Thursday, April 10, 2008

Standard?

First of all, thanks for encouragement from my last post. Nice to have the moral support for the downer days/weeks, etc., even though the results of even a few thousand hands have so much variance. And the good news is that since then, in the little I've played, I've bounced back a bit.

OK, consider this situation:

Villain is 25/9/2.3 over a few hundred hands, but you have no real table context. He folds his BB to steals 70% of the time, and he folds to a c-bet 65% of the time.

Full Tilt Poker $0.50/$1 No Limit Hold'em - 5 players
The Official DeucesCracked.com Hand History Converter

BTN: $14.35
SB: $106.90
BB: $24.05
UTG: $308.20
Hero (CO): $102.00

Pre Flop: Hero is CO with Ad Ks
1 fold, Hero raises to $3.50, 1 fold, SB calls $3, 1 fold

Flop: ($8.00) 9s Qh 5s (2 players)
SB checks, Hero bets $7, SB raises to $21, Hero folds

I made this play without thinking much of it, and really, perhaps there's not much to think about, especially at 100NL. You could make a definite argument for checking back this flop, since he does have a good chance of having connected with it somehow. But as long as you're not overdoing your c-bets (and one of the things Messiah pointed out is that I'm definitely not c-betting too much :P).

But I happened to be going back over some old notes, and saw one where the pro shoved (albeit with a bit smaller effective stacks) with ace-high when he thought there was a decent chance that villain was on a draw. Stoving this is cool if we can put villain on a reasonable range, but what is his range with this play?

How often is a checkraise on the flop defending against a steal a bluff or semibluff? According to an sthief09 video I recently watched, it's fairly often, on a draw-heavy board. How often is it a made hand that is trying to extract a bit extra, but which can't stand the heat of a reraise? What does the size of his raise say about anything? I'm honestly not sure what the answers to these questions are. Thoughts?

So, let's say that I 3-bet him here. First of all, what size should the 3-bet be? I think that it should be a shove because if I raise anywhere close to pot, and he calls, the pot is going to be huge relative to the amount behind. An argument for raising smaller is that he interprets a smaller bet as a please-call-me bet and therefore folds. That probably gives him credit for a little better thought process than I think he warrants, at this point anyway. Plus, bet-3-betting AI looks like a credible line for a set on this board.

Now, let's look at the types of hands he has.

Pure bluffs. He could have these some of the time...he doesn't like to fold early in the hand, and he has a moderate aggression factor...so he might be playing back on flops if he thinks he can take it down. But not a tremendous amount of the time, I don't think. Anyway, he folds those, a good result for me.

Semibluffs. There are a lot of draws out there. I don't have any notes about how he plays his draws, so it's hard to say how much of the time he c/r his draws versus how many times he c/c them. If he has a naked flush draw or naked straight draw, I'm ahead, since I hold the Ks, and he makes a fundamental mistake calling a large push like that, but might anyway. Regardless, of what he does, pushing is still better than folding for me. He's definitely calling with a combo draw, and depending how big the combo draw is, it will either be pretty close to neutral or I'll be ahead but have less pot equity than he does.

Made hands. Obviously, I'm in bad shape against his made hands, but I do have my overcard and backdoor flush potential outs. The real question here is how often he gives up his middle or pocket pairs. I said earlier that I didn't think too hard about my fold, in the sense that I thought it was a super clear fold. And I still do...mostly because I just don't trust people to fold, even when they "should." And this is where I might have it most wrong, admittedly.

If he has a made hand plus a draw, he's even less likely to fold.

I think that overall, shoving -- even if you can make enough profitable probabilities -- doesn't give you that much EV over folding, but I may be weighting things too much towards the made hand/not fold scenario. Whatever, it will certainly be a lot higher variance, and until I'm pretty damn sure about the EV, I think I should be going for the lower variance route (maybe a whole other topic).

Also, given all the scenarios, how would you play Ad Ac with this flop action?

3 comments:

grinder said...

Hi Marc

I have been thinking about this hand a little ( actually compared to other hands I think about , a lot )

I think the easiest thing to decide is the bet size , with the flush draw there I think it got to be a shove and same if you had AA imo

The next thing is his range combined with his level of thinking or maybe attention at the time
The reason I say this is that the bb is short stacked and therefore if hes paying attention this should come into his thinking and therfore effect his range


If hes not paying attention or not a thinking 25/9 player then I think his range would differ

If hes the former then I would put him on maybe AJs+ and PPs up to JJ maybe QQ
AK KK and AA I would expect a raise

If hes the later then I think you can add some mid suited connectors along with some
Broadways


As for the bet im not sure we could put him into the value better category , I think this guy is definitely a made hand sort of guy . I think you could out him on AQ KQ JQ . Finally imo I don’t think we could get him off any hand hes holding with a Q in it , I just don’t think hes the type

All imo , how does that sound ?

RakebackFAQ said...

Seems like alot of working out for 1 hand i tried stoving it putting a solid players range verses a loose guys range which included solid players hands plus AXs and K suited to K6 your ev was 55 to his 45. I have no clue what this means because this hand looks like a pretty standerd fold to me and your AA at the bottom just made me think how transparent i look to good players at this game.
Thanks!!

Marc said...

Graham: Yep, I agree with your analysis. I don't think that he's paying too much attention, and I totally agree about him sticking with a Qx hand (which is why I think you can play AA the same way).

Willie: No doubt, a ton of thinking for for one hand...I tend to do that :). I go back and forth between lots of thinking about a relatively few hands (trying to extract some sort of concept from them to apply more widely), and relatively little thinking about lots of hands...just to see what jumps out. I don't have the capacity to do lots of thinking about lots of hands!