Thin value vs. whales - HH for Outlaw and Wonderland

Edit: In the HH analysis and poll question, I said river when I meant turn. Ragnar pointed out the mistake. I fixed the text below but can't fix the poll.

Last Tuesday, I did a 2 hour sweat each with Wonderland (5nl) and Outlaw (10nl). I sent each of them a post-session review with my thoughts on their game. I have a few general observations that I thought might help some others here who grind at the micros.

1. There really are a TON of fish at these stakes. Play TAGG preflop, bluff next-to-never, and bet any TPTK+ hand for value on at least 2 streets.

2. You really have to watch stack sizes. At my stakes in my regular games, there aren't many shorties. I mainly have to watch out for deep stack hands. These guys are continually betting in MP not knowing if they'll get called by a 40bb stack or 140bb stack. You have to be constantly aware and not get accidentally pot-committed with a standard cbet.

3. Both of these guys are playing pretty good poker, better in some ways than I did at 10nl. So nh, FTR micro-grinders.

4. HUD reads. Both guys had some misconceptions about HUD stats, what specific ones mean and when to use what. They had different misunderstandings, but it seems like you micro-grinders really need to think through your HUD's, what you're displaying and why, and when it all might be useful to look at. I may post something about it, but I don't want to spoonfeed too much. If you look at the description of the stat and think about what it means, you should be able to figure it all out.

5. Ranges, ranges, ranges. Both guys are good poker players who consider reads, stack sizes, board texture and ranges postflop. But both seemed to have a similar leak in "thin value" situations on later streets against whales, guys with 60/40 stats. The problem seems to me to be an over-focus on the parts of that wide range that connect with the board, and not enough focus on the parts of the range that don't or that only connect with a small piece.

To help both of them with #5, here's a HH. Villain is 75/40/1.5 over 150 hands. My read by watching him against me and others is that he continues with any piece of the flop and darn any draw with 4+ outs. He'll float with a backdoor draw and air. He'll cbet bottom pair, or bet ip against a missed cbet with bottom pair/2nd pair/no kicker. He stacked me with 84s > KK in a 3bet pot, calling 2 streets on a FD board that hit him, then crai river when the flush completed. I had a set and made the crying call.

So we arrive at this hand. I've opened and flatted a lot wider range against him, and I've won about 80% of the small and medium pots against him. So he's giving me some respect lately.


$0.5/$1 No Limit Holdem
6 players
Converted at weaktight.com

Stacks:
UTG ($342.85)
UTG 1 ($174.90)
CO ($113.00)
Hero (BTN) ($100.00)
SB ($202.50)
BB ($151.00)

Pre-flop: ($1.50, 6 players) Hero is BTN
1 fold, UTG 1 raises to $2, 1 fold, Hero raises to $6, 2 folds, UTG 1 calls $4

Flop: ($13.50, 2 players)
UTG 1 bets $13.50, Hero raises to $40, UTG 1 calls $26.50

Turn: ($93.50, 2 players)
UTG 1 goes all-in $128.90, $54 to Hero ($54)?


My read says the flop didn't necessarily hit him (he'll float w/ air), though he's probably got outs. The turn is bothersome, because 4x is certainly in his range, and he's learned I can value bet two streets pretty accurately against his BS bottom pair/2nd pair hands. And 5x, 6x, 78, 23, A3 and bunch of other stuff MIGHT be in his range.

My question for you 5nl and 10nl grinders is the turn. I'll admit to not being thrilled with his lead shove. I won't say what I decided. I'll let you guys tell me if the call is for value or if it's a "crying call" where we we're pretty sure we're beat but kinda have to call due to pot odds. Or whether we should fold.

Answer the poll question, and post your thoughts below. I would ask the FTR players at 50nl+ to wait a bit before pwn'ing the thread so the micro-guys can get in here and think about this.

we're sorta not at the river.

--reserved for edit and for me to mull this sucker over.

Originally Posted by Ragnar4

we're sorta not at the river.

--reserved for edit and for me to mull this sucker over.

LoL - will edit - thanks.

you wanna do a sweat session with me too cause i'm pretty horrid and could use the help

Originally Posted by amir is cool

you wanna do a sweat session with me too cause i'm pretty horrid and could use the help

I'll think about it. I'm pretty busy for the next couple weeks, fwiw. I posted this thread a while back:

Free 5nl or 10nl coaching

Wonderland and Outlaw and a couple others followed through, and I offered a few of them a sweat session. Outlaw and Wonderland took me up on it, and waited patiently while I figured out a time I could actually do it. So, nh to them.

Some guys have asked if I would consider hosting a group sweat where I play and talk through my reads and thoughts. I'm trying to think about how that would work and what bribe I could offer my wife to get the kids out of the house for a couple of hours during an evening when both the U. S. and European players could watch. I'll post a thread in the BC to set it up maybe in a week or so, when and if I get it sorted.

My poker station is right outside my kids' bedrooms, so I play quiet poker, trying not to scream in frustration or break things when I get sucked out on for $125. So doing a sweat isn't exactly easy for my life and family situation. Sorry.

I think its a pretty easy call. I am guessing we have like 70% equity against his turn range here and are getting 3 to 1 on a call.

if reads are correct then SD's are a big part of his range on top of the usual suspects of 77-TT. even with a 40% PFR don't think 4x is a very big part of his opening UTG range (A4, maybe K4 and some other suited crap), though a read here would help. for every straight and trips i can think of that beat you i can think of two hands that are also in that range with more live cards to it

ps: is this a thin value situation? if so i think i'm calling too wide here

Feel free to pick apart my logic.

You are losing to QQ+, 4x, 55, 66, 56, 23 and 78, but the villain could have 3x, 5x, 6x, 7x, PPs <JJ or even 2 overcards. You are a favourite against that range overall I think.

You said that when the villain hit his flush he check raised you. The villain has got to expect that you will fire again on the turn, so if the villain has 4x why didn't he check raise the turn? The villain's overbet of the pot on the turn looks like a "please go away bet", making use of a scare card turning up. So call for value.

Originally Posted by linaker

You said that when the villain hit his flush he check raised you. The villain has got to expect that you will fire again on the turn, so if the villain has 4x why didn't he check raise the turn? The villain's overbet of the pot on the turn looks like a "please go away bet", making use of a scare card turning up. So call for value.

good catch. though i'd be wary going down this path with too much faith 'cause LAggtards are so volatile that disecting their psychology seems dicey. or am i just too much of a pussy?

Originally Posted by Outlaw

I think its a pretty easy call. I am guessing we have like 70% equity against his turn range here and are getting 3 to 1 on a call.

We don't have 70% against this range. Look at his AF, and think about what it means given his PF stats and a 3bet pot. We may or may not be ahead, though I think a crying call is mandatory, here. Won't say yet if I was crying when I made it. I took my time and worked through my reads, and I admit there was meta-game going on plus too many HH's and showdowns I saw to list everything. But I think I put enough in the original post for you to realize this is thinner than we'd like.

Originally Posted by linaker

You said that when the villain hit his flush he check raised you. The villain has got to expect that you will fire again on the turn, so if the villain has 4x why didn't he check raise the turn? The villain's overbet of the pot on the turn looks like a "please go away bet", making use of a scare card turning up. So call for value.

Stack sizes are different. He can get it all-in here without a cr, and I'm pretty well pot-committed. Just because he's a whale doesn't mean he can't play postflop. He's actually pretty good at sensing weakness and pouncing, or counting up some outs and firing a big semi-bluff. The thing that makes him a whale is just the sheer number of raised pots he's playing with a VERY weak range, not a lack of postflop skill.

at worst we're 30%
Hand 0: 69.962% { 77+, A4s, 87s, 73s, 64s+, 54s, 32s, A4o, 87o, 73o, 64o+, 54o, 32o }
Hand 1: 30.038% { JJ }

we definitely have odds to call
we need 25%

sorry to dominate the thread, but i got another question about ranges.

how do we account for the fact that there are certain parts of his range that he is more likely to play in the given manner than other parts.

For example: I am not at all surprised to see either 77 or A2 here so i tend to include these both in his range. But with 77 this is pretty much how i'd EXPECT him to play the hand, while with A2 i moreso just know that he's CAPABLE of playing the hand this way based on a few other hands we've seen him play, but i doubt this is how he plays it hundred percent of the time.

so should i only count like 50% of A2 hands (pretend like there are only 8 combinations of the hand) to compensate for the fact that playing A2 this way is only a possibility and not a certain part of his range? should i just ignore this altogther?

if you have a tool that allows you to do this, then sure, you can do that to further your estimate
then again, he won't play 77 the same way every time either
although this is hard to do in pokerstove

I thought 1.5AF on stats like that was pretty aggro since he's in almost every pot.

I guess I am just not used to people shoving trips against a guy that has shown so much strength.. but on that board I guess its okay.

I will have to study this one some more when its not 1AM and I haven't just worked 10 hours.

i've played 1k hands of 6-max at 5nl and 10nl, plus 2k at 25nl the last two days. What Robb said, except bluffing is fine if you can do it appropriately:

Originally Posted by Robb

1. There really are a TON of fish at these stakes. Play TAGG preflop, bluff next-to-never, and bet any TPTK+ hand for value on at least 2 streets.

2. You really have to watch stack sizes. At my stakes in my regular games, there aren't many shorties. I mainly have to watch out for deep stack hands. You have to be constantly aware and not get accidentally pot-committed with a standard cbet.

5. Ranges, ranges, ranges.

I add - learn to fold mid-strength hands for stacks on the turn without a good reason not to fold. I don't care what your spr is.

in this hand there may or may not be a good reason not to fold. Fight it out

This goes to show how two people play a hand differently. I think if i saw 456 i'd think it hit part of his range or maybe even hit it square on the nose.

That could be fish paranoia though, i have that a lot. I always assume they have it. This is a defense mechanism because way too many times my jaw hits the floor because they have it. The other day i got it all in on the flop against a very short stack, had AQ, flop came QQ2. I just laughed and wished that he had more of a stack to lose. He turns over Q2o. So he calls half his stack to my PFR with that, then shoves the rest on the flop. So my view of opponent ranges is somewhat broken and leans towards the part of their range that destroys me.

So... i'd say the board is set wary and straight wary. I myself would not know whether to call half my stack here or what. His AF suggests that while he's a whale, he's also not TOO agro. If it was like 4.0+ then we can assume he's bluffing a lot.

I'm guessing for the purpose of this thread he showed down garbage or a near draw or maybe pocket over pair like TT and that your call was for value. But really, i'd be flipping a coin to decide this turn action all by myself. If you did call and he DID show down crap, meta game would be affected nicely.

I shall await your explanation Robb. And thanks for the encouraging words, i was hoping someone here would tell the others i don't suck

The problem with fish is, their lines often dont make any sense "no way would he play the nuts like this!" but sometimes they have it anyway. Thats why reads really matter.

I know what I'd do here, but I'll hold off comment for now.

I could seriously be mistaken here, but I've been told (or read somewhere) that AF is related to VPIP/PFR. By that I mean, say I have stats of 13/11 (like I do) with an AF of 2. This is fairly standard, meaning I raise 2x as often as a call. Which is reasonable since I am opening/playing a tight range of hands that hit most flops well.

However, since this guys stats are 70/40/1.5 or whatever. That means for every 2 times he calls he's betting/raising 3 times. Thats just about ridiculous lol. The obvious point in this is, he is betting/raising a lot of the time when he has absolute air.

This + the fact that you guys have history(and that you have been getting the best of him lately) + 3:1 odds = value call imo.

Sure, he's going to have it some of the time, but I'm pretty sure we are going to be correct more than 25% of the time with a call here. At the very least, you have outs.

dranger, your logic is flawed
he could be folding 70% of his hands, and raising 18%, calling 12% on the flop

What is a whale? I've done some searching and it seems to be a fish with a big stack. Is this right or is there a bit more?

Originally Posted by iopq

dranger, your logic is flawed
he could be folding 70% of his hands, and raising 18%, calling 12% on the flop

Ah, piss. The equation is # of hands bet/raised/# of hands called right? Farking shitty balls. Still. I stand by my post.

Originally Posted by dranger7070

Originally Posted by iopq

dranger, your logic is flawed
he could be folding 70% of his hands, and raising 18%, calling 12% on the flop

Ah, piss. The equation is # of hands bet/raised/# of hands called right? Farking shitty balls. Still. I stand by my post.

I still stand by the fact that AF is not that useful on its own

Didn't say I was doing soley because of AF. Read other reasons in other post.

Originally Posted by dranger7070

Didn't say I was doing soley because of AF. Read other reasons in other post.

My read by watching him against me and others is that he continues with any piece of the flop and darn any draw with 4+ outs. He'll float with a backdoor draw and air. He'll cbet bottom pair, or bet ip against a missed cbet with bottom pair/2nd pair/no kicker.

this guy could have A6 and go zomg top pair all in

i never "read this anywhere," but it stands to logic to me that with AF it would be just as important to look at WTSD as it would be to look at preflop stats. I mean the guy could see 70% of flops "just in case he hits something" and then fold anything <TPTK.

In this case, the second he bets or calls, his range isn't any different as it is from a solid player.

Also in this case, he could still just be betting with his TPTK or better 3 times to every 2 times he calls with it, so we get zero indication of his range from his AF.

Also in this case, he would have a very low WTSD as compared to his preflop stats, so we can use that to tell if we should really be using a wonky range or not. (also reads are so reliable here because if he's seeing a lot of showdowns with crap, then we don't need to rely on the numbers. we would only rely on numbers if we didn't get to see this guy flip very often).

as it stands, it seems that the reads indicate to us that we've seen this guy flip a lot of hands showing that he had floated/semi bluffed like a monkey so i don't think we need numbers AT ALL.

when we have an overpair and half a pot left I don't think there's a decision against anyone

if the fold is right, the raise was not correct
I mean if he shoves the flop, we're calling, right? why would we fold the turn
and if we're folding the flop that's retarded, because then we might as well shove the flop and expect to get called with much less

robb.... roooobb?

i think i want the answer now. I'm scared. Tell me what the hell villain had and that it was a happy ending!

and if so, i class the villain as the kind of player who has no bankroll, just buys in... and can't actually play poker. These people will be paying our bills some day.

Originally Posted by iopq

Originally Posted by dranger7070

Didn't say I was doing soley because of AF. Read other reasons in other post.

My read by watching him against me and others is that he continues with any piece of the flop and darn any draw with 4+ outs. He'll float with a backdoor draw and air. He'll cbet bottom pair, or bet ip against a missed cbet with bottom pair/2nd pair/no kicker.

this guy could have A6 and go zomg top pair all in

possible, but not likely

Originally Posted by iopq

Originally Posted by dranger7070

Originally Posted by iopq

dranger, your logic is flawed
he could be folding 70% of his hands, and raising 18%, calling 12% on the flop

Ah, piss. The equation is # of hands bet/raised/# of hands called right? Farking shitty balls. Still. I stand by my post.

I still stand by the fact that AF is not that useful on its own

AF gets a bum rap - it's a perfectly useful stat for someone who understands what it means.

Originally Posted by wonderland

robb.... roooobb?

i think i want the answer now. I'm scared. Tell me what the hell villain had and that it was a happy ending!

and if so, i class the villain as the kind of player who has no bankroll, just buys in... and can't actually play poker. These people will be paying our bills some day.

well let me say that if villain has a boat or whatever neither me or robb would be suprised

if villain has 99 then Robb would be suprised but I wouldn't be

Originally Posted by wonderland

This goes to show how two people play a hand differently. I think if i saw 456 i'd think it hit part of his range or maybe even hit it square on the nose.

So... i'd say the board is set wary and straight wary. I myself would not know whether to call half my stack here or what. His AF suggests that while he's a whale, he's also not TOO agro. If it was like 4.0+ then we can assume he's bluffing a lot.

I actually posted this hand because of a couple I watched you play and talk out loud about during our sweat. Of course this flop just smacked the heck out of about 15% of his range, but something like twice that many hands connect to this flop and give him enough outs he could play this way.

Nut hands: 44, 55, 66, 54, 65, 64, A4, K4, Q4, 74, 43, 87, 32, and 73 (yes, he's capable of showing down 73, tho probably only the sooooooted variety) plus some 4xs not already listed
Big combos/draws: 77, 33, 76, 75, 63, 53
Other stuff: any pp (though KK+ unlikely), hands like 82, 87, A7, etc. Lots of crap

The problem here is that he could literally have just about any two STARTING cards, but he can't have just any two cards once we get to the turn. The question is how many draws and baby combos he plays this way vs. how often he plays the nuts this way.

This line he takes leverages fold equity. Someone said he's less likely to play trips/straights like this, and I think that's correct. But he's still fairly likely to show down a big hand.

The question is whether there's enough junk left after the turn shove to make the call, and I think you get worried. The answer is there is probably enough, and we're just gonna have to pay off big hands.

Originally Posted by iopq

when we have an overpair and half a pot left I don't think there's a decision against anyone

if the fold is right, the raise was not correct

I can see why spenda is ready to go apeshit. All you spr guys quit thinking as soon as 1/3 of your stack is in the pot, and just call it down. You're virtually never pot-committed in cash game poker.

Originally Posted by iopq

dranger, your logic is flawed
he could be folding 70% of his hands, and raising 18%, calling 12% on the flop

he wasn't

Originally Posted by bjsaust

The problem with fish is, their lines often dont make any sense "no way would he play the nuts like this!" but sometimes they have it anyway. Thats why reads really matter.

I know what I'd do here, but I'll hold off comment for now.

Be interesting to hear what you'd do with this whole hand, start to finish, imo.

Originally Posted by surviva316

how do we account for the fact that there are certain parts of his range that he is more likely to play in the given manner than other parts.

For example: I am not at all surprised to see either 77 or A2 here so i tend to include these both in his range. But with 77 this is pretty much how i'd EXPECT him to play the hand, while with A2 i moreso just know that he's CAPABLE of playing the hand this way based on a few other hands we've seen him play, but i doubt this is how he plays it hundred percent of the time.

so should i only count like 50% of A2 hands (pretend like there are only 8 combinations of the hand) to compensate for the fact that playing A2 this way is only a possibility and not a certain part of his range? should i just ignore this altogther?

discount certain combos if they're not likely based on reads/ranges/action.

Originally Posted by linaker

Feel free to pick apart my logic.

You are losing to QQ+, 4x, 55, 66, 56, 23 and 78, but the villain could have 3x, 5x, 6x, 7x, PPs <JJ or even 2 overcards. You are a favourite against that range overall I think.

2 overs and 88+ are not much of his range, imo - he likes hands that can improve to the nuts

Originally Posted by Outlaw

I thought 1.5AF on stats like that was pretty aggro since he's in almost every pot.

I guess I am just not used to people shoving trips against a guy that has shown so much strength.. but on that board I guess its okay.

I will have to study this one some more when its not 1AM and I haven't just worked 10 hours.

Yes, 1.5 AF is agro for this loose a player. But FOLDING is "aggressive." That's the part of AF that seems to elude some folks. Check/fold doesn't count at all in AF, so oop this villain is CAPABLE of the check/call, but he doesn't do it all that often relative to donking or check/raising.

That's why the check/call flop donk shove turn line means he's caught something - not saying he's ahead, just that he's not doing this very often with overs + air or 88. The AF = 1.5 means he's betting a lot when checked to on flop and turn, and that he's getting out of the way of strength when it shows up. If he's not getting out of the way here (and respects me, which you'll have to take my word for), what could he have? He's certainly capable of firing this turn bet w/ the immortal nuts.



Here's the rest of the hand for all y'all results oriented people:






scroll on down...





...





...





...




b]Turn:[/b] ($93.50, 2 players)
UTG+1 goes all-in $128.90, Hero goes all-in $54

River: ($276.40, 2 players)

Final Pot: $201.50
UTG+1 shows:
Hero shows:

Originally Posted by Robb

Yes, 1.5 AF is agro for this loose a player. But FOLDING is "aggressive." That's the part of AF that seems to elude some folks. Check/fold doesn't count at all in AF, so oop this villain is CAPABLE of the check/call, but he doesn't do it all that often relative to donking or check/raising.

that's why i look at WTSD when considering AF for fish. nobody addressed whether this is a sensible way to assess this stat though. so am i right in doing this or not?

Originally Posted by surviva316

Originally Posted by Robb

Yes, 1.5 AF is agro for this loose a player. But FOLDING is "aggressive." That's the part of AF that seems to elude some folks. Check/fold doesn't count at all in AF, so oop this villain is CAPABLE of the check/call, but he doesn't do it all that often relative to donking or check/raising.

that's why i look at WTSD when considering AF for fish. nobody addressed whether this is a sensible way to assess this stat though. so am i right in doing this or not?

Given enough HH's against opponent, and given a real understanding of showdown stats, yes, they are quite valuable against fish. I like W$SD better, fwiw.

One feature of the HH no one has addressed is the 3bet preflop. This was a "3bet to isolate." One problem in attacking this fish after 100 hands was that the 2 TAGG wannabes to my left started flatting a wider range. So the 3bet gets them out of the pot except when I'm crushed, unfortunately, but that's the risk you take. His min-open UTG made this easier. Playing this guy HU ip was worth a lot of eevvee monies.

gosh, mad to know there are SUCH fish at these stakes. Thing is though, i probably wouldn't have made that call. If i know a fish calls anything and shows down complete spastic hands, and the board looks low, pairy, drawy... i'd probably just bail.

So Robb, i'd like to know your thoughts, as close to how they process live, on each street.

Preflop. I'm thinking weeeeeeee!!! Let's get the feesh in this hand. Oh, crap, a least one of these two douchebags behind me is gonna call if I flat. Don't really like playing JJ oop against one of them, but a 3bet to $6 should get them to sit on the sidelines for a minute.

Flop. I'm actually happy with this flop. Sure, it's hits a bunch of his range, but Ax still has a ways to go to make a A2345 straight, and there's no FD. I know if he caught a piece he's coming along for value. When he raises, I'm still happy. Any one pair hand or big draw, he's capable of betting, so the raise is to charge him for value for the draw. I figure I'm ahead of 90% of his range, and that he'll call with half of it.

Turn. Until I saw him bomb the turn, I was OK with it. He's obviously repping the 4x hands. The question is, does he have it? I actually started scrolling through all the hands I thought he could have. Unlike spr-freaks who seem to call with anything in these spots, I tried to put villain on a range. I need to estimate his range and see if at least 25% of the combo there I can still beat.

Of course, the timer's running down, so I clicked for extra (I have 30 seconds in the bank). I obv saw the 4x hands, the pp's < 88, Ax that connect, sc's - thought about Kx, Qx ... then I tried to see what proportion of them I'm ahead of.

I'm not really thinking of every hand precisely. I'm chunking them in groups of hands, trying to keep some general idea of how "big" that range is. Then I go through specific hands trying to get to a critical mass that he could have played this way. I need 25% equity against his range, so I have an estimate of how many combos that is. Here, I wanted to find about 10 combos he would bomb with to feel like the call was doable.

I counted up 77, 33, 63s, 75s, 76s as VERY likely, added in 82s, 86s, 85s, 99, and TT as less likely. I felt he played QQ+out of his range, that he would have 4bet preflop and/or shoved over on the flop with anything that good (since he was a maniac, he was getting plenty of action on his big bets/raises). I also think a flopped straight plays differently, so I discounted those. I really thing his range is basically 4x hands that spiked and the same combos/big draws he would call with on the flop, so I try to run through as many of those as I can before my timer hits 10 seconds.

By the way, some of this range estimating had already occurred on the flop. So I'm relaying it all now, but I was alert to all the combo/draw hands that could call a flop raise but not be ahead.

Something I've learned about being on the timer. At 10 seconds to go, I don't have any more time to narrow the range. At that point, I take everything I've managed to estimate and go with it. Now, I take that range (which usually has at least 10 - 20% "uncertain" in it, since it's fast guesswork at the tables), I think about equity and how it compares. As the timer zips past 5, I make a firm decision, and just pause for a couple of seconds, letting my mind react to it.

I generally know subconsciously if I'm making mistake, if the situation is marginal, or if I'm spot on. If I take 2 - 3 seconds to say to myself: "I'm calling," then just sit for a moment, the decision has a "feel." When it feels bad, it means that upon review I'll usually find I missed something big and obvious and that my subconscious is aware of it already. When it feels good, I generally find upon review that my estimation took everything vital into account, and my subconscious already knows it. When I'm meh about it, it's usually one of the marginal spots where people are going to disagree even after hours to analyze the spot.

I'm not saying to play by "feel." I'm saying that you're working so fast trying to guess a range and run those hands through the betting action (and managing action on your other tables) that your conscious mind doesn't always do a great job of factoring in every single piece of vital information, but your subconscious mind is generally aware and senses flaws, especially when you practice estimating ranges a good bit away from the tables. Your mind has process it goes through on each street, and when you're rushed, your subconscious can pick up that "missed step" and alert you.

Also, while these steps honestly all happened at the table (including the thought that "Wonderland folds here, imo"), they are super-fast and are group analyses. I believe I over-estimated my equity a bit upon a review - I thought I was about 50% equity in the hand and called it down prepared to not 2nd guess myself if he had 54s. Now that I review it, I think I had 40% equity max, maybe as low as 1/3. So while I did all the thinking described above while at the table, it wasn't as clear or accurate as I would like.

But what I didn't do was say "oh screw it 3 to 1 pot odds I'm calling this sonuvabastard down."

Cheers.

you should honestly stop second guessing yourself once 1/3 of your stack goes in
that's how you become a nit, by making folds that are ridiculous

It's not that I'm an "SPR freak" it's just that I make my plan for the hand on the flop with my raise, NOT on the turn
your plan on the flop is to put the rest of your stack in

Originally Posted by iopq

you should honestly stop second guessing yourself once 1/3 of your stack goes in
that's how you become a nit, by making folds that are ridiculous

It's not that I'm an "SPR freak" it's just that I make my plan for the hand on the flop with my raise, NOT on the turn
your plan on the flop is to put the rest of your stack in

IOPQ, jeez! There's so much wrong with those sentences.

1. You should always second guess yourself. It's poker, and you will always get into interesting spots.

2. The fold wasn't ridiculous if the stacks were offering only 2 to 1 instead of 3 to 1. The hand would actually be kinda interesting, and all you SPR freaks would be "committed."

3. Of course, we all try to plan on the flop (and before). Thinking "I'll just stack off since I've got 1/3 of my chips in" is some of the silliest advice you can get. Thinking "I'll stack off since that was my plan on the flop" is even worse. You get new information on later streets, and getting all hung up on SPR and "plans for the hands" that are fixed in granite can be stupid poker, imo.

4. Even PNLH has examples where the plan "doesn't work out," and new information leads you to believe you're beat. Their advice is NOT to "never fold after 1/3 of your stack is in the middle." They say "don't fold very often after 1/3 of your stack is in the middle."

5. Committing to being all-in once you've put in 1/3 just moves the nittiness temptation earlier in the hand. You either are willing to take the correct action when the stacks aren't just right, or you're unwilling. Forcing EVERY hand into its "perfect" SPR template is sub-optimal poker. They say so right there in PNLH.

6. If I sound certain of read that seems "off" to you, remember there was metagame and 100 hands against this guy I had available to help make my read. Some of the metagame comes into play with the donk-shove, so there's additional information there I didn't have on the flop. That probably has me narrowing villain's range more than you are, fwiw.

Let me explain why I posted the HH. I wanted Wonderland to think about playing weaker ranges against these fish who are 60/40+, and give some thoughts on how to work through the later streets when we do. I've already advised him to read PNLH. This hand I believe leaves Hero w/ less than 50% equity against villain's range, but is still a clear cut all-in call on the turn. I thought those two facts (especially the call being correct) would surprise Wonderland, and get him thinking more correctly in turn/river spots. This hand provided a good context in which to discuss big pot poker against fish.

I admit that I suck at poker. But at least I don't suck so bad at poker that I turn my brain off once I get 1/3 of my chips in. I don't think Wonderland and other micr-grinders ought to either, even when they've finished PNLH.

werd to the math prof.

I'm wondering tho if IOPQ misrepresented himself in those statements though, coz surely people aren't ACTUALLY saying they're committed after 1/3 goes in?

Anywho, Robb, you're right, i was just gonna reply saying: so, hang on, this situation is marginal, in which case why are we studying it. So yes, i am surprised that it's a clear cut call on the turn. Me and Dranger were saying the same thing today, scratching our head going: *shrug* not too clear on what we'd do there at all.

Ah, ranges. This is the new holy grail. Just need to figure out what the best way to study is. Did you say going through PT and working it out? My problem is that most villains i play against i only have like 20-30 hands on.

1. At a certain point you have to say "I'm going with this hand NO MATTER WHAT"
I mean say you were bluffing and shoved A2o PF, but you didn't see that you were actually 101 dollars deep and not 100. Do you fold for the last $1? No, you're going with this hand no matter what. Even if the villain accidentally just called not seeing the last dollar you have. You're putting that last dollar in on the flop even if you miss. If you agree there are situations where it's already too late to fold like this one, I just make the argument that at a certain point you have to stop thinking.

2. You're changing what we're talking about. We're not talking about getting 2:1, we're talking about getting 3:1. I'm not even addressing this other, totally different hand. Even though I could.

3. I'm flexible in terms of my plans, but that 4 is not horribly scary. I'd only CONSIDER folding if a 7 comes off or a 3. It gives most of his range two pair or a straight or scared shitless.

4. See #3

5. That's why we play TAG poker, we play tight to 3b, don't peel flop with ridiculous hands. Planning your hand around commitment is PART OF good poker.

6. See #3

Lol wtf are you guys arguing about? Robb didn't you commit yourself when you raised the flop? Aren't you shoving this turn 100% of the time?

Originally Posted by Illfavor

Lol wtf are you guys arguing about? Robb didn't you commit yourself when you raised the flop? Aren't you shoving this turn 100% of the time?

he thinks the 4 is a scare card despite the fact that we're beating 56 now

Originally Posted by wonderland

I'm wondering tho if IOPQ misrepresented himself in those statements though, coz surely people aren't ACTUALLY saying they're committed after 1/3 goes in?

Basically, they're saying that, yeah, so the idea is back up two actions BEFORE you cross the 1/3 threshold and plan out your hand so that when you get to the all-in decision, you don't freak out and fold when you should call. Definitely read PNLH - it's a bigtime help.

Originally Posted by wonderland

Anywho, Robb, you're right, i was just gonna reply saying: so, hang on, this situation is marginal, in which case why are we studying it. So yes, i am surprised that it's a clear cut call on the turn. Me and Dranger were saying the same thing today, scratching our head going: *shrug* not too clear on what we'd do there at all.

Yeah, it's a definite call. People might argue with other points of the hand, but I bloated the pot pre and then raised the flop intentionally, trying to get a ton of chips in because I knew I was ahead of his range. I don't much like the donk shove turn action, but felt I was ahead a good bit more than 25% of the time.

Originally Posted by wonderland

Ah, ranges. This is the new holy grail. Just need to figure out what the best way to study is. Did you say going through PT and working it out? My problem is that most villains i play against i only have like 20-30 hands on.

I will post some range practicing stuff again. I've got a chart I use with "chunks" and pennies to mark combo's. I'll upload and post something in the BC tonight hopefully.

----

@Illfavor. I certainly thought I was committed when I raised the flop. If you understand the SPR and 1/3pot threshold theory, you can apply it better. The point is to almost never have a plan disrupted - if it happens too often, like IOPQ says, then there's something wrong with the plan.

But unlike some folks, apparently, I still take a long hard look at reads and ranges before betting the last half of my stack. The theory is that you almost always have "nearly enough" equity to make this call. Seriously, we'd have to think we had 15% equity or less to be sure of a laydown, here, so folding is HORRIBLE without some iron-clad reason to do it.

I understand commitment thresholds and the theory of "plan your hand," I just think it's helpful to do the ranges every hand, every time, and understand WHY folding after 1/3 of your stack is in the middle is such a bad thing.

I super-mod powered something, the question is, what?

I'm guessing it has something to do with going apeshit

Originally Posted by Robb

Originally Posted by bjsaust

The problem with fish is, their lines often dont make any sense "no way would he play the nuts like this!" but sometimes they have it anyway. Thats why reads really matter.

I know what I'd do here, but I'll hold off comment for now.

Be interesting to hear what you'd do with this whole hand, start to finish, imo.

This is a great hand to base our play off reads and stats. Run it through:

PF this guy raises a huge range but hates to fold, 3bet for value is dead easy, as aggressive as he is we would snap call a shove or shove over a raise.

Flop, we can expect him to bet with draws, pairs, overpairs for sure, and just plain bluffs wouldnt surprise me. Probably c/c bottom pair type hands. Again, easy raise against his range, more than happy to stack off. Remember, we only need to be ahead of most of his stackoff range, not all of it.

Turn, this is a fistpump call. Why? We've already seen him c/r with the nuts (or close), so we reduce the chances of him having a 4 or a boat here. I expect to see an overpair or a draw a lot, and none of his overpairs are higher than ours (he for sure gets QQ+ ai pf).


So, we're definately not ahead of ALL of his range, but we're far and away ahead of most of it. This is a great example of getting value against fish. Sometimes he shows up with it for sure, but against his range we should be trying to get as much money in the pot as quickly as possible.

In no way do I consider this "thin value" against this particular opponent, and people thinking it is, is an example of why they're not crushing micros. Havnt read your responses and reasoning Robb, so I hope you came to the same conclusions, and just used a misleading thread title

OIC Robb. Your thought process on the F, T and R is pretty bitchin' and wish I did that kind of thinking every hand. Sure the play in this spot, but I guess ipoq should have realized you weren't considering it when you made the poll options!

Originally Posted by bjsaust

In no way do I consider this "thin value" against this particular opponent, and people thinking it is, is an example of why they're not crushing micros. Havnt read your responses and reasoning Robb, so I hope you came to the same conclusions, and just used a misleading thread title

I was wondering what the regs would think of it. There was a ton of metagame in the donk-shove turn. I had to lay down AK + GSSD that I had bet 2 streets for value to a river-donk like this with bigger stacks left about 2 orbits earlier, and the guy (while CRAZY loose) wasn't terrible postflop. That said, no, I think given the reads I posted Hero is about breakeven in equity, so fist pump call after thinking it through. Still, I take the (non-combo) over pairs out of his range, here, and it's a bit "thinner."

No, I didn't think the hand was about thin value. I thought it was about reads and ranges, and about going after value with a vulnerable-feeling hand where you have to make rock solid reads and form legitimate and trust-able ranges on every street. Maybe I should have called it something different - but I think it was eye-opening to Wonderland. I certainly would have looked at this hand a year ago and just shook my head: "how could play JJ like that?" But practice helps, and the game gets easier the better you get at putting people on ranges.

During the game, I really think the micro-stakes guys need to know how tough this was. I was stressed. I've just moved up to these stakes, so the money feels huge. I found it to be a really tough spot. Just know that he's stacked me twice in less than a 100 hands, once with a real hand, once without. I'm nearing tilt, screaming in frustration 'cuz I own him in every small pot and medium pot but have lost 3 or 4 big pots where the poker gods seem to be laughing at me.

I play TAGG poker, so JJ (well, it's 2 pair, but w/e) isn't my typical stack off hand. So perhaps I was short of confidence. And there was meta-game. However this guy plays, he understands what his style does to his opponents.

So you step back, take your read, narrow your ranges, make the call. I was pretty darn certain I was going to look back and think I played it perfect when I saw the A on the river (I know that's results oriented, but I was tilting hard if he hit his draw, just admittin' that right now).

I believe some of the microstakes grinders who face these real fish focus too much on the hands where the fish spikes the miracle (like I probably would have if I got rivered!). There's a ton of value in fish like this, and we've got to take these hands that feel "weak" - they would be weak against other TAGG's - and play them like the nuts. Because they pretty much are.

It's not easy staying sane and firing in $150 on a read when you're nearing tilt and can't find a "lock" hand to take his stack with. In the end, I think I played it as well as I could, and if I took too much time jonesing on the turn, so be it. I decided I was certain of my read, that it was ++EV to call.

Originally Posted by Robb

I play TAGG poker, so JJ (well, it's 2 pair, but w/e) isn't my typical stack off hand.

What the fuck?

I think your range is too tight, based on your reads given. Maybe you felt there was more to it than you put down in words. Couple of things:

1. You need to start adjusting your ranges for your opponents. JJ is in no way in my normal stackoff range, however against a 75/40 lagtard? Fist-pump stackoff preflop for sure.

2. Against guys like this, you need some gambool in your game. They're giving their money to somebody, so you gotta take a shot at taking it. An overpair here v's a guy like you've described is perfect.

3. You have a hand where this guy c/r'd a weak flush, so you should be discounting huge hands from his range here. Not totally, but enough to be happy calling here.


You (and the microstakes guys you talk about) need to move past thinking of this as a vulnerable hand. When you have a big hand against a juicy target, you gotta go with it. Sure you could be faced with the nuts here, but this is the hand you've been waiting for. If you wait for the actual nuts v's a guy like this someone else is going to take his stack before you get it. Definately think it through and do some ranges, but in the end you should be concluding that you're happy getting in here.

Originally Posted by Robb

There's a ton of value in fish like this, and we've got to take these hands that feel "weak" - they would be weak against other TAGG's - and play them like the nuts. Because they pretty much are.

It's not easy staying sane and firing in $150 on a read when you're nearing tilt and can't find a "lock" hand to take his stack with. In the end, I think I played it as well as I could, and if I took too much time jonesing on the turn, so be it. I decided I was certain of my read, that it was ++EV to call.

I think you say it here, but not entirely sure you get it. Hopefully you do. The relative strength of your hand DOES change compared to who you're playing against. Also, it sounds like some of your concerns were tilt related. Maybe with a clear head this becomes more simple.



It is interesting that Wonderland talks about folding in a spot like this, so you're spot on that this is an example of where they're reacting to actions rather than actually considering ranges. Learning to beat guys like this is important.

Why is there no option for calling with probably the best hand?