Great play by Hellmuth - or not?

Do you consider this a great play by Hellmuth? Or you'd say Pahuja played it badly?

I agree with Norman Chad - I dont think Phil would've raised on the flop with an Ace.

Seems standard. The turn is a really bad card for 88 to continue on.

I mean calling J3s OOP and check-raising a tourney player with complete air is not a good play in general. Seems like Phil had a read though. It's not unreasonable to put someone on 'not-an-ace' with that sizing and demeanor at which point a c/r and bluff follow up on that turn card is fine.

Seems bad in phils part. He can be drawing dead and he doesnt even have a diamond. A lot of times you can check raise and get people to fold, doesnt mean its a good play.

On June 10 2016 03:20 NMcNasty wrote: I mean calling J3s OOP and check-raising a tourney player with complete air is not a good play in general. Seems like Phil had a read though. It's not unreasonable to put someone on 'not-an-ace' with that sizing and demeanor at which point a c/r and bluff follow up on that turn card is fine.

what are you talking about, this is exactly how you exploit a tournament donk who has no idea about CB ranges and will bet that flop with 100% of of his air.

^ I agree they're cbetting too much, just I feel they're calling/rebluffing with the mid and bottom part of their range too much also.

I like it, I honestly didn't expect Phil Hellmuth being able to pick up this exploitative spot

whats wrong with cbetting 100% of ur range IP here?

On June 21 2016 01:11 Smuft wrote: whats wrong with cbetting 100% of ur range IP here?

its easily exploitable

piosolver strongly disagrees ^^

100% cbet with any reasonable IP/OOP range at 25-100bb stacks

On June 21 2016 21:28 Smuft wrote: piosolver strongly disagrees ^^ 100% cbet with any reasonable IP/OOP range at 25-100bb stacks

god damn, I saw this trap coming... what sizings did you use? I wanna confirm with SimplePostflop

four depressing posts in a row

i feel you Naz

I'd be depressed too, if I owned a poker site where such false statements took 10 days for someone to correct ^^

-

baal 20%, would guess its still 100% cbet up to ~40%

I ran a sim with IP being on the button, cbet frequency is close but definitely not 100%
And what Hellmuth did was definitely an exploit because any J3 which is not Jd3d is a clear fold, unless you believe people will react by overfolding to the raise or aggression subsequent to the flop (which could very well be the case with tournament regs)

even with 20bb stacks IP cbets 99.97% of the time in my sim going for 25% pot 99.62%, 50% pot and 75% pot used very marginally, don't imagine it'd cbet any less at 100bb.

Edit: Did a 100bb sim using the same ranges and IP is now cbetting slightly less frequently, but still 97.75% of the time. There's a drop in the frequency it goes 25% pot, still 81.49% of the time though, with 50% being used 11.99% and 75% being used 3.89%. Amusingly it also jams all in to the 4.5bb pot 0.38% of the time. I imagine if you had 25% pot as the only bet sizing option on the flop then IP would cbet 100%

My bad I didn't solve for 20 bigs thanks for the correction. In my analysis I put 100b stacks, a 41% RFI range for BU and BB VPIPing 70% with 14% 3bets. PIO had IP cbet 90%

I solved in a very sloppy manner because I cant be bothered to see what sizing they used or the dead money lol, anyway for 100bbs 6bb on pot using 1/3 1/2 and 2/3 sizings I get 18% of checkbacks from the button using about 50% PF ranges.

I get 95%+ for BTN/CO/MP vs BB for 25, 50, and 100bb

I could see some change in parameters (donk bet, allin threshold %, multiple sizings, smaller XR size) having impact on the % but in any case it's always close enough to 100% that I just treat it as such

a human is more likely to open himself up to exploitation by attempting to balance a 10-20% XB range than actually be performing a GTO strategy

definitely agree on that, trying to balance tiny ranges requires a lot of work and effort for very little gain and its better to simplify things