suntauri
suntauri
archangelAbout
math magicianI know, that's why I mentioned that gto actually has few large bets here. Ive a look in (free) gtowiz.
my intention is to contemplate and talk over different ideas and strategies. Im learning myself and want to know what large bets are for, what they mean and how to play when facing them. what opponents who use them have, think and try to accomplish.
@tele: if right play is max EV play, then it's not necessarily solver's play, as solver's EV is for solver vs solver, and true EV vs real opponent may differ. in general, small bet with whole range will print. Im not exactly sure how to play after checking back, but I guess bluffcatching is bad, and I may be wrong, but I dont think so.
when it comes to the large sizing in general, solver would prefer it with a nut advantage.
here, villain might have more two pairs occasionally with J3off, J3s, T3s that are rather defends in the BB than opens on the button.
on the other hand, we have JJ and TT and 33. both have JToff. we also have QQ, KK, and AA which BB doesn't.
equities are 60% vs 40% for btn vs bb here.
so solver isn't void of large bets here, he does use them at a frequency with KK, QQ and some draws and bluffs in baseline.
@greatwhitefish
after big sizing, solver donks turn sometimes. we can give villain zero donks.
he can fold too much Tx
he can not jam/raise enough Jx
he can not jam/raise enough 3x (solver does so with Q3 or K3 with a diamond)
field will be reshoving much tighter from BB - so we'll be up against ranges that can include KQ and AJ and small pockets some of the time
and then, more opponentspecific, his checkraising strat vs small sizing, and if it includes KQ or AJ,
relative to his checkraising strat vs big sizing
how does field's checkraising strat usually differ from solver's?
does anyone know?
a) for example, solver just outright folds some two card backdoor flush hands against small cbet sizing, and checkcalls the best ones with apparently low EV.
does field raise them more often?
what is the real, exploitative EV of checkraising them?
b) solver checkraises gutshots like 97off or 87off preferably with a diamond, and checkcalls others vs smallish cbet.
do opponents prefer to checkcall, checkfold, or checkraise them more often?
c) does field preferably checkraise stronger draws and has a more linear checkraising range?
like:
checkraise : high equity draw (openender, flushdraw, ...)
checkcall : low equity draw (gutshots, backdoor fd's, ..)
checkfold : trash blocker bluffs
in general, no matter if gutshot, openender, bottom pair or trash runnerrunner bluff, solver prefers to have a diamond.
does field care about having a diamond at all?
@greatwhitefish
even though it's vs button, I don't think people will attack that JT3 two diamonds board, also with these stacks, too wide,
someone who's doing it, will maybe find some occasional Qd8, but may pass on Kd4 often.
so a small bet will work well in general, and without a diamond we may lean toward a fold if raised.
regards a larger 75% size, solver will like it much more if nodelocked and tailored accordingly versus field and in particular few villains. here, having a diamond is also good.
I wouldn't exactly say "should",
as there are regs who are exploitatively opening wider - then reshoving has better EV,
and recs who are opening too tight - then reshoving ranges should be tighter, though it will depend on their calling ranges, which may often be too tight too.
should if goal is unexploitativity - and differ if wanting to exploit.
hands opponent might not reshove pre: small pockets, KQ, AJ.
we're not seeking showdown vs his small pockets, so we bet large and say goodbye to them.
we may tangle into problems (equity realization, reversed implieds on hitting an ace) vs KQ and AJ if we bet small and defend a raise, while they may shove and spare us of that outcome if we bet large - or we get to see two streets at least.
three on river is good, ace is unlikely to be bluffed by opponent, so we might find a fold if he jams.
(preflop assumptions are more solverlike if it's for example lowjack vs big B 25bb deep)
I think we can bet 75%
- zero action from polar bluffs like Kd4 or gutshots like Qd8, no action too from backdoor flushdraws,
then fold to a jam that will be high equity draws or top pairs worst case,
and if called we check behind turn and realize, to decide to bluffcatch if unimproved (or bluff some legit runout ourselves)
if opp jams kq on us on flop - no problem, thank you.
will he jam 89? unlikely, so he'll arrive with missed draws on river that have no showdown equity,
and hence could try to bluff out something - like missed higher draws.
he could jam or call flushdraws on flop and is unprobable to jam small flushdraws.
his response is likely to be honest, he might chicken and fold Tx, or find no jam with Jx
- giving us two streets for a fair price to spike a three and win more chips
- since he wont believe we bet three quarters pot with bottom pair / don't think our story makes sense,
and think we checked back turn to hit our draw that apparently did not get there ..
regards opp having and checkraising KQ -
if he does, then he'll also follow through on any turn with his solid equity and we wont be able to defend A3 unimproved - thus we wont get to realize our equity in 9 out of 10 cases.
if we hit one of our two threes, we'll get to stack him often - but if we hit one of our three aces (which will happen thus more often), he'll get to stack us - if we don't find a miracle and get away.
with 16 combos of KQ our opponent may have sometimes in that line our EV in that strategy will suffer relative to GTO.
if someone chooses only the combos with a diamond, it's six combos.
when it comes to checkraising, villain will struggle on many runouts with relatively complex decisions compared to simpler ones when passively calling.
especially on lower limits I wouldn't expect a too high general checkraising frequency for this reason in this setting and scenario.
many hands like Jx might be played passively more often than solver does, and also some draws - while "easy" checkraises that play themselves - very strong hands and very bad hands - will most often constitute villain's checkraising range.
for same reason, villain may often just checkjam certain hands, vulnerable top pairs, draws with good equity, instead of tangling up in situations he'll make more mistakes than benefit from.
if Im right and field is polar - much more polar than solver - in this spot, then, because there aren't many strong hands villain can have here, and so many weak hands (with a blocker) to choose from, it's easy to overbluff.
we'll have opponents who don't bluff at all, and others who overbluff if they bluff - while opponents with more linear (or solverlike linearXpolar) checkraises will be rare.
hence, calling a checkraise looks much better again ;-)
solvervillain also checkraises some 3x that we dominate with A3.
but realvillain's checkraising strat is also unclear, honestly.
edit: if solver raises 3x like Q3off or K3off with a diamond, he only does it with a larger sizing above pot.
good reasons,
I have in mind if we go b20, b25 or b30 and opp raises to less than pot. it gets marginal or -EV around that mark.
in this setting an ace usually gives us the best two pair, since opp often rejams AJ pre.
so he does JJ, TT and 33, thus a clean 3 gives us the best hand often too. it's not many outs, and some are diamonds. having the ace of diamonds will be much better, or even the 3 of diamonds, or if we have A3s and one of the cards on the board has our suit.
opponent can be overbluffing here, which may be a condition for us to profitably call A3 without a diamond.
because there's one problem. solver rejams KQoff with 50% frequency pre, which will often be down to 0% in reality. and opposite to Q9off (with a diamond), solver never checkraises KQoff.
If our opponent does checkraise KQ, then A3 performs much worse in that line after a call. and a random opponent may do so, and potentially even have AJ there too.
why is KQ not a checkraise for solver?
I can think of not folding out Kx and Qx trash, that will be dominated if both hit top pair.
if a 9 comes we make the nuts, while Qx turns an openender and Kx a gutshot.
if we have Q9 and hit a 9, we can bluff blocking two pairs and straights, while if we hit a pair with KQ, we've no need to bluff having the best pair usually, but might look to bluffcatch instead.
with KQ we've also more showdown equity.
looks like a fold without a diamond now, even against a small checkraise.
sure, regards some opponents, it's so obvious they're not raising anything but value, then we fold of course. if they make it too big, we also fold
say we kinda have a read on opp being more aggressive with bluffs, then it goes checkraise flop, checkcheck turn, and river he jams.
he're I feel we have a much better bluffcatch, depending on concrete runout, bluffcatcher, feel.
we're in full control every street, over the board and in our mind - always aware of what's developing and where we're at, to finish off with a precise click and scoop the pot
while in the other line, our opp's complete range composition is hard to pin down, random, which makes playing it tough and unappealing
flop checkraise we call of course.
Qd4 doesn't often give up on turn, since it turned a gutshot.
Kd4 or Ad2 do give up, and 87 or K8 with a diamond check as well with the pair.
he has bluffs that give up, but his overall range slows down and checks turn 30% of time. we're fine folding turn if he barrels.
imo one-street checkraise-bluffs are much more prevelant than doublebarrel potsize bluffs into ambiguous ranges. here more or less for sure and probably at higher stakes too.
you're better off having a clear idea of what you're certainly folding out, which will be trash for villain if he raises flop. but if he starts bluffing after you check back, he has neither a clear idea of your range in that moment, but also of your range development on future streets. he doesn't know what you have or what you're going to fold, and if you're going to fold anything at all. he's left in the dark and so are you.
our small flop cbet will be raised a staggering 20% of time by solver. but Im much happier to call that flopraise, than his turnbomb after our checkback. we can think more clearly of what he might be doing in first case, while in the latter we're left guessing about that particular player's strat, who may be at the one or other extreme or some infinite point inbetween, and best we can do is work with vague estimations about population's tendencies.
even if we think he's a brazil dude who's playing more aggressive than average, we'll be able to work much better with that idea in case of a raise of our flop cbet. because that's what he'll likely be doing then (being more aggressive vs our cbet), but if we check, maybe once in a blue moon we'll be up vs a brazil opponent who'll also go for more aggression in that particular line/situation.
hand 1
if villain goes for it, he can be overbluffing with offsuit Ax and maybe suited Ax. if he's balanced, the EV of our 5betjam with A5s in this spot is marginal - but the future EV is higher.
traktatus final tabelus
a recreational villain will be more unprobable to have 4betbluffs. but a nonrec who goes for that sizing will have 4betbluffs inherently.
we invest in our future EV by bluffing here - even if villain is not overbluffing. if he is - which a reg may often be - a jam with A5s will have nice EV on the spot.
hand 2 - no 4bet bluffs from bb due to stack sizes, fold. pre call or jam, 3betting would be to induce vs aggressive cutoff
hand 1 - solver has 4betbluffs that are mostly KQoff / KJoff and 4betjams suited wheelaces. maybe villain also 4bets them nonallin? if he plays as balanced as solver does, then A5s would be a profitable 5betjam - with marginal EV. I would fold, but if I knew villain is more aggressive than solver with his bluffs, I would jam.
unftly you haven't posted villain's strat in your solver outputs, so Ill guess: even if we call turn and solver says maybe call river with A3, we'll have an easy snapfold on river too.
with reads on weird activity from opp - it's a call.
over the whole field, there are also many players who are much tighter with their reshoves in such scenarios
more and lower suited kings can be sb vs btn 3bets with larger stacks, but also become reshoves in the 10 - 15 big blind range.
with such shorter stacks, we'd feel fine to openshove our suited wheelaces from the button, which would also have an EV twice as high (vs optimal calling strats), and we would'nt run into such wide reshoving ranges
