Button Clicking part 2

Very nice. He is so lacking in boats given action and sizings. He may fold some chops. QT I am not sure he folds, but he should be 3b a decent amount of them, and it won't be an easy call for him. AJ will be tempted to call.

What were your own thoughts?

That looks like a freeroll to me. He isn't really repping anything better. QT and boats probably put more money in.

Yeah good point on the Kx freeroll. I was just trying to think of bluffs here and I think QT folds a ton vs this line. I'll post what villain had in a bit

I don't think AJ plays this way. In game I was just trying to find bluffs 😀

JT, JQ, QQ?

No because you want him to have QT and we want to block boats so Kx is our best bluffs.

Vs a good thinking villain this is a very nice play.

Im always afraid of the Bovada factor where they just insta snap you off w straight here without thinking.

Really cool play doodoo

Thx, yeah I'm curious what he had since he folded but I'm going to look it up. It will be sick if he had QT but he probably just had some bluff as this is an overbluffed line.

yeah looks like your combo is solver approved, but it prefers J9s, Q9s and the weaker KXs

nh

I'll vote bluff 😀

What other line do you expect from AJ other than some 3bets pre?

AJ can't get 3 streets, I'd X AJ OTT if I was BB but if BB had AJ OTR then no worse hand calls except maybe some Axdd chops so there is zero value to be had. You also get owned sometimes when this happens and then you don't even get to see a showdown.

I would rather bet turn if you don't think you can call this one down.

J9 seem like most natural bluff raise.

Regs are C30-B almost 10% more than GTO so I prefer checking.

No it's overbluffed so I can definitely call it down, I just think jamming is higher EV.

They also over fold to cbet in the first place.

Fair enough. I would rather just make +ev call instead of throwing stack in hoping it's better, esp in spit where he has decent chunk of snap calls.

How many snaps do they have though if I have Kx? I'm not counting QTo as a snap call.

I fold him off a good amount of chops too, it's way more likely we chop than he has a snap call.

Yes good point on the over folding

You are risking 180 or so to win around 70. He needs to call around 28% (if he calls this much you just b/e and caling is better).

My guess he has 15% or so FH in his range. You probably need almost all QT to fold to make jam clearly better than call, that would be my guess.

Why are you risking a stack to fold out QT and splits? I had to read the hand a few times to make sure I wasn't missing anything. Isn't this one of those spots where he bluffs way more and a call is way more profitable than hoping for better folds? Interested in your explanation.

This is the way I approach it, a solver doesn't care between jamming and calling since they are the same EV so we need to go down the MDA rabbit hole.

We know it's overbluffed so calling will be fine, but from my research I've found most overbluffed spots are overfolded - although this is not always true as I have been learning (super counterintuitive btw).

So for example - if this spot is overbluffed by 3%. But also overfolded by 3%. We should always be jamming here. Tombos laid out all the formulas for me a few weeks ago but basically MDF doesn't scale linearly. That is to say, the more I raise, the higher EV that 3% will net because I am shrinking his MDF.

If my opponent needs to call 28% of the time but overfolds 3%, that 3% will be a bigger portion of his value hands than if his MDF is higher (meaning I had raised smaller).

But yeah I'm pretty sure jamming is better but I will get data on C-B-BF frequencies to confirm later.

Here are the formulas if you are interested:

I'm still not 100% sure if I explained that correctly, I'll have to go back to the other thread and check on the exact reasoning. But basically my raise still folds out all his bluffs so I still capture that EV, but it's very likely he overfolds relative to MDF. And if he doesn't defend MDF, then any % he is overfolding is free money.

Thanks for the explanation. Yes, of course your net EV can be higher in that hypothetical, but in this specific case, how are you coming up w/ your overbluff%? You'd need to be real specific in your MDA data w/ really large numbers to know this. It's much easier to think (in real time) about (how many worse combos call + rough number of combos that bluffs + better combos that fold / better combos that call - 1)(-1). Then that's your MDF%.

BvB SRP is actually like 9% of all hands played if I remember correctly so it's pretty easy to get massive data on the C-B-B spot. The data I'm looking at has C30-B-B70 at a 7.5k hand sample size. We only need a 1000 hand sample for a 95% confidence interval I believe.

It's 35weak at this sizing and GTO is 30weak so they are overbluffing by 5%.

That's on average, every board is different.

Add another 0 on there, and you're probably a bit closer. Variance in any spot is A LOT larger than people realize in general (in talking poker with people over the years).

Seems flawed to assume that's true facing any raise size, since at a certain point their MDF is <3%.

If you min raise a lot of the folds come from their bluffs, but as you size up none of their additional folds come from bluffs (unless they were re-raising air). So by sizing up you're really exploiting a totally different tendency (not willing enough to bluff catch, not slow-playing enough, picking bigger sizes with the nuts, betting thin too often, etc) while still capturing the same EV from them over-bluffing.