Small Stakes Shorthanded NL Poker Forums

Question to everyone advocating a call, give us a detailed turn plan, not just a "we have a fd and pot odds therefore we call" type flawed argument.

This and we don't even have pot odds. We only see 1 card on the turn before there's another round of betting. Absolute hand strength is useless. EV is affected by our line and our pot equity vs villain's range.

As for calling flop then shoving turn and stackhunter's math. Yes, that line can be higher EV based on ranges villain's bet sizing etc. However, I'd expect to have much better equity vs villain's calling range and for him to have a wider betting range on the flop if we assume villain is an aggro monkey. Aggro monkey doesn't raise only the top 34 combos of his entire preflop range and doesn't call with only the nuts. Plan to shove on the turn will reduce your FE because of stack size and range involved. It's not reasonable to assume villain will bet 100% of his flop range on the turn.

Question to everyone advocating a call, give us a detailed turn plan, not just a "we have a fd and pot odds therefore we call" type flawed argument. What is your plan on the various turns?

What is flawed about that argument? If I expect his range to be wide enough to have direct odds to call his small raise, I dont need a crazy plan on the turn.
You say our equity isnt good enough to call, I say it is because I dont give him such a strong range. And I dont know if he is barreling the turn 70% or 80% of the time but just going with the assumption that it might be close to 100% is questionable in my opinion. I just think that we need a pretty big sample if we are only using stats to justify a fold.

What is flawed about that argument? If I expect his range to be wide enough to have direct odds to call his small raise, I dont need a crazy plan on the turn.
You say our equity isnt good enough to call, I say it is because I dont give him such a strong range. And I dont know if he is barreling the turn 70% or 80% of the time but just going with the assumption that it might be close to 100% is questionable in my opinion. I just think that we need a pretty big sample if we are only using stats to justify a fold.

If we don't give villain a very strong range then what makes calling with Q high OOP higher EV than 3betting the flop? We can't use stats but we can certainly make some assumptions based on position. Assuming the villain is positionally aware then he should have one of the tightest playing back ranges given position.

Question to everyone advocating a call, give us a detailed turn plan, not just a "we have a fd and pot odds therefore we call" type flawed argument. What is your plan on the various turns?

That argument isnt flawed...

Same argument goes with preflop vs min raises and 3x. We HAVE to call a wider range even if his range is the same width because of the price we are getting. Folding this hand on the flop is pretty bad, unless you have some sick sick read that its like 3%, and even if it is it probably isnt comprised better flush draws.

Derbrain sums it up pretty well here.

If we don't give villain a very strong range then what makes calling with Q high OOP higher EV than 3betting the flop? We can't use stats but we can certainly make some assumptions based on position. Assuming the villain is positionally aware then he should have one of the tightest playing back ranges given position.

I think using the argument that peoples playing back ranges by raising the flop is tight is totally absurd. In general it should be higher IP than OOP, especially if hero has at all a wide range for opening. I would say raising here for villain >> calling with most of his range. I mean you are wanting to fold QThh here...

Also calling has a higher EV than 3betting in circumstances where stack sizes dictate. 3betting OOP is essentially shoving, and shoving here may not yield the fold equity required. Once we get 120bb deep or more 3betting here becomes bad against a tight range. Against a loose range we 3bet because we have enough fold equity to make it profitable/ get worse draws to jam.

Not the case here since he raised small and since he has a somewhat tight range.

Im really questioning the caliber of coaches they have on DC now. Dont mean to be rude but this is pretty simple/basic, and asking questions this trival is really embarassing as a coach.

I think using the argument that peoples playing back ranges by raising the flop is tight is totally absurd.

Against a loose range we 3bet because we have enough fold equity to make it profitable/ get worse draws to jam.

So I'm still waiting for the simple/basic answer as to why we call instead of 3bet assuming villain has a wide range. Maybe you're thinking that we have QTs instead of a range of hands for 3betting that can have a 3bet/fold and 3bet/call part which will make villain shoving random hands into our UTG range with a wide range unprofitable thus making their raising with wide range play on the flop -EV. Your argument is full of flaws and contradiction like what does it mean by getting worse draws to jam? If villain can jam J high FD it's auto 3bet and stack off now? We play our hand instead of a range of hands?

In general it should be higher IP than OOP, especially if hero has at all a wide range for opening

Does this mean when hero has the tightest range for opening like UTG villain should have the tightest raising range IP? It doesn't even matter what we think people should do, it's a leak called projection, otherwise we don't need reads. The fact that villain raised 2/18 cbets is a good indication that chances are his should do and your should do is perhaps bit different.

Im really questioning the caliber of coaches they have on DC now. Dont mean to be rude but this is pretty simple/basic, and asking questions this trival is really embarassing as a coach.

Maybe you should understand how poker works and do some math before you come here and insult the DC coaches.

I cant believe im going through this with a DC coach but ok....

My original comment was suggesting reasons to 3bet.
Here they are.
Q: Against a loose range what reason do we have to 3bet with our draws?

A1: To get value from worse draws?
A2 To get fold equity from his hands that will have decent equity vs us.
You and I both understand this. I hope so...

Regarding A1 -
In this spot what value do we get from draws?
Hardly any. Probably none. So no reason to 3bet.

Regard A2-
3bet/fold sucks since we invest so much/get odds to call it off. 3bet/calling is shoving essentially.
This then points another question. Would you shove 300bb deep or would you call? What about 200bb deep?
What Im getting at is 3betting is has a heavy factor weighted to his stack size remaining.
Given not the great price of dead money shoving probably isnt the best . We still have room on the turn. and given the fact we get such good price vs his raise is a no brainer call.

Anyway we are discussing a tight guy. It makes 3betting a lot worse with this draw since we get it in super bad but you know trhat already.


Its well within my rights to criticise any coach on here especially when they have pretty clear game theory leaks. Its a pretty basic one at that thats why I think its embarrassing.

I cant believe im going through this with a DC coach but ok....


Q: Against a loose range what reason do we have to 3bet with our draws?

A1: To get value from worse draws?
A2 To get fold equity from his hands that will have decent equity vs us.
You and I both understand this. I hope so...

No, you think these are the only reasons and I know it's wrong because directly they both have nothing to do with range construction and ultimately EV. Decision based on betting for value or betting as a bluff and targeting parts of villain's range are incomplete thought process and plainly wrong. If you fail to see the point, we don't need to continue this discussion.

No, you think these are the only reasons and I know it's wrong because directly they both have nothing to do with range construction and ultimately EV. Discussing theory based on betting for value or betting as a bluff and targeting parts of villain's range are incomplete thought process and plainly wrong. If you fail to see the point, we don't need to continue this discussion.

LOL

They arent wrong. Those are the reasons why you would 3bet with a draw. Its the simple.

In the hand there is no criteria that makes the reason to 3bet.

BTW at what point am I targetting just one part of his range? Im not!

LOL

They arent wrong. Those are the reasons why you would 3bet with a draw. Its the simple.

In the hand there is no criteria that makes the reason to 3bet.

Keep on LOL and keep playing your hand instead of construct ranges. It will be good for the game

Ok I shown my explanations and thought process.

You show yours. You are the coach here. Lets see how good you are at explaining things.

we don't need to continue this discussion.

Yes you do! Now I need a more detailed answer about your range construction arguments.

When I was asking about turn plans I'm wasn't trying to saying flatting is bad or good, just that if you are advocating flatting what is your turn plan?

This is because I don't think you can objectively evaluate how good flatting flop is without precisely thinking about what happens on the turn because we still have a significant amount of stack behind.

While flatting with no real plan in game might be ok in some spots, we really can do a whole lot better than that when analyzing the spot in a thread as we have so much more time to think about this spot.

In any case I'm definitely thinking of spending some time going over this spot as I don't think the correct play here, *including* the turn plan, is all that clear.

Villain is 21/18, 3bets 8.1%. He raises cbets 11%. He doesn't seem particularly aggressive and we have no history. Should I call again on the turn or check/raise?


Poker Stars $0.50/$1 No Limit Hold'em - 6 players - View hand 1848865
DeucesCracked Poker Videos Hand History Converter

BB: $112.35
UTG: $128.90
Hero (MP): $207.70
CO: $100.00
BTN: $113.40
SB: $100.00

Pre Flop: ($1.50) Hero is MP with T Q
1 fold, Hero raises to $3, 1 fold, BTN calls $3, 2 folds

Flop: ($7.50) 3 7 8 (2 players)
Hero bets $6, BTN raises to $15, Hero calls $9

Turn: ($37.50) 9 (2 players)
Hero checks, BTN bets $23, Hero ???

I like your flop line, I think calling is fine as long as our calling range is not "pairs and draws we don't know what do with". Reraising castrates villain's bluffing range, and this is a great board for villain to keep bluffing on about 50% of the deck. Call the turn/river.

If we don't give villain a very strong range then what makes calling with Q high OOP higher EV than 3betting the flop?

I think that his range consists of enough weaker holdings to make calling profitable. I dont say that he is bluffing often enough to make 3betting better than flatting.

Im really questioning the caliber of coaches they have on DC now. Dont mean to be rude but this is pretty simple/basic, and asking questions this trival is really embarassing as a coach.

There is no reason to start attacking a coach because of his opinion on an interesting spot. I think that blah made some really interesting points on this hand and really made me think about this not-so-trivial spot. While I dont agree on his assumptions about our opponents range, I do agree with the conclusions that are based on those assumptions.

I think that his range consists of enough weaker holdings to make calling profitable. I dont say that he is bluffing often enough to make 3betting better than flatting.

I think what blah was getting at is that the two ideas of villain's range are mutually exclusive. Either he bluffs too much, or he doesn't. There is not a range that bluffs too much,but doesn't bluff enough that we are scared of jamming against it. from a GTO point, there is the perfect bluffing ratio. If someone bluffs less than that, we make the most $$ by folding. if they bluff more than that, we make the most $$ by never folding a made hand.

However, here we don't have a made hand, we have a draw with good equity vs. a villain who bluffs to much. So, most EV play? If we jam, we always get max FE and realize our actual equity. If we call OOP, how do we realize our equities? If we call we remove our FE from our equation, which is +EV on its own vs someone who bluffs too much.

There is no reason to start attacking a coach because of his opinion on an interesting spot. I think that blah made some really interesting points on this hand and really made me think about this not-so-trivial spot. While I dont agree on his assumptions about our opponents range, I do agree with the conclusions that are based on those assumptions.

Yeah maybe so.

Im not question you Derbrain tho