I really like how you strive to be precise at every node!
If we b50 OTT and they call, we’re left with ~23% pot OTR. That feels like an awkward remaining stack size.
When I run into spots where the turn bet leaves an uncomfortable spr OTR, I often struggle to reason it through and end up defaulting to an all-in OTT.
What’s the best framework for reasoning about these “awkward” river sizings? Do we do this more often when ICM is in play?
Under ICM pressure picking a smaller size that might prevent you from getting all-in is a good play in a lot of situations, including when betting the turn with pot to play. When ICM isn't in effect it allows you to have some polar bluffs. You should not shove the turn with Ahh3s in this hand, but you could two barrel it.
This is especially true on boards that aren't connected. If the board where say 8823, bluffing all-in with T9 would be crazy, but betting half pot is reasonable. The board in today's hand is reasonably concentrated, but since our preflop range is split between shove and raise non-all-in we don't have many hands with equity that would want to shove the turn.
Nice post! What are the aspects of the strategy for this spot that sacrifice the most chipEV? In other words, what is it about the play of this hand that qualifies as an ICM adjustment?
The cEV strategy involves the button playing much looser preflop. That's probably where the button gives up the most cEV. Playing zero limps OTB and playing 30% of hands instead of 40% of hands is losing ~0.05bbs with 10% of the deck, which really adds up.
However, I feel that that is not the answer you were looking for. It's probably the very high frequency flop check. Checking the flop 60% of the time when you have 62% range vs range equity and 2.5x pot to play is pretty wild.
I really like how you strive to be precise at every node!
If we b50 OTT and they call, we’re left with ~23% pot OTR. That feels like an awkward remaining stack size.
When I run into spots where the turn bet leaves an uncomfortable spr OTR, I often struggle to reason it through and end up defaulting to an all-in OTT.
What’s the best framework for reasoning about these “awkward” river sizings? Do we do this more often when ICM is in play?
Under ICM pressure picking a smaller size that might prevent you from getting all-in is a good play in a lot of situations, including when betting the turn with pot to play. When ICM isn't in effect it allows you to have some polar bluffs. You should not shove the turn with Ahh3s in this hand, but you could two barrel it.
This is especially true on boards that aren't connected. If the board where say 8823, bluffing all-in with T9 would be crazy, but betting half pot is reasonable. The board in today's hand is reasonably concentrated, but since our preflop range is split between shove and raise non-all-in we don't have many hands with equity that would want to shove the turn.
Nice post! What are the aspects of the strategy for this spot that sacrifice the most chipEV? In other words, what is it about the play of this hand that qualifies as an ICM adjustment?
The cEV strategy involves the button playing much looser preflop. That's probably where the button gives up the most cEV. Playing zero limps OTB and playing 30% of hands instead of 40% of hands is losing ~0.05bbs with 10% of the deck, which really adds up.
However, I feel that that is not the answer you were looking for. It's probably the very high frequency flop check. Checking the flop 60% of the time when you have 62% range vs range equity and 2.5x pot to play is pretty wild.
Thank you!