2/3 300-Max-Bet, 6 handed,
V1 (tight reg, 475 eff) flat BTN,
V2 (unknown, seems rec, 365) SB 3B! 25,
Hero and V1 call,
V2 x, Hero x, V1 x,
V2 x, Hero 40, V1 fold, V2 quickly x-r 140, Hero ?
- V2's line is very suspicious, yet it's hard to give a seemingly average 2/3 player credit for being capable of bluffing here. V2 is unknown who recently sat down, but seems rec and seems ABC.
- I’ve seen recs take this line with AK (and even maybe KQ).
Let's be clear about MDF. Janda (p.159) says,
'...the "minimum defense frequency." That is, determining the minimum amount they must defend against a bet or a raise before knowing with certainty that their opponent can't exploit them.'
MDF applies in this situation because our opponent is making a raise.
Janda says (p. 159),
'Now what confuses many players is you only have a minimum defense frequency in certain spots. The first spot is whenever your opponent is raising. That's because if your opponent could profitably raise with any two cards, he'd never fold.'
With his turn x-r, V2 is risking 140 to win 111. He is laying about 1.2-1, so the odds against our folding to satisfy MDF should be ~45.5%. In other words, we have to continue with at least ~45.5% of our range to be certain V2 can't exploit us with the x-r. Given our line, KJ must be in the top ~45.5% of our range.
Now, MDF clearly applies to this spot (because V2 is raising). However, the pot is a multiway 3-bet pot, and V2 seems like the type of opponent to usually “have it” in this spot. So even though we must defend KJ here to defend at MDF, shouldn't we make the exploitative deviation to over-fold, because most opponents at this level are unlikely to be bluffing nearly often enough in this situation to exploit us? Or, should we call because our hand must be defended to satisfy MDF and the opponent is a virtual unknown? @Bart @KiLee @ConlanMA
, @-everyone, thanks for your help!
- Janda, Matthew (2017) “No Limit Hold’em for Advanced Players: Emphasis on Tough Games”