Home / Community / Forum / Poker Education / Texas Hold'Em Tournament Section (MTTs & STTs) /

Card Removal Effects - Justifying a 3bet?

Old
Default
Card Removal Effects - Justifying a 3bet? - Thu Feb 14, 2013, 10:06 PM
(#1)
DivorcedDuck's Avatar
Since: Jun 2010
Posts: 165
I was in a coaching a few minutes ago by Langolier. First of all I have to say the coaching was very good. Some great discussions and Dave for sure makes a very good job!

However he mentioned one thing when we discussed a hand which was card removal. To be exact he said our heros hand is blocking a lot of better hands which might not be folding on a cbet on flop. I said that we are blocking more hands which are good for us to keep in the range than blocking hands which have us beat. Our Heros hand was A6s and the villains range we are talking about was something like 50% PFR. As villain had a 75% VPIP too and seemed to be 3bet resistent we assume he will bring most of his range to a potential flop. Dave and I agreed that villain mostlikely plays any Ace.

I agree to Daves opinion about 3betting too, but card removal isn´t a good justification.

There´s a total of 198 possible combos including an ace. Hero holding A6s is blocking 56 combos overall or 11.76% of all possible combos.

If we divide the whole ace combos into 3 parts, part 1 is for the combos we have beat, part 2 is for the combos which have us beat but might fold to a cbet and part 3 is for the aces which have us beat but aren´t folding most of the time, we will get the following result:

Part 1 - A2s-A5s, A2o-A5o - card removal is 3.92% -16 combos
Part 2 - A6s-A9s, A6o-A90 - card removal is 3.67% -19 combos
Part 3 - ATs+, ATo+, AA - card removal is 4,1% - 21 combos

Part 1+2 - card removal is 35 combos or overall 7.59% of villains range we don´t want to fold pre but only 21 combos and overall 4,1% which have us beat but aren´t possible anymore.

If we count only Part 1 of the ace combos including the split the numbers are as follws:

card removal is 4.69% and in total we block 23 combos.

So no matter how we look into this we always block more combos we have beat than combos which have us crushed, not to forget the ones we can get to fold by cbetting most of the time. Only based on combinatoric numbers I have to disagree to the point that card removal works to our favor that way when light 3betting a maniac.

I hope this was understandable and I used the correct terms. Those discussions are a bit difficult to me as english isn´t my native language but I practice on that one.

Good luck at the felts.

Last edited by DivorcedDuck; Thu Feb 14, 2013 at 10:17 PM..
 
Old
Default
Fri Feb 15, 2013, 12:13 AM
(#2)
TheLangolier's Avatar
Since: Jun 2010
Posts: 13,501
(Head Trainer)
Hi Duck,

Thanks for the well thought out post, I see clearer what you are saying here now. I disagree with you however, but this should make for a nice discussion.

Quote:
To be exact he said our heros hand is blocking a lot of better hands which might not be folding on a cbet on flop.
Actually I didn't say this at all, but I think this is where the confusion came in. All I said was "we have an ace blocker". And that means we run into less hands that will continue vs. our 3b (I didn't reference c-betting post flop at all in regards to this).

Quote:
Our Heros hand was A6s and the villains range we are talking about was something like 50% PFR. As villain had a 75% VPIP too and seemed to be 3bet resistent we assume he will bring most of his range to a potential flop. Dave and I agreed that villain most likely plays any Ace.

Correct, 75/50 over 405 hands. My statement was that it is pretty assured he is raising preflop with any ace. Not even most likely, most certainly.

We didn't discuss how much of that 50% open range he will bring to a flop and how much he will fold to a 3b (or how 3b resistant he was in general). Although I would expect him to probably at least call a fair bit on deep stacks (we had 123bb and he covered) he is certainly folding some of that range, my guess would be probably the bottom 1/3rd to 1/2. I would also suppose if he held Ax he would never fold it regardless of how weak the X was, he would 4b his strong aces (AJ+) and flat the rest. That's my best guess anyway.

Going back to the actual stats on the villain now, his fold to 3b was 36% (9/25). So he is folding immediately just over a third of the time. Out of his 50% open range if he continues 64% of the time that leaves 32% of starting hands which probably includes all aces.

Quote:
Part 1 - A2s-A5s, A2o-A5o - card removal is 3.92% -16 combos
Part 2 - A6s-A9s, A6o-A90 - card removal is 3.67% -19 combos
Part 3 - ATs+, ATo+, AA - card removal is 4,1% - 21 combos

Part 1+2 - card removal is 35 combos or overall 7.59% of villains range we don´t want to fold pre but only 21 combos and overall 4,1% which have us beat but aren´t possible anymore
That's the thing, I agree we don't mind him calling with weak aces pre but I don't think he's folding any of them preflop regardless. I tried to explain this during the class, sorry if I wasn't clear... there are more combos of A7-AK than there are of A2-A5, so the statement you made at the time that we block more combos of hands we're beating than we do hands that are beating us isn't correct. (clearly what you explained here that you were thinking, is different from what I understood from your classroom chat).

Quote:
I agree to Daves opinion about 3betting too, but card removal isn´t a good justification.
I think you took more weight on the statement of card removal than I intended. An ace blocker alone is never a justification for 3-betting light, but it's one factor among many and it does have relevance.

Quote:
I hope this was understandable and I used the correct terms. Those discussions are a bit difficult to me as english isn´t my native language but I practice on that one.


I think I understand, and I think your english is good.

You are counting better aces (A7-A9) as "favorable" to us even though they are ahead preflop because he will call them pre and then fold on the flop (when he misses). That's different from the statement I made that there are more combos of better aces than worse aces, and I wasn't addressing c-betting the flop at all. But I see your point, although I think the blocker still helps us in this case, as there is less chance when he holds A7-A9 that he will flop an ace (a hand with which he will never fold post flop and which will have us in a bad spot).


Head Live Trainer
Check out my Videos

4 Time Bracelet Winner




Last edited by TheLangolier; Fri Feb 15, 2013 at 12:15 AM..
 
Old
Default
Fri Feb 15, 2013, 05:04 AM
(#3)
DivorcedDuck's Avatar
Since: Jun 2010
Posts: 165
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheLangolier View Post
[LEFT]I would also suppose if he held Ax he would never fold it regardless of how weak the X was, he would 4b his strong aces (AJ+) and flat the rest. That's my best guess anyway.
in my experience those players tend to play tricky when holding nuts or close to nuts so i wouldn´t wonder about flatting with AT+,AA. and i agree to the point he will call with any ace.

Quote:
Going back to the actual stats on the villain now, his fold to 3b was 36% (9/25). So he is folding immediately just over a third of the time. Out of his 50% open range if he continues 64% of the time that leaves 32% of starting hands which probably includes all aces.
nice to have some backup on our assumptions

Quote:
That's the thing, I agree we don't mind him calling with weak aces pre but I don't think he's folding any of them preflop regardless. I tried to explain this during the class, sorry if I wasn't clear... there are more combos of A7-AK than there are of A2-A5, so the statement you made at the time that we block more combos of hands we're beating than we do hands that are beating us isn't correct. (clearly what you explained here that you were thinking, is different from what I understood from your classroom chat).
here is the point you have to think through again. the point which leads to this discussion.

you had no chance to understand what i was telling in the chat cause the chat cut off half of the sentence. it´s limited to a few characters only. that´s why i said it´s to difficult to explain in the chat and suggested a thread.

Quote:
You are counting better aces (A7-A9) as "favorable" to us even though they are ahead preflop because he will call them pre and then fold on the flop (when he misses).
That's different from the statement I made that there are more combos of better aces than worse aces, and I wasn't addressing c-betting the flop at all.
that´s the most important point!!!!!!!!!!!!! (when he hits!)

Quote:
But I see your point, although I think the blocker still helps us in this case, as there is less chance when he holds A7-A9 that he will flop an ace (a hand with which he will never fold post flop and which will have us in a bad spot).
so you got the point that we need a plan for the hand postflop and we need to win the hand postflop to realize the profit we made by 3betting the fishes out of the hand pre. ok, we have some advantage by the dead money we already collected but we stil need a plan.

we have three chances to win the hand in my opinion.

a) we outflop villain by hitting two pair or a combo draw
b) we hit our kicker and villain is missing
c) we hit nothing but get a board which allows us to bluff when villain has hit only his mediocre kicker or less on a board with two overs to his kicker.

in all other cases villain is way to much gambler that i see him fold and obviously he was running hot cause that´s the only way those players get such a big stack and survive that long.

i now make some predictions...

in case a) card removal isn´t good for us as we want him to have hit top pair for doubling up our stack.

in case b) card removal is good for us as we don´t want him to hit anything.

in case c) card removal is bad for us cause it makes this more unlikely to happen.

that are my predictions about the plan for the hand. if you have a better plan please let me know. i´m sure we agree that we have to check our 3bet range against our game plan to make sure it makes sense and as this discussion is about card removal we for sure agree to find the answer we have to check the ace combos against the plan.

case a)
we agree that when this villain hits top pair with an ace on flop he is going nowhere. so any ace combo removed from his range is one chance less to get doubled up here for sure. but as we don´t have a kicker we are behind and we need to outflop villain

case b)
card removal doesn´t matter in that case.

case c)
this case is based on the assumption i make that villain is bluffable. he´s a maniac, yes. he´s calling way to much, yes. BUT he can fold to high pressure. He will fold bottom pairs on a board with two overs but definitely no top pair or second pair when it comes along with a straight draw, as well as i don´t see him folding two overcards with a straight draw. he is bluffable but he´s also a gambler. so what are possible boards for that scenario? - i think a board with two broadways, preferably double suited but that´s not a must and a middle number like 7-9 would be the one we are talking about for that scenario. on that board he would fold A7-A9 for sure i think but not AT-AK as those hands would have a straight draw at least and gamblers overplay draws so often. that´s why i count A7-9 as good for us. and that´s why card removal isn´t good for us.

you will for sure tell me there´s a fourth possibility when we both have missed the flop and a c-bet is successfull. i don´t see that as my masterplan cause i don´t see a board structure which favors our hand vs. his range the way he would fold or in other words other board textures than i described in the mentioned 3 cases will fit villains range better than ours and villain isn´t the one to throw away top pair cause he thinks we could have an overpair and i even have a hard time to believe he´s folding with two overcards on the flop.

for sure overall our chances are pretty good but card removal isn´t to our favor. it makes it less likely to happen that villain has an ace but in case he has an ace we are in worse trouble cause it mostly hits combos which we would like to play. the overall card removal effect to villains range is only ~12% on the ace combos. in my books this doesn´t compensate for the loss of playability postflop when beeing oop against a maniac. however the maniacs range is that wide that A6s still plays great no question. in general the correct adaption would be to tighten up. the 3bet was justified by the huge amount of dead money and the point that the maniac has that wide ranges that we can compensate the positional disadvantage.

however, as we agree about the point that villain will go on with a range of around 32% the ace combos are almost half of villains vacuum range and the question we´re talking about has a huge impact on the playablity. card removal reduces villains range in total to 30% but there are still 140 ace combos left in villains range of 365 combos. this means 38% of the time you face a flop villain will have an ace combo too and 2/3 of the time you´re in trouble out of position. In other words 25% of the time when you face a flop vs. villain when holding A6s you´re in some serious trouble.(i gave villain the following range for calculating 22+,A2s+,KTs+,QTs+,JTs,T8s+,97s+,86s+,75s+,64s+,53 s+,42s+,32s,A2o+,KTo+,QTo+,JTo which is any ace, any two broadways, any pocket, any suited connector and any suited one gaper)

Last edited by DivorcedDuck; Fri Feb 15, 2013 at 06:13 AM..
 
Old
Default
Fri Feb 15, 2013, 11:26 AM
(#4)
TheLangolier's Avatar
Since: Jun 2010
Posts: 13,501
(Head Trainer)
I still think you are placing way too much weight on card removal in the whole process, which seems evident in your 3 possibilities.

Quote:
so you got the point that we need a plan for the hand postflop and we need to win the hand postflop to realize the profit we made by 3betting the fishes out of the hand pre.
We need to win the hand post flop some of the time for sure, but it seems you're discounting all the times we win preflop from the profit margin of the play.

Quote:
we have three chances to win the hand in my opinion.

a) we outflop villain by hitting two pair or a combo draw
b) we hit our kicker and villain is missing
c) we hit nothing but get a board which allows us to bluff when villain has hit only his mediocre kicker or less on a board with two overs to his kicker...

...you will for sure tell me there´s a fourth possibility when we both have missed the flop and a c-bet is successfull. i don´t see that as my masterplan cause i don´t see a board structure which favors our hand vs. his range the way he would fold or in other words other board textures than i described in the mentioned 3 cases will fit villains range better than ours and villain isn´t the one to throw away top pair cause he thinks we could have an overpair and i even have a hard time to believe he´s folding with two overcards on the flop.
Actually I view our chances in chronological order, which is what during the session I was calling "plan A, plan B, plan C"

A) We take it down preflop (maniac does fold 36% of the time)
B) We take it down post flop on a c-bet
C) We make the best hand

Our chances as you have stated it ignore plan A all together. Plan B is addressed in part by your option c, and my Plan C is where you seem to be focusing most of your concern.

Plan B, taking it down on a c-bet, certainly happens some of the time as when the villain takes flops so wide, he misses a lot. How often he folds can be speculated. I tend to agree with you mostly that he will not fold any top pair, probably not 2nd pair, and maybe not 2 overs on a low flop. Let's not forget though that even against that calling range my plan C still works out sometimes. With 2 overs that don't include an ace we are winning. We can also win against 2nd pair sometimes, like on an AQ8 flop (recall villains actual holding was Q3o, he is probably calling a c-bet with the Q on board if he takes the flop, although this could be in the 36% preflop folds). My plan B doesn't depend so much on our hand as it does his range missing the flop or flopping too weak to continue.

Quote:
however, as we agree about the point that villain will go on with a range of around 32% the ace combos are almost half of villains vacuum range and the question we´re talking about has a huge impact on the playablity. card removal reduces villains range in total to 30% but there are still 140 ace combos left in villains range of 365 combos. this means 38% of the time you face a flop villain will have an ace combo too and 2/3 of the time you´re in trouble out of position. In other words 25% of the time when you face a flop vs. villain when holding A6s you´re in some serious trouble
So the crux of what you're saying if I understand correctly, is that 25% of the time we take a flop we'll be up against a bigger ace? (I didn't check these numbers as I trust your calcs here). This means that we will face this situation ~ 16% of the time we 3b him preflop. And how often will an ace flop or he flop 2 overs with his Ax?

I think that card removal helps my plan A (taking it down preflop a bit more often), and my plan B (the 16% of the time we 3b him and run into a better ace, there is less chance an ace will flop, which is the scenario we are truly not happy to see).

We certainly can not expect to win the pot all the time (obviously, we don't need to for this play to be profitable), but on balance having an ace blocker does help the primary plans behind 3-betting light... Plans A and B. It even helps plan C I believe as when an ace does flop, it becomes more likely that we have made the best hand.


Head Live Trainer
Check out my Videos

4 Time Bracelet Winner



 
Old
Default
Fri Feb 15, 2013, 11:56 AM
(#5)
DivorcedDuck's Avatar
Since: Jun 2010
Posts: 165
i don´t ignore the possibilty to take down the pot preflop. it´s 1/3 of the time we do that and that´s for sure a nice profit. but the profit doesn´t come from the maniac or from card removal, it comes from the two fishes who posted some dead money.

the point to me is that we will have a hard time against the maniac at least 1/3 of the time he calls and we will loose in that case not only the pot but at least one c-bet too. in case we win the pot postflop we mostlikely get no additional value or it will be tough for us to realize our equity out of position.

about the card removal is to say that i don´t count the card removal into effect preflop as it´s only 2% to villains range and the range of villain is that wide that we can´t make an assumption if it ever exists or if villain may thinks to widen up his range a bit because of the dead money too like we did. we are talking here about only 2-3 starting hands more or less.

i got the numbers out of equilab and so i think they are correct. don´t have counted them myself. and i always agreed to the 3bet pre cause of the great risk reward ratio pre with 6,5bb dead money in the pot but also i said i would keep the 3bet below 6k.

edit: yes you understood it correct. 25% of the time we will face an ace with a better kicker. as we have to give villain all aces pre it´s by far the biggest part of his range, that´s why i posted the numbers detailed. as you rarely deal with that wide ranges and that deep stacks it´s tough to realize that it´s really that much.

Last edited by DivorcedDuck; Fri Feb 15, 2013 at 12:28 PM..
 
Old
Default
Fri Feb 15, 2013, 03:27 PM
(#6)
TheLangolier's Avatar
Since: Jun 2010
Posts: 13,501
(Head Trainer)
Quote:
Originally Posted by DivorcedDuck View Post
the profit doesn´t come from the maniac or from card removal, it comes from the two fishes who posted some dead money.
I feel like we're going around in circles a bit now maybe.

The 3 fishes dead money certainly improves the profitability of the play, we agree 100% there.

I never said our profit comes from card removal. What I said was that having an ace blocker gives both plan A and B a slightly higher success rate, which I still maintain it does. Since much of your argument seems to revolve around plan C I'm not even sure you disagree with that.

Quote:
i always agreed to the 3bet pre cause of the great risk reward ratio pre with 6,5bb dead money in the pot but also i said i would keep the 3bet below 6k.
Yes, I advocated this bet sizing as well, so we're in agreement there too.

Quote:
edit: yes you understood it correct. 25% of the time we will face an ace with a better kicker. as we have to give villain all aces pre it´s by far the biggest part of his range, that´s why i posted the numbers detailed. as you rarely deal with that wide ranges and that deep stacks it´s tough to realize that it´s really that much.
25% of the time we get called. 16% of the time we 3-bet pre we are doing so into a better ace, and 84% of the time we are not. I certainly see your point and agree that 16% of the time is more than we realize it will be in general when deciding to make the 3b, but I don't think it's enough to make the play -ev (just like you don't) nor does it make invalid the statement that having an ace blocker makes a slight boost to the times we take it down pre or on the flop to a c-bet (plans A and B).


Head Live Trainer
Check out my Videos

4 Time Bracelet Winner



 

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