You need to be logged in to your Sky Poker account above to post discussions and comments.
You might need to refresh your page afterwards.
Bothersome Main Hand
MynaFrett
Member Posts: 786
You need to be logged in to your Sky Poker account above to post discussions and comments.
You might need to refresh your page afterwards.
MynaFrett
Member Posts: 786
Comments
I've moved this across to Poker Chat where it will get more eyeballs, &, hopefully, more feedback.
PS - there is a much better way to post HH's now, but I'm afraid I've forgotten how to do it, but hopefully someone will come along & explain.
Are you referring to @NOSTRI and his genius Sky hand converter? I have also forgotten/lost access to that.
Yes, that's the one. I'll see if I can find it.
@MynaFrett
Try this thread;
https://www.skypoker.com/secure/poker/sky_lobby/community/forums#/discussion/comment/1113931
Good stuff. Let's hope you get some responses now.
"are we living in an age where even half decent players are idenitfying the correct bluff combos AND pulling the trigger in these spots"?.... NO!
I have my thoughts but despite this I'd rather just keep Mum than look like a total fish when much more accomplished players give their opinions.
Much better to just look and learn.
As for post flop play again theory and in play differs big style, in theory 4x and Ax are strong value hands here for the big blind whilst the small blind will be bluff catching most K high and some J high on flop but in game nobody is likely to do this.
On turn you'd be value betting most Jx and on river some Jx value bet whilst all Kx value bet that river in theory, the small blind should not have many Qx or 4x in his range to begin as those have lead or check raised flop any Qx which is still in his range would want to X/R that river knowing Kx are still calling but in game nobody is gonna do that.
As for river bluffs I'm not at all sure what would bluff raise that river maybe T4 and 94 would bluff in theory as they block T9 and Q4 which are the main nuts and the big blind should have thin value bets which will fold but again in game I struggle to see that.
So I would happily over iso pre, over bet flop and over bet turn as a bluff and on river when I get X/R I'm almost certainly folding Kx, on river, Qx is close I'd be more likely to call Qt or Q9 but Q8-Q2 I'm happy to fold and we should not have AQ as that iso pre
3bets pre(except for BB), defending vs 3bets, 33% cbet bluffs and calling vs 33% cbets are spots people most certainly over do and it's because they see poker streamers do it all the time not realizing not every position has requires to same combo to be defended vs a 3bet, not every board likes our strength to bet 33% or range cbet 33%, OOP does not like to cbet bluff the same weak air as in position and different boards require different backdoor draws to be defended.
Spots where the odd person can find a weak equity bluff bluff (backdoor draws, weak pairs) or thin value but alot still won't find are 3bet bluffs with weak Axo and Kxo from the big blind, 4bet shoves, large flop cbets, flop check raises as thin value or backdoor draw bluffs, double barrells, turn over bets and turn donks. I would be careful in these spots and make note when ever you see a player do something like this with thin value or as a bluff because it will effect the EV of your overall range big style making hands.
Actions like this are ones people most certainly still have a hard time defending against and it's because they happen the odd time in stream but not on a regular basis like the stuff I said in point 1
The spots I just know are still far too nutted are 4bet non all in bluffs at deep stacks, turn raises, triple barrell barrells, river over bets and river raises.This sort of theory play rarely occurs in game, making it hard for people to do in game since they don't see poker streamers do it on a regular basis. Also theory is known to turn weak value hands into bluffs in some of these spots especially the turn and river raises which is something you won't always expect to happen in game so if I were you I'd still go for over folds in these spots.
This is exactly the sort of analysis I was hoping for. I can only speculate on what might be theoretically correct as a result of things I piece together from watching and listening to good players who use solvers and from things picked up from using DTO. I don't have the means to analyse specific spots like this properly and get definitive answers on my own.
The part that makes this specific hand so annoying (but also interesting) for me is that I know for sure we have to be bluff catching in theory with some combo's of trips and we should at least consider bluff catching in game with some combo's of trips.
"...Qx is close I'd be more likely to call Qt or Q9 but Q8-Q2 I'm happy to fold..."
Imagine this spot was Addamo (SB) vs Malinowski (BB). You know that Addamo is going to use so many hands with a T in them and hands with a 9 in them (maybe even all of them that he gets to river with as played), he is going to get close to the number of xr bluffs he is supposed to have in this spot and he is so aggressive that it's possible he could start overdoing it.
I feel like Malinowski's response would actually be to snap call Q7-Q2 (preference not having a diamond) and snap fold QT/Q9 (preference with diamond but maybe pure fold) because it becomes more important to unblock the bluffs than block combo's of AT and T9.
If we imagine that these two elite players are playing the spot like this then this is probably going to be close to the solver solution as well... am I right about this, at least, or am I way off the mark? I know ranges are going to be different because of the pre-flop action and they are going to play differently post flop with different parts of their ranges as well but let's assume they can still get to river as played sometimes with some of the relevant combo's.
Then back to the actual hand where the two players involved are playing a different game altogether and the QT/Q9 which might be the trips that get folded first in solver world now become the trips that want to call first here?
This was the dilemma I faced in game and I was completely lost. I didn't know whether QT would be the nut worst trips to call with or the best or whether Q9 was the best (or at least better than QT) or one of the worst. Whether QT and Q9 should both be folded and Q8-Q2 called or vice versa and how relevant the presence of a diamond in my hand would be (just to make things that little bit more complicated).
Not only will an elite player's river range be different to our opponent's river ranges but also what an elite player is gonna bet on the river and bluff catch is also very different.
Just to give you an idea this is what the BB should value bet in theory on this river
This is what the SB should do vs river bet
This is how the BB should respond vs a X/R
This is where the issues come in
First up if the SB is not gonna call his 4x, why would Qx want to value bet on that river when it is splitting with other trips and losing to rivered straights?
If you puzzled about why 4x call more than Jx, it's because neither are ahead of weaker value but the 4x block more strength since their are more Q4 than QJ in the value betting range.
As for check raising by small blind, the problems is, if the BB is not gonna make thin value bets why would the SB need to do much X/R when all it's really doing is facing a polarize range that is nutted or bluffs
Their is also the issue, if the BB is gonna call every one of them QX combos, again why would the SB want to check raise as a bluff?
What I'm saying is river play is extremely complicated and all it takes is for a person to call less bluff catchers than he should, thin value bet less than he should, call more value than he should and bang the action changes big style
The best way of simplifying this spot would be this
The best bluff catchers are those with an A or low kicker most times since these unblock max bluffs which you can see by the fact J2 is the most happy Jx calling.
The best bluff raises come from hands which block the nuts and don't beat value as you can see from T4 and 94 which check raise knowing they block Q4 and T9
The best bluff catchers to call vs check raises are those blocking the super nuts which in this case is Qt and Q9 which block most full houses and straights.
I would most certainly keep note on which players thin value bet river, which players bluff catch river and which bluff raise because this can make a massive difference to yuor own river play
@MynaFrett
PS - thanks @FeelGroggy, your support for the Forum is much appreciated.
"Comparing addamo vs malinowski to opponents like this are like comparing a freshly baked pie to a one just about to be put in the oven."
I love this line and we are in agreement - I was contrasting not comparing. I was just using those two as a real world example that would probably be representative of how a solver plays the spot against itself.
Thanks for going to the trouble to run the spot and provide screenshots of the ranges etc, it is really eye-opening and educational.
As yourself and @FeelGroggy both point out very well, we just can't bluff catch here in anything like the same way as a solver would and theoretically 'correct' calls in these spots (and similar under bluffed spots in game which you pointed out previously) are just going to be burning money far more often than not.
I came to the same conclusion here in the end but it still bothered me in game to fold one of the first hands (I suspected) a solver finds the call with.
I have a feeling I will be watching you stream high stakes tournaments on GG and Stars in less than a year.
I'm looking forward to your next stream now and I hope you are ready and willing to field more questions
Thanks again.