Author Topic: Triple Range Merge Fail  (Read 4213 times)

0 Members and 5 Guests are viewing this topic.

mporter123

  • Staker Licensed Player
  • Platinum Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1050
Triple Range Merge Fail
« on: May 17, 2011, 12:15:26 PM »

WYoung83

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1049
Re: Triple Range Merge Fail
« Reply #1 on: May 17, 2011, 21:48:49 PM »
 Check raise is fine for me, but can be a little bigger, defently bet bigger on turn i think, and i agree that river is a horrid card for you to bluff at because if hes good on turn then hes still good and never folding.

I dont see the relevence in tripple range merging during this hand TBH, i always though a tripple range merge, was a uber thin value bet designed to polarize your range as nuts or air, so you get paid off by a bluff catcher?

MintTrav

  • Staker Licensed Player
  • Platinum Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4265
Re: Triple Range Merge Fail
« Reply #2 on: May 17, 2011, 22:32:32 PM »
5th place - Portsmouth Snooker Club £10 rebuy

Liz Lieu borrowed my pen - 01/06/2013

noble1

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2518
Re: Triple Range Merge Fail
« Reply #3 on: May 18, 2011, 01:19:03 AM »

Check raise is fine for me, but can be a little bigger, defently bet bigger on turn i think, and i agree that river is a horrid card for you to bluff at because if hes good on turn then hes still good and never folding.

I dont see the relevence in tripple range merging during this hand TBH, i always though a tripple range merge, was a uber thin value bet designed to polarize your range as nuts or air, so you get paid off by a bluff catcher?


yep i scratched my head at the title. mporter a range merge is when u bet on the river with a medium strength hand and your opponent calls with a bluffcatcher type hand thinking u either have the nuts or air....
range merging is about taking advantage of players who are trying to catch you out when they think you are bluffing..

mporter123

  • Staker Licensed Player
  • Platinum Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1050
Re: Triple Range Merge Fail
« Reply #4 on: May 18, 2011, 11:28:50 AM »
Yea I have little knowledge of range merging. I had just watched the latest episode of The Micro"s before posting this, so got a little carried away. Range merging is probably a few levels above the small stakes stuff that I am playing anyway.



Also was playing my button aggressively as is standard ? raising 80% and folding the rest.


Why?


I have not played a lot of heads up but have a basic strategy that seems to work OK against most players when I do get in a heads up situation. Very basically being aggressive from the button, I don"t do a whole lot of limping in full ring games so not going to start when heads up. Probably need to start adapting this against different players though.

Marty719

  • Staker Licensed Player
  • Platinum Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1162
    • Facebook
Re: Triple Range Merge Fail
« Reply #5 on: May 18, 2011, 12:05:45 PM »
Due to the fact that most people u play HU in mtts/sngs will not be HU specialists, we can approach these with a really overly simple style and remain profitable.  Vs players with limited HU experience, I will min virtually every button and c/b 60% on most flops.  Obv if villain starts playing back REGULARLY then we can change our strat and start opening a tighter range, but people tend to find it hard to open their 3b range with <50x stacks as it makes flop and turn sizing difficult.  We also play v tight from the BB.  I always have donk-bet and f/donkbet in my HUD.  IMO, f/donk is one of the most profitable stats you can have for playing oop, esp in these HU situations.

As for the hand in question...I think checking back our A6s is fine.  It allows us deception on "A" high flops, and we can win at showdown a reasonable amount vs btn"s limping range. 

I dnt like ur flop sizing.  Villain rarely full-pots it with no pair.  If we were IP then we can size it a little smaller, and c/ back turn, but oop, our priorities are different.  We don"t want to leave flatting as an option for villain, as it means we face being oop on turns, which is going to be tough on blanks.   I think making it ~2250 is better.  This should force villain to fold his weak pairs, but also leaves enough fold equity for him to shove his inferior draws.  In general, it is a bet size that very little of villains range should ever be flatting. 

Obv our stack size is pretty awkward for turns (maybe another argument for maximising f/e ott).  I would like ur small bet to set up river shove a lot more if I was IP, but oop, we don"t really want to be giving villain option to continue.  I prob jam all blank turns and bet small to induce from worse made hands/pair+draws when we get there.  Obv this is exploitable vs gd knowing villains, but u wnt need to worry about it here (nothing against villain, just neither will have any understanding of the others HU game without a large sample size).

As played, river is pretty tough.  I dnt tend to double barrell and then give up on rivers, and am usually a big advocate of triple barrelling.  I think if people decreased their bluffing freq, but turned their double barrells into triple barrells, they would be way more profitable long-term.  This is such a grim river tho.  When we bet so small on the turn, we do keep his worse draws in the hand, but I think these are more likely to bet/3b flop.  Think I c/f and mark the note to review, then shout at myself.  Prob jam all overs, but I think his range is weighted to weak J"s and I cannot see him folding these on blank undercards.
« Last Edit: May 18, 2011, 12:14:03 PM by Marty719 »
[ ] ECOAP 2012 Team Event Gold...

mporter123

  • Staker Licensed Player
  • Platinum Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1050
Re: Triple Range Merge Fail
« Reply #6 on: May 18, 2011, 12:58:53 PM »
Thanks for input, a question:-

"I think making it ~2250 is better". When we make a raise of over 3x his bet on the flop, I guess the message is that we are never folding if he decides to jam here? Also if he did make the flat call to this bet size then jamming any turn card is correct?

With a draw like this out of position should we always be betting larger in these types of spots? Probably too generalised a statement but this aspect of bet sizing I think I am getting it wrong too often in these situations then getting into trouble on later streets.

I like to concentrate on playing as many pots as possible in position when heads up, keeping pots small out of positions.
The exit in this hand is so frustrating as goes against that "mantra" and seems to keep cropping up. At least I am cultivating a nice image of never having anything when I shove rivers, might get paid off more often.

In the hand in question I was snap called with a weak jack.

Marty719

  • Staker Licensed Player
  • Platinum Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1162
    • Facebook
Re: Triple Range Merge Fail
« Reply #7 on: May 18, 2011, 13:14:50 PM »
I think u r approaching the games in all the right ways.  No denying that the key to HU is position, and understanding this is half the battle.  I think that most people understand position inrelation to hand ranges, but its important to note that position should change other variables like our bet-sizing.  When determining bet-sizing, we firstly need to determine what we hope to achieve from our actions.  In this case, we are looking to maximise f/e.



"I think making it ~2250 is better". When we make a raise of over 3x his bet on the flop, I guess the message is that we are never folding if he decides to jam here? Also if he did make the flat call to this bet size then jamming any turn card is correct?



The main reason for this sizing oop imo is to take away flatting as a good option from villain.  When we have the nfd, we want to allow people to commit with draws we have crushed, and also allow then to fold the bottom>middle of their value range.  Once I choose this sizing, I"m jamming the majority of turns. 



With a draw like this out of position should we always be betting larger in these types of spots? Probably too generalised a statement but this aspect of bet sizing I think I am getting it wrong too often in these situations then getting into trouble on later streets.



Not always.  Its very important that we have the nfd, as we can get people to commit with worse draws with bad equity.  With non-nut draws we certainly have to tread a little more cautiously.  I think your bet-sizing in general should be larger with the top and bottom of your range when oop.

[ ] ECOAP 2012 Team Event Gold...