PNL Study Group Day 6: Position/Hand Reading/FIP

[Matt Flynn]

[ QUOTE ]
hi guys, first of all i really enjoy reading this book, and i must say i learn a lot from it. up till now i do understand points made in the book, however there is one point that i have a problem with. on the page 88 when talking about hand nr 3. i do understand the idea of not going all in but i dont understand the point made about winning chances.
"But your winning chances are roughly 6-to-4 or 1.5-to-1"
i dont understand this, based on what are my chances 6-to-4?

[/ QUOTE ]


the hand estimates that you have 10 outs, yielding about a 40% chance of winning. 60% goes to your opponents, so 60-to-40, which is 6-to-4 or 1.5-to-1.

[karaburac]

thanks for taking time to answer my question, however i still dont get it, i think. You say there are 10 outs, there are 47 cards left, our odds are 4,7-to-1, right? So, i still dont see where should i take 40% from. I am sorry if i ask a basic question, but i really think this is important part to understand, thanks

[Ranma4703]

Rule of 4: with two cards to come, multiply your number of outs by 4%.

[Lawman]

Might be a stupid question but I am a NL noob so bear with me:

Hand no. 2 on page 87 you discuss what to do with a small stack relative to the pot (raise all in) and say this would be a bad move with a much bigger stack. So far so good.

My question is what to do in the big stack scenario? Presumably you just call to keep the pot small and because a smaller than all in raise may just result in a reraise so you end up folding or committed anyway. In fact is this an example of what can happen with poor planning (i.e. I've got a good hand so I think I ought to raise at least a little bit and then wham you're faced with an all in reraise).

[Skuzzy]

[ QUOTE ]
You say there are 10 outs, there are 47 cards left, our odds are 4,7-to-1, right?

[/ QUOTE ]

No. 37:10 so 3.7:1. Taking half of this because we have this chance twice with two streets to come gives about 1.8:1 or 36% equity as an estimation.

The rule of 2/4 was used in the example which gives 4 x number of outs = 40% again as an approximation.

[afadeyi]

[ QUOTE ]
Here is a scenario where I find myself stacking off all too often but especially OOP, and that's hitting trips on a connected flop with multiple players (3+). In this paticular situation it's the first hand I'm dealt so I have no table reads. When flopping a strong hand on a coordinated flop, how much does being OOP devalue the hand or is this simply a situation in which a lot of money is going to be lost when behind or someone catches up regardless?

I've been trying to keep the pot small becuase I've been burned many times with these flops but I feel like I am now playing them too weakly and try to justify it by saying to myself, "it will set up slow plays in later hands," but I know at micro that's usually wishful thinking.


Full Tilt Poker
No Limit Holdem Ring game
Blinds: $0.05/$0.10
6 players
Converter

Stack sizes:
UTG: $16.20
UTG+1: $10.20
CO: $9.85
Button: $14.35
SB: $9.20
Hero: $10

Pre-flop: (6 players) Hero is BB with 7[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] K[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img]
UTG calls, 2 folds, Button calls, SB calls, Hero checks.

Flop: K[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img] K[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] Q[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] ($0.4, 4 players)

[/ QUOTE ]


I usually make a commitment decision here based on what type of player they are...good v bad? tight versus loose?

[BobboFitos]

Posted this in SSNL, was not sure where it belonged, Sunny asked me to crosspost this, so here goes:

[ QUOTE ]

I thought the book was tremendous - Finally got a copy/able to read it, so am happy I did so. Matt Flynn is also a friend of mine, so this post is by NO MEANS a criticism of him or the book. That said, I found issue with some of the hand examples, and figured i'd post them here, and get the ball rolling: (If this was done already in another forum, so be it, figured SSNL was the most appropriate)

This quiz takes place on Pg. 87

hand 2, 50bbs you have 66. you call a 3xbb raise and flop 7 5 4r. the authors say the best play is to shove, but in actuality the best play is to call and call all in on the turn. generally shoving wont have any pos play, except getting all in with 56 or 64 (which is rare) - these hands typically will get all in on the turn anyway. given those odds it's very rare (and generally impossible) to make villain fold a better hand (7x or overpair) therefore inducing the 2nd barrel shove is much better. even though you typically cede 25% ish pot equity to overcards (or for the 61 dollar pot, thats 15ish$) inducing a 2nd barrel has mroe value. this is one of those spots where you're committed but lack any true folding equity; if you had a hand like 96o, where you would gain from making villain fold ace high (also, you cant profitably call all in on the turn if it blanks!) then the proper move is to shove on the flop.

for hand 3, with the 6s again, facing a tight players raise, i agree that fold is the correct move, but the authors are missing two key elements of the hand. the first is that even a straightforward player here will have a semibluff of his own often; and since you have 2 6s, this points towards clubs. getting all in on essentially a flip with the dead money of the pfr and preflop is really not bad. the second is that you are NEVER in bad shape; this player just wont have a straight EVER (very few 6s in the deck, and the only reasonable 68s hand he could play has 2 combos) and since your set draw is live against 2 of the three sets, this is typically a slightly behind/chop syndrom with overlay, which means the decision to shove (even if they never fold, which is fine) is much closer then it appears. (and if i was in a gambly mood, i'd gun it in)

hand 4 (page 89 now) the authors have another option which is what i'd do largely. (Id bump it up preflop quite frequently) but that is to underbet the pot on the flop. basically, encourage all gutshots to come along as well as midpair or whatnot. the check because you pick up outs (just an obvious gutshot) typically wont be enough to warrant giving the freebie (or TAKING the freebie) vs. taking the pot down... I'd generally bet there.

in hand 5 vs the wild player, the best play is to installment plan. the authors suggest betting 150 itno 183 or moving in (260 behind). betting 150 puts 483 and 110 behind, but may lose your customer on the turn; betting half pot (say, 90) creates 360ish pot with 170 behind, which typically accomplishes the task alot better.

hand 6 it's too premature to pot control in a 4way pot on the flop. the best play is to bet and generally fold if button raises, since he is the one who needs to worry about the people to act (esp. the small stack) who will certainly commit with many holdings (therefore making it unlikely you just got bluffraised) it's very rare to create a scenario where not cbetting is better then cbetting here.

hand 10 is too simplistic (AQo facing a reraise with position) in a live full ring game i'd lean more towards folding, but online, shorthanded, etc. you're giving up a little bit by folding. another option as well is to 4bet/fold to shove.

[/ QUOTE ]

[Sunny Mehta]

Hi Bobbo,

Okay...


Hand 2: You make good points, and perhaps if the value of getting that second barrel was high (i.e. - your opponent's range was light and he was a known spewer when you let him, etc.) your line might be better. Although, that should also be countered by the fact that there are hands which he might call with now but fold later. i.e. - if he'll fold a pair on the turn if a one-card straight card comes, or if he'll call on the flop with overcards but fold the turn, etc.

Hand 3: I discussed this hand in detail in another thread - here's what said there:

[ QUOTE ]
If we actually assign these players ranges, hero probably has even less equity than we give credit for in the example!

First off, AP's range is way wider than AA/KK/AcKc. He's aggressive, and most of the time his flop bet is just a c-bet. I think it's far too optimistic to think that he's gonna stick his chips in with anything but a very strong hand after he bets the flop, gets raised by a tight player, and then sees an all-in from hero after that. What do you estimate is the probability that AP has a hand he's willing to commit to? It's pretty low.

Secondly, tight player's range alone is scary. If he has any pocket pair from jacks down to fours, hero is actually about a 2-to-1 dog against that range. Then even if you add in the fact that hero will get 2-to-1 on his money when (and that "when" is rare) AP comes along, the problem is that by adding AP's [strong] range into the equation hero's equity actually ends up being more like 25 percent (3-to-1).

Hero's draw is a weak non-nut straight draw on a flush draw board, his SPR is in the double digits, there's a bet and a raise in front of him, and he has zero f-equity. This is a fold.


[/ QUOTE ]


Hand 4: I like your line. Perhaps a bit advanced for that point in the book though. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

Hand 5: Again, your line has merit. The only thing I don't like about the installment plan in this scenario is that the board is SO draw heavy. He's likely to have hands that will call now but fold later (without improvement) as opposed to slightly weaker made hands that are calling regardless.

Hand 6: I don't think we give a "definitive" answer on this hand because, as we mention, you have a few different options here. Not sure if I'd *always* bet here, but I do see your point.

Hand 10: Not sure if you misread or if I am misunderstanding you, but note that we do NOT have position in this hand. I agree that perhaps against certain wily players I might 4-bet, but for the most part I'd fold here a lot.

Thanks for the great comments. Glad you liked the book - can't wait for you to read Volume Two.

-S

[BobboFitos]

Sunny - thx for responding [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[ QUOTE ]
i.e. - if he'll fold a pair on the turn if a one-card straight card comes, or if he'll call on the flop with overcards but fold the turn, etc.

[/ QUOTE ]

You really think anyone in their right mind will bet/call with say KQ on the flop? Obviously if you can push 6s there for that much value, that's the clear plan, but normally 6s have THIN value (although certainly some) but technically win the pot when you already had the best hand. Again, you have to worry about fading a ~6 outer, but villain only has to bluff a small % to make up for it. About them folding to a scarecard; the flop has 2 clubs, if they're not going broke on a 4card straight, doesnt this mean they shell up a lot of turns? IE, an ace if they actually have the overpair, or a club if they have the overpair, etc. etc. again it's somewhat nitpicky of me, but you make alot of money encouraging bluffs in spots where you have both a made hand AND a draw, and are not folding. (So you can fall back on the made hand potential of your draw)

About hand 3, you're right, and I did say I think you guys hit the right move, but it's somewhat important to stress it's close. I feel it is anyway!

[ QUOTE ]

Hand 4: I like your line. Perhaps a bit advanced for that point in the book though.

[/ QUOTE ]
Thanks

[ QUOTE ]

Hand 5: Again, your line has merit. The only thing I don't like about the installment plan in this scenario is that the board is SO draw heavy. He's likely to have hands that will call now but fold later (without improvement) as opposed to slightly weaker made hands that are calling regardless.

[/ QUOTE ]
I'll have to recheck the book, but I seemed to recall it was a fairly dry ace high board? I'll check this and bow out [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[ QUOTE ]

Hand 6: I don't think we give a "definitive" answer on this hand because, as we mention, you have a few different options here. Not sure if I'd *always* bet here, but I do see your point.

[/ QUOTE ]
I think it was left vague, and clearly DID demonstrate that the right play changes based on who exactly will play on, but the thing is... There's only one way to find out who wants to play ball on the flop, and that's to bet!

[ QUOTE ]

Hand 10: Not sure if you misread or if I am misunderstanding you, but note that we do NOT have position in this hand. I agree that perhaps against certain wily players I might 4-bet, but for the most part I'd fold here a lot.

[/ QUOTE ]
This speaks in volumes to spr, but the less the ratio, the less relevant position becomes. Thus, in a 3bet pot the fact (to play or not to play AQo) we don't have position is not as important. There's actually a thread going on right now in MSNL about this, I'll link it: It starts with a poll
The consensus is not clear, and of course it's tricky about "what to do." I do know that if I'm opening X% of hands, and folding Y% (including AQo) to a 3bet there, people make money with ATC. This encourages 3betting, and for my game this is a nightmare. I don't like getting 3bet, mainly because my profit comes from people not adjusting correctly to my LAG game (calling too much and giving me too much credit postflop). The more you fold to 3bets, typically the more you should be 3bet. That argument in a vacuum is terrible to use to say you "need" to defend with AQo, but it meshes with the rest of my range there (I do need to defend "X%" to discourage people outplaying my loose opens by in turn upping the preflop price, so to speak)

Really, there is little shame in calling and taking a flop, alot of people fear "losing a big pot with TPTK to an overpair," but this parlay is TINY. Something to add is very few people will even push a bigger 1 pair hard against you because such a small % of your range can really be taken "to valuetown". ie. the board comes Axx, you really think AK 200bbs will always stack you? They will against me if they fastplay, but they may be mistaken since only a small % of my range that "gets stacked" is behind AK. Likewise, Qxx vs KK/AA.

I don't mean to digress, and this is for another article/a chapter/post, but "avoiding the doomsday scenario" happens alot in NLH and frankly people are wrong to avoid them. Yes, sometimes you run against a hand that has you in a bind (or a position) but the % it happens (and you lose your stack) in essence is a low number...

Also, Sunny, can't wait for volume 2, perhaps I'll get an advanced copy.... [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[Sunny Mehta]

[ QUOTE ]
"avoiding the doomsday scenario" happens alot in NLH and frankly people are wrong to avoid them. Yes, sometimes you run against a hand that has you in a bind (or a position) but the % it happens (and you lose your stack) in essence is a low number...


[/ QUOTE ]

totally TOTALLY agree with this....I was just having a very similar discussion the other day with Cero about just this thing, and the position I took was right in line with your camp....I am writing a section on 3-betting in Volume Two that will hit on all of this - I'm actually in the process right now of trying to get some hardcore math to back up a lot of my intuitions - it's a complicated decision tree though....

thanks again for all the great comments...

[img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]



EDIT: One thing I do think needs to be mentioned in this discussion though Bobbo is that there is a difference (even if it's not necessarily enough to change your plan in this particular hand) between a 3-bet pot with 100bb stacks and a 3-bet pot with 200bb stacks - purely due to the ratios.