A Lesson in Deep-Stacked Play

13 thoughts on “A Lesson in Deep-Stacked Play”

1. Why the flop overbet? Just curious.

   • You mean turn? Because I put him on a something like one pair or maybe a weak two pair that wasn’t folding to any normal sized bet, but I also put him on not the nuts. Oh and I had outs.

     • You seem to take that badly… I wasn’t being rude or anything, I was just curious. It seemed like an unusual play that wasn’t explained in the post.

       So if you overbet with the thought that he wouldn’t be able to call, what range of hands do you put him on when he raises? If he has any idea about your game / what sort of hands you would overbet with, while it may fold out some of his hands with decent equity against your hand, do you think it also induces some bluffs on occasion that he may otherwise fold on the turn? And if so, it seems like you’re almost polarising his range, or making it easier for him to polarise his range?

       Again, apologies if you took it as me being anything other than genuinely intrigued. The reason I’m a fan is because of how deep thinking a player you are, and I like your analysis, particularly as I’m a lower stakes player trying to improve.

       Thanks.

       • Not at all, sorry if I gave you taht impression. Sometimes I am just terse because I am responding to a bunch of comments at once, possibly at the end of a long and tilting Sunday 🙂

         FWIW I don’t think he has any idea what sort of hands I would overbet. I am definitely trying to force him to polarize his range here. My assumption is that he won’t even consider small sets could enough to check-raise-call here and so must have either a straight, a big set (both rare due to action on previous streets) or a bluff (most likely a hand better than mine that he’s turning into a bluff) that won’t call a shove.

2. What other ways is villain expected to play?

   • My expectation was that he would have either raised or folded the flop rather than check-calling 9-high and a gutshot.

3. Villain only has to be good like 25% to call…
   Do you find there is a “magic number” at which point people just don’t fold unless they are drawing next to dead?

   • I wouldn’t say there’s a “magic number”, it’s just a question of having about the right balance of bluffs/value bets based on the pot odds your bet offers Villain. In this case, I think his equity isn’t really factoring into it, because he should have a polarized check-raising range. That is, he should be check-raising-calling some % of hands and check-raise-folding some %. Unless he’s expecting a move like this, the hands that can check-raise call vs. an overbet as deep as we are are quite limited. Given that I didn’t think he could have the nuts, I felt his range would be weighted towards check-raise-folds.

4. I will not see the reasons why this is exclusive lesson for deep stackers.
   I will say that this is illustration not just deep stack situations but higher stake hu game regulars vs regulars.
   Higher stakes you have opponents with sharper reading skills,not easy spots plus pure aggression -pressure on stacks.
   I will say this could be profitable principle in short stack situation and (or) hu sng structure too.
   Please consider HUSNG – at 50 BB and increasing blinds.

   My three reasons.
   1.Protection against exploitation.
   2.HU itself and pressure from increasing blinds dictates your opponent to make moves in many marginal spots.
   The process of selection such spots is done by process of exclusion.
   To make such process error prone you need to open your range on early streets.
   The cost of making questionable calls with marginal holdings will be offset by profit from “bad” reads-“bad” selection- bad moves.
   3.You will see benefits in situation against opponents who use equity number as judgement factor to make moves against your wide and polarized range.

   I see more inclusive conclusion of the lesson:
   Keep your range wide and wild in all circumstances!!.
   There are exceptions to every rule.
   The same principle is expensive and counter-productive in games against fish in both deep and short stack situations.
   In such situation you just type in chatbox: “we are bots resistance is futile”

   • I see your point, but I do think having a wide range becomes more important the deeper you get. In this example, with 100 BB stack depth Villain can probably just treat any set as the nuts and doesn’t need to have a straight in his range. As we get deeper, such a strategy leaves him increasingly vulnerable to bluffs as sets become less and less desirable stacking off hands. You’re correct that this is only relevant against opponents who attempt to read hands and bluff/value bet accordingly.

5. Rules and exceptions.
   “you must play in such a way that your opponent can never exclude nutted hands from your range”.
   There are exceptions to every rule.
   Always you must play nuts in such a way that your opponent can exclude nutted hands from your range.

   • “Always you must play nuts in such a way that your opponent can exclude nutted hands from your range.”

     I don’t think this is true. It’s great if you can manage it, but usually you can’t. In those cases, you must balance your nutted hands with a sufficient number of bluffs such that your opponent cannot exploit you with tight folds.

     • Agree.It is not true. I had to delete “Always you must”.
       Overall playing nuts in such a way that your opponent can exclude nutted hands from your range in deep stack situation is not best idea at all.
       But.. this is great advice for fisherman fishing in shallow waters.

Comments are closed.