Balancing Flop Caps

[One Outer]

I just want to say that I feel extremely lucky to have elindauer as part of the forum. Thank you.

[James.]

thanks for the feedback eric.

also, thanks for correcting some points that i left unclear or stated in error. my plan for this post was to come up with a range from a game theory POV. after that i wanted to come up with adjustments to the range based on certain player tendencies(in other words how to exploit certain mistakes made by opponents and how to adjust our range in relation to this).

since you've shown some interest, would you mind sharing your "default" capping range in this situation?

[elindauer]

Hi James,

Very interesting post. I think that this kind of discussion will really help people to understand the game. Oddly enough, once they understand this, they'll then choose to (often) make the exact same exploitative / exploitable plays they are currently making... so what's the point?

Well, the point is, there's a big different between playing exploitively and knowing it (and why), and just thinking you are making the default play. When you are playing exploitively and know it, you'll also know when the mistake you are trying to exploit isn't there... basically, you have learned how to play against tough players, a very handy skill for moving up in limits.


ok, back to your post. I think you are generally on the right track, but want to point out a few things:

[ QUOTE ]
so what we're really shooting for here is a default range against a typical player. it's a range that should have components that serve more than just one purpose.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't really think this is true. Against a typical player, you may very well want to use an exploitable strategy that only includes big made hands and huge draws raised for value.

What you are really looking for is the strategy you would play if you knew your opponents knew what you were doing, and would adjust to it perfectly. THAT is the "default" play, even though you may never play that range in a real game!

[ QUOTE ]
since poker is a struggle for calculated deception...

...the smallest portion of your flop capping range is going to consist of pure bluffs. it should be very small proportionately and only be done for fairly specific reasons...

[/ QUOTE ]

In this paragraph, you seem to bounce back and forth between trying to find the "default", game-theory-optimal hand range, and trying to find the best hand range to actually play in your game.

Start by finding the game theory optimal play. Then adjust that range to take advantage of exploitable player tendencies. In the game theory optimal solution, you will never "feel your opponent is on a draw", so this argument is moot. This is excellent practical advice, just not relevent to the conversation we should be having.

[ QUOTE ]
this allows you an edge that exploits their play while also working to keep yourself from being exploited in return. these mistakes are the root of our profit in hold em.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think this paragraph is highly misleading. Playing an optimal range doesn't induce mistakes. In fact, your entire goal is to make your opponent indifferent to calling / folding / raising! If it doesn't matter what your opponent does, then you must be playing a 0 EV game (in fact, a losing game after you consider rake).

Now, it's true that your opponent CAN still lose to you. He could fail to raise the nuts in position on the river. Generally, these mistakes would break down to serious misjudgments about the range of cards you are playing.

Generally though, playing the "default" game will result in you and your opponents pushing the money around due to variance.

The way you make money in poker is to judiciously ignore the default play, picking a different range from the one you would play if your opponent played perfectly. You are in turn playing a game which can be exploited, but you are banking on the fact that your opponent won't realize this, and will continue to allow you to take advantage of him.

Good players do realize these things. Sometimes, even bad players figure things out. Hell, they may just go on tilt and accidentally start playing a game that exploits you. THAT is why you want to know the default play... it forces you to have a reason to deviate, and it gives you a baseline to deviate from. You can choose to deviate just a little, or a lot, depending on the strength of your read and the profit you dare to gain / risk.

good luck.
Eric

[KitCloudkicker]

i would cap with the ranges given my OneOuter et al. dont forget As3s too guys - thats an easy cap as well.

however, i would also cap with naked flush draws, OESD's, and gutshot+overcard+BDFD combo draws, but only in position. it depends on how often my opponents will give me a free card on the turn. in a live game, people get very scared when you cap the flop on them and they'll usually go ahead and give you the initiative.

multiway i wouldnt cap a gutshot+BDFD+overcard draw or an OESD (dirtier overs) but often will cap a FD. again it depends on how passive my opponents are when they are OOP vs me.

[jesse8888]

[ QUOTE ]
dont forget As3s too guys - thats an easy cap as well.


[/ QUOTE ]

I didn't forget it...I just said "maybe" I'd cap it, and thinking about it more, you're probably right.

Kit, in general do you just go to war with any sort of draw on the flop when HU, or do you need some sort of read that the player might lay it down on the turn even if you miss?

[KitCloudkicker]

[ QUOTE ]


Kit, in general do you just go to war with any sort of draw on the flop when HU

[/ QUOTE ]

depends on the player. i do it a ton in live shorthanded games, because live shorthanded players are like 95% weak/passive on big streets.

what do you mean by "any sort of draw?". if i had a hand like AKo i usually dont even raise the flop...

[KitCloudkicker]

[ QUOTE ]
do you need some sort of read that the player might lay it down on the turn even if you miss?

[/ QUOTE ]

if he 3 balls me on the flop i pretty much assume he's going to showdown unless repeatedly proven otherwise.

[jesse8888]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
do you need some sort of read that the player might lay it down on the turn even if you miss?

[/ QUOTE ]

if he 3 balls me on the flop i pretty much assume he's going to showdown unless repeatedly proven otherwise.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's exactly the sentence I was looking for, and it's exactly the way I proceed in most hands. Thanks. By any sort of draw, I meant basically OESD and flush draws.

[elindauer]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
do you need some sort of read that the player might lay it down on the turn even if you miss?

[/ QUOTE ]

if he 3 balls me on the flop i pretty much assume he's going to showdown unless repeatedly proven otherwise.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's exactly the sentence I was looking for, and it's exactly the way I proceed in most hands. Thanks. By any sort of draw, I meant basically OESD and flush draws.

[/ QUOTE ]

What you are recognizing is a (very common) exploitable strategy that your opponent is (likely) playing.

You exploit this by:

- cap any hand that has +equity vs his 3-betting range. This is big hands, big draws.

- check the turn with draws that don't get there. hope for / take a free card.

Of course, your opponent can exploit this strategy in turn, but probably won't. If all your opponents play this way, then you don't need to know what the "right" capping range is. In that case, you've essentially said "James, who cares? Everyone is exploitable here, in the same way".

Really though, I think it's an excellent exercise to figure out the "correct" capping range, if only to start jumping your mind through the hoops of figuring this stuff out.

-eric

[James.]

Here's my range in regards to a situation when the action primarily involves a raise pf. Also, assume we have position. I'll discuss my adjustments for the other factors later(being OOP, an unraised pot, etc.)

BB bets, I raise, SB folds and BB 3bets. Here’s my range in that situation(on this board):

33(2)
99(2)
TT(2)
9T(9)
AA(3 combos b/c1/2 the time I wait for the turn)
KK(3 combos b/c 1/2 the time I wait for the turn)
QQ(1 combo b/c 2/3 the time I wait for the turn)
JJ(1 combo b/c 2/3 the time I wait for the turn)
QsJs, QhJh(2)
KsQs, KhQh(2)
AhKh(1)
AhQh(1)
Asxs(10)
7s8s(1)
7h8h(1)
KsJs(1)

Made Hands
23
Drawing Hands
19

Notice how close the drawing hands are to the made hands(combo wise). For balance and deception purposes I tend to try to keep this number sort of close.

You might notice that I’m not capping some 78 and QJ hands. It’s because I wait for the turn to semibluff these 4 combinations.

I’m going off on a tangent here, but let me explain why I don’t cap the flop with these hands and why I wait for the turn with some other pair hands(noted above). First, notice I’ve done some combination discounting because there are a certain % of one pair hands I wait for the turn to raise. It’s a semi-common strategy I employ and I have a couple reasons for doing this.

Most commonly, it’s on very drawy boards(particularly in HU pots). I don’t do it solely in an effort to gain value, as usually the best way to build a pot is jam the flop(although charging the draws an extra sb certainly plays a bit of a factor).

I wait more often with some hands whose equity might change the when the turn comes good or bad(referring to primarily QQ and JJ in this instance). This is particularly the case when a draw or weakish top pair hand is a very significant portion of my opponent’s range. There is a reason for this and I’ll get back to it in a minute. Of course, if I only waited with fairly vulnerable hands it would be easy to counter strategically so I mix in AA and KK as well(to account for these I’ve taken the simplistic approach and discounted according to the frequency: wait for the turn with AA ½ the time so (.5*6combos)). The primary reason, however, for waiting for the turn is to increase the effectiveness/balance of my turn semibluff raises. If I only waited for the turn with made hands, this could be easily countered(exploited) by simply bet/folding the made hands that don’t fair well against my range of made holdings.

So there’s 16 combinations of made hands I raise on the turn, and to balance this I semibluff raise the turn a portion of the time. I often use the average pot size as the primary function in determining what combinations of drawing hands I will wait and raise on the turn(feel free to jump in if you don’t think this is correct). According to my OP there should be about 6sb in the pot on the flop. After 3 bets go in two ways on the flop that makes it 6bb+1bb(villain’s turn lead) for a total of 7bb in the pot. When I raise it makes the pot 9bb and it indicates to my opponent that he will need to put in 2 more bb to call me down. This gives him effectively 4.5-1. My goal is to semibluff about once in 5 times so he’s just short of the price he would need on a calldown. So this means about 20% of the range of hands I might wait for the turn will be semibluffs. This is effectively 4 combos added to the 16 combos of made hands raising the turn. This is where those omitted combinations(7d8d, 7c8c, QcJc, QdJd) come in to play. It’s 4 combos that should be about right for the range as I’ve tried to show above.

I apologize it’s taken me so long to respond to this post. I also apologize my response was so longwinded. I wanted to get as much conversation going as possible prior to giving my range. Now maybe elindauer can come in and blow it up showing me where I’m completely wrong. [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]