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

[wallenborn]

[ QUOTE ]
[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img]3. Hand # 7 in fundamentals in practice. I FINALLY found where this was in the book! “You might delay a round if a large # of cards could ruin your hand, provided you could still get all in on the turn or river. In this hand, only a few cards were really bad, so reraising the flop was the right idea.”

OK. This is a concept I know has caused a lot of confusion in quite a few posts I’ve seen. It reminds me very much of SSHE concept of waiting for the turn to raise confusion that happened a # of years ago. At any rate, I posted this hand a couple weeks ago . Where I was trying to apply this concept.

[/ QUOTE ]


Hm, that's interesting. I'm not sure your play was that bad, although i liked the twenty-ninth president's advice to raise so that one caller leaves a pot sized bet behind, giving you some room to maneuver, better. But on the other hand, if we knew what they actually had, we'd want to get all-in on the flop. right?

Let's try to make a list. Delaying the bet might be good if your opponents

[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] are likely to outdraw you,
[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] are likely to call on a blank turn, but unlikely to call two bets on flop and blank turn,
[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] are more likely to call on a blank turn, than you are to call on a scary turn,
[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] have made hands bigger than yours often,
[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] they are likely to bluff a blank turn.

ad 1: you can't be afraid of a longshot draw. If villain draws to three outs, our equity edge in every dollar that enters the pot is so big that you can't afford not to bet for value.
ad 2: This includes cases where the stacks are short enough that one bet means an all-in. If villain is unable to lay down a draw on the turn, you might as well put him all-in then.
ad 3: This is crucial: you have to be able to see when you're beat, and deep enough to lay your hand down. On a 3-straight, 2-flush board that can be hard. If the turn in your hand is the 4[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img], completing one of the draws, do you lay it down to the flush, or do you bet to keep the straight draw from hitting.?On this flop, if you delay, every draw becomes a 15-outer.
ad 4: Obviously, one of the two opponents in your hand could already have a straight. Then you are the guy who is drawing.
ad 5: I've stacked quite a few villains recently who riverbluffed their missed draws. Normally you want drawing hands to pay you off before they know whether they hit or not, but if they pay you off anyway...


In your hand, 1. applies, 2. probably doesn't since you are pretty deep if you flat call, with shorter stacks maybe yes, 3. doesn't since you can't really see when you're behind, 4. is unlikely, but possible, and i don't know about 5. So, i like a raise more than a call in this case.

For hand #7 from the book, several of the conditions apply, but the first doesn't. But add a flush draw to the hand, and you might be better off waiting for a safe turn to bet. In PLO, this would actually be a pretty common play.

[Sunny Mehta]

Hi QTip,

Not neglecting this thread - I guess it's just been a busy week for both Matt and me.

1. I agree with your fifth factor.

2. Lots of reasons why deep stacks make position important. In a nutshell, think of SPR. With deep stacks you tend to be playing higher SPRs more often. That benefits position (among other things). Check out the blurb at the top of page 199.

3. I think (from your analysis) that you understand the situation well. As far as when to wait and when to push, it comes down to the usual stuff - REM and SPR. When you have more equity against your opponents' ranges and a lower SPR, lean towards committing (think middle set with SPR 7). When you have less equity and a higher SPR, lean towards waiting (think bottom two with SPR 30).

4. You're saying because his rr range would be wider in that situation? Eh, I see the slight difference, though I'm not sure it should change your decision all that much. Point is - it's a nasty spot. Bad SPR, offsuit big card hand, out of position heads up against a good player - not a good situation to be in. Maybe it could be profitable if you really know your opponent's postflop betting tendencies well, but all in all I think folding's the play.

[QTip]

[ QUOTE ]
4. You're saying because his rr range would be wider in that situation? Eh, I see the slight difference, though I'm not sure it should change your decision all that much. Point is - it's a nasty spot. Bad SPR, offsuit big card hand, out of position heads up against a good player - not a good situation to be in. Maybe it could be profitable if you really know your opponent's postflop betting tendencies well, but all in all I think folding's the play.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thx for the responses on all those. I want to ask one more thing on #4 here...not to beat it to death. But, let's say that you limped AQo in EP, and this good player in the co raises to 4x after it folded to him, are you playing it now?

[Gelford]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
4. You're saying because his rr range would be wider in that situation? Eh, I see the slight difference, though I'm not sure it should change your decision all that much. Point is - it's a nasty spot. Bad SPR, offsuit big card hand, out of position heads up against a good player - not a good situation to be in. Maybe it could be profitable if you really know your opponent's postflop betting tendencies well, but all in all I think folding's the play.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thx for the responses on all those. I want to ask one more thing on #4 here...not to beat it to death. But, let's say that you limped AQo in EP, and this good player in the co raises to 4x after it folded to him, are you playing it now?

[/ QUOTE ]


Or let us say you on purpose limp AQo because you have a 'good' player (ei a 2+2 bot intent on punishing the limpers, or just to play raised pots in position, so he's range is wide as is yours) ... expecting a raise in lp with the intentention of calling and figthing hard for it post flop, is that suicide ? (AQ might be strong enough to limp reraise, but I'm ignoring limp reraising here)

[QTip]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
4. You're saying because his rr range would be wider in that situation? Eh, I see the slight difference, though I'm not sure it should change your decision all that much. Point is - it's a nasty spot. Bad SPR, offsuit big card hand, out of position heads up against a good player - not a good situation to be in. Maybe it could be profitable if you really know your opponent's postflop betting tendencies well, but all in all I think folding's the play.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thx for the responses on all those. I want to ask one more thing on #4 here...not to beat it to death. But, let's say that you limped AQo in EP, and this good player in the co raises to 4x after it folded to him, are you playing it now?

[/ QUOTE ]


Or let us say you on purpose limp AQo because you have a 'good' player (ei a 2+2 bot intent on punishing the limpers, or just to play raised pots in position, so he's range is wide as is yours) ... expecting a raise in lp with the intentention of calling and figthing hard for it post flop, is that suicide ? (AQ might be strong enough to limp reraise, but I'm ignoring limp reraising here)

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, you're getting to what I'm after here. It kinda sucks no matter how we look at this too. If we call his raise, we have a 13spr (given 100 stacks) oop against a good player. However, if we're folding to his raise here, he can just abuse the crap out of us. I'm starting to hate AQ oop with 100 stacks.

I also had a short conversation with a good player not too long ago about how the button should handle AK if the EP player will fold AQ, AJ, KQ type hands to our raise. I think it's an interesting thought process.

I don't know here...I feel like I'm in a gerbil wheel on this topic.

[Sunny Mehta]

QTip,

I think there are some creative ways you can handle the conundrum you and Gelford are talking about. To answer your question about if you limp and button makes it 4x, I would call in that spot in the book example because in our example the effective stack is 200bb. But I assume you guys are talking more about in a typical capped 100bb setting.

You have a few options. Folding is one of them, but I see what you're saying about wanting to exploit a loose-raising button. Some of it depends on how the button will play postflop. If he'll get overly crazy on c-betting, three-barrel bluffing, etc., you can call pf (even though you'll have an awkward SPR) with the plan of being profitable by taking certain passive postflop lines to let him hang himself. But if he's smart postflop - i.e. - applies just enough pressure without hanging himself, you can think about some other options. What will he do if you open with a min-raise? Will he 3-bet with the same range he'd raise with? Will he tend to call instead? (Either way is better for you SPR-wise.) What if you limp min-reraise him? He'll almost never fold any portion of his opening range, and you'll have a better SPR, plus initiative.

-S

[Sunny Mehta]

oh, one more thing QTip....

If button is passive or predictable postflop, the middle SPR might not be so bad. I.e. - if he won't bet worse hands very often postflop, you might be able to play the hand such that you know exactly what correct decisions to make after the flop.

[Gelford]

Sunny, thx a lot, I appreciate it [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[QTip]

[ QUOTE ]
QTip,

I think there are some creative ways you can handle the conundrum you and Gelford are talking about. To answer your question about if you limp and button makes it 4x, I would call in that spot in the book example because in our example the effective stack is 200bb. But I assume you guys are talking more about in a typical capped 100bb setting.

You have a few options. Folding is one of them, but I see what you're saying about wanting to exploit a loose-raising button. Some of it depends on how the button will play postflop. If he'll get overly crazy on c-betting, three-barrel bluffing, etc., you can call pf (even though you'll have an awkward SPR) with the plan of being profitable by taking certain passive postflop lines to let him hang himself. But if he's smart postflop - i.e. - applies just enough pressure without hanging himself, you can think about some other options. What will he do if you open with a min-raise? Will he 3-bet with the same range he'd raise with? Will he tend to call instead? (Either way is better for you SPR-wise.) What if you limp min-reraise him? He'll almost never fold any portion of his opening range, and you'll have a better SPR, plus initiative.

-S

[/ QUOTE ]

Thx Sunny. I'm trying to incorporate these things into my game. However, trying to create sprs oop seems to be an almost impossible task....we'll probably get into that more in sessions to come.

[karaburac]

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?