Brunson Question.
 

So I am reading super system and a play that seems totally fundemental in Brunsons strategy still does not seem good to me. maybe I am just too tight also, but heres a paraphrase of the passage.


Brunson raise pf with 76s flop comes A 5 4. With only a backdoor flush. He said he would raise then if reraised he would figure his opponent for AK but still push the flop.

What % of opponents would u try this on?

Do you need a solid read to do this?

Is there a range of limits this is most effective at?

TY

Re: Brunson Question.
 

Your opponent must be capable of laying down AK here.

I think a lot of this goes on at $1k, but I've used it at $600 and $400 max.

When you show down, this creates a lot more action from observant players for your monsters.

If executed with the correct frequency, it's a win win. He will probably fold, but if he calls, you may win + you will get more action on your monsters (taking the same line).

P.S. If he folds these a lot, time to expand your larcenous hand range.

Re: Brunson Question.
 

[ QUOTE ]
Brunson raise pf with 76s flop comes A 5 4. With only a backdoor flush. He said he would raise then if reraised he would figure his opponent for AK but still push the flop.


[/ QUOTE ]

He has more than a backdoor flush here.

Re: Brunson Question.
 

It's probably even more effective at the low mid-stakes (400,600), and in full ring. As long as you have a solid image, and choose the decent weak tight opp. which there are plenty of at these stakes, this is a great move.

Re: Brunson Question.
 

I've unsuccessfully tried to get people to lay down AK after calling my raise on a board like this with a hand like this. This is at the 1k level. I would not move in here, they will call. Hit, then break.

Re: Brunson Question.
 

I don't know anyone who would lay it down(on that flop).

Re: Brunson Question.
 

1. stacks have to be very deep

2. a lot of the time i like to wait until the turn to bomb it all in, ive found people fold tptk more later in the hand than on the flop.

Re: Brunson Question.
 

You have to be aware of the stack sizes making a play like this. A lot of people will push as a huge overbet, which is a little shaky and tends to be a little transparant as a semi-bluff UNLESS you also play monster hands like sets this way. If stacks are too small he won't be able to get away from it and you'll have no fold equity. You have to do it when its that middle ground where he's not committed yet but the push is still a reasonable bet.

Re: Brunson Question.
 

I have been thinking a lot about these large bets recently. I find that on the 3/6 NL games on PS when a player pushes/overbets the pot it usually means that they have a hand. Rarely have I called down one of these bets (when I have a set, two pair or TPTK) and find that the guy doesn't really have a nuts or close to nuts type hand. I'm not saying people don't make moves, but they usually are not moves at this level. The other point is also true, I have often made big overbets with nuts type hands and get called down by just TP/weak kicker or even less. Certainly TPTK calls. The point is that at these levels I find that a) unless you really have a solid rep and PT stats to back it up, making big bluffs are not profitable and b) calling down big overbets with less than top hands (TPTK does not qualify) is probably not profitable.

Thoughts?

Re: Brunson Question.
 

I thought I told you to not screw with Bruce...

Re: Brunson Question.
 

You are looking at ~40% equity with the straight draw plus backdoor flush. Withhout the backdoor flush you are down to ~35%. Instead of looking at it as SS cookbook try to figure out when you will get the right amount of fold equity to make this push right. Some game conditions you won't ever get it (loose opponent, bad image, short stack, etc.). Others you will (scared opponent, good image, deep stack left on last raise). The one thing to be fairly certain of is that he doesn't have a set 'cuz then you have little to no fold equity and only 25% suckout equity.

Re: Brunson Question.
 

Brunsons advise is all good advise, but it is so geared at the ultra-high limits, alot of it just dosen't apply. It is a completely diffrent game at every diffrent limit.

Re: Brunson Question.
 

If im not mistaken this is also something he says he uses alot in tournaments, I dont recall him saying he uses this strategy in a cash game.

In a tournament this is a way better move and one of the reason he likes this move is that since he's so aggro early on and he accumulate chips, he doesnt mind risking a % of his stack while a slight underdog to become a big chip leader without getting his entire stack crippled.

Re: Brunson Question.
 

This question can't be adequately analyzed without hypothetical stack depths.

Re: Brunson Question.
 

[ QUOTE ]
, I dont recall him saying he uses this strategy in a cash game

[/ QUOTE ]

youre mistaken

Re: Brunson Question.
 

Most of this section was written about real NL games where the money is ultra ultra deep, raises like this can be quite frightening when your top pair is threatened with like 1,000 bbs behind. And he has outs if called, so if the scared money actually calls he can still suck out, which also gives some validity to his raises with sets etc.


Not really applicable to most games today I don't think, unless you really know the guy and think he'll fold TPTK with 90 bbs left or whatever.

JMO.

Re: Brunson Question.
 

[ QUOTE ]
Most of this section was written about real NL games where the money is ultra ultra deep, raises like this can be quite frightening when your top pair is threatened with like 1,000 bbs behind. And he has outs if called, so if the scared money actually calls he can still suck out, which also gives some validity to his raises with sets etc.


Not really applicable to most games today I don't think, unless you really know the guy and think he'll fold TPTK with 90 bbs left or whatever.

JMO.

[/ QUOTE ]

I see statements similar to this ALL the time and I just don't understand. I think almost all of Brunson's NL section applies perfectly to the 6 max games.


Am I in the minority here?

Re: Brunson Question.
 

I was probably over-generalizing about the section, can easily see your argument however, using sound judgement on who you pull it on of course. On a side note I think I'll skim that section again cuz its been awhile.

Re: Brunson Question.
 

IMO the posters so far have missed the point: a play which in itself is -EV can be an integral part of a strategy which is +EV.

This OE+BD is about 42% against AK. Thus, pushing all-in against AK (assuming the push is not a colossal overbet) is a very small minus position considering the dead money in the pot. To illustrate, let's assume that each player started the hand with 100 BB. 76s raised to 4BB, only the big blind calls with AK. Pot is 9BB. The flop comes, the AK checks, 76s bets 6BB, AK checkraises to 15 BB. The pot is now 21BB (the AK's reraise has not yet been pulled into the pot). If 76s moves in, he will lose an additional 90BB 58% of the time and win 111BB 42% of the time. Therefore, the average loss for the push is 6BB, assuming that AK is 100% to call.

Of course, if the AK is calling against a draw 100% of the time, he's also calling when the initial raiser has a set. In those cases, the set is about 98% to win the pot, so the flop push gains 106BB in equity. Lose 6BB on the draws, win 106BB on the sets. Sounds like a good proposition to me. So, the reason to push with 76s in these cases is: you want AK to be willing to get all-in when it hits TPTK. The greater percentage of calls that you get in these situations, the more money you will make on your monster hands.

In reality, a decent opponent's best strategy is to lay down AK in these situations, expecting to be slightly ahead of a strong draw or way behind a set. That's fine too; now you capure pots with the worst hand when you have a draw.

Re: Brunson Question.
 

Very well said CW

Re: Brunson Question.
 

The strategy is more correct when you consider it as part of the metagame. And metagame is more relevant live, at higher stakes, and against opponents who have seen you before and will see you again.

Re: Brunson Question.
 

Thats why you want to understand the underlieing reasoning and math so you can find the situation in which it applies. Its not that at some limit its becomes reasonable to semibluff like this, its that against a certain type of player and with a certain image it shows a profit. Approximating understanding by memporizing a set of heuristics parametrized by the stakes of the game is a suboptimal way of approaching poker (not that heuristic based reasoning isn't how much of actual poker play works...).