$400 NLHE 6-max: $ : QQ from SB!

[seeyouthru]

Hand History driven straight to this forum with DriveHUD Poker HUD and Database Software
blinds 2/4
BTN (98) [VPIP: 48.9% | PFR: 2.2% | AGG: 20.5% | hands: 91]
HERO (428) [VPIP: 23.9% | PFR: 11.8% | AGG: 23% | Flop Agg: 24% | Turn Agg: 21.1% | River Agg: 23.2% | 3-Bet: 4.2% | Fold to 3-Bet: 41.9% | 4-Bet: 19.7% | Hands: 13866]
BB (288) [VPIP: 45.7% | PFR: 19.6% | AGG: 18.8% | Hands: 47]
HJ (119) [VPIP: 36.1% | PFR: 2.8% | AGG: 40% | Hands: 36]
CO ($405) [VPIP: 26.1% | PFR: 15.8% | AGG: 22.5% | Flop Agg: 26.6% | Turn Agg: 22.1% | River Agg: 15.7% | 3-Bet: 7.3% | 4-Bet: 0% | Hands: 718]

Dealt to Hero: Q♦ Q♠

HJ Calls 4, CO Raises To $8, BTN Folds, HERO Raises To 42, BB Folds, HJ Folds, CO Calls 24

Hero SPR on Flop: [3.95 effective]
Flop (92): 9♠ 3♣ 8♣
HERO Bets 28 (Rem. Stack:358), CO Calls 28 (Rem. Stack: 335)

Turn (148): 9♠ 3♣ 8♣ J♥
HERO Checks, CO Checks

River (148): 9♠ 3♣ 8♣ J♥ Q♣
HERO Bets 121 (Rem. Stack:237), CO Raises To 335 (allin), HERO Calls 214 (Rem. Stack: 23)

Villian had caught me bluffing 2,3 times before and was a sticky player!
what do you guys think?

 

[Sidetracked]

That's a horrible river. Club flush gets there, as well as any hand with a 10 for the straight.

If you are going to bet the river, I think your line has to be bet/fold to a raise. As much as it hurts.

An alternative could be check the river and then evaluate based on villain's bet sizing.

 

[Aballinamion]

Hand History driven straight to this forum with DriveHUD Poker HUD and Database Software
blinds 2/4
BTN (98) [VPIP: 48.9% | PFR: 2.2% | AGG: 20.5% | Hands: 91]
HERO (428) [VPIP: 23.9% | PFR: 11.8% | AGG: 23% | Flop Agg: 24% | Turn Agg: 21.1% | River Agg: 23.2% | 3-Bet: 4.2% | Fold to 3-Bet: 41.9% | 4-Bet: 19.7% | Hands: 13866]
BB (288) [VPIP: 45.7% | PFR: 19.6% | AGG: 18.8% | Hands: 47]
HJ (119) [VPIP: 36.1% | PFR: 2.8% | AGG: 40% | Hands: 36]
CO ($405) [VPIP: 26.1% | PFR: 15.8% | AGG: 22.5% | Flop Agg: 26.6% | Turn Agg: 22.1% | River Agg: 15.7% | 3-Bet: 7.3% | 4-Bet: 0% | Hands: 718]

Dealt to Hero: Q♦ Q♠

HJ Calls 4, CO Raises To $8, BTN Folds, HERO Raises To 42, BB Folds, HJ Folds, CO Calls 24

Hero SPR on Flop: [3.95 effective]
Flop (92): 9♠ 3♣ 8♣
HERO Bets 28 (Rem. Stack:358), CO Calls 28 (Rem. Stack: 335)

Turn (148): 9♠ 3♣ 8♣ J♥
HERO Checks, CO Checks

River (148): 9♠ 3♣ 8♣ J♥ Q♣
HERO Bets 121 (Rem. Stack:237), CO Raises To 335 (allin), HERO Calls 214 (Rem. Stack: 23)

Villian had caught me bluffing 2,3 times before and was a sticky player!
what do you guys think?

Let's talk about your stats first: for a sample of almost 14 thousand hands, your stats are a little bit strange for that kind of stake.


First: A gigantic gap between your VPIP and PFR would indicate to the players at the table that you are a recreational.

We are 99.9% certain that you bet when you have a strong hand and when you don't you simply fold, because your aggression factor for about 14 k hands is only 2.3% or 23%, which implies that you are betting much more for value than for bluff, turning the reading of your moves quite easy.

One thing I found particularly interessant, is the gap/difference betweeen your 3-bet preflop and your 4-bet preflop: something is very wrong with this statistic here, because you 3-bet only 4% of times and 4-bets 19.7% of times? What? Lol?

Let's look to your 4-bet range: 22+, A2s+, KTs+, QTs+, JTs, A6o+, KQo (19%)

WOW you are a serious 4-bettor, but this also doesn't fit with the preflop raise, because if you 4-bet that much, you should very a higher PFR

Now, let's take a look into your 3-bet range: TT+, AQs+, AQo+ (4%)

Considering the hand itself, our c-bet flop is very okay, we have plenty of odds for so doing and Villain can have plenty of worst hands, but when we get to the turn we should be double barrelling much more often than checking.
The reason is because we have a lot of pot odds, we are drawing to a straight and by the same token, bluff catching a bunch of made straights/draws, we can get the queen in the turn, although it is not good anymore, but even so we have a lot of showdown value to call some reasonable bet, however..when CO raises all-in OTR it is a very, very easy fold.

Our set is no longer good here for a long time, and in your shoes I would simply check the river, because I didn't bet OTT, and if CO bets something reasonable, I would call, if not, easy fold, because our stacks are way to big for such gambling maniac situation.

But the player sitting in the CO is not much different from Hero/SB.

Regards;

Carlos 'Aballinamion' Barbosa

 

[gustav197poker]

I prefer the double barrel and then the x / c line on the river. But this is just a personal taste. As for this villain, if he's seen you bluff on so few occasions, maybe we don't have the best way to call. In fact now any T complicates our lives. If we look, its aggression factor on the river is quite low. But the reality is that we have decided to get to the showdown, so one way or another we will hardly get out of our position. One point to note is the CO post limper opening. A negligible size and a forceful 3-bet on our part, but necessary to do so. By polarizing we are eliminating a lot of speculative hands, and on the river we don't block any flush nuts, so the call seems like a breakeven here. Again I prefer to check this river and then unlock flush draw combos at rank V.
Greetings.

 

[vinnie]

Wow, this is $2/$4 online and someone is playing 49/2 and a 36/3 and a 46/20 (small samples but still)? These are like pre-black Friday numbers.

I am very curious as to your flop bet sizing. The SPR is <4, you have an overpair, and the board is very wet. Why are you betting less than a third of the pot and turning this into a 3-bet situation? I'm not saying it's wrong, but I am really curious about it. There are a lot of turn cards that are not great for this hand, why not charge full price for your opponent to see them? And, that gives you a chance to jam on safe turns.

I do realize that this does leave us open to a couple really uncomfortable turn spots, when we get a bad card and have to play it OOP with only a pot size bet left. And, maybe we're betting so small as a matter of balance, if we always bet this small in 3-bet pots. But, this just seems like burning money. Any hand that we're worried about improving on the turn is going to be getting nearly direct pot odds to call on this flop.

So, anyway, I am not a $400NL player. I'm not even close. But, I am open to learning and I would really like to understand your thought process on the flop here.

 

[seeyouthru]

Wow, this is $2/$4 online and someone is playing 49/2 and a 36/3 and a 46/20 (small samples but still)? These are like pre-black Friday numbers.

I am very curious as to your flop bet sizing. The SPR is <4, you have an overpair, and the board is very wet. Why are you betting less than a third of the pot and turning this into a 3-bet situation? I'm not saying it's wrong, but I am really curious about it. There are a lot of turn cards that are not great for this hand, why not charge full price for your opponent to see them? And, that gives you a chance to jam on safe turns.

I do realize that this does leave us open to a couple really uncomfortable turn spots, when we get a bad card and have to play it OOP with only a pot size bet left. And, maybe we're betting so small as a matter of balance, if we always bet this small in 3-bet pots. But, this just seems like burning money. Any hand that we're worried about improving on the turn is going to be getting nearly direct pot odds to call on this flop.

So, anyway, I am not a $400NL player. I'm not even close. But, I am open to learning and I would really like to understand your thought process on the flop here.

This play is actually completely exploitative from me. i had taken the same line from the previous 2 hands with the villian where I 3 bet ip and slowed down on turn and was caught bluffing on river twice!

 

[seeyouthru]

Let's talk about your stats first: for a sample of almost 14 thousand hands, your stats are a little bit strange for that kind of stake.


First: A gigantic gap between your VPIP and PFR would indicate to the players at the table that you are a recreational.

We are 99.9% certain that you bet when you have a strong hand and when you don't you simply fold, because your aggression factor for about 14 k hands is only 2.3% or 23%, which implies that you are betting much more for value than for bluff, turning the reading of your moves quite easy.

One thing I found particularly interessant, is the gap/difference betweeen your 3-bet preflop and your 4-bet preflop: something is very wrong with this statistic here, because you 3-bet only 4% of times and 4-bets 19.7% of times? What? Lol?

Let's look to your 4-bet range: 22+, A2s+, KTs+, QTs+, JTs, A6o+, KQo (19%)

WOW you are a serious 4-bettor, but this also doesn't fit with the preflop raise, because if you 4-bet that much, you should very a higher PFR

Now, let's take a look into your 3-bet range: TT+, AQs+, AQo+ (4%)

Considering the hand itself, our c-bet flop is very okay, we have plenty of odds for so doing and Villain can have plenty of worst hands, but when we get to the turn we should be double barrelling much more often than checking.
The reason is because we have a lot of pot odds, we are drawing to a straight and by the same token, bluff catching a bunch of made straights/draws, we can get the queen in the turn, although it is not good anymore, but even so we have a lot of showdown value to call some reasonable bet, however..when CO raises all-in OTR it is a very, very easy fold.

Our set is no longer good here for a long time, and in your shoes I would simply check the river, because I didn't bet OTT, and if CO bets something reasonable, I would call, if not, easy fold, because our stacks are way to big for such gambling maniac situation.

But the player sitting in the CO is not much different from Hero/SB.

Regards;

Carlos 'Aballinamion' Barbosa

I Dont know whats up with theese hero stats here but my cbet percentage is 60% and im the kind of player at the table who has more bluff combos than value and my fold to cbet is 48% which is kinda low. the villian stats are accurate but the hero stats are not correct!

 

[c0rnBr34d]

One thing I found particularly interessant, is the gap/difference betweeen your 3-bet preflop and your 4-bet preflop: something is very wrong with this statistic here, because you 3-bet only 4% of times and 4-bets 19.7% of times? What? Lol?

Let's look to your 4-bet range: 22+, A2s+, KTs+, QTs+, JTs, A6o+, KQo (19%)

WOW you are a serious 4-bettor, but this also doesn't fit with the preflop raise, because if you 4-bet that much, you should very a higher PFR

Now, let's take a look into your 3-bet range: TT+, AQs+, AQo+ (4%)

I would simply check the river, because I didn't bet OTT, and if CO bets something reasonable, I would call,

I agree with your river assessment but I encourage you to try to do more to understand stats before you offer a critique.

It is fair to estimate / interpret a 3 bet PF percentage as a range because you cannot both raise and 3 bet the same pot pre flop. Not every pot is raised pre and you will not get an opportunity to 3 bet every hand but in general, since you can't 3 bet yourself, as the number of times you do 3 bet an open raise increases it should define your range. 4 bets are not like this because many times you are the one who opened and got 3 bet and you are 4 betting a subset of your already narrowed 3 bet range. You cannot go back and reset the range to 100% for the 4 bet after you've already opened. You have opened (in this case) your top 12% and decided to 4 bet a portion of that 12% range. Going back and including hands like A6o is ridiculous. You're speaking as if every 4 bet is a cold 4 bet. I know you know the game better than this. I just encourage you to think a bit and maybe dig past the surface before forming an opinion on a stat you clearly don't have a firm grasp of.

 

[vinnie]

This play is actually completely exploitative from me. i had taken the same line from the previous 2 hands with the villian where I 3 bet ip and slowed down on turn and was caught bluffing on river twice!

That makes more sense. So you are playing based on a recent history you have established with this player. Like I said, I don't know the 400NL game well, and it just seemed really weird to me.

 

[Aballinamion]

I agree with your river assessment but I encourage you to try to do more to understand stats before you offer a critique.

It is fair to estimate / interpret a 3 bet PF percentage as a range because you cannot both raise and 3 bet the same pot pre flop. Not every pot is raised pre and you will not get an opportunity to 3 bet every hand but in general, since you can't 3 bet yourself, as the number of times you do 3 bet an open raise increases it should define your range. 4 bets are not like this because many times you are the one who opened and got 3 bet and you are 4 betting a subset of your already narrowed 3 bet range. You cannot go back and reset the range to 100% for the 4 bet after you've already opened. You have opened (in this case) your top 12% and decided to 4 bet a portion of that 12% range. Going back and including hands like A6o is ridiculous. You're speaking as if every 4 bet is a cold 4 bet. I know you know the game better than this. I just encourage you to think a bit and maybe dig past the surface before forming an opinion on a stat you clearly don't have a firm grasp of.

Okay, thank you, I slip a little about PFR and 3-bet/4-bet, but something is very wrong here mate, and this is the point.
The fact is that the data provided for the HUD Tracker, does not match, and I never saw this software mistake in my life.
Not saying it is impossible, but it is very strange a 4-bet of 20%, and 3-bet of 4%, and the other numbers that are very odd for a regular.
This is not a small ammount of hands. The original poster provided a sample of almost 14 thousand hands!


Regards;

Carlos 'Aballinamion' Barbosa

 

[gustav197poker]

Given HJ's superficial passivity in 36 hands, it is not far-fetched to expect a re-raise in preflop from this player, considering that his aggressiveness factor is important, but making up for it with his PFR idleness. For this reason, I find the size chosen by hero in PF to defend his position very accurate, since this size can provide us with important information here. For example we now know that the HJ was simply speculating and had no intention of playing hard.
As for CO, It infimum raise in preflop is exposed when he calls the hero's 3-bet (which is 5 times the small size of CO). Right now, it is really unlikely to include in the range of CO (call / 3bet), hands like JT; KT or even AT. That is, we have a significant increase in value hands in the rank of the villain. Maybe in an 8-8 + line. And some high combinations like AJs +. Honestly the only combos that worry me are T-T; Ac-Kc and AcJc. The rest shouldn't get to the river since the hero with his cbet on the flop, ends up filtering the Kc-xc's that won't fight for a second nut. At least that is expected from a 15% passive aggression on the river, by the villain.

 

[c0rnBr34d]

Okay, thank you, I slip a little about PFR and 3-bet/4-bet, but something is very wrong here mate, and this is the point.
The fact is that the data provided for the HUD Tracker, does not match, and I never saw this software mistake in my life.
Not saying it is impossible, but it is very strange a 4-bet of 20%, and 3-bet of 4%, and the other numbers that are very odd for a regular.
This is not a small ammount of hands. The original poster provided a sample of almost 14 thousand hands!


Regards;

Carlos 'Aballinamion' Barbosa

I agree that the stat raises an eyebrow but I'm not ready to say that it's in error without seeing the data set. For reference I looked at my own DB. I found 6 different samples of 14k-18k hands. Of those samples the opportunities to 4 bet were drastically different from a low of 323 to a high of 780. So if Hero's sample has a low number of opportunities like one of my samples then he only needs to put in the 4 bet 60 times about of those 323 opportunities. This seems very reasonable given that Hero is raising a top 10% ish range.

Remember that the PFR stat is also opportunity based. So that if a player plays 3 hands and folds twice pre flop then 3 bets and 5 bet jams with AA the PFR would be 50% because they raised 2 out of 4 opportunities pre flop even though they only played 3 hands. So it is not a perfect approximation of opening range since you can raise more than once sometimes in a hand but it is close enough to be useful once the sample is large enough.

If we look at the raise, 4 bet scenarios as you started to do in your first post and use an open range of 10% for Hero (assuming he doesn't have enough bluffs to balance when he PFRs twice in one hand and to keep numbers round). His opening range is 133 combos. If we take the top 20% of those combos we are left with 26 combos. This equates to JJ+ (27 combos) or for reference QQ+, AK is 34 combos. So if V is 4 betting QQ+, AK and did not have a lot of cold 4 bet opportunities and happened to be strong enough to 4 bet 60 out of 323 times then he'd be right around 20%.

In those 6 samples I reference above in my DB 2 of them have a 4 bet% of 13 or 14% even though the 3 bet% is only 4 or 6%. So to kick it up from 14 to 19 doesn't seem impossible. It could be an error but I'm not convinced without more data.
Is this the only issue with the stats or am I missing something else?

 

[marvinsytan]

Omg i learned a lot just by reading this, thanks for posting

This is not my limit so my opinion doesn’t matter

But I will fold to river bet Im a nit haha

 

[gustav197poker]

I agree that the stat raises an eyebrow but I'm not ready to say that it's in error without seeing the data set. For reference I looked at my own DB. I found 6 different samples of 14k-18k hands. Of those samples the opportunities to 4 bet were drastically different from a low of 323 to a high of 780. So if Hero's sample has a low number of opportunities like one of my samples then he only needs to put in the 4 bet 60 times about of those 323 opportunities. This seems very reasonable given that Hero is raising a top 10% ish range.

Remember that the PFR stat is also opportunity based. So that if a player plays 3 hands and folds twice pre flop then 3 bets and 5 bet jams with AA the PFR would be 50% because they raised 2 out of 4 opportunities pre flop even though they only played 3 hands. So it is not a perfect approximation of opening range since you can raise more than once sometimes in a hand but it is close enough to be useful once the sample is large enough.

If we look at the raise, 4 bet scenarios as you started to do in your first post and use an open range of 10% for Hero (assuming he doesn't have enough bluffs to balance when he PFRs twice in one hand and to keep numbers round). His opening range is 133 combos. If we take the top 20% of those combos we are left with 26 combos. This equates to JJ+ (27 combos) or for reference QQ+, AK is 34 combos. So if V is 4 betting QQ+, AK and did not have a lot of cold 4 bet opportunities and happened to be strong enough to 4 bet 60 out of 323 times then he'd be right around 20%.

In those 6 samples I reference above in my DB 2 of them have a 4 bet% of 13 or 14% even though the 3 bet% is only 4 or 6%. So to kick it up from 14 to 19 doesn't seem impossible. It could be an error but I'm not convinced without more data.
Is this the only issue with the stats or am I missing something else?

In general I agree. I am sure you know that data has a distorting component in poker, and this is the standard deviation of the values, product of the random component. Which will always remain. Whatever sample size we take. If we add to this, other dispersion measures such as variance (dispersion that coexists, along with the other randomness factor of the game). We will find values ​​that will fluctuate more times in time. A real proof of this is your 6 samples of 14-18k.
Although it seems little difference 5% from 14 to 19% for hero for a sample of 13500 hands, in reality it is not. And you can start to define a specific and differentiated style of play. But in these differences also intervene to a large extent, the aspects that I mentioned at the beginning. Having said all this, we could say that it is a fallacy the fact of certain unjustly imposed forms, such as the argument that the VPIP / PFR gap has to be the same or very similar, to consider a poker player good.
In fact I talk this with other players outside this forum, and it really puts us in a good mood to talk about it. Without detracting from the fact that it is true, that the difference should not be very significant. But a 8-12 point difference (VPIP/PFR) does not automatically make a poker player a bad player. There are many other factors to consider.