this won't always be the case. I guess what I am saying is that often 'correct' (i.e. GTO) play vs the regulars can be ignored in order to satisfy more pragmatic requirements such as trying to win the easy money from the bad players.

The other thing I disagree on from a practical point of view is the distinction you make between 3betting an iso after a weak player has limped, and 3betting after a reg has opened and a weak player has call the raise. Tbh, the second situation (reg opens, weak player calls) is actually an amazing spot to have a HEAVILY EXTENDED value range, which may include hands like KQo. You are indeed 'bluffing' against the reg, but not vs the weak player. The nut result is that the reg folds and then the weak player calls. Obviously this is mainly something you do when in position though.

Despite some small disagreements, I really enjoyed reading your excellent post. It clarified certain points in my mind, and made me think about a couple of things in a different way.

hmmmm so you've protected the fish from losing chips to the reg in this hand - now this is zoom the table breaks and you prob wont see the fish again

[Mondeoman]

Also KQ off plays pretty bad if you get it in pre - 65s has more equity versus a reasonable 4 bet call range of 99+, AQ+

[EvilPie]

Loving some of the analysis in this thread and I'm finding it really interesting despite it being a few levels above my normal thinking.

One question for you guys: How far can you push this sort of thing in the limited time available to make your decision in an online cash game?

In particular Keys' point about the 3b to set up the 5b semi bluff. Would you have time to come up with that plan in game?

[outragous76]

Loving some of the analysis in this thread and I'm finding it really interesting despite it being a few levels above my normal thinking.

One question for you guys: How far can you push this sort of thing in the limited time available to make your decision in an online cash game?

In particular Keys' point about the 3b to set up the 5b semi bluff. Would you have time to come up with that plan in game?

I echo Matts thinking, and the other thing I would raise, what if the villains arent thinking like this (which Id say 99.9% arent) - are we not levelling ourselves sometimes?

[skolsuper]

This is 500 zoom, there are like 30 players, and reg villain will be 4betting light, although he doesn't need to for our 3/5 to be GTO

[outragous76]

This is 500 zoom, there are like 30 players, and reg villain will be 4betting light, although he doesn't need to for our 3/5 to be GTO

In which case, we should probably have better reads on villains, and no way his range is  just AA like many Zoomers?

(Just throwing it out there, not trying to be confrontational)

[pleno1]

Nice discussion guys.

I mentioned previously in the thread, my strategy here is to basically not have a wide 3betting range for value (IE I'm flatting QQ pre, and defintiely JJ) so can't go ahead and have a super wide 4betting range.

One thing that I disagree with James is that we dont have QJ type of hands in our perceived range by the river. We should/would definitely fold these on the turn, even with the potential overlay vs the fish with the weaker hands, however his weaker hands aren't even thast weak as he is now defintiely folding 33-1010 and we don't dominate any Queens any more as QQ22K so kicker doesn't player.

All Qx that we do continue to the river with is Qxhh hands that now beat most of villains range, so disagree with the assumption that he can make a profitable 3rd barrel.

James, your last post ITT is completely brilliant. I loved two parts in particular:

I'm not 3b bluffing KQo, I think vs a button range of 35%+ we have a v profitable and GTO 3b/5b semi-bluff (so the 3b is for the 'value' from the 5b)

The explanation that the 3bet is for 'value' since you are intending to 5bet semi-bluff... I have never seen it phrased in that way before. Brilliant.

Maybe I'm not reading this right, don't get me wrong, I loved James post, but the point that you picked out seems like a very standard theory, its just a merged 3bet value/bluff. AJs I think would be another hand that would fit in this category, although KQ potentially plays better. Lets try and give villain a defending range here, as its very important before we make assumptions that we can "print" vs the range:

Equity Win Tie 
MP2  45.21%  43.01%  2.20% KQo
MP3  54.79%  52.59%  2.20% QQ-99, AQs-ATs, KTs+, QTs+, JTs, AQo


I'd say this is quite a solid range, lets now add some combos of AA/KK/AK that flat the 3bet, good regulars definitely should be doing this, so gave a realistic range.

Equity Win Tie 
MP2  42.32%  40.32%  2.00% KQo
MP3  57.68%  55.68%  2.00% QQ-99, AdAs, KhKc, AQs-ATs, KTs+, QTs+, JTs, AdKd, AsKs, AQo, AdKh, AdKs, AdKc, AsKd

Now lets give him one or two more speculative hands, just to get to a probable range in terms of equity.

 Equity Win Tie 
MP2  44.27%  42.45%  1.83% KQo
MP3  55.73%  53.90%  1.83% QQ-99, AdAc, KhKc, AQs-ATs, KTs+, QTs+, JTs, T9s, 98s, AdKd, AsKs, AQo, AdKh, AdKs, AdKc, AsKd

Now, I know that we have initiative which is important, however he will have position and will have an equally eprceived strong range, in fact, even against our perceived strong range his hand still plays well.

I just don't think its an euto 3bet for value spot where villain will be defending a bunch of Q7s kind of flairy hands and will actually be very strong, and in reality, I don't need many 3bet bluffs as my 3bet PURE (not merged) value range is very narrow and thus would prefer to protect my calling range with KQo and 3bet/fold K9o or even KJo, which could also fall into my calling range too.


@matt/guy, I basically know my range vs every opponent, every positon vs any plan (pre flop) however limping isn't in my charts that I've worked on so I was a bit through off, and because its not so normal anymore, it's something we all disagree on.

@James, theres actualyl reguarly 150+ regs in the 500nl games on Stars, this was peak time too.

I'll just randomly now..... Yeah there is 95 people at 4.50 on a Friday, so traffic is a lot better now than when there was 10-30 of the best 1knl regs trying to fill screen space and grind vpps.

[Honeybadger]

@ Pleno
Yes I know it is a standard 3b/5b spot and I know the theory behind this etc. I was just meaning that I really liked the exact way James had described it.

@ Keith
I just liked the whole concept of protecting the weak player, regardless of whether it is applicable in zoom (although it sort of still is in some ways).
Also, it is the blocker effects of KQ that make it a good candidate to 5bet, not its equity against a calling range, as you well know. Blocker effects become much more important vs narrower ranges, such as vs a reg's 4betting range.

@Matt
These sort of spots come up all the time and you don't have to work them out in game because you have done the maths and range construction at home.

[mondatoo]

@ Pleno
Yes I know it is a standard 3b/5b spot and I know the theory behind this etc. I was just meaning that I really liked the exact way James had described it.

@ Keith
I just liked the whole concept of protecting the weak player, regardless of whether it is applicable in zoom (although it sort of still is in some ways).
Also, it is the blocker effects of KQ that make it a good candidate to 5bet, not its equity against a calling range, as you well know. Blocker effects become much more important vs narrower ranges, such as vs a reg's 4betting range.

@Matt
These sort of spots come up all the time and you don't have to work them out in game because you have done the maths and range construction at home.

You make some great posts but your read here is way off.

[pleno1]

Why?

[mondatoo]

Why?

Pretty sure Matt isn't spending his time at home doing that.

[Honeybadger]

Lol. I clearly used the wrong personal pronoun. Should have used 'one', or perhaps the royal 'we'.

[paulhouk03]

What's  gto mean?

[mondatoo]

Lol. I clearly used the wrong personal pronoun. Should have used 'one', or perhaps the royal 'we'.