I saw a hand on Neeme's new blog from a 2/5 game that I found interesting and involved a concept I have been wondering about. He does not mention stack size, so I think treating it like $500 effective is best.

OTTH

HJ open limps, hero raises 8 6 $25 (probably should be doing this at a low frequency, right?) and only HJ calls.

Flop ($57): Q 9 5. Villain checks, hero bets $20 and villain calls. I personally would've gone $30, and $40 if there was a FD, too. Is this really a good board to downbet?

Turn ($97): 7. Villain checks, we bet $100 and villain calls. This is the concept I've been wondering about - overbetting the turn. I've seen more and more people doing this, and have seen it somewhat frequently in my very limited experience at 2/5. Is this something people should be doing more often? What would a good overbet turn range look like? JT, KJ, KT + our straights, sets, and Q9? Or is that range too bluff heavy?

River ($297): K. Villain tanks and then checks. Hero takes this as a sign of weakness and bets $90. Wouldn't we want to be overbetting this river too with given line, or are A and K too much of action killer cards that a smaller bet is best? Either way, $90 seems a bit small.

I saw that hand too. It becomes a matter of targeting villain’s range. V calls but doesn’t raise the flop so likely has a Q, some slowplayed sets and stubborn under-pairs. OTT, not much has changed but I do like a bigger bet here. OTR, King is a bad card for Qx because some players will be double barreling AK and everyone puts everyone on AK anyway. So I actually like the smallish bet targeting villains most likely holding which is Qx. He did say that he wad hoping for a river Q so he could make a large bet.

I think with Neemes aggressive image and the meta game stuff with players gunning for him to make the blog etc., he should be sizing up his value bets a bit more (IMO) which would include some overbets.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yeah, not really sure 1/3, 1x, and 1/3 triple barrel sizing is a thing..

I don’t think most people here could give you answers to your questions or if they could, be willing to. Those are very dense questions and would require the extensive use of solvers. I dont think this sizing is too bad IP on a rainbow board, cant imagine that it’s a thing for OOP tho

I haven't seen a lot of posts regarding this move but I think it has some merit. The downbet on the flop will encourage a lot of floats OOP which is really good for Hero long term(not necessarily with our exact holding in this spot). I think V would also combat our downbet with c/r with most draws and call only with pairs. This should help narrow the V range here to likely having a Q or 9. The turn card is a brick, so I suppose H is thinking that V will call 1 more bet with his top or 2nd pair and we might as well get the value now.

This was pretty much just my mental spew on the subject. I would love to hear some thoughts on it.

There's an extensive discussion on this type of strategy in this thread.

https://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/1...-hand-1751087/

Without more information, it is hard to decide whether this was played well or not. Most participants agreed that the turn overbet generates a lot of folds. It may be that he is trying to balance his range a bit, or he's moved up a level in thinking against a known villain that is familar with the technique that often has air in it. The river may be what he thinks is the maximum the villain will call with 2nd pair.

had a longer response but lost it but the turn was an interesting one to pot as it prob hits the limpers range harder but against recs we can play hand vs their range as opposed to range v range. I would use his size more with Kx hands on the river and prob would go bigger with the low str8

Flop cbet sizing doesn't matter much theoretically. The difference between a 1/3 PSB and 3/4 PSB is less than ~1% EV difference either way on most boards.

What matters is the ranges you use with the sizings.

As far as the hand - it looks like it was played in a completely exploitable manner.

The turn sizing doesn't make much sense since the 7 is better for our opponent's range. This would never been an overbet spot in theory since Villain is still uncapped.

Overbet sizings are used when:

1) The turn card is better for your range
2) Your opponent is capped due to preflop action

Also the flop cbet is debatable. You would bet every other 86s combo before this and we do want some straights after the flop goes X/X. I think Neeme is mostly a live (read: exploitative) player so he is probably just playing in a way he thinks is the most profitable for his exact holding and not his range.

Interesting. So we shouldn't have a polarized overbetting turn range here? Should we be checking when a card like this comes in vs good regs?

A little different, but I thought we could c bet flops that were solid for our opponents range with a few combos of draws and value, and size up when we do- is this not so? If it is so, then why can't we do it on the turn?

Ya Andrew is smart. If you haven’t noticed in his vlogs, he’s made a habit of pounding turn and river huge in these spots. It makes logical sense: his opponents try to chase marginal hands against him because “zomg Andrew Neeme”. So he’s making the correct adjustment to the player pool: small flop bets because no one is folding a piece, huge bets later when he has a massive range advantage. It’s kind of amusing to me how much better Andrew has been playing relative to Brad


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

No. Hero in this case was just playing max exploitative poker. Theoretically the turn sizing is a mistake.

I haven't solved this hand but the most likely solution would be a mixed frequency between checks and betting small. When solvers mix frequencies they are by definition the same EV. If you are playing a pure Game Theory Optimal style than there will be a lot of mixed frequency actions in your game.

The purpose of mixed frequencies is to remain unexploitable on future streets. So for example if we always bet 86s here OTT - we never have a straight OTR when we check. Villain could exploit us by shoving every river when we X turn since we can now never have the nuts.

It depends on your flop cbet strategy. Hero used a small sizing here so betting with 86s is probably fine. If you use a bigger sizing than you are going to have to check more often - this hand would certainly be checked at some frequency with a bigger cbet sizing strategy.

Think about turn ranges when the flop goes bet-->call.

What turn cards does Hero NOT want to see?

He doesn't want any Qx - because Villain will have more Qx in his range.

He doesn't want any 9x - same reasons.

And 5x - to a lesser extent. Those would be the first tier of cards that Hero does not want to see (conversely these turn cards would make good turn donk leads for Villain - and this is why you see solvers donk turn at a decent frequency on board pairing cards).

2nd tier of cards you don't want to see are 8x/7x/6x. That's because these change equities in the hand. If you are Hero - you want to maintain your flop equity edge.

So Hero wants to see cards like Ax/2x/3x/4x. Cards that either

1) Give him top pair
2) Maintain his flop equity by being disconnected and not making straights/2 pair for his opponent.

A turn overbet here is supported in theory. 86 is never going to check and will be one of the most common hands to overbet. The turn is a pretty neutral card. In general the super strong hands want to build big pots. Checking back is a disaster in theory because with this stack depth you sacrifice having a much bigger pot (on avg.) by the river. So straights and sets will be the most common value hands in this overbetting range along with draws the have the most equity like J8. You will not see a hand like QJ which is an acceptable turn value bet go for a big sizing.

For the same reasoning, just because he may face an overbetting range on the turn does not mean he should start slow playing his strong hands on the flop. His strong value like sets and 2 pair need to start building a pot especially vs a small bet, so they should raise almost always. This is just how equilibrium works. The most common misconception is that every thing in gto is equally "balanced". Very often strong hands bet or raise 100% of the time and for big sizings. This hand won't check back just for the sake of balance.

I'd say a general takeaway is that in single raised pots (a lot of money left behind) when we have a nutted hand or high equity draw which can make the nuts, and the betting lead, you want to build a pot with big sizings to cooler him for the maximum.

Ya, big +1 to all of Andees assessment above.

Agreed, Neeme seems like an outstanding 2/5 player. Brad's solid, but yeah Neeme is clearly better. Pounding the turn when we have a huge range advantage though, do we really have a huge range advantage on this turn?

Does villain really have a lot more Qx here?

Also, can't we bet less frequently but big when a card is good for our opponent's range?

Thank you very much for the response though, I always enjoy hearing from you.

Sorry for the triple post, but this is super helpful. Thank you so much for taking the time to type this out!

Kind of sort of. We have overpairs. Sets. TPTK. Clearly we have the gutter ball straight. Because people play looser, they often have more hands like TPWK


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

No we don't. Because we don't have 100% of 86s combos since preflop isn't always an iso-open. Also our isolating range will contain more AQ/KK/AA and sets. HJ limp calling range will contain more lower cards (and Qx) that the 7 will connect with.

The turn is clearly better for our opponent and not an overbet spot.

Also people are acting like when you X turn - Villain is not going to lead OTR at a decent frequency. Then we can raise him. Opponents love to bluff catch the river - not so much the turn.

OTT when the flop goes bet-->call?

A queen or a 9 is his most likely holding.

It isn't congruent with your range to bet big when the turn card is better for your opponent.

Would you bet AA large OTT when the Q comes?

No, because we don't have a Q, so it's more likely he does, so I guess that answers my question...We do have more Qx combos in general though, right?

Yes we have more Qx preflop but we also have every AKo/AJo/ATo/pocket pairs etc.

Even though we have more Qx preflop - it makes up a smaller % of our isoing range because of all the other high card combos we have.

Villain's range is more condensed so he has a higher concentration of middling hands relative to his preflop calling range.

It's the same concept for when to donk lead.

There are high frequency donk lead spots where Hero may only have 45% equity to the flop - but because our aggregate hand distribution is weighted more towards certain hands (i.e. nut holdings). We donk lead at a very high frequency.

The turn is pretty neutral. Villains equity improves but our EV in terms of % of pot share increases marginally from flop. Regardless, just a because a turn is better or worse for one range does not necessarily mean overbetting certain hands is not supported in theory. Yes you will see less overbetting on the whole but it doesn't rule it out completely. For example, on a turn Q (one of the worst cards for hero's range) hands like 55, 99, AQ, JT are still acceptable to include in an overbet range.

Sure he can lead river and we can raise but geometrically growing the pot street by street will on avg create a bigger pot. Checking limits out ability to get stacks in, get raised, and we let pair + draws off the hook which are manadatory theory calls vs a turn overbet (Q8/Q6/96/98/56/58/76/78). These hands are lower in absolute value than naked TPGK but are higher ev because of their abilty to improve vs a polarized range. Our straights and sets are hugely incentivized to pile money in vs these hands.