|
Pf confusion
It's 2/4 but these are kinda basic questions so I'm sticking it here.
Party Poker No Limit Holdem Ring game Blinds: $2/$4 6 players Converter Stack sizes: UTG: $337.80 UTG+1: $451.01 Hero: $454.10 Button: $423 SB: $367.10 BB: $461.20 Pre-flop: (6 players) Hero is CO with A[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] K[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img] UTG folds, UTG+1 calls, <font color="#cc0000">Hero raises to $20</font>, 2 folds, <font color="#cc0000">BB raises to $65</font>, UTG+1 folds, Sooooo I'm at the table for the utg+1 80/20(all mr's)/1 drooler. I've been isolating him a ton so my range is quite wide here. Villain is 28/20/4 so seemingly quite aggro but in the 50 or so hands I've been at table this is his 1st 3bet +he's oop and I raised earlyish. As it's his first 3bet there's obv no light 4bet history I can put to good use here. What to people think about all 3 options(well sorta 4). I guess folding cant be contemplated these days so it mainly comes down to call or 4bet(and if 4bet standard size or shove). I'll put fold in the poll anyway and see what happens. |
Re: Pf confusion
What did the donkey do?
|
Re: Pf confusion
Make it 4 bets to go.
|
Re: Pf confusion
I think shove>4bet.
|
Re: Pf confusion
I recieved a PM from another poster the other day which asked this question, among others. I composed quite a long reply to him and thought one section might be appropriate here, so this is a copy-paste from a part of what I sent him. I'm doing this for 2 reasons. One I think it's an appropriate reply to your question, and two I want to vet my theory among my peers.
[ QUOTE ] Unpaired Broadway Hands There are two categories of unpaired broadway hands: AK and not AK. AK should be considered different from the other unpaired broadway hands because AK is unique: it’s a significant dog to only AA, against KK it’s a moderate dog, and against all other hands its no worse than a coinflip. The other broadway hands aren’t in the same league, equity-wise. Even the mighty ‘little slick’ KQs is a dog to a measly A2o. AK is different in another way, too. When it improves on the flop to TPTK and you get the money in, you win far more often than if you made TPTK with any other hand. Domination simply doesn’t exist with AK. You can get in to a reverse-domination situation with AK (ie, AK vs A5 on an A-5-2 flop), but the same is true for all other BWay hands. In fact, all the broadway hands share the same weaknesses except wrt domination. That’s the only real difference once the flop comes. What this boils down to is a decision about how to handle the BWay hands preflop. The basic question is, continue or fold? For all the hands except AK, I think the choice is clear: fold. The BWay hands are sketchy enough as it is. Add to that the possibility of domination, compounded by the opponent’s ever-narrowing range every time he raises, and the non-AK BWay hands are simply unplayable. So now the next question is, how big of an impact does domination have on the decision to play AK? In other words, how much of our decision to fold, say, KQ was due to domination? Some, that’s for certain, and I think that with no other considerations we can deduce that it is somewhere between a little and a moderate amount. It will never be the major reason. (The major reason is that we’re probably beat.) So how do we narrow that down? I think it comes down to reads. How likely is it that this opponent is 3betting with a hand that isn’t AA or KK? Against some people the chance is zero; against others, much higher. You just have to know your man. Against the zero chance opponent, again the choice is clear: fold. Against the others it’s a judgement call. But once we decide to continue or fold, we still have to decide how to continue. Depending on who you are you will have an instinctual reaction about how to continue if you do continue. Some people think the obvious choice is to push. Others just call. (A few people even raise something other than all-in, but without auguring in to this choice too much, I’ll just say that it’s my opinion that this is a bad idea ~100% of the time.) Most people are so established in their thinking that they think the other choice is “BAD” or “ALWAYS WRONG.” I think that thinking is too rigid. If for you the instinctual choice is to push, it can be right to just call. Conversely if you think it’s to call, pushing can be good too. In fact, I think that in general the choice is a fair bit closer than most people think. Ok, so it’s all-in or call. How to decide? From my perspective, an all-in is a semi-bluff. After all, we don’t have the AA we are representing. We aren’t raising purely for value. In fact we’re not raising for value at all, since any hand we beat is probably going to fold unless they are pot-stuck. So we’re raising with the hope that some hand better than ours will fold. That’s a semi-bluff. As we know, if there is no chance that the opponent will fold then any semi-bluff is –EV. I think that’s what it all comes down to. If the opponent won’t fold to a semi-bluff, just call. If he will, push. Implied odds are something of an issue when we just call, but not as much as I think people want to believe. Many people say that we can’t just call because if an Ace or King comes, we won’t get any more action. How realistic is that? How often is the opponent going to 3bet preflop and then just completely quit when an Ace comes? Not very often, in fact I’d say pretty much never. Now of course if they were semi-bluffing a hand like 76s they won’t give much or any more action, but then again they would also fold to a push preflop, so that issue is moot. Besides, the 76s will bluff an Ace-high flop more often that 0% of the time, so even here a preflop call is more +EV than the push. But against a hand like QQ we can often get one more bet out of him, maybe even more, especially if we check the flop behind him. [/ QUOTE ] |
Re: Pf confusion
I voted for a call, though probably half of the times I fold in this situation. This is higher stakes than I play, but I find that a pre-flop reraise indicates AA, AK, or KK about 80% of the time. Not sure if that holds true at these stakes. The only reason I didn't vote for fold is that you can't show people that you will let your raises go with no contest. Sometimes you'll be at a table with someone who will reraise you on a bluff if they sense that you will fold.
|
Re: Pf confusion
Grunch,
Nice post. This part however, [ QUOTE ] A few people even raise something other than all-in, but without auguring in to this choice too much, I’ll just say that it’s my opinion that this is a bad idea ~100% of the time. [/ QUOTE ] Can you elaborate further on this? |
Re: Pf confusion
The major reason why I think a 4bet that is not all in is usually bad is because of postflop stack sizes. You will be left in a position where you will be virtually pot stuck to any hand, and you will be hamstrung in your ability to CB. Another reason is that I think we have limited FE on the flop if we decide to CB, and if we 4bet PF with AK it must be with the intention of CBing the flop when it is wise to do so.
Consider why you 4bet preflop at all. Is it because you think you have the best hand? I doubt it. If you get a call here, it's not from AJ. Rather, a 4bet is a semi-bluff. It's a bet that you'd like to not be called, but if you do you don't mind too much because you have some equity. But where does that equity come from? If you don't hit your A or K on the flop, are you going to quit? If so, wouldn't smooth-calling preflop be better? I believe that if you are only going to put mmore chips in postflop with AK when you improve then you're better off not trying to forcibly retain the lead preflop. (I'm not saying fold) Conversely if you do forcibly retain the lead preflop, you must CB the flop when it is strategically wise to do so, if you have chips left. But if we just re-raise not all in preflop we're going to have about a pot-sized bet left. Any CB is effectively a push because we won't be able to fold correctly if we underbet and get raised. Moreover we probably have more FE by pushing preflop than we do by potting or underbetting a rag board when the opponent is extremely likely to have an overpair to the board. Those are basically my thoughts... |
Re: Pf confusion
paul,
I think in a vacuum, 4bet shoving is good, the problem is 1) balance 2) AQ doesnt call 3) you're turning your hand face up So for these reasons, I actually think 4betting a standard size with AK is fine. A lot of the time people with AQ/AJ (and worse) will push (I've seen it sooo often). I think it folds out JJ/QQ just the same as a push or at least, nearly just as often as a push. I really hate calling, altho, maybe if you can float/bluff with good enough frequencies, it could be OK and maybe optimal. I think it requires a read though. Folding I just don't do |
Re: Pf confusion
db,
[ QUOTE ] A lot of the time people with AQ/AJ (and worse) will push (I've seen it sooo often). I think it folds out JJ/QQ just the same as a push or at least, nearly just as often as a push. [/ QUOTE ] It seems odd to me that you would suggest that AJ will push but JJ will fold. |
Re: Pf confusion
grunch,
Obv not the same players are folding JJ as the players that are pushing AJ |
Re: Pf confusion
I've read a few of these push AK posts lately. Do we really want to coinflip for our stack? Does the fold equity make it worth it? We have position in this hand, shouldn't we call and play poker postflop?
|
Re: Pf confusion
[ QUOTE ]
I've read a few of these push AK posts lately. Do we really want to coinflip for our stack? Does the fold equity make it worth it? [/ QUOTE ] I think it's more so the money already in the pot before our action, which hopefully turns into dead money, that makes our shove with AK correct. Haupt_234 |
Re: Pf confusion
I hate calling so will either 4 bet or fold. Mostly 4 betting but can fold V the right player.
|
Re: Pf confusion
For people who vote the standard 4 bet, would you fold to a shove?
|
Re: Pf confusion
MR,
never |
Re: Pf confusion
These types of questions are really tough to answer in a vacuum because the correct play depends so much on the villain's range. But let's look at what might happen if we push.
Suppose that we have a villain who only 3-bets with the goods. Give him a range of {AA, KK, QQ, AK}. That's 3 +3 +6 +9 = 21 combinations of hands he could hold (given that we hold AK). Let's assume that he folds all but AA and KK to a push. You therefore have about 18.5% equity when called. If he folds: we win $90 x (15/21) = $64.3 If he calls and we win: we win $460 x (6/21)(.185) = $24.3 If he calls and we lose: we lose $434 x (6/21)(.815) = $106.1 So the EV of pushing is $64.3 + $24.3 - $106.1 = <font color="red">-$17.5</font> Clearly, pushing is -EV against this range. It's also pretty easy to see that calling will be -EV as well, so folding is our best option by far. Suppose now that villain 3-bets more liberally, with a range of {AA, KK, QQ, JJ, TT, AK, AQ}. Let's assume in this case that he calls a push with QQ+ (it's easy to see that if he instead folds queens as in the last case, our EV of pushing will be quite a bit higher). So there are 45 combinations, 12 of which he calls with. Our equity versus his calling range is 30.9%. If he folds: we win $90 x (33/45) = $66.0 If he calls and we win: we win $460 x (12/45)(.309) = $37.9 If he calls and we lose: we lose $434 x (12/45)(.691) = -$80.0 So the EV of pushing is $66.0 + $37.9 - $80.0 = <font color="green">+23.9</font> So pushing in this case is +EV, and by quite a bit (remember, we assumed that he calls with QQ; if he folds it our EV will be even higher). So folding is out, and the only question is whether calling to see a flop would be even more +EV than pushing. Unfortunately, the analysis for calling is quite a bit more complicated. There are several things we need to take into consideration, like our position, our pot odds, how often villain C-bets, if he makes big post-flop mistakes, etc. In this hand, I'd be inclined to call for 3 reasons: 1) we have position 2) we're getting 2:1 on a call, which is enough to try to spike an A or K on the flop. 3) metagame considerations (I'd play AA and KK the same way). If we were to assume that we win the current pot every time we pair up on the flop, than calling would be EV neutral. However, some of the time we pair up we'll lose to a set, or tie with another AK, etc. On the other hand, some of the time we pair up we'll win an extra bet from an underpair, or AQ (perhaps more than one bet). We may also be able to out play JJ, TT or another AK or AQ even if we don't pair up. It's hard to put a $ value on these considerations, but I think that the positives outweigh the negatives (ie. calling is +EV). Whether it is more or less +EV than pushing is debateable, and probably depends quite a bit on the villain in question. Even if it's slightly less, however, it might still be worth it if it allows you to play other hands like AA and KK more optimally. So basically, this post was a long winded way of saying that there is no "standard" way to play AK preflop. |
Re: Pf confusion
[ QUOTE ]
How often is the opponent going to 3bet preflop and then just completely quit when an Ace comes? Not very often, in fact I’d say pretty much never. [/ QUOTE ] at 100 and 200 this happens pretty often imo |
Re: Pf confusion
[ QUOTE ]
MR, never [/ QUOTE ] ty. i think im just running really bad lately. |
Re: Pf confusion
[ QUOTE ]
For people who vote the standard 4 bet, would you fold to a shove? [/ QUOTE ] 1 buyin deep you cannot ever 4 bet and fold to a shove. The odds you will be getting by then are simply too good. Basically you should never be 4 betting pre-flop for 1 buyin if you intend folding to shove even if you do it with 67s. |
Re: Pf confusion
calling horrible, I would either 4-bet shove or just 4-bet standard. Fold isnt an option I dont think.
|
Re: Pf confusion
I think this is a pretty interesting thread, I am certainly still trying to get my barings but...
I think a large part of the decision to call,4 bet or push comes from how the oppent views you. If he sees you as a TAG pushing will probably mean AA or KK to him and he's gonna fold. In other words your FE is pretty high. If he sees you a bit looser than I think calling is the right play (given his range) and playing poker. And here your FE is pretty low. Maybe this is a basic idea but I think it should be said. Grunch, good post -- some interesting concepts that really got me thinking. |
Re: Pf confusion
Onobles, you basically repeated grunch but managed to say it in 10x less words. [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]
|
Re: Pf confusion
[ QUOTE ]
Onobles, you basically repeated grunch but managed to say it in 10x less words. [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img] [/ QUOTE ] you should have seen my full pm... |
Re: Pf confusion
[ QUOTE ]
calling horrible [/ QUOTE ] There's a big difference between saying "I hate calling" and "calling is horrible." Which are you saying? |
Re: Pf confusion
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Onobles, you basically repeated grunch but managed to say it in 10x less words. [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img] [/ QUOTE ] you should have seen my full pm... [/ QUOTE ] I don't mind reading it actually, especially if its as good as you posted here. [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img] |
Re: Pf confusion
[ QUOTE ]
Suppose that we have a villain who only 3-bets with the goods. Give him a range of {AA, KK, QQ, AK}. That's 3 +3 +6 +9 = 21 combinations of hands he could hold (given that we hold AK). Let's assume that he folds all but AA and KK to a push. You therefore have about 18.5% equity when called. [/ QUOTE ] I absolutely hate these assumptions. Both on the 3-Bet assumption, and the call assumption. I don't think it's even remotely close to reality. |
Re: Pf confusion
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Suppose that we have a villain who only 3-bets with the goods. Give him a range of {AA, KK, QQ, AK}. That's 3 +3 +6 +9 = 21 combinations of hands he could hold (given that we hold AK). Let's assume that he folds all but AA and KK to a push. You therefore have about 18.5% equity when called. [/ QUOTE ] I absolutely hate these assumptions. Both on the 3-Bet assumption, and the call assumption. I don't think it's even remotely close to reality. [/ QUOTE ] Did you read my post? If you did, you'd see that I didn't assume anything. I was illustrating that the correct play depends on the villain's range by describing a situation in which folding is clearly correct, and comparing it to another situation in which folding is terrible. |
Re: Pf confusion
[ QUOTE ]
Did you read my post? If you did, you'd see that I didn't assume anything. [/ QUOTE ] Are we playing semantics now? Lame. But oh well: [ QUOTE ] Let's assume in this case that he calls a push with QQ+ [/ QUOTE ] You gave two separate ranges, or as I call them, "assumptions." You can't make EV calcs without them. I don't think either range is realistic in either case. You can make an argument for folding KK if a villain will only push with AA, but we don't do that because it's not realistic to assume that. |
Re: Pf confusion
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] Onobles, you basically repeated grunch but managed to say it in 10x less words. [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img] [/ QUOTE ] you should have seen my full pm... [/ QUOTE ] I don't mind reading it actually, especially if its as good as you posted here. [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img] [/ QUOTE ] Grunch post the whole thing. Or PM it please. |
Re: Pf confusion
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Did you read my post? If you did, you'd see that I didn't assume anything. [/ QUOTE ] Are we playing semantics now? Lame. But oh well: [ QUOTE ] Let's assume in this case that he calls a push with QQ+ [/ QUOTE ] [/ QUOTE ] What I meant was that I'm not assuming anything about this particular villain's range. That's not semantics. [ QUOTE ] You gave two separate ranges, or as I call them, "assumptions." You can't make EV calcs without them. I don't think either range is realistic in either case. You can make an argument for folding KK if a villain will only push with AA, but we don't do that because it's not realistic to assume that. [/ QUOTE ] Are you telling me there are no villains who 3-bet only AA, KK, QQ, AK? If so, LOL. There are PLENTY of SSNL player who's 3-bet range is exactly this. For my example to be invalid you would have to show that the range I gave does not describe ANY player. I don't really understand your criticisms of the second range I gave. There are plenty of players IME who play very similar to this. In any case, the point of my post was to demonstrate that folding, calling, and pushing can all be correct under the right circumstances, not to bicker endlessly about what the villain's range is. It's impossible to know with the information provided. Free free to do your own EV calcs with ranges you deem to be "acceptable". |
Re: Pf confusion
[ QUOTE ]
Are you telling me there are no villains who 3-bet only AA, KK, QQ, AK? If so, LOL. There are PLENTY of SSNL player who's 3-bet range is exactly this. For my example to be invalid you would have to show that the range I gave does not describe ANY player. [/ QUOTE ] Seriously, chill with the contention and the attitude. The best way to illustrate a point using EV calcs is to pick the best set of assumptions. To do this, you don't want to find a set of assumptions that descrbe SOME player, or even just a few, you want the most applicable assumption for the situation. First of all, this is 2/4, which plays significantly different than SSNL. While your assumptions may be applicable to some players at SSNL, I don't think it fits with the described player; a 2/4 player that OP described as "seemingly aggressive" (excuse the paraphrasing). This is because I expect the opening range to include some weak PP's and sometimes SC's, at least some of the time. As for a calling range, I really can't put him on one. This is why I won't be providing EV calcs; it is damn near impossible to find a realistic range. |
Re: Pf confusion
I don't get why people hate calling so much.
|
Re: Pf confusion
[ QUOTE ]
Seriously, chill with the contention and the attitude. The best way to illustrate a point using EV calcs is to pick the best set of assumptions. To do this, you don't want to find a set of assumptions that descrbe SOME player, or even just a few, you want the most applicable assumption for the situation. [/ QUOTE ] Sorry if I sounded bitchy. But to say that my ranges are "not realistic at all" is ridiculous. [ QUOTE ] First of all, this is 2/4, which plays significantly different than SSNL. While your assumptions may be applicable to some players at SSNL, I don't think it fits with the described player; a 2/4 player that OP described as "seemingly aggressive" (excuse the paraphrasing). [/ QUOTE ] I realize that this is a hand from 2/4, but we're in the SSNL formum, no? The OP specifically said 2/4 is not his regular game, and wanted advice on what to do for a situation like this in general. I agree that the ranges I gave are probably not applicable to most 2/4 players, but they are applicable to many .5/1 or even 1/2 players. The majority of SSNL players are not 3-betting 87s OOP. The point of my post was not give the OP advice on what to do in this specific situation. The point was to help him analyze the situation in general, in the SSNL setting. No doubt he's going to get lots of replies saying "push" with no explaination as to why this is usually the best play. But pushing as a standard line here is very bad at .5/1 and below. You're going to have problems when you 4-bet AK into a guy with a PFR of 4, for example. |
Re: Pf confusion
Mongo,
FWIW, I liked your post. You certainly were not attempting to assign a range to a "general" set of opponents anywhere. You did, however, make it very clear as to difference in the +EV of pushing based upon two different types of villains. I found it very informative. |
Re: Pf confusion
Thanks, that's what I was shooting for.
|
Re: Pf confusion
[ QUOTE ]
I don't get why people hate calling so much. [/ QUOTE ] Truthfully I think its mostly due to the culture here. |
| All times are GMT -4. The time now is 04:29 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2026, vBulletin Solutions Inc.