Même si ton adversaire sait que tu ne cbet pas 2nd pair, en quoi est-ce que c’est dommageable parce que j’ai du mal à voir. Et puis aussi je pense qu’en SnG HU vilain va pas avoir le temps matériel de s’en rendre compte, et si jamais il s’en rend compte bah suffit de passer d’un range polarisé à un range mergé non?
En tout cas je trouve ça super standard, en tout cas en début de match, de pas cbet 2nd pair.
Je ne vois pas trop l’intérêt de répondre exhaustivement à tiontion, d’autant plus qu’il me joue régulièrement sur Winamax. Je l’invite d’ailleurs à me 4-tabler le jour de son choix afin de mettre ses théories en pratiques 
Quelques pistes cela dit :
Quid de la force de ton range de check back si tu C-bet toute ta value?
Quid de ton potentiel à barreler et du mien?
Qui te dit que je C-bet tout mon air sur K94?
La différence entre un bet/check qui entraîne un bet river de Villain quasi systématique, et un check qui entraîne un bet turn et parfois un bet river. Ranges de Villain dans les deux cas?
L’argument du temps est faux par contre. J’ai joué des gens sur plus de 15000 mains sur Ongame et je suis déjà à 5000 avec deux Villains sur PS. Donc on a le temps de comprendre des choses
Oula jouer regulierement, je ne pense pas non, je n’en vois aucun avantage pour moi désormais.
On a du faire une dizaine de HU non ?
Je ne me rappelle plus des resultats mais je crois qu’on est pas loin du 50/50 niveau resultat, enfin n’hesite pas à me corriger si je me trompe.
Dernierement, on a fait un HU a 500dollars mais j’ai commis la grosse de m’inscrire sans voir que c’etait toi, on ne m’y reprendra plus. Non pas parce que je me suis fais explosé( meme si cela a été le cas 
)
Mais tout simplement car je considere que tu es meilleur que moi.
Donc sur le long terme ce n’est pas bon pour moi.
En revanche il est vrai que j’ai VOULU te jouer un peu il y a un mois environ.
Pourquoi sachant que je risquais de prendre cher.
La reponse est simple, ma bankroll me permettait de jouer un peu en HU à 100 et 200 euros, je comptais m y lancer quelque peu.
Et j’ai pensé que d’affronter quelqu un que je considere comme un excellent joueur de HU me permettait deux choses :
Je me suis rendu compte rapidement que c’etait une GROSSE erreur.
Simplement car pour que ces deux arguments soient valides, il faudrait que je joue enormement de HU vs toi et non pas simplement 15 HU à l’arrache.
Ton edge sur moi ne me permettait pas d’apprendre suffisamment vite sans risquer de me faire depouiller.
Donc j’ai choisi mes tables depuis quelques temps sauf sur ce HU à 500.
Pour revenir à l’idée que j’avançais. Je n’ai jamais dit qu’il fallait cbet ses deuxiemes paires, j’ai meme ajouté que moi meme je l’ai cbet très très rarement.
Que tu ne veuilles pas répondre à ce genre de questions qui portent vraiment sur un aspect très important du jeu, je le comprends sans probleme.
Pour tes pistes je les comprends parfaitement.
Mais encore une fois les reponses que tu apportes, considerent que je cbet tout le temps mes 2nd paires.
Or moi je parle de cbet dans des cas précis avec une réelle image de vilain.
Dans le cas évoqué tu nous dis que tu penses que vilain commence à 3bet Ax Kx. Donc sur A73 avec J7 je pense que je vais cbet pour value/ protect si je suis sur à 100% que vilain n’a pas A ici.
Alors que sur T73 je vais check behind.
Bref je posais une question pour une situation précise avec une image précise vilain, il est EVIDENT pour moi que check 2nd paire est TRES bon.
Tu ne vas pas cbet tout le temps air sur K94 rainbow mais tu le feras assez souvent j’en reste persuadé. ( tu ne vas pas cbet une gutshot, un A high, mais un 78s 65s Q8s ou main dans le genre )
Pour le dernier argument je suis d’accord avec toi mais un bon joueur qui va s’adapter et qui te joues souvent ne va pas systematiquement bet turn avec air s’il se rend compte que tu ne cbet jamais 2nd paire ou 3eme paire.
Bref c’etait une idée comme ca, j’aime les debats qui font avancer mais ici cela sera moins le cas pour les raisons que tu as évoqué et qui me paraissent totalement bonnes.
GL et au plaisir de ne pas te rencontrer lors de HU sur wina
Ca à l’air trop intéressant surtout sur le fait que 3bet AKo n’a pas l’air optimale à shove et d’autres trucs…
Bref tu pourrais traduire ou ça t’embête j’aimerais bien en discuter
On his button :
He raised 70% of buttons => Not much to do here.
He C-betted 80% of flops => I initially chose to check-raise a lot, for value, with draws and with pure bluffs on dry boards, but…
He called something absurd like 95% of check-raises, and a vast majority of turn barrels after that => I gave up on pure bluffs, and check-raised thinner for value (ie any top pair).
He folded on quite a number of river barrels, though => I still didn’t pure bluff because that seemed pretty dangerous, but I added semi-bluffs back and 3-barrelled them whether I hit or not.
Also, he at least called every 3-bet (sometimes 4-bet) => I started 3-betting for value only, and mostly with high cards like KQ to get in dominating top pair situations, but…
He became very perceptive of my range, fought back a lot, and I had a lot of trouble to get value or bluff successfully => I changed my range to 3-bet high pairs who would support heat and shove on most flops, and hands like T9s who could bluff successfully on Axx and Kxx boards and have good equity when he fought back on wet boards… But…
He still seemed to know where I was more often than not => So I pretty much stopped 3-betting. That also allowed me to have more strong holdings when I called, and since he was calling check-raises pretty much always it worked pretty well.
At this point I think my strategy was coherent and worked pretty well oop.
Now on my button :
He fought a lot of my C-bets => I C-betted a lot less, polarizing my range to hands I was happy to go far with and bluffs that I was happy to let go.
He didn’t start leading flops but lead a lot of turn => Fine enough for me. Most of the time I called down with my mediocre holdings and induced enough bluffs to make it profitable. Lastly, …
He 3-betted something like 25%, with all sorts of hands (A3o, 75s, any pair) => I chose to flat a lot and stack him fairly often by letting him barrel when I hit something good, but…
He seemed to know when to keep barreling (against my draws and very weak holdings) and when to stop (against my traps) => I started 4-betting more, both for value and as bluff, but…
Ok now something you need to know. I play on Ongame, where starting stack sizes are 2000 chips for 50$-200$ and 2500 chips for 300$-500$. I played mostly 300s with him so there is definitely room for 4-bet bluffing at the first two blind levels (it usually went 60/200/480/2500/fold for 10/20 and 75/280/640/2500/fold for 15/30). Alright, so…
No Limit Holdem Tournament
OnGame
2 Players
Hand Conversion Powered by weaktight.com
Stacks:
SB Hero (2,300)
BB Villain (2,700)
Blinds: 10/20
Pre-Flop: (30, 2 players) Hero is SB K K
Hero raises to 60, Villain raises to 250, Hero raises to 700, Villain goes all-in 2,700, Hero goes all-in 1,600
Flop: 10 8 J (4,740, 2 players, 2 all-in)
Turn: 2 (4,740, 2 players, 2 all-in)
River: 5 (4,740, 2 players, 2 all-in)
Final Pot: 4,600
Villain shows PAIR EIGHT
8 9
Hero shows PAIR KING
K K
Hero wins 4,600 (net +2,230)
Villain collects 600 (net -2,370)
And then :
No Limit Holdem Tournament
OnGame
2 Players
Hand Conversion Powered by weaktight.com
Stacks:
BTN Hero (2,390)
BB Villain (2,610)
Blinds: 25/50
Pre-Flop: (75, 2 players) Hero is BTN 10 10
Hero raises to 125, Villain raises to 375, Hero goes all-in 2,390, Villain calls 2,015
Flop: 10 8 4 (4,780, 2 players, 1 all-in)
Turn: 8 (4,780, 2 players, 1 all-in)
River: 8 (4,780, 2 players, 1 all-in)
Final Pot: 4,780
Villain shows
6 6
Hero shows
10 10
Hero wins 4,780 (net +2,390)
And here I finally come to my second point. The 98o 5-bet seems really spewy and quite easy to fight : less 4-bet bluff, thinner value to get it in.
But then I started thinking about his call with 66.
At this point I realized he was willing to go broke with any pair preflop, especially if he made the last bet.
That explained all the 4-bet bluffs I had to fold earlier. And long after I tightened my ranges for 4-bets, he 5-bet 44 into my AKs and 55 into my 88 (which I both lost but whatever).
Now I started to think about the way I could exploit this, and I couldn’t find any, really. Usually on the first level, with 2500 chips on 10/20 blinds, I was willing to go broke with JJ+ and AK against a regular opponent. This is a little vague as it doesn’t change between calling and shoving, but it doesn’t matter much (or we can say that I would make the last bet with QQ+, AK and some bluffs, and call the last bet with JJ+ and AK).
Now the problem is that the only hands with an equity advantage over these small pairs he was shoving are other pairs. But since he’s also going all in with his strong hands, I can’t go too far there. There are 13 pairs, so the best I can do I go all in with 88, so that there are 6 pairs under me and 6 pairs over. At this point let’s say he would probably notice it and start calling with 22, 33 and 44 instead of 3 and 5-betting them. So that leaves 55-AA in his pair shoving range. And I can only get it in with TT as a favorite.
So what this means is that the only thing I gain is the scenario when I have ONE PARTICULAR hand (TT) and he has one of the underpairs? This seems insane!
Another thing I noticed is that the Sklansky-Chubukov number for 55 is 98.629873. Let’s round it to 100. These are for a 1/2 game so that’s about 50BB. This means you can profitably shove 50BB with 55 that you show to an opponent. This also means that the opponent plays perfectly : He calls with 66 (81.4% equity), JTs (52.3% equity) and 97s (49.9% equity, good call because of pot odds) but folds AKo (45.4%).
In reality things are much better for 55 of course. He doesn’t get the stupid suited hands calls, probably not the 66 call if he balances his shoves by jamming any pair, and will make value on the AKo call.
I wanted to see what was the stack 55 could be shoved profitably in the Nash Equilibrium of a Jam-or-fold HU game, but Maths of Poker just puts « JAM » on any pair since they can be jammed with stacks of more than 50BB.
Then I made a simple calculation :
Let’s say I have 120BB and raise on the button. Unaware of my opponent’s passion for 3-bet shoves, I raise a full 3BB with a hand in my opening range (let’s say 75% of hands).
My opponent decides to 3-bet shove with the following hands : {55+, AK}. Against this range I need 117/240 = 48.75% to call : I can only call with TT+ (not even AKs).
Let’s see if he makes a profit on his 55 shove.
I call with 2.3% of all hands. That means I’m calling with 2.3/75 = 3.07% of my hands. Against my calling range he has 19.3% equity with 55. So, if we consider EV Fold to be 119BB for him, EV Shove is :
EV Shove = 96.93% * 123BB + 3.07% * 19.3% * 240BB
EV Shove = 119.22BB + 1.42BB.
EV Shove = 120.64BB.
He’s making a profit! Of course if he’s good, he could make more by calling, maybe by 3-bet/folding if I folded on every 3-bet. But still, the fold by itself is profitable.
Now let’s go even further :
I raise 3BB with my 75%. My opponent shoves {22+, AK}. I call with the optimal range : 88+ (still no AKs). Is he making profit on the 22 shove?
I call with 3.2% of all hands. That means I’m calling with 3.2/75 = 4.27% of my hands. Against my calling range he has 18.1% equity with 22. So, if we consider EV Fold to be 119BB for him, EV Shove is :
EV Shove = 95.73% * 123BB + 4.27% * 18.1% * 240BB
EV Shove = 117.75BB + 1.85BB.
EV Shove = 119.6BB.
Still better than a fold. At this point I’m not even surprised anymore.
Now I remember in a Cardrunners video, Brian Townsend was talking about inflexion points in a hand, and basically what he was saying is that he could make a profit by just shoving his hand on the flop (something like KJ on a Kxx board) so he was pretty determined not to fold it at any point, since he could have made money by shoving anyway. His opponent ended up taking the « stack-a-donk » line, as he called it : check-called the flop and check-raised the turn, but Brian didn’t let go, and the opponent stacked Townsend with a set.
I don’t mean to bash on Townsend in any way, and he had some sort of point : If you feel lost in a hand that you could profitably have shoved on the flop, you risk making a way bigger mistake by folding than by going all in no matter what (except if something 4-flush appears and makes you value go down a lot, I guess - not even sure about that, since it may increase villain bluffing frequency and he may not value bet all flushes…).
Now with all that being said, I guess my questions are :
Is this such a good play since it seems so hard to exploit?
Is there a real value in calling with pairs that he’s missing by doing this? I feel like sets don’t come very often and they’re not very good hands to float with or check-raise since they only have 2 outs most of the time.
Are there ways I can capitalize on the different secondary effects that somebody who 3-bets and 5-bets all/most of his pairs? The three things I can think of right now are :
And finally, is there anything I didn’t think of that makes all this post idiotic?
Super vid ! merci !
Complètement avec des commentaires avisés
Merci