100nl Zoom - Discussing Strategic Options MW Flopped Flush

Villain is a random reg, I don't have my HUD running and have no written notes at the time of the hand.

I think I have one of the worst flushes in my range and it seems like regs at 100zoom just stuff the turn when they have it facing a polarized range without considering the implications it has for river play. Im not sure whether people play sets like this at all, but if so, it's possible he has all of them in his range. I appreciate the insight from you guys on what is going on with that. I presume most players are aware their sets (lowest ones especially) are bluffcathers here and don't normally spazz jam the turn, but I don't think it's with a non 0% frequency they do get jammed. Agree/disagree?

My plan was to c/c the flop against a normal sized bet, however, given villains bet size I made the assumption that he can be betting a wider range with more protection hands (Kx etc) included and I want to be check raising vs a range like that. As far as my c/r range is built, my thinking is we want to c/r some Jx occasionally that can't call multiple streets given we block top set in addition to some flopped flushes.

My decision not to lead was I want to have flushes in my checking range, and prefer my leading range to be stronger (Nut flushes, nut flush blocker)

Im interested in what you guys think of my ideas here and would like to discuss how we construct our ranges with each action. Also the decision of whether to call or fold facing the turn jam is puzzling, but perhaps its more obvious to some of the more experienced zoom players here.


PokerStars Zoom No-Limit Hold'em, $1.00 BB (6 handed)

Button ($100)
SB ($110.42)
Hero (BB) ($218.25)
UTG ($100.50)
MP ($26.76)
CO ($100)

Preflop: Hero is BB with 4:heart:, 7:heart:
UTG raises to $3, 2 folds, Button calls $3, SB calls $2.50, Hero calls $2

Flop: ($12) 6:heart:, J:heart:, 3:heart: (4 players)
SB checks, Hero checks, UTG checks, Button bets $3.50, 1 fold, Hero raises to $15.86, 1 fold, Button calls $12.36

Turn: ($43.72) 4:spade: (2 players)
Hero bets $27.97, Button raises to $81.14 (All-In) Hero faces $53.17 to call

First of all, and sauce would seem to differ considering he plays 63o here pre, but IMO pre is likely a fold. I feel like EP and BU have such a large ex-showdown equity advantage, that attempting to realize 16.7% (before rake, after rake probably nearer to 19-20%) equity of a 4 way pot is likely a tall order.

We know raw SD equity doesn't particularly matter, but here is 74s's equity in 4-way versus reggish ranges for EP, BU, and SB:

http://www.pokerstrategy.com
Equity Win Tie
MP2 29.91% 28.99% 0.93% { 22+, A6s+, KTs+, QTs+, J9s+, T8s+, 98s, 87s, 76s, AJo+, KQo }
BU 26.34% 25.39% 0.94% { JJ-22, A8s+, KTs+, QTs+, J9s+, T8s+, 98s, 87s, 76s, AQo }
SB 26.18% 25.25% 0.93% { JJ-22, AQs-A8s, KTs+, QTs+, J9s+, T9s, 98s, 87s, 76s, AQo }
BB 17.57% 17.20% 0.36% { 74s }

So you'd need to realize actually more than 100% of your equity in the hand, from the second most disadvantageous position out of the four. I honestly think even if the SB is a donk, so much of your equity gets stolen from reg EP and reg BU that you may still lose calling this hand, particularly with 5ptbb/100 .5/1 rake being what it is. Making this call is essentially making a statement about BU and SB that they are playing such unprofitable hands and spewing so much that you can beat their strategy, and the rake, with an inferior hand to theirs.


Anyway, that out of the way, if you're trying to build GT-informed ranges, you probably need to c/c the hand in spite of his sizing, maybe even because of it, as it will widen your calling range and make you more exploitable to a polarity advantage from BU's range. Or perhaps it is possible that you should choose a less vulnerable flush that is non nut for the c/c line, something like KQ or QJ. Allowing him a free card with his 9h9 type hands could mean the difference between check/raising this hand and check/calling with QhJh.

On the turn I think you have an easy fold to his shove considering that you're at the rock bottom of your value range (66 is higher than this because it has more equity versus his shoving range). I cannot see how folding this can be very exploitable, your range is heavy in nut flushes, king high flushes, top sets and middle sets which are never folding. Sure he blocks a lot of that if he has the Ah, but he also blocks a lot of your bluffs when he holds that. So in effect, the character of your range shifts to being very value heavy when he holds the Ah, and that allows you to fold much stronger hands.

Im not sure if we're on the same page regarding 'ex showdown equity'. This is completely aside from the hand in question, but I wanted to clear this up because I think there is a huge misconception about what GTO defense is when facing a bet and you've got me thinking about it now. I know we talked about this before, but I want to bring it up again because although I felt like I understood what you were getting at, I had to build a model to conceptualize it. Also if this isn't what ex-showdown is referring to then I don't think I get it.

(This is not really the most realistic example, it is a model to illustrate a point)

We get to the river in a spot where villains range is KK, and 77 exactly on a T92,3,2 board

Our range on the river is 86, A9s

Villain bets KK all in for pot ( needs to bluff 77 half the time), we are facing 1:1 on a call. The game theory guys will chime in and say, 'you gotta call 50% of your range or else you're exploitable!'. This is wrong under the assumption that villain played his range in the most profitable way on earlier streets and should not have done anything differently to arrive at this particular river with this particular range. It just so happens that on this particular board, we will not be defending 50% of our range. It would be ridiculous to call 8 high combos when the strongest possible bluff in villains range is 77: therefore to determine what to defend vs a bet, we completely disregard our 8x combos and focus on A9s. We call A9s 50% of the time to make villain indifferent to bluffing, which means we are going to fold our 16 combos of A6, and 1.5 combos of A9. That has us calling 8% of the time - and this is our maximally exploitative response to villains maximally exploitative response - which is the equilibrium.

Takeaways:
Playing unexploitable means making your opponent indifferent to bluffing with all of his BLUFFS, not simply ATC. If villain started playing ATC on earlier streets to give himself ATC in this spot, he would by definition be exploitable and we would be adjusting to maximally exploit the holes in his strategy on earlier streets, which would make this spot non-existent outside of equilibrium play. Therefore in GTO play there will be spots that arise where you appear to be vulnerable to being bluffed by ATC, but because previous lines leading up to this spot do not give villain ATC, you are not exploitable when folding >50% of your range facing a PSB (in this specific river spot).

Rewording for additional clarification:
We are attempting to make 77 indifferent to bluffing. In doing so, we are going to fold A9s sometimes.
Villain has 6 value combos, and 6 bluff combos. If we overfold A9 here villain can bluff all his 7x combos and exploit us. So we have to defend A9 sometimes. But not always, because if we call A9 100% of the time, villain can just stop betting 77, and value town us with his KK which increases is EV. That is why we defend a fractional amount of A9. for For anyone trying to follow along but needs a visual aid to see it (I certainly did when first exploring the problem) plug this into cREV and you'll see that when you call the right frequency with A9s, the total EV of villains strategy is lower than if you were to fold always or never and he exploits it.



I am open to any further insight on this, as I recognize the possibility that I may have it wrong. Any additional comments on that would be appreciated.

Ex-showdown equity is the money won (or lost) from from future betting. Showdown equity is the money you win if the hand were checked to the river with no additional betting.

Ex-showdown equity is transferred whenever a player folds with non-zero showdown equity (i.e. folds the best hand or a hand that has a chance of improving to the best hand), and the amount of the loss is equal to the amount of the showdown equity, for example the entire pot if the best hand is folded on the river. Ex-showdown equity is also transferred when a bet is called at an ex-showdown equity disadvantage. This means whenever you call a bet with a low showdown equity hand before the river when there aren't enough implied odds or bluffing opportunities on later streets. It also means whenever you call a river bet with the worst hand.

In your example it is correct that you should call with only 2 combos of the bluff catcher. Defensive strategies on the river need only make IP indifferent to betting with his strongest bluff. In many cases this will be a complete air hand but not always. It actually pays quite a bit in OOP play to de-polarize IP's range so he has to bluff with pairs for this reason.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Renton

Ex-showdown equity is the money won (or lost) from from future betting. Showdown equity is the money you win if the hand were checked to the river with no additional betting.

---

So in other words it is another way of referring to implied odds/reverse implied odds?

It's a more complete way of expressing the combined concepts of implied odds, reverse implied odds, and equity realization. Essentially its a hand's ability to put in bets against worse and/or fold out better.

Ok thank you for the clarification

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Micro2Macro

ITherefore in GTO play there will be spots that arise where you appear to be vulnerable to being bluffed by ATC, but because previous lines leading up to this spot do not give villain ATC, you are not exploitable when folding >50% of your range facing a PSB (

---

I see what you're saying here, but doesn't that mean that if you defend appropriately preflop (ie: he cannot 3b you profitably with ATC in a particular spot due to your defense frequency), then we assume that he no longer has ATC in his range. Thus for every subsequent street postflop we no longer have to defend the exact appropriate amount (based on his bet, ie: 50% for a pot size bet), because we are defending against giving ATC a profitable spot but he no longer has ATC?...

If I understand correctly, indifference isn't necessarily about making villain not be able to bluff any two cards, because there will be spots postflop where any two card bluffs are profitable, particularly on weird board run outs which are infrequent. As long as your preflop strategy doesn't have any holes in it, you will deny villain the opportunity to play any two cards because if you defend appropriately you will be realizing enough equity to make him just bet/bet/betting a lot a losing strategy.

Regarding the idea of having spots where you'll fold more than the alpha number states in practice, I have made a cREV tree proof for a simplified river scenario. If you're interested in looking over it message me on Skype and I'll send you the output.