Options
Trying to bluff the world class.....
villain is chiquidealer....i felt like i was getting played back here so i 4 bet bluffed ....not good result......now im wondering if i can call to set mine.....
Poker Stars, $50 + $5 NL Hold'em Tournament, 1,250/2,500 Blinds, 325 Ante, 9 Players
LeggoPoker.com - Hand History Converter
CO: 121,810
BTN: 79,100
SB: 31,539
BB: 79,800
UTG: 199,852
UTG+1: 137,720
Yodabatman (UTG+2): 81,497
MP1: 66,198
MP2: 77,848
Pre-Flop: (6,675) T
T
dealt to Yodabatman (UTG+2)
2 folds, Yodabatman raises to 5,625, 2 folds, CO raises to 8,750, 3 folds, Yodabatman raises to 17,500, CO raises to 27,500, Yodabatman
calls ???
Poker Stars, $50 + $5 NL Hold'em Tournament, 1,250/2,500 Blinds, 325 Ante, 9 Players
LeggoPoker.com - Hand History Converter
CO: 121,810
BTN: 79,100
SB: 31,539
BB: 79,800
UTG: 199,852
UTG+1: 137,720
Yodabatman (UTG+2): 81,497
MP1: 66,198
MP2: 77,848
Pre-Flop: (6,675) T
T dealt to Yodabatman (UTG+2)2 folds, Yodabatman raises to 5,625, 2 folds, CO raises to 8,750, 3 folds, Yodabatman raises to 17,500, CO raises to 27,500, Yodabatman
calls ???
Comments
/thread
so it's 10k to win 61,675 immediate and 54k implied some % of the time where your implied odds are a function of his range and whether or not he bluffs at a random in this spot which I doubt since it would be spewy and borderline bad so for arguments sake say that you'll get like 40 of the 54k on average if you flop your set meaning it's 10k to win 101k meaning you CAN actually call that to setmine profitably which is a bit of a blunder by villain by the looks of it
Not trivial tho...
Edit: Actually given stacks he'll probably ship any flop which might be an argument to expect the full 54k implied fro villain (or close to it if you count redraws). If that's true villain actually fucked up pretty bad here by automatically 5 betting small because everyone and their mom bets small pre these days
i never saw the sizing i raised his button the last two orbits and he sat on his decisions twice for a moments....then i went to min raise the 3rd time he was on the button but i paused and folded, when i raised the very next hand he did that so....hence...the....spew....
By no means did he make a mistake in his raise, maybe his original 3 bet kinda gives off strength. But i use the min 4 bet or 5 bet all the time with junk. You would be surprised at how often you get folds. If they come back over the top its ok to fold too but the message you are giving is that its not gonna be that easy to 3 bet you to take your chips and you will notice that you dont get 3 bet as often anymore. When you get your 4 or 5 bet called. c bet flop doesnt even have to be big. say your min 4 bet was to like 30k or something making the pot around 60k-65kish. then bet out like 24kish. Its an advanced play but once you start doing it and seeing how effective it can be it becomes second nature. Of couse this result in some tourneys where you bust a little earlier then you like but the ones you dont you will finish higher in the money.
Your looking to hit 1st, 2nd or 3rd money. Perfecting plays like this will help with that. This is very opponent oriented though so you kind of need to be paying attention to the action at your tables to know when its appropriate to pull this off. Thats why I love 6 max so much because spots for these moves occur more frequently.
but i wasn't prepared to get it in here...i knew villain had a hand...just thought i could look quite strong here...
I think this is very spewy given stacksize and position. Are you planning to shut down when he calls you OOP? You have less than a pot bet effective left and probably not a whole lot of information on who you're playing against.
If you're shutting down postflop you've helped hands like this to realise their equity and if you're always firing postflop your opponent can setmine profitably vs you. If you 5 bet this small given stacks you leave yourself open, especially when people start merging their setmining range with their monster range
Edit: Ofc it works if you're getting a bunch of folds, but when you start playing against people who aren't monkeylike regs who go into preflop wars but suck postflop and strategywise I'm not so sure
Also, cbet-fold flop? if you can make that profitable then congrats I guess. Chances are it's pure spew from you too often tho as you've given your opponent a million chances to jam it down your throat
Kind of rambled on here. Hard to put into words I guess. But basically this strategy works for some people, and I find it works for me really well.
You can 5bet bluff if you're too lazy to grind the final 100 players in big tournaments if that's what makes you happy. But you need to be able to realise how terrible stacks and positions are for it here. Darbday decided to bluff with 10s, that's how narrow a range he's continuing with here and he's not folding QQ+. Even with slightly deeper stacks having a bluff 5 bet range works not because it's mathematically sound, but because people are too bad in general to man up and put in 60 BB's with jacks but don't think for a second that this kind of aggression is the major thing that makes the best of the best go as deep as they do. I'd argue any day that it's their ability to apply pressure to the right players at the right times, not their ability to mindlessly rep strength vs players with tight ranges they don't know much about in situations they can't ever hope to control
/thread. I don't like to speak in absolutes entirely, so I wouldn't say it should NEVER occur, but I don't think many (including myself) are good enough to identify when it should be. Regardless it's one of the last hands you want to be 4-bet bluffing with in general.
His 3-bet sizing is most likely a misclick, I can't see him doing this intentionally often (although I've seen it done). People saying his sizing gives off his hand strength, you realize it's exactly minimum and he's up 6 figures online? He's not some fish clicking back the rockets so people can't get away.
Betr summed it up well mostly. Re: richard, I'm sure betr's not just clicking buttons and randomly min-4 and 5-betting, he probably has good reasons for it, and I have def done it before and there are def spots to do it. I think you are vastly underestimating the advantage that initiative gives you over position when the pot is really bloated compared to stacks. Position is basically irrelevant when the hand will end on the flop 90% of the time. Also, when people are calling your min-4bet instead of 5-betting it's often because they have the bottom of their range so they're going to be put in a lot of bad spots post flop. And:
Merging your setmining range with your monster range sounds like the worst idea ~ever and if people are doing that this deep then you're pretty much printing money anyways since gl to them winning the pot when they 3-bet the 33 and it gets past a flop.
I'm saying that if I'm flatting 1010 and 88 here I'm flatting AA, kk and AKs planning to stack off any flop with the hands I normally 6bet for value given stacks, how can you have a problem with that?
Pretty blanket statement, which is not necessarily correct at all. If I'm 5-bet bluffing someone it's not because I expect to get them to fold JJ. I think you have to realize that betr is talking about games from the perspective of a highstakes player. It's entirely possible/probable that 5-betting in <$50 freezes and 5-betting in 100r's has an entirely different purpose because the games play so differently.
3-bet/flatting TT, 88 and AKs?
EDIT: You're assuming that you'd be able to identify that his 5-bet range is very air heavy so you'd counter by flatting your nuts. Most people don't 5-bet bluff often so jamming is optimal. Of course in theory if we knew someone's 5-bet bluffing a heap we can just flat AA and KK a bunch and make life a bit tougher for them but in practice most times you would/should jam your nuts over a 5-bet since it just seems like people aren't going to fold.
no, 4betting and flatting TT and 88 as profitable setming hands here given stacks and flatting the hands I would normally shove for value which would be like JJ+ or maybe QQ+/Aks as "monsters" planning to always stack off in order to protect my weaker "non monster pairs"
(I would rarely 4bet at all with 1010 tho, flatting seems like the obvious choice to me, but if I were 4betting more, that's how I'd try to protect my range in this very specific example and obviously if I was not at this specific stack depth I would have to reevaluate my implied odds so I'd probably rarely ever setmine, it's a unique stack depth I guess)
I'm aware of this but villain is 3betting an ep raiser in a non standard 3bet position and gets 4bet to a cheesy amount by someone he doesn't know much about. How many regs would 5bet bluff a random given these stacksizes knowing full well how good his odds to call a 6bet shove would be? The ep 4bet works a tonne still, and for good reason most of the times since 5betting would require the 4bettor to fold a pretty high %age of the time meaning that the random in question would have to be capable of 4bet bluffing ep v CO a high % of the time
Edit: nvm, it's a pretty standard 3bet spot, thought villain was in the hijack position for some reason, the rest of the logic holds up still
His 5-bet sizing should be fine since he's not dealing with a range of {worse pairs that won't shove}, he's dealing with an entire 4-betting range, which is mostly comprised of worse hands that will mistakenly shove, and hands that don't have odds to flat and see a flop. His sizing might be a mistake if you have exactly TT-22, but that doesn't make his sizing bad since TT-22 are a small or non-existent part of most people's 4-betting range, and if it is profitable vs. 85% of someone's range and -EV vs. 15% it's still going to be profitable overall. Even further, since there is already xx,xxx dead money in the pot after the 3-bet, 5-betting and giving setmining odds can actually still be fine since the implied odds are so small that it's very likely that it would be profitable for both players since their EV is smaller than what's already in the pot so they're just chopping up the dead money. Not every decision in poker is -EV for 1 player and +EV for the other.
You're right about him 5betting vs a range of hands and folding out a lot of AQo Kx type hands but I believe that against this particular betsizing with these particular stacks it's possible to contruct a range such that we have a +EV spot whereas if villain just put in 4k more or something this would not be possible and he would force a full out shove or fold response which would (I think) be more ideal for him
Also, it's interesting that you'd say that a play is not neccesarily +EV for one player and -EV for the other one. Most of the examples of this is when the antes are super high but when they are not it becomes interesting.
We open 10s which is a +EV open simply put
Villain 3bets hand x which may or may not be +EV for him depending on his hand and our range
We 4 bet 10s which may or may not be +EV depending on villains range and whether or not we're folding out hands
Villain 5bets hand x which may or may not be +EV depending on our range and his hand
Somewhere along this someone made a -EV decision, the task for any pokerplayer is to identify when it's you making that -EV decision so you can turn it into a +EV decision. This doesn't really relate to anything but I think it's really interesting to analyse things like that since most people just go "meh, I had a +EV 4bet spot, unlucky us" when they might have been the one making the bad move
Thank you jesus! I was worried about you there for a lil while but looks like your back on track.:)
There are plenty of times in cash games, especially heads up, where people are getting in heaps of chips pre with AQ and TT and neither are making a mistake.
It's not necessarily true. Say we are opening a ton, and we opened TT here. Villain 3-bets us with XX that will be +EV because we're opening so much. We decide to 4-bet/call a shove with TT with our image, expecting him to jam smaller pairs and a few other bluffs enough to make it profitable. Instead of jamming, he makes a small 5-bet. Now we believe he's inducing with the top of his range and realize shoving is -EV but setmining is +EV. All of our actions are +EV if our assumptions are correct. Now say he had AA here, obviously all of his actions are +EV vs. our range as well. Now we have a situation where every action was +EV vs. each player's range given the particular hand each of us were holding in our given range.
Any cooler (as long as it's actually a cooler) is a hand in which both players took a +EV line.
Or bluffing your whole stack when you don't need to, but you already know that.
Yes, a wwe Del rio reference there, muahahahaha
A lot going on in this thread so Ill start with the easiest part. Phil for the last time, id do it again. Im sorry this hero called a 3 bet and 4 bet by 2 players in front of him with A8os. Am I suppose to put that hand in his range, and if I am then that makes hands like A9, KQ AQ AJ KJ etc in his range. Making my push the right one. So enough of that useless talk.
I feel like this is doing the exact opposite of lazy.... If you read my posts you would realise i said that in order to use this strategy you need to know your opponents in order to do so, therefore paying attention to your table. I also said thats why I like playing 6 max because the opportunity to use this strategy occurs more. Please explain to me how that is lazy. The lazy thing would be not paying attention and only putting raises in when your in the CO of button and playing back at people from those position because statisically those are where people decide to be more aggressive.
I also said if your going to 4 bet in THIS spot you need to know already what your going to do to a 5 bet or all in, otherwise your mindlessly raising. Here I said it is optimal to either just call, or if you know the opponent well I wouldnt criticize 4 betting then 6 bet jamming.
I have no idea where you got the impression that I said to mindlessly rep strenght against any player, did you make up a post I wrote or just too lazy to read my actual posts?
I never meant that you're mindlessly repping strength vs tight ranges. I meant that if villain was doing this light he was, given stacks and positions. And that sounds like a really rethorical question, I guess I could make up a post of yours if you really want me to pick an option there <.<
If I accused you of anything it's only because you made it sound like you wouldn't mind if villain 5 bet light in this example. 6 max 4 betting light is standard so that makes bigger moves much more acceptable although these stacks would still suck for it lol. Doing this deep full ring would take much more precision and more than just a feeling that "he's opening wide utg and know that I know that and plays back wide so I can 5 bet". The pro's that I know irl usually make fun of the 100r's saying that it's turned into a war of whoever can get the 5th bet in wherever they have a smidgeon of extra equity