Exploiting Deepstack Play #1: Charging for draws

[ZwiFT]

Credit to bigspenda73 making the post "Exploiting Fish Mistake #1: Continuing With a Marginal Hand"
Which got me thinking.

We all know a lot about exploiting fish, but if there is a catagory most of us don't know much about, it's playing deep. So ill start:

#1:

When playing deep, you should charge way more for people drawing to the best hand on the flop or turn. This is because people think they have implied odds to call and will therefor call you way lighter than they would 100bb deep[/list]

[Carroters]

2. It becomes more importnt to protect our stack on dangerous boards.

eg. Say we have the lead and position with AQ in a 3 bet pot on Q, J, 10 r. In this case protecting our stack becomes more important than protecting our hand so we may elect to check behind this flop even though it is really drawy.

[XTR1000]

#3 in order to deny implied odds, you have to make laydowns on the river

#4 positional (dis-)advantage grows with stack sizes

[LawDude]

#5 You should be aware of which players at the table with smaller stacks tend to play weak on later streets, and use your reads to identify situations where you can force them to fold better hands.

[oskar]

But how much more would you bet?
I think the more important part is to be able to b/f or c/f when a draw completes and you get raised. It's not very common at microstakes that someone will turn a made hand into a bluff

[Robb]

Good thread. BTW, there's an interesting phenomenon at Full Tilt. There are "deep stack" regs, but only about 20 deep FR tables at 50nl. So you can build a up a data base on the regs tons faster deep. Also, there's better, looser action on them, right now.

Nice thread idea.

#1:

When playing deep, you should charge way more for people drawing to the best hand on the flop or turn. This is because people think they have implied odds to call and will therefor call you way lighter than they would 100bb deep

I'll just reiterate. This IS an extremely happy turn of events for us when they'll chase lighter and pay more. Weeeeeeeeeeeee!!

#4 positional (dis-)advantage grows with stack sizes

This is important for table selection. If you're gonna play deep, you really need the biggest stacks to your right, or at least most of them there.

[bigspenda73]

This thread could be interesting, I'll give my thoughts

When playing deeper bet-sizes do not have to be altered as long as our range is expanded. Having a wider range decreases our opponent's implied odds thus making many seemingly correct PF/Flop calls actually incorrect.

[HarleyGuy13]

I really like this thread idea. I currently avoid playing very deep because I lack the skills/knowledge of how to do so properly. Keep it coming!!!

[dranger7070]

Bummp cuz i suck at playing deep and hopefully there's more interest this time around.

[surviva316]

lol funny how this thread died right after two posts that were like "this thread has potential"

When playing deeper bet-sizes do not have to be altered as long as our range is expanded. Having a wider range decreases our opponent's implied odds thus making many seemingly correct PF/Flop calls actually incorrect.

by this, do you mean if we widen our garbagy range, then that lessens their implied odds because they'll be c/f'ing to air a lot when they miss?

i've started to think about this a lot lately with PF 3b'ing/4b'ing sizes. it seems like we should want to bet bigger as a bluff to assure that they fold, and we're screwed when they call a 4b when we hold A7o even if we are IP. at the same time, though, they have ZERO implied odds against us, so they're actually making an even bigger mistake set-mining only to c/f on 8/9th's of boards.

[bigspenda73]

I read OP, didn't read the date, and typed in almost exactly what I posted last year....so I guess my thoughts on this have not changed much.

Let's say our opponent is going to play 100% straightfoward and we'll use set-mining b/c it's the easiest example of a "draw" . Like surviva said, if our opponent is going to play fit/fold then we either need to re-raise to an amount that makes it mathematically incorrect to do so or to play a range that

1. Has more equity against sets when the money goes in postflop
2. Gives us the ability to play aggressively postflop
3. Allows us to fold easily postflop when facing resistance

The problem becomes with playing against people who don't play fit/fold. Against those we'd adjust by either stacking off lighter or tightening/strengthening this range to avoid marginal situations.

(I may not be thinking 100% clearly so if anything doesn't make sense call me out and I'll revisit it when I'm not popping pain meds).