Theory Post: Reraised Blind Battles and Bluffing with Marginal Hands

[iLimpReraise]

[ QUOTE ]
(These ranges and labels may not be accurate for many games but it captures to some degree three different ideal-typical players as far as 3-betting. I did not include a simulation for a total nit, like TT+ AK+ because intuitively I am pretty sure you don’t want to challenge this player post-flop with marginal holdings).

[/ QUOTE ]

Two concerns of mine with this thread...
1) The main problem I see is that the 3-bet range for a "total nit" that you outlined above is not that terribly far from the OOP 3-bet range from a standard unknown TAG at these limits. Sure most 2p2 TAGs are re-raising with AT sometimes, AJ/AQ often, etc., but it takes quite a few hands with someone to determine his 3-bet range, and it certainly can't be clearly deduced from HUD stats.

Until you know for sure that villain is 3-betting lite enough for this to be profitable (for instance he 3-bets hands like 77 and AJ every time even though a lot of active 3-betters still just call sometimes), then I think you're going to be spewing often. And once you know villain does 3-bet lite--say he shows down a SC in a rr pot or something--it's likely that he'll narrow his 3-bet range after everyone saw him get out of line.

2) I just don't like the idea of bluffing against someone's narrowed range when it's uncertain exactly what you're representing. Do you always raise sets on that dry flop? Do you shove QQ/JJ? A lot of the times, no. Don't you 4bet preflop with AA/KK sometimes?

I'm not crazy about hand analysis that assumes "well villain can only call if he has xx" because that ignores what villain perceives to be your range (well I guess if he only calls with xx he's intuitively putting you on a range, so I'm mainly saying there are a lot more factors to look than simply "we go all in so he always folds xx- and calls with yy+").

Keyser (on my gimmick while I studddy!!!)

[Keyser.]

natty bumppo!

[sam h]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
(These ranges and labels may not be accurate for many games but it captures to some degree three different ideal-typical players as far as 3-betting. I did not include a simulation for a total nit, like TT+ AK+ because intuitively I am pretty sure you don’t want to challenge this player post-flop with marginal holdings).

[/ QUOTE ]

Two concerns of mine with this thread...
1) The main problem I see is that the 3-bet range for a "total nit" that you outlined above is not that terribly far from the OOP 3-bet range from a standard unknown TAG at these limits. Sure most 2p2 TAGs are re-raising with AT sometimes, AJ/AQ often, etc., but it takes quite a few hands with someone to determine his 3-bet range, and it certainly can't be clearly deduced from HUD stats.



[/ QUOTE ]

Ilimp,

Glad to have your thoughts. I have been away from the boards for a while, and actually not playing too much poker. Here are a few thoughts in response.

I don't really disagree that there are many nitty TAGs out there. But I do think that you can get a pretty good feel for the likely 3-betting range of a lot of regs fairly quickly. HUD stats are definitely useless, but its not really a question that should be approached looking for probabilistic evidence anyway. Just seeing a few hands shown down suffices to give you a pretty good guess at least whether the player is a TAG/nit or not. Plus, I think you can infer a fair amount from other aspects of play for some players.

[ QUOTE ]

Until you know for sure that villain is 3-betting lite enough for this to be profitable (for instance he 3-bets hands like 77 and AJ every time even though a lot of active 3-betters still just call sometimes), then I think you're going to be spewing often. And once you know villain does 3-bet lite--say he shows down a SC in a rr pot or something--it's likely that he'll narrow his 3-bet range after everyone saw him get out of line.

[/ QUOTE ]

I definitely agree that its not necessarily easy to put somebody on a range, especially if they are changing gears. But I don't think most multi-tablers change gears at this level very often or effectively.

[ QUOTE ]

2) I just don't like the idea of bluffing against someone's narrowed range when it's uncertain exactly what you're representing. Do you always raise sets on that dry flop? Do you shove QQ/JJ? A lot of the times, no. Don't you 4bet preflop with AA/KK sometimes?

[/ QUOTE ]

Clearly their ability to call with a weak hand should influence your decision, especially since the board is dry. But at these levels I have seen so few players who will actually call a push there with ace high or 44. To some degree, at SSNL I don't think your ability to represent a hand matters so much. That's why your opponents are playing SSNL.

[ QUOTE ]

I'm not crazy about hand analysis that assumes "well villain can only call if he has xx" because that ignores what villain perceives to be your range (well I guess if he only calls with xx he's intuitively putting you on a range, so I'm mainly saying there are a lot more factors to look than simply "we go all in so he always folds xx- and calls with yy+").

Keyser (on my gimmick while I studddy!!!)

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree that this kind of analysis has to be taken with several grains of salt. On the other hand, at least in my experience, these kinds of simplified models can be very helpful for understanding the basic mathematical contours underlying "real world" poker, in which additional factors are coming into play. The point here is not to say, "look you should always do this." The point is to suggest that most SSNL players should probably do this kind of thing a whole lot more, but that of course you have to pick your spots.