card removal

ah.  that’s the answer. 

turns out at CR someone already asked what’s up with the QJ 3bet banter – mr peten2toms (noel?).  so, i wasn’t the only one that thought it to be strange. 

CW just said it’s because of card removal and that he mentioned it on the vid.  i think that was it in a nutshell – “we can do that because of card removal”.  Ah.  such a precise illumination of the the forces at work.  how dare i walk away without complete understanding of the situation, lol.

like i said, i think i can skip that for now without any ill effects.

July 9, 2009   Posted in: Cards

5 Responses

  1. DWarrior - July 10, 2009

    I don’t have a cr account, but do you mind describing the situation?

  2. DWarrior - July 10, 2009

    err, I’m referring to the QJ 3-bet rationale because of card removal. What’s the estimated villain range and what’s the estimated 3b calling range (or a bunch of possible ones).

    It’s one of the problems I can grind through Range View ( http://dwarrior.110mb.com/poker/rangeView.html )

    For example, if we give him a loose steal range:
    22+,A2s+,K9s+,Q9s+,J8s+,T8s+,98s,87s,76s,65s,54s,43s,A8o+,KTo+,Q9o+,J9o+,T9o,98o,87o,76o,65o,54o

    and an aggro call range (mine would be tighter, since I’m a nit):
    55+,ATs+,KJs+,QJs,JTs,T9s,98s,87s,76s,AJo+,KQo

    Then if we 3-bet some XX hand, he’ll be calling/4-betting us 35.6% of the time, whereas if we 3-bet QJs, he’ll be playing back 35.5%. The card removal effect is negligible

    If we give him a tighter range (something like mine if I felt villain wasn’t a mindless nit):
    TT+,AJs+,KQs,QJs,JTs,T9s,98s,87s,AQo+,KQo

    Then vs XX he plays back 23.3%, but vs QJs it’s 23.11%. Again negligible.

    If we give him a nitty range:
    JJ+,AJs+,KQs,AQo+

    Then vs MX it’s 14.61%, vs QJs it’s 14.65%, negligible still.

    Granted, this isn’t entirely complete because I’m only looking at percentages, but it seems like “card removal” isn’t a valid reason, there must be more. Does our hand fare better vs his calling range? We almost never want to play for stacks with QJs oop in 3-bet pots, afaik.

  3. DWarrior - July 10, 2009

    oops, I made a mistake, it’s actually better. It’s about 7% more folds for QJs on average, drops down to 3% if he plays back loose and gets up to 9% if he’s nitty. Overall it seems to be better removal than Axs.

  4. admin - July 10, 2009

    the only thing that came to me was that in pure terms of card removal – as in it is now impossible for him to have a holding because i have one of the queens or the one of the jacks – it seems completely negligible.

    but, in terms of what holdings he may continue with after a 3 bet, i can see that trimming the field in a positive way.

    now these are my thoughts, so they may be out to lunch, but if i 3bet with the QJ Villan can’t call 3bet with KJ, probably won’t call with KQ/AJ, also makes continuing less likely with AQ all for fear of being dominated.

    now our Q’s are not dominated, nor are our J’s. still, i believe “We almost never want to play for stacks with QJs oop in 3-bet pots”, fwiw.

  5. btimm - July 13, 2009

    3betting QJs is NOT standard at all imo.

Leave a Reply