View Plans & Pricing

If you are signed in and are seeing this message, please be sure you have selected a user name in My Profile. The forum requires it.
A A A
Search

— Forum Scope —




— Match —





— Forum Options —





Minimum search word length is 3 characters - maximum search word length is 84 characters

Topic Rating: 0 Topic Rating: 0 Topic Rating: 0 Topic Rating: 0 Topic Rating: 0 Topic Rating: 0 (0 votes) 
sp_TopicIcon
Constructing a Turn Barrel Range
DuckinDaDeck
Hunting Max EV
Sunday Major
Members
Forum Posts: 284
Member Since:
February 8, 2017
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
1
March 22, 2018 - 6:04 am
sp_Permalink sp_Print sp_EditHistory
0

PokerStars – 200/400 Ante 40 NL (6 max) – Holdem – 6 players
Hand converted by PokerTracker 4

BB: 35.43 BB
UTG: 28.58 BB
Hero (MP): 25.89 BB
CO: 58.01 BB
BTN: 32.37 BB
SB: 25.41 BB

6 players post ante of 0.1 BB, SB posts SB 0.5 BB, BB posts BB 1 BB

Pre Flop: (pot: 2.1 BB) Hero has X X

fold, Hero raises to 2.25 BB, fold, BTN calls 2.25 BB, fold, fold

 

My 25BB Hijack open range is approximately: 55+,A2s+,A9+,K9s+,KT+,Q9s+,QT+,J9s+,JT,98s,87s (288 combos – 21.7%)

Hard to narrow down villains range as he has flatted on the button 5 out of 7 times, but most of those hands had much deeper effective stacks. At this stack depth I would probably flat a range like: TT-88,AJs-A8s,AJ-AT,KQs-KTs,KQ,QJs-QTs,JTs-J9s,T9s (102 combos – 7.69%)

I think we can add a few hands to villain’s range, like: 77-66,A7s-A5s,A9,K9s,KJ,QJ,98s (170 total combos – 12.82%). His actual flatting range may be wider, so I should at least consider a bunch of suited connectors, aces and offsuit broadways when making decisions.

 

Flop: (6.6 BB, 2 players) Qdiamond 8spade 8diamond

Hero bets 1.76 BB, BTN calls 1.76 BB

 

When I’m out of position, I like making small cbets with most of my range on paired boards. I’m not advocating this approach, but its what I’ve been doing lately. I think a more nuanced plan is preferable and, considering how a typical button flatting range interacts with this board, it may be better to check very frequently, but that was not my approach in this hand. I think a good argument can also be made for betting larger as this board is nearly as wet as paired boards get.

For brevity’s sake I won’t break down every single combo, but assume I’m betting ~ 80% of hands. Any pair or better, any flushdraw, any A or K high backdoor flush, any gutshot, and about a third of my naked ace highs. (205 combos)

Considering the price he is getting, button should call very frequently. However, his range is relatively strong on this board, so we should expect a fair amount of raises. If villain is thinking in terms of MDF, he can’t fold more than 21% of his range. I’ll assume that he continues with 127 of his possible 149 combos.

Hands that often raise: Trips, Flush Draws/Combo Draws (4 value, 12 bluff)

Hands that might raise: Gutshots w/ BD Flush,88,KQ (13 value, 3 bluff)

If villain wants to raise all of their flush draws they would need to raise all combos of KQ to remain relatively balanced. I doubt most players are excited to raise KQ on this board, so we should assume that at least some flush draws are calling.

Other strong hands that call: QJ,QT,TT,99 (27 combos)

Now we need 68 more combos that villain wants to continue with. Most of these will probably be Aces.

Strong Ace Highs that likely call: Adiamondx, Aspadexspade,AJ-A9 (51 combos)

7diamond7x and 6diamond6x will continue (6 combos) and, whether or not they should, most players call the other 77-66 (6 combos)

KspadeJ / Tspade, and KdiamondJx are also likely (5 combos)

As mentioned before, based on our limited history, it’s very possible villain flats a lot more hands preflop, so this is not meant to be an exhaustive breakdown of every possibility. I won’t say close enough is as good as perfect, but this post is already getting long.

 

Turn: (10.12 BB, 2 players) 6diamond

Hero ?

Considering the flop strategy I used, it’s pretty hard to construct a balanced range for betting the turn at a high frequency.

If you were to bet the full 205 combos I described on the flop:

– how often would you be looking to bet this turn?

– which of our hands are strong enough to value bet?

– what are the best combos to barrel as bluffs?

– do we want to have a check-raising range and, if so, how would you construct it?

 

Also, do you have any advice or opinions on the ranges I gave at any point in this post? I’m always looking to refine these and getting differing perspectives helps a lot.

 

ps. I’ve missed you guys, I plan to be around more in the near future.

theginger45

TPE Pro
Members
Forum Posts: 924
Member Since:
August 25, 2012
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
2
March 28, 2018 - 12:25 pm
sp_Permalink sp_Print
0

I think the discomfort of developing barreling ranges OOP on these types of boards is one of the main reasons why a 0% OOP c-bet frequency can be such a powerful weapon. The complexity of the range splits that we’re trying to employ here is significant to the point of getting out of hand – no matter what approach we conclude is optimal based on this discussion, it’s very likely we’ll struggle to implement it in-game, and a GTO solver is going to advocate an even more complex/mixed approach than whatever we come up with.

C-betting 0% here immediately makes villain’s likely strategy of betting all top pair and all draws into a significant mistake, and it’s not especially difficult for us to build coherent c/r and c/c ranges in response to a variety of bet sizings. When you add in the fact that many of our nut hands on paired boards will want to slowplay anyway (since we have the board somewhat locked down and block villain’s value hands), c-betting 0% is a nice way to incorporate that aspect into a balanced and coherent strategy.

Check out my video series that’s currently running, titled ‘Simplified C-betting Strategies’, for a deeper explanation of some of these concepts.

DuckinDaDeck
Hunting Max EV
Sunday Major
Members
Forum Posts: 284
Member Since:
February 8, 2017
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
3
March 29, 2018 - 1:43 pm
sp_Permalink sp_Print sp_EditHistory
0

That’s a really interesting approach theginger. My initial thoughts on 0% cbetting is that it would be most effective against strong opposition, and might be leaving money on the table against weaker players. I look forward to exploring it to develop a better understanding, and will definitely check out your new series. 

I find that against a lot of low stakes (ie. <=$27 on Stars) regs I can print by double barreling dry boards at a high frequency. Many are prone to float flops wide but play turns fairly straightforward, and rarely seem to adjust well (if at all) to unbalanced frequencies. That being said, I’m looking to explore and experiment with much different approaches, and I desperately need to incorporate more check-raises into my flop and turn play.

To be honest, 80% c-betting OOP on this board is terrible in theory, and I can’t imagine it will work on many board textures as I move back up the stakes (moved down from ABI of ~$25 to ~$13 in January). My paired board strategy focuses on exploiting the population tendency outlined above, and sizing 1/4 – 1/3 pot with 70 – 80% of hands followed by a 1/2 – 4/5 pot bet on about 65% of turns has been very profitable. At this stack depth I don’t want to barrel turn that often, which makes my flop approach in this hand even worse.

My goal in analyzing this hand was to explore turn play based on the poor flop strategy, and then work backward to design a flop strategy which leads to better turn situations. At some point next week, I’ll answer my own questions to the best of my ability and then attempt to draw some conclusions about a better flop approach.

Interestingly, CREV doesn’t like my flop size for any hands. When given the options of 1/4, 1/2 and 3/4, CREV slightly prefers 1/2 to 3/4, and has only a few combos mixing in 1/4. AdiamondAx, AdiamondKdiamond, AdiamondJdiamond and AxKdiamond are the only combos betting 1/4 at least 20% of the time. I’m not sure if giving HJ options on the turn other than check-down would change the flop frequencies (still newbie at CREV), but I doubt it would change much.

Strangely (to me at least), when I make the board much drier – Qdiamond6club6spade – CREV likes the small sizing even less. It moves from 1.15% to 0.69% of combos betting small. AA combos that block 2 Backdoor flush draws mix it in ~ 30% of the time.

Foucault

TPE Pro
Members
Forum Posts: 2067
Member Since:
December 6, 2012
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
4
March 31, 2018 - 9:59 am
sp_Permalink sp_Print
0

I’m a fan of Ginger’s new series, but I think you’re right that it’s most applicable against more (which isn’t to say “very”) skilled opponents. My own solver experiments with c-betting suggest that the wider you make V’s pre-flop range, the more appealing it starts to get to just toss a small c-bet out there even on boards that, vs a more reasonable preflop range, it wants to check at a high frequency.

theginger45

TPE Pro
Members
Forum Posts: 924
Member Since:
August 25, 2012
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
5
April 4, 2018 - 1:06 pm
sp_Permalink sp_Print
0

Foucault said
I’m a fan of Ginger’s new series, but I think you’re right that it’s most applicable against more (which isn’t to say “very”) skilled opponents. My own solver experiments with c-betting suggest that the wider you make V’s pre-flop range, the more appealing it starts to get to just toss a small c-bet out there even on boards that, vs a more reasonable preflop range, it wants to check at a high frequency.  

Yeah, this is a great point. The wider villain’s flatting range gets preflop, the more incentivized we are to capitalize on how difficult it is for them to retain any kind of range advantage.

DuckinDaDeck
Hunting Max EV
Sunday Major
Members
Forum Posts: 284
Member Since:
February 8, 2017
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
6
April 5, 2018 - 1:01 pm
sp_Permalink sp_Print sp_EditHistory
0

I actually prefer a HJ preflop strategy opening T8s,97s and 76s and not raising QTo.

On this flop I have 258 combos in my range.

For my small cbet approach, without considering check-raising, I want to bet:

Strong value: KK+,88,A8s,T8s,98s,87s,AQ,KQ,QJ,QT,Q9 (63 combos)

Strong draws: All Flushdraws (18 combos)

Marginal draws: Gutshots, 2 card Backdoor FDs, A and K high diamond BDFDs (60 combos)

Weaker value/protection: 55-99 (24 combos), AK no backdoor (9 combos)

This gives me 174 betting combos, or 67.4%

I typically prefer them as checks, but considering my overall strategy I can add JJ/TT to my value range (12 combos)

I can bet the remaining 97s and 76s for air with weak straight backdoors (4 combos)

For the last 17 combos to reach 80% I’m not sure what is best, but I’ll use my AJ/AT/A9/KJ/KT with low diamond (15 combos) to round out my flop range. I think slowplaying QQ is best, so I won’t bet it.

As played, I have 205 combos that reach the turn. I’ll assume villain raises his combo draws, Tspade9spade and 3/4 trips combos, so he reaches the turn with 120 combos.

For now I’m ignoring the option to check-raise, but I’ll consider that in later posts.

My hands that can probably bet for value: KK+,88,AQ,KQ,trips,flushes,66 (64 combos)

I can probably get away with bluffing at a 40% frequency or roughly 43 combos.

Most likely candidates:

A and K high 1 card flushdraws (24 combos), JT with a diamond (6 combos), T9s and 97s (6 combos).

This leaves me with 36 bluffs. I don’t love barreling naked gutshots on the 3 flush, but it brings me to 42 combos so I’ll go for it. 

This is a less terrible situation than I originally expected, as I can bet 106 (51.7%) of turns with this strategy. However, this leaves me with a very weak checking range. Facing any reasonable bet I have a hard time calling with more than my remaining top pairs (18 combos) and JJ/TT with a diamond (6 combos). So I will probably fold ~ 76% of the time I check the turn. It is tempting to peel with my AxJdiamond and KxJdiamond but extremely marginal in my opinion, and even then I’m folding 70.3% of hands after checking.

There’s a lot more to look at but a combination of being tired and slightly overwhelmed by how deep I plan to go means I will have to save that for another day. I think the next step is to consider more thoroughly how my value range stacks up against villain’s continue range, and also how many combos I expect villain to fold so that I can adjust my bluffing frequency. Once that is done I’ll do a quick river analysis and then work backwards to adjusting my flop strategy. Who knows where this will lead after that…

I really welcome any and all feedback, thanks.

Foucault

TPE Pro
Members
Forum Posts: 2067
Member Since:
December 6, 2012
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
7
April 6, 2018 - 8:26 am
sp_Permalink sp_Print
0

“Considering the flop strategy I used, it’s pretty hard to construct a balanced range for betting the turn at a high frequency”

This is what’s jumping out at me. Why is this the goal in the first place? It seems like you’re just taking it as a given that you *should* be able to barrel the turn at a high frequency, and then trying to solve for the *how*. But where are you getting the idea that you should bet at a high frequency in the first place?

DuckinDaDeck
Hunting Max EV
Sunday Major
Members
Forum Posts: 284
Member Since:
February 8, 2017
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
8
April 6, 2018 - 10:12 am
sp_Permalink sp_Print
0

Very good question Andrew. I don’t think it’s at all necessary to be barreling at a high frequency, but I tend to default to it when I don’t have a better plan. My main motivation for this post (and a lot of the work I’ve been doing lately) was that I took your advice from one of our coaching sessions and recorded myself playing a bunch of times while talking about why I was making bets. After I eventually got around to going through most of my recordings, I often heard myself saying a variation of “I want to keep betting here because I think they fold too much” without any good reasons to back that up. Even when I was more specific, I’d often list 4 or 5 hands that I expected to fold in spots where basic range analysis shows that villains would barely fold anything else.

I’m trying to break down and rebuild my approach to almost every part of the game. Not sure if I’m doing it right, but I’m trying to analyze this hand from my mistaken ‘autopilot’ approach and then design a better strategy for each street by working backwards from the river. One of my overall goals is to strengthen my check-calling ranges and widen my check-raising ranges, but I’m finding it hard to approach those ranges without deconstructing and rebuilding my betting range.

Foucault

TPE Pro
Members
Forum Posts: 2067
Member Since:
December 6, 2012
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
9
April 8, 2018 - 7:54 am
sp_Permalink sp_Print
0

It’s hard for them to fold too much on every street. Typically if a player over-folds the flop, then that implies that his turn range is excessively strong.

The free version of PioSolver enables you to do turn simulations, so if you want you can try giving Villain a wide range for reaching the turn and then see what Pio suggests. Of course that won’t take into consideration that V is going to over-fold (if that’s true), but it at least gives you a starting point to think about what your equilibrium betting frequency should be and which hands make up that range.

DuckinDaDeck
Hunting Max EV
Sunday Major
Members
Forum Posts: 284
Member Since:
February 8, 2017
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
10
April 13, 2018 - 11:37 am
sp_Permalink sp_Print sp_EditHistory
0

Foucault said
It’s hard for them to fold too much on every street. Typically if a player over-folds the flop, then that implies that his turn range is excessively strong.

For sure, extremely rare player that over-folds every street. My over-generalized perception of reg-ish players at the stakes I’m playing (based on a mediocre grasp of GTO frequencies):

vs FLOP cbet

Roughly 65/25/10 split of underfold / continue roughly correctly / overfold. Many of the better players seem to under-fold against other regs, which is probably a good exploit vs population (although they may just have specific reads). Not as confident in my grasp of optimal raising strategies, but I think there’s about a 75/10/15 split of people 2-betting too rarely / roughly correctly / too often (mostly as check-raises).

vs TURN cbet

Roughly 55/25/20 split of overfold / correct / underfold. That’s slightly less players over-folding than what I suspect, I want to err on the side of pessimism about my ability to recognize patterns and analyze data. I’m much more confident saying that most players don’t 2-bet nearly enough. Probably at least 80% of regs under-bluff and/or miss good value raises, myself definitely included.

vs River cbet

This is much harder to analyze. Predictably, the sample sizes are extremely small after roughly 110k hands this year (lost old database to a virus and/or sucking at file transfer). I’ve identified players that seem to consistently underfold / overfold to river bets, but the largest sample I’ve found for ‘fold to river cbet’ was 8 (with 4 folds), which seems meaningless. Gut feeling is that more players overfold to 3 barrels than underfold, but I won’t hazard a guess as to ratios.

In the recordings, I was exclusively using the generic ‘they fold too much here’ on the turn, but it was kind of shocking to realize how weak / auto-pilot my thought process can get. It’s all well and good to do complex analysis, but I don’t think I’ll reach a point of effectively implementing my study work until I deconstruct my over-analysis and derive much more simple conclusions. Probably not the fastest way to improve my game but I’m a huge nerd and I over-analyze everything, so it might be the best way for me to learn.

Been doing some oldschool pencil and paper work for the next step, will probably get it posted Monday.

theginger45

TPE Pro
Members
Forum Posts: 924
Member Since:
August 25, 2012
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
11
April 16, 2018 - 6:52 pm
sp_Permalink sp_Print
0

I’m surprised to hear you suggest that regs are under-folding to flop c-bets. I would have thought it would be the opposite, unless games have changed in the ~1yr since I was playing outside the US. Are you consistently noticing regs with <40% fold to c-bet stats over large samples?

BugFuzz
NJ USA
Guppy
Members
Forum Posts: 3
Member Since:
November 29, 2017
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
12
April 17, 2018 - 10:43 am
sp_Permalink sp_Print
0

Personally i think your problem is pre flop range.  You have 25 bb stack and guy who is sticky behind you. Leaves you not much room to play post flop. If he has a clue his flatting your raise from 25 bb stack is perfect exploit of You. You are handcuffed you need a hand or to hit flop.  You cb flop with your range he calls and now what no room to maneuver on turn you check he bets you fold bam you just got exploited. Ginger has the only play here of checking 100% try to play it 2 streets you don’t have chips for 3. If he bets and you have no draw, no hand then fold. If you do check raise ( you said you were looking for spots here is one just have to create it). Tighten up your opening range pre, take into account players  frequency’s behind you. Plan for flop turn river before you open ( eg.  who is likely to call, am i deep enough to take it 3 streets,…..) When you start reverse engineering your hands you will discover this.

Rule #1 Near all post flop mistakes Start PreFlop. 

I am no expert by far but i think Ginger and Foucault will back me up here.

Ed Millers book Pokers 1% has lot of good info on building range/frequency  how it all works.

 

Bug 

theginger45

TPE Pro
Members
Forum Posts: 924
Member Since:
August 25, 2012
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
13
April 17, 2018 - 10:54 am
sp_Permalink sp_Print
0

BugFuzz said
Personally i think your problem is pre flop range.  You have 25 bb stack and guy who is sticky behind you. Leaves you not much room to play post flop. If he has a clue his flatting your raise from 25 bb stack is perfect exploit of You. You are handcuffed you need a hand or to hit flop.  You cb flop with your range he calls and now what no room to maneuver on turn you check he bets you fold bam you just got exploited. Ginger has the only play here of checking 100% try to play it 2 streets you don’t have chips for 3. If he bets and you have no draw, no hand then fold. If you do check raise ( you said you were looking for spots here is one just have to create it). Tighten up your opening range pre, take into account players  frequency’s behind you. Plan for flop turn river before you open ( eg.  who is likely to call, am i deep enough to take it 3 streets,…..) When you start reverse engineering your hands you will discover this.

Rule #1 Near all post flop mistakes Start PreFlop. 

I am no expert by far but i think Ginger and Foucault will back me up here.

Ed Millers book Pokers 1% has lot of good info on building range/frequency  how it all works.

 

Bug   

I don’t think there’s anything wrong with OP’s opening range. To say that “his flatting your raise from 25bb stack is a perfect exploit” is an incorrect application of the term ‘exploit’ – there’s nothing about the existence of a flatting range for the BTN here that makes it inherently exploitative. We need to know what the BTN’s flatting range actually is, and what specific leak on the part of OP it’s supposed to be exploiting, before we can say that. GTO would dictate BTN is supposed to have some kind of flatting range here.

I also think it’s dangerous to say things like “nearly all postflop mistakes start preflop”. This isn’t really accurate at all, and it’s liable to lead to simply playing way too tight preflop as an avoidance-based methodology for preventing postflop mistakes. I don’t think OP made a preflop mistake in this spot. In fact, if the BTN player is ‘sticky’, there’s a good chance BTN is actually flatting wider than what a GTO range would be in this spot, in which case OP would be exploiting that frequency by c-betting more often.

Foucault

TPE Pro
Members
Forum Posts: 2067
Member Since:
December 6, 2012
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
14
April 17, 2018 - 11:55 am
sp_Permalink sp_Print
0

This is also not the sort of situation where I’d try to apply the “bet 80%” heuristic from Poker’s 1%. As you point out, there isn’t room to leverage across three streets. There’s also no reason to assume that Hero has the sort of nut advantage that would facilitate doing that in the first place. That book pre-dates the prevalence of solvers; now that we have them, we can solve spots like this with more precision, and it’s rare that a solver advises c-betting anywhere near 80% as the OOP player.

theginger45

TPE Pro
Members
Forum Posts: 924
Member Since:
August 25, 2012
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
15
April 17, 2018 - 6:54 pm
sp_Permalink sp_Print
0

Foucault said
This is also not the sort of situation where I’d try to apply the “bet 80%” heuristic from Poker’s 1%. As you point out, there isn’t room to leverage across three streets. There’s also no reason to assume that Hero has the sort of nut advantage that would facilitate doing that in the first place. That book pre-dates the prevalence of solvers; now that we have them, we can solve spots like this with more precision, and it’s rare that a solver advises c-betting anywhere near 80% as the OOP player.  

Absolutely. As the in-position player, we should pretty much be salivating at the thought of playing against someone who has an average OOP c-bet frequency of 80%.

DuckinDaDeck
Hunting Max EV
Sunday Major
Members
Forum Posts: 284
Member Since:
February 8, 2017
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
16
April 18, 2018 - 11:48 am
sp_Permalink sp_Print
0

theginger45 said
I’m surprised to hear you suggest that regs are under-folding to flop c-bets. I would have thought it would be the opposite, unless games have changed in the ~1yr since I was playing outside the US. Are you consistently noticing regs with <40% fold to c-bet stats over large samples?  

In retrospect, my ratios are way off, but I play with a lot of regs folding 30-35% over >1k hand samples (still pretty small). That being said, there are more regs folding 55%+ over similar sample, so I was wayyyy over focused on a tendency that doesn’t apply nearly as much as I wanted to believe.

I keep doing this throughout my learning curve. I notice a tendency from certain opponents, or realize I can 3bet/check-raise/whatever wider in certain spots, and end up over-valuing my ‘new discovery.’ I guess it’s better to be constantly looking for new adaptations rather than playing paint-by-numbers poker, but I should find a way to remain more consistently humble/skeptical.

BugFuzz said
Personally i think your problem is pre flop range.

I appreciate the advice, but this preflop range is a bit tight if anything. I’m pretty comfortable navigating post-flop (however poorly I may be doing it), so I don’t find myself thinking about hands in the way you describe. I agree that we want to open tighter if we expect button to flat very frequently, but 7 hands at deeper stacks is not a large enough sample size for me to start adjusting my open range without more info (villain was not overly loose in any other way that I had noticed).

Foucault said
This is also not the sort of situation where I’d try to apply the “bet 80%” heuristic from Poker’s 1%. 

I’ve never read Poker’s 1%, but I agree there’s no way to cbet 80% OOP against remotely decent opposition. Again, this whole analysis is starting from an approach that I know to be flawed so that I can figure out exactly where and why it breaks down, and then redesign it. When I finally get the next steps posted I think that’ll become more clear.

Foucault

TPE Pro
Members
Forum Posts: 2067
Member Since:
December 6, 2012
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
17
April 18, 2018 - 12:53 pm
sp_Permalink sp_Print
0

Sorry my comment about P1% was directed at Buzz, not the OP.

theginger45

TPE Pro
Members
Forum Posts: 924
Member Since:
August 25, 2012
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
18
April 25, 2018 - 11:57 am
sp_Permalink sp_Print
0

DuckinDaDeck said

In retrospect, my ratios are way off, but I play with a lot of regs folding 30-35% over >1k hand samples (still pretty small). That being said, there are more regs folding 55%+ over similar sample, so I was wayyyy over focused on a tendency that doesn’t apply nearly as much as I wanted to believe.

I keep doing this throughout my learning curve. I notice a tendency from certain opponents, or realize I can 3bet/check-raise/whatever wider in certain spots, and end up over-valuing my ‘new discovery.’ I guess it’s better to be constantly looking for new adaptations rather than playing paint-by-numbers poker, but I should find a way to remain more consistently humble/skeptical.

Yeah, this seems more like what I would expect to see. Some regs with low fold to c-bet frequencies, but not enough data to confirm them, and then some regs with higher frequencies over the same amount of data.

I think it’s logical to expect the average reg’s fold to c-bet frequency to be somewhere around 40-50% overall, since there will be some on the lower end and some on the higher end.

Having said that, I think the more interesting stat is the positional comparison – I would think a player who folds to c-bet 70% OOP and 30% IP would be doing better than a player who folds 50% in both spots, but it’s hard to really say. In reality I expect optimal frequencies to level out somewhere around 40% OOP and 30% IP, perhaps even less than that IP for players who have solid postflop skills.

DuckinDaDeck
Hunting Max EV
Sunday Major
Members
Forum Posts: 284
Member Since:
February 8, 2017
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
19
April 25, 2018 - 2:40 pm
sp_Permalink sp_Print
0

theginger45 said

Having said that, I think the more interesting stat is the positional comparison – I would think a player who folds to c-bet 70% OOP and 30% IP would be doing better than a player who folds 50% in both spots, but it’s hard to really say. In reality I expect optimal frequencies to level out somewhere around 40% OOP and 30% IP, perhaps even less than that IP for players who have solid postflop skills.  

That is an excellent point, and something I don’t think about nearly enough. I continue wider IP and cbet less OOP, but I’m mostly only adjusting the margins of my ranges, and need to prioritize working on this. I should also be paying more attention to these stats in my opposition. Thanks man!

Foucault said
Sorry my comment about P1% was directed at Buzz, not the OP.  

My bad, that should have been obvious. 🙂

DuckinDaDeck
Hunting Max EV
Sunday Major
Members
Forum Posts: 284
Member Since:
February 8, 2017
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
20
April 27, 2018 - 9:57 am
sp_Permalink sp_Print sp_EditHistory
0

I messed up counting combos earlier, the cold-call range I gave villain has 152 combos after the flop. Based on the flop strategy I assumed, I expect 116 of those to call and 7 to raise. As played, after 6diamond turn, there are 112 combos in villain’s range.

Hero Bets 6.17bb, BTN calls 6.17bb

After I bet just over 3/5 pot on the turn, MDF suggests that villain should defend 62.2% of his hands, or 70 combos. I’m having a tough time finding that many combos to continue with. I think there are 55 combos that easily call or raise: 27 top pairs, 8 flushes, 9 nut FDs, TdTx + 9d9x (6 combos), trips/boats/quads (5 combos).

King FDs (3 combos) are probably the next best hands to continue with, but there don’t seem to be great options for the last 12 combos.

I think villain’s strongest remaining hands are: TT,99,As6s,AhJd,AsJd,AcJd,AhTd,AsTd,AcTd,Ah9d,As9d,Ac9d,JsTs,Js9s

I really don’t like calling with any of those hands except for maybe TT/99. On deeper stacks I think raising AxJd and AxTd might be reasonable but I doubt villain wants to shove those hands, and any smaller raise seems silly when I only have 16.7bb behind. I wasn’t planning to do this, but I think we should change V’s preflop range.

If V folds A9 / A6s, 3bets A5s / K9s, and flats 1/2 AA combos they have 149 combos in their coldcall range (131 on the flop).

I’ll add 2 combos of AA to V’s Flop raising range, and keep AdAs calling. Maintaining assumptions about villain’s flop play, they now have 3 less FDs, 2 less spade BDFDs, and 12 less A-high hands that call the flop. Villain calls flop with 100 combos and raises 9, arriving at this turn with 97 combos.

Facing a ~3/5 pot bet, villain should defend roughly 60 combos. They now have 1 overpair, 2 less flushes, and 3 less nut FDs, so 51 combos that easily continue. Adding KdJx to that range makes 54 combos that can continue on the turn, which is probably close enough to MDF to be reasonable. I think it’s extremely marginal, but if villain wants to hit 60 they can call the remaining combos of TT/99.

More soon.

Forum Timezone: America/New_York

Most Users Ever Online: 2780

Currently Online:
7 Guest(s)

Currently Browsing this Page:
1 Guest(s)

Top Posters:

bennymacca: 2616

Foucault: 2067

folding_aces_pre_yo: 1133

praetor: 1033

theginger45: 924

P-aire 146: 832

Turbulence: 768

The Riceman: 731

duggs: 591

florianm1: 588

Newest Members:

jankyjon

Elpokero

WhiteMountn

Jensen68

PotCommitted

kinser111

Forum Stats:

Groups: 4

Forums: 24

Topics: 12705

Posts: 75003

 

Member Stats:

Guest Posters: 1063

Members: 11982

Moderators: 2

Admins: 5

Administrators: RonFezBuddy, Killingbird, Tournament Poker Edge Staff, ttwist, Carlos

Moderators: sitelock, sitelock_1