NL2SH BvB 79s

Muel294Muel294 Liverpool, EnglandRed Chipper Posts: 24 ✭✭
PokerStars - $0.02 NL (6 max) - Holdem - 6 players
Hand converted by PokerTracker 4

BB: 134.5 BB
UTG: 102.5 BB
MP: 61 BB
CO: 100 BB
BTN: 62.5 BB
Hero (SB): 177 BB

Hero posts SB 0.5 BB, BB posts BB 1 BB

Pre Flop: (pot: 1.5 BB) Hero has :7c:9c

fold, fold, fold, fold, Hero raises to 2.5 BB, BB calls 1.5 BB

Flop: (5 BB, 2 players) :8d:3c:7h
Hero bets 1.5 BB, BB calls 1.5 BB

Turn: (8 BB, 2 players) :2h
Hero bets 2.5 BB, BB calls 2.5 BB

River: (13 BB, 2 players) :6c
Hero checks, BB bets 6.5 BB, Hero calls 6.5 BB

BB shows :9h:Qh : (High Card, Queen)
(Pre 70%, Flop 19%, Turn 27%)
Hero shows :7c:9c (One Pair, Sevens)
(Pre 30%, Flop 81%, Turn 73%)
Hero wins 25 BB


PF: standard steal, planning to fold to a 3b OOP
FLOP:
Since I had this villain marked as loose and passive I have given a reasonably wide
range to defend here

(maybe I can go even wider, but I figure if I base my assumptions on a slightly more conservative range then I can probably assume I'm doing even better vs villains range if he calls looser)

I assigned the following range:
TT-22,AJs-A2s,KQs-K4s,QJs-Q5s,JTs-J6s,T9s-T6s,98s-96s,87s-85s,76s-75s,65s,54s,AJo-A2o,KQo-K7o,QJo-Q8o,JTo-J8o,T9o-T8o,98o,[50.0000]AQs,AQo[/50.0000],[25.0000]JJ[/25.0000]

- I excluded QQ+ and AK since I I would almost always expect
villain to 3b with these hands.
- I weighted AQo and AQs to 50% given that villain is somewhat LP, as villain may flat these hands some percentage of the time (perhaps my wiehgting assumptions are off even with this assumption in mind)
- I also weighted JJ to 25% since I would expect villain to 3b for value here mostly.

So it's obviously now between betting or checking. At the time I felt like check/folding would be too weak, therefore if I check then I have to plan to check/call.

I felt that check calling would make it very difficult to get to showdown (or realize my equity). In short I felt like by betting I would have an easier time playing the hand but that wasn't my only thought process. Also, I felt that I have to expect villain to bluff some proportion of the time to make check calling an option.

The board is somewhat dynamic and there are some draws out there so I opted to bet.

- My plan was either bet/fold or bet/call depending on villains reaction and sizing if I get raised. I can consider bet/calling since I have some backdoors.

- Sizing wise I wasn't sure whether to go with 1/2 pot ot 1/3 pot. I opted for 1/3 since I felt like I'm not likely to have more than 50% vs villains continuing range to justify a value bet.
So I chose to size smaller to keep villains continuing range slightly wider and weaker, charge some worse hands or fold out their equity share (mostly vs overcards and draws).

Maybe I don't need to size down in order to accomplish that and should just go with 1/2 pot sizing?

...as played

- I c-bet for 1/3 pot 1.5bb into 5bb

Breakeven% = Risk / (risk+reward)
= 1.5 / 6.5
= .23

- Therefore this bet only needs to work 23% of the time in order break even.
- I assigned villain a continuance range

kzz6fy8rb6aa.png


- I weighted set's and 2pr to 50% at this time because I would expect villain to mostly raise here we this hands (should I weight them less, like 30% if I think this)
- villain has 282.5 combos OTF and 232.4 ( given the range that I have assigned). Therefore villain folds 50.1 combos.

50.1/282.5 * 100 = 17.7%

- So, given the above this bet is not outright profitable. However, I still think betting is best given the reason we suggested earlier, but I just wanted to practice my maths and check my thinking.

TURN: So again again I opt to bet here for basically the same reasoning on the flop and keep the sizing for pretty much the same reason. Plan is to bet/fold to most normal sizings.

What if villain min raised?

eg, 4/2 rule = 5 outs (7/9) 5*2 = roughly 10% equity

if villain min raised me here:

equity required to call = risk / risk + reward
= 2.5 / 8+2.5+5
= 2.5 / 15.5
= 16%

So, in a vacuum I do not have the correct expressed odds to call in this spot and some of those 5 outs are not clean.

For example a 9 completes all 16 combos of JT and 3 combos of 56s and the 9h completes all FD's.

On that basis should this be a fold to even a minclick?

With this in mind I would need at least a 1/2 pot bet on the turn in order to make up the shortfall in equity?
2.5 / (15.5 + 7.5)
2.5 / 23
= 10.8%

If I get raised on the river can assume I'm behind and not being bluffed and the times he flats I would expect to mostly win right?

River:
- At the time I was not sure whether it would be best to bet/fold or check, and if I check does it make sense to check/call?
- I ran the EV spreadsheet provided by splitsuit and in a nutshell I would need to bet smaller than 1/4 pot in order to show a profit vs villains estimated calling range as follows


ypxze78nwab3.png



- So if we instead look at check/call. I guess in this case we would turn our hand into a bluff catcher.
- I'm struggling to work out how I would assign villains range in Flopzilla.
- On the river FZ shows "nothing" and "A-hi". So when working out a R betting range I basically gave villains 2nd pr+ and missed draws (gutshots and FD's) to bluff with.
*insert image*
- So when running an EV calc I tried to weight his bluffing hands to 33% (i.e if villain is only bluffing 1/3 of the time) would this show a profit on a x/c? Is this the right way to approach this.
- I did this with and without wieghting. With weighting a x/c was considerably -EV and without considerably + EV.

Comments

  • EurocratEurocrat Red Chipper Posts: 64 ✭✭
    I think you're investing a lot of thought into how you should play and not enough into how villain is going to play. For instance, if you follow through on your assessment that villain is loose-passive, worrying that you don't get to realize your equity with second pair is a non-issue in my eyes.

    I am not a big fan of your bet sizings. These small bets work in my opinion against regulars when used with your whole range, in spots where you have range advantage. On this type of board, this is not the case, adding to the fact that you're OOP. I think 97s could qualify as a thin value bet as I would assume you get called by plenty of overcards, even when you bet bigger, say 2.5-3.5BB. Checking seems alright too if you expect villain to be passive.

    On the turn, I don't see exactly what your accomplishing with your bet sizing. I think betting here again is very thin and I would probably just check/call.

    As played on the river, I think the call is fine, considering that there is lots of air in villains range that even a loose-passive will find a couple of bluffs.
  • Muel294Muel294 Liverpool, EnglandRed Chipper Posts: 24 ✭✭
    Eurocrat wrote: »
    I think you're investing a lot of thought into how you should play and not enough into how villain is going to play. For instance, if you follow through on your assessment that villain is loose-passive, worrying that you don't get to realize your equity with second pair is a non-issue in my eyes.

    I am not a big fan of your bet sizings. These small bets work in my opinion against regulars when used with your whole range, in spots where you have range advantage. On this type of board, this is not the case, adding to the fact that you're OOP. I think 97s could qualify as a thin value bet as I would assume you get called by plenty of overcards, even when you bet bigger, say 2.5-3.5BB. Checking seems alright too if you expect villain to be passive.

    On the turn, I don't see exactly what your accomplishing with your bet sizing. I think betting here again is very thin and I would probably just check/call.

    As played on the river, I think the call is fine, considering that there is lots of air in villains range that even a loose-passive will find a couple of bluffs.

    Thanks for the response.

    In terms of the bet sizing. So vs someone that I define as LP you would recommend just sizing up OTF, b/c villain's calling wide anyway?

    Would you prefer a check?

    I lean towards betting here mainly because I feel like my hand is vulnerable. I feel like betting and winning OTF or OTT would be fine.

    I'm not sure why I would want to check. If i'm not checking to induce, why check?

Leave a Comment

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