Blind defense against good player - KJs

[StellarWind]

Party 5/10 6-max (5-handed)

Preflop: Hero is BB with K /images/graemlins/club.gifJ /images/graemlins/club.gif.
Button raises, SB folds, Hero calls.

Button is 23/16 and pretty similar to me postflop except considerably more aggressive on the turn and river. 3-betting is something I do some of the time here with this hand. I also smoothcall a lot of premium hands in this situation. Right now all hell was breaking loose on another table so I took the easy way out and called.

Flop (4 SB): 6 /images/graemlins/club.gif 7 /images/graemlins/heart.gif 7 /images/graemlins/diamond.gif (2 players)
Hero checks, Button bets, Hero calls.

Turn (3 BB): A /images/graemlins/club.gif (2 players)
Hero checks, Button bets, Hero raises, ...

[adamstewart]

3-bet preflop. No excuses.


The hand plays entirely different after that.



Adam

3-bet preflop. A 23/16's button range is a lot worse than your hand.

[Wynton]

Let me put it this way. I totally suck at playing the bb, and I probably would have just called too. Not a good sign.

[Megenoita]

I like 3-betting PF ESPECIALLY with good Kings because then when that ace turns your bet actually folds the guy. I've c/r so many draws (OESD or FDs) where I pay the bastard too much with not enough equity b/c I overcalculated my fold equity. HU it doesn't seem worth it when they are well aware of the flush draw and bluffable board--all but no piece stay in the hand, I find. Of course it's much better that he's a TAG, but he could very well have an ace, too. Maybe this is short sighted thinking...let me know, guys.

[partygirluk]

3 bet this prelop as you have a significant equity edge. You also want to make it as dear as possible for him to steal your blinds with weak holdings.

[Wynton]

To be a little less flip, let me ask those who advocate 3-betting explain which hands they'd just call against this opponent, without 3-betting.

And if anyone's feeling extra-generous with their time, perhaps they could tell me why 3-betting only the best hands, but calling the weaker defensible hands, doesn't result in giving away too much info.

[Megenoita]

KJs is a premium hand that has a definite PF edge against villain's range that can also lose easily post flop and therefore desires to take the initiative in the hand (IMO).

For the same reason (initiative), once maybe every 2-3 hours I cap with a hand I was 3-bet against because I know their range can be so wide, and that initiative gains me tremendous fold equity IMO.

I like just calling with, say, A8. I can passively suck out all the bets he'll offer while not being afraid of an overcard.

I like 3-betting AT or better, sometimes A9, and many pps. They will often win UI. This doesn't give away too much info b/c I can always have 33 playing the way I do.

I like also occasionally 3-betting a hand like QTs.

I like calling with many marginal hands and c/r the flop, betting the turn on low cards. That wins a very high % against TAGish players.

I'm open to everyone's thoughts on this kind of strategy.

M

[dave44]

I'm not sure I like this much. If you think he'll fold a lot of pairs under an ace it certainly has merit. However, check-calling may be tough to beat EV wise since most of the time your flop and turn calls will scare him into giving up with hands like QJ on the river where you'll win at showdown.

[ QUOTE ]
And if anyone's feeling extra-generous with their time, perhaps they could tell me why 3-betting only the best hands, but calling the weaker defensible hands, doesn't result in giving away too much info.

[/ QUOTE ]

KJs is far from 'only the best hands'. I will 3-bet lots of strong hands against a button raise. I will also call with the top premiums as well as the defendable hands. Sometimes I will 3-bet smaller pairs, sometimes I will call with them. I will almost always 3-bet with 66-JJ as well as ATo+ and KJ, KQ.

Calling with the real premiums is enough to make my BB steal defenses pretty much unreadable. My calling range is wide enough that I can have a piece of almost any board, and my 3-betting range is wide enough for the same.

[ddubois]

Cons:
If I'm villan, I'm thinking "He can't have an ace, he would have 3-bet preflop". It seems like the only hand you fold are those you are beating, except precisely KQ. I suppose 22-55 give up fairly often. If I have 88+, I'm calling bullshit and calling down.

Pros:
Suckering another BB out of a couple of random cards 8 through K, who have roughly 4 outs against you, then forcing them to fold before they have a chance to catch, seems desirable.

[StellarWind]

[ QUOTE ]
KJs is a premium hand that has a definite PF edge against villain's range that can also lose easily post flop and therefore desires to take the initiative in the hand (IMO).

[/ QUOTE ]
I recently reevaluated several aspects of my preflop strategy and made some important changes. But before that I was a 23/16.9. That's very convenient because it makes it easy to specify a hand range for Villain: any pocket, any ace, K4s, K6o, Q8s, Q9o, J8s, J9o, T8s, T9o, 98s.

That comes out to a gigantic 52.6% hot-and-cold advantage preflop (PokerStove). Of course the advantage of the button should allow a good player to win more than his fair share of hands. Plus I may get capped by a truly premium hand.

There is no preflop equity advantage to be exploited by reraising.

The preflop decision completely changes the value situation on the flop. If I have 3-bet then I almost have to autobet the flop. The immediate EV of this action is seriously negative because on average I still only have my 52.6% edge. When I'm ahead he will usually call or possibly even fold and I get nothing extra. When I'm behind I tend to get raised and put an extra bet into a bad situation. Overall the flop is going to be a -EV street for me.

However, if I just call preflop he has to autobet. Now I pay one bet or fold when I've flopped badly and hammer him with a checkraise when I'm doing well. This makes the flop a +EV street for me.

Of course either of us might wait until the turn to put our respective raises in, but assuming waiting is a good play that only increases the EV of the raising player.

Note that all of this is an application of the mathematical idea presented in Sklansky's excellent October 2+2 Internet Magazine article.

3-betting preflop is not directly +EV. It is actually a major EV investment in that highly prized commodity "The Initiative". The premise of "The Initiative" is that by truthfully telling a strong Villain that I have a quality hand instead of leaving him completely in the dark, Villain will proceed to make a bunch on bad folds and generally give me his money. If only this good player had no idea what I had he would play so much better.

As I said, I've been rethinking my preflop strategy and heads up 3-betting and capping situations are a big piece of it. I know what most of you think and I've decided I don't agree with you. So I'm going to do things my way for a while and see how it works.

The truth is that very few hands have a big advantage against most players' steal ranges. Furthermore almost all hands can secure a much bigger advantage by waiting until the flop to raise.

Shania doesn't like narrow 3-bet ranges so I also don't want to only 3-bet premium hands. Accordingly I've decided to start calling everything including the premium hands. About a third of the time I'll 3-bet a premium hand to disguise my strategy. I also 3-bet drawing hands like KJs and QTs about 1/3 of the time to maintain balance.

Other heads-up 3-betting and capping situations where I am doing related things include blind-versus-blind, EP versus BB, and openraise-versus-3bet. This last situation relates to Barron's latest 2+2 article. I think the Frank "standard 2+2" idea of only capping a 3-bet heads-up with AA, KK, QQ, and AK is a complete crock. I'd love to see what Barron's article would have looked like if Frank had said "see you on the flop" and called any two cards. That's what I now do. If you want to isolate me you do so at your own risk. No more warnings when I have a good hand. If you insist on abusing my A9s and QJs hands with incessant bluffing you do so at your own risk.

So far the new approach feels good. I've already been seriously overpaid for several premium hands. Only time will tell how well it really works.

Very important: none of this applies multiway except in special cases. Another of my resolutions is actually to be nastier about 3-betting marginal hands instead of just calling after someone raises limpers.

Now can we please talk about the turn? This is not a preflop hand. Postflop play wins the money folks. What range of hands am I folding here? Especially if my preflop call could be a premium hand?

[SparkyDog]

Excellent post.

And I think I agree with a lot of what you say. Much better thought out reasoning than the reflexive, "equity edge raise!!!1!" mantra.

EDIT to include turn play:

I don't think he'll fold very many pocket pairs, which is the only hands you want to fold that he plausibly will. I don't like a check-raise semi-bluff because I don't think he'll really fold all that many hands that you're behind. So I prefer a river donk if you improve in any way at all.

[Megenoita]

I would go too far into the PF aspect because you requested not to, but I think you underestimate the value of gaining initiative. If you fold every time you don't flop well, you're going to fold too much. I would learn from your explanation of how I'm wrong.

On the turn, you are risking 2 BB to win 4. You will fold 22-55 out of hands that are ahead of you. You will pay more for your draw against most aces, and 88+ will call down (no?). You will fold a bunch of hands that you're way ahead of. I don't think raising has enough fold equity considering that villain understands the highly bluffable turn card that it is, albeit it's still an ace. I'd love to hear what others think.

Isn't over 50% of vilain's hand range either an ace or a hand that will definitely not fold this hand, ever?

M

Very well thought out analysis and there are many points to consider in your work.

I do, however, find a problem here:

[ QUOTE ]
However, if I just call preflop he has to autobet. Now I pay one bet or fold when I've flopped badly and hammer him with a checkraise when I'm doing well. This makes the flop a +EV street for me.

[/ QUOTE ]

This statement is completely correct IF the prospects of "flopping badly" are 50% and the prospects of "doing well" are 50%. Then it could be a coin toss that you can sway to your advantage by giving him the initiative to auto-bet and essentially, acting last. Unfortunately, that's not the case and we will be on the defensive 2/3 of the time. Without initiative to apply pressure, and without position, the flop is definitely NOT a +EV street for us.

[SparkyDog]

[ QUOTE ]
but I think you underestimate the value of gaining initiative. If you fold every time you don't flop well, you're going to fold too much.


[/ QUOTE ]

Who does this?

[Megenoita]

[ QUOTE ]
Very well thought out analysis and there are many points to consider in your work.

I do, however, find a problem here:

[ QUOTE ]
However, if I just call preflop he has to autobet. Now I pay one bet or fold when I've flopped badly and hammer him with a checkraise when I'm doing well. This makes the flop a +EV street for me.

[/ QUOTE ]

This statement is completely correct IF the prospects of "flopping badly" are 50% and the prospects of "doing well" are 50%. Then it could be a coin toss that you can sway to your advantage by giving him the initiative to auto-bet and essentially, acting last. Unfortunately, that's not the case and we will be on the defensive 2/3 of the time. Without initiative to apply pressure, and without position, the flop is definitely NOT a +EV street for us.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is essentially what I was saying as well about calling and not raising PF. I've tried just calling there but I find I fold too much on the flop or turn when I just call. Conversely, when I 3-bet and autobet, I find villain gives up much more readily, always, unless they flop well. Now the onus is on villain to flop well, which is a lower % than not flopping well (perhaps your view of flopping well is more liberal than mine, because when I c/r the flop and bet the turn when I think he missed, I win those almost always). I don't think the way you described your flop mindset is communicating what you mean. You need an edge somewhere, either by c/r not only when you flop well but when you think he didn't, or by 3-betting PF and betting the flop making him need to flop well.

I seriously go back and forth with a hand like this in this PF situation, but I find whenever I call PF, I friggin' fold too easily post flop.

[SparkyDog]

[ QUOTE ]
Very well thought out analysis and there are many points to consider in your work.

I do, however, find a problem here:

[ QUOTE ]
However, if I just call preflop he has to autobet. Now I pay one bet or fold when I've flopped badly and hammer him with a checkraise when I'm doing well. This makes the flop a +EV street for me.

[/ QUOTE ]

This statement is completely correct IF the prospects of "flopping badly" are 50% and the prospects of "doing well" are 50%. Then it could be a coin toss that you can sway to your advantage by giving him the initiative to auto-bet and essentially, acting last. Unfortunately, that's not the case and we will be on the defensive 2/3 of the time. Without initiative to apply pressure, and without position, the flop is definitely NOT a +EV street for us.

[/ QUOTE ]

By not 3betting preflop we can sorta be in position, since he'll autobet ~100% when checked to. But who says we aren't allowed to put pressure on him with nothing? We don't have to flop something to checkraise or lead out.

[SparkyDog]

[ QUOTE ]

I seriously go back and forth with a hand like this in this PF situation, but I find whenever I call PF, I friggin' fold too easily post flop.

[/ QUOTE ]

And you can't do anything to change this? Cause it's not like you hit more often if you're the aggressor pre-flop.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
By not 3betting preflop we can sorta be in position, since he'll autobet ~100% when checked to. But who says we aren't allowed to put pressure on him with nothing? We don't have to flop something to checkraise or lead out.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're right about our options. We don't have to just check and call or fold. However, the magnitude of our strength portrayed by betting or c/ring isn't as great as if we were the aggressor. He has position on us and will jam us up by calling. Furthermore, the last thing we want is for him to get defensive against our donk or c/r and start raising us with a worse hand on principle.

[Jeff W]

3-bet pre flop. The rest is good.

[Trix]

Very long post, just skimmed through it mostly. I sometimes just call here aswell, but just wanted to comment on this part:

[ QUOTE ]
What range of hands am I folding here? Especially if my preflop call could be a premium hand?

[/ QUOTE ]

I dont think he will know that you could have a premium hand, so I dont think it change anything.

[Wynton]

Dare I make the trite observation that pf depends on the opponent? More usefully, perhaps we could identify a certain player-type against whom 3-betting is best, and another type against whom calling is best. Though I have little ability to describe these types, I think this requires more attention to the opponents' post-flop tendencies, than their stealing standards.

To take one obvious type, suppose the stealer is the type who reacts to aggression with even more aggression, both pf and post-flop: in that case, would flat calling pf be superior?

(Sorry, Stellar, I know you're interested in the turn but pf is my own personal rubicon nowadays.)

[ QUOTE ]
To take one obvious type, suppose the stealer is the type who reacts to aggression with even more aggression, both pf and post-flop: in that case, would flat calling pf be superior?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, and there will be times you want to call this guy to the showdown with king high as well.

Also, if a PFR is very passive, you don't want to 3-bet with KJs either. Against this type, you want to try to hit your hand as cheaply as possible and fold to his bets if you miss.

[PokerBob]

ok...he calls and the river bricks off....now what?

[ QUOTE ]
ok...he calls and the river bricks off....now what?

[/ QUOTE ]

Boy, you ARE running bad.

[SparkyDog]

If I read that right you're saying an flop bet after a PF 3bet conveys more strength than a flop checkraise. I disagree.

He's still got position on us if we 3bet and can still jam us up if he calls if we 3bet PF and lead the flop. So that problem can be disregarded due to non-uniqueness.

Why don't we want him raising with worse hands?

Here's my still evolving views on blind defense and really poker in general:

We want to play our hand in a manner that minimizes our mistakes made. Period. Money is made when mistakes are. I think a lot of us would do better to focus on the flow of hands and what we are trying to accomplish than mere hot and cold equity and such.

It is not impossible to induce other players, especially aggressive ones, to make mistakes by underplaying our hand, preflop and every other street.

When our opponent has a worse hand preflop, what kind of cards will he hold? We're ahead of everything except aces and pairs, and that narrows down the range that we're ahead of to broadway and big non paint connectors. And we're not ahead by much. And when we remain ahead it will often be difficult to tell. When we are ahead our position makes it difficult to prevent free cards, lest we fire bets away mindlessly into a pair, or worse yet, get raised with a mere 6 outs in a small pot. Or get raised and they take a free card and we're stuck on the river with a hard decision, the worst street to be stuck with hard decisions to make.

So when we 3bet preflop and our opponent has a worse hand, how much action can we expect? Little to none, if we're still ahead by the flop.

Our hand's a dog to all aces and pairs. Against which hands does it behoove us to suggest more strength than we actually possess? Clearly we benefit from this against small pairs, as we may be able to muscle them out postflop by representing a big hand, creating "bluff" outs with the Aces and Queens that are more likely to show than our Kings and Jacks. The only problem with this ideal reasoning is opponents are often intent on showdown and the fine line between good aggressive play and blindly spewing gets crossed when that happens.

The trend certainly seems to be that you want to force your opponent into a trap where he doesn't show his showdownable hands down and puts too much in with his Queen and Jack highs. But that's awfully difficult out of position, especially when you are under the obligation of maintaining pressure.

And that's another subject. So you 3bet preflop. You bet the flop regardless, hoping to represent all things bad to all hands you're opponent holds at the same time. A-higher kickers to ace-small hands, overpairs to pairs, small connectors that hit the flop to overcards and so on and so forth. But you're opponent knows you autobet the flop. So he reflexively calls. What do you know about his hand now? The few times he folds it's pretty clear you were in the lead anyways. With each bet on each street his hand gets better and better, and you keep representing a better and better hand than his trying to get him to fold. But there's more bad hands than good hands, and you're opponent will figure this out after a while.

But if we reverse these roles, what happens? All of a sudden your hand range widens. You're opponent isn't worried about whether you're ahead or not, he's focused on trying to take this pot away and protect his ace-high. There's an old poker adage about how the action taken on later streets is more represenative of a player's hand than action taken on earlier streets. I think the same can be said of initiative, and when it's taken from you're opponent on a later street it is a more emphatic statement. What exactly it is a statement of depends on the board exactly. The benefit to this is that your opponent's response will tell you more about his hand than anything else. A turn checkraise on an ace-high ragged board is a bold statement. The problem with making such bold statements is that it tells you're opponent a lot. So we must lie.

The reason I hate 3betting out of position is it doesn't let me lie as well. It takes away my flexibility and arranges these preconceived notions about my hand in my opponents head, and HU play isn't as much about what I actually have as what my opponent thinks I have, and whether or not he can beat it.

Now I'm not swearing by any of this, and what I said may cause your loss rate in the blinds to skyrocket.

[SparkyDog]

Well, whatever your opponents mistakes are, you want to push him further in that direction.

If he bets a bit too much (not necessarily bluffs, as he may think he's protecting the best hand) then a flat call is absolutely in order. And you should probably keep doing that after the flop if it's not too ugly, because he's going to keep betting it if it's not too ugly, trying to take the pot with T9o through aggression and position.

If he folds too much, then definitely 3bet. But I have yet to meet a tight aggressive blind stealer that folds too much. If he's prone to call to SD too much, I think making a move post flop when you connect is best.

But I was making the mere observation that YOU are the one that clicks the fold button. If you have a tendency to fold too much if you aren't sustaining aggression, then you should think about how you can better play your hand passively, because passive play is definitely in order against some players in today's games.

[PokerBob]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
ok...he calls and the river bricks off....now what?

[/ QUOTE ]

Boy, you ARE running bad.

[/ QUOTE ]

ok. but the question still remains. i had a discussion with another player about "fancy moves" like this the other day, and his comment was that you HAVE to follow through on the river if you are making a move.

[Wynton]

I agree with everything you say, Sparky, yet let me try and play devil's advocate. You say that 3-betting is problematic because it doesn't really help deception. Yet, suppose our opponent is the type who doesn't take the 3-bet seriously, and suppose we also happen to have a hand that is CLEARLY better than most of the stealing hands. Since this particular opponent won't interpret the 3-bet for the strength that it is, why not 3-bet then? Perhaps the issue there is that, after a while, that opponent might interpret our hands correctly.

So maybe what all this means is that we simply have to continually change our approach with regard whether to call or 3-bet, at least against those opponents whom we play against for a sustained period?

I see you've given a lot of thought to this and that's cool.

A few things still seemed to go unnoticed.

What ever happened to "charging your opponent preflop because you have the best hand right now"? What if you are dominating him ? Your hand beats so much of his range from the button. Also, out of all the times he has you beat with an ace high, his kicker will be lower than your jack, and your hand will play better post flop anyway. The preflop equity when raising is huge against a button raiser will play A2o+. Put yourself in the button's shoes for a minute and think of all the times you've been 3-bet on your steals. On average, do you like it? How do you like playing A4o after being 3-bet when the flop is Q98 or T82 or 987? The truth is, if you don't flop an ace, you usually have worries.

I'm not saying I am 100% right about 3-betting that hand in this spot. I just wanna to throw out some food for thought.

[StellarWind]

Lots of good responses. I'm still reading.

Have to run but here's something that people are overlooking. It is awesome to hit a worse hand with the turn checkraise. This is a big win case for the play.

1. 3-6 outs wiped away if he folds.

2. He may be a straight draw or flush draw and have to put more money in drawing short.

3. Why do you assume that my KJ beats (e.g.) his JT? Are you sure that he won't fire the third barrel? Are you calling the river unimproved, especially if a tough card comes? He bets a lot of rivers. Putting him away now could prevent a winning bluff. Or be a better use of money than calling the river if you think that way.

[ QUOTE ]
ok. but the question still remains. i had a discussion with another player about "fancy moves" like this the other day, and his comment was that you HAVE to follow through on the river if you are making a move.

[/ QUOTE ]


Who says you have to follow through?

First of all KJ high with an ace on the board is hardly a 'move'. If you get called, you're losing. Point blank. If he's on a draw and folds, you were winning anyway. The great 'move' you just made to get him to fold was probably not even a bluff.

Second, if you raise the turn on a move with whatever you have and a guy who will only call with top pair or better (and you know this) happens to call, why throw in good money after bad on the river? Your move missed when the guy called.

I like semi-bluffs from time to time, but I wouldn't recommend semi-bluffs with nut no pair too often. If the guy folds, you did a great job; if he calls, you have to hit.

[PokerBob]

[ QUOTE ]

Who says you have to follow through?

[/ QUOTE ]

some idiot i know. but this may be a special case with the A on the board. what happens if a K or J hits the river?

[wheelz]

you bet

[NLSoldier]

[ QUOTE ]
you bet

[/ QUOTE ]

if the river is a total brick?

uh oh. this could be a rare disagreement.

[wheelz]

no, pokerbob asked:

[ QUOTE ]
what happens if a K or J hits the river?

[/ QUOTE ]

come on, we don't disagree.

[NLSoldier]

[ QUOTE ]
no, pokerbob asked:

[ QUOTE ]
what happens if a K or J hits the river?

[/ QUOTE ]

come on, we don't disagree.

[/ QUOTE ]

/images/graemlins/grin.gif

[sweetjazz]

How likely are you going to be in blind battles with this player? Is the table semi-tight and are you planning on playing for a while?

If so, being caught bluff raising when there's an A on board could set you to get paid off when villain is drawing slim in a similar situation when you do have the A. Not sure that this factor is enough to sway your decision, but you should definitely keep it in mind the rest of the decision once you do decide to raise.

BTW, I'm not sure I like the flop call. The problem is that the flop looks to drawy, so I think villain is going to fire again a lot on the turn, and even if he checks behind, is often doing so with A high planning to call a river bet in case you missed your draw. (Maybe I'm giving too much credit to your villain, but from how you described him, he might be capable of making such plays.)

[StellarWind]

[ QUOTE ]
What ever happened to "charging your opponent preflop because you have the best hand right now"?

[/ QUOTE ]
Reread my earlier post where I discuss this. KJs is not a great heads up hand. You cannot charge him for playing because you have no appreciable advantage in pot equity. Meanwhile he has the button and the capping privilege.

[StellarWind]

[ QUOTE ]
BTW, I'm not sure I like the flop call.

[/ QUOTE ]
Part-and-parcel of the just-call approach to BB defense is you have to at least call the flop autobet most of the time. Otherwise you actually do wind up in that weak-tight trap where you fold too many hands.

A large part of what 3-betting accomplishes for many players is it forces them to stay in with marginal hands until at least the turn and often longer. The key here is that when you are heads up with high cards you just have to stop folding. Unless the flop is a disaster call the stealer's flop bet. If you are the stealer and get 3-bet out of the blinds, call his flop autobet.

How do you feel when you take the initiative preflop, miss the flop, and your autobet is flatcalled? It's very uncomfortable. Do you give the free card or do you bluff again now that the bet size has doubled?

The funny thing is the bad players do this naturally. It's the (almost) good players who fold everytime they don't know where they stand.

You are basically right that calling the flop with KJ overcards and a backdoor flush draw is a small Sklansky mistake if he has an ace or a pair. But he can't see my cards and he may make a bigger mistake in a moment. Either he gives me a lot of undeserved free cards and my loose flop calls are more than justified or he loses a fortune in unsuccessful bluffs, losing value bets, and checkraises.

Think of it this way. I didn't put an extra bet in preflop at even money odds. That means I budgeted right then to use those saved chips to call the flop autobet no matter what the flop is. On average it's the same even-money proposition because the flop could be anything.

Of course that's an oversimplification. If the flop is really ugly I use my judgment to fold and save the bet. If the flop is good then I can further sting him with the checkraise. That's how I recover with interest the EV I lost by not 3-betting preflop. But most of the time I need to call and reassess after I see the turn. If you can't bear to do this then go back to the 3-bet crutch because you fold too much. Actually I also call most of my good hands to save them for the turn. There are so many hands that warrant slightly loose flop calls (including many low-card hands that no one would 3-bet preflop) that the pressure is really on not to give free cards on the turn and in practice most players rarely do. So I save as many strong hands as I can to cash in by checkraising the turn.

The need to make these loose calls is one of the biggest adjustments I had to make when I moved from 3/6 full to 5/10 6-max.

[StellarWind]

[ QUOTE ]
How likely are you going to be in blind battles with this player? Is the table semi-tight and are you planning on playing for a while?

[/ QUOTE ]
Actually this heads-up confrontation is a freak of nature. SB never met a hand he didn't like until apparently just now. SB's postflop play has been visibly tightening in response to my vicious heads-up play against him. If he wants to think I'm a fruitcake because of this hand I'm in favor of it.

[StellarWind]

[ QUOTE ]
I agree with everything you say, Sparky, yet let me try and play devil's advocate. You say that 3-betting is problematic because it doesn't really help deception. Yet, suppose our opponent is the type who doesn't take the 3-bet seriously, and suppose we also happen to have a hand that is CLEARLY better than most of the stealing hands. Since this particular opponent won't interpret the 3-bet for the strength that it is, why not 3-bet then? Perhaps the issue there is that, after a while, that opponent might interpret our hands correctly.

So maybe what all this means is that we simply have to continually change our approach with regard whether to call or 3-bet, at least against those opponents whom we play against for a sustained period?

[/ QUOTE ]
As usual most progress in the world happens when things are going wrong. I've been running poorly for a while and that motivated me to look harder at my game.

What I saw was a little stagnation in comparison to the enormous progress I made shortly after moving up to 5/10. Refinement of the same old techniques but not so many new ideas. That's OK because I really am just running a little bad and if I want to stay at 5/10 no problem. But that is not at all what I want out of poker so I need to take my game to the next level. The only way to do that is to try some new things even if maybe things get worse before they get better. These preflop changes are some of those new things.

What I'm doing is learning a whole new way of playing this aspect of the game. Once I master it, learning what it's good for and who it works against, I'll have a completely new weapon at my disposal. I'll be able to play both the new way and the old way. Naked preflop aggression against the weak-tight, rope-a-dope and traps for the bet-bot LAG bluffers, and maybe some of each to confuse the truly good players.

The point is you can't shift gears if you don't have any gears except the one you always use. The only way to learn a new style is to commit to using it and get some experience.

So yes you are right, the best approach does depend on your opponent and that's the goal.

[wuarhg]

This is some good stuff, nice posts Stellar.

[Wynton]

[ QUOTE ]

Part-and-parcel of the just-call approach to BB defense is you have to at least call the flop autobet most of the time. Otherwise you actually do wind up in that weak-tight trap where you fold too many hands.

A large part of what 3-betting accomplishes for many players is it forces them to stay in with marginal hands until at least the turn and often longer. The key here is that when you are heads up with high cards you just have to stop folding. Unless the flop is a disaster call the stealer's flop bet. If you are the stealer and get 3-bet out of the blinds, call his flop autobet.

[/ QUOTE ]

Alright, this advice is extremely important to me (if true). I've slowly progressed to the point of realizing I need to defend more, but I've never been sure what that implies about flop calls. In fact, I might have regressed by calling more pf, and then folding the flop without some particular help on the turn (or a particular belief that the villain was not helped by the flop).

Does everyone agree that, when you defend headsup - either by calling or 3-betting - you are basically committing yourself to see the turn in the vast majority of situations?

[Wynton]

[ QUOTE ]
Naked preflop aggression against the weak-tight, rope-a-dope and traps for the bet-bot LAG bluffers, and maybe some of each to confuse the truly good players.

The point is you can't shift gears if you don't have any gears except the one you always use. The only way to learn a new style is to commit to using it and get some experience.

So yes you are right, the best approach does depend on your opponent and that's the goal.

[/ QUOTE ]

Would it be too onerous to try and list a few stereotypes and suggest a default action? For example,

1. Unthinking maniac who steals when you have a clear edge: 3-bet here because you have an equity edge AND he won't interpret the 3-bet as strength.
2. Tight/passive type who steals rarely, but happens to do so when you have a powerhouse: just call because you do not want to scare him away.
3. Competitive pf but cautious post-flop type, who reacts to the 3-bet by capping, while slowing down to aggression on flop and/or turn: I think that just calling here might be best with decent cards, but 3-betting superior with powerhouse cards.
4. Type who is unlikely to cap pf, but will try and punish your pf 3-bet by going to war on the flop or turn when his cards are strong. In other words, if he has AK, this player is content not to cap pf because he knows his edge and surprise factor is going to be great if the flop hits, and he's also content not to cap when his hand is mediocre. I'm not sure here at all. But because it seems like this opponent is going to react to the board, I tend to think that you should 3-bet a greater percentage of your hands, since aggression will help you win on nondescript boards and will pay off when you have very strong starters too.

5. Any decent player who you have been playing at for a while, and already had several steal/defend situations: whatever you've been doing, switch it around, regardless of the cards.

I'm sure I've just mentioned a few of the most obvious types, so I encourage others to add to the list. But the key I believe is to indicate an action based on both your cards AND the opponent-type. Indeed, I believe that the latter may well be more important than the former, in deciding whether to 3-bet pf.

[MAxx]

Turn looks like a good play to me.

I'm curious how, if at all, your adjustments in the BB afect your SB strategy.

[dave44]

Do you still peel the flop with nothing against a LAG who you know is not giving you a free card very often? I would think you'd have to hit him with some turn checkraises when you do have hands before you start peeling the flop so loosely.

[Surfbullet]

Hey Stellar,

I like your HU analysis. My game has been transitioning in this way for awhile, as I've noticed initiative is not worth quite as much as position, especially against the LAGy players who will continue to bluff/semibluff raise you despite a pf 3bet.

Critical, though, is your emphasis that you are calling his flop autobet unless the worst should come. As you said, many almost good players make a big mistake here by giving up when we miss...we should be defaulting to call, not fold, while raising our best(and some draws) and folding the absolute worst flops. It's a whole different ballgame in these HU situations, even more so at 10/20.

Great analysis.

RE: the turn.

I don't like it. This is a very small pot - we have a bluff-catcher with a strong draw...folding a 6-outer isn't exactly a coup in a 3bb pot...we'd much prefer him incorrectly bet his 6-outer ...and if we snap off a continuation-bluff on the river too we've profited significantly due to the small pot and the magnitude of his error.

Noone believes you have the Ace here, because many times it's more profitable to just call. I don't thnk you are folding out many (if any) hands that are ahead, and folding a hadn that is behind doesn't help us if there's a decent chance he would have bluffed at it.

Surf

[StellarWind]

[ QUOTE ]
Do you still peel the flop with nothing against a LAG who you know is not giving you a free card very often? I would think you'd have to hit him with some turn checkraises when you do have hands before you start peeling the flop so loosely.

[/ QUOTE ]
Think about this. At the beginning of this thread people were demanding that I 3-bet preflop because I have the best hand. Now the flop is 776 and we are discussing whether I should fold because I'm doomed?

[NLSoldier]

what the hell. i typed out a super long reply to this thread last night. i must not have clicked submit. maybe ill take the time to type it out again if my headache ever goes away.

[Nietzsche]

Whether this play is good depends on two things IMO.
1) Is he the type who will fire a third barrel on the river with hands like QT and other trash? If so you have just stolen the pot form him.

2) Will he fold PP's often? I probably would if I hadn't seen much trickery from you. The TAG needs to think you are bluffing more than 25% of the time in order for a call down with a PP to be +EV. Coupled with your call on the flop your line looks very strong since it is so expensive. So I think you will fold PP's quite often. He can't put you on a flush draw often enough since you were calling the flop.

An ace will often just call, so the times you risk getting 3-bet will be rare.

The more I think about it the more I like your line against a typical opponent.

[dave44]

[ QUOTE ]
Think about this. At the beginning of this thread people were demanding that I 3-bet preflop because I have the best hand. Now the flop is 776 and we are discussing whether I should fold because I'm doomed?

[/ QUOTE ]
I don't understand exactly what you're saying. Your equity against his range of hands just dropped on that flop.

So it sounds like you are saying you will peel the flop against someone who will only rarely check the turn. I don't think there is immediate value in doing this.

However, if the player is someone you think you can sometimes make a move on without hitting, this should add some value to your flop calls in the long run even if you don't make a move everytime.

Am I touching on some of your thoughts here?