3bet pot SB v CO

[KingPush]

Villains tagged as fun player, have seen them blow up before but I don't really think this is a spot they are going to do it in. 3bet or calling is obviously close but I mainly 3bet out of the small blind.

CO opens to 4 bb,

and History #923536593 (17:19 03/07/2015)
Player   Action   Cards   Amount   Pot   Balance
KingPush    Small blind       £0.20    £0.20    £59.92
PilesonAss    Big blind       £0.40    £0.60    £32.97
     Your hole cards   KJ

    
torres215    Fold            
dub1    Fold            
CEGOW    Raise       £1.60    £2.20    £31.66
radiofed28    Fold            
KingPush    Raise       £3.40    £5.60    £56.52
PilesonAss    Fold            
CEGOW    Call       £2.00    £7.60    £29.66
Flop
         
9
J
5
          
KingPush    Bet       £4.00    £11.60    £52.52
CEGOW    Call       £4.00    £15.60    £25.66
Turn
         
3
          
KingPush    Bet       £8.00    £23.60    £44.52
CEGOW    Call       £8.00    £31.60    £17.66
River
         
7
          
KingPush    Check            
CEGOW    Bet       £15.80    £47.40    £1.86
KingPush    Call       £15.80    £63.20    £28.72
CEGOW    Show   


3bet v cutoff range
77+, A2s+, K9s+, Q9s+, J9s+, T9s, 98s, ATo+, KJo+

cbet flop range
KK-QQ, AdAs, AdAc, AsAc, 9d9h, 9d9s, 9h9s, KQs, KTs, QTs, AhKh, AcKc, AhQh, AcQc, AdJd, AsJs, AcJc, KdJd, KsJs, KcJc, AhTh, AcTc, Ah8h, Ac8c, Ah7h, Ac7c, Ah6h, Ac6c, Ah4h, Ac4c, Ah3h, Ah2h, Ac2c, KQo, AcQd, AcQh, AcQs, AdJs, AdJc, AhJd, AhJs, AhJc, AsJd, AsJc, AcJd, AcJs, AcTd, AcTh, AcTs, KdJs, KdJc, KhJd, KhJs, KhJc, KsJd, KsJc, KcJd, KcJs

cbet turn range

99,AdAs,AdAc,AsAc,KdKs,KdKc,KsKc,QdQs,QdQc,QsQc,AhKh,AcKc,AhQh,AcQc,KdQd,KsQs,AdJd,AsJs,KdJd,KsJs,AhTh,AcTc,KdTd,KsTs,QdTd,QsTs,Ah8h,Ac8c,Ah7h,Ac7c,Ah6h,Ac6c,Ah4h,Ac4c,Ah3h,Ac3c,Ah2h,Ac2c,AdJs,AdJc,AsJd,AsJc,AcJd,AcJs,KdJs,KdJc,KsJd,KsJc,KcJd,KcJs

cbet river range
AdAs, AdAc, AsAc, KdKs, KdKc, KsKc, 9d9h, 9d9s, 9h9s, KdQd, KsQs, KdTd, KsTs, QdTd, QsTs

check river range
QQ,AKs-ATs,A8s-A6s,A4s-A2s,KJs,AJo,KJo

Makes sense to call with qq and jx here but in my experience noone bluffs here at this level. Should we just check fold our whole range here or something else?

[Honeybadger]

Unfortunately you're probably not gonna get a response cos your post is pretty intimidating! I did consider putting all your ranges into flopzilla or crEV and looking at them/doing some maths etc, but it just seemed like so much hard work...

Also, no idea if there are FDs on the flop/turn cos your HH does not show suits. This is kinda important for ranges as you know.

[SuuPRlim]

my head cant even try to process this...

but basically you're saying in line with your strategy you get to see this river bet as played with;

QQ,AKs-ATs,A8s-A6s,A4s-A2s,KJs,AJo,KJo

You're saying that you should call QQ, AJ and KJ and fold the rest, without thinking about his range at all (which is obviously a really bad way to appraoch a GTO spot!) I would say that seems very reasonable.

Game theory, is the optimal way to play to avoid exploitation from other strategies, but at this level you will often find that players are using pretty bad strategies, but they are all different, some call too much, some bluff in silly spots, some are too aggressive and some are far too tight. IF you are versus a playing adopting a poor strategy then you can make way more money exploiting him, you basically summed up in your own words...

Makes sense to call with qq and jx here but in my experience noone bluffs here at this level. Should we just check fold our whole range here or something else?

You have a read that he is not bluffing in a certain spot, so if you have a bluff - catcher, YOU SHOULD FOLD


Simple game, sometimes

[KingPush]

Unfortunately you're probably not gonna get a response cos your post is pretty intimidating! I did consider putting all your ranges into flopzilla or crEV and looking at them/doing some maths etc, but it just seemed like so much hard work...

Also, no idea if there are FDs on the flop/turn cos your HH does not show suits. This is kinda important for ranges as you know.

Yeah sorry about that it is a hhc board with a club on the turn and a blank on the river. I did do the maths and came to this range that I showed in the hand history, it was more of just a specific question of whether you feel like you should bluff catch in this spot or not. cos even though it seems like villain should have bluffs here, seems like they never do. It's more of a case of I know what I should roughly call in this spot if villain is playing theoretically sound but in your experience, are they?

my head cant even try to process this...

but basically you're saying in line with your strategy you get to see this river bet as played with;

QQ,AKs-ATs,A8s-A6s,A4s-A2s,KJs,AJo,KJo

You're saying that you should call QQ, AJ and KJ and fold the rest, without thinking about his range at all (which is obviously a really bad way to appraoch a GTO spot!) I would say that seems very reasonable.

Game theory, is the optimal way to play to avoid exploitation from other strategies, but at this level you will often find that players are using pretty bad strategies, but they are all different, some call too much, some bluff in silly spots, some are too aggressive and some are far too tight. IF you are versus a playing adopting a poor strategy then you can make way more money exploiting him, you basically summed up in your own words...

Makes sense to call with qq and jx here but in my experience noone bluffs here at this level. Should we just check fold our whole range here or something else?

You have a read that he is not bluffing in a certain spot, so if you have a bluff - catcher, YOU SHOULD FOLD


Simple game, sometimes

Villain actually called out my hand as being aa/kk so I guess he is never bluffing

[Honeybadger]

It's more of a case of I know what I should roughly call in this spot if villain is playing theoretically sound but in your experience, are they?

So just out of interest, what % of your river checking range do you think you should theoretically (i.e. GTO-wise) be calling with? And why? I'm asking you this just to check your understanding of the theory in these spots.

Also, how do you approach making exploitative adjustments from 'theoretical play'? If you have a tentative read on an opponent (or a tentative population read) do you think you should radically adjust your ranges based on that read? Or do you think the amount you adjust should roughly correlate with the strength of the read?

[KingPush]

2/3 of the time but this extremely difficult to do with a balanced turn betting range as well. And since we're not getting to this spot that frequently as long as I'm defending 50% of my range I'm happy.

Honestly, I'm unsure on the answers to a lot of these questions. I some times make massive sweeping adjustments which then get imbedded into my default strategy and after a while I forget they are exploits. I normally lose quite a lot of money before changing my strategy to be honest. I think the answer to the last question is obviously yes though. If you are 100% sure someone only bets two pair or better on the river then you should be able to easily make exploitable folds, if you are 50% sure you can use a mixed strategy and so on. In this spot villain should be bluffing 20% of the time, I am 100% sure he's not doing this, this does not mean I know he is bluffing 0% though and that's where the indecision comes in and in game that indecision usually leads to curiosity and a call.

[Honeybadger]

2/3 of the time

Can you explain why you believe you should (theoretically) call with 66% of your checking range?

Edit: Actually ofc I know why you believe this. It is because villain is laying himself 2 to 1 on the bluff so you believe you should call 66% of the time to prevent him profitably bluffing with his entire air range, right?

But this is incorrect. Can you tell me why?

Clue: You are defending a range that has CHECKED.

[KingPush]

Ah I see, so we need to continue to showdown with at least 66% of our range so if we bet 50% of our range we only need to defend under 40% of our check range.

So it would be something like betting freq x ev+ defending frequency x ev? I'm guessing we need to find the ev of all villains 0 equity hands?

Or are we looking at villains betting frequency?

[Honeybadger]

You're not quite correct in the exact details, but that doesn't really matter cos you are correct in the overall conceptualisation.

Villain is ALLOWED to have a (somewhat) +EV bluff with all his air once we check - i.e. we don't need to defend anywhere close to 66% of our checking range. The reason for this is that he only gets this +EV spot when we check, and we are only going to be checking some % of the time.

[KingPush]

Surely there is a way of working this out mathematically though but yeah I understand what you're saying theoretically. Cheers for all this help by the way mate, really appreciate it

[Honeybadger]

Surely there is a way of working this out mathematically though

Yeah there is. Work it out. Hint: You need to make villain's EV = 0 when he has the worst hand in his range at the point at which the river card is dealt - i.e. BEFORE you bet or check.

Tbh, whilst working out the exact number is interesting/good practice, precise accuracy is not especially important. You just need to be in the right ballpark. If the correct answer is that you should be calling with 36.27% of your checking range, it does not matter too much if you in practice are calling with 30% or 40%. The trick is not to be calling with 10% or 60%. In game you are going to be making intuitive estimates anyway, and your job is not to seek to get the perfect % (this would be impossible), it is to try to get it closer to correct than the average bear.

Conceptualising the spot correctly is the most important thing. You said 66% because you had conceptualised it incorrectly - you had not taken into account the fact that you had an option to bet prior to being put in a call or fold situation after checking. However, once you correctly conceptualised it (which you have), who cares if you do not bother working the exact % out - just as long as you know that it is going to be WAY less than 66%. If you are 5-10% out either way, no big deal - you'll still be much closer than most (even very good) players. Just don't be 20-30% out! Many of your opponents will be this far out in many spots, even opponents you consider good.

BTW, I view the exploitative bit in the opposite way to you. I would call a LOT here. This is due to the turn play. I would expect your average villain to jam all his two pair or better hands on the turn given SPR and the texture of the board (two flush draws, straight draws etc). So I'd imagine that villain is extremely air heavy when he jams the river. Ofc I realise a straight has come in, and some one pair hands will have become two pair by the river, but I'd still call MORE often that whatever theory says I should do.

People DO bluff!

Obviously I could be completely wrong about this, so make your own reads/adjustments and go with them.

[Honeybadger]

Yeah there is. Work it out. Hint: You need to make villain's EV = 0 when he has the worst hand in his range at the point at which the river card is dealt - i.e. BEFORE you bet or check.

Ha! I got this ^^ very wrong. And the reason I got it wrong was because I conceptualised it incorrectly lol. Which is ironic ofc, but also sort of pleasing because it proves the wider point of my previous post.

[SuuPRlim]

Stu Barnett - WHENEVER I'M WRONG I USUALLY PROVE MYSELF RIGHT

 

[KingPush]

Surely there is a way of working this out mathematically though

People DO bluff!

Even on the river, in 3bet pots, when their range is fairly condensed, at the micros? I'm not so sure

[SuuPRlim]

are you asking a theory question, or are you asking a practical question?

Do you need to have bluff catchers in your river checking range? YES.
Do people bluff? YES
Is this guy bluffing here? You seem to have a read from experience playing this game that the answer is no... SO I would trust that over any theory every day of the week...