Ben Hayles' 3-Bet Shoving Series

Firstly, I have to say this mini-series has been worth the subscription fee alone. Amazing content on what I feel is maybe the most exploitable part of MTT strategy. Ben has great delivery and unlike most guys who make poker videos he actually has some genuine charm and wit.

Anyway my question regards some of the numbers HRC spat out in the CO/BTN video. When it was creating a flatting range for LP at the 12-20bb depth, the hands included are pretty much the exact hands I prefer not to flat with in these spots, namely A-rag, low pairs and some offsuit broadway.

I find this particular range does not play well postflop even in position and I generally flat from LP at 15-25bb stack depth with suited broadway, mid pairs and some monsters for balance. Why would HRC prefer us to flat these kind of hands?

I also think the ranges for flatting and reshoving seemed fairly unbalanced as the flatting range excluded basically the whole top of our range.

Comments

  • GazelligGazellig RCP Coach Posts: 74 ✭✭
    I haven't watched the video so can't comment on that, but you've highlighted the most obvious flaw with HRC in that it solves for preflop EV and not postflop EV. It doesn't recognise that position, range advantage and stack depth will all play a part post flop. Instead, it believes that once you call preflop and close the action the hand is then played to showdown, so you get to realise all of your equity. This obviously then will have an effect on the overall EV of a hand, and will give you an incorrect information.

    If you give it two options (call or shove), HRC is going to decide which line has the higher EV and split the range accordingly. The shoving range is always going to be linear and the flatting range will always be condensed.
  • TheGameKatTheGameKat Posts: 3,654 -
    MGPT wrote: »
    Firstly, I have to say this mini-series has been worth the subscription fee alone. Amazing content on what I feel is maybe the most exploitable part of MTT strategy. Ben has great delivery and unlike most guys who make poker videos he actually has some genuine charm and wit.

    Anyway my question regards some of the numbers HRC spat out in the CO/BTN video. When it was creating a flatting range for LP at the 12-20bb depth, the hands included are pretty much the exact hands I prefer not to flat with in these spots, namely A-rag, low pairs and some offsuit broadway.

    I find this particular range does not play well postflop even in position and I generally flat from LP at 15-25bb stack depth with suited broadway, mid pairs and some monsters for balance. Why would HRC prefer us to flat these kind of hands?

    I also think the ranges for flatting and reshoving seemed fairly unbalanced as the flatting range excluded basically the whole top of our range.

    I've just been reviewing this and agree some of the HRC solutions are surprising. Mostly I was just amazed how much flatting it recommended. Gazellig explains this well above, but I have a couple more observations.

    As stack depth increases HRC does start to balance the calling and shoving ranges a bit more, which is encouraging. That said I'm still amazed by the wide flatting ranges. While it's true that this is caused by HRC only looking at preflop EV, in these cases where we're flatting on the button that actually works in our favor. For example if I opened from MP and got flatted by the button at 18bb depth, that is going to look worryingly strong and I've now got to play OOP.

    Clearly this is something I need to study more, but I think it's interesting that those flatting ranges sure do look wonky, but equally I can see how flatting more in position might allow us to swipe some pots postflop.
    Moderation In Moderation
  • AustinAustin Red Chipper Posts: 5,483 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Calling because when hero 3bet shoves Ax and gets called he is way behind, same for small pairs and off suite broadways.

    They may seem too strong to fold preflop as they "could" be ahead. So too strong to fold, but too weak to 3bet = call.

    I didn't watch the video or play with HRC. That's just how the logic works out for me.

    Lmk your thoughts
  • LeChiffreLeChiffre NetherlandsRed Chipper Posts: 641 ✭✭✭
    Gazellig wrote: »
    I haven't watched the video so can't comment on that, but you've highlighted the most obvious flaw with HRC in that it solves for preflop EV and not postflop EV. It doesn't recognise that position, range advantage and stack depth will all play a part post flop. Instead, it believes that once you call preflop and close the action the hand is then played to showdown, so you get to realise all of your equity. This obviously then will have an effect on the overall EV of a hand, and will give you an incorrect information.

    If you give it two options (call or shove), HRC is going to decide which line has the higher EV and split the range accordingly. The shoving range is always going to be linear and the flatting range will always be condensed.

    Yeah that's what I thought as well watching the video. Since it's not a postflop solver how does it know which hands make for profitable flats? Nice to see it confirmed it's just based on equity. ICMizer then does the same I suppose since it's also not a postflop solver?
  • TheGameKatTheGameKat Posts: 3,654 -
    LeChiffre wrote: »
    Gazellig wrote: »
    I haven't watched the video so can't comment on that, but you've highlighted the most obvious flaw with HRC in that it solves for preflop EV and not postflop EV. It doesn't recognise that position, range advantage and stack depth will all play a part post flop. Instead, it believes that once you call preflop and close the action the hand is then played to showdown, so you get to realise all of your equity. This obviously then will have an effect on the overall EV of a hand, and will give you an incorrect information.

    If you give it two options (call or shove), HRC is going to decide which line has the higher EV and split the range accordingly. The shoving range is always going to be linear and the flatting range will always be condensed.

    Yeah that's what I thought as well watching the video. Since it's not a postflop solver how does it know which hands make for profitable flats? Nice to see it confirmed it's just based on equity. ICMizer then does the same I suppose since it's also not a postflop solver?

    I made a note of this in one of the quizzes. The simple answer is it doesn't know, but when it returns flatting as a suggestion it's worth investigating it further. That said, if you only use HRC for push/fold decisions, you'll never do anything wrong.
    Moderation In Moderation
  • TheGameKatTheGameKat Posts: 3,654 -
    And yes, I believe ICMizer is the same.

    I guess one gorilla math approach to it would be to take the HRC calling recommendation, then at that stack depth throw it on GTO+ to see the equity actualization.
    Moderation In Moderation
  • LeChiffreLeChiffre NetherlandsRed Chipper Posts: 641 ✭✭✭
    edited April 27
    Oh yes great idea. That sounds like fun haha.

    So let me just get it sorted out on how this would work. For example, we face a min-open from EP on the BTN. There's a BB ante. Every hand that we decide to call with needs to, on average, win at least 36% of the pot on the flop, since we are getting 1.75:1 on a call.

    Assuming the blinds fold 100%, we can see which hands in our calling range have an EV of at least .36 * 5.5BB = 1.98BB. These would then make for profitable calls. We can even compare the EV of shoving hands (from HRC/ICMizer) with the EV of calling them instead (from GTO+).

    Of course the blinds don't fold 100% so we probably need to remove some hands from our calling range which are close to 0EV in order not to induce squeezes.

    Does that sound about right? Has anyone ever done this kind of analysis?
  • TheGameKatTheGameKat Posts: 3,654 -
    It sounds about right, but what you see is how messy it can get. Honestly even though tournaments are still soft, one of the few notable developments IMO is an uptick in squeezing. So I think you can make an argument in nearly every spot against shallow flats based on that alone.

    Before HRC we used to do these calculations essentially by hand.

    Seem to recall we had a PRO video on this topic tho, will poke around.
    Moderation In Moderation
  • TheGameKatTheGameKat Posts: 3,654 -
    This video looks at shallow flatting from the BB, but I think you can generalize some of the concepts.
    Moderation In Moderation
  • LeChiffreLeChiffre NetherlandsRed Chipper Posts: 641 ✭✭✭
    Cool, thank you

Leave a Comment

BoldItalicStrikethroughOrdered listUnordered list
Emoji
Image
Align leftAlign centerAlign rightToggle HTML viewToggle full pageToggle lights
Drop image/file