Can we bluffcatch here in 3bp?
Hand History driven straight to this forum with DriveHUD 2 Poker HUD and Database Software
NL Holdem 0.25(BB)
HERO (101BBs)
BTN (104BBs) [VPIP: 22.2% | PFR: 11.1% | AGG: 50% | Hands: 9]
SB (184.4BBs) [VPIP: 44.4% | PFR: 11.1% | AGG: 50% | Hands: 9]
BB (106.3BBs) [VPIP: 33.3% | PFR: 33.3% | AGG: 75% | Hands: 9]
HJ (184BBs) [VPIP: 11.1% | PFR: 11.1% | AGG: 33.3% | Flop Agg: 0% | Turn Agg: 0% | River Agg: 100% | 3Bet: 0% | 4Bet: 0% | Hands: 9]
Dealt to Hero: 5♥ 6♥
HJ Raises To 2BBs, HERO Raises To 7BBs, BTN Folds, SB Folds, BB Folds, HJ Calls 5BBs
Hero SPR on Flop: [6.1 effective]
Flop (15.4BBs): 5♠ J♣ Q♣
HJ Checks, HERO Bets 4.8BBs (Rem. Stack: 89.2BBs), HJ Calls 4.8BBs (Rem. Stack: 172.2BBs)
Turn (25BBs): 5♠ J♣ Q♣ 7♠
HJ Checks, HERO Checks
River (25BBs): 5♠ J♣ Q♣ 7♠ Q♥
HJ Bets 7.9BBs (Rem. Stack: 164.3BBs)
I never said wider ranges always = less barreling.
I said if they are wider preflop you check back more SDV not increase barreling frequencies with said SDV..
I hear you. But to nitpick: looking at ^^^ range (last page) on the right is gto+ adjusting to the wider range pre and choosing to barrel 99/66/44 SDV combos it otherwise wouldn't versus a tigher range. So I'm still not sure about this logic. Perhaps there is some other solver balancing going on.
I hear you. But to nitpick: looking at ^^^ range (last page) on the right is gto+ adjusting to the wider range pre and choosing to barrel 99/66/44 SDV combos it otherwise wouldn't versus a tigher range. So I'm still not sure about this logic. Perhaps there is some other solver balancing at play.
Understanding why 66 is bet and 65hh is checked is important from a theory standpoint.
But your solve isn't complete since it's playing river like a solver with different preflop ranges. You need to add in how population plays river. Once you do that you will see more turn checking with SDV.
But again I'll go back to the concept point. Why do you think you check turn with 65hh but bet turn with 66?
These are the important takeaways from the hand, we don't care about the mixed frequency minutia we care about why 65hh is always checked.
It's the difference between a frequency mistake vs a fundamental mistake.
Not really. Overcalling = more junk too. it's the relative difference between the two that allows us to attack not frequency itself
Here is my micro pool CO call BU 3b on the left (not the same I know but close enough for this):
On the right is our turn barrel range. Nothing locked. I think we can argue they might overcall their Jx but they still have a ton of x/folds they should've folded on the flop. But ultimately we have a big range advantage on this board/runout and should be attacking it ver
Their junk smashed the board. A lot of the whiffs would also have already folded on the flop.
Understanding why 66 is bet and 65hh is checked is important from a theory standpoint.
But your solve isn't complete since it's playing river like a solver with different preflop ranges. You need to add in how population plays river. Once you do that you will see more turn checking with SDV.
But again I'll go back to the concept point. Why do you think you check turn with 65hh but bet turn with 76hh?
These are the important takeaways from the hand, we don't care about the mixed frequency minutia
I can see why pair + 6 outs is a better BC to check and realise, yeah.
I can also see the argument for exploiting their poor range construction on the river with MDA. But i can't help but suspect there's still a cutoff point where we start losing EV (by basically hoping for good rivers) when there is a clearer exploit earlier on the turn we know prints?. I'm not sure how you quantify the EV of either scenario because there's just so many variables and assumptions by the river. Plus my understanding is that 3b pot MDA is less stable and we should lean towards GTO (exploit) but i imagine you might suggest otherwise
I can see why pair + 6 outs is a better BC to check and realise, yeah.
I can also see the argument for exploiting their poor range construction on the river with MDA. But i can't help but suspect there's still a cutoff point where we start losing EV (by basically hoping for good rivers) when there is a clearer exploit earlier on the turn we know prints?. I'm not sure how you quantify the EV of either scenario because there's just so many variables and assumptions by the river. Plus my under
The solver is the baseline strategy so the burden of proof is on you to show why you are deviating from the solver.
Saying they overfold OTT isn't enough of a reason because we also have overfolds OTR as well.
If you map out MDA population vs GTO frequencies, the biggest discrepancies are usually OTR as a default.
The solver is the baseline strategy so the burden of proof is on you to show why you are deviating from the solver.
I'm not saying we should deviate from a solver (i think they're brill) I'm saying we should give the solver as much IRL data/range as possible and then use that instead.
If we know they overfold rivers per MDA, (agreed), then does it even matter which BCs we take with us? EDIT: no wait, that works in favour of checking...
I'm not saying we should deviate from a solver (i think they're brill) I'm saying we should give the solver as much IRL data/range as possible and then use that instead.
If we know they overfold rivers per MDA, (agreed), then does it even matter which BCs we take with us? EDIT: no wait, that works in favour of checking...
You base it on unblocking his air hands that he puts in his river betting range, this is one of main reasons you check back 65hh. We unblock a lot of hands that will have air OTR. You need to realize that our opponent's under check-raising flop is good for us now when we X back turn. They will be wider than they should be.
You are also underestimating how often you can raise here as a bluff OTR after checking back turn. You should look at XC30-X-BF ranges to see how far away from MDF they are.
You need to get all the river data and formulas to figure out what is higher EV between calling and raising. Folding is 0EV but we should never fold based on population data.
yeah, ok. That makes sense
This was all u/Haizemberg's idea anyway. it's 100% his fault
Because they have a ton of Q and J and draws that they aren’t supposed to have in a solver.
Dude don't think you understand, perhaps i wasnt' clear: that IS a population range, down to the %. I cribbed it using hand2note and figured out the relative frequencies.
If anything it's 2-10nl heavy but that only makes it more fish accurate (which is what newguy is supposedly targetting). They don't call as much pure Q/Jx as you'd think
Don't even get me started on donking. Fish donk 2x more than GTO and now you want to turn SDV into bluffs. That get's you exploited unintentionally by Fish that donk merged on rivers.
But yeah check turn.
Good thread.
Dude don't think you understand, perhaps i wasnt' clear: that IS a population range, down to the %. I cribbed it using hand2note and figured out the relative frequencies.
If anything it's 2-10nl heavy but that only makes it more fish accurate (which is what newguy is supposedly targetting). They don't call as much pure Q/Jx as you'd think
I see. What is their fold to 3b %?
CO vs BU I got ~44% whole pool vs 3x.
People don't adapt to low rake environment so just use the 500nl sims
I thought the reason solver x's back the turn with our hand is because it prefers using a large size overall, and that only isolates us against the stronger portion of villain's range?
Can someone test this by only allowing B33 on the turn, and seeing if it changes how often it bets 65s?
Not sure locking turn size solo would be a practical exercise? Solver'll just juggle strat across streets.
But I can tell you given options b33, b75, b150 OTT, it will use b33 some tiny amount (~2%) and that includes a sprinkle (10-15%) of 65s, so that's interesting
Not sure locking turn size solo would be a practical exercise? Solver'll just juggle strat across streets.
But I can tell you given options b33, b75, b150 OTT, it will use b33 some tiny amount (~2%) and that includes a sprinkle (10-15%) of 65s, so that's interesting
Yeah you want to copy the turn ranges from Wizard or do create subtree configuration in Pio
Turn good sim
Turn B33 only
EV gets wrecked
Thanks TBJ
Results
Spoiler
I shipped river. Villain called Q9s
That's funny. Idiot called unblocking 55
