Two Plus Two Publishing LLC Two Plus Two Publishing LLC
 

Go Back   Two Plus Two Poker Forums > >

Notices

Heads Up NL Discussion of heads up NL Texas Hold'em cash games

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 02-13-2014, 06:58 PM   #201
Spladle
Pooh-Bah
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 5,518
Re: 100NL Coolers or bad play?

Quote:
Originally Posted by fityfmi View Post
Because this was your answer when I asked why you are more likely to 3bet KJo vs 3x, and more likely to 3bet 77 vs 2x:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spladle View Post
It has more to do with the SPRs created by 3-betting and how much a hand hates getting 4-bet.
No, the above quote was a response to BackBlood asking why I 3-bet more pocket pairs against a 2x than a 3x 100bb deep. I have never answered a question about why I'd be more likely to 3-bet KJo vs a 3x open and more likely to 3-bet 77 vs a 2x open, and I never would, because the question contains a false assumption. I would 3-bet 77 100% of the time against both opening sizes and KJo <100% of the time against both opening sizes (more precisely, I should say that I think it's probably theoretically correct to - in practice, I play a pure strategy because it's easier).

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spladle View Post
At 100bb deep, a 3bet against 3x can, depending on sizing, create a SPR around 4. Against a 2x we would more likely have a SPR of around 6. Of course, I would be too quick to assume that this is all about SPR. However, when you increase your 3bet % against smaller raises, I wonder why KJo is suddently in your calling range.
The specific numbers are less important than the simple fact that 3-betting a smaller open at identical stack sizes results in a higher SPR, which implies that we ought to stack off less frequently post-flop (but with stronger hands when we do). This suggests to me that if our 3-betting range should be different against different opening sizes (as I suspect it should), then we should be less likely to 3-bet our weakest offsuit high-card hands (like KJo/ATo) and more likely to 3-bet some of what would otherwise be our strongest flats (i.e. offsuit connectors like QJo/JTo, some weaker suited 2-gappers, and perhaps more suited aces).

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spladle View Post
Yes, this makes sense, I think. When calling a 4bet with 89s, you would want to have the possibility to win more when you flop >1p, but that's going to happen rarely, and is not enough to counter the times when you flop TP/MP and have to hold on for a while, only to find out that villain has cowboys. And on top of that you are oop.
Correct. If you think you need >1p to win, then you should almost always just fold pf. After calling a 4-bet, you will usually need to stack off if you make a pair, which is why it's important to choose the right hands to call 4-bets with (i.e. not 98s, except in special circumstances).
Spladle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-14-2014, 06:43 AM   #202
ron1n
centurion
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 188
Re: 100NL Coolers or bad play?

Quote:
I would 3-bet 77 100% of the time against both opening sizes
100-200bb deep, with 77, do you 3bet/fold, 3bet/flat 4bet or 3bet/shove over 4bet?
ron1n is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-16-2014, 02:44 AM   #203
Spladle
Pooh-Bah
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 5,518
Re: 100NL Coolers or bad play?

Quote:
Originally Posted by ron1n View Post
100-200bb deep, with 77, do you 3bet/fold, 3bet/flat 4bet or 3bet/shove over 4bet?
Depends on the size of the 4-bet, but 3-bet/flat 4-bet against most standard sizings. I NEVER 3-bet/fold a pocket pair (except theoretically against very weird/large raises). If I don't believe a particular pair is strong enough to call a standard 4-bet, I either fold or flat it the first time around. 77 is plenty strong enough to call a 4-bet HU (it would not be against an UTG raiser in 6-max or full ring obv, hence I would either fold or flat it).
Spladle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-25-2014, 09:27 PM   #204
bNice!
centurion
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 130
Re: 100NL Coolers or bad play?

Spladle...I am only halfways thru this thread and I have to admitt, I am overwhelmed by all the knowledge you have about poker theory. I would appreciate if you could tell me how on earth you learned all of this?

Also, what approach would you recommend a novice like me to take if I have a goal to become better at poker theory stuff?

Thank´s!
bNice! is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-26-2018, 12:02 AM   #205
purrretrog
veteran
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Embracing the yolo
Posts: 2,271
Re: 100NL Coolers or bad play?

Bump
purrretrog is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-28-2018, 09:03 AM   #206
Tutejszy
old hand
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 1,974
Re: 100NL Coolers or bad play?

huh, interesting thread, though it still not clear who was in the right here. It would appear that ronin was making a point about minimal defence frequency (mdf) and how it should be a baseline for our strategy, while spladle was saying that mdf is a one-street concept and is therefore useless in a multi-street game. However, mdf is still used today, exactly like ronin described, to create baseline for how much do we need to defend. So, it would appear that ronin was right? But mdf IS a one-street concept, so it shouldnt work like that?

also, this was kinda lost in all the other talk, but Spladle accidently gave an excellent argument as to why we should use very small sizings on dry boards like 884r, showing that betting 3/4 can be easy countered with strategy with super high x/r (he said he is x/ring 30% there)
Tutejszy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-31-2018, 12:13 AM   #207
JudgeHoldem1848
veteran
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 2,460
Re: 100NL Coolers or bad play?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tutejszy View Post
huh, interesting thread, though it still not clear who was in the right here. It would appear that ronin was making a point about minimal defence frequency (mdf) and how it should be a baseline for our strategy, while spladle was saying that mdf is a one-street concept and is therefore useless in a multi-street game. However, mdf is still used today, exactly like ronin described, to create baseline for how much do we need to defend. So, it would appear that ronin was right? But mdf IS a one-street concept, so it shouldnt work like that?
I didn't reread any of the thread but vaguely remember its content. The mdf still applies, you would just need to adjust it for the street and board type. Each street will have a modified average mdf unique to it. It will be the average that the GTO agent defends across all board types.

The board type will have a far greater effect on the mdf.

As I think you have stated elsewhere, this sort of GTO approach is selling bicycles to fish, especially when you're paying >10bb/100 in rake.


Quote:
also, this was kinda lost in all the other talk, but Spladle accidently gave an excellent argument as to why we should use very small sizings on dry boards like 884r, showing that betting 3/4 can be easy countered with strategy with super high x/r (he said he is x/ring 30% there)
Might as well brood over whether red is better than black at roulette. GTO uses every sizing by the penny. Almost no one who plays serious poker does that. If you habitually use a smaller size, you can legit widen your value range. If you don't, you can't.

If we like to bet a lot because we can get folds, then the board is being overfolded. Do smaller sizings actually get higher returns?

As far as xring 30%, anyone who's read and assimilated the useful lessons of Will Tipton's books should immediately recognize why a 30% checkraising frequency on almost any paired board is far enough from GTO that you couldn't hit it with an arclight.

Any strategy that did so would find itself with something like 150-175 checkraise combos versus a range usually containing every single nutted hand. No bueno.

Last edited by JudgeHoldem1848; 01-31-2018 at 12:22 AM.
JudgeHoldem1848 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-03-2018, 02:30 PM   #208
watergun7
veteran
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 2,724
Re: 100NL Coolers or bad play?

I thought that MDF is pure bs argument by now?

To make villain indifferent from bluffing you need the assumption that bluffing has 0EV and that villain checking has 0ev, neither of which is true.

Especially OOP facing a bet- the in position player needs to do better than checking (or indifferent as in the vast majority of cases) with his "bluffs", and the EV of checking is quite a lot higher than 0. I don't think I've come across any boards where vs a correcting betting play defending >= MDF occurs.
watergun7 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-03-2018, 02:43 PM   #209
watergun7
veteran
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 2,724
Re: 100NL Coolers or bad play?

Quote:
Originally Posted by JudgeHoldem1848 View Post
GTO uses every sizing by the penny.
Idk if you are serious here, but it has been proven mathematically that the number of betsizes GTO uses in ANY game is bounded by the number of distinct holecards.

So on any street GTO would have at most 169 sizes (this is just a mathematical upper bound- could be far smaller in a lot of cases).

I found this out recently, and it's cool to know that NLHE can be truly solved one day.

Also what you said about xr 30% being wrong couldn't be further from the truth. Actually in raised pots <25bb deep most paired boards have a far higher x/r freq than x/c.

The board doesn't even need to be paired. If you put in reasonable ranges for SB limp and BB check vs limp at 10bb, on AK9r OOP has 0 x/calling range and x/r it's entire continuing range (logic is OOP doesn't 2p as no K9s or K9o, Ax or KT+ and SB is betting 100% of air- apart from the pairs OOP has extremely defined and vulnerable hands- any undercard to the 9 is a bad card for him if he x/calls). The SB 3bets flop with TT and gets it in vs Kx 9x and JT QT QJ, and even has a min3b range on the flop.
watergun7 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-03-2018, 11:22 PM   #210
JudgeHoldem1848
veteran
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 2,460
Re: 100NL Coolers or bad play?

Quote:
Originally Posted by watergun7 View Post
Idk if you are serious here, but it has been proven mathematically that the number of betsizes GTO uses in ANY game is bounded by the number of distinct holecards.

So on any street GTO would have at most 169 sizes (this is just a mathematical upper bound- could be far smaller in a lot of cases).

I didn't know that, interesting, thanks. Do you have a link? Is it a coincidence that it's the number of suits squared?

It does sounds kind of suspicious though, especially if the largest bet size is anything near the stack. Maybe it's not. It would certainly make sense that GTO wouldn't, for instance, open shove a 7h6h5h flop. OTOH, if there were no upper bound, then in a 100bb game that means GTO's smallest size is like 35 cents*? That wouldn't quite smell right.

Quote:
I found this out recently, and it's cool to know that NLHE can be truly solved one day.
Yeah, that will be almost as cool as every reg on ACR down to HUNL5 perfectly understanding bb defense ranges.



Quote:
Also what you said about xr 30% being wrong couldn't be further from the truth. Actually in raised pots <25bb deep most paired boards have a far higher x/r freq than x/c.
Lol. As I recall, the thread is about HUNL, not the last round of a HUSNG.

Quote:
The board doesn't even need to be paired.
There are other boards where oop is weak, but we're talking very specifically about paired boards. That's important because even on the most favorable paired boards for OOP, like J88, OOP is still missing something like 20 out of the top 50 combos and another 25-30 out of the next 50. Boards like Q22 are totally devastating for OOP's range.

The problem with being that weak with a bloated range, even in the first case, is that villain can take the anti-Spladle line, putting in big bets, and quickly get an EV of close to the pot. And that's if OOP knows how to play his range perfectly, which is unlikely given where he just ended up. That means he needs now to be expertly selecting from a palette of turd-hued options, for no reason other than pseudogtosis, of which this thread serves as a passable epidemiological study.

Which segues nicely into your next point,


Quote:
If you put in reasonable ranges for SB limp and BB check vs limp at 10bb, on AK9r OOP has 0 x/calling range and x/r it's entire continuing range


While checkraising an entire continuing range may be fine 10bb, at 100bb deep its bump-stock night at Mandalay Bay. You list one of the psycho options OOP would be forced to choose if he were hell bent on doing something that crazy, even on an AK9 board. On Q22r, it's 767 lessons without landing class.


*a slip of small stakes solipsism. My frame of reference is NL50.

Last edited by JudgeHoldem1848; 02-03-2018 at 11:51 PM.
JudgeHoldem1848 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-03-2018, 11:31 PM   #211
JudgeHoldem1848
veteran
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 2,460
Re: 100NL Coolers or bad play?

Quote:
Originally Posted by watergun7 View Post

To make villain indifferent from bluffing you need the assumption that bluffing has 0EV and that villain checking has 0ev, neither of which is true.
Talking about poker is tricky because the difference between phrases like "0 EV" and "zero relative EV" can radically change the meaning of what's being said. It doesn't help that I just coined the phrase zero relative EV because I don't even know what phrase to use there. Having to coin terms constantly and lack of a standard lexicon has been a main impediment to people learning poker.

Some would argue that's a good thing.


Quote:
Especially OOP facing a bet- the in position player needs to do better than checking (or indifferent as in the vast majority of cases) with his "bluffs", and the EV of checking is quite a lot higher than 0. I don't think I've come across any boards where vs a correcting betting play defending >= MDF occurs.
On the flop, it's possible the GTO defense frequency is >mdf on a board like 7h6h5h. The flop GTO defense average is probably about naive mdf - 5%. Turn will probably be like naive mdf - 3%. I am talking about raw percentage points ("points" to gangsters and banksters, of which gamblers are a subset), not percents of stats.
JudgeHoldem1848 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-03-2018, 11:54 PM   #212
JudgeHoldem1848
veteran
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 2,460
Re: 100NL Coolers or bad play?

Above, the part that says

Quote:
OTOH, if there were no upper bound,
should read, "if it does open shove flop." And obv "number of suits squared" should be "number of ranks squared".

Last edited by JudgeHoldem1848; 02-04-2018 at 12:01 AM.
JudgeHoldem1848 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-04-2018, 01:31 PM   #213
watergun7
veteran
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 2,724
Re: 100NL Coolers or bad play?

I think you could be right about 100bb+ paired boards in SRP OOP not checkraising >30%. But I take HUNL as a game of any stacksize >1bb.

Also 169 was my attempt at counting unique holecard combos (and making sure I was correct with the upperbound)- I guess in reality it's way less (AKhh = AKss and should have the same strategy preflop). In any case it's the idea that there is an upper-bound at all that's the interesting result. You can take this to the flop or any other street as well- but e.g. on an AsKsQs flop having Th5d is not the same as having Th5h- due to some subtle blocker effects (but obviously Td5h is the same as Th5d).

Unfortunately I don't have a link, and you can choose to not believe me but I heard it from a credible source.

Regarding MDF- still not sold on 7h6h5h. As I understood it on wet boards cbetting freq goes down, defending freq goes down as well and x/r freq goes up. I still think it's a useless concept.
watergun7 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-08-2018, 11:22 PM   #214
JudgeHoldem1848
veteran
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 2,460
Re: 100NL Coolers or bad play?

Quote:
Regarding MDF- still not sold on 7h6h5h. As I understood it on wet boards cbetting freq goes down, defending freq goes down as well and x/r freq goes up.
IDK, I toyed around a little on PIO a long time ago and seem to remember increased frequencies in both cbetting and defense on wet boards, but that was on turn. If that's true, than it's one of the things that Spladle correctly predicted. Would be interesting to see actual PIO or equivalent flop play.


Quote:
I still think it's a useless concept.
It depends what you're after. If you're concerned with academic precision, it's pretty useless. If you're concerned with highly accurate, real-world GTO play and you have access to a flop solver, a solver-adjusted MDF could be very useful in game, with some practice. Knowing the solver-adjusted MDF would involve knowing the average GTO defense frequency for the given street, knowing how different board types affect the GTO DF on the given street, then estimating the board and street-specific MDF for the situation.


In naive form — that's non-board or street-adjusted — the MDF is still extremely useful. Unless you're paying less than about 5bb/100, being able to roughly generate the naive MDF across all boards is a big step towards becoming effectively unbeatable. Doing something like using MDF - 5 on the flop and MDF - 3 on the turn would go a long way towards denying your opponent any rake-beatable edge.
JudgeHoldem1848 is offline   Reply With Quote

Reply
      

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:50 PM.


Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2008-2017, Two Plus Two Interactive
 
 
Poker Players - Streaming Live Online