Then by saying fold the turn with AA, you would say that the play should be to fold the 6 combos of AA, the 6 combos of KK, and continue with the 3 combos of QQ on the turn, having a fold vs bet of 12/15 = 80%, correct? This should account more or less for everything Hero has on the turn, since JJ is not a 3bet in that position preflop.
Notifications
Clear all
Originally posted by NothingIsForSho
no actually i'm not missing anything
We should not 3b JJ here without a specific reason.
Originally posted by NothingIsForSho
Then by saying fold the turn with AA, you would say that the play should be to fold the 6 combos of AA, the 6 combos of KK, and continue with the 3 combos of QQ on the turn, having a fold vs bet of 12/15 = 80%, correct? This should account more or less for everything Hero has on the turn, since JJ is not a 3bet in that position preflop.
What will you fold here then?
The point of course being that in that case villain is incentivised to bluff and so it creates a problem. And it is not easy to call and think you have the best hand, but the point is that whenever you gain something (in this case being the money you don't lose when he has JJ or QQ if you fold), you always lose something in return, in this case a high fold %
We know that with the 1/2 pot bet sizing that villain always needs you to fold about ~33% when he does an aggressive action with a bluff, and so it's important that we should try as much as possible to keep our fold vs bets/raises to not much more than 50% overall.
Originally posted by nitrol
Originally posted by NothingIsForSho
Then by saying fold the turn with AA, you would say that the play should be to fold the 6 combos of AA, the 6 combos of KK, and continue with the 3 combos of QQ on the turn, having a fold vs bet of 12/15 = 80%, correct? This should account more or less for everything Hero has on the turn, since JJ is not a 3bet in that position preflop.What will you fold here then?
I think that you can x/call both KK and AA and on the river fold KK. Of course you can chose to avoid the situation by being fit or fold on the flop which isn't a terrible choice either. The thing is that villain only min raised the flop basically and bets half pot on the turn, so you shouldn't think you have to fold all that much theoretically.
My point is that if you're trying to think about the worst case scenario, the worst case scenario might not be that he shows up with JJ here all the time. The worst case scenario might be that he doesn't have JJ at all (that he saves that for his calling range and makes money off you that way), and that he bluffs you here a lot because you fold too much. Then you get double penetrated which is worse.
1. Villain is unknown
2. Villain opens from UTG and calls our 3bet
3. Villain raises our cbet
4. Villain bets the turn
Please put villain on a range. Tell me what hands he can be holding OTT. Assuming he is unknown = you can't say he has AJ or 72o because normal player wouldn't play those hands this way. Villain can not be exploiting our too high fold % because he is unknown.
In theory we should have x/c range here but last time I checked villain was unknown and this was NL5.
I accept the idea of not being exploited here, but it is nl5, villain is unknown and cannot know our tendencies and villain can really have a set here...
About putting villain on a range on the turn, I like to think about a saying there is for blindfold chess, which is that if you forget where your opponents pieces are, things aren't so bad, but if you forget where your own pieces are, you're already lost.
I think that this holds true somewhat in poker when you are the player facing a bet, in that when you are thinking about the long run simulation of the game, you should tend to be more worried about your own defense against bets than about what the opponent can hold. There are many different correct ways to construct a betting range, but not as many when it comes to defending.
I mean suppose I answer your question and say that he should only have JJ and QQ on the turn, and make the argument that we should fold 100% unless we have QQ. Then I would all of a sudden have a different answer for villains betting range.
Originally posted by nitrol
I accept the idea of not being exploited here, but it is nl5, villain is unknown and cannot know our tendencies and villain can really have a set here...
Yes I agree and I am not claiming I know the answer, but I think I made some interesting points either way and in the end you might talk in circles for half an hour and get nowhere anyway without a GTO dream machine.
Facing a break even situation when you face a bet is probably one of the hardest things to analyse in poker actually, not only because it's hard to construct the answer, but that you often don't even have the information required to construct the answer, and that's even if you ignore player tendencies and are going for strict GTO
I didn't quite get that. We know that standard villain shouldn't have many weaker holdings than JJ,QQ. Why do you want to call this?
Defending vs a bet here is burning money. It is as if you had a hole card camera, you see that villain holds a monster but you decide to call just so you wouldn't be exploited? Poker in theory is different than poker in practice at least on NL5.
What do you mean by that you would all of a sudden have a different answer for villains betting range? Do you now think that villain plays TT like this? Or KJ? In that case villain would be stupid. And we cannot assume he is stupid if there is no info on him.
Originally posted by la55i
I didn't quite get that. We know that standard villain shouldn't have many weaker holdings than JJ,QQ. Why do you want to call this?Defending vs a bet here is burning money. It is as if you had a hole card camera, you see that villain holds a monster but you decide to call just so you wouldn't be exploited? Poker in theory is different than poker in practice at least on NL5.
What do you mean by that you would all of a sudden have a different answer for villains betting range? Do you now think that villain plays TT like this? Or KJ? In that case villain would be stupid. And we cannot assume he is stupid if there is no info on him.
No I'm just saying if I gave you an answer in such a way that you would conclude that we should have 80% fold to bet, then my answer would change to a range that includes a lot of bluffs. I.e. it's dependent obviously on how we respond. That's all.
And then I would say that your range is unrealistic and you are treating unknown villain as a maniac and you can't do that. What would you say then?
Originally posted by la55i
And then I would say that your range is unrealistic and you are treating unknown villain as a maniac and you can't do that. What would you say then?
Not really if I knew that hero was folding 80% on the turn right. Because I can just add more and more bluffs until the hero responds somehow and changes his range back. And in that case hero can't fold his KK and AA anymore. So there is of course some convergence of the ranges somewhere
And it is very difficult and I also find it very difficult to understand that in some situations there can occur a scenario where you are calling to lose potentially and think how can this be good. But the answer is that even if you lose because your opponent has this hand, it means that in another universe he doesn't have it somewhere else and you might win more there than you lose here. I've seen some GTO simulations where that was my interpretation of what was going on at least.
Aaaand what if I told you for the millionth time that this is NL5 and villain is unknown. I know that in NL2000 vs a villain who has 10k hands on us our approach would be a lot different. As I said earlier poker in theory and poker in practice at least on NL5 are different. Here villain doesn't know that and he should treat us as unknown too. So no fancy bluffs.
So if I say that villain has no info on us you can't say he knows we are folding 80% on the turn.
And BTW:
hero is not necessarily folding 80% on the turn. Hero is folding only because of this board texture and the way this hand was played.
Originally posted by NothingIsForSho
And it is very difficult and I also find it very difficult to understand that in some situations there can occur a scenario where you are calling to lose potentially and think how can this be good. But the answer is that even if you lose because your opponent has this hand, it means that in another universe he doesn't have it somewhere else and you might win more there than you lose here. I've seen some GTO simulations where that was my interpretation of what was going on at least.
I don't know about other universes but in this world I would call that bluff catching or maintaining our calldown frequency. Balancing our game. But since we can narrow villains range down and know that we are 100% dead, I would say that is not good here. If you tell your GTO solver that our equity is 0%, does it still advice to call?
Originally posted by la55i
Aaaand what if I told you for the millionth time that this is NL5 and villain is unknown. I know that in NL2000 vs a villain who has 10k hands on us our approach would be a lot different. As I said earlier poker in theory and poker in practice at least on NL5 are different. Here villain doesn't know that and he should treat us as unknown too. So no fancy bluffs.So if I say that villain has no info on us you can't say he knows we are folding 80% on the turn.
And BTW:
hero is not necessarily folding 80% on the turn. Hero is folding only because of this board texture and the way this hand was played.
Well yes that's fine also. The whole GTO vs exploitative again, which is the other most difficult thing in poker to understand.
My basis of thinking right here and now is in terms of GTO. In reality it's just something I like talking about right now - that is when you face a bet, since I've in the last few weeks and months been successful in getting my fold vs bet down from 65+% to about 50%, which has helped me to keep my red line up.
If you tell your GTO solver that our equity is 0%, does it still advice to call?
No but then it wouldn't be called solving