Will Hill Banner

Wednesday, March 20, 2013

So here's another stake hand that I thought was interesting... Villain is 24/19, opens 14% from MP.  Fold to 3bet of 32%.  Fold to cbet 39/25/0.  SB is 51/4 fish.

No-Limit Hold'em, $1.00 BB (6 handed) - Converter Tool from http://www.flopturnriver.com

Button ($53.55)
SB ($207.35)
BB ($144.75)
UTG ($145.19)
MP ($115.35)
Hero (CO) ($171.24)

Preflop: Hero is CO with Q♦, K♣
1 fold, MP bets $3, Hero raises to $9, 1 fold, SB calls $8.50, 1 fold, MP calls $6

Flop: ($28) Q♣, 6♥, 9♠ (3 players)
SB checks, MP checks, Hero bets $15, 1 fold, MP calls $15

Turn: ($58) 8♦ (2 players)
MP checks, Hero bets $25, MP calls $25

River: ($108) 2♣ (2 players)
MP checks, Hero checks

Total pot: $108 | Rake: $3

Results below: MP had 9♥, 9♦ (three of a kind, nines).
Hero had Q♦, K♣ (one pair, Queens).
Outcome: MP won $105

My initial reaction was that a flat pre is much better than a 3bet.  Villain just isn't a folder (pre or post), and his 14% opening range (possibly wider because of the fish) has 60% equity vs our hand.  So we're turning a reasonable hand into a bluff.  We have position, the people behind aren't squeezers and in a very limited sample, his 4bet is an "above average" 8.3% (mostly from resteal situations), so there is a chance we may get bluffed off the best hand.  But the main consideration was, do we want to risk losing the fish because of the 3bet?

But here's the thing that made me change my mind (a little)...  villain's cbet stats were 71/100/100.  The turn sample was 5/5 but the river sample was only 1/1.  So the dude is probably going to be barrelling every K and Q high flop and we're basically going to have to call down most runouts.  And considering his range is still stronger than ours and runouts can get ugly, that could get gross.

But by 3betting, he gave himself a "32%" chance of winning the hand preflop, a "39%" chance of winning the hand on the flop, a "25%" chance of winning the hand on the turn, AND HE ENDED UP LOSING LESS MONEY THAN HAD HE FLATTED PRE AND CALLED 3 BARRELS.

The reason why I'm still not sure about the 3bet is that we could have lost the fish.  But the fish ended up calling anyway.

I just thought the hand was kind of interesting when you look at it from multiple levels.  Anyone who says poker is a simple game probably isn't thinking about it enough.

6 comments:

  1. What was villains 3 bet percentage

    ReplyDelete
  2. in pokerstove im getting 55% equity for villain's 14% range vs KQo, am I doing something wrong?

    ReplyDelete
  3. i just used pkrCruncher on the ipad. there are probably like a dozen major ways of ranking the hands, and depending on which one you use, you can get slightly different results. I believe Stove lets you pick which hand ranking you want to use. 55% vs 60% isn't materially different imo... since in either case we are a slight dog, but still getting odds to flat.

    ReplyDelete
  4. might be a bit simplistic but f3b of 32 = calling a ton of crap, crap that KQ certainly dominates, and crap that will call flop/turn bets on K/Q high boards, and crap that we'll have decent outs vs on the non K/Q high boards

    ReplyDelete
  5. He only opens 14%. If he folds 32% of that, you get 9.5%. Even if we assume he 4bets QQ+ and AK, I still don't think we do better vs his remaining range (it's probably close though). And I don't think we have more hands we dominate, because he's probably 4bet bluffing some percentage of his bad hands he doesn't fold (KJ, QJ, etc). Also, when we 3bet we are turning KQ into a bluff. It seems like we have position and the fish to act, so it's not clear to me 3bet is better than flatting.

    ReplyDelete