Sorry, this video is for members only!

To join Tournament Poker Edge and get access to this video, click here.

If you are already a member, click here to sign-in.

TPE Theory: Summer Study Live Play with Andrew Brokos (Part 4)
[Total: 6    Average: 3.8/5]

MORE IN THIS SERIES : Part 1 | Part 5 | Part 3 | Part 2

Concepts In This Video:

2 Responses to “TPE Theory: Summer Study Live Play with Andrew Brokos (Part 4)”

  1. huge

    [warning – this is longer than I originally intended, sorry if it’s TL;DR – I’m at least partially writing for my own benefit and am not expecting you or anyone else to go through this with a fine-tooth comb]

    I was a little alarmed to realize in watching this video (part 4) that I would play every single hand more timidly than you did. If you were someone else, I would look at these hands and say that you were taking on too much variance in marginal (or worse) situations… But you clearly are a much more skilled player than I am, so I’m trying to figure out what I’m missing. It’s clear to me that I am too weak/passive/tight in some spots, less clear but possible that you are occasionally a bit of a maniac (or, your more gentle phrase “too ambitious”), and clear but of unknown relevance that there is a significant difference between the opponents you and i typically face, especially since this video is of a $2500 WSOP event, as opposed to a $1k which is more in my wheelhouse. I guess underneath all of those possibilities is the fact that I’m not even considering some of the lines you’re taking, which is probably a pretty bad leak.

    In all of these hands you end up deciding (to a greater or lesser degree) that a less aggressive line might have been better, either because of PioSolver results or your own consideration, but I think there’s still a lot there for people like me who basically wouldn’t even be in the right ballpark of how many hands to take those lines with. So I’m going to talk/write through them & try to identify when/where/how I’m likely to go wrong in those or similar spots, and ask questions when I know I still don’t get something…

    In the first hand (Kc4c c/r on K52ss flop) I wouldn’t generally c/r such a strong/marginal hand because I’d be worried about blowing him off his pure bluffs and possibly inducing a 3-bet from his best draws (would you fold to a flop 3-bet?). This seems reminiscent of the K9 hand that is the centerpiece of your “Getting Off on the Right Foot” series where you talk about top-pair-weak-kicker as being a marginal made hand that doesn’t benefit much from aggression. Is there something different about this hand/spot that makes it a better candidate for a flop c/r, or do you take a c/r line here more often than you did 3 years ago, or maybe is it just a more advanced/muddy concept than belonged in the “right foot” series? In the end you decided it as probably better as a chk/c, but PioSolver had it as a mix so a checkraise has to have more merit than I would give it. It was SUPER eye-opening for me to see the other hands that could work as c/r bluffs, like Qs8c, and really helpful to hear you clarify that if someone overfolds you should adjust by expanding your bluffing range (pretty obvious) but narrowing your thin-value-bet range (less obvious, at least to me, at least in battle).

    Second hand (calling a donk lead with KTo on 984r): Let’s ignore the fact that you end up deciding you should have folded the flop and just look at your claim that we need to be careful not to overfold to donk bets… That strikes me as only a legit concern when facing very tough opponents (i.e. who play like PioSolver). I think I have very rarely faced an opponent who would donk more than 50% of range on that board, and even against aggro young bucks I see a lot more checkraising than donking with overcards, gutshots, BDFDs etc. When I see donk bets it’s very often exactly top pair (especially from older men) wanting to protect, less frequently draws, and almost never air. I wonder if this is one where I just don’t have to worry too much about overfolding except with my trickiest or most sophisticated opponents?

    Third hand (opening A9s off 16.5BB stack & resulting C-bet decision): I like your discussion of raise-folding a hand like A9s preflop in some situations, and it’s something I’ve started doing occasionally even though it feels gross when I do have to fold. The decision to bet/get-it-in on Q43r seemed crazy to me – you ultimately decided with Pio that it probably was a bet/fold, but Pio showed ATs/AJs w/BDFD as mixed bet/call & bet/fold, which still surprised me. I wonder if this one again has to do with the extent to which our different opponents deviate from PioSolver’s lines. When I see a c/r here it’s heavily waited to a Queen or better, with some A2/A5/65 draws from my better opponents, and maybe a few pocket pairs who are just saying “I don’t believe you have a Queen”. I think because I would fold to a c/r, I might *sometimes* check back flop, depending on villain, with a plan to delay-C-bet … but passing up the C-bet looks clearly wrong based on your and Pio’s assessments, and I don’t think I can justify it based on population differences.

    The last hand (calling a C-bet OOP with Qd9s on A54dd) was less confusing for me – I certainly would have folded the Q9 on the flop, but you and Pio both decided that in the end as well. I hopefully would call with KT/KJ with BDFD unless I’m facing a nit (or I’m just playing weakly), so that all made sense.
    Thanks for the extremely valuable series – perfect timing as I’m starting to gear up for summer.

    • Foucault

      Thanks for the thorough comment, and please forgive my more cursory response.

      K4s – I don’t have a lot to add besides what I say in the video. Your analysis here doesn’t consider either the size of the Villain’s bet or the positions, which are the things that make this close. Yes, as a general rule, marginal hands are best played as check-calls and top pair with a bad kicker is a marginal hand. The question is whether, given the width of Villain’s range, it’s strong enough to raise for value. My guess is that your check-raising range in this spot is way too polarized (most people’s are), which means two things: 1. You get exploited by people with high c-bet frequencies, because they realize too much equity with their weak hands. 2. You get exploited by people who rarely 3-bet check-raises, which is most people.

      KT – Sure, if you’re comfortable assuming your Villain just always has top pair when he donks, then exploit away. I agree not many humans donk >50% in this spot, but that doesn’t necessarily mean they are exploitably value-heavy.

      A9s – Villain should check-raise a lot more than Qx and strong draws here, and if he does, over-folding will be exploitable. If you’re right in your read, then you wouldn’t want to get in with those hands. Importantly, though, if you’re right that your Villain will have an overly narrow check-raising range, then that should lead you to c-bet more aggressively. So yeah, I don’t think you can justify both not betting and overfolding based on the same read, which I think is the conclusion you came to.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.