Podcast: Play in new window | Download
Timestamps
Preflop: Hero limps As 5s UTG+1, two more limps, villain makes it $20 in the CO, button calls, SB calls, Hero calls, and one limper calls.
Flop ($108): Ac 4d Tc. Checks around
Turn ($108) Ac 4d Tc 6s. Hero bets $60, only Villain calls.
River ($228) Ac 4d Tc 6s 4h. Hero bets $20, Villain raises to $100, Hero shoves for $420
Hand 2
Poker Stars $0.25/$0.50 No Limit Hold’em – 6 players
Hero (BTN): $100.38
SB: $48.00
BB: $24.06
UTG: $122.77
MP: $55.85
CO: $206.27
Pre Flop: ($0.75) Hero is BTN with 6s Qs
2 folds, CO raises to $1.50, Hero raises to $4.50, 2 folds, CO calls $3
Flop: ($9.75) 8c Kd 4s (2 players)
CO checks, Hero bets $6, CO calls $6
Turn: ($21.75) Ac (2 players)
CO checks, Hero checks
River: ($21.75) 7d (2 players)
CO checks, Hero bets $11.50, CO raises to $35, Hero raises to $89.88 all in
Hand 3
Poker Stars $0.25/$0.50 No Limit Hold’em – 6 players
BTN: $52.72
SB: $65.12
Hero (BB): $92.22
UTG: $36.84
MP: $50.00
CO: $261.15
Pre Flop: ($0.75) Hero is BB with 6h 6d
2 folds, CO raises to $1.50, 2 folds, Hero calls $1
Flop: ($3.25) 6s Ah Jh (2 players)
Hero checks, CO bets $2.50, Hero calls $2.50
Turn: ($8.25) 2d (2 players)
Hero checks, CO bets $6, Hero calls $6
River: ($20.25) Qd (2 players)
Hero checks, CO bets $14.50, Hero calls $14.50
Three topics: variance,statistics,transition vs specialization
The formats of poker with low variance seems to have faster shrinking player pool versus high variance one.
One of many examples – huge relative drop in regular HU SNGs versus turbo,hyper for all stakes.
And this expected trend I guess. The poker format to be popular long term require higher variance.
High variance protects Ego-fish.
The number of players in pool not always reflects situation.
The hi-variance pools have usually softer player base at least at the beginning.
The players are deluded by variance and this make the game profitable.
This is one of reasons PLO is so profitable right-now.
However I do not think this is number one reason.
In my opinion the number one reason is complexity of the game.
The same complexity makes difficult for regulars to use stat,standard lines and mass-multi table with big rates $$$.
Gareth is correct that he needs a deeper bankroll because he wants to take money from it. I think it is one of the things that people forget/don’t really understand mathematically.
Roughly our bankroll should be no less than 0.02*(v^2) / w ; where v is the standard deviation (bb) per 100 hands and w is our win rate per 100. I derive this from the using twice the Kelly Criterion for optimal long run bankroll growth. That assumes we never take money from our roll, so if we had a 5bb/100 win rate and a standard deviation of 100bb/100h we’d require a bankroll of 40 Buy Ins.
I don’t know how much volume Gareth does or what his standard deviation is; but guessing at 100k hands per month and 100bb/100 standard deviation (6bb win rate) we see that if he took no money from his bankroll he would need only 33 BI. But when taking money out this shifts the minimum number of BI’s to 56. So almost double the roll to support 2.3bb reduction in net win rate.
That’s a real danger in trying to intuit math. What might seem like a small change actually ought to change your plans drastically.
Thanks for doing the calculations.
Loved the show. Lots of things I’d like to get into, but to keep it brief(er):
– I really liked the discussion about the ‘he might fold AJ’ line. I have to confess that, like Gareth, I’ve noticed Nate making those sorts of comments in the past and wasn’t a huge fan. We all know that no one is a robot and so there will be unexpected outcomes that surprise us, but I tend to assume that the times we get folds from surprising better hands nets off against the times villain folds hands we wanted to get a call from. That said, I really liked Nate’s justification. The idea of the ‘robustness’ of a line of analysis – how sensitive the EV we expect to make is to the correctness of our assumptions, and where it’s most likely to be wrong – is something that I’ve thought about a little in the past, but never really managed to make concrete.
– Conversely, I’m a bit of dubious on the ‘3b bluff the best hands of your folding range’ argument. I think that I understand some of the reasoning behind it – the opportunity cost of bluffing with a potential calling hand is obviously more than with total junk, and there’s a parallel to the basic river bluff scenarios where you bet the top and bottom of your range, and check back the middle. But preflop is obviously more complex than the river, because we have to play postflop. How do we weigh the EV of an individual hand as either a call or a 3 bet considered in a vaccuum against the ranges that emerge from that sort of analysis, especially in a situational spot like the one discussed where quite possibly any two cards would show a profit (provided we don’t spew too much postflop)? I’m not sure, and it makes my head hurt thinking about it because of the reflexive way that our ranges will lead to changes in villains’ actions.
I was also interested in Gareth’s thoughts about playing deep on zoom. It’s obvious he’s happy playing 200bb deep, but does there come a point where he leaves the table and rebuys? How do people’s play change as they get deep?
Any way, great show, thanks for it.
I think you’re exactly right, Ian, that the “take the best folding hands” heuristic is not perfect. Andrew and I discussed this a bit a few weeks ago and tried to account for your point that you’re also trying to “expand your range” (or, maybe better, expand the set of boards you can cause trouble / win on) when you construct your reraising ranges.
Happily, these two goals often coincide (e.g., holding 97s in the BB against a raise in heads-up NL). You’re right that they don’t often coincide. You’re also right that it’s monstrously difficult to really figure out the correct ranges because of how your opponent will react.
Hey Ian
On the 3b bluff the best hands of your fold range. Generally this is going to balance the hands you 3b for value (ie you 3b and want your opponent to continue in the hand). Like you say we don’t necessarily want to take away from +EV calls because they could be +EV calls and then also the 3b bluffs aren’t just protected by the 3b of KK but 3b’ing KK protects 3b bluffs. I think you understand all that though.
So I think your question is, well if we could always three-bet for profit, why shouldn’t we? Actually against this opponent profile in a vacuum if they fold to 85% of three-bets then I am just going to flat with QQ pretty often. First I gain value from them postflop, but second I give myself the opportunity to gain value from the people behind (which three-betting could shut out). So we see that calls have to have much more value than taking the pot down right there and I think one place we can be sure that will happen is when we have a strong hand that also wouldn’t be too happy to be four-bet from a player who is folding to three-bets a bunch. So the short answer is yes, if 44 is a +EV call, three-betting v this villain is probably of higher EV and you should, to be exploitive, three-bet 44. But a hand like QQ could have a very high EV in calling and its EV in three-betting could be closer to a junky hand than we might expect because it probably folds to a four-bet (in the 100x effective stack case) and just gets so many folds pre.
I always play as deep as possible in the zoom games and people’s games change differently by and large. I don’t see any reason to ever leave the table since I believe on average, as effective stacks deepen, my edge is going to go up, particularly because zoom players don’t specialize in playing deep. I seldom play 300bb effective pots, but when they do come up, I feel like I know what I am doing much more than my opponent does, on average.
Glad you liked the episode!
Hey Nate & Gareth,
Thank you for selecting my hand to be analyzed!
I think the discussion was great and I definitely was able to take a lot away from it to help my game.
I’m also looking forward to catching up on older podcasts as I’m a new listener =)
Have a great weekend!
Your boi,
Skinnybrown
What happened at the end of each hand? Did Villain call? What did Villain have?
I know that the discussion is based on EV and correct/ideal play, but I’d like to know what Villain actually did after Hero shoves or calls. Then we can look back at Villain’s actions as well, see if s/he played well/poorly or was just lucky/unlucky in this hand.
It’s like you set up a joke and left out the punchline. I can’t be the only one who feels this way 🙂
BTW, that’s only regarding Hand 1. I was frustrated after listening to that part, and wrote before listening to Hand 2 & 3.
Thanks for the podcast!
Hey David
I think Skinny sent in the email without results in the true spirit of results nonoriented analysis. That’s why we didn’t have results! But I secretly know the results, and can confirm, villain open folded 66!
Just joking of course, but villain did fold and didn’t show. Of course I think this doesn’t disconfirm everyone’s sneaking suspicion that Skinny had the best hand.