Archive for Tagpoker Forum A friendly place for winning poker players to share their strategy to making money playing poker.
 


       Tagpoker Forum Forum Index -> Heads Up Poker Strategy
Jakester1288

Preflop flatting ranges

Hey guys.

Just want to make a thread to discuss preflop flatting ranges. It's a very broad topic, and generally a fairly simple one, but you definitely get some tough spots (at least, while you're a beginner/intermediate player).

So, feel free to post spots you found tough pre flop (I certainly will), and if you have advice, please post it!

Now, my hand. Villain has been raising around 40% preflop, but also limping the majority of his hands. We haven't seen many showdowns, and have no other applicable reads pre flop, however we have a read that when he checks back the flop he is weak (only seen this in limped pots, not raised ones). We have seen him:

Limp: J6, 65bb eff, 96, 47bb eff
Raise: KQ, 2.5x 10bb eff

The hand:

Blinds : 20/40
2 players
[But]+[SB] Villain (1305)
[BB] Hero (1695)

Hero 9 6

Villain raises to 100
Hero ???

I found this spot tough. We're ~32bb deep, facing a raise from a fairly low percentage raiser w/ suited gappers. At 50+bb's I'd call this in a heartbeat (maybe a leak but I doubt it), for the implied odds. But when we're this short, is it OK to call? We're assuming to have good implied odds since he's raising stronger hands, and on the right flops we can probably get stacks in.

Thanks for your help guys.
U Cook Socks

Personally, I am just folding 96s there.
N86xps

Implied odds definately do not compensate for the times, when you miss and have to fold. Also, the dynamic of a heads up match is so, that the reverse implied odds you are having here are negating your actual implied odds (I'd like some good player to correct me if I am wrong on that).

If the player is so readable, then you may call and take it away later. Still, it is better to fold and wait for a better spot. You may get dealt aces the very next hand! I think like that every time I feel, that I am going to make a loose call.
kolonel

Easy fold.

Flatting hands like small PP, 65s+, J9s+, Q9s+, K9s+, Axs+, A8+, Broadway

How often is he stabbing limped flops ?

How does he react to raising when limping ?  Widening your raising range could also come into play here.
Jakester1288

N86xps wrote:
Still, it is better to fold and wait for a better spot. You may get dealt aces the very next hand!


This is a misconception, read here: http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com...-2-mag-article-discussion-866126/

I just tried the links and they don't seem to work anymore, but one of them is 'waiting for a better spot'. If you're prevented a +EV spot, you take it. That is best for your hourly, and hourly is the most important thing in poker.
Jakester1288

kolonel wrote:
Easy fold.

Flatting hands like small PP, 65s+, J9s+, Q9s+, K9s+, Axs+, A8+, Broadway

How often is he cbetting limped flops ?

How does he react to raising when limping ?  Widening your raising range could also come into play here.


We only raised him once, he called and folded to a cbet on a J45 or similar flop. But what I'd like to know, is what his limps have to do with this hand :p
U Cook Socks

Jakester1288 wrote:
N86xps wrote:
Still, it is better to fold and wait for a better spot. You may get dealt aces the very next hand!


This is a misconception, read here: http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com...-2-mag-article-discussion-866126/

I just tried the links and they don't seem to work anymore, but one of them is 'waiting for a better spot'. If you're prevented a +EV spot, you take it. That is best for your hourly, and hourly is the most important thing in poker.


Well the question you need to ask yourself then, is can you play 69s oop, profitably for 32bb, against someone with a strong raising range. I would take a guess at no, but I can't say that for certain. If your post flop game is good, I am sure you could make a small profit.
aggsyb

Its a terribly simple fold, you have no reads on him in a raised pot we have no 3b bluffing range against someone whos raising purely for value so we cant 3b and were dominated a ton of the time, the value in hands like this comes from draws mainly and this shallow if any money goes in the likelyhood is were going to be drawing and if not were going to be dominated, to not be in those spots we need to flop 2p etc which we just dont have implied for this shallow. Flatting here is fine if were much deeper
Jakester1288

Where would you cut off be for flatting this hand? 40bbs? 50bbs?
N86xps

Jakester1288 wrote:
N86xps wrote:
Still, it is better to fold and wait for a better spot. You may get dealt aces the very next hand!


This is a misconception, read here: http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com...-2-mag-article-discussion-866126/

I just tried the links and they don't seem to work anymore, but one of them is 'waiting for a better spot'. If you're prevented a +EV spot, you take it. That is best for your hourly, and hourly is the most important thing in poker.


I do not understand this. Obviously ANY +EV spot MUST be taken in cash games. But here we have a limited number of chips. One simple example: You are playing against a guy, that plays literally fit or fold. You bet any flop for 1/3 of the pot, and if he did not connect he will fold. You will win the game almost certainly. Do you want to ship your money in preflop with a 53% equity? Or, do I want to take a coinflip for half of my stack if I know I have a big advantage? I am going to research this mathematically. But I am pretty sure that in HUSNG cEV and $EV are not the same, and it would highly depend on your opponent (I gather that many players understand that consciously or aubconsciously). Anyway, I do not have any proof yet, so I am not arguing (yet).
BetMagicMoney

all please read here http://www.husng.com/content/optimizing-growth-not-bankroll-article
chesslw

@bmm- ty for the interesting article.

Some interesting concepts are being discussed here, and I'll put my thoughts down:

In HUSNG we want to maximize the probability that we win the game.

When 2 players are equally skilled play each other, you should always maixize cEV, since in this case cEV=$EV.

If you have an edge however, sometimes it is actually better to pass up on small +EV spots, depending on how big the edge is. The problem is of course this is very difficult to estimate even if you actually know the exact strategy of both players, but the concept does exist.

Also your edge is not easy to define either, even against the simplest of opponents. It may be that you have an edge at 20-40bb, but below that cEV = $EV against this villain.

Finally- the actual objective we really want to maximize is hourly. In this case, small +EV spots which are higher variance are good for us, but again this is even harder to estimate...

I understand that the concept of passing up some edges vs villains does exist- since playing safe openings in chess vs "fish" is a general practice of better players. But really, in poker, against an unkown, I just think it's much harder to be able to classify him as exploitable in a particular way, and for you to be able to guarantee a consistent edge that has minimal risk...

And also, realistically in HUSNGs, especially at shallower stacks, your edge cannot be that high. Someone shoving 100% 20bb deep is still going to win the game over 1/3 of the time.
_red_dog

afaik cEV=$EV as there are no ICM implications.

This is a fold btw jake.
N86xps

_red_dog wrote:
afaik cEV=$EV as there are no ICM implications.

This is a fold btw jake.


Imagine a function f(x) = P(win) defined on [0, 1]. Where x is the total percentage of chips in play, that you have, and P(win) is the probability, that you win the game (your prize pool equity). If both players are equally skilled AND they both use NASH equilibrium, then the function is a straight line (it has to be proved, and I think it is not totally straight, but in any case it is very close). But imagine, that you are playing an opponent, against which you have a 60% advantage. Try to draw a graph for f(x). As you see it can not be a straight line anymore. since f(0) = 0, f(1) = 1 BUT f(0.5) = 0.6. I know you are a mathematician, so here is an interesting idea for research. I guess, that f(x) is definately a continuos function on that interval. And, its behaviour near the boundaries of the interval is dependant on the opponent's awareness of the Nash equilibrium. Anyway it is not as easy though since by applying a strategy, that takes f(x) in consideration we actually change our equity in any given point. There must be a fixed point somewhere in the space of those functions, and the function is in fact an operator defined on a set of all possible strategies of my opponent... somethig like that.. I had a drink, so I may be writing .....
kierkegaard1

No idea why we're folding this, especially with someone who plays so straightforward post
N86xps

Good article! In the end it also mentions my idea:). So, it is not as straight forward as it seems.
_red_dog

The idea seems different.  But the by saying that, aren't you implying that if we have a 60% "advantage" over our opponent that we should only take spots that we have 60%, i guess, equity(?).  Doesn't our edge come from being able to identify spots that are +EV, no matter how small?
N86xps

_red_dog wrote:
The idea seems different.  But the by saying that, aren't you implying that if we have a 60% "advantage" over our opponent that we should only take spots that we have 60%, i guess, equity(?).  Doesn't our edge come from being able to identify spots that are +EV, no matter how small?


This is really a math question. A s I said it is definately true, that by emplying a strategy that uses such implications would result in the actual relation between the number of chips and the prize pool equity to change. Though there must be a fixed point (a strategy, that if you deviate from it would result in your prize pool equity to decrease in every point). Again this is ONLY a theory that needs research and mathematical proof.
N86xps

_red_dog wrote:
The idea seems different.  But the by saying that, aren't you implying that if we have a 60% "advantage" over our opponent that we should only take spots that we have 60%, i guess, equity(?).  Doesn't our edge come from being able to identify spots that are +EV, no matter how small?


If you really have a 60% advantage over an opponent, playing small ball, then would you ship it in preflop (at even stacks) with 53% equity?! folding is more +EV. It is just like ICM. I'll call my theory HICM:).
U Cook Socks

_red_dog wrote:
The idea seems different.  But the by saying that, aren't you implying that if we have a 60% "advantage" over our opponent that we should only take spots that we have 60%, i guess, equity(?).  Doesn't our edge come from being able to identify spots that are +EV, no matter how small?


Seems a bit odd, do we actually get a spot, every single match , where we have 60% equity to get it in with ? I doubt it, or it would be easy wouldn't it?

I mean, when you start doing calculations like that, you have to include Fold equity and so on surely.
_red_dog

N86xps wrote:
_red_dog wrote:
The idea seems different.  But the by saying that, aren't you implying that if we have a 60% "advantage" over our opponent that we should only take spots that we have 60%, i guess, equity(?).  Doesn't our edge come from being able to identify spots that are +EV, no matter how small?


If you really have a 60% advantage over an opponent, playing small ball, then would you ship it in preflop (at even stacks) with 53% equity?! folding is more +EV. It is just like ICM. I'll call my theory HICM:).


If the blinds are 50/100, then yes!  Most definitely!
kierkegaard1

a 60% winrate doesnt mean you only ever got it in as 60% or better. if this was the case your winrate would be more than 60%, ducy.
we should always be taking a +ev spot
ottocat01

_red_dog wrote:
The idea seems different.  But the by saying that, aren't you implying that if we have a 60% "advantage" over our opponent that we should only take spots that we have 60%, i guess, equity(?).  Doesn't our edge come from being able to identify spots that are +EV, no matter how small?


This. If you stop taking +EV spots of 53%, 54%, 55% and so on, your 60% "advantage" will begin to deteriorate. You are not owed this "advantage". You acquire it by taking +EV spots. Think about it this way. Let's say you have 60% equity in a tournament when it starts based on previous results. That 60% equity is earned in small increments throughout the tournament by taking small edges. It doesn't simply have to be a question of would you take a (x)% coinflip. Maybe I'm missing something simple, but if I was offered a known (x)% equity spot for all my chips that would result in me covering the tournament buy-in + rake and profiting anything at all, I would take it 100% of the time.

Also, ICM has nothing to do with HUSNG's. ICM is just a snapshot of what payouts would look like if the tournament ended immediately based on current chipstacks in multi-player tournaments with multiple prizes. It's extremely useful, but makes no consideration to skill advantage and most ICM programs assume static calling ranges unless changed by the user. Calling ranges are very dynamic and learned by experience.
chesslw

Imo maths aside, the best way to explain things is through clear examples, so here goes:

The concept- you are playing a villain that is open shoving every hand. Now, in a cash game, you should always call with JQs, A5s etc, but in a HUSNG you should definitely wait for a better spot (in fact, this game can easily be solved). Of course as you get shallower, you should call with a wider and wider range...

I also agree with all of the above posts...

The problem with this idea is it is only good in theory.

When can you ever come up with a complete strategy of outplaying a villain that gives you an advantage above a certain %, such that you can CONFIDENTLY say it is better to give up a certain +EV spot in a game vs an unknown? Also, even more devastating, when can you ever work out your winrate in game? Imo in almost all cases, if you identify a spot to be +EV, you should definitely take it.
N86xps

I agree with averything here.. but. I still believe it is not as simple as that. Most of the time you should obviously take any +EV spot. Yet since prize pool equity is not linearly dependant on your chipcount, the more advantage you have over your opponent (at deep stack mostly) the more non-linear it becomes. So +cEV is not guaranteed to be +$EV.

One simple example: you know, that your opponent becomes really tight and "scared" when at a 3:1 chip disadvantage. When at even stacks he plays solid poker though. So, when on a draw you can afford to pay a little more for your draw, since you are paying for the chance to be at even more +EV spot if you hit.

I know, that in MTT's there exists a "block theory" which also studies spots where it is profitable to take a -EV spot in order to set yourself up for even more +EV situation later on. The most basic example would be calling a shortstacker's all-in a little lighter while deep, and if your win will make you the chipleader of your table.
chesslw

Yes ^^. In fact, I can prove that between 2 human players, cEV = $EV with probability 0 (since the game is not solved and the action space is infinite, the game is not played optimally with probability 1- both players make mistakes of arbitrary magnitudes at various stackdepths etc I won't bore you). But it's pretty damn close in reality, and you can't go too far wrong to assume it. You must be a pure mathematician, no? Very Happy

In other words, what I'm trying to say is KISS.
N86xps

chesslw wrote:
Yes ^^. In fact, I can prove that between 2 human players, cEV = $EV with probability 0 (since the game is not solved and the action space is infinite, the game is not played optimally with probability 1- both players make mistakes of arbitrary magnitudes at various stackdepths etc I won't bore you). But it's pretty damn close in reality, and you can't go too far wrong to assume it. You must be a pure mathematician, no? Very Happy

In other words, what I'm trying to say is KISS.


In fact I am not a professional mathematician.. I wish I was. I agree with you completely if it was a cash game. Though in HUSNG when you have a substantioal advantage initially, then if you draw the graph for relationship between your stack and your $EV, then it can be quite far from straight line. The problem is that if you take that in consideration, then your new strategy would change the way, that function looks.

I agree though, taht in 99% cases it is close. But I am quite sure, that when Brokerstar plays the fish at low-mid stakes, he does in fact take something like that into consideration, say keeping the guy down in chips and (probably) not taking all the slightly +EV spots. I am quite sure, that such an unbelievable ROI is also to such strategy adjustmenst. Still, if I am wrong please correct me.
_red_dog

I agree with u that u can pass up some marginally +EV spots early on, no probs with that.  But once u get to like <15bbs it would be crazy to pass up even the smallest +EV spot.
sausage

N86xps wrote:
But I am quite sure, that when Brokerstar plays the fish at low-mid stakes, he does in fact take something like that into consideration, say keeping the guy down in chips and (probably) not taking all the slightly +EV spots. I am quite sure, that such an unbelievable ROI is also to such strategy adjustmenst. Still, if I am wrong please correct me.


You are correct in that this is what Broker does. However, whilst Broker is right about many (most) things in respect of his HUSNG strategy I think this is one area where his ideas are not optimal.
       Tagpoker Forum Forum Index -> Heads Up Poker Strategy
Page 1 of 1