Reply to thread

Message: [QUOTE="DevaCat, post: 5867167, member: 450457"] Think we might be misunderstanding each other here, as I said "[I]GTO... can't be exploited[/I]" in my earlier post. Definitionally, GTO cannot be exploited (Nash is the clearest example of this, but that's only really solved for heads up, as it's too computationally complex otherwise). I'm saying that GTO cannot be exploited, but as such by definition it's not exploitative. I certainly don't play GTO, as I think GTO is suboptimal in the micros. I'm well aware that most villains will be using a HUD- in fact, my working presumption is that most competent players would be doing so, and CO's stats would lead me to think that he would have one. That's not the same as catching all tendencies, as NoteTracker certainly isn't used as heavily (and isn't available in every HUD if I recall correctly). And if the hand doesn't go to showdown, he wouldn't be able to define a donkbet range. You seem to have a concern that I advocate donkbetting regularly; I certainly don't (there's a reason that it's called a donkbet). But in [I]this specific situation[/I] I think it has some merit. I'm confused by your comment that we hit a set 11.8% when we have a pocket pair. That's obviously right. But as we only have a pocket pair 5.88% of the time, then it's 0.83% (=11.8%*5.88%) of hands that we are dealt a pocket pair and then subsequently spike the set. That is every 120 hands. The maths in my earlier post holds up. My point here is that the NL5 field finds it very difficult to ditch TPTK+ on the flop. And generic 22/18 villain's 3-betting range looks something like JJ+, AQ+. Which absolutely smacks into this flop. The entirety of his range is either a set (JJ, KK); a pair + gutshot (QQ); an overpair (AA); TPTK (AK) or a gutshot (AQ). There is literally [B]nothing[/B] which has completely missed the flop, and plenty worse calls us (AA, AK, probably QQ). As for what I check with-- that varies by board texture. But on this flop, I'd check at least AK, QQ, AcQc, TT. AK is check/ call; QQ, TT is check/ fold; AcQc is an all-in check/ raise as I block the hands I'm worried about checking behind (AQ, QQ). I'm not entirely sure what the last bit of your post means, but my opens are certainly not getting 3-bet 30% of the time- it's actually about half that often. Might be a difference between short-handed and full-ring driving that result? [/QUOTE]

Verification

Search

Reply to thread

About CardsChat

Our Community

Our Site

Follow us

Language