3bet pot facing effective shove on turn

[KingPush]

PokerStars Zoom Hand #120404161893:  Hold'em No Limit ($0.05/$0.10) - 2014/08/21 17:06:16 WET [2014/08/21 12:06:16 ET]
Table 'Klinkenberg' 6-max Seat #1 is the button
Seat 1: Cooperman45 ($10.12 in chips)
Seat 2: bond wizard ($9.60 in chips)
Seat 3: zukas667 ($10 in chips)
Seat 4: vra17 ($15.49 in chips)
Seat 5: stinksok100 ($13.50 in chips)
Seat 6: Jape60 ($14.50 in chips)
bond wizard: posts small blind $0.05
zukas667: posts big blind $0.10
*** HOLE CARDS ***
Dealt to Cooperman45 [ ]
vra17: folds
stinksok100: raises $0.20 to $0.30
Jape60: folds
Cooperman45: raises $0.60 to $0.90
bond wizard: folds
zukas667: folds
stinksok100: calls $0.60
*** FLOP *** [ ]
stinksok100: checks
Cooperman45: bets $0.93
stinksok100: calls $0.93
*** TURN *** [ ] [Ah]
stinksok100: checks
Cooperman45: bets $2
stinksok100: raises $3.10 to $5.10
Cooperman45: raises $3.19 to $8.29 and is all-in
stinksok100: calls $3.19
*** RIVER *** [ Ah] []
*** SHOW DOWN ***


no rreads on villain. What's your bet/calling range on this turn I think AK might be too wide and might be something more like axdd and sets(TT,AA)?

[shipitgood]

I would check flop a lot on that board.

As played probably is a fold on the turn, when you jam the turn you are drawing dead/ drawing very thin.

[muckthenuts]

I wouldn't choose to cbet this flop.

As played turn is a pretty easy b/f. They aren't going to expect to get you off Ax at 10nl so you should know they will have you beat when they raise this card. You use a HUD at all?

[Rexas]

Yh, I'd want some pretty specific reads on a guy to want to get it in here, and I'm definitely also in the check back flop camp. I'd want the to be c-betting here, even then it's a tad dubious. Consider your opponents range a little, 10nl is a little more about playing your actual hand against your opponents range rather than your range against his. I'd be very surprised to see villain show up with AJ/AQ after check raising the turn, and at 10nl I wouldn't be expecting people to turn draws into turn bluffs all that often.

I also wanna point out that we didn't bet call, we bet jammed. This is basically turning our hand into a bluff on the turn, surely, since it is pretty hard for the villain to have anything worse that could call unless its specifically AJ/AQ/A9 dd which may not raise in the first place. If we think the guy's bluffing then, instead of jamming, we should probably be looking to call the turn raise and call the river bet.

[Rexas]

Also, welcome to the PHA sir

[KingPush]

Cheers rexus. Thanks for the replies. Yeah I think cbet should probably be a check without a diamond. Raise is so big on the turn it's essentially a shove so I don't think that's relevant here. Agree will not be good often but this is the bottom of my range for doing this with as I said in op. I might be underestimating ranges here though.

[Rexas]

What range are you giving the villain here?

[KingPush]

I think the middle of his range here would be something like AK. Not a big fan of giving villains ranges as if you get it wrong and he plays a hand in a different way than you would have thought then you play often becomes -EV. This hand is a very good example of that considering what he ended up with.

[zerofive]

Not a big fan of giving villains ranges

Came here to say check flop, but this comment is just worrying. Of course you're right when you say you can end up playing a hand badly if you assign his range incorrectly, but you're just shooting in the dark otherwise.

Also if you assign AK to the middle of his range, then a hand of equal value loses to everything in the top portion of his value range, meaning that although you haven't actually "assigned" a range as such, you have basically come to your own conclusion in a roundabout way that this is a clear fold.

[Rexas]

I think the middle of his range here would be something like AK. Not a big fan of giving villains ranges as if you get it wrong and he plays a hand in a different way than you would have thought then you play often becomes -EV. This hand is a very good example of that considering what he ended up with.

I'm with Sean, this is kinda worrying. Learning to accurately assign ranges is absolutely one of the biggest and most important skills in poker. At the stake you're playing at, you shouldn't really be considering your range a great deal past your actual hand, because the villain won't be considering your range a great deal. At 10nl, the player pool is considerably larger than say 200nl, and you won't be playing with the regs anywhere near as much. More than that, the best regs probably won't be trying to play perfectly balanced ranges on every street and looking to exploit the shit out of you if you aren't, because there is much softer money to be had and you just won't be playing with them all that often. It seems like you're a game theory guy, so lets put this in more theoretical terms -

Poker is basically just a complicated game of rock paper scissors. To win at this, against a random, game theory would dictate that you choose each option 33% of the time. That way, you are unbeatable, and will at absolute worst be break even. However, say you learn a little more about your opponents range. Say he never chooses rock, and chooses the other two options exactly half the time. This situation would then call for an exploitative adjustment, whereby you would choose scissors every time (effectively free rolling every round of the game). This would maximise your profit, meaning every round you would stand to win 50% of your bet (vs his range) and lose 0.

At the moment, you're saying you aren't looking closely at villains ranges, but are focusing on a game theoretical approach. In this game of rock paper scissors, you are attempting to choose each option 33% of the time, irrespective of player. Against the guy who never chooses rock, you are still winning, but 33% of the time (assuming perfect play) you are choosing an option which is DEFINITELY losing (i.e. paper, which will never win and will lose half the time), so you are shitting away money against a player with very exploitable tendencies.

Poker is very similar. IF you play game theory completely correctly as if you have no reads, you will be break even at worst. Game theory with regards to poker however is so beautifully complicated, and it would be extremely difficult to play completely correctly at all times, so it's hard to assume we're going to play "perfectly" at all times. By failing to accurately predict your opponents ranges, and failing to exploit their (often at the micros) obvious tendencies, you are failing to maximise your profit and making losing decisions fairly obviously. Making these adjustments are definitely a significant part of game theory. This hand could well be an example of this manifesting itself. HUD stats become even more important in zoom to help you assign these ranges accurately, and if somehow you assign a range which you feel is incorrect given their exact holdings at the end of a hand, make a note and make an adjustment.

[KingPush]

Not a big fan of giving villains ranges

Came here to say check flop, but this comment is just worrying. Of course you're right when you say you can end up playing a hand badly if you assign his range incorrectly, but you're just shooting in the dark otherwise.

Also if you assign AK to the middle of his range, then a hand of equal value loses to everything in the top portion of his value range, meaning that although you haven't actually "assigned" a range as such, you have basically come to your own conclusion in a roundabout way that this is a clear fold.

No if AK is the middle of his range then it depends on what combos we have of hands in our range to make this a call or a fold. Considering positions though I think a hand like AT is more likely to be the middle of his range here and that's why a range of Axdd and sets is more +EV than AK plus the rest. Especially if I'm only cbetting AK with diamonds as this means I'll be blocking a lot of his flush draws on the turn and top pairs, hands which we beat, on the turn. 

I think the middle of his range here would be something like AK. Not a big fan of giving villains ranges as if you get it wrong and he plays a hand in a different way than you would have thought then you play often becomes -EV. This hand is a very good example of that considering what he ended up with.

I'm with Sean, this is kinda worrying. Learning to accurately assign ranges is absolutely one of the biggest and most important skills in poker. At the stake you're playing at, you shouldn't really be considering your range a great deal past your actual hand, because the villain won't be considering your range a great deal. At 10nl, the player pool is considerably larger than say 200nl, and you won't be playing with the regs anywhere near as much. More than that, the best regs probably won't be trying to play perfectly balanced ranges on every street and looking to exploit the shit out of you if you aren't, because there is much softer money to be had and you just won't be playing with them all that often. It seems like you're a game theory guy, so lets put this in more theoretical terms -

Poker is basically just a complicated game of rock paper scissors. To win at this, against a random, game theory would dictate that you choose each option 33% of the time. That way, you are unbeatable, and will at absolute worst be break even. However, say you learn a little more about your opponents range. Say he never chooses rock, and chooses the other two options exactly half the time. This situation would then call for an exploitative adjustment, whereby you would choose scissors every time (effectively free rolling every round of the game). This would maximise your profit, meaning every round you would stand to win 50% of your bet (vs his range) and lose 0.

At the moment, you're saying you aren't looking closely at villains ranges, but are focusing on a game theoretical approach. In this game of rock paper scissors, you are attempting to choose each option 33% of the time, irrespective of player. Against the guy who never chooses rock, you are still winning, but 33% of the time (assuming perfect play) you are choosing an option which is DEFINITELY losing (i.e. paper, which will never win and will lose half the time), so you are shitting away money against a player with very exploitable tendencies.

Poker is very similar. IF you play game theory completely correctly as if you have no reads, you will be break even at worst. Game theory with regards to poker however is so beautifully complicated, and it would be extremely difficult to play completely correctly at all times, so it's hard to assume we're going to play "perfectly" at all times. By failing to accurately predict your opponents ranges, and failing to exploit their (often at the micros) obvious tendencies, you are failing to maximise your profit and making losing decisions fairly obviously. Making these adjustments are definitely a significant part of game theory. This hand could well be an example of this manifesting itself. HUD stats become even more important in zoom to help you assign these ranges accurately, and if somehow you assign a range which you feel is incorrect given their exact holdings at the end of a hand, make a note and make an adjustment.

You're looking at each separate decision here instead of looking at the strategy as a whole. If we play perfectly then villain cannot exploit us and although we are not exploiting him we will be able to not be exploited by him readjusting to our new strategy i.e not using scissors.  Obviously when we see that villain is playing exploitably then the GTO option will then be to start abusing this as you say but we are not shitting away money we are still break even before our adjustment. Also, I am not looking to just win as much money at these stakes as possible but rather get as good as possible so that I can win more money in the future. As you say hand reading may become an important part of this but if I do not know my ranges in each spot then my adjustments are bound to be wrong. I think just playing each hand without an overall strategy is bad unless you know villains range very well.

[Rexas]

You're looking at each separate decision here instead of looking at the strategy as a whole. If we play perfectly then villain cannot exploit us and although we are not exploiting him we will be able to not be exploited by him readjusting to our new strategy i.e not using scissors.  Obviously when we see that villain is playing exploitably then the GTO option will then be to start abusing this as you say but we are not shitting away money we are still break even before our adjustment. Also, I am not looking to just win as much money at these stakes as possible but rather get as good as possible so that I can win more money in the future. As you say hand reading may become an important part of this but if I do not know my ranges in each spot then my adjustments are bound to be wrong. I think just playing each hand without an overall strategy is bad unless you know villains range very well.

Of course, the basis of GTO is that perfect play will cause us to not lose. However, in order to beat any and every stake in poker, you have to learn to incorporate proper adjustments in order to maximize your ability to win. Game theory is very very rarely "optimal" play, and the only time at which it is optimal is when it's stone break even, because it assumes that the villain is playing perfectly. As soon as they are not, then you are not playing optimal poker against that opponent. So, as soon as you have reason to believe that the villain is deviating from GTO play, then you should deviate from it accordingly vs them.

For sure the biggest winners at the micro stakes are not playing excellent game theory (I must stop saying perfect, since NLHE is not a solved game there is no such thing as perfect GTO in poker terms). Villains will not alter tendencies significantly according to your own, because they will never have enough hands on you to be able to accurately do so. What I mean by shitting away money is that we are potentially losing a great deal of reciprocal money (i.e., we are losing more than we should and not winning as much as we should in certain situations) by not adapting. If you want to learn to get as good as possible, you need to pay a huge amount of attention to HUD stats, learn player tendencies, and constantly adapt to them. By jumping in at the deep end (so to speak) you're going to struggle to develop the most important principles of the game, which are what the micro stakes are there to teach you.

By no means am I saying ignore GTO at the micros btw, it's fantastic that this is how you're approaching the game, and I sincerely wish I had been the same when I started out :p

[shipitgood]

Hey Kingpush

I would say keep things simple.

We can read an article or watch a video that talks about some fancy theory which sounds really nice and amazing, but this while a lot of the time be aimed at higher limits where the game is a lot more sophisticated.

At 10nl, you just want to keep it basic, TAG, that's the best way to beat the game there. But also have the ability to bluff/make moves on occasion when the situation warrants it.

To do with ranges most players at 10nl, regulars, play face up. For example when a total nit player 4 bets, it's almost always AA KK. They don't think how am I precieved by others they just think, I've got a big hand must raise it.

 

[adiman999]

I usually tend not to reply to any posts made on blonde but I feel compelled to reply to this one as I feel it is one of the more interesting discussions that has been had on this forum since I have been a member. It shows the differences between the two major schools of thought within poker. Exploitative play vs GTO play. Both obviously have their merits.

As you say hand reading may become an important part of this but if I do not know my ranges in each spot then my adjustments are bound to be wrong. I think just playing each hand without an overall strategy is bad unless you know villains range very well.

This is a statement with far reaching meaning and I agree and disagree with every part of it. I 100% agree that not having and overall strategy and not understanding your own range is bad in the long term. But that completely hinges on what your objectives are in poker. In your case you say your objectives are to become the best player you can (ultimately, I assume because you want to move up and player the higher stakes where more and more players understand this stuff and therefore playing GTO becomes more important) and in that case taking the approach you have is perfect. Yes you may not crush 10nl as hard as you COULD but you will win and you will emerge a far better player than most will when they move up and when you start to play games where players are playing a lot better you wont be getting crushed straight away and enter a cycle of beat a stake move up, get crushed move down, beat the game move up, get crushed move down. That most players enter and they will eventually figure out how to win. You will understand how to not get exploited so will stand a chance of winning straight away.

If instead your aim was to crush 10nl for the biggest possible winrate then playing the style you are playing isnt the best approach as many 10nl players have a very fixed strategy that has many leaks. So you can exploit these leaks and not many of them will even notice let alone adjust and even those that do notice will often adjust incorrectly. So the best way to beat 10nl for the highest winrate you can is to just exploit these players. Find and edge and just exploit it until the edge no longer exists then adjust. I also feel that at least putting villain on a ballpark range is important. Many players at these stakes will have very predictable ranges. Obviously there will be players at every stake that wildly differ from this but its a good starting point. Of course if a particular villains range is the nuts then playing a GTO range in that spot may not be exploitable its not correct in that particular spot. So when you do have better reads then deviating is best.

To address matts comment about reciprocal money I feel OP's approach is winning reciprocal money, just maybe not at 10nl. But he will win more money later in his career for taking this approach. Yes is he makes certain plays he wins more reciprocal money now but then when he tries to deploy the same ideas in tougher games he loses more than he ever won at 10nl. Whereas his approach has the opposite effect.

My honest opinion is that at 10nl the best style to play is to exploit the villains tendencies but also have a solid understanding of what the GTO play is. As if you understand what the optimal frequencies are in a spot you can understand when villains deviate from that and as a result you can know how to best exploit them. Yes this will leave you in a position where you are exploitable, but not many 10nl players are capable of doing so. Probably the main reason I prefer this style is for a player to get a good idea of your strategy they must have a decent sample on you, likely several thousand hands and by the time they have this sample and enough info to accurately estimate your overall strategy and exploit it you have moved up. So an approach of studying GTO and understanding it and applying it in the sense that you use it to understand when the villains frequencies are exploitable is the best. This also serves to improve your play for when you move up and to avoid the cycles I mentioned earlier but it also maximizes your profit at the micros and will get you to the higher stakes quicker.

Overall I still think your approach is great given the long term plan you have and you should definitely continue thinking in this fashion. You will of course beat the stake making these decisions but you will not make as much as you could, but I think you already know that.

[Rexas]

I usually tend not to reply to any posts made on blonde but I feel compelled to reply to this one as I feel it is one of the more interesting discussions that has been had on this forum since I have been a member. It shows the differences between the two major schools of thought within poker. Exploitative play vs GTO play. Both obviously have their merits.

As you say hand reading may become an important part of this but if I do not know my ranges in each spot then my adjustments are bound to be wrong. I think just playing each hand without an overall strategy is bad unless you know villains range very well.

This is a statement with far reaching meaning and I agree and disagree with every part of it. I 100% agree that not having and overall strategy and not understanding your own range is bad in the long term. But that completely hinges on what your objectives are in poker. In your case you say your objectives are to become the best player you can (ultimately, I assume because you want to move up and player the higher stakes where more and more players understand this stuff and therefore playing GTO becomes more important) and in that case taking the approach you have is perfect. Yes you may not crush 10nl as hard as you COULD but you will win and you will emerge a far better player than most will when they move up and when you start to play games where players are playing a lot better you wont be getting crushed straight away and enter a cycle of beat a stake move up, get crushed move down, beat the game move up, get crushed move down. That most players enter and they will eventually figure out how to win. You will understand how to not get exploited so will stand a chance of winning straight away.

If instead your aim was to crush 10nl for the biggest possible winrate then playing the style you are playing isnt the best approach as many 10nl players have a very fixed strategy that has many leaks. So you can exploit these leaks and not many of them will even notice let alone adjust and even those that do notice will often adjust incorrectly. So the best way to beat 10nl for the highest winrate you can is to just exploit these players. Find and edge and just exploit it until the edge no longer exists then adjust. I also feel that at least putting villain on a ballpark range is important. Many players at these stakes will have very predictable ranges. Obviously there will be players at every stake that wildly differ from this but its a good starting point. Of course if a particular villains range is the nuts then playing a GTO range in that spot may not be exploitable its not correct in that particular spot. So when you do have better reads then deviating is best.

To address matts comment about reciprocal money I feel OP's approach is winning reciprocal money, just maybe not at 10nl. But he will win more money later in his career for taking this approach. Yes is he makes certain plays he wins more reciprocal money now but then when he tries to deploy the same ideas in tougher games he loses more than he ever won at 10nl. Whereas his approach has the opposite effect.

My honest opinion is that at 10nl the best style to play is to exploit the villains tendencies but also have a solid understanding of what the GTO play is. As if you understand what the optimal frequencies are in a spot you can understand when villains deviate from that and as a result you can know how to best exploit them. Yes this will leave you in a position where you are exploitable, but not many 10nl players are capable of doing so. Probably the main reason I prefer this style is for a player to get a good idea of your strategy they must have a decent sample on you, likely several thousand hands and by the time they have this sample and enough info to accurately estimate your overall strategy and exploit it you have moved up. So an approach of studying GTO and understanding it and applying it in the sense that you use it to understand when the villains frequencies are exploitable is the best. This also serves to improve your play for when you move up and to avoid the cycles I mentioned earlier but it also maximizes your profit at the micros and will get you to the higher stakes quicker.

Overall I still think your approach is great given the long term plan you have and you should definitely continue thinking in this fashion. You will of course beat the stake making these decisions but you will not make as much as you could, but I think you already know that.

Fuck off Adrian