2-7: best theoretical adjustment vs wide 3b/D2 range - Draw Poker Forum

Two Plus Two Forums Poker Strategy Other Poker Games

2-7: best theoretical adjustment vs wide 3b/D2 range

Post Reply Subscribe

...

11-24-2021 , 04:57 PM

kisada

old hand

Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 1,860

observed a hand in a 4-handed game where CO opened, BTN 3b, and ended up showing 357xx by the river.

so it made me wonder: is this a spot where we exploit by adjusting our own range in a future scenario where CO opens and this same player 3-bets OTB? or do we just play our normal value hands and just use those to accrue the value from this player's wide 3b?

any other exploitative considerations to make against said player?

Quote

11-26-2021 , 05:34 PM

BobbyPeru

veteran

Join Date: Aug 2019 Posts: 2,444

753 doesn't seem that wide. It's a decent draw 2 that benefits from getting HU IP. You can open.a lot tighter ti combat this so maybe a single draw hand or a hand like 732, 742 etc...

Quote

12-06-2021 , 09:47 AM

J33W

journeyman

Join Date: Mar 2015 Posts: 260

Quote:

Originally Posted by kisada

It might be a little wide (full ring) since the hand so easily turns into a straight draw. BUT 4 handed I agree and think that it’s fine especially with position.

I think you could combat it by playing better draw twos, which to me include 8 (23)(24)(34), all 1 draws (8’s and smooth 9’s) and in cash some good 9 smooth 2draws. 9(23) 9(34) etc.

Quote

12-22-2021 , 11:32 PM

AlanBostick

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 11,473

Why would BTN 3-betting 753 be better four-handed than six? I would think that it's the other way around, that in a full game the lowjack and hijack folding their junk means that the stub is a little bit richer in 7s and 2s and poorer in bricks.

Quote

12-23-2021 , 01:22 AM

RolldUpTrips

old hand

Join Date: Oct 2006 Posts: 1,334

Quote:

Originally Posted by AlanBostick

A c/o open range should be wider 4-handed than 6; it therefore follows that a btn 3! range should be, too.

Quote

12-29-2021 , 03:25 PM

tasman

centurion

Join Date: May 2012 Posts: 186

Quote:

Originally Posted by RolldUpTrips

A c/o open range should be wider 4-handed than 6

Why? I'm sure people do open wider in the CO 4-handed than 6-handed, but I think they're wrong to do so. I agree with Alan.

Quote

12-29-2021 , 03:33 PM

DeathDonkey

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Feb 2004 Posts: 12,875

Quote:

Originally Posted by tasman

Why? I'm sure people do open wider in the CO 4-handed than 6-handed, but I think they're wrong to do so. I agree with Alan.

Card removal.

Quote

12-29-2021 , 05:27 PM

AlanBostick

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 11,473

Which is a bigger factor:

(A) More babies and fewer bricks in the stub with which the CO can make their hand, justifying opening wider in a full game; or

(B) More 7s, 2s, and other babies available for BTN, SB, and BB to hold, thereby making it more likely they have a strong hand, justifying the CO opening more tightly in a full game?

Quote

12-31-2021 , 09:36 AM

uberkuber

veteran

Join Date: Jul 2009 Posts: 3,032

I would think A and B roughly cancel each other.
Therefore, opening wider 4-handed would make more sense since the average starting hand will be weaker.

Quote

01-02-2022 , 02:14 AM

#10

DeathDonkey

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Feb 2004 Posts: 12,875

Quote:

Originally Posted by AlanBostick

B and it is not close

Quote

01-08-2022 , 08:44 PM

#11

Codfish60

centurion

Join Date: Jul 2014 Posts: 107

Quote:

Originally Posted by DeathDonkey

B and it is not close

Agreed and just to add numbers to this for everyone (I'm hoping I've not messed this up): 42.5% of all hands contain at least 3 cards 2-7. Therefore if it folds to you in the CO in a 6-handed game, the 2 folds before you have generated an imbalance (since for approx. every 2 hands, there should be 1 playable) and makes the following positions more rich in low cards. More folds = more information.

Quote

01-10-2022 , 08:46 PM

#12

DeathDonkey

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Feb 2004 Posts: 12,875

I believe your sim there will 1) allow pairs so hands like 667 would be in the count and 2) allow combos that aren't really playable such as 567. Syntax should be (off top of my head) **(2[3-8][3-8]),*(3[4-8][4-8][4-8]) - that would be an ok range I think?

edit: http://propokertools.com/simulations...3%29&s=generic

that look right?

Quote

01-15-2022 , 05:45 PM

#13

Codfish60

centurion

Join Date: Jul 2014 Posts: 107

Quote:

Originally Posted by DeathDonkey

I thought mine looked too simple! That's accurate enough I think. I had a look at bluff combos too, but they really don't add much.

From the little I know, it's too difficult to quantify the effects of folded cards on the remaining distribution without writing a sim. My friend wrote one a long time ago for this exact reason (you might remember the thread). I've been trying to not suck at LHE and Stud Hi lately, but at some point we will pick up the deuce study again and I'll post anything noteworthy.

Quote

03-01-2022 , 03:16 AM

#14

onlyproud

journeyman

Join Date: Jul 2016 Posts: 323

Quote:

Originally Posted by AlanBostick

b>a imo. also assuming co a thinking player his opening range would be wider 4 handed bc of richer stub

Quote

03-01-2022 , 08:16 AM

#15

uberkuber

veteran

Join Date: Jul 2009 Posts: 3,032

Your "also" is the description of choice 'a'.

Quote

Post Reply Subscribe

...