I love playing a tight range of hands. However, occasionally you have to mix it up. Additionally, once I am in a hand I like to find extra ways to win the hand when I am not supposed to.
Passive aggressive and over aggressive
When in position, I will also use complex moves like "floating" the flop (calling with "air" or without a strong hand) and minraises to SET UP bluffs on the turn or river (and very rarely both). Since my range STARTS OUT better than opponent and opponent potentially is trying to take the pot down, even with my weakest hands occasionally I may not want to give up. So I either can call or minraise and see how opponent reacts. To me I get more information by minraising and represent a lot more strength, but I also commit more and am less likely to get opponent to call on the flop by doing so, and may give up opportunity to win even more if I hit a strong hand on turn and/or river.
Both minraising and floating are essentially the same move HOWEVER, they yield much different results and serve much different purposes. I am inflating a pot that I anticipate I will take down when I minraise, and I am floating to potentially bluff the turn or river but also potentially take a free card and induce a bluff with a very disguised hand if I get their after floating.
Floating (passive-aggressive on flop)
A "float" might work like this. If the flop comes A72 (or any card plus a 7 or 2) and I have 56 with a backdoor straight and flush draw there are a LOT of cards that potentially give me a draw after the turn. I basically have any 3,4,8,9 (4 of each is 16 outs total) any suit of that kind (6 outs. 10 in the deck remain, but 4 of those we already counted (3,4,8,9) and possibly pairing my 5 or 6 (6 outs) can give me 5 outs to two pair or 3 of a kind.
In total there is anywhere between 22 and 28 outs to a draw. In other words, I have about 50% or better of hitting one of those cards on the turn. Granted, overall I might only have about a 5% chance of actually hitting the draw, but the extra 50% of hands in which I can check and potentially get a huge payoff on top of the 50% I can bluff provide me with the ability to be very tricky get paid off huge when I hit and earn enough from the bluffs to break even. In other words, I am looking to call in order to bluff and essentially break even on this line of play or better, and the 5% chance of hitting a backdoor is only a bonus. Additionally, by checking behind as IF I picked up a draw, at some point I can even use scare cards to represent a different backdoor draw as well as the regular obvious draws that I may play the same way. Also, since I believe this "float" is about break even, maybe better, IF I am wrong and opponent does bet the flop, on HALF of the turn cards I will have a draw and may have the odds to cal l knowing I can take my opponent's entire stack if I hit because they can never put me on such an unlikely 5% backdoor draw.
This move however is less about the draw and more about my opponent. In other words, I don't just make this play occasionally and randomly but with intent. I intend on bluffing the turn most of the time. I do not mind being pushed off a gutshot draw,so I will semibluff my gutshots, and also most of the half of the deck that I miss completely I will bluff IF my opponent CHECKS AND I think he's weak.
The opponent should:
1)Not be likely to double barrel bluff (or be so extremely likely to always bluff twice and slow play his monsters to the point he is massively predictable and I know I can reraise or call the turn and set up a river bluff after my double "float")
2)Be likely to give up if faced with a call and check fold
3)Not likely to get tricky and bet flop then check raise turn when he has a hand or on a bluff himself. Actually, those who are likely to check raise the turn are probably less likely to take that line when facing just a call because they may figure those on a draw will check behind and they don't want to get a free card. As a result, they may unfortunately bet when you pick up a draw and they have the ace, but fortunately, give up when they don't have the ace and be predictable enough.
4)Be more likely to hold suited connectors than a weak ace (if it is ace high)
5)ALSO if he has a top pair of aces he should ideally be unwilling to fold yet passive when called the first time.
I should
1)Have a backdoor draw OR
2)Jack high card flop or lower against an opponent I can bluff off of anything less than top pair giving me 9 outs or more to take the pot on a bluff as WELL as potentially the ability to get ace high and other strong hands (King Queen) that have me beat to fold.
3)Have a pretty weak hand (Although keep in mind I still will call with top pair on dry texture flop and hands with showdown value in which I want to keep the pot small)
4)A way ahead/way behind situation such as having 44 on a 26K flop where I potentially can bluff out any pocket pair that doesn't hit a set and also get information if my opponent continues on turn on whether or not I am beat. In that circumstance I may check behind on the turn with intention of calling and belief that I will induce a river bluff often enough for it to be worth the missed opportunity of winning at the turn at the cost of potentially allowing my opponent to get there on river.
Overly aggressive (minraising flop)-
Now to minraise, if I have a draw and opponent has bet, I either have to believe I have a big enough draw where I will be 50% to win (such as QJ on T92 board and thus if need be have no problem at getting it all in if I have to), OR such a bad draw that I am not scared of my opponent 4betting me off the hand (gutshot). I also may take this line if I have a big hand and want more in the pot and want to give my opponent the opportunity to shove on just a flushdraw thinking his ace high is also drawing live and that he can get me to fold when I have a set or AK on K high board. But sometimes it is about the texture of the flop as well where I either am way ahead or way behind and opponent is very possibly in the same difficult spot (such as 49Q board). I like to make this play where I have a decent amount of outs such as AK, or AQ, KQ on jack high flop or lower... OR where I have virtually NO shot at winning the pot without bluffing (in this case, I don't even want to have backdoor draws and risk being pushed out of that extra 5% equity.
The minraise is a powerful way to get MORE out of the bluffs and win a higher percentage of the time against opponents who don't know you well. Consider this raise a "raise for information" rather than a "float" or a "bluff". It is neither and partially both.
If you play this way, you absolutely don't want to do it against a crafty, tricky player that may call and plan to checkraise the turn with nothing or a monster unless he leads out with a huge percentage of flops. You want him to tell you RIGHT NOW if he is strong enough to call a turn bet.
Note:You ALSO can use this line to buy free cards if your draw improves to a more premium draw such as going from a gutshot to a double gutshot or gutshot with flushdraw or double gutshot with flushdraw or pair with gutshot. I may still bluff but I may check behind
Finally, if you think your opponent completely missed but you hit on the turn, NOW you might consider checking the turn if you hit a pair and calling the river. A bit passive and you may miss on the opportunity to get opponent to lay down a better pair, but you potentially get enough from opponent bluffing to make it worthwhile and also will confuse your opponents with the way you act in the future, If you think that is a negative (as it takes this move away from your arsenal or may cause you to get played back at now and your opponents to be less predictable, you may be better off bluffing with the best hand. Either way you want to be taking this line with a strong enough hand often enough to gain if you hit turn or gain if you have a monster and opponent is also strong.
The opponent should:
1)Telegraph his hand range by only 4 betting when he really hit flop strong.
2)Be of the opinion that this bet either represent extreme strength (as if you are trying to inflate the pot and milk more out of him) or an attempt to buy a free card (the fact that you don't and continue makes him believe you are strong)... or that you ONLY would do this with extreme strength.
3)Very unlikely to checkraise the turn under any circumstance
4)Be very likely to fold on the turn after calling the flop but also still be likely to fold to the minraise flop.
5)Have an action that somehow indicates some kind of weakness. A "weak" lead out with an opponent who's bet signifies his hand strength and weak leads on draws. A large pot bet vs opponent who always makes that bet. a quick bet if quick is a tell of weakness by that player, a slow bet if opponent has shown a slow bet when he is strong before.
6)Be passive when facing this kind of aggression.
7)Be unable to get away from a really strong hand on the rare occasion that he actually does have a hand (as you want to be able to take his entire stack if you hit your draw)
8)Not be likely to bet the turn on a bluff after shown this kind of strength.
9)Be very capable of folding.
10)Be very straight foward and predictable.
You Should:
1)Represent enough strength with this kind of bet. (i.e. a minbet on draw heavy board does not look strong. This minbet is probably too small if it is a draw heavy flop unless you get real tricky and know a lot of math*. Exception is if you're faced with a potsized bet and stack sizes are too short to offer implied odds.)
2)Have represented strength before the flop on a flop that is likely to have HIT your raise range.
3)Only attempt this with a big draw yourself, a very weak draw, nothing at all, or a monster (two pair or better). What you attempt it with depends upon opponents and how exploitable you are willing to be vs balancing your range. No backdoor draws (unless you get tricky and check behind but if so you are better off floating). No medium strength draws (7,8,9 outs).
4)make a substantial 3/4ths pot sized bet or larger on the turn rather than a weak bet (unless you are against the right opponent who thinks weak bet means you want action.
5)Assess the situation VERY cautiously if opponent calls then bets turn and only call if you have pot odds.
6)Be able to give up and not use that move again for awhile without a hand if you get caught.
Conditional Occasional Minraising Draw Heavy Boards
*On a draw heavy board you probably should not make this type of play as it looks like you are buying a free card and then semibluffing. However, you can still get away with this type of move to represent a flushdraw to make an overbet that looks like a bluff OR an overbet bluff when the scarecard hits. Such a "line" is very conditional upon the situation AND is also very useful to do with a marginal hand to CREATE showdown value where they might not otherwise be while also making your minraise less predictable against opponents who you will see regularly or may get notes on you.
Since you don't have the flushdraw there are 11 outs to hit a scarecard. Opponent may not believe you on turn if it comes, but if you check behind on the flop when it misses he may. Thus, you really are looking for a 11 outer to NOT come on flop BUT to come on the river. So you have 47 unseen cards to come and 36 do not complete the draw. Thus a 76.6% chance you miss on flop AND a 11/46=24% chance you hit on river. Thus, this line on a draw heavy board to represent a draw only gives you 76.6%*.24=18.3% chance to bluff river on top of whatever chance you have to catch maybe an unlikely draw or potentially you add in a bluff if an ACE comes with two cards so that adds an extra 16.5% bluffing opportunity minus the overlapping ace that completes the draw. In this case you MIGHT decide to bluff the scare card on the turn giving you 4 outs once and 3 outs once or about 14.5% on top of the 16.5% bluffing opportunity for 31% chance to bluff the river. Actually, what you should calculate is the chance ace hits AND opponent doesn't have it and the chance flushcard hits AND opponent doesn't have it as those are the bluff opportunities that you should suspect should be successful.
Opponent having an ace is conditional, meaning dependent upon his starting hand range AND information provided by actions as well as the actions before and after him. In a multiway pot the chances are much greater he has it. Vs. an opponent who plays A2+ and the same range of cards the odds are much higher. If you assume a RANDOM set of cards, the odds of NOT being dealt an ace given their already is one on the turn is 3/46 -1 or 43/46 * 3/45 -1 or 42/45 =~.8725 the remaining odds are the odds he has an ace which is 1-.8725=~.127536.
But that isn't quite right for this situation because an ace will come out slightly more often on the turn IF opponent doesn't already have one. Thus.
Odds of a single random opponent being dealt ANY ace (or two) is ~0.149321266968325 preflop. Given he has a random card other than an ace odds are 1-.149=~0.851 that he does not. Given no ace, the chance an ace hits by turn is 1- (44/48*43/47*42/46)=~.2343. GIVEN a SINGLE ace, the chance he hits by turn is 1 - (45/48*44/47*43/46)=~.1796. Now we want to weight the chances ace comes AND opponent hit vs chances ace come and opponent missed not according to a RANDOM set of cards, but instead a card range that has a particular ratio. Without knowing the specifics of the situation, we will assume that opponent plays a range of 55+, A3s+, K9s+, QTs+, J9s+, T9s, JTs, AT+, KJ+, QJ about 17% of hands.
~39.286% of the hands he plays contain an ace. ~60.714% he does not. So given he is in the hand
Has ace preflop and fails to hit ace by turn
=~0.322
Has ace and hits ace by turn
=~0.071
Does not have ace and no ace by turn
=~0.465
Does not have ace and ace hits by turn
=~0.142
Given that an ace hits based upon this breakdown... .142 hit him, .071 do not... OR about 33% of the time he has it, 67% he does not. In other words, It is a GOOD bluffing card only 67% of the time. So really the bluff odds of 14.5% that we calculated when an ace hit should be effectively reduced to about 9.7%. I won't get into complex calculations on whether opponent has the flush. There is less than a 2% chance of opponent hitting a flush by the river overall. So if we want to simplify, lets just say that 98% of the time the scare card hits it is a good scarecard. The odds should actually be slightly less given the action, given the value that people play suited cards more than nonsuited cards, and GIVEN that the flop didn't come with 3 different suits on the flop. Maybe bump it up to 5% to be safe. 95% of 16.5 bluffing opportunities are good. ~15.7+9.7=~25.4%.
You have a 25.4% chance of seeing what against many players is a profitable bluffing situation. Now I haven't done math for other hand ranges on whether or not the ace is a good card to bluff or whether or not the KING is also equally good or not. But it is an approximation that allows me to use "bluff outs" more properly and adjust them for probability that opponent is good when he hits.
This gives you a 25.4% chance in this case of winning the hand via bluffing on top of whatever probability of having the best hand by the river you have. This can make continuing MUCH more loosely profitable, whether via calling a bet or minraising. Considering the style of starting with a tight range of hands very often also will mean you will have a strong hand, even a small mistake of calling a bit too loosely thinking opponents would fold a pair or better to a possible flush board is okay as it will assist in getting you action when you do have a hand in another spot and you flop top set and perhaps play it even more aggressively. Technically, bluffs should be break even in theory, so taking creative, tricky lines like this just makes it harder for opponents to play against your overall hand range. Thus, even if you have a few hands within the range that lose money it isn't the end of the world. Ideally, I won't be making this play too often but against the right opponent in the right spot, you can do it to vary your play and potentially even be profitable. Of all possible "tricky" lines, I like minraising with a draw heavy board the least, as usually I would rather flat call in that spot, but it can buy you a free card to potentially bluff at and thus induce bluffs and give you a cheap showdown which may provide the implied odds and bluff odds needed to turn a losing scenario profitable and prevent you from giving up the existing equity in the hand by folding. Certainly playing tighter after the flop is still going to be profitable and perhaps just as much, but certainly there will be a few marginal spots where because of lines like this you can make it profitable. Then there will also be a few more spots where it is quite obviously profitable because you can bluff small with the same result when scare card hits against a particular opponent and SHOVE ALL IN when you hit your unlikely draw and get action. SINCE you are being conditional upon situations when determining moves and on opponents, you might take one line and move all in with nothing a few times for a 2x or 3x or 4x bet and value bet small and it could be profitable especially if opponent moves all in over your small bets and you can wait until you have the high range of your value bet hands to call. Against another opponent you might do the exact opposite because you know he is looking for an excuse to think you are bluffing, and he was paying attention to how you played the other guy. Now you shove and you get action and you bet small and opponent gives you credit.
The way I would approach it is consider your odds of winning. With a gutshot draw you might be around 16% to win. Add in an overcard and you might be closer to 28%Put up 25.4% to win via bluffing and it's about a 41.4% chance to win the pot (if bluff is 100% successful when opponent doesn't have a flush or an ace). With an overcard if it's good you might be over 50% to win depending on the percentage of the time the overcard is good and success rate of the bluff. I probably would say bluff is successful only 60% of the time, and thus you might be only 31.25% really.
This is enough to call a pot sized bet with a margin of safety IF you know there is no betting until the river AND when you hit your hand it is good even without implied odds. In the case that your overcard isn't any good and bluff is only 60% successful you may need some implied odds to commit the size of the pot. Getting 2 to 1 on a call, you only need to be 1/3 to win the hand (lose 2 and on the third win it back). I think in this spot that is a slightly better than break even assumption. The assumption there is no more betting is a big one particularly considering opponent has shown strength. This is where increasing a halfpot bet (or less) to a full pot bet (or less) with a minraise will likely buy you your freecard in some spots, and in others where you have middle pair may induce a lesser hand or draw to bluff the river often enough to make the play more profitable than just calling and being faced with another much larger bet on the turn and possibly river. If you are faced with a 1/2 pot sized bet you have a complicated and delicate decision to make but it is probably break even or better to raise in this spot for this hand. Since it is acceptable to lose money on some hands or break even in order to get action on others and support the general range of hands, it probably is worth doing. However, it may be better to just call too if you think opponent will check and result is roughly the same. But maybe add in a king or queen as "bluff outs" on a jack high flop that work just enough to be slightly profitable with a strategic bet size and it may be enough to make the decision worth doing. Or perhaps it's in a spot where you feeel oppoentn will call the big shove all in if you hit your draw and that can make it profitable. Very marginal situations here, but clearly if you have more outs such as an open ended straight draw (and potentially representing your pair as if you hit a gutshot because you might make these marginal plays with weaker draws) you can EASILY do this play and see a slight boost in long term results.
If you add this on to the value when you hit, it may make a bit looser play on the flop actually correct and allow you to call with draws when you do NOT have the pot odds or even implied odds but because of the combination of pot odds, implied odds, and bluff odds, you can still have an edge in the hand. It MAY even make raising possible. Does it mean it's necessarily the most profitable line always? Probably not, but overall it is still worth it vs tricky opponents based upon what it does for your entire range of hands and future pots.
Either take this more crafty, tricky play when you have a lesser draw yourself that will not be suspected (backdoor draw and gutshot or gutshort straight draw to the nuts with 2 overcards), or when you have a hand with thin showdown value that may otherwise not quite be worth calling. By adding a few bluff outs it can make the hand worth it while really disguising your hand now and in the future, and by taking this line you also probably get a cheaper showdown. Your "feeler bet" and then shutting down on the turn also convinces opponent you are on a draw and now you might get to catch a bluff if your opponent missed his draw which adds enough equity to make something like middle pair valuable enough to play in the right circumstance. It also will help mix up your range when you take the thin min 3bet approach on a wider variety of situations and make opponents less willing to believe you hit the flush when you do buy a freecard.
The key to this is getting your opponent to check the turn for less. SO the situation usually should require that opponent will proceed cautiously after such an action. And that it will cost you LESS to play this way then just calling the bet and signifying to the opponent that you may be weaker. In this case you probably actually WANT to be against tricky opponents that will check raise you but that can get away from a hand when a scarecard hits This way you get to peal off a free card and possibly induce a bluff with a busted draw at the same time.
Be aware, bluffs should usually not be some crazy all in move as that risks too many chips. Instead it should be a potsized bet or so. There actually is a lot of information in the book "kill everyone" about how to play the crazy overbet all in style that CAN actually be done effectively if you are very calculated and careful. You should balance your all in overbets with bluff and actually having it, so that you have it proportional to your chips and percentage chance you actually hit your draw. But the bluffs usually for overbets need to be much less frequent if you are making the massive all in overbet depending on stack sizes. I would advocate depending upon opponent. For those not familiar yet, I would not advocate the crazy all in strategy as most will bluff too often or not at all. So unless you face opponent who will call off and have a hand, or you know you can push off an opponent with nothing with that kind of bet more often then the risk (with a 4 times potbet shove you need a 4/5 or 80% chance of being right on your bluffs to break even ASSUMING all actions before that were profitable (as opposed to just building a pot for future bluffing opportunities).Bluffs need to break even at worst, Since I advocate being situational and opponent dependent, I would say they should be profitable against some opponents and avoided against others. The profitable bluffs you show will convince the other people to get you action and misunderstand that your range is situationally dependent.
I prefer to have a slightly unbalanced range and correct it later with counter exploitation if opponents are smart enough and aware enough to identify my weaknesses in the game and adapt. I also like to sometimes even anticipate such adaptations if I have made a lot of aggressive moves.
There is ALWAYS tons of additional math in poker you can do to find creative ways of adding equity to the hand and really being very tricky, but all of it must be crafted to the situation. Getting good at that is truely a skill that requires a lot of expereince.
No comments:
Post a Comment