Poker Hand #TM278756735: Tournament #6972794, WSOP #32: $100 The Opener [Flight F], $2M GTD Hold'em No Limit - Level3 (350/700) - 2020/07/18 18:31:26
HJ (50,950 in chips)
BB (Hero) (59,942 in chips)
Dealt to Hero [Qc 8h]
HJ: raises 1,400 to 2,100
Hero: calls 1,400
*** FLOP *** [6s 4c 5c]
Hero: bets 2,520
9917bd8b: calls 2,520
*** TURN *** [6s 4c 5c] [Kd]
Hero: bets 6,653

An unusual line so I thought it may be interesting to post. I'll be running through Pio despite it being exploitative vs a loose/passive V. Still, I'm interested to know whether or not Pio ever finds a donk on this board vs a wider than equilibrium HJ range and I'll post results later

I should add that the plan is to over-bet most rivers

Without looking, I'd bet PIO does lead this flop about 15% of time with range. This looks like a decent candidate, overs, gut shot and BDFD, but an ok candidate to bet/fold. That King does not look great for our range, not sure if we are even supposed to barrel there, picking up no equity, and possibly drawing to only the gut shot.

Fold pre
.
Pretty sure you still are starting off with check. This board has some leads but I don’t think q8 gets in there.
Also think the read of him being passive probably means less than you think.
Think about it like this.
Does your hand want to put in a bunch of $ ?
Not really.
Also vs the 3x q8o is losing a lot as a defend. It’s a pretty big leak to be not knowing what the defense ranges from bb should be be 2x/2.5x/3x. It makes a big difference in your win rate. Didn’t look like there was antes in there so this pf mistake is quite significant
Pretty sure this combo is a pure check and even if you think he’s passive and you take out some of his cbet frequency the lead is probably losing a good bit. Same with the turn barrel
Feels like I see this a lot at midstakes regs in this forum
when they are like yeah I’m playing “exploitatively” in this spot
But the thing is...you don’t even know what the optimal line looks like at this node.
so you are basically just mashing buttons and making losing plays under the guise of exploitation when all you are really doing is punting.
Run the sun and compare the ev difference vs bet and check and I’d bet 20$ that the bet is losing/again same with the turn. Gl

PIO does bet about 14% of its range on this flop. The hands are all over the place; there are almost no hands it leads with more than 1/2 of the time.

Our exact hand it bets about 16%. On the turn, PIO checks 68% of the time, it gives up with our hand.

I think the flop bet is fine; however you should have some bet/giveups. This looks like a good candidate for it.

I wouldn't call the 3x open with this hand. I wouldn't call because of pot odds, but also concerned he might be strong. Does he appear to be a reg? Is this his regular sizing? It would be really difficult to get him to fold an overpair on this board.

I also don't like the 3-barrel on this board. It looks like you maybe have a pair and a draw. If he just has over cards, he probably folds to one or two bets. If he has a pp or K, it will be hard to get him to fold to a river overbet. You could be doing that with missed straight and flush draws. If the river is a club, 7, or 3, then maybe the river bet is a good play.

Fold pre vs 3x open.

Flop - it is not called a donkbet for no reason. I would have loved to see this as a x/r.

I'll choose to reply to this post specifically as my response will be relevant to most of the other posts also.

I ran the sim with a slightly wider IP range (more resembling a LJ/MP range and a BB defence range that spans as wide as Q8o according to the Pio range algorithm). I frequently toggle my solved PFR charts in game and was well aware that I was defending wider than equilibrium (QTo should be our widest Qxo defence), but I naturally want to play more pots with weaker players. However, I made the mistake of deviating symmetrically on the combinatorics whereas actually I should be widening my range to include far more suited combo's than os combos. So yeah, I agree calling pre is a mistake but not a significant one. My charts are built vs 2.5x opens and being in the middle I don't distinguish much between 2x/3x (I should have mentioned that there were also 10% antes). My assumption was that the 3x sizing correlated with the loose range - V is increasing sizing to increase fold equity because he'd rather not play a pot. The rest of the hand was built on this assumption combined with a highly favourable flop.

My equilibrium assumption for the hand was as follows (you'll have to imagine that I'm here to discuss an interesting spot after doing some work recently regarding donking and that I'm not merely out to impress you, hence you'll have to take my word for this): that we have a relatively high frequency of donks on this board and that Pio favours our particular combo containing a gutshot and bdfd equity, as well as the over cards. This is based on the simple heuristic (whilst not being a case of dramatically increasing EV, but rather more a case of attempting to squeeze a little more out) that we need to mix in range donks on low connected boards, especially vs later opens.
Actually Pio does just this, donking with range about 14% of the time and with this particular combo about 25% of the time. EV's of betting and checking this combo are actually exactly the same (keep your $20 ). So we've deviated a little pre, but actually played flop very well, providing we're also prepared to donk our sets, straights and 2p at some frequency.

We certainly get more exploitative ott with Pio basically pure checking this combo facing a Kd - most of our barrelling of course wants to go with cards that connect with the flop, particularly low cards. The Kd hits - I'm well aware that this is bad for our range and good for V's, and in game I'm pretty sure that the correct equilibrium move is to check. But Pio assumes that IP is actually folding a surprisingly high number of broadway combo's otf whereas my assumption is that V actually continues with almost 100% of range, therefore having more Kx than he should but also having a ton more air than he should. We have to remember that the general Pop. is not used to facing donks and will continue a lot more often than they should and re-assess ott. I felt like a check is basically giving up the hand since we've lost the bd/overcard equity and would have to fold vs a bet, whereas when we bet ourselves we're really significantly polarising our range to air/2p+. My plan to over-bet barrel river was a continuation of this.


I'd be interested to know if and how your opinions differ after contemplating some of this.

Fwiw, the absolutely minute frequency of Q8o that does barrel turn is actually over-betting any card otr that vaguely connects with the flop. I'm not under the illusion that this line is anywhere close to equilibrium- it's not at all - but it makes me feel that my rationale isn't totally insane

I've just checked this with my other solved pfr's (which were compiled using a combination of pio, monker and snowie) and Q8o actually sneaks in as a 2/3(ish) frequency call vs a 2.5x open

What about versus a 3x open?

Yeah the pf sims I’ve done have the ranges tightening up quite a bit vs the 3x open that being said though most of the work I’ve done is in cash with rake. The diff of the half a bb and also ime and in theory the range should be tighter.
Anyway as for post flop it doesn’t shock me that there’s some low frequency leads here, having the 8 is ok but think the q probably is kind of neutral. I can’t really hate too much more cuz it looks like you have done some work off the table here
If you still have your results I’d be curious to see what your sims look like. Especially the turn barrel To see what ev looks like for the turn bet

My sim showed turn barrel was 3% of the pot worse than check.

I'm barely adjusting my ranges if at all versus a 3x open - if I was then there'd be no reason for my opponents to ever open for less than 3x. If I were adjusting then it's exactly this kind of hand that I'd be chopping (if that's your point) but I've already explained my rationale for calling wider

Send me over your Skype address

You should be calling much tighter versus a 3x. There are other reasons not to 3x and that is not your problem. Assuming both players have the same skill level, it makes it more profitable to 3x if you are going to defend incorrectly to the 3x.

"Much tighter" can you give examples in combinatorics percentages with reasoning?

It's pretty obvious, as your pot odds are much worse. You can run the ranges in the software and see it that way also.

We have to call something like 36% of the pot vs a 3x open compared to 30% of the pot vs a 2.5x open - I feel like your use of the word 'much' is somewhat of an overstatement. What percentage of our vs 2.5x defence range do you suggest we chop to adjust to the 6% increase?

I need to clarify if I haven't already that I use PFR's as a rough guide. I'll continue to make major adjustments until I reach the highest stakes or until my fields become riddled with nash bots

30% versus 36% is significant. You are about 36% against his range. Plus you are OOP, he usually has a more playable hand, and represents a stronger range. It can't possibly be profitable to call 2 more BBs with Q8o. If you run it in PIO or whatever it will tell you that, but I don't feel that setting that up. It doesn't lose that much, but it isn't a good play.

I'm no longer concerned with this particular call - since V is LP I'm just about happy enough with the defend since player type/exploitability is an extremely significant factor when determining all plays including pfr's and I imagine that more than makes up for the small price increase. Pio doesn't distinguish between the EV vs Llinus and the EV vs a fish - you have to adjust significantly vs a fish if you want to maximise EV.

I am concerned with exactly how the ranges tighten in general at equilibrium when facing a 3x raise compared with a 2.5x raise. I don't have Pio edge - if somebody has done the work and can give me even just percentage comparisons I'd appreciate it. I always assumed that significant adjustments vs V open sizing made us exploitable, but that's just my assumption

With a skill advantage, it is fine to defend wide. I don't have Pio Edge either. However, it is obvious as I explained that assuming "correct" play, you can't defend with Q8o putting in 36% of the money when you are about 36% against the raiser's range. The main reason for defending with hands like this is you are getting ridiculous immediate pot odds versus a 2x or 2.2x open. I saw a video on RIO that discussed how defend ranges are effected by open size. It is obvious you should defend a much wider range to a 2x than a 3x.

If you play well and aggressively postflop, it is possible to defend light. It is also often good to do latish is live tournament, when people are stealing a lot, and are watching what you do. You may get more walks that way. Ivey used to almost always defend, often against 3x or so opens common pre 2007 or so. You had to know if he was in the BB you would have to play postflop against Ivey.

If you are using the same defense ranges for different sizes, you are exploitable to someone who sizes up, and tightens his opening range.

Of course that is only 1 street; If you are a small ev underdog preflop, there are plenty of chances for making it up postflop.

This hand is a good example of that. You flop a board that is relatively favorable for your range you have about 48% equity range vs range on my sim. It will be easier for you to overrealize on this sort of board was a dry K82 for example. You had specific exploits in mind about Villain. That is more than enough to compensate for a marginally bad preflop call.

I'd be very careful taking this too far. You do need some playibility to defend, even against bad players..

I’ve ran the pf sim and you’re supposed to defend much tighter on 2.5 vs 3x