Zoom: cbet frequencies vs unknowns in 3b pots - Small Stakes Pot Limit Omaha

Two Plus Two Forums Poker Strategy Omaha

Zoom: cbet frequencies vs unknowns in 3b pots

Post Reply Subscribe

...

10-04-2016 , 02:00 PM

BigNickDigga

enthusiast

Join Date: Jan 2016 Posts: 68

Curious as to what most of your opinions are on c-betting different board IP and OOP vs unknowns (which is most of the zoom pool).
Particularly interested in what are your cbet frequencies in these common spots?

Hand 1:

3b AA IP, flop: K 7 2r

Hand 2:

3b AcAXcX IP, flop: 6c 7c 8

Hand 3:

3b JT89ds IP, flop: K T 6r

Is it correct to assume our perceived range is going to be AA-heavy vs everyone (which would make A-high flops almost mandatory cbet?). How often will villains give us credit for crushing the middling flops? Ty for your thoughts

Quote

10-05-2016 , 07:49 PM

Controlling

grinder

Join Date: Jan 2015 Posts: 593

I cbet 1 most of the time
I cbet 2 100%
I cbet 3 sometimes

I think that people are always scared of AA when they got 3bet and espacially when they don`t know you. They are scared too much i think. So: A-high flops are pretty standard to cbet and should show profit even with non A hands. If not: think about your sizing and number of opponents involved.

Quote

10-05-2016 , 08:28 PM

Loctus

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Nov 2008 Posts: 11,161

My default would prooobably be..

Hand 1: cb about 1/4th of pot size
Hand 2: check back
Hand 3: cb 3/4th of pot size some of the time, check back some of the time

I think hand 3 is where I crumble a bit. The board is great for our range but our hand really wants to check back, heh

Quote

10-05-2016 , 08:54 PM

Controlling

grinder

Join Date: Jan 2015 Posts: 593

Quote:

Originally Posted by Loctus

My default would prooobably be..

Hand 2: check back

Hey boss,

why you check back Hand 2? I have no problem to get it in here. What do i gain by checking back?

Quote

10-06-2016 , 02:17 AM

poor misguided foo

enthusiast

Join Date: Mar 2015 Posts: 77

Quote:

Originally Posted by Controlling

Hey boss,

why you check back Hand 2? I have no problem to get it in here. What do i gain by checking back?

you gain by not GII bad, which will be the case almost always when you are raised. This board is one of the most favourable board for opponent you gonna get, just check PPT. Average zoom 50 + player will realise that, and, correctly, will start bluffing somehow frequently. Very few combos that u can extract value from and your hand do not need a lot of protection.

Quote

10-06-2016 , 02:38 AM

poor misguided foo

enthusiast

Join Date: Mar 2015 Posts: 77

3rd hand is kind of interesting, both checking and betting can not be a mistake. Definitely checking if i have 2 BDFD. Also depends on the position of the initial raiser.

Loctus, why 3/4 of the pot size? Not disputing it, just curious.

Quote

10-06-2016 , 05:33 AM

Loctus

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Nov 2008 Posts: 11,161

Quote:

Originally Posted by Controlling

Hey boss,

why you check back Hand 2? I have no problem to get it in here. What do i gain by checking back?

The board doesn't interact all too with our range well at all (depending on exactly what positions we and villain is in though). I think I would check jam it oop or something. I guess betting it IP would be doable but deeefinitely checking if we were OOP. Just due to what I'd want my over-all strategy to look like in that spot. I think we're harder to play against if we check that exact flop with our range than if we bet it.

I would check back my entire range (including 9Tcc**, 88**, etc)

Quote:

Originally Posted by poor misguided foo

Half to 3/4 I guess.. Just whatever your usual sizing would be. Again, I'm quite torn on wether to bet there or not..

(I'm assuming 100bb stacks throughout btw)

Quote

10-06-2016 , 06:24 AM

Rei Ayanami

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Aug 2012 Posts: 11,685

Quote:

Originally Posted by poor misguided foo

So on one hand, getting it in bad will almost always be the case when you are raised, and there very few combos you can extract value on.

On the other hand, the average player will start bluffing a lot.

Make up your mind.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Loctus

I would check back my entire range

This is not so good and probably stems from a theoretical misunderstanding.

Quote

10-06-2016 , 08:11 PM

PastyDonkey

centurion

Join Date: Jul 2014 Posts: 188

I think the checking the entire range idea comes from a situation like SB vs BU in 3bet pots where the board is like 456r. I remember Phil Galfond saying that he checks his entire range on that board. From there people expand it to any board where your opponent has more nut combos you check your entire range. For hand 2 we are betting a narrow polarized range here. I'm not quite sure where AAcc fits in our range but it feels close so maybe make the decisions based on the side cards.

Quote

10-06-2016 , 08:17 PM

#10

Rei Ayanami

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Aug 2012 Posts: 11,685

Yeah big difference between checking your entire range out of position and doing so in position.

Quote

10-07-2016 , 06:58 AM

#11

poor misguided foo

enthusiast

Join Date: Mar 2015 Posts: 77

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rei Ayanami

This is not so good and probably stems from a theoretical misunderstanding.

What should i make up my mind about? that this hand prefers x/c and inducing bluffs, to bet calling? your theoretical understanding has some flaws, if you think, that bluffing frequency will be the same independently of x or bet.

+1 for saying we should check the entire range, barring some exceptional circumstances. Saying "it is not so good and stems from a theoretical misunderstanding" is vague and does not help to answer decent questions.

Quote

10-07-2016 , 08:16 AM

#12

Rei Ayanami

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Aug 2012 Posts: 11,685

Quote:

Originally Posted by poor misguided foo

Sounded like you were saying you'd get bluffraised a lot. Whatever, though.

Quote:

Originally Posted by poor misguided foo

+1 for saying we should check the entire range, barring some exceptional circumstances. Saying "it is not so good and stems from a theoretical misunderstanding" is vague and does not help to answer decent questions.

Well, think about it for yourself then. Not too hard to figure out why it's quite different (i.e., bad) when you are in position. Or don't -- I don't really care.

Quote

10-07-2016 , 05:41 PM

#13

PastyDonkey

centurion

Join Date: Jul 2014 Posts: 188

Even after 3betting BB vs CO phil galfond has a cbetting range on a similar board: http://imgur.com/a/tpx0e

Quote

Post Reply Subscribe

...