Yo people. First day of poker and it could not have gone worse! But no need to dwell on that.
So I don't have too much info on the villian. 17/12 over 50 hands. no other significant information from the look of things.
So am I right just to give up by the river? I mean I know I'm getting 3.5:1 or whatever but I really don't see myself beating ANYTHING by then? Might post a couple more from todays session tomorrow as it was totally horrific
What do you reckon his range is to flat preflop? My guess is...
QQ some % of the time, definitely 4bets sometimes
99-JJ pretty much always
55-88 sometimes, lower PPs very occasionally
AK some % of the time, definitely 4bets sometimes
AQ some % of the time, definitely folds sometimes
KQ some % of the time, definitely folds sometimes
Perhaps some other broadway combos, suited connectors but not with a high enough frequency to be particularly significant.
I think versus that range it's pretty standard to bet the flop - we get enough value from his Qx hands and he might call with TT-99 some % of the time. If we aren't betting with KK here, we have a really tiny value range and we want to cbet the flop with our whiffed AK so we need some value hands to balance.
I'm also bet-3betting because it's really hard for him to have a better hand than us (kinda obvious but thought it was worth mentioning).
I think the turn is where it gets interesting... what do you reckon his range to continue on the flop is and what kinda shape are we in against it on the turn?
You would not believe that I just wrote out this message TWICE and both times I fucked up and accidentally deleted it! Furious!
Glad you're here to help me think a bit deeper into the game!
So I put a few calculations into poker stove with what his could continue with on the flop
JJ-AA (he COULD have flatted pre with KK, AA)
AJ, AQ (Not often calling a 3bet with AJ but wouldn't rule it out)
9T, random KQ
So i fiddled around with Equilab a fair bit and we have roughly 58% equity on the flop vas the majority of range we;ve discussed. Can drop down to around 53% and up to 62% depending on taking out a couple of combos (keeping in AJs for example keeps it up to 58% while AJo is only 53%)
The 8 turn doesn't seem to change that equity an awful lot and obviously stops anyway backdoor flushes
By the river, according to Equilab we have only a 5% equity vs that range. In fact taking out thaty AJo or AJs and we have <2% equity so I guess a super easy fold?
Anyway. Let me know your though process! Looking forward to getting better at hand evaluation over the coming months!
Alright I'm back on the hand history scene - apologies for the slow reply.
I've taken another look on Flopzilla and agree with the equity you've predicted (think it's probably near the top end) on the flop.
I think the turn is actually kinda close between a bet and a check... might seem kind of nitty on face value but if we're betting the turn it's because we think we can get 3 streets of value. By the river his range will have narrowed to top pair + (cos presumably he folds everything worse than top pair on the turn) and even on a total brick river we're not going to have great equity versus that range.
The reason for that is that his top pair + range is pretty heavily weighted towards sets (at least I think so). Yeah he probably flats AQ a fair amount and KQ occasionally but he's going to flat QQ a TON (he's never folding, not 4betting regularly in that spot) and JJ pretty much always (even less likely to 4bet, also not folding).
Take into account the fact we have a king and suddenly it's just AQ combos we're getting value from.
I don't ever advocate folding - I'd just check-call the turn, check-call any non-ace river. If he checks back the turn, bet any non-ace river.
AS PLAYED it's a fold. You make it gross for yourself by betting so big on the turn, but he still has nothing we beat that bets the river.
What's the reason for the big turn bet? On a dry board I'm always going to just be betting around 2/3 pot, leaving a 2/3 pot shove on the river. By betting bigger on the turn you've just making it harder for him to call with his weaker hands and then setting up a gross spot on the river.
Do you also think that as we only have 50 hands on the guy that making many of the assumptions we have made might be jumping the gun a little bit?
Just a thought.
I think my reasoning for betting so large was based on wanting to get it all in on the river but obviously looking back on it it is too large and I clearly didn't have to bet that amount for that to happen, especially on such a dry flop. A mistake I didn't even notice so nice one!
Definitely starting to see the benefits of checking the turn but also wondering if that's a little too nitty for the micros but If I am still betting the turn then certainly making it less on the turn makes total sense.
Definitely see what youy mean but I actually hadn't been taking any of the stats into account.
The thing is we've got to assign him some kind of range, regardless of what his stats are. My approach is always to assign the villain a 'standard' range and then tweak that range based on the stats that I've got available.
When I say 'standard' range I mean that I basically assume the villain is a standard 15/14 kinda reg. I take the standard range for that spot for that player and use that as my 'standard' range.
That might seem kinda like I'm assuming every villain at 10nl is as competent as a reg but my logic is that versus an unknown, your baseline scenario should be that the villain is competent and will make a limited number of mistakes. Using the 'standard' range doing just that - we assume the villain is half decent and is making at least broadly logical decisions.
If we play versus that range then we're going to play the hand well even versus a competent opponent. PLUS if the villain is actually a drooler, their mistakes just increase our EV with that play.
So yeah, basically what I'm saying is that if I suggest 'reggy' ranges for hand histories it's probably because I'm just assuming we know nothing about them + using that as a baseline and going from there.
For this hand, there's no stats available to suggest any kind of tweak to a reg range - his PFR and VPI are pretty standard reggy values so whilst he's certaintly not guaranteed to be a competent reg, there's nothing major to suggest otherwise.
If he had some stat that was totally out there (like his fold to cbet was 25% over a decent sample), then I'd tweak that 'standard' range to reflect the implications of that. So I'd definitely make his flop continuance range wider.