Poker Video: No Limit Hold'Em by sthief09 (Micro/Small Stakes)

Time Link to 01:05:33

In Aaron and Jared last vid buffalo 3 - there was a 4-bet pot.
And both talk about 4bet ranges neither of them seem to consider KQo or KJo as being likely in their range. Admittedly it was a 200bb eff spot but it was co/btn with aggro dynamic. Perhaps if you shoot them a PM you might get a viewpoint.

just a thought.

I saw that vid and in that spot they were facing a very wide range. When facing that sort of range we don't have to worry about reverse implied odds as we dominate so much of the wide range.

But yeah I do acknowledge that it's rare that someone 3-bets wide enough that we want to 4-bet bluff KQo but that we feel bad taking a flop.
The results of the calculation show that 4-bet bluffing can be ok at times and since it's the simpler play it can be feasible if you are OOP and/or are less experienced post flop.

Here's the spreadsheet that I used to record the approximate calculations:
http://www.megaupload.com/?d=8ACCMXLK

Time Link to 00:18:01

One comment on the 4bet-bluff mathematics-after seeing these slides, I am definitely getting the feeling that 4bet bluffing is not as profitable vs a typical TAG as many think (someone with an 8% 3bet or so over a large sample). One thing that was not discussed (at least not yet) was the effect of 5bet bluffs (jamming as a bluff) on our 4bet profitability. If a villain is 3betting 10%, but doesn't jam TT or JJ for value over a 4bet, he can still maintain a 4% jamming range by adding 12 combos or so of bluffs, correct? Therefore we can't simply rely on a read that he flatted a 3bet with JJ and think we have a profitable 4bet bluff situation.

It's so rare to have enough stats on a player to have their 4bet% significant. Can you suggest any other ways to estimate if 4betting may be profitable?

Time Link to 00:36:33

How did you guys determine villain's range of hands in these poker razor calcs? Wouldn't it make more sense to analyze at least 2 different ranges; one that is depolarized and one that is polarized? While depolarization is most common in the blinds, if we have been folding a lot previously or if villain is less aware of optimal 3bet theory, he may be 3betting a very different 10% of hands than if we have been calling frequently or if he has seen us be more selective with our steals, for instance. I realize this was just an example and it's hard to get real detailed in poker razor, but I'd like to know how to adjust the results as his hand selection strategy changes.

profitable vs a typical TAG as many think (someone with an 8% 3bet or so over a large sample).

If his 3b range in that exact spot (late pos steal vs blinds) is truly 8% then there's little you can do except give him credit.
However, if you factor in positional awareness etc. someone with an overall 8% 3bet could have a re-steal % of anything 10-16% or higher.

One thing that was not discussed (at least not yet) was the effect of 5bet bluffs (jamming as a bluff) on our 4bet profitability. If a villain is 3betting 10%, but doesn't jam TT or JJ for value over a 4bet, he can still maintain a 4% jamming range by adding 12 combos or so of bluffs, correct? Therefore we can't simply rely on a read that he flatted a 3bet with JJ and think we have a profitable 4bet bluff situation.

Valid point. Though if your 4-bet range is balanced then you have basically induced a shove from a low equity hand that gives you a very +EV call with the value part of your range.

That's partly why I'm not a big fan of 4-betting against aggro players, the 4-bet 5-bet thing is fairly easily solved, and when two players are good at this game it usually ends up that they just coin flip two near identical theoretical ranges over and over.

That just leads to a variance fest and the site is the only clear winner.

It's so rare to have enough stats on a player to have their 4bet% significant. Can you suggest any other ways to estimate if 4betting may be profitable?

If you don't have the samples I guess it's usually proportional to stats like 3-bet, pfr and CR and other aggressive moves. It should also be proportional to his perception of you.

How did you guys determine villain's range of hands in these poker razor calcs? Wouldn't it make more sense to analyze at least 2 different ranges; one that is depolarized and one that is polarized? While depolarization is most common in the blinds, if we have been folding a lot previously or if villain is less aware of optimal 3bet theory, he may be 3betting a very different 10% of hands than if we have been calling frequently or if he has seen us be more selective with our steals, for instance. I realize this was just an example and it's hard to get real detailed in poker razor, but I'd like to know how to adjust the results as his hand selection strategy changes.

The objective of the spreadsheet wasn't to construct strategies, it was more of a feasibility study to see if one or other of the plays came out way on top.

As a generalisation I felt that calling is clearly better, especially given that the calculations inherently under rate calling due to the "mistakes" in the simple strategy.

I used a kind of mish mash middle of the road range with all the various ranges given some % weight. It takes a long time to run each of these calcs, up to 20 minutes each (and there were 16 of them). So while it would be possible to get more in depth I don't want to get bogged down trying to create precise theory.

We can't forward plan every single action or scenario, what I'm aiming for is some general strategy that I can take to the table that I know is +EV. Then at the table I adjust and tweak as best I can based on what I think ranges etc. are in the moment.

Time Link to 00:22:18

Can you elaborate on how if someone c-bets too frequently in position their positional advantage is deminished? Is this because you can bluff raise more and trap more?

We can't forward plan every single action or scenario, what I'm aiming for is some general strategy that I can take to the table that I know is +EV. Then at the table I adjust and tweak as best I can based on what I think ranges etc. are in the moment.

I appreciate the work that went into these scenario calculations. Great episode; keep 'em comin'!

Time Link to 01:02:21

Just as a note on the timing thing-I recently noticed the most recent HEM update includes a new feature on the HUD that indicates the amount of seconds each player takes before taking an action. This can be found by clicking on the very top line of where the recent hands are listed on the HUD, which opens a window showing the previous actions of the hand currently in play. before or after each action and player name there is a Xs where X=the number of seconds. Keeping an eye on this window during a hand can be very informative if it turns out a player was making a big move, such as slowplaying or bluffing. You could also take a look each time you notice a player 3bet/4bet pre, make note of the time, and watch for the SD to determine if he has a timing tell!

Time Link to 01:24:51

This is nit-picky, but you say here that our indifference point is 66%. It is actually 64%, as displayed in the last slide. 66% was the equity of Th9h vs the "grey range" and since it was greater than the indifference point, we are ok getting stacks in. So this slide should read "Generally if Eq% <64% we want a fold." It doesn't sig effect any of the hands on the chart, but I was confused and had to rewind and caught the slight mistake. Very cool stuff, though! This along with commitment points (as discussed by Baluga) really make understanding proper bet sizing a lot easier.

Can you elaborate on how if someone c-bets too frequently in position their positional advantage is deminished? Is this because you can bluff raise more and trap more?

Sure, if someone has a 90% cbet (in a 3-bet pot) then you effectively know what they are going to do every single time.

Because 3-bet pots are usually played with very low SPRs, once a cbet is made the next bet/raise is either all in or at least puts everyone to a commitment decision. I suppose in effect it makes the SPR theoretically lower by default as the opponent is certain to put in 12-20bb automatically (lower SPRs dinimish position and being all in removes position).

If someone checks back some of their range (with balance) it reduces our potential EV of calling with hands that flop good equity for CRAI, as their cbets are stronger and less frequent. All alluding to the point that the better someone plays on later streets (compared to you) the more you want to make the hand play out on early streets (i.e lean towards 4-bet rather than call OOP against good players).

Zenben - wow, must check that HEM feature asap. Good spot on the 66%, you are right it should be 64%

Yeah great content - just keep paddy on message and not rambling they way he does sometimes