[Highlight] - 4bet pot, scary board?

if we had an A we would check turn and bet river so when we check turn and check river , it is clear we give up.
how big of a bet would we do if we had an A on river? about 5$ lets say...

so our option is bet river with air , like hero did (as a bluff) for about 7$ or x/f
My conclusion after thinking for like 10min is :

Originally posted by double2
SB in this case should be checking quite often, and when betting should be a low sizing (25-33%).

I didn't explain why I opened 2BB, it is because villain folds too much vs SB open.

Because he looked like a nit I decided to bluff my hand to make him fold two pairs.

What hands would we bluff on river? (I think we would have Ax hands on river)
Also what to bluff on flop and turn?

I think in this spot we only have bluff catcher ... TT, JJ, QQ has sets, all A has straight, and also there is flush posibility. In 4-bet spot I would prefer check fold, in 3-bet may be check-call for bluff catch.

Originally posted by wealthybrainer
I didn't explain why I opened 2BB, it is because villain folds too much vs SB open.

Because he looked like a nit I decided to bluff my hand to make him fold two pairs.

What hands would we bluff on river? (I think we would have Ax hands on river)
Also what to bluff on flop and turn?

If he folds too much to sb steals you probably give up all your steal profit by 4betting K3s

does villian check the turn with an ace? I would say no except maybe the ace of diamonds...

Maybe he does check it with a nine though so he does still have some straights in his range

As for bluffing, do you think villian should bluff catch his two pairs OTR?

Originally posted by wealthybrainer
I didn't explain why I opened 2BB, it is because villain folds too much vs SB open.

Okay, I still think you should open bigger than 2bbs. Anyways, then your 4bet is a fairly big mistake. We have to have some logical coherence in our exploitations, you steal wide and small because villain folds too much, therefore you should not give him action light when he does not fold.

Originally posted by wealthybrainer
Because he looked like a nit I decided to bluff my hand to make him fold two pairs.

Ok, since you didn't explain before I actually thought you were trying to value bet. Ok, trying to bluff bet is a lot better for sure :).

Originally posted by wealthybrainer
What hands would we bluff on river? (I think we would have Ax hands on river)
Also what to bluff on flop and turn?

Okay, I'm gonna answer this assuming villain is not a nit. Bluff river, depending on our range, I'd bluff my worst hands, in this case it probably is weak Kx.

Flop I'd not bluff much and check a lot. If you want to bluff weak Ax is the way to go I guess.
Turn is the same speech as river, we should be bluffing our worst hands given that I don't think we have any hand with single diamond to "semi-bluff". So Kx or worse if you have that.

Originally posted by mattyvx
does villian check the turn with an ace? I would say no except maybe the ace of diamonds...

Maybe he does check it with a nine though so he does still have some straights in his range

As for bluffing, do you think villian should bluff catch his two pairs OTR?

Villain should have enough straights on the river in a way that he does not have to call 2pair. If he has almost no Ax then he should call KQ or something. This is in theory.

In practice I'd fold a lot 2pair in BB's shoes (don't think SB is bluffing almost ever). But I'd also check back a fair amount of Ax on the turn (even without diamond), don't think we can value bet twice with those.

I coached a guy recently that played a very similar ahnd to htis. I thought it was the same, but checked and it wasn't.

Some thoughts

- wouldn't open 2bb from sb ever. Even a dunce that folds 60%+ is going to notice this raise size and open his defending range. Open wider, keep it 3bb, don't tip him off and print money.

- sample size on fold to 4b? Is it enough? But also, is it a good exploit in this playerpool for villain to have a high fold to 4b? Maybe his fold to 4b isn't so high against capable players?

-positional fold to 4b is important and requires huge numbers of hands. A lot of guys 3b VERY different from different positions. and have opposite leaks in differing positions.

-Assuming your read that he folds too much to 4bets, then, what isyour plan to 4bet more? How far down is K4s on your 4b bluff range? Is it increasing your bluffs 2x, 3x, 4x or more? This will depend on how you construct your ranges. It's important to have a logical way to increasing or decreasing ones range when making adjustments. Or else we have have no idea where we are. It's very hard to make later decisions if we have no idea how big an adjustment we made earlier and errors are compounded.

-flop is an ez check, people cbet way too much in sb and here it no exception
-turn check fold
-river check fold

-river: in general turning made hands in to bluffs is bad. An exception with hero's river range here though.
-river bet size is not great, I think we can only bet flushes for value, so might as well bomb it. And we're much better bluffing with straights that block flushes. So hands like A♦:Xo . 10% - 20% of the time when it checks through u will have the better hand here.

Originally posted by double2

Originally posted by wealthybrainer
I didn't explain why I opened 2BB, it is because villain folds too much vs SB open.

Okay, I still think you should open bigger than 2bbs. Anyways, then your 4bet is a fairly big mistake. We have to have some logical coherence in our exploitations, you steal wide and small because villain folds too much, therefore you should not give him action light when he does not fold.

I'm not so sure this is a contradiction. It's possible that

Villain doesn't defend enough to SB opens on the BB.
and
Villain folds too much to SB 4b's after 3betting on the BB.

A lot of weak guys only play 5b or fold with the nuts or air after 3betting, Even after not defending enough. Especially nits. Perhaps his 3b range is solid, his cold calling 2b range is not wide enough and his fold to 4b range is off. This would be a common scenario.

Originally posted by jules97

Originally posted by double2

Originally posted by wealthybrainer
I didn't explain why I opened 2BB, it is because villain folds too much vs SB open.

Okay, I still think you should open bigger than 2bbs. Anyways, then your 4bet is a fairly big mistake. We have to have some logical coherence in our exploitations, you steal wide and small because villain folds too much, therefore you should not give him action light when he does not fold.

I'm not so sure this is a contradiction. It's possible that

Villain doesn't defend enough to SB opens on the BB.
and
Villain folds too much to SB 4b's after 3betting on the BB.

A lot of weak guys only play 5b or fold with the nuts or air after 3betting, Even after not defending enough. Especially nits. Perhaps his 3b range is solid, his cold calling 2b range is not wide enough and his fold to 4b range is off. This would be a common scenario.

Yes, it's.possible. But without a solid read regarding his fold to 4bet i think it would be more wise to assume villain nit is not folding that much.

Thanks for your insights! Always valueable.

Hi,

Can you please explain, why do you assign so weak bluffs to 3bet range (I assume that you would play that way if you face SB min raise) ? If SB is not overfolding vs 3bet, then how can we expect hands as 52o to be +EV as 3bet? If SB open raises wider, off course he can overfold vs 3bet, in which case we dont want to have balanced 3bet range but bluff heavy, but if he doesnt overfold vs 3bet, that means that he defends wider range as standard reg, which still can hardly make your 52o +EV 3bet (assuming same skills for both players).

Even if we would know that you can play any bluff +EV in this spot, still why dont 3bet some more playable hands, as suited hands, and mostly higher cards? Those hands will have good playability, and very nice EV. In fact I would 3bet all Ax, all suited Kx, Qx, Jx. And you can still call 52o +EV, I doubt that it is +Ev even as a cold call considering real poker and rake. Also in this spot I think that range protection is not a problem at all, since ranges are super wide. Imo, maybe the best would be to 3bet e.g. top 33% of range, and call the rest. Now, off course someone can say that we are exploitable, but anyway whatever adjustment you make, you are exploitable (same goes for defending 100% range).

Also I watched one of your video, where you suggest having polarized BU vs CO range, and basically call all hands that can call +EV, and 3bet hands as bluff that cant call +EV, and say this way you can achieve max range EV (if I remember it correctly, but as I remember that was idea). I also am not sure that this strategy is really max EV of the range, since if we could use more playable bluffs, the EV of those bluffs could be much higher than the bottom range bluffs, and average range EV could be higher. I think that it makes sense. I mean, I would merge my 3bet bluffs, to have more playable ones. Off course the problem in that your cold call range becomes more cappt, but it still doesnt mean that your average range EV goes much down because of cappt range. It is all very complicated stuff, and cant be proven, but somehow I dont see how can it be max range EV to 3bet so weak bluffs instead of playable bluffs especially IP.

Those are good questions, for which I really don't have good answers.

I usually "depolarize" my range a bit, but not by mixing hands that are clear +EV calls and clearly not "value 3bets". So in this example I'm much more inclined to 3bet a hand like KTs or A9s than a hand like K4s.

I think it's easier o visualize with tigher ranges. So let's take the CO vs BU example. I say "call hands like KTs or KJo, and 3bet hands like KTo or K8s". You're implying that it might be more +EV for our whole range to also 3bet KTs and KJo. But what do we do with KTo/K8s? We can't call, and if we also 3bet we're gonna have a hard time facing 4bets.
I'm not sure if this is what you meant. You could say "I'd rather 3bet 65s than KTo", and this is fine by me, we are still polarized, we are just using different hand selection. And ideally this should be a bit mixed up, I would not be surprised if hands like KJo, KTs, QJs, 87s, A5s are correctly mixing up between calling and 3betting. But in practice it's not easy to do.

Hi, thanks for the quick answer.

I think it's easier o visualize with tigher ranges. So let's take the CO vs BU example. I say "call hands like KTs or KJo, and 3bet hands like KTo or K8s. You're implying that it might be more +EV for our whole range to also 3bet KTs and KJo. But what do we do with KTo/K8s? We can't call, and if we also 3bet we're gonna have a hard time facing 4bets. .

Yes, it is easier to discuss with this example.
This is quite different spot from BB vs SB 3bet bluff range, because you are in BU vs CO comparing very similar bluff hands like KTo and KTs, K8s, which I would expect to be very similar in EV, thus I would expect for this case to be better to call KTs, KJo and 3bet KTo, K8s. For BB vs SB spot there is a huge difference in EV when we compare e.g. 52s and KTs (vs standard SB range and size).

So lets give it as an example:

EV_call for KJo = 1BB
EV_3bet for KJo = 2BB

EV_fold 52s = 0
EV_3bet 52s = 0.1BB (bottom range cant be hugely profitable)

So from this example, it is clear that it is much more profitable to 3bet KJo and fold 52s. This is off course just an example, but I think that EVs make somehow sense. And off course it cant be applied for your example, since KTo and KTs are very similar in EV, but if you are comparing e.g. 96s and KTs probably you would get the result that it is better to 3bet KTs and fold 96s.

For comparing KTs and K8s:

EV_call KTs: 0.7bb
EV_3bet KTs: 1.3bb

EV_fold K8s : 0bb
EV_3bet K8s: 1.1bb

So in this case it is obvious that it is better to 3bet K8s and call KTs.

Okay, cool, I think we are getting somewhere.

So pretty much what you are saying is that BBvSB we should 3bet completely depolarized and simply fold hands that are not profitable calls.

Well, first, I think the difference of EV between calling and 3betting a hand like KJo has to be a lot smaller. Otherwise we should always 3bet KJo and then a worse hand should be the one "on the fence". So I'd say that huge EV diference is maybe applied to a hand like AQ (which we strongly prefer to 3bet) and then KJo is a hand borderline whose EV between 3betting and calling is similar. And if you don't agree we can just go down in hand strength.

Also, I believe if we do 3bet polarized, our "bluff" part has to be very close to 0 EV, otherwise we would 3bet bluff more with similar hands (if the EV is positive) or just fold altogether (if the EV is quite negative).

So, I think a polarized 3bet strategy lets us defend a wider range (and should not imply we are losing a bunch of EV by calling "borderline" hands like KJo instead of 3betting).

I'll try to bring here one of the "big bosses" to give some input.

Well, first, I think the difference of EV between calling and 3betting a hand like KJo has to be a lot smaller. Otherwise we should always 3bet KJo and then a worse hand should be the one "on the fence". So I'd say that huge EV diference is maybe applied to a hand like AQ (which we strongly prefer to 3bet) and then KJo is a hand borderline whose EV between 3betting and calling is similar. And if you don't agree we can just go down in hand strength.

Makes sense to me. So as a conclusion, only hands that have significantly higher EV of 3bet comparing to cold call, we should 3bet. Well, AQ is more of a value bet anyway
Can we say that 3betting hand like 56s-9Ts (and all sort of gappers) is going to be much higher EV than calling? Its equity, playability and positional advantage doesnt change much considering open raise range or call 3bet range, but the big difference is that when we cold call we somehow start with negative EV because we pay to see the flop (especially in spots where there are players behind who can sqeeze), and when we 3bet we have FE and somehow start with around breakeven EV. I am not sure what the difference in EV is for those hands, but I think it makes sense that 3bet should be significantly higher.

Also, I believe if we do 3bet polarized, our "bluff" part has to be very close to 0 EV, otherwise we would 3bet bluff more with similar hands (if the EV is positive) or just fold altogether (if the EV is quite negative). So, I think a polarized 3bet strategy lets us defend a wider range (and should not imply we are losing a bunch of EV by calling "borderline" hands like KJo instead of 3betting).

Yes, thats the theory for polarized ranges. What will happen, if you all of the sudden fold those EV = 0 bluffs, and 3bet bluffs which are going to have higher EV? If villain still wants to make your "new bluffs" EV = 0, he should start defending higher % of his range, but since he defends more frequently, our EV of value hands increases. Now, it could be the case that if villain defends wider range, that our range EV is still higher comparing to original polarized 3bet range. Off course, villain doesn't have to change his strategy at all, and still only make standard bluffs EV = 0.

I see one problem if we want to use merged bluffs. E.g. BU vs CO, if we fold from BU more often than using polarized range, then CO can open raise more combos +EV (unless BB or SB defend wider range, but still he can open raise more often since they have in that case weaker ranges). Since those additional combos that villain open raises he plays raise/fold, then they stay +EV. What also changes having merged bluffs, that EV of hands that open raise / call 3bet decreases. So still, even though he can open raise more hands, still it doesnt mean that his overall EV gets higher.

I'll try to bring here one of the "big bosses" to give some input.

If you could somehow summon Uri Peleg or Internet, that would be great

I 3b linear as a default everywhere now.

I think 3betting polarized was a good exploitative strategy when people were
1) folding to much to 3bets (hasn't happened for a long time)
2) playing poorly postflop as 3b caller, often this was folding too much to cbets. Which still happens to an extent.

These 2 things increase the EV of junk hands.

So against some not so great opponents or if one is playing mtt's (herp derp mtt players) then I think polarized is ok, but against guys that are playing really well postflop, I don't think it's the strongest.

Also from a practical point of view, it's easier to learn and manage ones ranges postflop when they are all linear rather than a dogs breakfast and so different.

Originally posted by jules97
I 3b linear as a default everywhere now.

I think 3betting polarized was a good exploitative strategy when people were
1) folding to much to 3bets (hasn't happened for a long time)
2) playing poorly postflop as 3b caller, often this was folding too much to cbets. Which still happens to an extent.

These 2 things increase the EV of junk hands.

So against some not so great opponents or if one is playing mtt's (herp derp mtt players) then I think polarized is ok, but against guys that are playing really well postflop, I don't think it's the strongest.

Also from a practical point of view, it's easier to learn and manage ones ranges postflop when they are all linear rather than a dogs breakfast and so different.

Hi,

If you 3bet linear, I guess you have very weak and capt cold call range? Maybe some regs will not notice your ranges, but still it can influence that you fold too much vs cbets because you have too weak range, especially on some boards, and on some boards defend too much.

if regs would defend "unexploitable" vs 3bets, then polarized bluffs should have around EV = 0, which is ok, because you get value with value part of 3bet range. If they defend more often than unexploitable, which I think it is the case nowadays for most regs, then it off course makes sense to only value 3bet, or merge bluffs.

Also from practical point of view, even though you can memorize preflop ranges easier using linear range (anyway polarized is not so hard to learn), regs can also understand your ranges much easier by just looking at automated notes what your 3bet range is, and they would see that it is linear range, and that way play more accurate vs you. (they could also conclude polarized range, but linear range you can conclude by having small sample)

Originally posted by GingerKid

Hi,

If you 3bet linear, I guess you have very weak and capt cold call range? Maybe some regs will not notice your ranges, but still it can influence that you fold too much vs cbets because you have too weak range, especially on some boards, and on some boards defend too much.

true, but being capped and weak isn't an issue. It's a better tradeoff to have this problem in small single raised pots, than larger 3b pots.

if regs would defend "unexploitable" vs 3bets, then polarized bluffs should have around EV = 0, which is ok, because you get value with value part of 3bet range. If they defend more often than unexploitable, which I think it is the case nowadays for most regs, then it off course makes sense to only value 3bet, or merge bluffs.

with 3 streets to play, the polarized bluffs won't have 0ev, they will have a little equity and realizing this equity is very important and very hard, especially out of position with domination issues in big pots (similar to plo where nuts are good near nuts are very dangerous)

Also from practical point of view, even though you can memorize preflop ranges easier using linear range (anyway polarized is not so hard to learn), regs can also understand your ranges much easier by just looking at automated notes what your 3bet range is, and they would see that it is linear range, and that way play more accurate vs you. (they could also conclude polarized range, but linear range you can conclude by having small sample)

I meant postflop, not preflop ranges and how ones ranges interact with postflop play over various streets, situiations. I'm not too worried about good players accurately putting me accurately on an solid preflop range. It's going to come down to postflop play and if we get outplayed there, hats off.

There's also problems with a polarized ranges. Such as holes in board coverage due to the polarized bluff part of the range tending to clumping up in one section of hands.
A weaker polarized preflop range may be harder to accurately decipher, but is far easier to exploit and far harder to play well postflop. And postflop really is everything.

true, but being capped and weak isn't an issue. It's a better tradeoff to have this problem in small single raised pots, than larger 3b pots.

Well, it is questionable how big issue is that. If you e.g. 3bet vs CO linear range, you will not have or have very view Jx, Qx, Kx, Ax, and high boards are most frequent boards, which means that you will either have to float very weak hands on flop vs cbet, or to overfold a lot. On the other hand, on low boards, your range will have some strong hands and some weak pairs, so you will fold almost nothing. As a result, your average fold vs cbet should be like 55-60% my guess. And if your average fold vs cbet on flop is showing that you are overfolding, then most of regs will start cbetting bluff heavy and they will do right thing, you cant defend enough with such a weak range, since they have big range advantage on most boards. And your only adaption is to not 3bet linear range. So how do you deal with this problem?

Also you say that small single raised pots are not the problem if you have a leak there, but in fact thats very important spot, since such pots occur most frequent, so they influence total EV a lot.

with 3 streets to play, the polarized bluffs won't have 0ev, they will have a little equity and realizing this equity is very important and very hard, especially out of position with domination issues in big pots (similar to plo where nuts are good near nuts are very dangerous)

Sure bluffs have some equity, but having equity > 0, they can still play EV around 0 if villain defends enough of range on preflop and postflop (thats just approximative gto theory, in reality you cant make all bluffs EV = 0 since they have different equity and playabiity, but you can make them around 0 which is a goal).

There's also problems with a polarized ranges. Such as holes in board coverage due to the polarized bluff part of the range tending to clumping up in one section of hands.
A weaker polarized preflop range may be harder to accurately decipher, but is far easier to exploit and far harder to play well postflop. And postflop really is everything.

Ok agree. Preflop is also a big deal, but nowadays regs dont make big mistake there, since it is not tough to learn preflop ranges and play solid.