New to this 6-max thing, no peel right

[Oink]

[ QUOTE ]
which one of those cards I mentioned is a random rag?

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh wait, a 2, 4 and 5 doesnt give Hero a gutshot. My bad I am folding those turns.


[ QUOTE ]
would you also peel if villain was 40/22 over a large sample?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes. And I would see more SD's

[istewart]

This guy is 34/30/3. It is a small sample, but I don't think he ever slows down if we just call the flop and turn. The random rags I was referring to were a 2, 3, 4, 5, etc.

[rzk]

i asked about a 40/22 guy because that's who our villain will often turn out to be after a sufficient number of hands. or something like 32/22.

so back to 40/22. i would never see a showdown UI against this guy, but i'm starting to suspect that that could be stupid on my part.

what do you think his range is when he 3bets you out of BB? it's certainly much narrower than 22%, so what range do you assign him?

can we assume most of the time he'll 3 barrell us? and if he checks he'll usually want to showdown a slightly better but showdownable hand like AJ UI. most of the worse hands he can turn into bluffs. are these reasonable assumptions?

we have to invest 2.5 BB to win 5.5BB. do we have sufficient equity against his range to make this calldown?

[rzk]

i guess it's better to think about the calldown from the turn. so you are investing 2BB to win 6BB. you need 25% equity. assuming the turn is a blank, like 5d, we have:

Board: Qs 7s 3h 5d
Hand 0: 27.308% { AsTd }
Hand 1: 72.692% { 66+, A8s+, KTs+, QTs+, JTs, ATo+, KJo+ }

but if we remove KJo and JTs, we have:

Board: Qs 7s 3h 5d

Hand 0: 19.518% { AsTd }
Hand 1: 80.482% { 66+, A8s+, KTs+, QTs+, ATo+, KQo }

so which range should we use against a 40/22 or 32/22 guy when he 3bets an MP raiser from BB?

[Oink]

The thing is, that if the turn and river bricks of he is prolly not betting Ax on the river.

So try and change that turn to a 3 or 7 and take out some of the Ax hands.


This spot is close and the Q is bad for us as one of the worse hands that 3-barrels most often is KQ. Change the Q to a J and I am seeing a SD always against a vitually unknown

I suspect its close on this board


Also, since he is unknown I dont mind calling down knowing even if its slightly -EV to a) establish unbluffable image and b) see what he 3-bet with PF

[rzk]

ok, here's what i'm getting now with the modifications you suggested:

Board: Qs 7s 3h 3d

Hand 0: 14.030% { AsTd }
Hand 1: 85.970% { 66+, AQs, KTs+, QTs+, AQo, KQo }

assuming a blank river, like 2d, our equity drops to 9.333%

if we add JTs and KJo, we get:

Board: Qs 7s 3h 3d 2d
Hand 0: 24.444% { AsTd }
Hand 1: 75.556% { 66+, AQs, KTs+, QTs+, JTs, AQo, KJo+ }

we still need 25% to call down from the turn, because if he checks his Ax UI he will almost always have us beat.

so which range should we give the guy? let's assume a 40/22 guy with 500 hands for instructional purposes.

also, why would you want to set up an unbluffable image against a guy who likely bluffs too much? if he starts bluffing less, doesn't that mean that he starts playing closer to optimal? why would you want to pay EV for that?

[thepizzlefosho]

you don't want aggressive people taking shots at you, even if they bluff too much. It is much much easier to play against people who don't bluff enough if you are playing aggressive (and loosely stealing). I want people to feel like I'm going to SD down anything reasonable against them, so that when they c/r me on the turn, or 3-barrel into me I can safely fold most of my weak SDable hands. It is much easier to play against honest players than bad lags.

that is why crazy lags usually aren't that far off from correct 6max strategy. Playing a lot of hands and playing them really aggressively is not that bad of a mistake in 6max LHE.

[rzk]

do you think that by showing down Ahigh against a player who bluffs too much you'll force him not just to compensate but to overcompensate to the extend that he bluffs less than optimal?

if he was bluffing too much then he would have to start bluffing not just somewhat too little, but WAY too suboptimal for his strategy to become even less EV than his original strategy.

[thepizzlefosho]

[ QUOTE ]
do you think that by showing down Ahigh against a player who bluffs too much you'll force him not just to compensate but to overcompensate to the extend that he bluffs less than optimal?

if he was bluffing too much then he would have to start bluffing not just somewhat too little, but WAY too suboptimal for his strategy to become even less EV than his original strategy.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think if I appear unbluffable they will stop bluffing you. hence unbluffable. If I caught him bluffing this time then I will continue trying to snap off bluffs until it proves unprofitable.

ie if you don't catch him bluffing this time, or the next, then you have set up your image. But if you catch him bluffing he probably is going to stop. Then you can play straight forward against him and stop showing down light.

i think you are worrying a little too much about optimal play etc. these guys don't think that way. they just think "damn he calls me down every time, I'm not going to c/r my gutter and fire twice this time."

or they think "He caught me bluffing the last two times so this time I'll have the goods and he'll call down with Ahigh again".

I really think understanding your current table image is a big thing against aggressive lags. if you get to SD with position on them a few times you can really slow down their barreling with crap and c/r'ing with crap etc.

I should add thought that this argument doesnt necessarily mean OP should be showing down UI here, but I'm just making a commentary about aggressive players who bluff and how your table image impacts that.

[rzk]

you might have misunderstood part of my argument.

i wasn't assuming these guys think about optimal play. i just don't want them to start playing more optimally _by accident_. i think if a guy bluffs too much you should try to make plays that make him bluff even more. if he starts bluffing a little more, he's further from optimal, if he starts bluffing a little less, he's closer to optimal.

another way to think about it is: suppose you have a hand (like the one in OP) where it's -EV in a vacuum to calldown because even if he in general bluffs too much, you still don't have a profitable calldown against his current range. then i prefer not to make this -EV play. instead of trying to set up an unbluffable image at the cost of the EV on this hand, why not set up a _bluffable_ image? that way he will move even further from optimal, so you can snap off his next bluff with more confidence and with more +EV.

and another way to think about it: say you make two unprofitable calldowns just to set up an image and after waiting 5 minutes for a hand to make use of this image the guy leaves. now what?