A few nights ago I played a quick session (about an hour) of $.10/25 and finished down about a buy-in and a half. I lost a flip and got unlucky in a couple other hands, but I also made some hasty decisions and didn't maximize value in a couple spots. My most egregious error came almost immediately, in my 3rd hand (which is usually an indication that a player didn't sit down completely mentally ready to play):
Bovada Hand #2702260454 TBL#4149508 HOLDEM No Limit - 2013-05-15 20:57:54
Seat 1: Big Blind ($14.83 in chips)
Seat 2: UTG [ME] ($25 in chips)
Seat 3: UTG+1 ($38.84 in chips)
Seat 4: UTG+2 ($29.59 in chips)
Seat 5: Dealer ($32.21 in chips)
Seat 6: Small Blind ($28.74 in chips)
*** HOLE CARDS ***
Big Blind : Card dealt to a spot [xx]
UTG [ME] : Card dealt to a spot [Qd As]
UTG+1 : Card dealt to a spot [xx]
UTG+2 : Card dealt to a spot [xx]
Dealer : Card dealt to a spot [xx]
Small Blind : Card dealt to a spot [xx]
UTG [ME] : Raises $0.75 to $0.75
UTG+1 : Folds
UTG+2 : Calls $0.75
Dealer : Folds
Small Blind : Calls $0.65
Big Blind : Calls $0.50
Pre-flop is standard--I have AQ off-suit UTG and am obviously raising. I get three callers, on two of whom I have position post-flop.
*** FLOP *** [3h Ah Qh]
Small Blind : Checks
Big Blind : Checks
UTG [ME] : Bets $2.50
UTG+2 : Folds
Small Blind : Calls $2.50
Big Blind : Folds
The flop is great for me as I flop top two and the monotone board with two face cards means that my opponents potentially have some draws with which to continue. The blinds check to me and I bet $2.50 into just under $3 after rake, which is about 85% of the pot and a perfectly reasonable bet size for getting value. I get one caller and am perfectly happy with the situation going into the turn.
*** TURN *** [3h Ah Qh] [Jd]
Small Blind : Checks
UTG [ME] : Bets $7
Small Blind : All-in(raise) $25.49 to $25.49
The turn brings in a couple hands, mostly just KT with the K of hearts and perhaps very rarely JJ with the J of hearts, but overall I'm not concerned that it has changed the hand. I bet $7 into a little under $8. Then the needle scratches the record. The villain check/raises all-in and in short order I need to analyze his range and figure out whether I'm getting appropriate odds to call. That brings me to the title of the post and what I think is sometimes a leak in my game: putting too many bluffs or semi-bluffs in my opponents' range.
For those who aren't familiar, there's a neat little program called EquiLab that allows you to customize your opponent's hand range in order to figure out your likely equity in any given spot. You can choose to assign your opponent a range like "AJ+ and QQ+" or you can get specific and choose individual cards. With that in mind, I came up with the following:
For anyone who finds that too hard to look at, what the above screenshot shows is a range of AA, QQ, 33, rarely JJ and KK with the K of hearts, AQ and A3, a number of possible flushes, and hands that were combo draws on the flop and are either a straight or a draw with a pair on the turn. I will call the above the villain's "possible range." Against that range on the turn, EquiLab calculates that we have 32.93% equity.
Possible vs. Probable Range
All the hands I just listed are what it's possible that the villain has. However, at the end of the day we are most concerned with what is probable. The check/call, check/shove line is usually an indication of a strong hand when there is no history between the players, so we should weight our analysis of range accordingly.
It's possible that the villain played AA or QQ this way, but the lack of a preflop re-raise, particularly considering the fact that they were out of position and there was already one caller, makes both hands extremely unlikely. Consequently, I'm going to remove them from the "probable range." For similar reasons I'm going to do the same with KK. A3 is also possible, but in my opinion less likely because it's vulnerable to being counterfeited and most villains would want to maximize value by leading or check/raising the flop, so I'll take out four of the possible six combinations. As for KT, unless one of the cards is a heart (more likely the K), the line looks overly optimistic from all but the fishiest players, so I'll remove all combinations that don't have a heart. AJ with the J of hearts is also somewhat unlikely, if only because the J on the turn gives the villain excellent showdown value and he doesn't want to shove me off a hand like AK or turn AJ into a bluff against AQ or a set. So, while I still think it's possible, I'll remove one of the two combinations of AJ. Finally, KJ with at least one heart has a large number of combinations, but I'm skeptical of it being played this way a majority of the time and so I'll include just the combinations with the K of hearts.
Where it gets tricky is how many flushes to put in the villain's range. I happened to choose 9, but it could easily be more depending on how wide his calling range is with suited connectors/gappers from the small blind. But if we assume my randomly assigned distribution, we have 26.59% equity. In other words, the difference between the possible and probably range is almost the difference between getting 2-to-1 and 3-to-1 on our money.
So to go back to our decision based on the odds, I'd bet $7 into about $8, after which he put me all-in. I had just under $15 to call a pot of $30, so I needed to be getting odds of 2-to-1 or 33.3%. If my "possible" range is accurate, I'm about even money to call. But if my "probable" range is correct, it's a fold, and a pretty clear one at that.
To look at it another way, the hands that are betting for value are as follows: AQ, A3, 33, and a flush. Hands that are bluffing: pretty much just KJ or perhaps very rarely KK. In other words, I can beat everything but a flush or 33, but the likelihood is that he has one of those hands. As is probably evident by now, I called the shove, the villain showed 33 for a flopped se and the river was a blank.
So why did I call? Two (bad) reasons:
1) I over-weighted the possibility of a bluff. Having taken the time to analyze possible hands, it now seems obvious to me that there were very few possible bluffs in his range. But at the time, I persuaded myself that while I expected to be beaten a majority of the time, there were enough times he had KK, KJ, or some other random draw to substantiate making the call. Furthermore, I was seduced by the possibility of almost always having 4 outs to make the nuts.
2) The last couple years of live play have led me to make faulty assumptions. One thing I've noticed playing almost exclusively live the past couple of years is that players with strong made hands are afraid to check/call on a draw-ish board. While this may be an idiosyncacy of the players I've known, it became such a clear and obvious pattern that I could hardly remember an instance when a player slow played a hand like two pair or a set when there was significant potential for their opponent to improve. But different players play differently and of course online is more solid, and so combined with Reason #1, I took the in-the-moment position that "there was no way he/she wouldn't have raised the flop with a set or weak flush." Which was of course wrong and a good reminder of the need to constantly challenge my assumptions and re-adjust.
TL;DR - Don't persuade yourself that your opponent's range is something other than what it is.
wow, that was actually a really entertaining read. i say "actually" not because i doubted your writing skillzz but based on what i assumed to be super-dry subject matter. great post
ReplyDelete