Ja$onB is back !

  • 16 Antworten
    • KTU
      KTU
      HeadAdmin
      HeadAdmin
      Dabei seit: 24.01.2007 Beiträge: 6.231
      Macht Spaß zu lesen! Danke.
    • BradNitt
      BradNitt
      Silber
      Dabei seit: 22.07.2011 Beiträge: 28.519
      yeah
    • habeichja
      habeichja
      Bronze
      Dabei seit: 29.12.2007 Beiträge: 7.053
      :deadhappy:
    • DaJoker1988
      DaJoker1988
      Bronze
      Dabei seit: 10.11.2008 Beiträge: 2.440
      This death threat thing. The story about that was that I had a blog on PS and I said something like "First I will move up to 1k and then I will execute Korn and take over pokerstrategy" - Korn was the admin of Pokerstrategy.com back then. Obviously I wasn't planning on actually executing Korn.
      :f_love: :f_love:

      KTU was sagst zum KJ hand ?
    • KTU
      KTU
      HeadAdmin
      HeadAdmin
      Dabei seit: 24.01.2007 Beiträge: 6.231
      Original von DaJoker1988

      KTU was sagst zum KJ hand ?
      Link?
    • BradNitt
      BradNitt
      Silber
      Dabei seit: 22.07.2011 Beiträge: 28.519
      ?
      $2.50/$5Zoom No Limit Holdem
      PokerStars6 Players
      Hand Conversion Powered by WeakTight Poker Hand History Converter
      Stacks:
      UTG pejanovic ($954.33) 191bb
      UTG+1 SicoXXI ($528) 106bb
      CO Sowiet Wings ($500) 100bb
      BTN Hero ($712.55) 143bb
      SB yurasov1990 ($1,114.08) 223bb
      BB T3G3S ($634.76) 127bb
      Pre-Flop: (7.50, 6 players) Hero is BTN K J:heart:

      3 folds, Hero raises to $11.25, 1 fold, T3G3S calls $6.25

      Flop: 5:club: K:diamond: 8:spade: ($25.44, 2 players)
      T3G3S checks, Hero bets $7.36, T3G3S calls $7.36
      Turn: 4:diamond: ($39.72, 2)
      T3G3S checks, Hero bets $25.44, T3G3S raises to $98.69, Hero raises to $211.54, T3G3S calls $112.85
      River: K:spade: ($462.80, 2)
      T3G3S checks, Hero checks
      Final Pot: $462.80
      Hero shows three of a kind, Kings
      K J
      T3G3S shows a pair of Kings
      A 10
      Hero wins $459.80 (net +$229.65)
      T3G3S lost $230.15

      Warum gibts dazu eigtl keine News? :why:
    • KTU
      KTU
      HeadAdmin
      HeadAdmin
      Dabei seit: 24.01.2007 Beiträge: 6.231
      Cbetsize find ich gut. Stellt große Teile von Villains weiter Range vor ein Problem. 1/2 Pot wäre etwas "normaler".
      Turn 3-Bet übersteigt meinen Horizont, aber sein Read funktioniert. Er polarisiert sich und hofft, dass sein Gegner ihn auf Air setzt und dann reblufft oder sonst irgendeinen Quatsch macht. Das Konzept ist schon länger bekannt: Man macht etwas verrücktes und hofft, dass der Gegner in ungewohnter Situation nicht sauber weiterspielt. Gehört in die gleiche Kategorie wie Cbets im 3-Bet Pot IP zu minraisen. Es ist eigentlich keine starke Strategie, aber wenn der Gegner dagegen unglaublich schlecht weiterspielt, ist es ein guter Exploit. Find das schon ok da neue Wege zu gehen. Viele Regs haben ihre normalen typischen Spots sehr gut analysiert und saubere Calldown- und Barreling-Frequencies, aber werden schnell unsicher, wenn etwas sehr ungewohntes passiert.
    • 27os
      27os
      Bronze
      Dabei seit: 24.11.2007 Beiträge: 1.922
      villain hat ATd. turn-x/r ist dann nutflushdraw und evtl. combodraw mit oc, und hero gibt mit der 3bet ungefähr die odds, dass er im callbereich ist.

      nach dem call ist seine hand häufig faceup, als combodraw. wenn villain jammed, ist es tricky, und insofern ist heros 3bet am turn sowas wie ne block-/info-/exploit-/valuebet3bet.
    • flipper777
      flipper777
      Bronze
      Dabei seit: 29.02.2012 Beiträge: 878
      So sick der Typ. Nicht nur ne grosse Klappe sondern auch was dahinter. Pures Entertainment der Blog :f_thumbsup:
    • Sn0fru
      Sn0fru
      Silber
      Dabei seit: 07.12.2011 Beiträge: 639
      er erklärts im blog


      As for KJ

      We expect V to x/r 67, 2p, set and 7/6xdd hands otf very frequently. Meaning he troubles himself when he x/r Turn since our absolute strength will be a lot higher than his. That's not neccessarily bad for specific hands he has but for his strategy.
      His Turnsize 98$ is a bit high for slowplayed 2p or turnt 45. 45 doesn't make sense to x/r regardless. Basically he's set or 67 (rare) and a lot of the time on hands like Q9dd Axdd Jxdd etc.

      There is 2 problems with call turn.

      One: Opponent will be able to cherrypick play River. Aka there might be river he will decide to bluff almost never but always valuebet and we are forced to call. On those Rivers our Turncall EV is ruined because we call a $100 x/r Turn and then most likely a $200 river bet with 0EQ. It's important to note that V will tend to x/r 7/6x type of hands on the Flop meaning he's left with bluffs on the River that don't have any significant value blockers -> therefor decide to check. Meaning we give those hands a free River by calling instead of raising.

      So this means that effectively we are realizing less equity with our KJ than we should against his bluffs. He will cherrypick play us. We will hit a River. Make a bad call. We will hit a King or Jack end up calling against his valuerange exclusively. It's just not working well.

      The key thing here is that V will not be able to 4bet jam our Turn 3bet with his sets since as I said earlier our absolute handstrength is too high. Meaning V will be forced to call his sets (he will never lead River) and call his flushdraws (he will only lead Flushd Rivers which we don't care about) for a total of $210.

      Now we invest $210 instead of calling a raise and a most likely -EV riverspot for a total of $300, we realize way, way more EV. We take away all iniative from Villain. He can not lead unless he binks a flush which we are indifferent to.

      So to sum up. We are realizing more EV against his bluffs. We are losing less money against the rare case of him having a stronger hand. We take away all iniative from villain.
    • Sn0fru
      Sn0fru
      Silber
      Dabei seit: 07.12.2011 Beiträge: 639
      :f_ugly: :f_ugly: :f_ugly:
    • MeetBucks
      MeetBucks
      Silber
      Dabei seit: 05.09.2009 Beiträge: 1.549
      :appl:
      Nice, danke für den Link!
    • 27os
      27os
      Bronze
      Dabei seit: 24.11.2007 Beiträge: 1.922
      Original von Sn0fru
      er erklärts im blog


      As for KJ

      We expect V to x/r 67, 2p, set and 7/6xdd hands otf very frequently. Meaning he troubles himself when he x/r Turn since our absolute strength will be a lot higher than his. That's not neccessarily bad for specific hands he has but for his strategy.
      His Turnsize 98$ is a bit high for slowplayed 2p or turnt 45. 45 doesn't make sense to x/r regardless. Basically he's set or 67 (rare) and a lot of the time on hands like Q9dd Axdd Jxdd etc.

      There is 2 problems with call turn.

      One: Opponent will be able to cherrypick play River. Aka there might be river he will decide to bluff almost never but always valuebet and we are forced to call. On those Rivers our Turncall EV is ruined because we call a $100 x/r Turn and then most likely a $200 river bet with 0EQ. It's important to note that V will tend to x/r 7/6x type of hands on the Flop meaning he's left with bluffs on the River that don't have any significant value blockers -> therefor decide to check. Meaning we give those hands a free River by calling instead of raising.

      So this means that effectively we are realizing less equity with our KJ than we should against his bluffs. He will cherrypick play us. We will hit a River. Make a bad call. We will hit a King or Jack end up calling against his valuerange exclusively. It's just not working well.

      The key thing here is that V will not be able to 4bet jam our Turn 3bet with his sets since as I said earlier our absolute handstrength is too high. Meaning V will be forced to call his sets (he will never lead River) and call his flushdraws (he will only lead Flushd Rivers which we don't care about) for a total of $210.

      Now we invest $210 instead of calling a raise and a most likely -EV riverspot for a total of $300, we realize way, way more EV. We take away all iniative from Villain. He can not lead unless he binks a flush which we are indifferent to.

      So to sum up. We are realizing more EV against his bluffs. We are losing less money against the rare case of him having a stronger hand. We take away all iniative from villain.

      ist wie meistens, dass vieles korrekt ist und manches halbkorrekt/verzerrt. auf alle fälle aber sehr interessant.

      das mit der ev-realization ist natürlich mist und dass er ev und equity korreliert aber den tatsächlichen zusammenhang nicht erkannt hat, führt zu verzerrungen in der argumentation, aber die begründung, dass villain in dem spot den turn nicht 4betjammen kann, weil er keine bluffs hat, ist nuts.
    • KTU
      KTU
      HeadAdmin
      HeadAdmin
      Dabei seit: 24.01.2007 Beiträge: 6.231
      Erklärung :heart:

      Wir müssen den River callen, aber Villain wird nicht bluffen und uns valuetownen. Also verlieren wir Geld.


      The key thing here is that V will not be able to 4bet jam our Turn 3bet with his sets since as I said earlier our absolute handstrength is too high. Meaning V will be forced to call his sets


    • 27os
      27os
      Bronze
      Dabei seit: 24.11.2007 Beiträge: 1.922
      woher stammt das erste zitat?

      die begründung für die turn3bet stimmt:

      Turn 3bet will beat Turn bet/call by 10-20bb. Which is very significant for that potsize. You're messing this hand up because you're ignoring the fact that V opted not to x/r Flop against a 1/3 bet.

      Villain can't 4bet/jam bluff Turn as all his bluffs will have higher EV calling our 3bet.


      http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showpost.php?p=50467327&postcount=374
    • Zatox11
      Zatox11
      Diamant
      Dabei seit: 09.01.2011 Beiträge: 2.758
      Sofern Villains Turnraising-Range GTO ähnlich aufgebaut ist, dann hat er mit seinen Bluffcatcher type hands sicher keinen 10-20bb Vorteil in einem Reraise. Er sollte etwa breakeven zwischen den den besten zwei Optionen sein (ich nehme an das sind CALL und FOLD). Seine Begründung kann also nur dann zutreffen, wenn Villains Strategie bereits ziemlich verkorkst ist.