The OOP CB Quiz

SplitSuitSplitSuit RCP Coach Posts: 4,069 -
Good morning y'all.

Awhile back we released the OOP CB Quiz. Thousands of players responded with their answers to these 10 spots, and now you can see how your answers stack up to everyone else. If you haven't taken this yet, take the quiz here.

Once you've taken the quiz, watch this video:



If you have thoughts or questions, fire them below. Otherwise, come join us on July 31st, 2019 for an even more in-depth exploration of making better CB decisions when OOP (not just in BvB spots). This group coaching session is open to all PRO Members (visit this page to lock up your seat), and if you aren't a member you can always upgrade to PRO here.

Enjoy!
📑 Grab my custom poker spreadsheet pack right now.
📘 Start the Preflop & Math Poker Workbook today.
Tagged:

Comments

  • LeChiffreLeChiffre NetherlandsRed Chipper Posts: 641 ✭✭✭
    Already watched it three times #nerd. Awesome video. Gonna go through some SB vs BB hands of my own now!
  • SplitSuitSplitSuit RCP Coach Posts: 4,069 -
    LeChiffre wrote: »
    Already watched it three times #nerd. Awesome video. Gonna go through some SB vs BB hands of my own now!

    Happy exploring!
    📑 Grab my custom poker spreadsheet pack right now.
    📘 Start the Preflop & Math Poker Workbook today.
  • Joel_Joel_ Red Chipper Posts: 2 ✭✭
    Already commented this on the youtube video, but wasn't sure if this would be a better place for it, so copying it here as well.

    My personal views on each question, as a competitive low-stakes amateur: (writing these comments as I watch the video so I might end up repeating some things you say later on.) Bit of a longer post but would love to get some feedback on my logic.

    1) Gotta disagree with you here James. I think Cbetting is the much better option. By checking, you give your opponent the opportunity to check back with some weak pairs or better ace-highs, or even 2 live cards that didn't pair the flop. You want to fold out worse hands with equity that you can't get value from. You also want to give yourself the opportunity of bluffing your opponent off of weak pairs or better ace-highs on later streets.
    If you're up against a particularly aggressive opponent who you think will stab at the pot a large percentage of the time, then sure, check-raising is a great play. In fact, if you were 100% certain your opponent will bet, I agree that check-raising is better than c-betting. The problem is I think your average opponent will check back waaaaay too often, and if he does and you brick the turn then suddenly your draw becomes a lot less valuable.

    2) My answer was c-betting, but after hearing your arguments, I think they make a lot of sense and I agree with you now. I've been very guilty of drooling over combo draws like this in the past, and perhaps I've made some mistakes playing them too aggressively that I didn't even realize were mistakes. Your argument makes a ton of sense and I do think that in this scenario check-calling is the preferable play. Just a question though: How would your strategy differ from this hand, and if you had, say, 7c8c on a 2c5c6d flop?

    3) I said check-call and agree with you completely. I think another point to add here is that while you do have top pair, you have pretty much the weakest top-pair you'll ever have except for T9. If you bet all your top pairs and overpairs, then you become very exploitable because that means when you check you can't have a very strong hand. Good players will notice this and will exploit you. By checking some top pairs like JT, you protect your range.

    4) Once again, we're on the same page. I think you brought up some great points that I hadn't thought of. I also think that TPTK on this kind of a board is a hand that you can certainly get at least 2 streets of value, if not 3. You're very likely to have the best hand as JJ+ would 3bet preflop, so you really only lose to sets or maybe the occasional top 2 pair. You want to get money in the pot before the board gets scarier to get value from a very strong, but vulnerable hand.

    5) Not much to comment here; you said it pretty well. Gotta Cbet this. Maybe once in a blue moon you can go for the trap, but if you ever do it with aces (which I wouldn't but you can,) make sure you do have the BDNFD so that you will be live on all turn cards the large majority of the time. However, there are soooo many hands you can get immediate value from, including all pairs, flush draws, and most straight draws.

    6) Kind of similar situation to #2. I said cbet originally, but after hearing your logic for #2 I'd have said check-call for this hand also. It's a decent draw but only 3 outs to the nuts, although still 8 total outs to nutted hands. It makes sense to keep the pot smaller though since you're unlikely to make the nuts but still have reasonable equity against essentially all hands except for exactly 78 of spades or J8 of spades.

    7) Your logic makes sense, but IMO it's still a pretty simple check-call. If you cbet, you open the door to many nasty scenarios. What if you get raised on the flop? Do you just fold your 2nd pair top kicker? That'd be brutal. Do you call hoping your opponent is on a draw? Probably, but now you're out of position with a mediocre hand in a bloated pot and really don't know where you're at. What if your opponent calls? What do you do on diamond turns? How about turns that complete straight draws? Do you check-call those turns? If you bet those turns and get raised, do you just fold? You have a lot of showdown value already and IMO should mostly be looking to just get to a cheap a showdown as possible. If you Cbet A9s here for protection, do you do the same with A4s and no FD? How about 9Ts, 89s, 45s? Suddenly you have waaaaaaay too many mediocre holdings in your cbet range. In order to stop that from happening and avoid bloated pots with marginal holdings, it's important to keep pots as small as possible with these kinds of hands IMO.

    8) I actually said to check-raise here as well. On a board like this, your opponent is, the large majority of the time, going to have at best 1 pair. Sure, they can have sets, but you can have sets as well, and when you do have one, you might want to check-raise, especially top set. If you get called, not only are there a TON of cards you can keep barrelling on - a club, ace, 3, 4, 7, or 9 all give you backdoor draws or top pair - but almost any card that doesn't give you a draw will be a scare card for your opponent. Imagine if he/she does have a hand like 98. If you c/r the flop, they probably call. But then if a Q hits the turn and you keep barrelling, are most players really going to call you down? I'm not so sure. Not to mention, a lot of the time they might just have complete air like QT and will just bet/fold. It is important to balance out hands like this with sets, maybe top 2 pair, and maybe sometimes AA or KK into your c/r range, but overall I completely agree that c/r is a great play.

    9) Agreed for the most part. I don't mind check-calling one street with the intentions of calling down if an ace hits or check-raising the turn if it's a heart, but even when your ace high is the best hand here, your opponent is so likely to have so much equity it's usually not worth it to continue in the hand. Not much more to go over really, poker 101: when have bad hand, fold.

    10) I said check-raise here as well. I think you can use similar logic to the Ac5c hand, but this one is even moreso a c/r because your 2 overcards are very likely to be live as well. So, not only will all turn overcards be scare cards for your opponent if they only have top pair or 2nd pair, but more of said overcards will actually give you the best hand this time. Plus, on any 6, 7, J, Q, or diamond, you pickup backdoor equity and can continue barrelling. If you're gonna check-raise hands like top set, Ah8h, AA or KK, you're gonna have to put some bluffs in there as well, and I like this hand as a c/r candidate because of the aforementioned reasons, as well as what you mentioned in the video.
    However, I do want to say that you mention check-calling with this hand at some frequency being a viable play. I'd actually disagree with that argument, unless you're planning on donk-betting some turn cards. The reasoning for that is that if you check-call, your opponent could easily check back the turn with something like 2 overs or a weak pair and then you only have the river street to bluff at the pot, and a lot of the time lower-stakes players don't like folding pairs to just 1 bet. That aside, however, I agree with your analysis of this hand.
  • MrFussMrFuss Red Chipper Posts: 142 ✭✭
    I really enjoyed the quiz and found it easy to digest the concepts when watching the video. However I feel its incomplete. Every hand is situational depending on your read of the opponent and in these examples that large component of your decision making is absent.

    In the video watched before the quiz you comment that if you decide to check it is possible for villain to check behind if you choose one of the check options. However the options only account for when villain bets. If I have no read on villain then I will default to cbetting vs attempting to x/r in example 1 which echoes @Joel_ above.

    I see 2 solutions.
    1. Setup the situation so that if you check the opponent will always bet.
    This option would keep the format simple and result in a similar answer key.
    or
    2. Include some stats or a general read on the opponent.
    This option would create a more in depth answer key because in instances where villain checks behind it would be useful to show the turn card. Maybe the ROI isnt large enough to produce something this detailed for free access which is understandable. In that case option 1 would be better.
  • SplitSuitSplitSuit RCP Coach Posts: 4,069 -
    Joel_ wrote: »
    1) Gotta disagree with you here James. I think Cbetting is the much better option. By checking, you give your opponent the opportunity to check back with some weak pairs or better ace-highs, or even 2 live cards that didn't pair the flop. You want to fold out worse hands with equity that you can't get value from. You also want to give yourself the opportunity of bluffing your opponent off of weak pairs or better ace-highs on later streets.

    If you're up against a particularly aggressive opponent who you think will stab at the pot a large percentage of the time, then sure, check-raising is a great play. In fact, if you were 100% certain your opponent will bet, I agree that check-raising is better than c-betting. The problem is I think your average opponent will check back waaaaay too often, and if he does and you brick the turn then suddenly your draw becomes a lot less valuable.

    If the BB is checking the flop back, your draw wasn't going to net much value anyway since the hands that get checked back on the flop likely weren't giving your flop CB action in the first place. So when BB does check the flop behind, and you brick the turn, it's actually quite easy to stab turn and win at a high frequency. And if BB calls the turn bet, just how capped is that range and how much is it going to enjoy facing a 2.2x pot sized bet on the river?
    📑 Grab my custom poker spreadsheet pack right now.
    📘 Start the Preflop & Math Poker Workbook today.
  • SplitSuitSplitSuit RCP Coach Posts: 4,069 -
    MrFuss wrote: »
    I really enjoyed the quiz and found it easy to digest the concepts when watching the video. However I feel its incomplete. Every hand is situational depending on your read of the opponent and in these examples that large component of your decision making is absent.

    In the video watched before the quiz you comment that if you decide to check it is possible for villain to check behind if you choose one of the check options. However the options only account for when villain bets. If I have no read on villain then I will default to cbetting vs attempting to x/r in example 1 which echoes @Joel_ above.

    I see 2 solutions.
    1. Setup the situation so that if you check the opponent will always bet.
    This option would keep the format simple and result in a similar answer key.
    or
    2. Include some stats or a general read on the opponent.
    This option would create a more in depth answer key because in instances where villain checks behind it would be useful to show the turn card. Maybe the ROI isnt large enough to produce something this detailed for free access which is understandable. In that case option 1 would be better.

    I've found that there are 3 kinds of players that take these quizzes:

    1. Players who want broad-strokes situations
    2. Players who want the most micro of details (turn XR% when the turn is a brick ftw!)
    3. Players who don't think about either of those things

    The issue is that if we go too micro, we miss the big picture (especially if we include HUD stats where live players feel lost). If I just say "here is your hand, the flop, and you are OOP - now what?" then players get lost because it's "too macro". In short, quizzes will always either be too simplified or too complex - it's nearly impossible to find the Goldilocks (especially for free quizzes that aim to get 10K+ responses).

    Also, you aren't the first person to make the point about V checking/betting the flop AFTER we check. But honestly, that should be baked into your decision to either bet or check the flop yourself. When checking we should have a plan for both (if V bets OR checks back). A great example of that is question #2. While I didn't explicitly discuss V's check-behind range on the flop, it can be dug out an appropriately-sized shovel =)
    📑 Grab my custom poker spreadsheet pack right now.
    📘 Start the Preflop & Math Poker Workbook today.
  • MrFussMrFuss Red Chipper Posts: 142 ✭✭
    @SplitSuit
    Please lead me to the table where "players who don't think about either of those things" are hanging out at :)
    SplitSuit wrote: »
    Also, you aren't the first person to make the point about V checking/betting the flop AFTER we check. But honestly, that should be baked into your decision to either bet or check the flop yourself.
    This was factored into my decisions when it was close between betting or checking specifically because in the precursor video you stated that it was possible for villain to check behind. However those decisions arent reflected in the answers at all. Never did we check and villain checks behind. So imo it would be better to leave that variable out and setup the quiz so that if you check, villain will always bet which will serve the purpose for the majority of players "who want broad-strokes situations" while also giving the "player who wants details" well, more details, even if they are in the broadest sense.
  • LeChiffreLeChiffre NetherlandsRed Chipper Posts: 641 ✭✭✭
    Just assume your opponent plays theoretically sound poker and make a decision based on that. Then deviate from that as you see fit with your player/population reads while playing. Honestly don't understand the problem.
  • BigDaddyBigDaddy Red Chipper Posts: 70 ✭✭
    @SplitSuit:
    Really enjoyed the quiz and the follow up video. As usual, really useful concepts were spot lighted and put forth for consideration. Let me cast my vote loudly for the “broad-stroke approach” to diversify the presentation of concepts on RCP. We can all adjust the advice for game specific situations and dynamics. This discussion could quickly get buried down a myriad of rabbit holes if we let it. An illustration void of “the polarized de-nutted MDF solver population” was very welcome IMO.

  • MrFussMrFuss Red Chipper Posts: 142 ✭✭
    BigDaddy wrote: »
    @SplitSuit:An illustration void of “the polarized de-nutted MDF solver population” was very welcome IMO.
    lol. I cannot disagree with that :)
    LeChiffre wrote: »
    Honestly don't understand the problem.
    Im not saying theres a necessarily a problem. I liked the quiz and thought it was very enlightening.
    MrFuss wrote: »
    I really enjoyed the quiz and found it easy to digest the concepts when watching the video.
    What I am saying is that there is slight room for improvement. To use poker as an analogy, this quiz is definitely +EV. But we're always looking for the optimal play, not just a profitable one. The moment you assume things are good enough is the moment you quit improving. And there's always room for improvement.
    LeChiffre wrote: »
    Just assume your opponent plays theoretically sound poker and make a decision based on that.
    What is V's theoretically sound move here if we check?

    kv8wfn19mmfr.png



  • Joel_Joel_ Red Chipper Posts: 2 ✭✭
    edited July 2019
    SplitSuit wrote: »
    If the BB is checking the flop back, your draw wasn't going to net much value anyway since the hands that get checked back on the flop likely weren't giving your flop CB action in the first place. So when BB does check the flop behind, and you brick the turn, it's actually quite easy to stab turn and win at a high frequency. And if BB calls the turn bet, just how capped is that range and how much is it going to enjoy facing a 2.2x pot sized bet on the river?

    You're not C-betting the flop for value. You're c-betting to deny equity against hands that whiffed the flop but have 2 live cards, and to set yourself up to bluff them off of a middling strength hand which they're usually only willing to call 1 street with. In the relatively rare scenarios in which your opponent has a hand strong enough to call bets on multiple streets, you have your NFD as a backup plan.

Leave a Comment

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