Home / Community / Forum / Poker Education / Texas Hold'Em Cash Games /

25NL Zoom ThinValue? (II)

Old
Default
25NL Zoom ThinValue? (II) - Sun Jan 06, 2013, 01:15 AM
(#1)
TheAwesomeNW's Avatar
Since: Mar 2012
Posts: 474
Villain was a reg, 20/14, AF: 2.9 over 544 hands. Flop FCB: 19%(16), Turn FCB: 33%(6), River FCB: 50%(2)
He's pretty sticky post-flop as seen.



As played, we bet 2 streets for value. Same question, is the river too thin to bet for value since we held 2 Queens, making it less likely he has a Queen pair? JT, Jx got there by the river. Also he's a reg, probably means he's unlikely to pay us off with worse.

If we check the river, should we have made the call, hoping to catch a bluff?
 
Old
Default
Sun Jan 06, 2013, 07:27 AM
(#2)
Croyd93's Avatar
Since: Jul 2011
Posts: 639
Another good hand TANW, on the flop bet sizing is good as there is only one draw to be worried about (JT), I suppose you could make it like $1.20 but it's kind of meh.

On the turn I think you could do a few things considering you're up against a reg. I think you could x/r, perhaps even x/shove..? Given that he is likely to call your flop bet light, I like a x/r as it traps another bet from him. If it checks through then you can lead nearly all rivers probably getting looked up lighter given that he won't put you on top set. Also when you do get the money in you'll be an equity favorite a large amount of the time, being behind only to KJ to which you have 10 outs to make a boat.

As played I don't mind your bet, but I would make it a little bigger probbly around $3. JT just picked up a pair and is definately calling now so charge the max, most pure floats are folding to any bet so I like to get max value from the hands that are calling; given that his calling range, imo, is pretty inelastic (doesn't change depending on bet size).

On the river I wouldn't bet this one as I think you are only getting called by better, I suppose you can looked up by a set of nines or tens but I think he would have raised these before the river...? I don't mind x/c tbh it allows him to make a thin value bet with worse hands like TT/99 (but again I'm unsure if these are in his range) I suppose he could bet T9s as well. I'm pretty unsure though so I'll be interested to see what the 'experts' think.

Another interesting spot though


Follow me on: Twitter

Last edited by Croyd93; Sun Jan 06, 2013 at 07:31 AM..
 
Old
Default
Mon Jan 07, 2013, 10:29 AM
(#3)
GarethC23's Avatar
Since: Nov 2011
Posts: 1,273
Hey Awesome

Important point here. You mention, should you check and hope to snap off a bluff? What bluff?

When we are bluff catching our opponents, something that seems very pertinent is whether they can actually --have -- a bluff or not.

Can you think of a hand that our opponent could hold on the river that a) called three times (preflop, flop , turn) b) has less than one pair?

Since those are the hands that need to bluff to win the pot, those are the hands we need to put him on in order to bluff-catch. But it seems like there aren't many, if any, of those hands, in his river range.

Then what is he betting on this river? A lot of opponents would check back two pair here and most would have raised a set at an earlier point. Therefore I don't think he is value betting a worse hand.

So we have i) isn't value betting worse ii) isn't bluffing.

When both of these things are true they are going to add up to a river check-fold.

It is just so plausible for him to have JX in addition. QJ/JT/JJ/J9s/KJ are all very reasonable holdings for him to have.
 
Old
Default
Mon Jan 07, 2013, 05:18 PM
(#4)
TrustySam's Avatar
Since: Aug 2010
Posts: 8,291
BronzeStar
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheAwesomeNW View Post
Villain was a reg, 20/14, AF: 2.9 over 544 hands. Flop FCB: 19%(16), Turn FCB: 33%(6), River FCB: 50%(2)
He's pretty sticky post-flop as seen.

If we check the river, should we have made the call, hoping to catch a bluff?
Gosh, I guess I do some things right at the tables, but the stuff I do wrong is just so, sooo awful. Like staying way too long in mediocre situations, stacking off in marginal spots, taking really reckless chances, etc.

This hand's not *so* bad, in that at least there weren't 3 hearts on the board ... I'd still be calling with top set even if there were probably lol



Was telling Croyd in another thread that it's my 2013 goal to try and curb all the spew though - hopefully by using my HUD more? And maybe all that spew didn't go totally to waste, because by calling so many hands I shouldn't have down to the river, I think I've gotten to see some of the tells that floater/bluffers have that distinguish them from value callers (some of the time)?

Like I just had a hand against this person with these stats, and called down to the river based not only on the float%, and low ftcb %'s (for flop and turn), but based also on:

(1) signs that they were loose as evidenced by their high VPIP and wtsd, and low w$sd?, and

(2) signs that they were aggressive as evidenced by their high cbet % (which didn't apply to the hand per se, but was part of his overall 'portrait' that the HUD was painting about him? )




I guess the high wtsd with low w$sd is big because it's so unlikely to have fold equity on such a wet board unless the person has a read that:

(1) the other person will fold better hands on the river if the board's wet (and this one wasn't super wet), and

(2) the opponent's not super strong and isn't still going to call, or isn't trapping?

(3) And like they'd have to know that they've got the image to pull it off too?


Maybe against a regular TAG, a typical calling range would be just like QJ, KJ ... but then maybe I guess this person's low ftcb is more a reflection of those other hands like JTs, JJ, J9s (but not floating/bluffing without any indicators of LAG tendencies)?

Is that how it works?

That being said ... still so sooo tempting to want to call



Last edited by TrustySam; Mon Jan 07, 2013 at 05:32 PM..
 
Old
Default
Mon Jan 07, 2013, 09:59 PM
(#5)
TheAwesomeNW's Avatar
Since: Mar 2012
Posts: 474
Heys all, thanks for your inputs!! Hmm talking about WTSD and W$SD, this villain is 16%(64), 20%(10) respectively. Kind of poor stats, maybe because 544 hands isn't a large enough sample size.

This hand Villain had AhTd. From his stats, think he's just a station on Flop and Turn. Guess this is one of the lucky times I caught a bluff. But against this sticky Villain type, maybe calling the River is a +EV move?

Also just a thought after grinding at this stake, might sound duh...... Regs do bluff more often than fish. Had seen a few triple barrels with air. Messes up my mind, not knowing if they really have the goods next time they do it.
 
Old
Default
Mon Jan 07, 2013, 10:31 PM
(#6)
TrustySam's Avatar
Since: Aug 2010
Posts: 8,291
BronzeStar
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheAwesomeNW View Post
Heys all, thanks for your inputs!! Hmm talking about WTSD and W$SD, this villain is 16%(64), 20%(10) respectively.

This is an interesting little case study, to see if there were stats in the HUD (after-the-fact) that might have indicated that he was capable of acting the way he did?

Those showdown stats sound conflicting, because the wtsd is so low - which would seem to indicate very strongly that he's not likely bluffing, is that right?

But on the other hand, his w$sd is only 20 - maybe he's been in a downswing, but even during a downswing, isn't that awfully low?? Like isn't he's going to showdown with crap a lot when he does? (That was one of my 'signs' of a bluffer)

Were his cbet stats low? Or has he been cbetting a lot (and getting a lot of folds if he hasn't been going to showdown a lot? What about his steal stats? 3bet? float? (they're all indicators of pre and post-flop aggression, although the stats didn't necessarily apply to this hand in particular)

Sometimes I see really passive people take a stab at it on the river when I don't have any stats to indicate that they'd be the type to do so, but their bet doesn't make sense the way the board ran out?

And then other times, it feels like they've 'got it' ... but maybe I've been folding the best hand, who knows eh?


That'd be cool if there was stuff in the HUD to indicate that this person was capable of the bluff - or maybe that's why he did it - because he didn't think it would seem like he would?




As for the sample size being 500 hands - if people don't think it's enough of a sample size to be conducting any of this analysis, probably they shouldn't keep one open, because otherwise aren't you going to be tempted to rely on it?

Last edited by TrustySam; Mon Jan 07, 2013 at 10:40 PM..
 
Old
Default
Tue Jan 08, 2013, 04:37 AM
(#7)
TheAwesomeNW's Avatar
Since: Mar 2012
Posts: 474
Quote:
Originally Posted by TrustySam View Post
As for the sample size being 500 hands - if people don't think it's enough of a sample size to be conducting any of this analysis, probably they shouldn't keep one open, because otherwise aren't you going to be tempted to rely on it?
Haha that's true. W$WSF, WTSD, W$SD are on my HUD. Initially tried to use them to gauge who to double barrel, and whether to value bet the river. But failed to use it well miserably lol... So now they're really there for "Display"

In this hand, I'm not sure if we can use it to catch a bluff
 
Old
Default
Tue Jan 08, 2013, 05:35 PM
(#8)
TrustySam's Avatar
Since: Aug 2010
Posts: 8,291
BronzeStar
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheAwesomeNW View Post
Haha that's true. W$WSF, WTSD, W$SD are on my HUD. Initially tried to use them to gauge who to double barrel, and whether to value bet the river. But failed to use it well miserably lol... So now they're really there for "Display"

In this hand, I'm not sure if we can use it to catch a bluff
Wow ... *cringe* at the part of my answer you quoted there NW - yikes! Sorry for sounding so short - it wasn't directed at you ... or anybody ... I'll try to do a better job today of giving the answer I wish I had yesterday ...

I guess when I look at the HUD stats that you've given us ...

Flop FCB: 19%(16), Turn FCB: 33%(6), River FCB: 50%(2)
WTSD and W$SD, this villain is 16%(64), 20%(10)

... as somebody who wasn't involved in the hand, if one were to look at sample size to prioritize reliability of stats, then in the face of inconsistencies, wouldn't WTSD of 16% have to take priority over all the others ... which would have dictated a fold to the river raise? Since it indicates that the person so rarely goes to SD, that when he does, he must tend to have the goods.

Which, it's important to note, was in fact very wrong in this instance.

So then, if one was looking strictly at number of hands to try and ascertain reliability of HUD stats, then wouldn't that tend to suggest that all the stats I just listed above have to be ignored, due to lack of reliability?

I guess, like when you made that call on the river, was it kind of your 'gut' sense that was leading you to believe that the villain might possibly be bluffing? Like there might have been timing tells, combined with the (large) size of the river bet? And so since the ftcb stats aligned with your instincts, and the wtsd didn't, you assumed that the former were the reliable ones and the latter was not?

Like, the HUD data was giving out conflicting info? And you used instinct to decide which was reliable, rather than sample size I guess?

Which appears to have worked in this instance - the loophole I see for it not being true in every instance is that not everybody is so simple that we can just ignore conflicting data ... because like sometimes people are deliberately acting in a conflicting fashion? That's what you mentioned about the TAGs at 25nl, right? That even the TAGs will bluff on the river, and there's nothing in the stats to indicate that they'd be the type to do so?

So that's when the stats don't conflict - but with people who aren't so crafty, the stats probably will conflict ... and I think to be thorough, we have to look deeper at the stats to know whether the conflicting data is due to unreliability of one or more stats, or whether it's because the data is in fact reliable and the person is acting in a conflicting fashion?

The data I think would be interesting to see for your villain would be his float% and turn cbet %, and whether they're higher than like, 50% - because that shows a certain degree of agressiveness and gamble. And those aren't qualities that people generally develop in a really bad to bluff spot out of the blue after playing 500 hands in a straightforward fashion?

1. And so if they're high - one explanation for the conflicting might be that villain was the type to possibly bluff the river if checked to ... but likely would have folded to a small bet? Hence the low wtsd?

2. But if those stats are low - one explanation for the conflicting data might be that he saw something in your stats that led him to believe that you might fold to a bet, like a low wtsd (less that 25%), combined with a high w$sd (like, maybe more than 55%?)?

3. And if neither of those are true, THEN maybe the sample size would be too small to be unreliable?


So if it's the first case, the only way to know if the data's sufficiently reliable would be to hypothesis test - that would mean calling to bluff-catch. And then the question would be about whether to call now, when he's practically potted it, or tag him and wait for another time where it'd be cheaper.

If it's number 2, then we'd have to work on changing our own stats.

If it's number 3, then usually I'll actually fold and tag the person as somebody to watch. And I like to call! A LOT!!!


At least that's what I do at the tables ... conduct this analysis - because 5nl it's rare to get more than one of these hands at a time where the data conflicts? And you'd be surprised at how often, after reconciling seemingly conflicting data, the 'small' sample size winds up being incredibly accurate, so I think it's worth the effort? As like a way to offset all my losses due to being such a station?


PS Sorry again for the snippy post from yesterday

Last edited by TrustySam; Tue Jan 08, 2013 at 05:39 PM..
 
Old
Default
Tue Jan 08, 2013, 05:43 PM
(#9)
TrustySam's Avatar
Since: Aug 2010
Posts: 8,291
BronzeStar
Oh wait ... I guess I've got more ... :/

The only time I've really felt like stats were unreliable were for people who have the stats of a maniac (high VPIP, PFR, CBET, etc) ... except they have very high wtsd and w$sd because they're on a heater? Like I've seen people with stats as high as 78 hands, who are just playing TAG hands, but they're stats look crazy because they're hitting every board.

And then sometimes ... some people aren't so complicated, like sometimes maniacs really are just as they appear, and you don't need many hands to know that they like to bet, bet, bet because they only have one gear?

Same with nits?


I think that's all now ... I feel like Bubba from Forest Gump when he was talking about all the things you could do with shrimp ...
 
Old
Default
Wed Jan 09, 2013, 06:36 AM
(#10)
kingkong263's Avatar
Since: Jul 2010
Posts: 175
soulds like u got over the bet fold to min raise . fold top set people are smart enough to turn pairs into bluffs when they think they are beat , looks like u are getting smarter NH
 

Getting PokerStars is easy: download and install the PokerStars game software, create your free player account, and validate your email address. Clicking on the download poker button will lead to the installation of compatible poker software on your PC of 51.7 MB, which will enable you to register and play poker on the PokerStars platform. To uninstall PokerStars use the Windows uninstaller: click Start > Control Panel and then select Add or Remove programs > Select PokerStars and click Uninstall or Remove.

Copyright (c) PokerSchoolOnline.com. All rights reserved, Rational Group, Douglas Bay Complex, King Edward Road, Onchan, Isle of Man, IM3 1DZ. You can email us on support@pokerschoolonline.com