*****Vinyl's GonnaCrushDAmicros 6max thread******

[MasterOfDisaster]

Did you already tried the greek tax thing? Let me know if it worked for you.

And about MTT's I have had a 3K+ tourney downswing till august, longest streak I have ever been in. It almost made me quit poker.
I also wasn't so active anymore on forum. (felt so negative)
I have been super fortunate to have a really conservative BRM.

So variance can suck real bad 🙂

 

[vinylspiros]

Did you already tried the greek tax thing? Let me know if it worked for you.

And about MTT's I have had a 3K+ tourney downswing till august, longest streak I have ever been in. It almost made me quit poker.
I also wasn't so active anymore on forum. (felt so negative)
I have been super fortunate to have a really conservative BRM.

So variance can suck real bad 🙂

No MOD, i didnt try it since im not really winning anything over 100$ per day so i wouldnt know if it works or not.

And yea i get where your coming from with the MTT variance. Takes alot of mental strength and maturity to cope with the swings. Hope the downswing eventually stopped and you binked something. At least fom the sounds of it, something good must have happened.

 

[JCgrind]

If the river bricks, i essentially have to JAM after firing turn because i might feel somewhat commited. That, along with the fact that im first to act makes me believe that check calling turn is better than betting into 2 OOP.

disagree. and shipping a river cos you feel committed is stupid.

check calling sucks, because then you only win the hand those 1/3 times when you peel your outs. and, when you do hit them, you have to awkwardly donkbet shove the river, which is face-up as, and any half decent opponent will be able to find a fold even with nutted hands like sets.

if you bet turn, get called and brick the river, ch/f, cos nothings folding after calling the turn (except for like, if villain is a spastic that backdoored a heart draw as well or something).

lots of players will flat you on the turn with a set since the board really isnt scary, and they never figure that a heart or gutter coming in on the river helps you bc JT just isnt a huge part of your EP opening range. basically, when you bet that turn, with the way the hand has gone, you rep AK (and villains love thinking 'omg, he has to have AK here'), so sets flat you to keep you in the hand and lots of one pair hands actually fold to you cos it looks so much like you have AK.

i guess what im trying to say is that you bet the turn because youll fold out a shitload of better hands, and you set yourself up to ship the river every time you make your hand, where villains (after calling the turn) will pretty much always have to pay you off, whereas you will be able to play rivers perfectly against them. and yeah if you get called on the turn and river bricks, just ch/f.

if you bet the turn and get raised [not all in], then i think calling is correct (obv sizing dependent, but you have mega implied odds since villain will be committed after value raising turn).
youre always behind when raised and villain isnt going to raise/fold (ie you have no FE in that scenario), so 3b shoving turn is silly too imo

 

[JCgrind]

and as a sidenote, you have far more ability to control the pot by betting, since villains are more likely to call than raise.
if you bet turn, more often than not youll be the one choosing the sizing on the turn. if you check it, villains who wouldve folded to a bet will check back, and villains with a hand will bomb hard.

 

[vinylspiros]

disagree. and shipping a river cos you feel committed is stupid.

check calling sucks, because then you only win the hand those 1/3 times when you peel your outs. and, when you do hit them, you have to awkwardly donkbet shove the river, which is face-up as, and any half decent opponent will be able to find a fold even with nutted hands like sets.

if you bet turn, get called and brick the river, ch/f, cos nothings folding after calling the turn (except for like, if villain is a spastic that backdoored a heart draw as well or something).

lots of players will flat you on the turn with a set since the board really isnt scary, and they never figure that a heart or gutter coming in on the river helps you bc JT just isnt a huge part of your EP opening range. basically, when you bet that turn, with the way the hand has gone, you rep AK (and villains love thinking 'omg, he has to have AK here'), so sets flat you to keep you in the hand and lots of one pair hands actually fold to you cos it looks so much like you have AK.

i guess what im trying to say is that you bet the turn because youll fold out a shitload of better hands, and you set yourself up to ship the river every time you make your hand, where villains (after calling the turn) will pretty much always have to pay you off. and yeah if you get called on the turn and river bricks, just ch/f.

if you bet the turn and get raised, then i think calling is correct, since youre always behind when raised and villain isnt going to raise/fold (ie you have no FE in that scenario)

Great post JC and of course i agree and relate with everything you said. Makes sense yea.

I have a hard time ch/folding hands when there is momentum and i have barrelled 2 streets. I find myself alot of the time jamming these rivers and losing whch is why i have toned down a bit on the aggression.

Your analysis of our percieved range(AK) sounds about right and therefor i undestand what your saying about betting turn and why.


As far as the" if i bet turn and get raised bit", you say flatting is fine. I dnt know how fine it is due to the fact that it seems that we are chasing given a bad price. I would hate betting turn and being faced with a raise as that would be a reallllly awkward!!!!!!(high pitch) spot. Only reason flatting would be good is cause we have a ton of outs, but that would be highly dependant on his sizing.

 

[vinylspiros]

i noticed you edited your post and added a bit. I hear ya man yea. and good point on the being able to name the price on the turn bet. It is probably more likely to get called than raised.


The reason i don't c/c though is because id rather call a bigger raise than what i would have bet myself than to have to face a raise over my turn bet and be in a wierd spot. But again i dont follow the same line all the time. I mix it up obviously.


At the end of the day though looking through the posts and stuff i've concluded that im gonna always gonna be firing this turn.

Flop C-bet into two villains i hate though.

 

[JCgrind]

its okay imo because villain pot commits after raising turn, and never puts us on hearts or belly buster. so we can go right ahead and donkshove the river and theyre committed and have to call, or we check it to them so they can do the honours of shipping the last of their stack over to us.


At the end of the day though looking through the posts and stuff i've concluded that im gonna always gonna be firing this turn. <- awesome.

ps, i also probably think bet/calling the turn is okay when its actually bad, cos im a massive station that overvalues implied odds like its my job.

 

[duggs]

Flop C-bet into two villains i hate though.

... some of the best players on the forum all agreed it was a pretty clear cbet

 

[hackmeplz]

Flop C-bet into two villains i hate though.

Same thing I told LD. Look in your db and check the stat cbet success in 3 way pots. I think you'll be pretty surprised at how high that number is.

 

[Matt Vaughan]

I notice LD still refuses to post a combo we prefer to bluff flop with than this exact one. Seems compelling.

 

[BenjiHustle]

It's a no bluff zone for him ldo. Nut bluff hand = not bluff candidate = no bluff zone.

We're moving on from that topic.

Been a lot of flexin'. Stop it.

All that flexin' might get you worked up.

 

[LD1977]

I have been out and about for a few days + I didn't even check this thread because I frankly didn't feel like it.

hackmeplz - Admittedly some of my databases were lost and I normally play FR (and on Stars mostly Zoom) so dataset is not the same.

cbet flop in multiway pot single raised pot while OOP (this is important) in 50NL (Zoom + some regular) database:
- vs 2 players = 30,3%
- vs 3+ players = 26,7%

In another database (levels up to 25NL):
- vs 2 players = 34,8%
- vs 3+ players = 29,5%

When we adjust for flop texture (9 high rainbow):
1) 50NL database:
- vs 2 players = 20%
- vs 3+ players = 50%

2) mixed database (bigger, so better and more relevant for vinyl):
- vs 2 players = 33,7%
- vs 3+ players = 31,6%

All these were mostly with cbets around 60-60% of pot, elasticity is not perfect (I checked that too) but a smaller cbet of 50% gets slightly less folds.

To increase sample I normally check how other regs do and it is usually the same (cbet sizes range from 50% to 75% so average fold % are slightly different but not that much).

I don't generally like to bluff this flop in multiway pots for obvious reasons. If I did then probably with something like AKs (overs which actually have clean pair outs + backdoor draw) but even then I am not convinced that it is a good idea.

I would like to see the same data for rest of you before we continue, or we can just drop it.

 

[Matt Vaughan]

I have been out and about for a few days + I didn't even check this thread because I frankly didn't feel like it.

hackmeplz - Admittedly some of my databases were lost and I normally play FR (and on Stars mostly Zoom) so dataset is not the same.

cbet flop in multiway pot single raised pot while OOP (this is important) in 50NL (Zoom + some regular) database:
- vs 2 players = 30,3%
- vs 3+ players = 26,7%

In another database (levels up to 25NL):
- vs 2 players = 34,8%
- vs 3+ players = 29,5%

When we adjust for flop texture (9 high rainbow):
1) 50NL database:
- vs 2 players = 20%
- vs 3+ players = 50%

2) mixed database (bigger, so better and more relevant for vinyl):
- vs 2 players = 33,7%
- vs 3+ players = 31,6%

All these were mostly with cbets around 60-60% of pot, elasticity is not perfect (I checked that too) but a smaller cbet of 50% gets slightly less folds.

To increase sample I normally check how other regs do and it is usually the same (cbet sizes range from 50% to 75% so average fold % are slightly different but not that much).

I don't generally like to bluff this flop in multiway pots for obvious reasons. If I did then probably with something like AKs (overs which actually have clean pair outs + backdoor draw) but even then I am not convinced that it is a good idea.

I would like to see the same data for rest of you before we continue, or we can just drop it.

Would have been more helpful if you cited the hand-samples these were over, but okay, thanks for looking them up and sharing.

Plus, you still haven't addressed a single range consideration here. Like the fact that if you're not bluffing with this hand on this flop then you literally don't have a bluff range in this spot from UTG (unless you open T8s or 86s??).

To the hand: This is literally the best hand in our range to bluff with. If you're going to say, verbatim "Do we need a bluff range there that is so wide it includes this hand?" Then you'd better be willing to cite some hands you'd bluff with here before this one.

I notice LD still refuses to post a combo we prefer to bluff flop with than this exact one. Seems compelling.

Would it help if I said "pretty please"? Just name a few hands you'd rather bluff flop with. (Or at least one.) I'm curious why you say this is such a terrible hand to bluff with unless you're literally saying you don't want to bluff here ever.

I think most people would say that's bad, but at least if you say that there's some sort of logic happening. If you don't answer after this, I'm done I guess. There's no point continuing if you won't address one of the most important factors - our range - in the hand.

 

[LD1977]

Try reading and all will be revealed.

 

[Matt Vaughan]

Sorry missed it - longer post. Plus it was the 3rd or 4th time I asked. I guess I had given up on you ever answering.

Not sure I get the betting with AKs though, since we have less equity and can't get value when we do hit. We also have more showdown value when it gets checked down (though this is admittedly not too frequently). But when we check through the flop and hit the turn we are more likely to get 1 or 2 streets of betting in when we are ahead of a dominated hand than if we bet flop and get there vs. a hand that connected with the flop and won't like an A or K turn. We put more money in when ahead and less in when behind.

P.S. Approximately what sample sizes are those stats from? I'm baffled by the 20%/50% differential at 50nl.

 

[LD1977]

vs 3+ players at 50NL is infrequent, I think only few hands total. It is not relevant in any case since we were talking about 10NL which plays differently so other DB is better.

You still owe me your own data.

 

[Matt Vaughan]

Yeah good point on the infrequency. I don't think 50nl hands are completely irrelevant but agreed that they have limited application here.

I had about 150k hands in my database until my harddrive failed. I'm pulling data now but it's only like... 25k hands total. And I play on Bovada so even the higher limit hands are more like lower limit hands on tougher sites.

Flop cbet OOP success (HU and MW)= 43.33% (487 hands)
Flop cbet OOP success (3+ players) = 34.21% (38 hands)

Obviously pretty brutal sample-wise.

 

[Matt Vaughan]

Managed to also get UTG and MP hands (no sample from CO onward ofc for the 3+ players in hand).

MP: 22.22% (18 hands)
UTG: 38.46% (39 hands)
Me: 34.21% (38 hands)

Weighted average: 33.68% (95 hands)

 

[Matt Vaughan]

Ugh, how did I forget about SB and BB??

SB: 23.75% (80 hands)
BB: 37.92% (29 hands)

Weighted average: 30.39% (204 hands)

Having your sample sizes would be awesome cause then we could weight it further, though 200 is a start I guess. If I include board texture my sample will be negligible though. But I also think this is better than the average board to cbet OOP on.

 

[hackmeplz]

cbet flop in multiway pot single raised pot while OOP (this is important) in 50NL (Zoom + some regular) database:
- vs 2 players = 30,3%

In another database (levels up to 25NL):
- vs 2 players = 34,8%

So basically you're pretty close to being able to purely profit just by betting. Then you have at the very least a 4-outer to the nuts, lets give it 10% to be a round number I know it's a bit lower but then we have some backdoors that should bring it up:

equity needed:

fold - 0.5*(0.9*(1-fold)) + 1.5*0.1*(1-fold) > 0
(1-call) - 0.5*(0.9)*(call) + 1.5*0.1*(call) > 0
1-call - 0.45*call + 0.15*call > 0
1-1.3*call > 0
1 > 1.3*call
0.77 > call
(1-0.77) > fold
0.23 > fold

If I did my math right as long as they fold more than 23% we can never lose. We can literally open fold when we get called and don't hit the nuts, we can open shove when we hit and never get called, we can always get shoved on and have to fold ourselves when we don't hit the nuts. Sure we get raised once in awhile, but I can't imagine that will make us lose more than we gain from the times when we can win the pot without making the nuts or we can extract more once we've made the nuts or we can make profitable turn barrels etc.

When we adjust for flop texture (9 high rainbow):
1) 50NL database:
- vs 2 players = 20%

Even this is close although I have a suspicion it's something like 2/10 since the other number was 50%. I'm pretty sure a larger sample size would show you a larger cbet success %.

2) mixed database (bigger, so better and more relevant for vinyl):
- vs 2 players = 33,7%

Here we go again, a number that shows us being neutral ev if we literally had 0 equity in the hand and always lost when they both didn't fold.

All these were mostly with cbets around 60-60% of pot, elasticity is not perfect (I checked that too) but a smaller cbet of 50% gets slightly less folds.

To increase sample I normally check how other regs do and it is usually the same (cbet sizes range from 50% to 75% so average fold % are slightly different but not that much).

Makes sense so we can lower their numbers a tiny bit although I tend to think on these kinds of boards in 3-way pots it's going to be relatively similar.

I don't generally like to bluff this flop in multiway pots for obvious reasons. If I did then probably with something like AKs (overs which actually have clean pair outs + backdoor draw) but even then I am not convinced that it is a good idea.

I would like to see the same data for rest of you before we continue, or we can just drop it.

Filtered by 9-high rainbow flops, sample of 17,468 of those all 100-600nl on Stars. Fold flop vs. cbet overall was 42.2% but vs. 2 was 37%.

Without filtering for that flop it's just under 300k hands and the number for flop cbet success vs. 2 opponents is 34.7%.

 

[long_bong]

its okay imo because villain pot commits after raising turn, and never puts us on hearts or belly buster. so we can go right ahead and donkshove the river and theyre committed and have to call, or we check it to them so they can do the honours of shipping the last of their stack over to us.


At the end of the day though looking through the posts and stuff i've concluded that im gonna always gonna be firing this turn. <- awesome.

ps, i also probably think bet/calling the turn is okay when its actually bad, cos im a massive station that overvalues implied odds like its my job.

ooo shit! look whos BAAAAAAACK! JC praise aha >>> waddup😎

 

[Matt Vaughan]

equity needed:

fold - 0.5*(0.9*(1-fold)) + 1.5*0.1*(1-fold) > 0
(1-call) - 0.5*(0.9)*(call) + 1.5*0.1*(call) > 0
1-call - 0.45*call + 0.15*call > 0
1-1.3*call > 0
1 > 1.3*call
0.77 > call
(1-0.77) > fold
0.23 > fold

If I did my math right as long as they fold more than 23% we can never lose. We can literally open fold when we get called and don't hit the nuts, we can open shove when we hit and never get called, we can always get shoved on and have to fold ourselves when we don't hit the nuts. Sure we get raised once in awhile, but I can't imagine that will make us lose more than we gain from the times when we can win the pot without making the nuts or we can extract more once we've made the nuts or we can make profitable turn barrels etc.

I'd do it more like this:

EV(flop bet) + sum(EV(turn+river action)) > 0

Just to say how many more pot-sized bets we need to make when we get to the turn (if any). Not quite sure whether or not your calculation was error-free but the number seems close to right to me.

CbetSucc(pot) - (1-CbetSucc)(.5pot)) + sum(EV(T+R)) > 0
C*pot - .5*pot + C*.5*pot + sum > 0
1.5*C*pot - .5*pot + sum > 0

So if sum is zero we get the standard 2:1 that we lay ourselves by betting only half pot (ie 33% folds autoprofits when we have no equity).

Let's say we only get 20% folds (an absolute worst-case scenario based on the data we have).

1.5*.2*pot - .5*pot + sum > 0
.3*pot - .5*pot + sum > 0
-.2*pot + sum > 0

sum(EV(T+R)) > .2*pot

Basically, if we make 1/5 the size of the flop-pot-size on later streets, this is profitable. Given that the size of the pot on the turn is going to be either 2x or bigger the flop pot size, this is a given imo. If we hit the turn 9% of the time and get even a 1/3 PSB in, we're making at least 2/3 the size of the flop pot size, if not more.

So this is ~1/2 size of the flop pot in EV. Pretty guaranteed profit, and in a worst-case scenario.

 

[ScottishMatt]

No. You're both wrong. LD is right.

 

[RamdeeBen]

No wonder I suck at poker. To much mathematics in the thread.

Seriously though, good stuff HMP, Scourrge.

 

[Matt Vaughan]

Fwiw I made a small error. We only hit 9% of the time, so if we bet like half of the turn pot then that's only .1pot in EV, but we sometimes get called by both, and often get more than one street since our hand is disguised. Plus we have fold equity on a deece number of turn cards (and have cards that give us more equity).

And occasionally turns will check through when we brick and we get to actual use even more equity for free.