Zawsze się nad tym zastanawiałem i teraz gdy czytam kolejną książkę zastanawiam się dalej i mam mózg rozjebany.
Mam nadzieję, że ten temat i osoby wypowiadające się będą wstanie wyjaśnić to w 100%.
Chodzi mianowicie o cold call z low pocket pairs pod seta.
Pierwsza rzecz, na którą trzeba zwrócić uwagę to:
- czy stack przeciwnika jest wystarczająco deep... zasada call20- to raczej zrozumiałe
- czy mamy implied odds- tutaj zaczyna się problem bo nie ogarniam tego... co to znaczy właściwie implied odds?
We should always make sure that we are getting enough in implied odds to make up for the times that we miss our sets, and the times we hit but do not get paid. Implied odds can be estimated with more clarity when we consider our opponent’s range and frequencies. Certain player types tend to offer lots in implied odds, and other players tend to offer very little, so always be on the look out for lucrative situations when they arise.
Z tekstu wynika, że implied odds zrekompensują nasze zagranie gdy nie trafimy seta, albo trafimy i nie zostaniemy opłaceni. Implied odds zależą od range przeciwnika i od samego przeciwnika.
Let’s take a situation where a nit 10/8 raises 3x from UTG with $140 at 100NL. It folds around to us in the CO with 44 and $100. We are getting plenty more than 20x here ($3x20 = $60) so we can consider calling to setmine. If we take a deeper look at UTG’s stats we see he has an EPPFR of 5%, which looks like 77+/AK. This is the perfect kind of range for us to setmine against because his range will catch or maintain strong pairs often postflop. If we run it through Flopzilla, we see that 77+/AK will hit top pair or better almost 45% of the time, hitting top pair almost 7% and an overpair almost 28% of the time. A range that hits that strong postflop offers a lot in implied odds, and thus we should setmine here.
No wszystko pięknie i jasno napisane, ale nie rozumie dlaczego ten range ma dużo implied odds?
Notice that the big attraction is the strong ability to get paid postflop.
Silny range więc zostaniemy opłaceni, ale co to znaczy zostać opłaceni? Ile $ potrzebujemy, żeby zostać opłaceni?
Say we take an example where a 19/16 LAG opens for$2.50 from MP1 and it folds us in the SB with 33. We both have $100 stacks at 100NL and the 19/16 has an MPPFR of 14%. Now, we are getting much better than 20x again so we could consider calling here ($2.5x20 = $50) based on the math. But, if we take a peek at the MP1’s range, we see 14% of hands looks like 22+/AT+/KJ+/QJ. If we see how this range hits flops, we see it hits top pair or better about 32% of the time, with 14% top pairs and 9.5% overpairs.
We can see that the tight guy was hitting strong hands almost half the time, while this guy is only hitting strong about one third of the time. Not only that, but the top pairs that the tight guy hit would only be AK on an A or K high board. His looser range can hit top pairs, but it could just be QJ on a J high board, or AT on a T high board. This means more overcards that could hit the turn/river and lower implied odds later in the hand. It also means they are less definitive in value, and that he might fold more often, again reducing our implied value.
No to jakie wnioski odnośnie gracza 19/16? Trafia rzadziej, słabiej i implied odds są mniejsze. Czyli co nie callujemy pod set mining? Jest to nie opłacalne?
No tak... tylko napiszecie, że grając cold call pod seta to nie zawsze musimy trafić. Jeszcze możemy go wyblefować na postflopie. heeh... wrzuciłem do analizy mase rąk w których decydowałem się na blef. Bardzo często usłyszałem, że to słaby blef bo tak naprawdę gramy pod 2 outy.
The other piece of the puzzle is the plan postflop. There are times when we call preflop with pairs and our goal is to set mine. There are other times when we call with pairs with intentions to call flops occasionally, or even to run a well-timed bluff. Let’s take a hand where UTG+1 open raises, it folds to us in the CO with 9d9s, and we both have $50 stacks at 50NL. UTG+1 is a TAG player running 14/11 over 450 hands. He has an EPPFR of 9% which looks like 22+/AQ+/KQ. We call here, but not exactly with the same intentions as the smaller pairs. If we look at how his range hits boards, he will hit strong about 34% of the time, with 14.5% over pairs and 10% top pairs. However, we have added benefit in this hand. For one, we are in position. This means we will get to see how he reacts to board textures, and we can take more informed lines postflop. We also have a bigger pair, compared to a small pair like 22-66, which will beat more of his range postflop, and will retain more showdown value. Having both position and a bigger pair means we can not only try to hit our set, but also react well to our opponent’s actions and possibly peel certain flops. We end up seeing a heads up flop of Jd 8d 4s. He bets $2.25. If we look at how he hits this board we see he hits overpairs 16% of the time, sets 8%, and the rest of his range is mostly weak pairs and ace high...stuff that 99 beats. If we know that this opponent is likely to just CB and then give up without a big hand, calling here to get to showdown is a great play. This gives an added benefit to calling pairs preflop and will make us difficult to play against. Always make sure we check our opponent’s ranges and tendencies to see if we can utilize set mining and pair calling preflop.
No tak ale 22-55 to nie 99 i TT albo JJ.
This very simple planning and evaluation lets us see which player is more callable. Tighter ranges that have more hands that hit strong will offer more implied odds. Wider ranges tend to offer much less in implied value from competent players. Now, if MP1 were a fishy 42/13 with that same 14% range, then setmining value goes up because the f ish is more likely to take one pair hands too far, giving us more value when we hit. But solid players will not usually get involved in larger pots with single pair hands. So calling strictly for implied odds against them is much less valuable.
Naprawdę czytam i mam mózg rozjebany...
ale to akurat może też wynikac z tego że oni wiedzą że ja w nich będę napierdalać.