NL10 - RCB/Shove

    • I hear what you're saying, but it's just a spot which you shouldn't over-analyze - it's a lower SPR spot, since it's a 3bet pot (1 : 5.67 SPR), so just less decision trees possible and it's a situation that you're not going to do anything else than go with it. If you're coolered in a KK vs AA situation, so be it, you're GII pre-flop anyway IF that happens - i don't think i'd be looking to GII for value as MP vs UTs 4bet pre, rather call, but not because i'm looking to "get away", especially on best possible boards. You can think about it this way - if your own plan post-flop here is to b/b/j for value are you really considering anything else in case villain does the job for you? :)

      As for the suck-out EV stuff - i'd say just too expensive tactic to get other people on tilt, you can suck out or cooler them even if you play optimal ranges pre-flop. With 32s again, look at the equity it has OOP vs MPs 3bet range (picture above). IT WILL WIN 18.4% times vs KK ITLR, but give me this spot pre-flop as the only hand i would ever play moving forward over and over again - i'd be opening another account in the bank to hold profit in :)

      And finally, had i been sucked-out like that, i would just mark such player a fish and then try to ISO him and play as many pots position with him as possible. Especially since he's on my direct right :)
    • Downswings happens to everyone - notice the very first thing i said in this thread :)

      Good strong mindset is one of the more important things that separates good winning players from the rest. I don't have the best possible mindset myself by far, but there's just no way around it - you have to grow thicker skin if you want to succeed, because those bad times happen to everyone and if you're not ready to take it on the chin you will have really tough times when it happens and you yourself can make it way longer than it could have been.

      I've read the older blogs of BigBlindBets here at pokermarket and one particular post cought my attention - it was about how he at one time (can't really confirm what stakes he was playing that time, but pretty sure he was crushing 200NL) felt like he can't win a hand and he's not even sure if he's a winning player anymore... Fast-forward to today.... :)
    • As "solver" default this is not close whatsoever, snap call. Reason being that OOP should himself fastplay some QQ-JJ, maybe TT type hands here. Your 3b range is not only KK+ so these hands can get some value and protection with that line. Not sure if jamming pot size on a somewhat dry turn is a thing, but okay. There is no line where KK will fold against all the money going in on this flop and turn run-out.

      Against "unknown" player, meaning it could be a fish, I wouldn't think for one second here. I would very happily call. An unknown that might be a weaker player could have and kind of weaker hand here, including 9x and complete spazz-offs. Against unknown you can never fold this, that is certainly worse than always calling. You will see all kinds of crap from an unknown. (And nuts, of course). Call all day.

      Against known reg, it becomes a matter of whether he may fastplay some QQ-JJ here or not. If you don't think so then you have a bluffcatcher in a spot where no one will find enough bluffs. So maybe then, and only then, could you get away from it. But most of the time that will not be the case.

      chitz wrote:

      Since your line is pretty standard there should be no question regarding it. This makes the Hand pretty easy to analyze.

      1) Think about how far up you are in your range estimate your weakest hand to defend vs good unknown player ( = how much do you have to defend, to not give villain autoprofit by jamming any2)
      2) Open equilab and give villain some ranges and try to find some ranges where the EV of calling with KK is 0. Then ask yourself if your villain is likely to play like this. If not, do you think his range is weaker or stronger? Adjust your decision based on that.

      This reasoning is certainly valid in some situations, like river bluffcatch IP, trying to make opponent indifferent to bluffing and giving up with his worst bluffs. But in this specific situation I don't think you can apply it like this. Partly because it hinges on the assumption that KK should be 0EV. If KK should be 0EV then OOP's range is way too strong. KK should rather be +EV here. Maybe some worse PP should be close.

      Also, if KK is 0EV call that doesn't necessarily mean that OOP's bluff will be indifferent or not profiting. If he jams here he will have EQ, certainly at least a gutshot. So he will win when you fold, and have EQ when you call. And if you mix folds with a hand as strong as KK, you will be folding most of the time, so very likely he will profit with any kind of draw.

      To analyze it along those lines you should rather look to make a specific hand not have high EV jamming. To say it would be indifferent you need to compare jam EV to check EV. Which is harder to do, as checking can result in multiple subsequent lines, which together make up the EV. ("Impossible" to do by hand). But you could simplify and say that if OOP checks, IP always bets and OOP always folds. Then check EV = 0 and jam EV should also be 0.
    • Not sure if we misunderstood each other:

      undisturbed wrote:

      chitz wrote:

      Since your line is pretty standard there should be no question regarding it. This makes the Hand pretty easy to analyze.

      1) Think about how far up you are in your range estimate your weakest hand to defend vs good unknown player ( = how much do you have to defend, to not give villain autoprofit by jamming any2)
      2) Open equilab and give villain some ranges and try to find some ranges where the EV of calling with KK is 0. Then ask yourself if your villain is likely to play like this. If not, do you think his range is weaker or stronger? Adjust your decision based on that.
      This reasoning is certainly valid in some situations, like river bluffcatch IP, trying to make opponent indifferent to bluffing and giving up with his worst bluffs. But in this specific situation I don't think you can apply it like this. Partly because it hinges on the assumption that KK should be 0EV. If KK should be 0EV then OOP's range is way too strong. KK should rather be +EV here. Maybe some worse PP should be close.

      Also, if KK is 0EV call that doesn't necessarily mean that OOP's bluff will be indifferent or not profiting. If he jams here he will have EQ, certainly at least a gutshot. So he will win when you fold, and have EQ when you call. And if you mix folds with a hand as strong as KK, you will be folding most of the time, so very likely he will profit with any kind of draw.

      1) Is trying to make OOP bluffs indifferent. which gives us an approximation for a GTO call range. This should give OP a baseline of what he should defend, if we deviate from this, we at least know how much we are trying to exploit. The good thing here is that we don't even need to know what his jam range should look like, but still get a good result. Obviously putting things into a solver is better, but I assume OP doesnt use one.

      2) Is more exploitive. We assume 0EV for KK and find a range for OOP. After that we can ask ourselves if villain does actually play such a range. Kinda what you said here:

      undisturbed wrote:

      Against known reg, it becomes a matter of whether he may fastplay some QQ-JJ here or not. If you don't think so then you have a bluffcatcher in a spot where no one will find enough bluffs. So maybe then, and only then, could you get away from it. But most of the time that will not be the case.

      Putting both 1) and 2) together should give OP a good overview about this spot, thus I think applying this reasoning here is totally fine. Am I making a mistake?
    • Certainly not sure, but will try to put in some stuff rather as a questions (to make sure i understand the theory myself), so please correct me if i'm wrong :

      1) As for the MDF thing, it should just mean that vs a pot size jam (lets just say it was to make it easier) we should need to defend 50% of our range, cause if we defend less villain would profit jamming with any2 and if we defend more, his value hands would show profit, while bluffs would be losing and so then he should stop bluffing and still profit in general. Since it's the turn street and as @undisturbed pointed out, villain's bluffs should still have equity if called, we should realistically defend a bit more than 50% (how much more...?), because our initial 50% range that continues won't win the pot 50% of the time, because it will lose sometimes even vs villain's bluffs, but so that's all about the MDF, making sure we don't allow villain autoprofit with bluffs...?

      2) spend some time thinking about the KK = 0EV idea and i have at least few different thoughts here:

      2.1.) KK to have 0EV on the turn, DOES THAT MEAN that we assume that KK foldEV = callEV = 0 (essentially KK is indifferent of calling or folding) ? In that case we assume that :

      if we call and win = 24.09€ (the whole pot) / if we call and lose = 7.87€ (our turn call), so for call = 0EV we would need to win 1 time in 3.06, which then translates to 100% / 3.06 and so we can say that call = 0EV if KK has 32.6% realized equity on turn if calling???

      2.2.) What if we tried to say that our AA = 0EV? In that case since AA would be our literally strongest hand possible and if it's EV is just 0 than our whole continuing range would be losing money, as anything worse than AA is clearly -EV and so we should fold 100% on turn?

      2.3.) What if we don't think villain would play AA like this pre and wouldn't x/r flop with either AA or 99 in that case it's impossible for villain to make KK EV = 0 as it's always would be +EV considering it's just not losing enough to just be BE or worse?

      2.4.) finally - if we assume that we're playing vs a regular, where we expect him not to fast-play JJ-QQ in which case we just have a bluffcatcher in a spot where he wouldn't have enough bluffs - this idea is just looking backwards, but if we assume that bluffs should have at least some equity, so to be at least a gutshot and on this board those can be only A2s,A3s,A4s,45s (that are not yet the nuts, but have equity), but i'd say that's just impossible, because we wouldn't be assigning A GOOD REGULAR A2s,A3s,A4s,45s to OPEN UTG and CALL a 3bet VS MP, as it's just a -EV play preflop, so in that case villain literally doesn't have bluffs and so it's again just a matter of would he fast-play JJ-QQ enough where that would compensate for the times he would fastplay AA-99. If he doesn't we're basically dead...?

      So overall it's just that we assume that villain does have stronger hands that play it this way, doesn't have enough bluffs or worse value and that's why we can find an exploitative fold, but if we're wrong in our assumptions villain can run us over and print money playing any 2 this way as we would be massively overfolding, so not defending 50% of our range given MDF, if we only sometimes continue with AA? I'd say that for a regular it's not as likely that he would play stronger hands (both 99 and AA are basically locked here) this way, also possible he would fast-play JJ-QQ, so we can't really assume KK EV=0, while vs fish it's even more of a clear continue, obviously...?

      Looking forward to hearing others' thoughts / input. Thank you! :)
    • 1) You can account for that using Equilab just solve this: 0 = %fold*(pot+bet) + (1 - %fold)*EQ*(pot+2*bet) - bet
      just put in the Equity u think villain has left if we call his jam and solve for the frequency.


      2) Not sure if I was unclear here, but I dont expect KK to be 0EV. Its more like "If KK was 0EV, how should villains range look like in this case?" this reasoning is purely exploitive, thus results may be very far from optimal.

      2.1) yes

      2.2) yes

      2.3) if KK is never <0EV, then we can always call

      2.4) Usually you have enough bluffs in your range, just start bluffing random hands... but most regs dont do this unless they are spewy or very good. If we think that villain doesnt fastplay JJ, QQ and has no bluffs, then we are dead.