viable?


BTN: 123 BB
Hero (SB): 324.2 BB
BB: 58.2 BB
UTG: 114.4 BB
MP: 130.2 BB
CO: 135.8 BB

Hero posts SB 0.4 BB, BB posts BB 1 BB

Pre Flop: (pot: 1.4 BB) Hero has Q Q

fold, MP raises to 2.4 BB, fold, fold, Hero raises to 12 BB, fold, MP calls 9.6 BB

Flop: (25 BB, 2 players) A 4 6
Hero bets 8 BB, MP calls 8 BB

Turn: (41 BB, 2 players) K
Hero checks, MP checks

River: (41 BB, 2 players) 3
Hero checks, MP bets 25.4 BB, Hero raises to 304.2 BB and is all-in

This is a very creative line.

I'll check some MDA, I don't have this exact spot but I have UTGvsBlinds 3BP for C30-X-B70 overall



Ok so if we assume 100bb stacks. C30-X-B70

25bb OTF/Call 8bb/41bb pot OTT

X/X 80bb effective

C-X-B70 70% is around 29bb

We risk 80bb to win 41 bb + +29bb

Risk/Risk + Reward = 80bb/80 + 70 = 80/150

about ~53% fold. We know they fold 60% over 247 samples.



Ace high board is probably a bad data point and there is definitely showdown bias but a 7% discrepancy is good enough for me to make it EV+.

Interested in results.

NH

I'd just fold but I like this more than calling

Oh I remembered they grouped UTG/HJ together for sample size purposes in 3bp/4bp so this is actually the right spot.

Cheers for the math/data doo. I think this is a pretty sweet board to have a decent/believable river XR range. Plus I'd probably smuggle in more top of range for value than gto so they can hang/set their price with a likely Ax heavier 3b calling range

I also have a bigger turn XR range than a solver, so I get here with more AK/KK .. .and i'm not clever enought to use AQs so

It's a cool spot so I enjoyed it.

Did Villain end up folding?

Indeed. full tank fold so... probably Ax

Potential timing tell too thinking back: the river stab was quite quick, like he wanted to on the previous street and was now determined (to play face up heh)

So you'd typically check the turn 130bbs deep w/ AA/KK/AK on double flush draw boards?

Even more reason to surely

If we hold A/Kx we heavily block their calling range in a narrow spot. And if they have FD/AQ they might stab/call, giving us great implieds

They are calling w/ all of those hands though, and they will likely check back a large portion of their draws, which would be most of their calling range, so you'd be losing value.

The main thing you have going for you in this hand is we know your opponent likely doesn't have AK/AA/KK. To me, the question is, at your stakes, is this a line that makes sense to your opponent? That's all we really care about, right?

It doesn't seem good to me. What better hands are you trying to get to fold?

In 3BP's on Ace high boards you generally don't use geometric sizing OTT as OOP PFR.

We use small sizing OTF and small sizing again OTT because we aren't targeting Ax OTT.

You only target Ax OTR.

It's an interesting dynamic as this leads you to be more passive on FD boards instead of more aggressive, because a FD will always be EV+ for IP PFC so we don't target that hand class.

In =< 100bb pots, sure. The larger the effective stacks, the wider the ranges with SC's and hands that can make bigger hands, and Ax hands go down in value. This is especially true IP.

Yes all one pair hands go down in value at higher SPRs.

But the turn sizing isn't exclusive to 100BB or less starting stacks. This happens at deeper stacks with higher SPRs as well. You still go mainly non geometric OTT. There's not many hands that want to play for stacks on Ace high boards in 3bps as the OOP PFR.

You can go non-geometric, and I guess you're picking when you're implementing GTO strategies or applying MDA. I'm going to bet my opponent's range, because it is defined enough for me, and make some monies. But you do you homie.

So you guys are advocating for zero bluff XR range? I can't help but think that's a leak - esp given the data doodoo just posted

You said it yourself FD: he can't have strong hands here. When should we deploy a bluffing range if not with a big range adv? If there's any spot we might expect a micro player to figure out they could be beat an AKxx seems defo in the running for that analysis

I really like line but maybe not combo. Pool probably slowplays AK + too much on turn. I do think hand selection not great though as we definitely don't want to block AQ however Qd good as no AQd with Ad on board. I think we have enough Kx blocking his AK that we don't need to turn QQ into bluff. I get impression that pool under 4 bets AK combos so I think this is relevant

Ceres you should do a switcharoo hand history from MP's perspective but give him AJcc or some 0EV hand and see how people respond to this line.

I'm an advocate of the KISS system. Keep it simple stupid (it's an acronym, not an insult) . No need to overcomplicate things at these stakes. Just go for the highest EV line, and make money.

You have the range advantage on an AK board. Bet, bet, bet. This is where your bluff is, as it's consistent w/ your range advantage, and you get EV from his draws.

I'm not really sure what we're looking at in this hand honestly. Because what was the plan really? You likely ended up bluffing w/ the best hand enough of the time, that it didn't warrant a shove this deep.

Turn goes X/X... you X river... and some % of the time your opponent is checking behind w/ weak Ax and Kx (probably doesn't have much of course since you have Qd, but), and you lose. If you punched in your opponents range on the river w/ how often they are bluffing w/ air, vs value betting... what's our risk/ruin ratio? Some % of the time, you're being called as well. Without doing the numbers, it's probably too close at these stakes for it to be profitable long term, or more precisely, there's a higher EV line that gets more value w/ less risk... which is what we want to optimize our strategy to in poker.

Haha


So then you're saying our strategy is to bet/bet/bet with thin value? But doesn't that totally nuke the EV of QQ?

We can probably make him fold basically most of his condensed range that beats us OTR, and we double block his most likely bet/call hand AQ.

yeah he will have AK sometimes but it's likely that hand checks turn and it is also double blocked by the board. This is how solvers think. Nut combos, then blockers. This is where if you start noding for genuine response strategies you can engineer ridiculous buckets of EV for marginal hands that have okayish blocking properties isn't it?. (i haven't noded here... assumption would be they slightly undercall - as per gto they'd have to start defending hands like KQ/A5 - so we can totally justify going ape)

And i agree nearly all value hands want to go bet/bet/bet @ micros, but we also need a strat to defend our middle range too. I can't see how developing a polar river XR strategy is worse than not. Plus 3b pots are juicy

Ceres line is solver approved. We pull our bluffs from our 0EV hands.

If Villain tank folded as said by Ceres then it is extremely unlikely he bluffed with the best hand.

No this isn't true. I'm literally playing 10nl right now after crushing 5nl for 30bb/100.

You don't go bet/bet/bet for value, player's overfold more at the micros not under fold. Triple Barrel lines for value is the opposite of what you want to do at microstakes.

Don't believe the common rhetoric it's almost all wrong.

You asked where your bluff was. That's your range bluff.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but your line looks like you didn't have a plan, got to the river, your opponent bet, and you decided I can probably push him off his hand and shoved. If he checks behind w/ Ax, you lose.

Again, we want to look at risk/reward for our highest EV line, considering the board, and your range advantage. Your line may be +EV at these stakes. I honestly can't say. But I'm pretty confident it's not the highest EV line just looking at other lines we could have taken w/ less risk to achieve the same goal. I'm not sure why this is controversial honestly.

AK wants to pummel AQ on Axx though no? I posted a hand like that a while back and got panned for x-ing turn

I have no doubt it's solver approved.

And I have no idea why his opponent tank folding is relevant to the discussion.