In depth hand analysis

Feel free to ask questions or add comments. I spent a good deal of time reviewing this hand so figured I post here for any feedback. This is long, but if you're serious about getting better at poker you'll read it and respond with questions or criticism regarding anything you don't understand or disagree with.


PokerStars No-Limit Hold'em, $0.50 BB (5 handed) - Poker-Stars Converter Tool from FlopTurnRiver.com

Hero (BB) ($58.80)
UTG ($23.85)
MP ($50)
Button ($58.25)
SB ($73.70)

Preflop: Hero is BB with K, J
2 folds, Button bets $1.50, 1 fold, Hero calls $1

Flop: ($3.25) 7, J, 3 (2 players)
Hero checks, Button bets $2, Hero calls $2

Turn: ($7.25) 4 (2 players)
Hero bets $4.50, Button calls $4.50

River: ($16.25) A (2 players)
Hero checks, Button checks



Without having any reads on the BTN I feel calling pre > 3betting. On the flop leading is certainly an option, but with it being so dry I would expect most players to fire a continuation bet here, so I elect to check/call. Check-raising overreps our hand a bit and I have no idea how villain will react to a check raise in this spot, so doing so would only put me in a difficult spot.

On the turn, I elect to bet for a few reasons: 1) I don’t expect many players to blindly fire this turn as a bluff very often at all 2) villain could have very well picked up some equity that will check behind if I check, but is still willing to call a bet and 3) I think this is a somewhat underused play at SSNL (I rarely see this line), so villain may not really know what I’m doing here, and typically when poker players get confused, they play straightforward. Given this assumption (which I feel is fair to make) I imagine the average player at this limit won’t be making any fancy moves against my turn lead, thus I felt I could bet/fold without worrying about folding the best hand very often at all had villain raised.

Regarding my sizing on the turn, I think $5 or $5.50 wouldn’t have changed how villain reacted to my bet. Since I am betting for value, I feel that betting larger here is better in a vacuum. Of course betting smaller may get lighter peels - perhaps even Ace high with a gutter to peel, which is an argument for my sizing being smaller. There also aren't too many draws to protect from + gives me a better price on pure floats. This may be a bit of a mistake (not betting bigger), but I think the even bigger mistake I made was not value betting the river!

While the river looks like a scary card, let’s break down what we think villains possible range looks like:

Pairs: QQ-KK,KJo,KJs,QJo,QJs,JTo,JTs,J9o,J9s,J8o,J8s,J6s,J5s
Two pairs: AJo,AJs,J7o,J7s,A7o,A7s,A4o,A4s,A3o,A3s
Sets +: 33,77,JJ,44,AA,65s,65o

Now let’s review this range and add/subtract hands as we see fit:

Alot of players probably check back 7x or 3x on the flop. I’m going to assume A7 bets because it can get value from worse 7s, ace highs etc. A3 I’m going to eliminate from the range assuming villain will always check that hand. Other 7x hands could viably cbet flop and call turn but to call the river on top of all that previous action seems unlikely so I’m going to assume the only 7x combos that are relevant on the river are A7. During the hand, villain called very quickly, so I think this serverly discounts sets and the straight. I’m just going to remove those from his river calling range because I think they are very unlikely given how the hand played out. I’m also going to remove offsuit combos of J7 and A7 because villain would surely at least stop to think once he hits 2 pair and I lead the turn. In the hand he called very quick. My assumptions certainly may be wrong, but I feel that they are pretty accurate regarding the player pool at this level and without any reads I have to come up with something. What I'm doing here is weighting the range (only slightly), which doesn't seem to be done much by anyone running these type of analysis - but it is done intuitively when we are making decisions at the table.

So now we’re left with:

Pairs: QQ-KK,KJo,KJs,QJo,QJs,JTo,JTs,J9o,J9s,J8o,J8s,J6s,J5s
Two pairs: AJo,AJs,J7s,A7s,A4o,A4s

Let’s see how we’re doing now versus this range using Pokerstove:

Board: 7d Js 3c 4h Ah
Dead:

equity win tie pots won pots tied
Hand 0: 43.478% 39.13% 04.35% 27 3.00 { QQ+, AJs, A7s, KJs, QJs, J5s+, AJo, A4o, KJo, QJo, J8o+ }
Hand 1: 56.522% 52.17% 04.35% 36 3.00 { KcJc }

Given my assumptions in the hand I can clearly bet/fold the river for value if I can find a bet size that will target this range nicely. I think something just a little over half pot will get those weaker Jx combos suspicious and make the bet profitable.

I did this at 5:30 am so it could be a huge mess. I'll check up on this thread later with some sleep in me.

{ QQ+, AJs, A7s, KJs, QJs, J5s+, AJo, A4o, KJo, QJo, J8o+ }

This could be his entire range, sure, but is he always calling a river bet with J5-J9s, J8-J9o? How much are you betting to get a call from the bottom end of his range?

I like the way you played the hand all things considered.

explain to me why that matters

you guys are way too hyped up about whether or not your opponent is going to call with enough hands to make it a value bet and it's definitely a leak. if you don't see why I can elaborate.

Value betting around half pot looks pretty optimal to me. I don't see very many if any Ax hands that are in his range except those that have 2pair or the A5/A2 that had the gutter. That said, the rest of his range is comprised of hands that we beat or chop with aside from KK and QQ. Given that J3 and J4 are an extremely marginal holding even at short handed 6max IP I think that it makes up a very low portion of his range. That leaves us with a primarily value exploitable range of hands.

Additionally, I think that because you took an unorthodox (at least at SSNL) line by betting a pretty blank turn there is a possibility that the villain thinks you are FOS and also makes this a perfect spot to value bet the A river because it's such a good card to barrel on (lol levels). I basically agree with your thought process entirely and think that not V-betting this river probably loses a decent amount of value in the long run regardless of what this particular villain showed up with.

Edit: StarGrinder, most fishy-stations are calling this almost 100%. Nits will fold some %. Regs are probably calling this close to 75%+ with those lower Js. Keep in mind we are both unknown to each other and also keep in mind that our range really includes almost no Ax hands if any since betting the turn with any Ax hand here is pretty much LOL. Our line never makes sense to have an A and it really doesn't make sense to have a set either since there really are 0 river scare cards for a set here. Due to that, any thinking reg is probably going to be like "lol what a fish, his line makes abso no sense aka terribad bluff" and snap call with any J.


NH M

The only reason I never do that is because you never see someone do it as a bluff (lack of implied threat), and I'd be a bit paranoid about the other guy realizing that. It might be better than leading flop right away because of what you said.

For me c/r flop is pretty straight foreward because it's a 100% cb flop for most players even tho your range hits it a lot better than theirs - fair assumption that you have a ton of lower broadways in your flatting range I guess. And I need something to balance all my 5-out and 3-out c/r bluffs on that texture... which I think is profitable, but it can only go on for so long until they take me to hero town.

As played I'd bet 14 on the river. Looks more bluffy than half pot and you're not repping much. idk why you check a blank river after you lead the turn. If you're not going to bet there I'd rather check turn, give him a chance to maybe barrel, and then lead river. Looks more like a float as well.

Originally Posted by Donachello

most fishy-stations are calling this almost 100%. Nits will fold some %. Regs are probably calling this close to 75%+ with those lower Js. Keep in mind we are both unknown to each other and also keep in mind that our range really includes almost no Ax hands if any since betting the turn with any Ax hand here is pretty much LOL. Our line never makes sense to have an A and it really doesn't make sense to have a set either since there really are 0 river scare cards for a set here. Due to that, any thinking reg is probably going to be like "lol what a fish, his line makes abso no sense aka terribad bluff" and snap call with any J.

Yeah this is perfect. I think I just leveled myself.

I like to float flops and lead turns w/ overs and draws against laggy players who cbet too much.

Maybe I'm wrong, but it seems to me that the more exploitative a line you want to take the less important it is to balance it. We're the ones doing the exploiting, and we're moving away from our standard game to do that.

c/r this flop seems atrocious to me unless you are c/r a ton as a bluff

don't listen to oskar, he's busto.

I don't like c/r here with KJ. AJ is better, QQ is wayyy better, but ill be 3bet/jamming that pre mostly.

we're here to make money not create a 'cool' red line.

Originally Posted by Micro2Macro

explain to me why that matters

you guys are way too hyped up about whether or not your opponent is going to call with enough hands to make it a value bet and it's definitely a leak. if you don't see why I can elaborate.

can you explain what you mean with this post? If you were going to explain value betting in the most fundamental and simple way, wouldn't you say I'm betting to get worse hands to call?

Liked the analysis btw

I think it's cool that the bottom of his range is a bluffcatcher are we're taking a line that is going to be perceived as FOS by most 50nl players.

Oskar, I just don't agree with anything you posted. Betting huge, in my experience, does not get called down light. People just aren't thinking that way imo. They see small bet and sense weakness imo, not that they're getting valuetowned. And most of the regs just can't not call given the price. C/R this flop is terrible.

M, like you said, no one does this. In reality, this is just "hand analysis" done to the extent necessary to succeed at a high level.

yeah in depth would be breaking my range down as well.

Originally Posted by kfaess

can you explain what you mean with this post? If you were going to explain value betting in the most fundamental and simple way, wouldn't you say I'm betting to get worse hands to call?

Liked the analysis btw

I am betting to get worse hands to call

whether or not he calls J5s etc isn't going to deter me from betting, even if a little more than half the time I'm called I lose.

Standard. What's not standard, is whut you do when he bets the river.

Originally Posted by PlayToWin

Standard. What's not standard, is whut you do when he bets the river.

How is this line anywhere close to standard?

Originally Posted by PlayToWin

Standard. What's not standard, is whut you do when he bets the river.

heh that would be interesting

and is part of the reason I bet myself

Good analysis- by doing things like this over and over again in different ways/situations you force yourself to get better.

side note: one reason why i tend not to eliminate combinations (weight ranges) on the forum (even though i am always doing this in game) is that it makes it harder for others to comment in some ways. you can always add enough assumptions such that the play you made looks like the perfect play. you also can always add assumptions after the fact to convince yourself you made a certain mistake which you might not have even made. by leaving more uncertainty in the problem i try to combat either of the two errors i just mentioned and then tweak the more general model in game to suit specific circumstances.

couple quick things:
1. in a vacuum, 3betting with KJcc vs a btn open is going to be significantly better than flatting. however, flatting may be better for balance, but its important to know 3betting is the most +ev play. this isnt necessarily the case, (as in i dont know whether 3betting or calling KJcc vs a btn raise would be game theory optimal or whatever) it just is the case in my database, and in the databases of everyone i have ever talked to. so its an empirical observation

2. what you're doing in your analysis is analyzing the way each of your possible betting/raising/calling options would influence his range, and influence the final potsize on various runouts. I think a more direct way to frame your analysis would be "how can i make the largest potsize, with the highest frequency, vs the weakest range of hands i can get him to hold?" typically the answer to that question is "what line will he think is most full of shit?" you start to do this by eliminating a flop C/R as a good option because you thought it would narrow his range too much too early in the hand (and your hand is unlikely to improve, and your hand doesnt need much protection), even though a flop c/c + turn lead is basically the same size as a flop c/r.

3. River is a very clear value bet vs most opponents, even if he folds like 60% of his range i still think you are ahead more than 50% when called

Gl in poker !

Awesome reply Sauce thanks for taking the time to explain all that.

Originally Posted by sauce123

flatting may be better for balance, but its important to know 3betting is the most +ev play.

something about the way you worded this intrigues me. didn't know if you wanted to elaborate on why exactly it's important to keep this in mind?

also, you posted a while back that you almost never like the c/c flop, lead turn line because it's so hard to balance, and the only way you could see doing it is by not having a turn c/r range at all in that spot.

so, is this a spot where you think it's ok to not have a c/r range on the turn, or is this more of an "lol balance at 50nl" type spot?

yeah def lol balance. i don't think we need to be concerned about that here given there is no history. maybe after showing down the hand that would change if villain were a decent player? cuz this line sorta fucks up our turn checking range.

Originally Posted by surviva316

something about the way you worded this intrigues me. didn't know if you wanted to elaborate on why exactly it's important to keep this in mind?

Ok, so assume first of all we are playing against an opponent who can't see our cards, but can see our range.

we now get deal XY in the BB and villain opens.

we have to choose a range of hands with which to call, a range to 3bet and a range to fold.

our 3betting range will be most profitable if it includes the top X% of hands, (small caveat here: it might be better to have hands like 87hh in there and not A9o b/c of domination issues but this will mostly be true) imagine first a 3bet range of KT+, AT+ JT+, 55+ vs a more polarized range. we can still fold the bottom of our (linear) 3betting range to a 4bet, then call some and raise some, but overall the bottom of our 3betting range is going to do better than say, 63hh, just because of the raw equity we hold.

however, we only get dealt KT+, AT+, JT+, 55+ some % of the time (say 15%, tho this isnt exact). and we dont want to let our (range-seeing) opponent open 100% of btns and win 85% of the time. So now we have to call some too maybe. But then our calling range consists of perhaps the next 15% of hands, call it A5-A9, A2s-A8s, suited connectors, some medium strength high card hands etc. The problem now is that our opponent is going ot be able to barrel us extremely effectively on many high card boards, and many low card boards and value bet 2-3 streets with hands as weak as AJ. This may make our calls -ev or neutral ev.

therefore, it is usually better to play two balanced, polarized ranges for calling and raising, with the raising range containing most of our nut hands but not 100%.

(i skipped a few steps here, and this an idealized scenario obviously)

(this is put qualitatively, but there is strong basis in game theory for playing a strategy like I just described)

Originally Posted by Illfavor

C/R this flop is terrible.

why?

You also disagree that c/c, donk is not very good as a bluff, and that c/c, c, bet is better than c/c, donk, check blank river?

Originally Posted by oskar

why?

You also disagree that c/c, donk is not very good as a bluff, and that c/c, c, bet is better than c/c, donk, check blank river?

Originally Posted by Illfavor

How is this line anywhere close to standard?

I was drunk and forgot I'd posted in this thread. I haven't read any other responses yet, but I'll do that after I post my reply.

OK, for me it's a pretty standard line at 10NL. I like the call preflop. It's a dry flop so we're not too concerned with drawing hands getting there on later streets. I like our TPGK, but we're heads-up so we don't necessarily need to bet this. I want to keep villians range wide and disguise our hand. We're much more likely to get called by worse hands (smaller pairs or possibly overcards) on the Turn if we check the flop.

The Turn is a safe card, we're likely ahead and it's time to get some value while still getting called by worse due to the flop trickeration.

The River is a scare card. Although, i think he's got more small pairs in his range than overcards. The River would be a C/C or C/F. If we check, we're keeping his range wide and pot controlling. There's always the chance that he'll check behind. I don't really like betting. So, the River is the toughest decision, but I like the way it was played and I think we're good here at least 80% when villian checks behind.

Originally Posted by PlayToWin

"Standard. What's not standard, is whut you do when he bets the river."

Originally Posted by Micro2Macro

heh that would be interesting

and is part of the reason I bet myself

You didn't bet. You checked River.

yeah, i mean like my conclusion after reviewing the hand is to bet.