NL400: So I bet/3bet bluff a river 300 bbs deep...

[effang]

it is hard to see Q3 making a raise here that he's not intending to call, because it is hard to see him raising Q3 in the first place.

[eX3cution]

Originally Posted by VillainUnknown

The one question I would ask is that do you think he's raising with a pre conceived notion of what he would do if you shoved.

I'd say that almost nobody at NL400 ever raises for value and then snapfolds to a shove in any given spot. He might have an idea about how he should react and then timebank-->change his mind.

Originally Posted by F_Ivanovic

You say he's bluff raised river before but it might help more if we knew what happened that time. I mean was it when you bet flop, turn and river and then he bluff raises you when no major new scare cards come up on river?

Q3 seems the only non-nut hand he is raising river with for value that he wouldn't have raised before river like you said but I still think it's debatable he raises it on the river cause you said he's only bluff raised on river once so he should only expect to be called when beat most of the time.

Yes, that's what happened when he bluffraised (except that I was IP). I bet, bet, bet IP on a K high non-threatening board and he c/shoved the river w/ midpair on an offsuit 4 or something.

The only time he raised in such a spot, he got called by 1 pair. He's neither weaktight nor someone who will think that I'll fold to his next river raise, and thus I can't possibly to expect him to just call w/ Q3. I mean, come on. He doesn't really know what my range is, there aren't a lot of hands that I can have that beat Q3 (matter of fact, it's pretty much the nut 2 pair) and I called w/ 1 pair in a similar spot before. I'd be really surprised to see anyone with any sort of aggression in him just call there considering how the match was going.

Originally Posted by RCSkier86

yea I don't like your play. You say that the hand he could have that is better than you and are trying to get fold is Q3. And that the hands he could have that beat you are 76 and A2 of diamonds. Well those are both extremely narrow ranges, and against anything else you are making the same amount of profit when he has air by just calling. So the question is, when he has that narrow range of hands are you making $ by shoving, and I think you not. Especially in the case where he does have Q3 or something random that beats you and calls some % of the time.

I've got two questions for you:

a) How often do you bluffraise two rivers in 1 match in similar spots, considering that you got called by 1 pair the first time you did it?
b) Would a straightforward player do it often enough for us to be good 29% of the time here?

[RCSkier86]

Originally Posted by eX3cution

I've got two questions for you:

a) How often do you bluffraise two rivers in 1 match in similar spots, considering that you got called by 1 pair the first time you did it?
b) Would a straightforward player do it often enough for us to be good 29% of the time here?

a) that would depend on what level I thought the other guy is on. Against a good player if I got caught bluffing I would soon after that use the same line again as a bluff. As very often they think "he knows that I ve seen him use this line with air, so he is very likely taking the same bluffy line with value." Nothing against a solid player than increasing your bluffing frequency after getting caught on a big bluff. (obviously doesn t work on fish or even bad regs)

b. I think if you account for some % percent of bluffs in his range calling is fine. If you think you are good so rarely then why not fold instead of 3 betting?

[VillainUnknown]

After reading RCSkier posts I think I've changed my mind about the correct approach to this hand.

Originally Posted by eX3cution

2) Will he fold Q3 60% of the time or more? (the bluff needs to work 52% of the time, but his range isn't exactly only Q3)

I think this is correct: in this spot say he calls 100% with a better hand than Q3o and folds Q3o 60% of the time. He needs to have Q3o 80% of the time and a stronger hand only 20% of the time.

With the assumptions of: him folding Q3o 3 out of 5 times, the strongest hand he holds is Q3o 4 out of 5 times - I think you have to be far too exact in this spot with your read.

[jpz99]

gl to you sir

[jpz99]

and, plays like this work way more than they are theoretically expected to.

[eX3cution]

Originally Posted by RCSkier86

a) that would depend on what level I thought the other guy is on. Against a good player if I got caught bluffing I would soon after that use the same line again as a bluff. As very often they think "he knows that I ve seen him use this line with air, so he is very likely taking the same bluffy line with value." Nothing against a solid player than increasing your bluffing frequency after getting caught on a big bluff. (obviously doesn t work on fish or even bad regs)

b. I think if you account for some % percent of bluffs in his range calling is fine. If you think you are good so rarely then why not fold instead of 3 betting?

a) That's how I approach it too, but I really don't see this villain thinking like that. Even if he did, he might not have a good enough read on me to expect me to fold.

b) Calling needs to work 29% of the time, shoving needs to work 52%. The latter is definitely better if he folds some of his value range.

There are definitely some bluffs in his range, but I think that it's doubtful that there are enough of them to make this a call. Also, you can't win the hand by folding!

Originally Posted by VillainUnknown

I think this is correct: in this spot say he calls 100% with a better hand than Q3o and folds Q3o 60% of the time. He needs to have Q3o 80% of the time and a stronger hand only 20% of the time.

With the assumptions of: him folding Q3o 3 out of 5 times, the strongest hand he holds is Q3o 4 out of 5 times - I think you have to be far too exact in this spot with your read.

Your maths are off. You didn't account for bluffs and you can't tell exactly how often he folds Q3 (it's "does he fold Q3 60% of more" and not "he folds Q3 60%). Also, according to your numbers, he folds 48% of the time which isn't enough.

I do agree that I need sick reads on his range for making it to the river and raising for my play to have merit, though. I do think that my reads are good enough for the b3b to be a decent option (if not the optimal play), though.

[VillainUnknown]

Originally Posted by eX3cution

Your maths are off. You didn't account for bluffs and you can't tell exactly how often he folds Q3 (it's "does he fold Q3 60% of more" and not "he folds Q3 60%). Also, according to your numbers, he folds 48% of the time which isn't enough.

I do agree that I need sick reads on his range for making it to the river and raising for my play to have merit, though. I do think that my reads are good enough for the b3b to be a decent option (if not the optimal play), though.

So can we reduce it to the following?

Bluff % - Q3o% - better hand %

and work from there.

As we increase the bluff % we should call more often, as we increase the better hand % we should fold more often.

As we increase the Q3o% we can then consider shoving more optimal - if we think we can get him to fold it enough.

I'm not sure I could conclude that better hand %/bluff % can be defined with any close certainty.

[eX3cution]

Originally Posted by VillainUnknown

So can we reduce it to the following?

Bluff % - Q3o% - better hand %

and work from there.

As we increase the bluff % we should fold less often, as we increase the better hand % we should fold more often.

As we increase the Q3o% in relation to the better hand % we can then consider shoving more optimal - if we think we can get him to fold it enough.

TBH I would like shoving allot more if we thought the bluff% was a high variable. Which would in turn make calling ok if it's high enough.

FYP, the rest is right.

[VillainUnknown]

Originally Posted by eX3cution

FYP, the rest is right.

One final thought/question: if he's bluffing more often do you think he has a better hand more often? Since we're less accurate on our read on one side, we can expect to be less accurate on the other.

[eX3cution]

Definitely. The less straightforward he really is compared to what I perceive him to be, the more he'll be bluffing and slowplaying.