Double Barrel for Value lesson

LeChiffreLeChiffre NetherlandsRed Chipper Posts: 581 ✭✭✭
edited July 2019 in CORE
In this lesson @SplitSuit goes over a hand where we have TT in MP, open the pot and get called in the BB.
Flop 396r. BB checks, we bet, he calls.
Turn Q..

kq909oszmxax.png

James analyses villain's calling range and concludes that villain folds 63% of the time to a double barrel as we expect him to fold non-top pairs. That's all fine to me. Then he mentions that this is a great opportunity to bluff. Also fine with me.

But then he loses me when he says we should do it with TT too, because one of two things will happen:
1) Villain doesn't adapt and we just print money with our bluffs
2) Villain adapts by calling wider and we can actually bet for value because villain will continue with enough worse hands (weak pairs)

While I agree that these are great reasons to bluff frequently and once villain adjusts value bet thinner, TT at this instance can not be bet for value as it doesn't have >50% equity when called. As Splitsuit says, we are letting villain play perfectly -- according to his assesment villain is folding worse and calling with better, but that's okay in his mind, because we are not always going to have TT here.

That doesn't really make sense to me. Just because we will not always have TT doesn't mean we should just bet it and let villain play perfectly in my mind.

Also, this pretty much contradicts a lot of what is said in CORE, where betting should be done with a particular purpose: for value (not the case), as a bluff (not the case), protection (maybe slightly the case). Why is betting because we have different hands in our range which we would like to bluff suddenly a reason?

Comments

  • LeChiffreLeChiffre NetherlandsRed Chipper Posts: 581 ✭✭✭
    edited July 2019
    One thing I could get behind, if it's true, is that betting TT and them folding 63% of the time is higher EV than checking and bluff-catching or value-betting rivers. But this isn't mentioned in this particular lesson, though I'm quite sure Adam Jones mentions this idea at some point in CORE.
  • RedRed Red Chipper Posts: 2,188 ✭✭✭✭
    edited July 2019
    This is just one of these multiple spots where betting isn't fully value (building pot) or fully bluffing (denying equity). It's in the grey zone. Where we play poker.

    V might fold anything but TP+. But do we want to check? Not really: there are a TON of draws aka hands with equity out there, like bckd FD (esp. if with one or 2 overcards), OESD and gutshots. If we check to value on river, what card are we happy to see on river? Not that many... maybe only 2, 4, 8, and T which complete no or only the wackiest draws - and if possible not of :HEART: . Also when we check, a card come and V (labelled as straightforward) bet like 80% pot, this will be a nasty spot with a bluff catcher which have little if any blocking ability.
    On the other side, we are happy to bet turn - both to make these draws either pay-to-river or fold their equity. And when called, we can check back any scary river to realize our equity.

    So we have reason to bet with TT: to deny equity and to build the pot. (And, for range construction, it does well against bluff catchers, which is or will be needed.)

    NB: I don't have Core or Pro, so I didn't watch this video
  • LeChiffreLeChiffre NetherlandsRed Chipper Posts: 581 ✭✭✭
    edited July 2019
    Red wrote: »
    On the other side, we are happy to bet turn - both to make these draws either pay-to-river or fold their equity. And when called, we can check back any scary river to realize our equity.

    So we have reason to bet with TT: to deny equity and to build the pot. (And, for range construction, it does well against bluff catchers, which is or will be needed.)

    I get what you're saying, but this is not what @SplitSuit gave as an explanation to bet. =) For me the jump from "Villain folds too much so we should bluff a lot" to "We should bet TT" was not properly explained.

    That is, I can follow your train of thought. You're saying that despite not having >50% equity when called, it's still a better option to bet rather than check and take a SDV-focused line. But that doesn't match the standard teachings of the 3 reasons to bet, and to deviate from these reaons and berate players for being so focused on SDV seems unjustified :)

  • SplitSuitSplitSuit RCP Coach Posts: 4,035 -
    LeChiffre wrote: »
    One thing I could get behind, if it's true, is that betting TT and them folding 63% of the time is higher EV than checking and bluff-catching or value-betting rivers. But this isn't mentioned in this particular lesson, though I'm quite sure Adam Jones mentions this idea at some point in CORE.

    You are on the right track, for sure.

    FWIW, I didn't rewatch the video but in such a gray example (it's not like we have AQ which is easy value nor 75 which is an easy bluff), it's typical to get a little murky. And it's always possible that I didn't explain every facet perfectly and there were some assumed variables (or that they were possibly discussed within the ENTIRE PRO video). So this kind of feedback is appreciated.

    Essentially, there are many conversations happening at once when we look at a spot like this. There is the overall strategic, strategic vs. this opponent, tactics vs. this opponent, current vs. future dynamic, ranges leading up to this point, likelihood of hands like 9x continuing vs 1 (or more) barrels, likelihood of v betting or calling the river if the turn checks through, etc.

    One major part of this is what does the check accomplish. If the turn check ONLY allows V to actualize their equity for free and NEVER induces river mistakes (either light x/calls or bluffs) - then checking just because "TT has SDV" isn't great. Instead, why not just bet and close out their equity share since giving them their equity share doesn't really net us anything extra?

    (If the issue is stemming from the fact that this discussion happens in a lesson titled "Double Barrel For Value" and that a more "pure value" example would be better - please let me know. That's totally viable and worth a rethink on our side tbh)
  • LeChiffreLeChiffre NetherlandsRed Chipper Posts: 581 ✭✭✭
    edited July 2019
    Hi Split, thanks for the explanation! Couple remarks/questions:
    SplitSuit wrote: »
    One major part of this is what does the check accomplish. If the turn check ONLY allows V to actualize their equity for free and NEVER induces river mistakes (either light x/calls or bluffs) - then checking just because "TT has SDV" isn't great. Instead, why not just bet and close out their equity share since giving them their equity share doesn't really net us anything extra?

    I agree that if villain never x/calls his A9 when the river bricks, there's no point in keeping these hands in his range. But is that really likely for the population? I mean sure some people are ultra nits, but if I'm thinking about both the online and live player pool I'm in checking here either induces a bluff or allows me to value bet on a lot of rivers. Maybe that's why I'm so confused by your decision to bet, because to me there is that something extra, and I'm going to assume that is the case as a default for me and to be honest most player pools.
    SplitSuit wrote: »
    (If the issue is stemming from the fact that this discussion happens in a lesson titled "Double Barrel For Value" and that a more "pure value" example would be better - please let me know. That's totally viable and worth a rethink on our side tbh)

    That certainly doesn't help lol. I found this lesson to be slightly useless anyway to be honest. Since the bet that is covered is not really a value bet it's ultimately confusing.

    In the lesson you again go through the same spreadsheet as the one for double barreling as a bluff, so there's nothing new there either. You're just using your assessment of "villain folds too much" to legitimize a bet, but that seems out of place in a lesson specifically on barreling the turn for value.

    Might I suggest covering different types of hands? Maybe one of each of these:
    1. A hand where it's clearly for value and we should bet
    2. A hand where we have like 60% equity when called and we should bet (because for some reason betting for value is better than checking behind)
    3. A hand where we have like 60% equity when called but we should check behind (because for some reason checking is better than betting even though it would be for value)

    That should cover nicely the different value-y situations we can be in.

    And cover a hand like the one that was actually in the lesson somewhere else, maybe in level 3 or something. Since this hand is not a value bet it shouldn't be in the lesson IMO.
  • MrFussMrFuss Red Chipper Posts: 142 ✭✭
    LeChiffre wrote: »
    In the lesson you again go through the same spreadsheet as the one for double barreling as a bluff, so there's nothing new there either.
    FWIW once I saw the same sheet being used I skipped the 30 minute video, made notes from the expanded checklist and moved on.

    You could potentially combine the bluff and value lessons into one. Using the sheet to analyze different hands and then determine whether it was a bluff or value situation. Show an extreme bluff and then an extreme value. Then follow up with some murkier situations.
  • LeChiffreLeChiffre NetherlandsRed Chipper Posts: 581 ✭✭✭
    Also possible, though I do think it's useful to seperate value and bluffs in different lessons

Leave a Comment

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