10nl 88 on BU 3b pre..

[WeldPhaser]

sb is 38/0 passive, bb is 14/11/3 nitty reg
Villain is 27/19/0 over 100 Fto3b=67%(2/3) Ftocbet=50%(2/4)
seemed to be a bit passive

Daven had asked me to post this up last night and I forgot after my sesh so there goes .

I think one of my biggest issues is that im not sure if im 3b'ing for valu/bluff.


Revolution Gaming Network - $0.10 NL (6 max) - Holdem - 5 players
Hand converted by PokerTracker 4

SB: $10.03
BB: $6.95
UTG: $17.96
CO: $8.82
Hero (BTN): $9.85

SB posts SB $0.05, BB posts BB $0.10

Pre Flop: (pot: $0.15) Hero has 8 8

fold, CO raises to $0.35, Hero raises to $1.00, fold, fold, CO calls $0.65

Flop: ($2.15, 2 players) 4 Q 5
CO checks, [color=red]

[MadMojoMonkey]

It depends how wide that FT3 really is.

If it's really closer to 50% than 33, then you can b/f and about 1/2 his range will fold... assuming he folds JJ-88 to one barrel, and continues w/ Qx and slow-played KK,AA.

If FT3 is actually 67% then you're crushed and should take a free card, basically giving up unless you catch a set.

[WeldPhaser]

interesting, how big of a sample till it gets more accurate?

[MadMojoMonkey]

lol. BIG.

When you see the 66% (2/3), what you see is that there were 2 successes in 3 trials. So the MINIMUM uncertainty is +/- 33% (1 over the # of trials). That just represents the granularity of your estimate. I.e. with only 3 trials, you can NOT have 50% (only 0%, 33%, 67%, 100%). So if the "actual" percentage is 52%, well, you'll need 50 trials to see a granularity of 2%

That says nothing to the notion of convergence. tl;dr

Here's some examples to give you a feel for error on percentages:

E.g. The "actual" FT3 is 67%.
After 100 trials, assuming we have 67 folds, then we estimate the FT3 to be
67% +/- 10% @ 95% confidence.
After 1000 trials: 67% +/- 3% @ 95% confidence.


If the percentage you're estimating is very close to 0% or 100%, then things get tighter.

E.g. The "actual" 4-bet% is 4%
After 100 trials: 4% +/- 3.9% @ 95% confidence.
After 1000 trials: 4% +/- 1.2% @ 95% confidence


TL;DR
You need tens of trials to get a ballpark
You need hundreds of trials to nail down a narrow-ish range
You need thousands of trials to make a read that is within ~3% of the "actual" value.

[d0zer]

I think one of my biggest issues is that im not sure if im 3b'ing for valu/bluff.

might wanna sort this one out chief or don't 3bet when you can't answer that question. this time it seems like a clear call with fish in the blinds

[daviddem]

^^ exactly. This ties in to the concept of betting/raising a polarized range and calling/getting cheaply to showdown with your middle "fair" hands. So for example you could value 3b your nut hands, bluff 3b stuff like Axs and suited connectors and call with fair hands like AJ, KQ, small pairs, etc

There are two good threads I found about this idea:
http://www.flopturnriver.com/pokerfo...se-184826.html
http://www.flopturnriver.com/pokerfo...er-184365.html (attention, this one is math heavy, but you only need to get through the first two posts to understand the polarized range thing).

[spoonitnow]

^^ exactly. This ties in to the concept of betting/raising a polarized range and calling/getting cheaply to showdown with your middle "fair" hands. So for example you could value 3b your nut hands, bluff 3b stuff like Axs and suited connectors and call with fair hands like AJ, KQ, small pairs, etc

There are two good threads I found about this idea:
http://www.flopturnriver.com/pokerfo...se-184826.html
http://www.flopturnriver.com/pokerfo...er-184365.html (attention, this one is math heavy, but you only need to get through the first two posts to understand the polarized range thing).

Jesus Christ those threads are hard to understand. The half-street AKQ game is probably a better choice since it doesn't involve fucking rocket science.

[spoonitnow]

I think one of my biggest issues is that im not sure if im 3b'ing for valu/bluff.

The first post of this thread has been helpful to some people in the past who had this same problem http://www.flopturnriver.com/pokerfo...me-179191.html so maybe it will help you idk

[WeldPhaser]

The first post of this thread has been helpful to some people in the past who had this same problem http://www.flopturnriver.com/pokerfo...me-179191.html so maybe it will help you idk

Thanks spoon I will check it out...

OTF what is everyone thinking?

[MadMojoMonkey]

http://www.flopturnriver.com/pokerfo...er-184365.html

Ouch.... brain hurt... too much information at one time... must watch TV and try to avoid thinking analytically for rest of evening or brain leak out of nostrils and ears.

Must read agains.

[daviddem]

^^ Spoon is right, start with the AKQ game which is the simplest version. It illustrates very well in a simple manner why you bet with a polarized range (A and Q) and check with the middle of your range (K).

[daviddem]

Thanks spoon I will check it out...

OTF what is everyone thinking?

To make a value bet you need 50% equity against his flop calling range for the bet to be worthwhile. So your first job is to do just that: assign him a calling range.

To bluff you need to make him lay down a hand better than yours. So also assign him a range of hands better than yours that he would fold to a bet.

[TeUnit]

the 3b stats are going to take a while to converge

[daven]

call pre
flop are you value betting or bluffing? if nothing worse is calling and nothing better is folding then you can check back here. If you bet then something like 40% pot is about right.

[spoonitnow]

To make a value bet you need 50% equity against his flop calling range for the bet to be worthwhile.

Not to confuse anyone, but this isn't 110% entirely true. PM me and we'll talk on Skype or something if you want to talk about it.

To make a value bet you need 50% equity against his flop calling range for the bet to be +EV in a vacuum.

This is true, though.

[pocketfours]

Absolutely keep the fish in pre.