Bryce's Pre-Flop Bible

[bozlax]

Not that it's actually germane to Bryce's point (see below), but some interesting fuel to add to the A4o v. QJo fire: I ran PokerStove for both against a top-20% range and a random hand. I know it's not really a good measure of preflop equity yada yada, but it does give a good indication of relative hand strength. The results:

Text results appended to pokerstove.txt

25,170,868,800 games 29.453 secs 854,611,374 games/sec

Board:
Dead:

equity (%) win (%) tie (%)
Hand 1: 56.7297 % 54.73% 02.00% { A4o }
Hand 2: 43.2703 % 41.27% 02.00% { random }


---

25,170,868,800 games 31.875 secs 789,674,315 games/sec

Board:
Dead:

equity (%) win (%) tie (%)
Hand 1: 58.1347 % 56.91% 01.23% { QJo }
Hand 2: 41.8653 % 40.64% 01.23% { random }


---

4,746,506,688 games 6.141 secs 772,920,808 games/sec

Board:
Dead:

equity (%) win (%) tie (%)
Hand 1: 41.0460 % 38.43% 02.61% { QJo }
Hand 2: 58.9540 % 56.34% 02.61% { 66+, A4s+, K8s+, Q9s+, J9s+, T9s, A9o+, KTo+, QTo+, JTo }


---

4,951,983,168 games 6.141 secs 806,380,584 games/sec

Board:
Dead:

equity (%) win (%) tie (%)
Hand 1: 42.1960 % 39.78% 02.42% { A4o }
Hand 2: 57.8040 % 55.39% 02.42% { 66+, A4s+, K8s+, Q9s+, J9s+, T9s, A9o+, KTo+, QTo+, JTo }


---

Well, I'll be dipped in [censored]. QJo is better than A4o against a random hand. A4o is better against a top-20% hand. The difference between the two in either situation is negligible. Neither is good enough against the tighter stealing range that you should be playing it HU, much less 3-betting it, but clearly if you're going to 3-bet one you should also 3-bet the other.

fwiw, I just went back and re-read Bryce's original post. There're way too many words which clouds the funamental message (which I completely agree with, and actually said in here somewhere) that, "when stealing/defending, it's important to have a read on your opponent." I also think he chose to illustrate his point with some very poor examples for the limits this forum discusses. However, I appreciate the effort he clearly put into it.

[TitanFan]

[ QUOTE ]
As far as AK, I sometimes cap and sometimes just call. It depends on my image and whether my opponent will calldown AJ UI even after I cap. As you move up in limits, you'll find more players who realize that folding AJo after being capped when they don't flop a pair or a good draw is a prudent thing to do. However, that same opponent is likely to bet AJ on the flop and on the turn in a raggedy board if you just call the preflop 3-bet and just call the flop (as it looks like you might be peeling a hand you intend to fold on the turn). Some will fire again UI on the river (though this is generally not advised), whereas others will often check and call (usually finding some draw on the board which you might have missed or paranoid about being bluffed off a "good starting hand"). Against these opponents, it is often much better not to cap. I won't even mention how often AJ spews chips on Axx flops if they aren't capped before the flop.

[/ QUOTE ]

I really like this a lot!! If there are two or more people in the pot then I will cap AK for sure (since its a 2:1 underdog to flop TPTK) but HU calling a 3-bet and playing somewhat passively on an Axx flop can net a lot of money!! I think there is a section in HEPFAP (which I just read last night!!) that advocated exactly this play. Good stuff

[Shooternewt]

The AK example is something that does have merits in SS, especially live against tight opponents. It also works against other TAGs who don't know how to fold TP.

[cpk]

I think what the A4 vs. QJ discussion misses is that the player in question was identified as a weak-tight player. Against a weak-tight player (at least at small stakes), I'm not primarily looking to make big hands and getting paid off--I'm looking to counter-steal and get him to fold. Sometimes stuff happens--sometimes he flops a draw, and therefore I end up seeing a showdown. But because the opponent is weak-tight, if I brick out with A4, I can check and get a free showdown--and will actually win quite a few pots that way. With QJ, I'll have to fire another barrel. Firing three with unimproved hands is a sucky situation to be in. Further, against a weak-tight player, if we both hit an Ace, the weak-tight player will play in such that I know my Ace is no good.

However, you are right about your other points--but I think the fact that because a weak-tight player helps us to play our hands perfectly, the conclusion is that I can isolate a weak-tight player with both QJ and A4 and a number of other otherwise-crappy hands.

Against a good player, on the other hand, we are neither likely to get a free showdown, nor are we likely to get a clear signal that our Ace is no good. Therefore, we should avoid A4, QJ, and most other hands--we should just give up our SB in most cases, because unless we are excellent players ourselves, we can't profitably play most hands against good players OOP, nor does our half-bet discount give us enough odds to compensate.

[Harv72b]

I'm glad to see that some people are starting to get the meat behind the concepts you discussed in your post, which I do (for the most part) agree with. This is read-dependent poker that you are talking about, something which IMO doesn't really get discussed often enough in this forum. Too many people are just latching onto the starting hands & not paying enough attention to the scenarios you outlined.

That said, this is SSLHE. In the typical online 2/4 and even 3/6 games that most of the readers here are playing, these concepts simply don't apply. Relatively few of the opponents you'll see at these limits are capable of recognizing the hands that you're representing with these preflop moves (or lack of moves), nor of acting accordingly postflop when they miss. A lot of players are going to call down with AJ unimproved, or at least call to the river with it, in the AK on the button example. A lot of players are going to peel the flop vs. your SB 3-bet with whatever they raised with in the first place, irregardless of whether or not you have A4o or QJo, and regardless of whether or not they initially raised with AK or 54s.

Against the right opponents, and in the right game situations (which you laid out well in your post), you're dead on. And while it would behoove anybody here to read & think about what you're saying, trying to apply much of what you said at these limits will only cost them money.

Incidentally, going back to the AK example...if you know that your opponent is going to check/fold the flop UI if you cap it preflop, shouldn't you be capping more, not less? As in, with a wider range of hands, to include your true premiums for deception's sake? It seems like that was often the case in what little middle limit experience I've had.

[Harv72b]

[ QUOTE ]
With QJ, I'll have to fire another barrel. Firing three with unimproved hands is a sucky situation to be in. Further, against a weak-tight player, if we both hit an Ace, the weak-tight player will play in such that I know my Ace is no good.

[/ QUOTE ]

If he's a weak/tight player and he peels a drawless flop after you 3-bet preflop, you shouldn't be firing another barrel with QJ unimproved. Even on a drawy flop that's an iffy proposition. That's part of Bryce's point...it's a lot easier to dump QJ in this situation than it is A4, and a lot easier to get paid off when you do make top pair or better with QJ than with A4.

[cpk]

[ QUOTE ]
Incidentally, going back to the AK example...if you know that your opponent is going to check/fold the flop UI if you cap it preflop, shouldn't you be capping more, not less? As in, with a wider range of hands, to include your true premiums for deception's sake? It seems like that was often the case in what little middle limit experience I've had.

[/ QUOTE ]

I would say that if your opponent is weak-tight AND does not adjust for pot size. Some otherwise weak-tight players will go farther in larger pots. But otherwise, preflop is the only time you're going to get money from the weak-tight anyway, and the cap helps you win.

The problem about doing this against more aggressive players is that you pay too much for the deception. You're going to be taking the worst of it too often and you're not going to be able to knock an aggressive opponent off a better hand easily. It's better in this case to give up some equity preflop when you are uber-strong.

But don't get too carried away with this. Failing to cap in a 5-way pot with a strong hand gives up way too much equity for the deception value you receive in return.

[cpk]

[ QUOTE ]
If he's a weak/tight player and he peels a drawless flop after you 3-bet preflop, you shouldn't be firing another barrel with QJ unimproved. Even on a drawy flop that's an iffy proposition. That's part of Bryce's point...it's a lot easier to dump QJ in this situation than it is A4, and a lot easier to get paid off when you do make top pair or better with QJ than with A4.

[/ QUOTE ]

I should clarify that of course I am not saying that you should fire three barrels unimproved with QJ UI. What I'm saying is that you will often win UI with A4 if your opponent was on a draw. If your opponent is weak-tight, you'll not have to pay any more to find out. A weak-tight opponent will not bet a river that UI A4 can't beat. Better opponents sometimes will.

Often you will have to fire twice. There's are several regulars in my 12/24 game that are so weak post-flop that I can 3-bet isolate them and just fire twice--usually they give up--if they don't, then my weak Aces sometimes have showdown value.

This is why I dispute that QJ is "better" than A4 in this situation. I think they're about equal. QJ makes more when I make a hand, A4 makes more when I don't.

[OpenWheel]

[ QUOTE ]


Well, I'll be dipped in [censored]. QJo is better than A4o against a random hand. A4o is better against a top-20% hand. The difference between the two in either situation is negligible. Neither is good enough against the tighter stealing range that you should be playing it HU, much less 3-betting it, but clearly if you're going to 3-bet one you should also 3-bet the other.



[/ QUOTE ]

I don't understand this. There's 3 1/2 small bets in the pot if the button raises and you have 41% equity going to showdown with your hands. I understand it's out of position but the player was described as weak tight. Isn't there enough of a possibility that they'll fold on a resteal raise? The odds you're getting would be 3 1/2 to 2 1/2 or 7 to 5, which is 41%. So it seems like almost an automatic reraise to me. Maybe not if the opponent is tough but in many cases.

I don't know how much I agree with the scenarios laid out in the original post but when I reraise the blind steal I am thinking "this may be tough to play" if I have A4 and thinking "I'll have a good idea of when to give this up" if I have QJ.

Unfortunately it doesn't always work out that way and I lose big chips by the Q being dominated, but it's still my general feeling in that situation.