Knowing when to deviate

CriminalBizzyCriminalBizzy Las VegasRed Chipper Posts: 100 ✭✭
edited May 31 in Live Poker Hands
Here is a hand that I played last night that I have been thinking about...

I didn't take notes about the hand because when it happened I didn't think there was anything to review but now that I have had time to think about it, I do have a question in relation to the stakes that I am playing.

Here is what I remember about the hand

Table stakes were $1/$3
8-handed

I think Hero was MP1 or MP2 I remember counting 2 limps and raising to $15 with AsAc and about $330 in my stack.

Villain who is to my immediate left has about $300 in his stack. This player is pretty tight and is one of maybe 3 players at the table willing to 3-bet (including myself). Everyone else is limp/folding or limp/calling. Villain 3-bets me to $45.

Action folds back around to me and 4-bet to $110.

Villain says, "Wow!" Thinks about it for a little while and folds.

My question is this:

Is it OK to deviate from what I know is should be a 4-bet to keep a player in and get more money from him? A part of me wants to say it shouldn't matter and I should just 4-bet when given the opportunity but then there is a small part of me that questions if that could be -EV for me at the table stakes I am playing with the image that I have combined with the player type that I am facing. I think villain had some sort of broad way like AQ, AJ, KQ, KJs, QJs and maybe some smaller pocket pairs.
Tagged:

Comments

  • Chris_VChris_V BoiseRed Chipper Posts: 181 ✭✭
    edited May 31
    I wrote a long comment on this but I realized that I'm only just regurgitating what I've read. Who knows, maybe just calling with AA could be a good play. I'd be worried about being OOP after the flop though.
  • CriminalBizzyCriminalBizzy Las VegasRed Chipper Posts: 100 ✭✭
    @Chris_V I read your original comment and I think it was good input for the conversation. I myself tinker a lot with my ranges but at the same time I don't deviate too much from what you can easily find online. For example if I am in the CO but feel reasonable sure that I can get the button and both blinds to fold, I might raise with some questionable hands.

    The thing to keep in mind about my question is the environment. I am not sure how games are in your card room but most of the time you don't see a 3-bet and I personally don't think that 3 betting with a lot of broad way cards is a bad thing, especially when you are in position, but against me... Villain knew I wasn't open raising light. I also know that he is not playing very loose because he is folding just about as many hands as I am folding. This is where my curiosity kicks in, can I profitably just call and then donk into him? Sure I run the risk of running into more sets, two pairs, or better but he folded the hand. So we didn't get to play it out.
  • Chris_VChris_V BoiseRed Chipper Posts: 181 ✭✭
    I started writing a book again but it all boils down to my basic question: Why not just 4-Bet him with hands that don't usually warrant it. If he is just going to fold unless he has KK+ against you maybe getting those folds is better. if he 5-Bets you know you can fold all your mediocre hands. Just seems simpler to me than trying to play AA OOP against an aggressive player.
  • GTOLifeGTOLife Hudson Valley, NYRed Chipper Posts: 907 ✭✭✭
    edited May 31
    Chris_V wrote: »
    I started writing a book again but it all boils down to my basic question: Why not just 4-Bet him with hands that don't usually warrant it. If he is just going to fold unless he has KK+ against you maybe getting those folds is better. if he 5-Bets you know you can fold all your mediocre hands. Just seems simpler to me than trying to play AA OOP against an aggressive player.

    As I wrote in another thread: I've been absolutely burying myself in study lately. What you're talking about here seems to be the new, cutting edge of poker theory that not only evolved through asking questions like you are here but also proofing it with pre and postflop solvers.

    I actually am constructing 4B and 5B ranges as we speak and it's a ton of fun, especially against fish. Just taking the suited wheel aces alone and comparing them to QQ+/AK+ = ~30% raw equity.
  • Chris_VChris_V BoiseRed Chipper Posts: 181 ✭✭
    edited May 31
    I mean I think we should be 4-Betting ATs+ and JTs vs this guy and be happy he folded. What do you think his 3-Betting range is? It would be an interesting exercise to see if this is a +EV Play.
  • GTOLifeGTOLife Hudson Valley, NYRed Chipper Posts: 907 ✭✭✭
    edited May 31
    Chris_V wrote: »
    I mean I think we should be 4-Betting ATs+ and JTs vs this guy and be happy he folded. What do you think his 3-Betting range is? It would be an interesting exercise to see if this is a +EV Play.

    I just meant in a vacuum, so to speak - not particularly related to this particular hand or this villain. I never dug into things as deeply as I am now and I never would have thought that those combos I'm referring to (suited wheel aces) have so much equity against such a strong, completely depolarized range.

    Sorry - a tad tired, to say the least. Missing a lot of sleep lately and I have a bbq to attend later, as well lol.
  • CriminalBizzyCriminalBizzy Las VegasRed Chipper Posts: 100 ✭✭
    Chris_V wrote: »
    I mean I think we should be 4-Betting ATs+ and JTs vs this guy and be happy he folded. What do you think his 3-Betting range is? It would be an interesting exercise to see if this is a +EV Play.

    I agree and disagree...

    I agree that specifically against this opponent I could 4-bet bluff and get him to fold. The problem is that the circumstances to do so will not come up very often. We played 2-3 hours at the same table and in that time he only 3-bet me that one time. If given the opportunity against this opponent I think I would try a 4-bet bluff if action were to fold around to me and we were going to be heads up.

    I disagree because I don't think we should be 4-bet bluffing especially against unknown villains in a live environment. Online you might be able to get away with it more because players are a tad more aggressive but even then, you are not presented with that opportunity very often in the micro stakes. In a live environment you get this opportunity even less than you think. When 4-betting if you get called, you should be ready to put it all in.
  • Chris_VChris_V BoiseRed Chipper Posts: 181 ✭✭
    edited May 31
    The funny thing about this whole thread that I didn't pick up on until now is that against this hypothetical player that only plays back with KK+ (this was my premise not CriminalBizzy's, maybe the range is wider) we should probably be more apt to Call with KK rather than AA.

    If Villain will only Play back when they have AA or KK and we have KK then anytime we 4-Bet KK and get 5-Bet we only have 23% equity. Villain has 6 combos of AA and only one Combo of KK. If we call with KK than we still have 77% equity preflop.

    If we 4-Bet AA and get 5-Bet we are the ones with 77% equity. This will happen around 7% of the time.
  • CriminalBizzyCriminalBizzy Las VegasRed Chipper Posts: 100 ✭✭
    With a hand like AA if this guy 5-bets I am putting him on AA-KK and AK. Its an instant shove when it gets back to me.
  • Chris_VChris_V BoiseRed Chipper Posts: 181 ✭✭
    edited May 31
    What I keep tripping on is whether or not we should be 4-Betting rather than folding every time against a person who is this tight to 4-Bets. I guess it all depends on what we think their original 3 betting range looks like. If they have 102 combos in it originally and we can get them to fold everything except 28 combos we probably should be 4-Betting rather than folding.

    According to Core Ranges we should fold hands like QJs to an IP 3-bet (MP vs MP), but if our opponent only continues with AA,KK,AK and folds the rest after we 4-Bet to $110 we make an instant profit of $17 with QJs.

    An even better hand to bluff is something like A5s because it reduces Villains continuing combos down to AA = 3 , KK =6, AK = 12 , Total: 21 For an instant profit of $28
  • CriminalBizzyCriminalBizzy Las VegasRed Chipper Posts: 100 ✭✭
    Chris_V wrote: »
    What I keep tripping on is whether or not we should be 4-Betting rather than folding every time against a person who is this tight to 4-Bets. I guess it all depends on what we think their original 3 betting range looks like. If they have 102 combos in it originally and we can get them to fold everything except 28 combos we probably should be 4-Betting rather than folding.

    According to Core Ranges we should fold hands like QJs to an IP 3-bet (MP vs MP), but if our opponent only continues with AA,KK,AK and folds the rest after we 4-Bet to $110 we make an instant profit of $17 with QJs.

    An even better hand to bluff is something like A5s because it reduces Villains continuing combos down to AA = 3 , KK =6, AK = 12 , Total: 21 For an instant profit of $28

    Folding is not an option. The original question is to 4-bet or deviate and slow play (call).
  • Chris_VChris_V BoiseRed Chipper Posts: 181 ✭✭
    Chris_V wrote: »
    I mean I think we should be 4-Betting ATs+ and JTs vs this guy and be happy he folded. What do you think his 3-Betting range is? It would be an interesting exercise to see if this is a +EV Play.

    I agree and disagree...

    I agree that specifically against this opponent I could 4-bet bluff and get him to fold. The problem is that the circumstances to do so will not come up very often. We played 2-3 hours at the same table and in that time he only 3-bet me that one time. If given the opportunity against this opponent I think I would try a 4-bet bluff if action were to fold around to me and we were going to be heads up.

    I disagree because I don't think we should be 4-bet bluffing especially against unknown villains in a live environment. Online you might be able to get away with it more because players are a tad more aggressive but even then, you are not presented with that opportunity very often in the micro stakes. In a live environment you get this opportunity even less than you think. When 4-betting if you get called, you should be ready to put it all in.

    I didn't see this response until now I think it got in before I refreshed the screen. I think however you deviate it needs to make more EV than $87

    If you 4-Bet with AA and he folds you make $60 right? Thats going to happen 83% of the time, If you 4-Bet and he wants to get it all-in than you make $223 on average AA vs (AA,KK,AK range) That happens 17% of the time. So calling the 3-Bet with AA has got to do better than $87
  • Chris_VChris_V BoiseRed Chipper Posts: 181 ✭✭
    edited May 31
    So I ran AA vs Villain's 3-bet range if we just call on the flop the Pot is $90 and the Effective stacks are $300. Rake is 10% to $5. I just made basic assumptions in the decision tree and AA does donk a lot in the solver. Unfortunately I couldn't solve a database with AA range it kept crashing. So solved the library one by one.

    For some reason GTO+ crashes on the Ace High boards. So I can't get an EV on those but all other boards don't get much above $65 EV. So against the $87 we get preflop 4-Betting AA seems to be the better play?

    If anyone can solve the Ace High boards for the 15 flop library I would be interested. I should probably send this bug to Scylla.

    Edit: I created a new Database in GTO+ where AA was part of a calling range vs IP 3-Bet and they did better. Of course AA won a lot when an Ace flopped ($114). But still on average not that much better than just 4-Betting them preflop hoping to get action.
  • persuadeopersuadeo Red Chipper Posts: 4,390 ✭✭✭✭✭
    The answer is right in the word. You know when to deviate because you have established a sequence of hands with a player or pool of players where your baseline action is no longer as effective. Now, you might deviate, in other words, leave an established, simple pattern of +EV lines.

    The underlying issue that you have is that you don't have enough 4-bets to begin with, which means your existing baseline is a deviation itself from strong play. To correct this topsy-turvy world of low stakes live players harming themselves by immediate overcorrecting, you implement an aggressive 4b strategy, as referenced by several posts above.

    This further solves the question of how you approach tightish players. You still maintain a robust 4b range. You gather EV not from the times you suck out on the top of their range, but because they overfold on all streets as well as pay you off more when you have it. If you can't imagine how this seeming paradox works, node lock a solver to overfold weaker hands and to under-raise, and watch the opponent become more aggressive, not less.

    Of course, I am not suggesting you confuse tight players with true nits. Versus true nits, you simply deny them action without massive equity, i.e. never bluff catch but instead become concerned with whether you can realize winning equity or not; two different things.

    To complete the circle, a nit is entirely concerned with the manipulation of action so that he is paid off; even the words they use betray this fundamental misunderstanding of how poker works. By thinking you need to take immediate deviations in order to reward AA, you are briefly partaking of their strategy rather than taking necessary actions, like 4b AA.
  • Chris_VChris_V BoiseRed Chipper Posts: 181 ✭✭
    edited June 1
    I'm still working on the premise that maybe we haven't got to 4-Bet yet, but Villain just expects us to act like the general population. If so, would it ever be good to Call with AA rather than 4-Bet knowing that Villain is going to overfold?

    One place were I screwed up my GTO+ EV calculations is that I didn't reduce the post flop EV by the $30 investment we make to see the flop by just calling rather than 4-Betting.

    Edit: Given My Assumptions!!! (your results may vary)

    When I reduce the GTO+ EV for calling Aces by $30 it never preforms as well as just 4-Betting pre-flop.
  • persuadeopersuadeo Red Chipper Posts: 4,390 ✭✭✭✭✭
    I'm still working on the premise that maybe we haven't got to 4-Bet yet, but Villain just expects us to act like the general population. If so, would it ever be good to Call with AA rather than 4-Bet knowing that Villain is going to overfold?

    As I explained, it would still be the best play to 4b for the reasons listed. Now, if you could see your opponent's actual holding, it might not be, but that is usually not the basis for a sound strategy.
  • CriminalBizzyCriminalBizzy Las VegasRed Chipper Posts: 100 ✭✭
    persuadeo wrote: »
    The answer is right in the word. You know when to deviate because you have established a sequence of hands with a player or pool of players where your baseline action is no longer as effective. Now, you might deviate, in other words, leave an established, simple pattern of +EV lines.

    The underlying issue that you have is that you don't have enough 4-bets to begin with, which means your existing baseline is a deviation itself from strong play. To correct this topsy-turvy world of low stakes live players harming themselves by immediate overcorrecting, you implement an aggressive 4b strategy, as referenced by several posts above.

    This further solves the question of how you approach tightish players. You still maintain a robust 4b range. You gather EV not from the times you suck out on the top of their range, but because they overfold on all streets as well as pay you off more when you have it. If you can't imagine how this seeming paradox works, node lock a solver to overfold weaker hands and to under-raise, and watch the opponent become more aggressive, not less.

    Of course, I am not suggesting you confuse tight players with true nits. Versus true nits, you simply deny them action without massive equity, i.e. never bluff catch but instead become concerned with whether you can realize winning equity or not; two different things.

    To complete the circle, a nit is entirely concerned with the manipulation of action so that he is paid off; even the words they use betray this fundamental misunderstanding of how poker works. By thinking you need to take immediate deviations in order to reward AA, you are briefly partaking of their strategy rather than taking necessary actions, like 4b AA.

    I had another opportunity to 4-bet last night and I can see what you mean by over correcting. I saw that in the long run its going to be best to take the opportunity to 4-bet when given the chance. It didn't work out for me this time but when I think about what happened it just makes sense to 4-bet.

Leave a Comment

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