Hand Discussion, 1/1 NLH (1 Viewer)

[MattyMatt]

Good question.

--- I'll just state here that I'm not a particularly good poker player so... ---

Anyway, if I was the villain then I would be of the opinion that the pre-flop play was debatable, but that I outplayed the hero later. Losing the hand is just variance... so, tough luck. In other words

Pre-Flop; I'd probably continue betting for value with these top notch hands, and I might consider adding "lesser" hands as well since my opinion now would be that I can outplay the hero post-flop. Clearly the hero doesn't care about or doesn't calculate the profitability so...

Flop; I'd probably continue betting for value with the best hand making it profitable for me and unprofitable for the hero.

Post-Flop: As Sklansky calls it, "not justifying optimistic calls" by simply folding now becomes a consideration for me. So I would need to keep my eyes open on all hands to see what the hero does especially when

a) he misses the turn, checks, I bet (i.e. does he continue to float here hoping for a river to hit?)
b) he hits the turn, checks, I check behind (i.e. does he now bet the river?)

Btw, I realize that I'd have been behind Q/J as well on the flop already, but that's even more of a debatable call I would imagine.

 

[DrStrange]

From villain's perspective this is about as easy as a hand gets. The only decisions of merit is flat the 3-bet or raise, { for what it is worth, I think the 4-bet is best given the small size of the 3-bet. } and the bet sizing on the flop.

The SPR is close to one. pocket aces are pot committed except on the most awful flop. The only question is how to handle maximum profitability.

Villain learns a lot about Hero in this hand. Hero's marginally wide 3-bet range, likely unobservant of bad position. Hero is sticky - calling the 4-bet when stacks are too small to justify it and then calling the "sucker" bet on the flop.

Hero winning the hand is a good investment. The cost was smallish. Players need to win their long shots occasionally to feel good about the game. The guy with pocket aces made a number of +EV plays that ended up losing in this run out.

Villain should add a check mark to Hero's name that says avoid bluffing. Enough of those turns into a DO NOT BLUFF note. Value bet like crazy.

Villain should also think that Hero is either unobservant about ranges ( 4-bet ranges in casual games are often KK+ exclusively unless the player is a LAG ) or that he knows how tight the ranges are for a 4-bet but doesn't care.

From a third party point of view there is much to be learned about both players. I note that villain doesn't care if he turns his hand face up with his betting sequences and sizing. It could be he knows the table doesn't use the information to good effect. Could be villain doesn't pay attention to how he is perceived at the table or it could be he knows it doesn't make a difference.

I would definitely not be concerned about playing Game Theory Optimal (GTO). Everyone should be playing to exploit weaknesses vs trying to be deceptive. That is my default line until I get some proof it isn't a good idea to be exploitable. GTO play costs money which is only worthwhile if the rest of the table will exploit your unbalanced style enough to make the price worth while.

Hero should learn something from the post game discussion . A really skilled player doesn't come up to you and advocate how bad your play was. If it were me, I'd congratulate you on your success and suggest I should have played the hand better. 5-betting is crazy talk - the 4-bet already says " I have a top 1% hand" What more is learned by getting 6-bet shoved on where pot commitment might already be an issue.

Let's be clear here - Hero made mistakes in this hand yet won the chips anyway. Villain's after action review is either misguided or deceptive. It is not close to accurate. Hero should fold to the 4-bet not be more aggressive. I see a lot of fancy words being used but I doubt they are leading to good insights.

This is a good hand to discuss. A lot of meat on the bone.

 

[Mental Nomad]

PS don't worry much about meta game and exploitation at the moment. Make the best decisions even if really observant villains might be able to take advantage of you. Basic plays are better than fancy plays at the moment.

This is an especially salient point. A lot of people get caught up in altering their play in a way that doesn't maximize profit because they're trying to minimize loss - but against who? Playing Game Theory Optimal because one player at the table might be good enough to exploit you is a huge mistake if 6 people at the table can't. At most, play defensive when in a serious pot with that one player.

This feels like it ties to another error a lot of people make - especially people who think they're better than they are. They insist that they need to "mix up their play" so that others can't read them, which is based on a kernel of truth... but "mixing it up" generally means playing your hand wrong, or at least not-the-best-way. If you do it too often, it hurts you much more than it helps. And why are they doing it? It's not like everyone at the table continuously has a perfect read on them. The truth is that you can generally play in a very straightforward way and most opponents will still be unsure of your holding most of the time.

This is a good hand to discuss. A lot of meat on the bone.

Agreed.

 

[HanShot1st]

this is exactly the discussion I was hoping for. Good work guys!

Let’s flip this discussion once again.
Now the Hero is in the C/O, and the villain is in the SB. Hero 3bets to $25, and the villain 4 bets the minimum re-raise. Everything else stays the same, but the villain is first to act.

 

[Jimulacrum]

this is exactly the discussion I was hoping for. Good work guys!

Let’s flip this discussion once again.
Now the Hero is in the C/O, and the villain is in the SB. Hero 3bets to $25, and the villain 4 bets the minimum re-raise. Everything else stays the same, but the villain is first to act.

I am curious about the way this action goes down in your scenario. Who makes the initial preflop raise? Either it's someone else, or Hero limped and then reraised, which is a very different spot.

Still a fold IMO, whatever the case, and even more so than the real hand. Villain is even stronger, and still no odds to set-mine.

 

[HanShot1st]

I am curious about the way this action goes down in your scenario. Who makes the initial preflop raise? Either it's someone else, or Hero limped and then reraised, which is a very different spot.

Still a fold IMO, whatever the case, and even more so than the real hand. Villain is even stronger, and still no odds to set-mine.

For the sake of this hypothetical situation, the villain was inthe SB so is technically squeezing with his 4 bet. Another player raised to 6.

 

[stafil]

The post-flop call was wrong IMHO. You are 90% behind at that point.

Preflop with such short stacks I would either shove or fold. At this point you play your JJ as any low pair, ie. hopping to make a set. $40 bet in $135 stack doesn’t give you good odds for such play.

But I am a horrible player myself, so don’t take my advice

 

[MattyMatt]

Let’s flip this discussion once again.
Now the Hero is in the C/O, and the villain is in the SB. Hero 3bets to $25, and the villain 4 bets the minimum re-raise. Everything else stays the same, but the villain is first to act.

So;
sb 1
bb 1
utg 6
call 6
call 6
Hero 3-bet 25
sb/villain min-re-raise to 44?

fold
fold
fold
fold, right?

That's a lot of strength for the small blind. With no read on the villain I'd definitely consider a fold here, but we are in position so as I said earlier if you think you can outplay the villain post-flop then it might be worth calling (I forget what his starting stack was).

But once the flop turns out the same then if the villain bets out I fold. If the villain checks I check behind. It's just not a good spot to be in on the flop.

 

[JustinInMN]

I want to say a few words about how I would interpret hero's play from a GTO perspective.

I don't have a problem with 3 betting JJ, but to be honest if I wanted to have a 3-bet and fold to a 4-bet hand JJ actually makes some sense. It is probably near the bottom of my 3 betting range which let's say is something like AA-JJ, AKs, AK, AQs maybe. I am 3-betting plenty of hands that do better against a villian 4 bet. It's fine to fold JJ pre.

The one argument for calling would be if I want to 5 bet KK and AA, and fold JJ then I am giving away that QQ is my only 4 bet call hand, so calling with JJ to mix something else in makes sense as well. Mixing in some AK (maybe the suited ones) makes some sense too as a 3 bet and call hand.

Personally out of position from a GTO perspective, there is something to be said for not having a 5 bet range either. So if that's my strategy, I can fold JJ on the flop knowing I can be in this spot with QQ, KK, and AA and some AK. The latter 3 obviously being better calling choices.

Now here is the thing, even from a GTO standpoint, the flop play is hard to justify.

1) JJ is not the top of hero's range, at the very least I assume hero can get here with QQ and maybe AK as well.

2) If villian's range is really AA, KK, and AK and we can't get here with AA and KK, hero is at a range disadvantage. I don't see any reason whatsoever to call with JJ if we can get here with AK. And even if we don't have AK herr this flop is just so bad for our range if we're capped at QQ and villian only has hands containing aces and kings.

So I don't really get even from a GTO perspective why we need to "protect" JJ here, on this flop in particular. We need to accept the range disadvantage of this bad flop and fight another day. There are flops that will be good for us against AK obviously, flops where we flop draws, drops where we make sets, and flops where we can turn our hand into a bluff to target AA or KK where villian would be at a range disadvantage.

Now all of that said, I think of GTO as a defensive tool to be used against observant players. Against non-observant players I say play exploitivly and worry less about being exploited as @DrStrange is saying.

(And FWIW, based on the op, I don't think hero has ever heard of game theory optimization in his life)

But again, to summarize how I would apply game theory, JJ is not the top of our range (which is usually a GTO argument to call absent a range disadvantage) and even if JJ were the top of our range, the disadvantage means fold the flop.

 

[HanShot1st]

I’ve heard of GTO, wasn’t that a really cool car?

 

[MattyMatt]

I think of GTO as a defensive tool to be used against observant players. Against non-observant players I say play exploitivly and worry less about being exploited as @DrStrange is saying.

I agree with what you wrote.

On a general note I'd just add that I think there's a bit of a range, for lack of better phrasing, between "exploitative" and "GTO". I think it's entirely possible that you can encounter recreational players that have just enough knowledge and pay just enough attention to come away with a general impression of how you play. So it won't be a complete picture of how you play, but it might be a partial picture that is mostly correct. So it allows for exploitation in a limited amount of situations.