Working on Mistakes: If You Want to Make Money, Forget About the Balance!

PhoenixBlade, who often posts his hands on the forum, found himself in a 4-bet pot with AKo against a regular who likes to call, bluff not very well and lose at showdown.

Player Analysis

The opponent is a minus reg with a positive red.

RFI EP: 17 (RFI = Raise First-In)

Fold vs 3b: 30%

4b: 18; WWSF 48 (WWSF = Won When Saw Flop)

WTSD 35; WSD 45. (WTSD = Went to Show Down) (WSD = Won at Show Down)

AGG: 2-2-2 (AGG = Aggression)

There is no information on continuation bets in 4-bet pots, but in SPR/3b: 70-40-30

Skip cb and ch/f: 40-30-70

Editor's Note: The hand action goes as follows. Vilian is under the gun, hero is in the cutoff.
Villian raises 2 bbs. Hero three bets to 6.8 bbs with . Villian four bets to 20 bbs. Hero calls.
FLOP:
Villian bets 13 bbs. Hero calls.
TURN:
Villian checks. Hero bets 25 bbs. Villian calls.
RIVER:
Villian checks. Hero goes all in for 73 bbs. Villian calls.

The opening sizing is small, there is an unknown person in the blinds with a new stack, the rest are regs. Maybe my opponent always opens like this, but I will 3-bet this size a little wider. I’ll immediately note that I try to build on the general nitability of the field and my ranges. I didn’t really look at the stats at the time of the hand, I paid attention to WWSF/WSD, fold to 3-bet, and continuation bets.

I have a 3-bet with a CO of about 8% against an early one, and my opponent’s 4-bet will be about the same in any case, quite linear.

Perhaps this is even too wide, in general, the field rarely 4-bets, especially from an early position, but from such guys you can sometimes see some A5, TT, AQo. Offsuit AK can sometimes be shoved into 100bb stacks, but here it’s a call since we’re a little deeper.

My estimated 4-bet call against this opponent.

Usually, the call is a little narrower, but here I 3-bet wider preflop, which means my 4-bet defense is wider.

FLOP:

Villian bets 13 bbs. Hero calls.

I don't have Flopzilla Pro, so I'm not sure who has the range advantage here – they won't hit top pockets, but I have a very small amount of 77 and 66 (yes, none by default), and jacks I have more, this will be my main weapon in this hand, although I am not sure if my opponent understands this.

He bets often, as does the field as a whole since the ranges are narrow, but his sizing confuses me. I prefer a bet of 40-50% of the pot, but I won't think for him, so I regard his bet as weakness.

Based on the fact that with top hands he sometimes checks or bets more, I set a slightly reduced range. During the hand, I do not have enough skill and information to determine it with a sufficient degree of accuracy, so on the turn, I find myself in a difficult situation.

TURN:

Villian checks. Hero bets 25 bbs. Villian calls.

What I see as a problem here is that I don’t think I can win the hand by simply checking the turn and calling the river, although most people will choose this line. At the same time, I have AK with an ace of spades, but I don’t understand how to evaluate it. On the one hand we partially block KQ/AQ, and on the other we block his folding range.

To be honest, even now I'm confused and not sure how my decision would have changed if I didn't have the spades in my hands. It seems to me that with A/Ks we need to bet here ourselves, around 35%, I think some strong hands will raise us here: JJ-QQ, sometimes AQ and KK/AA, so in case of a call he will have a rather limited range on river.

RIVER:

Villian checks. Hero goes all in for 73 bbs. Villian calls.

Obviously, we are losing to everything he came up with. However, the guy checks when, in theory, he should be donk-shoving his Js, of which there are very few left, even if you imagine some KJ combos. I end up putting him on KQ, AQ, largely due to the flop sizing, check-calling on the turn, and checking on the river. By pushing I hope to squeeze out all Qx hands, maybe sometimes KK+. In my line, there are both JJ and QQ, sometimes AJs, 66/77. I’m sure the solver will tell you to call here with any Queen, since the ranges are narrow, and the MFC (minimum defense frequency) is about 70%, but here, these are micro-limits + we are slightly deep.

I'm also worried about his WSD+WWSF+WTSD combination. If I understand correctly, he often bluffs and gets called or he overplays his hands. However, he has a very wide WTSD, so bluffing against him might be bad. If this is so, then how can I reconcile the logic of my reasoning above with the fact that he rarely folds here? If my thoughts are correct, of course.

Spoiler below:

Villian shows for queens and jacks to win the pot against the hero's ace high.

Trainer Analysis

Vasily Bumbak // Twitch streamer

We will evaluate not just a specific hand, but also the situation as a whole and the thinking algorithm.

The opponent is a minus reg with a positive red.
RFI EP: 17
Fold vs 3b: 30%
4b: 18; WWSF 48
WTSD 35; WSD 45
AGG: 2-2-2
There is no information on continuation bets in 4-bet pots, but in SPR/3b: 70-40-30
Skip cb and ch/f: 40-30-70

Firstly, it is very important to specify and take into account the sampling and number of samples. Especially in 4-bet pots, because there are usually fewer of these situations than SRP or 3-bet pots.

Often, even if we collect stats on our opponent in 4-bet pots and we have a sample of 1-2k hands, there will only be a couple of dozen 4-bet pots. Therefore, we treat such data very carefully and rely more on general strategic aspects (texture, positions, sizes, timings), as well as on statistics that give us an unambiguous overall picture (more on this below).

Even if we find data on 4-bet pots, they will be closer to CO vs BTN than EP vs CO or SB vs BB (the ranges are narrower from early, there are more strong hands). Also, if we look at the general stats for 4-bet pots, the question arises: does the opponent play equally in position and without it as a 4-bettor?

Overall: the rarer the situation, the more careful we are with the stats take them into account less, and rely more on the factors mentioned above. Including in rarer 3-bet pots (BB vs UTG cannot be assessed by stats like BB vs BTN, although the average stat “3-BP OOP as 3-bettor” really describes both situations). If we try to mix play in and out of position or replace/transfer data from another spot altogether, disaster is imminent.

Like this:

There is no information on continuation bets in 4-bet pots, but in SPR/3b: 70-40-30
Skip cb and ch/f: 40-30-70

Continuation bet values in 3-bet/SRP and skip continuation bet/check-fold do not give us any additional information here.

But the general stats are very good. We choose what catches our eye the most. For me personally, this is it:

– WTSD 35; WSD 45

Most likely, your opponent calls often, and not with the best hands. You can also think that the WSD 45 stat is more likely due to the fact that the opponent is bluffing (“minus reg with a positive red”), but the combination itself with a high WTSD and low WSD still hints that the opponent likes and can open wider, and this is “wider” "not always successful...

WWSF 48 is very solid. I don't know the limit, but with an average of 44-46 up to NL200 on most courses, 48 and a red above zero make a difference (we'll get to that later).

Let's add a low fold to a 3-bet with a high 4-bet. That is, he is able to send to 4-bet what in theory is sent there, but not with the usual reg. For example, suited broadway. If we take the ranges for rake up to NL200, then on CO or HJ vs BTN there are almost always KJs in the 4-bet (75% for sure), ATs also go there, etc., but the field plays just the opposite – such hands are always called and 4-bet with them at best up to 10-20%.

IMPORTANT: We need all the blah blah blah above for only one thing – building our opponent’s ranges post-flop. The better we understand his range and how he uses different categories of hands from that range in different lines, the better we can build our strategy.

The opening sizing is small, there is an unknown person in the blinds with an incomplete stack, the rest are regs. Maybe my opponent always opens like this, but I will 3-bet a little wider with this size.

An open raise of 2bb by a reg is more likely to be a default than a cunning adjustment (on BTN, fluctuations from 2 to 3.5bb often indicate different opening ranges). Therefore, I would take this into account only on BB (a call is wider purely in terms of odds), or on BTN (a cold call is more pleasant in terms of odds if we have a fish behind us, as opposed to the same raise of 3bb).

“I’ll 3-bet wider” to a 2bb raise from early – this is exactly the opposite of what you should do in theory! Example “on the fingers”: an opponent opens 18% with an early size of 3bb. When he folds, we earn his 3bb + 1.5bb blinds each time (unless we get a 4-bet). One hundred opponent folds = 3 stacks (that sounds bigger). When villain opens 2bb and folds, we make 2bb (only 2 stacks per 100 folds). That is, the more dead money our opponent has contributed, which will go to us in case of folding, the more incentive we have to 3-bet, since the reward is greater.

There are two main “buts” here:

– Sophisticated EV system. It is clear that at 3bb we 3-bet not 5bb, but 8.5 or 9. That is, our investments are higher. At 2bb we can afford to 3-bet 6 or 5.5 – 6.5bb. Let’s also add here that an opponent with a smaller 3-bet “should” 4-bet less often, because it is more profitable for him to call, and 4-bet is risky. For a 3-bet of 9bb, it is more profitable for him to 4-bet with a lower size, but often (the chances of calling are bad, there is a lot of dead money – similar to our 3-bet in different sizes). It’s also worth adding the reactions of the players behind us and we’ll get some kind of system that no one gives a damn about. And we should too... Just remember: the larger the open raise or 3-bet/4-bet size, the fewer calls and the more raises in response, because That's more dead money in the pot.

If we assume, as Hero does here, that size 2bb = wider opening range, then an adjustment like Hero's is possible. But where did we get the idea that this 2bb opponent opens with a weak wide range? Does he have 2.5 or 3bb raises with a strong one? There is no such information. So let's look at the logic above.

IMPORTANT : Your opponent gives up poorly to 3-bets (30% fold) and 4-bets a lot. Punishing such a person with frequent 3-bet can be a dangerous strategy. The opponent does not fold, and we are trying to expand our 3-bet, that is, add weak/average hands to it in order to see a call or 4-bet, and we ourselves are wondering what to do with this junk that we decided to expand our range with.

Adjustment of a healthy person: 3-bet a normal linear near-GTO range and kill it postflop (you have a narrow strong range that hits the board more often and better + you are in position). There’s no need to turn this into a street fight: “You have a shitty range, and I’ll start a shitty range – we’ll rock the boat!”

I have a 3-bet with a CO of about 8% against an early one, and my opponent’s 4-bet will be about the same in any case, quite linear.

I don't agree, this is not every case. There are few opponents who fold to 3-bet 30% and 4-bet 18% with red above zero. Here we still achieve at least 20% of KJs, KTs, and maybe even Axs more often, but I wouldn’t do 90% of QQ... But it’s just a guessing game. KK and AA will also not be 90% but 100% OER. In general – about the point, just add another suited Broadway.

In general, the call is usually a little narrower, but here the 3-bet preflop is wider, and therefore the defense for 4-bet is wider.

Ummm... No!

If you want to make money in poker, forget about your balance! These moments “I’m wider, that’s why I need to fight back using MDF/PDF/MILF” – all from the evil one... You protect so much so as not to lose money and so that your opponent cannot exploit it. And since no one cares about the exploit, then, as mentioned above, neither do we...

If my opponent 4-bet 0.01%, would I call his 4-bet wider based on the width of my 3-bet? No.

You can object: “But then the opponent will 4-bet wider and so on!” And here we look at the points above about bare human organs and the keratin systems of protection from similar organs in hedgehogs: if you know/expect that your opponent is capable of 4-betting wider and you “will have” to then repel these 4-bet wider (due to all sorts of medium -weak lows of the range), then why are you 3-betting wider?

I don't have Flopzilla Pro, so I'm not sure who has the range advantage here – they won't hit top pockets, but I have a very small amount of 77 and 66 (yes, none by default), and jacks I have more, this will be my main weapon in this hand, although I am not sure if my opponent understands this.

Those who don’t have FZ-Pro are welcome to the free GTO Wizard! It sounded like an advertisement, but there you can watch a couple of hands a day for free. And if you don’t like their simulations, sizes and color palette, then at least you can compare GTO ranges there very quickly and beautifully, this gives general knowledge and visualization.

Equity +- equally, CO has a few more sets, as Hero indicated (due to JJ, and 77, which the opponent very rarely 4-bet). At the same time, UTG has an advantage in overpairs (in theory, we pushed part of KK there, and maybe part of AA).

Both ranges have missed AKo, as well as missed Broadway or Ax with no backdoor flush draws, so it's "first to go wins." In the sense that your opponent can afford to bet the entire range – anyway, your missed hands will not allow you to effectively punish him.

For the haters, we add GTO+ with fake ranges:

As you can see, it’s a very close story.

He bets often, as does the field as a whole since the ranges are narrow, but his sizing confuses me. I prefer a bet of 40-50% of the pot, but I won't think for him, so I regard his bet as weakness.

The same bug in the logic of constructing ranges as preflop is seen here. He bets little = weakness. In general, this will often happen on turns and rivers in single raised pots (SRPs), or in wide ranges, or on related textures. But when a bet of a third or a quarter is the default for a field or a specific texture/spot, then there’s just the whole range.

If it's BTN vs. BB on board of A82r, the opponent on BTN bets a quarter, then he will not fold AK, AA, 88, 22 or, pairs. He simply molds the entire range, because everyone plays that way and “so correctly.” This is a default size for him, and not a split into a weak and strong range. So, in 4-bet pots, where the bank is already huge, you don’t have to rush and there is no point in betting a lot with value. The opponent can simply play the entire range for a quarter or a third. And this is how most regs will play in such spots. There is everything from A5s to JJ.

Based on the fact that with top hands he sometimes checks or bets more, I set a slightly reduced range. During the hand, I do not have enough skill and information to determine it with a sufficient degree of accuracy, so on the turn, I find myself in a difficult situation.

We don't expect him to bet big or check for value. If your opponent bets a quarter here, then the whole range is there. Now, if you notice that he has a size of half a pot and a check, or a third, half a pot and a check, then you can start dividing the range.

However, my solver still plays with 40% of the check (precisely due to hands like JJ, AA, which are not afraid of turns and can afford to check, expecting a bet from us, and hands like AQo-Ko are also not eager to c-bet into a narrow and strong CO range).

Again, this is purely academic interest. While our opponents are playing with a small bet, we give them the entire range. Split into a small bet and check or small/medium and check is an extraordinary story on dry textures. Well, we beat the flop for a third bet – there are two overcards, we block AA and KK, we block TPTK, the opponent is left with a worse/lower Broadway. Well, there is a chance to bluff on suitable runouts.

TURN:

Villian checks. Hero bets 25 bbs. Villian calls.

What I see as a problem here is that I don’t think I can win the hand by simply checking the turn and calling the river, although most people will choose this line. At the same time, I have AK with an ace of spades, but I don’t understand how to evaluate it. On the one hand we partially block KQ/AQ, and on the other we block his folding range.
To be honest, even now I'm confused and not sure how my decision would have changed if I didn't have the spades in my hands. It seems to me that with A/Ks we need to bet here ourselves, around 35%, I think some strong hands will raise us here: JJ-QQ, sometimes AQ and KK/AA, so in case of a call he will have a rather limited range on river.

Too deep. Blockers are important where they are important, but not where they are not so important... It is clear that the narrower the range, the more important each combination or blockers of this combination are. But let's just think. The key is “simple.”

– The opponent bet everything on the flop (the range is higher on the screen with GTO+)

– Qs comes on the turn

What does this card change? Who did she hit more? The opponent has AQo in a bluff, and KQs in a bluff. There was a little more bluff equity for hands like AK and ATs.

We also have AQs and KQs... Well, our AKo in general is OK with such a run (we block opponent TPTK and KQ, there are outs on the nuts, etc.)

The map is close to “neither us, nor him.” But let’s remember who started it first. He can put further pressure on our AK and top pairs, and can collect money from them in different ways and with different hands. Can attack your top pairs and Jx with his AA and KK.

The opponent checks. What is he saying?

– Such an opponent (do you remember preflop and “red is a plus”?) will simply be itching to bluff with AK, AT, KT and similar hands. The opponent presses aggressively, VSF is above average for the field. He didn’t get such stats with the nuts, did he?

– He will most likely bet value too, simply because it is value. And even if he hits top set and checks, that's a tiny part of the range that doesn't play a huge role.

– There’s not much point in checking KK or AA – what if you check behind with AK or with a flush draw?

Then what is he checking? But here everything is logical – if the opponent is still a bluff and has gutshots, straight draws and most of the flush draws, has top value (except for a slowplayed set), then what does he have left?

What remains are Jx, which are already rather weak for a bet, weak Qx, and some TT, which he ended up with once every hundred years. And sometimes the above sets. Isn't it logical? The Aggro type will bluff anything that looks like a bluff. Value – bet everything where there is value. Check something that is neither value nor bluff.

And (oh, Gods!) – the solver also plays like this in pure GTO:

So we see/imagine what our opponent checked... Do we want to bluff into this range?

The answer, again, depends on the opponent’s reaction, and not on our range or blockers!

Scenario number one. We bet our AK, our opponent calls all top pairs (obviously), AJ, KJ (more than likely), folds TT (who knows, but very likely). What have we achieved? That's right – they paid their opponent money.

Scenario number one and a half . We went to the river, and there was a blank. Opponent checks, we push AK. He calls with Qx and folds Jx. This is already more pleasant – yes, we paid his pairs on the turn, but if he folds them on the river, then that’s already great! We paid the top pair, but the pair below paid us and gave the pot away by the river.

Let's remember stats and WTSD/WSD! If he calls here too often (and he loves it), then he may not throw away some of the jacks, and then we just overpaid twice. And some of the folds from Jx do not matter, since they do not compensate for our losses.

We bet, our opponent calls. River flush. He checks, we push. Will he fold top pair here? Let's remember stats and WTSD/WSD! This one won't be thrown away. Jx might throw it away, but ok.

Something happened and we decided to check the river. We will always lose virtually. Why did you bet the turn and pay without real fold equity on the turn?

Something happened there, opp donk pushes. End.

How many scenarios are in our favor?

In total, it is against such an opponent that you can check the turn and pray for a ten on the river. I don't often expect him to check with KT, AK, AT, and flush draws on the turn, I expect loose bluff catches. This means there are almost no folds on the turn, and on the river too.

“But the solver almost always bluffs here with AK after checking!” (even with a check that is close to this opponent’s real one – see the screenshot above).

We can return to blockers again. When I have As, I'm kind of more comfortable pushing the spade river as a bluff. Your opponent simply has fewer flushes. Well, he has a little more folds on the turn, because if he does check AhKh or AdKd, he will at least sometimes fold with the turn.

A little more important in solverland is that bluffs increase the EV of value hands. If I check only for value, then my opponent will not pay me with Jx and even weak Qx, he will simply throw them away (let’s say I only have TPTK+ in my bet). And my value hands just bet and get folded. It’s a shame... But if I mixed in AK (not even with the goal of getting fold equity! ) and the opponent with his ready hands already joyfully calls to the end (So must have bluffs... AK, for example...), paying off my value hands. Balance and happiness!

We have analyzed a more likely scenario for this opponent. There is almost no fold equity on the turn. There is no need for a balance because your opponent will pay on the turn (aka telephone) and he doesn’t care that you only have value bets. Why then bluff and lose money against his bluff catchers? If your opponent calls, we bet value and rejoice. If he overfolds, we bluff and rejoice. “And if the opp notices and exploits and blah blah blah...” In short, it won’t happen. Long – it will almost never happen, because such situations are rare, and if he could, he would not play in the red with such wild WTSD/WSD.

RIVER:
Villian checks. Hero goes all in for 73 bbs. Villian calls.
Obviously, we are losing to everything he came up with. However, the guy checks when, in theory, he should be donk-shoving his Js, of which there are very few left, even if you imagine some KJ combos. I end up putting him on KQ, AQ, largely due to the flop sizing, check-calling on the turn, and checking on the river. By pushing I hope to squeeze out all Qx hands, maybe sometimes KK+. In my line, there are both JJ and QQ, sometimes AJs, 66/77. I’m sure the solver will tell you to call here with any Queen, since the ranges are narrow, and the MFC (minimum defense frequency) is about 70%, but here, these are micro-limits + we are slightly deep.
I'm also worried about his WSD+WWSF+WTSD combination. If I understand correctly, he often bluffs and gets called or he outplays his hands. However, he has a very wide WTSD, so bluffing against him might be bad. If this is so, then how can I reconcile the logic of my reasoning above with the fact that he rarely folds here? If my thoughts are correct, of course.

Here I already answered – by pushing we hope to knock out all the Qx from the opponent with a went to the showdown of 35 and a win when at showdown occurs, 45. For an opponent who often presses the call and loses the showdown... “Come on, these are micro-limits!” Well, yes... Why did we look at the stats at the beginning? And did you remember the red one? And everything else... If we started thinking about ranges and opponents preflop, then we will stick to this until the end. As the classics said, “sliding nuts” is when you depicted one hand on one street, another on the turn, and a third on the flush river that closed. And then the opponent has a “sliding fold”? According to his stats, he is aggro and phone, and when he reaches the river, he suddenly turns into a “micro-stakes folder”?

And here the question is not about the solver. I described the logic above: he has a check range against which there will be no fold equity. Neither on the turn nor on the river. Let’s not deceive ourselves – if a person is. calling station, then it will last for a long time! If the red is at the ceiling, then he is bluffing, not check-calling with the turn.

I'm also worried about his WSD+WWSF+WTSD combination. If I understand correctly, he often bluffs and gets called or he overplays his hands. However, he has a very wide WTSD, so bluffing against him might be bad.

Well... Very good questions, actually! And it’s cool that hero paid attention to this particular point, at least in the analysis. The answers are above.

If this is so, then how can I reconcile the logic of my reasoning above with the fact that he rarely folds here? If my thoughts are correct, of course.

It is precisely the logic of hero’s decisions that cannot be compared with the fact that his opponent rarely folds... If we have already guessed that he does not fold, then why bluff?

CONCLUSION

Maybe hero didn’t want to, but he played exactly “GTO”, and with such a game he loses a ton of money over the long haul (at least against such opponents). Therefore, for the GTO there is a big plus, but at the higher stakes, there is the same minus. But everything can be fixed – we turn on logic, think, and use all available information to make not just good, but better decisions.