Quote:
Originally Posted by tremblingco
I don't like the check-raise to 210 with any part of our range this deep, nor do I agree with any of the reasoning in these posts. A check-raise to 450 seems more viable at first glance, though there's still much to compute in terms of how that strategy fares over check-calling.
I had forgotten that his bet size was only 1/2p. I think you're correct that a larger c/r size makes more sense, maybe to like 280-300. 450 might be reasonable in theory, but it's pretty absurd in practice, when laying a reasonable price on a bluff makes much more sense.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tremblingco
I assume that 'difficult' means 'low EV', since a counterstrategy to a purely polarized strategy that excludes 3-betting has only one range threshold per hand type and should hardly be described as complex. In that case, having a polarized check-raising range of JT+, 98+ (in any high frequency) will be a severe drain on the EV of one's check-calling range; Villain will be able to overbet turn and river at a high frequency on many runouts.
More theory vs practice. In theory, solvers very rarely slowplay JT/JJ/TT/66 here in equilibrium strategies. They tend to check-raise them >80% of the time, even allowing for IP to overbet in capped range spots vs OOP's c/c range. That is to say that the gain from having stronger hands in your c/c range is generally overstated. You're correct that the counterstrategy to a polarized betting range is simple: just call down often enough. "Often enough" generally means JT+ and good draws maximize their EV by fast-playing.
In practice, I don't see any necessity in slowplaying 98/sets/JT for board coverage purposes vs a described nitty player. As if to vindicate my point, he seemed to just half pot it with KQ on the turn. I just don't see any point in fretting over overbets unless you're certain villain is a tough player. I would, however, c/c KQ here pretty frequently, but that it strengthens my c/c range is an incidental benefit. We simply have a lot of combos of KQ (maybe all 16, depending on our 3-betting strategy) and they play really well as c/c's. They can call virtually every turn, unlike 98.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tremblingco
I've no idea what this is about - your check-raise vs. check-call threshold should be the top end of your bluffs, not the bottom. Is there something specific to deep-stacked play that I'm missing?
To address my point, having a BDFD just adds 4% of runouts that you're able to play a big pot on, you'd rather the pot were of maximal size when you get those runouts. In obvious words, 9d8d is a much more profitable c/r than 98o. It's also a more profitable c/c, and one could argue that 9d8d should sooner be a c/c because it has ~25% of turns that you don't have to fold your draw on. However, it's still considerable that c/c is the line that leads to an (on-average) smaller pot, and 4% added 100%/0% distributed equity encourages building a bigger pot from the beginning.
As far as your c/r vs c/c threshold, I'd eschew the term "bluff" when there are still two cards to come. Certainly c/ring a low-value draw like 87 has a big bluff component, but if you c/r that hand and get called, and the turn is a 9, your balanced betting range should recognize that some of your gutters have hit, and you will be able to bluff more often accordingly. A balanced c/r range on the flop should include all of the gutters and oesds (even KQ) in some frequency. Some of those draws would otherwise c/c and others would otherwise be forced to c/f. A solver would be playing mixed strategies with them all, with the nemesis playing exactly in such a way that makes the mixed choices equal in EV. Generally speaking, it prefers to take the more aggressive line with the highest and lowest value draws (for example, raising 9d8d and 87 but calling more often with 98o). It probably also tends to raise with KdQd.
Last edited by Renton555; 10-22-2015 at 10:46 AM.