Originally Posted by XxStacksxX

R- Range

E - Equity

M- Maximize

This is from PNL, and is a simple thing to consider when faced with a situtation/decision.

So say you are in the situation where you raised preflop and got called. You are now in a HU pot OOP. Consider your possible actions.

Well you can bet or check. And each action can be broken down into a particular line, and reason. We can bet for value, folding to a raise. We can bet as a bluff, folding to a raise. We can check, intending to call a bet. We can check, intending to fold. We can check, intending to raise, etc, and so on.

What needs to be considered in order to determine the best possible action? Well that's where villain's range, and your equity against said range, reads/stats/tendencies come into play.

We know it's +EV to value bet when we have >50% equity against villains calling range. Generally this is the first option I consider. It makes sense that if we can bet and get calls from worse often enough, then it's usually the best option because we are building a pot with the best of it, meaning that more money goes in with us as the favorite.

If we can't bet for value, then I consider a check, and what would happen if I check. Say we check, and villain bets. Will we have the needed equity against his range to profitably call? This is based off of pot odds, and villain's betting range. This is like when we have a somewhat marginal hand with showdown value.

Say we can't valuebet, or check/call profitably. Then I would consider betting for a bluff. That is we expect villain to fold better hands often enough to be +EV. This is once again based off of the concept of pot odds, and range analysis. This is why we usually c-bet a fair amount of our air hands on the flop, because in a lot of spots villains miss the flop often enough for a bet to be profitable.

So that covers our basic first decisions here. When we check, and villain takes his action, we then are faced with another decision, in which we must once again consider our options. We can call because we have the needed equity against his range. We can fold because we don't. Or we can raise because either (1) we have enough equity to c/r for value (2) or we feel villain will fold often enough to be profitable.

This is potential actions without consider preflop actions or villain's tendencies. And if you have read Renton's ABCD theorem article, this is kinda the thought process used to formulate those ABCD subranges (imo). However, that doesn't always mean that you bet if you have >50% equity against villains calling range, etc. Instead, villain's tendencies, and previous action should help you make those decisions.

For instance, say we call a raise from a tight player OOP with 99. The flop comes A97tt, giving us middle set in a HU pot OOP. Well, we obviously have >50% equity against villain's calling range, so does that mean we should automatically donk bet the flop for value? Not necessarily. This is a spot where villain will be a spot where most villain's will be cbetting fairly often. And if that's the case, we likely benefit more from either check/calling or check/raising villain's cbet. This is because he is going to bet a wider range when checked to than he is going to call if you bet. Villain's tendency to cbet often coupled with his preflop action of being the aggressor makes our flop check fairly trivial. Depending on his range we can then either check/raise or check/call accordingly.

Originally Posted by XxStacksxX

Well, your opponents overall range will be divided into subranges regardless. However, how those subranges are divided might be different from what you would do, or I would do, or what would be optimal. But it's highly unlikely that they will play every hand in their flop range the same way when checked to. I'm not saying they are thinking of it as "I have showdown value but rarely get called by a worse hand if I bet, so I check for pot control/showdown value". But they could come to the same decision by saying "I only have middle pair... I'm checking".

For instance, an aggressive player will bet more often than a passive player when checked to. So it stands to reason that he will have a wider A range, and a wider C range than the passive player. He's likely to bet more marginal hands when checked to, and also be more willing to bet his air hands. The passive player on the other hand will tend to check more often than bet. So his A range will be tighter, and he will be less willing to "bluff" or bet his C range. Therefore, more hands will fall into his B range, and therefore we would expect a bit more hands to check back.

It's all relevant. Your villains could be flawed and bet hands in what they think is for value, when they really only ever get called by better hands. Or they might turn a hand into a bluff when it's actually the worst thing to do at this point. This is where reads and understanding your villains come into play. And this is why taking notes can be very important to understanding how to adjust to beat villains.

Originally Posted by a500lbgorilla

only thing to consider is what your gut is telling you.

Originally Posted by XxStacksxX

Durrrr is in your gut? I would pay for that