Assuming HU 100bb deep, hero opens in SB and gets called.
On this board roughly would a good strategy be to bet 9s and better and some strong 8s for a small to medium size and check back weaker to medium 8s, 3s and 44-77?
Then you would really have to hero call down on most runouts where you don't improve, but is there anything wrong with that?
Or would you split the 9x combos into frequencies of checking back and betting so that some of the time you can comfortably call down with a 9?
Not sure if I'm asking for too much detail here Matthew, ignore if I am.

If you open in SB you'll be OOP.

idk why I mentioned SB tbh, it's redundant.

My bad, I'm so used to people saying HU and just meaning only 2 players on the flop that my brain skips the word now.

Ok, I don't know if checking back top pair on a 983 board will be part of any mixed strats, even in theory. Maybe it is, as I haven't spent time with HU ranges, but if it is you probably don't check back many of them very often and I'd just bet all of them.

Then as default I'd at least bet the 8's with good kickers too. Even if you check some 8's back, I don't think they protect you too well from large bets on the following street anyways, since your range will still mostly be capped on some turns.

I think the main question to ask yourself is "Do people check-raise more or less than they should in theory?" Almost everyone reading this (if not literally everyone who reads this) will probably say "Most people probably check-raise too little." Well, the thing check-raising is really, really good at is punishing you for betting middle pairs here. But if they're not doing it enough (and the average unknown almost certainly isn't), then betting likely is going to be more +EV than checking.

So I would recommend just betting all 8x on a 983tw board without a read to check in 6-max button vs BB situations (I'm using 6-max since ive played about a million hands of it and most of my friends/students whom i talk poker with play 6-max or tournies). Once the middle pair gets higher and giving a free card is less risky, say AQ3 and you have QX, then I'd probably mostly check them. But keep in mind evenif betting T8 on a 983 is a mixed strat in theory, but if villain isn't CR enough in reality, then you'll just want to bet it. I think that becomes even more true since betting is the easier line to take as well (i.e. you're less likely to make a misplay if you bet on the flop than if you check).

Long story short: The counter-strat to how most people play (too passively) is to just CB the flop pretty aggressively and fold to check-raises more than is GTO. This lets you get away with bet-folding hands that in theory are likely checks, as least some % of the time.

Remember that HU ranges are much wider than 6-max or full ring, so top pair bad kicker is still a strong value bet HU.
Amusingly, for a 100bb deep HU game, Snowie recommends c-betting 2x pot on 983tt, with Q9 (with the 9 flush blocker/backdoor) being the worst made hand it c-bets 100% of the time with that overbet strat. When you're going with a very large size, you're typically gonna be very polarized, so weaker top pairs and mid pairs will nearly always be checked back. If your strategy is to use a more standard sizing of 1/2 pot or pot, you should probably bet all your 9x combos HU and check most of your 8x.
In 6-max BTN vs BB on 983tt, Snowie likes potting K9+, and mixes (sometimes bets, sometimes checks) with Q9/J9/T9s. It likes checking back top pair medium kicker with or without the FD, and also checks back 8x and 77-55. There's not much point in checking back particularly strong hands (sets, two pairs, overpairs). You want to bet those for value, as you're also bluffing at a pretty high frequency, as you have so many straight draws and BDSD+BDFD+overcard combos.

Not complete but supplemental. Much preflop ranges, postflop gto (flop, button vs. the BB), short stack (flop, bet size).

The two or so bet sizes used on the flop with gto is the most questionable; fine vs. the uneducated, but telling to the opponent that you generally have a big (and/or good enough but vulnerable) hand when you bet bigger, and smaller or less vulnerable one when you bet smaller or check, must be a leak (even if you might be okay on the turn because your range improves or so whenever the turn isn't a blank), and it will take more Pio type of mixing if one is going to make it +EV; having its goods and bads. Checking (or betting) the flop might be less of a leak (limits to two streets with position). But whatever, it is going to take time before one can confidently use two or more bet sizes.

Proofreading lacks.

Thanks Matthew and Arty

I just want to point out that having mutiple bet-sizes isn't just fine vs the uneducated, but it's fine/best vs a GTO optimal opponent, even if you don't use any mixed strategies.

So, in order for you to not want to used multiple bet-sizes for fear of getting exploited, you basically need to believe both that you're unbalanced (for example, never betting some very strong hands in the small bet sizing range) and your opponent is responding to your bets better than a GTO opponent is.

I love the discussion going on here, but I really think some of you guys are implying that it's easier to take counter-strats to multiple bet-sizes than it is. In reality most villains aren't going to know your game inside and out and are going to look at their hand and play accordingly. Also, for a lot of this stuff like the very big betting range, it doesn't really matter if you're telling your opponent you have mostly either nuts or air. That's exactly what a big betting range should be composed of and there is no counter-strat to that. It's the smaller betting stuff that there are often counter strats for, and the main reason to worry about betting small with some really good hands would be if you think you'll get exploited too much by villain check-raising more than GTO against a 30-40% PSB. But in reality it's the opposite that is going to most likely be true for most limits (i.e. villain won't check-raise even at the GTO frequency vs a 30% PSB, much less more than it).

Example:

How many times have you guys called an open in the BB and the flop came the T85and when the button continuation bet 30% of the pot, you made an overbet check-raise (say pot $5, he CB $1.75, you raise to $25) to punish him for being capped at A8 or whatever you think is the typical hand he'd want to bet that big. Keep in mind if you check-raise to $11 or whatever, sure it'll punish him a little bit, but he'll also play the next street in position against you and any heart, Q, J, 9, 7, or 6 is going to make flushes/straights, and I'm not even going to write out all the cards that will bring trips and two pair.

So, how many times have you made that big check-raise and exploited the 35% PSB? I'm guessing effectively none. So sure, you could watch a friend play and point out to him "If you the strongest made hand you bet around $2 into a $5 pot with on the T85 is A8, a check-raise overbetting counter-strat exists" but how much good is that actually going to do for the vast, vast majority of players? Probably not much, because the counter to betting $1.75 with a range where the made hands are mostly 8x hands requires

A) Your opponent to have a very deep understanding of multiple bet-sizing stuff and understand how pure strategies can be exploited.

B) The testicular fortitude and confidence in his read to make large check-raise overbets on wet boards when OOP.

I just don't see it happening. If anything, the useful thing to take from this is how you guys can exploit other people who are betting too small with a capped range, but I don't think unless you are playing quite high you should be worried about being exploited yourself.

I think where this all stems from is a very big misunderstanding about what balance means. Most people seem to think that balance = be equally strong in all your actions, which is completely wrong.

Just by looking at simple preflop 3bet/4bet/5bet toy games you will realize that in an optimal environment when actions get more aggressive ranges become stronger. Extrapolating that to flop play it makes total sense that the range for a 150% pot bet should be way stronger than the range for a 30% pot bet. Generally speaking, betting small with strong hands is not GTO, checking back with strong hands is not GTO.

As Matthew said, what saves you from being exploited is not really the absolute strength of your hand on the flop, but how well you cover both turns and rivers. A well constructed 30% pot bet range that may be weak on the flop will turn very strong on the turn and river.

Obviously you do need to have a select few strong hands in both your small bet and check back range but these will come naturally through removal effects (AA on A38 etc)

Long time 500z reg and new upswingpoker coach Fried Meulders aka mynameiskarl did a summary of the book on twitter
https://twitter.com/friedfromdesire/...03595570032642

Also

First time I've seen a 30 post Twitter summary. The guy needs a blog.

But then I wouldn't have gotten retweeted by Mason 32 times! #lifegoals

This guy knows what's up and it's good for me to see it written down like this.

Agree with the above post that this is fantastically written out. Thank you for this.

Hi,

I am confused with a formula given in the book (Facing a flop 3bet page 131).

We want to know how often our opponent's turn jam should work to be profitable, given the situation below:

- we are hu 100BB deep
- on the turn, the pot is 80BB
- our opponent goes all-in with with his 10% equity bluffs

Here is the formula from the book:

80X - [ 60 - 200 (Bluffs equity)](1-X) = 0

With X the frequency our opponent's bluffs must succeed.


So, if our opponent jams on the turn and we fold, he wins the 80BB pot X % of the time.

If we call, we are playing a 200BB pot, and he wins 200 * 0.10 = 20BB since he has bluffs with 10% equity. His bluffs get called (1 - X) % of the time.

I start to get confused with this part of the formula [ 60 - 200 (Bluffs equity)]
Someone can tell what does it means ?


Thanks


Sent from my SM-G928F using Tapatalk

Hi,

Havent finished the book yet, but its pretty solid so far. I am a live player, and one of the main reasons i picked up this book is to get more info on 3 betting light, and reacting to getting 3 bet light, as its not a problem i faced until i moved up to 2/5. However the book prmarily discusses a situation which is way off from live, and has various factors which lead to different conclusions on what to 3 bet with. The book goes into detail about minraises and 3 BB raises as a "big" raise.

At 2/5 live, a raise to $20 is "small", and id say raises range between 20-40 (people seem to bet ~$20+$5/limper). People also seem to 3 bet far larger than 3x (id say pretty common would be raise to $25, 3 bet to $110, even when it isnt a squeeze), and do not fold very often at all to villans who 3 bet anything othr than premiums.

Of course all of this lends itself to a smaller 3 betting range, but id guess the standard 3 betting range at 2/5 is similar to this book, certainly not considerably lighter, which also lends itself to coldcalling less.

However, the max buyin is $1k which is 200 BB, and people tend to get deeper than this in a hurry, which puts a biger value on position and whatnot, which should lead to a bigger button 3 betting/calling range, and also i would think puts a bigger value on hands like suited connectors and pocket pairs that can hit monsters than K9s

Ive kind of come to the conclusion that with people calling/4betting far more than folding, a more linear value range would make sense than a polarized range. Calling seems weaker against these larger raises to a point that im wondering if the btn ends up with the same problem as described fro the SB in your book, thus it shouldnt even have a cold calling range. Im thinking it may even make sense to not have a cold calling range at all from any position against raises of $30+.

As far as dealing with getting 3 bet, seems like they may be defending too wide and too strongly, which means a tighter opening range and a huge defense/4 betting range since thye may well be value betting themselves against a tight range? Now i dont play super tight so there may be some level of adjustment if i tighten up.

All of this put together, im totally lost as to the types of percentage of hands I may want to consider for raising/3betting/calling/defending against 3 bets, as well as the type of hands id want to include in the bottom end of my raising range (aka 76s or k9s or ato. this deep and these big of raises im thinking even AJo isnt that exciting since it cant make big hands that easily)

Not at home at the moment so i don't have the books in front of me, but is this the right book? This looks like something from Applications rather than the new book.

Let's crack that mystery first then I'll try to answer. If it is Applications, I'll move your question there then try to answer it.

Ok, so this is a pretty common question I've been asked over the last few years so you're in good company with having this question and coming up with this conclusion (don't flat large 3-bets and only 4-bet or fold).

When I get asked this question though, I usually reply with "Ok, so the 3-bettor 3-bet big and may have 3-bet with a relatively polarized range (super strong stuff, suited connectors and aces etc). Can you explain why against a polarized range you'd rather 4-bet or fold than play a pot in position?"

This is when everyone struggles to respond. When OOP, it's pretty easy to justify 4-betting or folding, because by calling you keep stacks deep which favors the IP player. But IP the deep stack depth favors you, and not to mention being IP just kicks ass in general (even if you're not deep).

So, if we were $1000 deep and I opened to $15 on the button and the BB 3-bet me to $100-$150, I'd still definitely have a calling range.

It's also very different calling an open in the SB vs calling a 3-bet in the button, since you don't close the action in the SB. And being OOP multiway or getting squeezed both are pretty bad.


Eh, maybe. Against a RFI, we can argue any hand strong enough to call in the BB is better as a 3-bet than a call, and any hand strong enough to call in the button is better to 3-bet than call since we can get squeezed.

I'm fine with this, but it's very different than closing the action by calling a large 3-bet in position.

This is pretty confusing and I'm not sure what you're saying.

This is confusing again. Are we talking about raising ranges or calling ranges? You seem to be jumping back and forth.

Oh sorry I post in the wrong topic.
Yes it is from Applications

Sent from my SM-G928F using Tapatalk

Sorry, I think my original post was a bit confusing, We got off track in the beginning, I was talking about defending against raises, and i think it came off as defense againts 3 bets. Let me restart and describe it as clearly as I can. You did answer a few of my questions.

facing a raise

At live 2/5/1k, raises to $15 or less are incredibly rare. 95%+ of bets are to $20-35 (4BB+1 BB/limper is approximately the typical raise size). How should we adjust our ranges to respond to these much larger ranges?

My conclusion was never cold call $30+, and play a reasonably tight 3 betting range due to the fact that blinds are reasonably inconsequential. You seemed to agree this may be true. $20-25 not sure at all how i should react and what kind of range to do what with (calling vs raising)

facing a 3 bet

AS the raiser, I typically raise to ~$30-40 commonly as otherwise itll often be a 5 way mess. I probably have played ranges similar enough to your raising ranges in the book. These bets seem to face a good number of 3 bets, which are often to 4x+ (so raise to $110-150). How should my raising as well as calling/4 betting range react to this adjustment?

My conclusion was I should tighten up considerably preflop (again, as the blinds are reasonably inconsequential) and call 3 bets with the vast majority of my range IP, to abuse my stronger range and better position, and 4 bet aggressively OOP. Although im not sure if i should 4 bet with a more linear range or a more polarized range.

If you're getting squeezed much, I think it's fine to still flat $30 opens in position. The squeezing is what makes calling in position so risky, so if that's less of an issue then calling big raises with that much stack depth should still be fine.

I would not adjust my 3-betting ranges all that much if the opening range doesn't change. In other words, if we are $1000 deep and villain is opening a 20% range, I'll 3-bet a similar range regardless of whether the open was to $10, $15, or $25, as is discussed in the book.


There are too many variables here to really give you one simple answer.

You can still raise small (and get 5x callers) with hands that play well multiway, like pocket pairs and suited aces.

If you open to $35 and get 3-bet to $125, you still get a good price on your call. So I would not likely "tighten up drastically" unless I perceived the 3-betting range as a very, very strong range and my hand had non-robust equity (say AJo/KQo/AQo type stuff). And if the 3-betting range you face is very strong, then you shouldn't be getting 3-bet at a high frequency. That's because if your opponent's are using a very strong 3-betting range then they obviously can't 3-bet very often (in which case you should open pre-flop more aggressively).

The main problem I have is I don't buy that the counter-strategy to getting called by lots of opponents for 3x opens is to instead make very large opens, which is what you seem to be doing. It's probably fine with some hands, but not with others. I'd be fine with opening many hands for $15, getting many callers, then just not CB recklessly when I miss against their weak ranges (which they have to be simply by the fact that you're getting called that often).

In live in general, people tend not to have positional awareness, call way too much / too wide pre flop, and don't 3-bet you nearly enough. Wouldn't it make sense to adopt a larger RFI size, say 6bb + 1bb per limper to punish these huge leaks, while at the same time also limiting post flop to 2-3 players?

Hi Mason,

Is kindle matchbook still being offered? Was thinking of ordering the book but no longer see the matchbook option. Same with Applications of No Limit Hold 'em.

No it's not

Best wishes,
Mason

With some hands, definitely.

But I think you can just as easily say "Aren't there some hands that prefer to raise small and play a very multiway pot without having already invested a lot of money, like the 22?" The answer will probably be yes unless your opponents all have very specific post-flop tendencies.