Heads Up NL Poker Forums

Improva is def right fwiw, I'm 100% sure I know what he is implying

Improva is def right fwiw, I'm 100% sure I know what he is implying

Are you saying you don't need 50%+ (more like 53 or something considering rake) equity vs the calling range to bet here? That makes no sense at all, if his calling range has 60% equity he gets $19.2 out of our $32 bet while we get $12.8. I know I'm a noob HU but that's just math. And we don't lose anything by checking since this is such a bad bluff spot, plus he has no bluffs in his range except 54.

If he calls 3barrels with bare 6s in his range or lower pairs we definitely get over 50%; seems unlikely to me he would do that to an unknown the 5th hand of the match.

Interesting Thread. Dont you think though that there are way too many assumptions on what villian will 'always' and 'never' do after 4 hands?

Are you saying you don't need 50%+ (more like 53 or something considering rake) equity vs the calling range to bet here? That makes no sense at all, if his calling range has 60% equity he gets $19.2 out of our $32 bet while we get $12.8. I know I'm a noob HU but that's just math. And we don't lose anything by checking since this is such a bad bluff spot, plus he has no bluffs in his range except 54.

If he calls 3barrels with bare 6s in his range or lower pairs we definitely get over 50%; seems unlikely to me he would do that to an unknown the 5th hand of the match.

There are two important factors that makes this a bet.

A) We don't need 50% equity in order for betting to have a higher EV than checking when we are OOP.

B) If we don't bet this hand it becomes almost impossible for us to bluff on equivalent run outs. The key to HU is to put your opponent in a tough spot when he has the middel and bottom of his range. If we are not betting kings the river becomes a super duper easy snappy call. It might very well be that you don't need to be tough to play against to beat SSNL HU... but it certainly does not hurt.

There are two important factors that makes this a bet.

A) We don't need 50% equity in order for betting to have a higher EV than checking when we are OOP.

B) If we don't bet this hand it becomes almost impossible for us to bluff on equivalent run outs. The key to HU is to put your opponent in a tough spot when he has the middel and bottom of his range. If we are not betting kings the river becomes a super duper easy snappy call. It might very well be that you don't need to be tough to play against to beat SSNL HU... but it certainly does not hurt.

A) We do when there's no danger to get bluffed off our hand, then it's the same as being in position. Even in spots where you think villain's going to bluff c/c is almost always better

B) I'm not going to contradict you here because my experience in true HU is not that great, and 0 at pokerstars I do question the efficacy of bluffing this kind of board otr in general though.

Different perspective: you advocate sacrificing a lot of money for balancing reasons in a spot that's not too bluffable in the first place vs an unknown that might as well quit us 5 hands later. While I understand your POV, it still seems like too much of a stretch.

Setting balancing/ overall gameplan reasons aside, this is a superstandard valuebet. The 3bet defending/ river calling range you assign him is way too tight.

Setting balancing/ overall gameplan reasons aside, this is a superstandard valuebet. The 3bet defending/ river calling range you assign him is way too tight.

People routinely call 6x here to 3 barrels by unknown? That's what it comes down to basically when deciding if it's a straight up value bet or not

A) We do when there's no danger to get bluffed off our hand, then it's the same as being in position. Even in spots where you think villain's going to bluff c/c is almost always better

B) I'm not going to contradict you here because my experience in true HU is not that great, and 0 at pokerstars I do question the efficacy of bluffing this kind of board otr in general though.

Different perspective: you advocate sacrificing a lot of money for balancing reasons in a spot that's not too bluffable in the first place vs an unknown that might as well quit us 5 hands later. While I understand your POV, it still seems like too much of a stretch.

X/C is almost always worse than betting in a spot like this. If we are willing to make a MASSIVE assumption like villain does not bet worse hands when checked to then X/F is okay. But it is a MASSIVE assumption.

It is not so much a question of balance as it is a question of having a good overall understanding of poker strategy.

With the best of intentions, if you want to play HU you really need to adjust your approach.

People routinely call 6x here to 3 barrels by unknown? That's what it comes down to basically when deciding if it's a straight up value bet or not

Loose passive Fish who min3bet, defend J6s oop and are unable to valubet TP with it do. It is there raisen d'etre.


Edited to add - this is a perfectly standard line against any opponent though really. Not valuebetting KK here makes you far too easy to play against.

Loose passive Fish who min3bet, defend J6s oop and are unable to valubet TP with it do. It is there raisen d'etre.


Edited to add - this is a perfectly standard line against any opponent though really. Not valuebetting KK here makes you far too easy to play against.

Once the T pairs you probably get him to call with A high too .

following...interesting thread

@improva and @gamble, maybe you guys should compare heads up graphs

Let us for the fun of it assume that we actually have 40% equity when called. How often does villain then need to fold for a shove to be +EV?

Well he has to fold never to be +EV.

EV(Shove&call)= 0,4* 68$ - 0,6* 32$
EV(Shove&call)= 8$

So our Equity for Shoving is between 36$ (when he folds 100%) and 8$ (when he calls 100% and we have 40% Equity)

Let us for the fun of it assume that we actually have 40% equity when called. How often does villain then need to fold for a shove to be +EV?

Let x = villain folds
1-x = villain calls

36(x) + (1-x)[(32)(0.4) - (32)(0.6)] = 0
36x + (1-x)(12.8 - 19.2) = 0
36x + (1-x)(-6.4) = 0
36x - 6.4 + 6.4x = 0
42.4x = 6.4
x = 15%