how do they do it

[Guy McSucker]

[ QUOTE ]

calling down is only better if he's going to either call the 3-bet and donk bluff the river or 4-bet bluff the turn. i expected a 30/10/1 player to do neither of these but to c/r that turn scare card at some frequency. so 3-bet for a free showdown - he may even fold a better hand. not hard to understand really.


[/ QUOTE ]

I think Miles is right here. If he's not going to bluff again after Miles's threebet, the threebet is better than a calldown because the same number of bets go in but we protect our hand on the turn. I never thought of this before. Who had the nerve to call this a low-content thread? First time I've learnt something in weeks...

Also, although I think it is rare that a better hand will fold, I think it's significantly more common than getting bluffed again, and I think that's an EV win too.

Guy.

[Bruce D]

Miles, today I played a hand that went like this, One open limper, btn calls, sb fold, I in bb raise with AK, limper calls, btn 3bets, I cap, limper calls, btn calls. Flop comes KAK. I bet, limper calls, btn raises, I 3bet, sb folds, btn caps. next two streets get capped. He flips over AA. I have never seen someone l/rr with AA with someone already open limping. In retrospect, I played it badly, but I think he did too. If I should have put him on AA, he should have put me on KK, although there are more combos of AK than KK.

[Guy McSucker]

[ QUOTE ]

If I should have put him on AA, he should have put me on KK, although there are more combos of AK than KK.


[/ QUOTE ]

Not saying you should have put him on AA, but what did you in fact put him on while you were busily capping the river?

Guy.

[TheWunderkind]

lol i think that he thinks he made a genius play

[Romulet]

Don't fold HU

[Bruce D]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

If I should have put him on AA, he should have put me on KK, although there are more combos of AK than KK.


[/ QUOTE ]

Not saying you should have put him on AA, but what did you in fact put him on while you were busily capping the river?

Guy.

[/ QUOTE ]

I put him on KQs after the flop action. Like I said, who in their mind lrr with a caller already? No way on the flop I was putting him on AA.

I didn't think at all during the hand until it was too late after I hit the 3bet on the river. Of course I had to call the cap. I realized after my action, before seeing his hand that it was a clear mistake given the turn action.

zomg I had a full house. [img]/images/graemlins/blush.gif[/img]

[Entity]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
That last AK hand is truly awful. Why not just call down? You had to be on tilt, right? I'm not saying call down is the best default play but it's much better than 3-betting.

[/ QUOTE ]
not on tilt at all.

calling down is only better if he's going to either call the 3-bet and donk bluff the river or 4-bet bluff the turn. i expected a 30/10/1 player to do neither of these but to c/r that turn scare card at some frequency. so 3-bet for a free showdown - he may even fold a better hand. not hard to understand really.

[/ QUOTE ]

"Calling down is only better if he'll donk-bluff the river."

Actually, if you're just calling down, he's only bluffing the river, not donk-bluffing it. Donk-bluffing requires you to 3bet which is what allowed you to be outplayed (albeit, by a donk) in the first place. If you think he has a range that's comprised of draws enough for you to 3bet the turn, then that means that his bluffing frequency if you just call will have to be less than ~70% of the time (on average he'll have about 30% equity here when he's drawing, I think). In general I've found that they bluff the river all the time when you indiscriminately call down, but you don't even need them to bluff much more than 70% of the time for you to break even if they never 4bet bluff the turn or donkbet bluff the river, and you need them to bluff the river even less often when they have the ability to do that as you forego what is now quite a large pot when you allow them to bluff you via the 4bet or donkbet (i.e. folding the best hand once you 3bet is such a catastrophic error that you should be incredibly careful with limited reads).

You won't get better hands to fold on this board so there's even less upside there.

Quite a long post for nothing really revolutionary. If you want me to look over a session of yours, make a video of yourself playing and I'll do a full audio commentary on it if it's ok if I post it on DeucesCracked. LMK.

Rob

[Guy McSucker]

[ QUOTE ]

"Calling down is only better if he'll donk-bluff the river."

Actually, if you're just calling down, he's only bluffing the river, not donk-bluffing it. Donk-bluffing requires you to 3bet which is what allowed you to be outplayed (albeit, by a donk) in the first place.


[/ QUOTE ]

You know this but... Miles is saying that, unless opponent is capable of either the turn 4-bet (semi)bluff or river donkbluff, a calldown is the same as threebetting and folding to further action. So "donk-bluff" is correct in Miles's sentence above.

Guy.

[Heisenb3rg]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
That last AK hand is truly awful. Why not just call down? You had to be on tilt, right? I'm not saying call down is the best default play but it's much better than 3-betting.

[/ QUOTE ]
not on tilt at all.

calling down is only better if he's going to either call the 3-bet and donk bluff the river or 4-bet bluff the turn. i expected a 30/10/1 player to do neither of these but to c/r that turn scare card at some frequency. so 3-bet for a free showdown - he may even fold a better hand. not hard to understand really.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you going to bet if you hit an A or a K?
Do you think if he's bluffing that he wont fire through on the river?
Do you think a 30/10/1 does this with a pair and doesnt call down?

IMO it's incorrect to bet an A or K river, will always get a river bluff and will never fold a pair. However I would also think that that he would almost never donk bluff river after being 3 bet or 4bet bluff... So the two lines should run pretty close in expectation, but I see no reason to expose yourself to make an incorrrect fold in a huge pot (fundamental sense) if it's not clearly a +EV play over another. Certaintly not awful though.
Sucks the worst possible scenario occured though and stayed true to the theme of the thread.

Am I the only one who's looking forward to gehrig's 1000BB downswing sometime soon to shut him up about variance? [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]
Just kidding gehrig, although blunt and arrogant at times, your advice is often solid.

[Entity]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

"Calling down is only better if he'll donk-bluff the river."

Actually, if you're just calling down, he's only bluffing the river, not donk-bluffing it. Donk-bluffing requires you to 3bet which is what allowed you to be outplayed (albeit, by a donk) in the first place.


[/ QUOTE ]

You know this but... Miles is saying that, unless opponent is capable of either the turn 4-bet (semi)bluff or river donkbluff, a calldown is the same as threebetting and folding to further action. So "donk-bluff" is correct in Miles's sentence above.

Guy.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah I think I misquoted/misinterpreted him. Regardless, calling down is better if any of the following conditions are met:

1) His opponent will ever 4bet bluff the turn.
2) His opponent will ever donkbet bluff a non-improving river (i.e. donkbet Q etc).
3) His opponent will bluff the river ~70% of the time UI.

If any of these is true then it's much better to calldown. Most importantly if #1 or #2 are met even a miniscule portion of the time (#1 is the worst) then calling down is significantly better.

It's actually a really horrible spot for a FSD 3bet with AKo because the conditions have to be so perfect, and in a game of incomplete information they rarely will meet up in such a fashion. If your opponent is the sort to checkraise the turn with a drawing hand (the only condition where 3betting has a chance of being correct), then it's very very very rare that all 3 of the conditions above will not be met in some fashion.

Rob