FTR Classic Rethread, Week 1

I've been a bit disappointed with the available discussions in the BC lately, so I decided to try something new. I'm gunning for a "book club" type discussion (inspired by BigRed's work here). I plan to choose a "golden oldie" each week for the next little bit. I will post some discussion questions, and you can post your own thoughts. Let's allow newer FTR regs in first, especially those who did not see or comment on the original post.

For Week 1, let's discuss this oft-quoted classic from Gabe:

KK with an Ace

Check the thread - it's really good. The original scenario is an SnG where Hero has position and 3bets KK. When the flop comes Axx, UTG villain checks. Gabe's OP has been quoted in at least a dozen threads I've seen in the past year-and-a-half, mostly by the generation of regs just before my own.

Questions to think about:

1. Does Gabe's concept apply to cash games? If so, when and how?
2. Does Gabe's concept apply to non-3bet pots?
3. How should Hero react oop?

Much of what will be discussed here has probably been covered elsewhere on FTR, but lots of folks who currently hang out in the BC probably haven't seen most of that content and would benefit from thinking about this.

ooooooooh...great idea Robb!! gogogo

Ok, we have an unknown villian UTG opening 3xBB and calling the button re-raise. We need to assume standard TAG here, QQ+, AK. Any weaker ace calling here is highly unlikely given position. Given the flop, the villian has 60% equity, and we have very little chance to improve.

In a tourney, I'll likely fold to any bet here since we're early on. There will be other opportunities.

Gabe's basic premise is that you don't bet the flop here. Better hands call, and you'll only make money catching a bluff (which can't happen if you bet).

Now, on to your questions:

1) In a cash came, we need to play this strictly in accordance with pot odds. I would 3bet here in position. We have a strong hand with a scare card. We can fold to resistance without specific reads on the villian. The flop Ace is actually scarrier against a donk with Ax in his UTG range.

2) How would this apply? I need some guidance here.

3) OOP, assuming we open 4xBB UTG, hero should shove over the re-raise with KK pre-flop. We have strong equity against a position raise.

Originally Posted by kb coolman

2) How would this apply? I need some guidance here.

There are times when we are PFR and get cold called by someone where, because of reads, we're pretty sure only Ax or better is calling a cbet, and (most) any hand worse than ours is folding. I guess I was asking folks to speculate on what type of read (it's not that uncommon) would suggest this line might work well in cash game spots where no one 3bet pre.

1. Should do but peoples 3bet ranges arent wide enough in many full ring games - 6max different.
eg. some people still only 3bet AA/KK in full ring

2. No - ranges are much different

3. No good option - personal preference - probably some sort of check-raise repping better than Ax - but SPRs would be wrong and in small stakes games no one folds AK in 3bet pots on Axx (they probably dont higher up either)

Originally Posted by Robb

There are times when we are PFR and get cold called by someone where, because of reads, we're pretty sure only Ax or better is calling a cbet, and (most) any hand worse than ours is folding. I guess I was asking folks to speculate on what type of read (it's not that uncommon) would suggest this line might work well in cash game spots where no one 3bet pre.

UTG wil not flat the re-raise PF with AA, and likely not anything QQ+. I think AK is the strongest assumption here from a standard player. When the Ace hits the flop, we can pretty well assume we're beat.

Originally Posted by kb coolman

Originally Posted by Robb

There are times when we are PFR and get cold called by someone where, because of reads, we're pretty sure only Ax or better is calling a cbet, and (most) any hand worse than ours is folding. I guess I was asking folks to speculate on what type of read (it's not that uncommon) would suggest this line might work well in cash game spots where no one 3bet pre.

UTG wil not flat the re-raise PF with AA, and likely not anything QQ+. I think AK is the strongest assumption here from a standard player. When the Ace hits the flop, we can pretty well assume we're beat.

false. Everyone plays differently, and this isn't overlooked when they are facing a cbet. While calling OOP probably isn't the best way to play, it can still certainly be profitable. Therefore saying that villain will not call with AA OOP, and likely not QQ+is bad.. It's certainly possible.. And in my experience the majority of the hands that standard villains do call when OOP is JJ, QQ. This is because they feel they can't profitably 4b for value, but they really hate the idea of folding that hand there.

The ultimate theme behind every KK/QQ on an Ace-high flop is a situation/theory

1. a lot of players either understand but do not apply
2. just don't get

The situation, of course, is being either way ahead or way behind of our opponent's hand-range. Spots where we're way ahead or way behind typically occur when:

1. The board is dry
2. We have a medium strength hand vs. the board texture (i.e. weak top pair, or, like in this case, KK on Axx)

The first step in being able to play the situations better is, of course, to better identify them. So if a few people could find some flops where they feel they're wa/wb that would be a good starting point to some discussion.

This thread was an AHA moment for me about 18 months ago. Great choice in threads Robb. If you get this concept things will come together.

Originally Posted by XxStacksxX

Everyone plays differently...

And the regs at different levels can be pretty different. For example, I found that most regs at 25nl FR 4bet AA nearly all the time, but at 50nl tons of the regs start flatting 3bets w/ AA.

Originally Posted by XxStacksxX

false. Everyone plays differently, and this isn't overlooked when they are facing a cbet. While calling OOP probably isn't the best way to play, it can still certainly be profitable. Therefore saying that villain will not call with AA OOP, and likely not QQ+is bad.. It's certainly possible.. And in my experience the majority of the hands that standard villains do call when OOP is JJ, QQ. This is because they feel they can't profitably 4b for value, but they really hate the idea of folding that hand there.

Assuming a standard player at $10NL? I don't think I'm far off here, but maybe I am.

So, if we expect UTG calling range is JJ/QQ/AK, shoving range is KK+, we have 62% equity here on this flop. Wouldn't that make make this flop a good spot to 3bet and further narrow his range?

I think the question is designed to make people think more clearly about why they bet and introduce people who don't already know about it to considerations of way ahead/way behind.

The main point is not really in the answer to the question, but in the thought process used to get to the answer.

When a flop is checked to me I should bet if betting is higher EV than checking. There are three traditional rules of thumb to get you started thinking along the right lines.

1) Bet if weaker hands will call
2) Bet if stronger hands will fold
3) Bet to protect your hand

There are more reasons for betting than these, but this set is a good starting point for a discussion. In the example weaker hands will fold, stronger hands will call, and we don't need to protect our hand from any draws (except the obvious 2/3 outs to a set/trip/two pair hand that beats us - this doesn't really count). So betting doesn't really improve our EV - in fact, by folding weaker hands that might bluff or call a bet on a later street we generally hurt our EV, and by betting into hands that are stronger than us we hurt our EV.

The exercise seems to be designed to get people thinking more clearly about the question if they should bet instead of automatically betting because they normally bet here. What are you trying to accomplish by betting in this situation?

It depends - more than anything else it depends on what the opponent has. Or rather, what his range is. We're lead into the REM method described in PNL.

Range: First define a range of hands with which the opponent has taken the actions he has to get to this point. For each action that we are considering that prompts the villain to take an action, define a range for each action that the villain may take.
Equity: Establish equity of your hand (or range) against each of these ranges.
Maximise: Calculate EV for each of the lines that you are considering along with the likely response from the villain and determine what action has the best EV for you.

The example is that specific case where you are either way ahead of way behind and it is a clear mistake to bet. But it's an instructional example because we need to be able to think our way through reasons to bet and reach that conclusion in the most clear cut example before we can begin to apply it in more grey areas.

To go away from gabe's example:
What's really interesting is that sometimes my equity against a range when I'm ahead is 60-65%. Other times my equity against a range when I'm ahead is 85-90%. Similar argument applies with behind.

There will be times when we're ahead of half of an opponents range and behind the other half of the opponents range where we shouldn't bet because if we're ahead we're only slightly ahead, and if we're behind we're very much behind. PokerStove makes these things more simple for us, because instead of us doing an analysis piece and saying we're ahead of 30 combos and behind 30 combos PokerStove might tells us that we have 35% equity.

It's when we're ahead of a large portion of the opponents range and that range has good equity against our hand (by virtue of being draws) that we say that we bet for protection. To me it's more an extension of the first two basic rules though, as I don't think betting to make weaker hands call can really stand alone without a consideration of how much they are weaker - as in how much equity they have against your hand. Similarly betting to make a stronger hand fold is very different if you have 10% or 35% equity - in the first case you want to see it fold a lot, in the second case the occasional fold can make betting justified.

Ok, back on topic. Gabe's concept - if by this you mean strictly WA/WB it certainly applies in cash games, on dry flops against predictable opponents (and also in non-3bet pots).

If you're OOP in a WA/WB situation I'd tend to be a bit lost. I can't fold to one bet with KK, but I also can't check/call 3 streets. I'd possibly bet/fold two streets, or perhaps even 3 streets with a small bet size. A small bet size is in part justified by the dryness of the flop. It's of course dependant on the opponent. If the opponent is an aggrotard that will bluff at any ace and has lots of trash in his range (and may even tend to slowplay when he hits the ace) I can probably check/call 3 streets, or if the opponent is weak/tight and will fold anytime he doesn't have an ace I'll probably bet/fold one street and then check/fold from there.

Originally Posted by Robb

Originally Posted by kb coolman

2) How would this apply? I need some guidance here.

There are times when we are PFR and get cold called by someone where, because of reads, we're pretty sure only Ax or better is calling a cbet, and (most) any hand worse than ours is folding. I guess I was asking folks to speculate on what type of read (it's not that uncommon) would suggest this line might work well in cash game spots where no one 3bet pre.

There's another instance where Gabe's principal works in cash: say a Loose Aggressive type with a wide cold call range (maybe 30/10/5) checks the flop to me, and he's so agro in "orphaned pots" that I know he'll bet the turn with almost any two if I check behind. Typically, that guy would also have donked the flop w/ Ax. In the right spots, I've called turn (and sometimes river) bets and picked up tons more value than cbetting would have earned by letting someone bluff (badly).

Like Jyms said, reading this post was a "light bulb" moment for me, and I began to learn not to "take down pots" but instead to win more monies. The applications hit many, many hands in both cash and tourneys, both FR and 6m.

It all still revolves around the principal of hand ranges.. Given one board texture and opponent hand range it might be correct to bet the flop. Change just the board texture, or the villain's range, and the most +ev decision might change.

IP with KK on an Axx uncoordinated flop, we are likely only going to get 1-2 streets of value when ahead. Checking back the flop does a number of things.

(1) Villain is less likely to suspect we have the ace, and is therefore more willing to either bluff at the pot or attempt to valuebet a weaker hand.
(2) On a dry flop we aren't all that worried about being drawn out on. Villain likely has 3 or so outs, and we shouldn't hate risking the chance that he hits if it means we extract more value from his entire range in the long run.
(3) We pot control with our somewhat marginal hand.

However, OOP things could get a little more complicated, as it always is. And to be perfectly honest, I'm not really sure the best way to play it in that manner either. I have a few considerations that I wouldn't mind throwing out there.

(1) Having villain in position means his calling range is likely going to be wider, therefore a cbet with KK on an Axx dry flop is likely to be called by smaller pairs more often than he would c/c the flop OOP with.
(2) Balance.. Most individuals are cbetting all their Ax, sets, two pair hands, plus their whiffed air here. Therefore, checking indicates a marginal hand a good % of the time. A hand that while you have showdown value, probably can't stand alot of heat. Therefore, if you are checking a hand like KK here OOP, then you likely need to be checking some AK, AQ, type hands some % of the time against thinking opposition.

And of course as the flops get drawier, the number of worse hands that call increase. So while you might check back KK on an Ac9s4d board, you might want to be betting KK on an AcTd9d board.

Just a few quick things before I head to class. I'm gonna be in class for 3 hours so I'll likely try to worth through this somewhat standard situation while in class to see every aspect.

Originally Posted by bigspenda73

The first step in being able to play the situations better is, of course, to better identify them. So if a few people could find some flops where they feel they're wa/wb that would be a good starting point to some discussion.

Here's my 1st attempt, spenda. I'll look for more later tonight. Villain is 60/25 over 50 hands w/ 42% Flop Agg%. He's donked the flop the one time he's had a chance.

$0.25/$0.5 No Limit Holdem
9 players
Converted at weaktight.com

Stacks:
UTG ($54.35)
UTG 1 ($59.70)
MP1 ($48.25)
MP2 ($49.25)
MP3 ($50.70)
CO ($41.35)
Hero (BTN) ($50.00)
SB ($24.50)
BB ($81.65)

Pre-flop: ($0.75, 9 players) Hero is BTN
5 folds, CO calls $0.50, Hero raises to $2.25, 2 folds, CO calls $1.75

Flop: ($5.25, 2 players)
CO bets $1.50, $1.50 to Hero ($47.75)?

Regarding robb's hand. I can't see us doing anything but calling the flop. Folding is weak. Raising is somewhat over-representing our hand, and is likely to not get called by worse too often much, but we would be effectively valuetowning outselves when we are behind. And fwiw, I call here a very large portion of the time with the majority of my range.

I found one will keep looking here tonight for more.

$0.05/$0.10 NL Hold'em Cash Game, 6 Players


SB: 176.50 BB
BB: 98.50 BB
UTG: 114.50 BB
MP: 182 BB
Hero (CO): 111 BB
BTN: 53.50 BB

Pre-Flop: A T dealt to Hero (CO)
UTG calls 1BB, MP folds, Hero raises to 4BB, BTN folds, SB calls 3.5BB, BB folds, UTG calls 3BB

Flop: (13BB) K 5 2 (3 Players)
SB checks, UTG checks, Hero bets 9BB, SB folds, UTG calls 9BB

Turn: (31BB) 3 (2 Players)
UTG checks, Hero bets 15BB, UTG raises to 37BB, Hero raises to 98BB and is All-In, UTG calls 61BB

River: (227BB) 4 (2 Players - 1 is All-In)

how about

PokerStars No-Limit Hold'em, $0.02 BB (9 handed) - Poker-Stars Converter Tool from FlopTurnRiver.com

MP2 ($1.96)
MP3 ($2.13)
CO ($1.56)
Button ($1.10)
SB ($0.42)
BB ($4.24)
UTG ($1.18)
Hero (UTG+1) ($1.93)
MP1 ($1.44)

Preflop: Hero is UTG+1 with Q, Q
UTG calls $0.02, Hero raises to $0.08, 2 folds, MP3 calls $0.08, CO calls $0.08, 1 fold, SB calls $0.07, BB calls $0.06, UTG calls $0.06

Flop: ($0.48) 5, 3, K (6 players)
SB bets $0.04, 2 folds, Hero calls $0.04, MP3 raises to $0.24, 1 fold, SB raises to $0.34 (All-In), Hero folds, MP3 calls $0.10

Turn: ($1.20) 10 (2 players, 1 all-in)

River: ($1.20) 6 (2 players, 1 all-in)

Total pot: $1.20 | Rake: $0.05

my reason for just calling was to see how the betting shook out with this many people in the flopand out of position with so many of them .Once it was raised and reraised I reasoned that at least one of them had paired the King or had a better hand than me so folded as I was then left with 2 outs or runner runner for a flush which still might not be the best flush.

Originally Posted by 1Gamblin_Man

I found one will keep looking here tonight for more.

$0.05/$0.10 NL Hold'em Cash Game, 6 Players


SB: 176.50 BB
BB: 98.50 BB
UTG: 114.50 BB
MP: 182 BB
Hero (CO): 111 BB
BTN: 53.50 BB

Pre-Flop: A T dealt to Hero (CO)
UTG calls 1BB, MP folds, Hero raises to 4BB, BTN folds, SB calls 3.5BB, BB folds, UTG calls 3BB

Flop: (13BB) K 5 2 (3 Players)
SB checks, UTG checks, Hero bets 9BB, SB folds, UTG calls 9BB

Turn: (31BB) 3 (2 Players)
UTG checks, Hero bets 15BB, UTG raises to 37BB, Hero raises to 98BB and is All-In, UTG calls 61BB

River: (227BB) 4 (2 Players - 1 is All-In)

I don't think this is a WA/WB situation. I think those are characterized by the fact that there are very few if any outs available to either improve or make worse the actual situation.

Great discussion.

Regarding Rob's first question. Does this apply to cash? One should note that in the early stages of a SNG, the ICM effects are negligable and chip EV is equal (almost) to actual EV. It's just that typically SNG cash situations are not very deeply stacked.

The question about non-3bet pots is more interesting. His range would be much wider....so that would include more Ax type hands...but on the other hand there would be more Kx,Qx,Jx, suited connectors small pocket pairs etc type hands. Since I don't have Poker Stove, I would guess that you are in better shape in non-3 bet pots.

OOP......check/call.......for most opponents.......

Originally Posted by bigspenda73

So if a few people could find some flops where they feel they're wa/wb that would be a good starting point to some discussion.

Some hands from Jan '09 to date

hand 1) villain is 20-3 over 200+ hands and has 70% fold to flop c-bet. Likes broadway cards, esp suited. His range here is mostly made up of 22-JJ and Ax/Kx/Qx sooted.

Full Tilt No-Limit Hold'em, $1.00 BB (9 handed) - Full-Tilt Converter Tool from FlopTurnRiver.com

Hero (UTG) ($287)
UTG+1 ($100)
MP1 ($76)
MP2 ($289.65)
MP3 ($62.50)
CO ($92)
Button ($139.60)

Preflop: Hero is UTG with A, A
2 folds, MP3 calls $1, 2 folds, Hero raises to $4, 1 fold, MP3 calls $3

Flop: ($9) K, K, 4 (2 players)
hero??

hand 2) Villain is a 12-7 nit. Not very aggressive, but sticky in pots and a winning player at 100nl, losing at 200nl but still breakeven after rakeback. He's very tight in EP. Probably perceives me as a light CO/BU 3-better, but with a tight range here.

Full Tilt No-Limit Hold'em, $1.00 BB (9 handed) - Full-Tilt Converter Tool from FlopTurnRiver.com

UTG+1 ($91.35)
MP1 ($124.15)
MP2 ($20)
Hero (MP3) ($221.55)
CO ($107.30)
Button ($119.85)
BB ($18.40)
UTG ($20.50)

Preflop: Hero is MP3 with K, K
1 fold, MP1 raises to $3.50, 1 fold, Hero raises to $12, 4 folds, MP1 calls $8.50

Flop: ($25.50) J, 10, 2 (2 players)
MP1 checks, Hero bets $16, MP1 raises to $44, Hero ??


Hand 3: villain is very passive, with 4%pfr and 60% c-bet over a decent (nearly 1k hands) sample.
Full Tilt No-Limit Hold'em, $1.00 BB (9 handed) - Full-Tilt Converter Tool from FlopTurnRiver.com

SB ($238.25)
Hero (BB) ($106.40)
UTG ($196.30)
UTG+1 ($119.10)
MP2 ($101.40)
MP3 ($118.15)
CO ($121.50)
Button ($48)

Preflop: Hero is BB with K, K
UTG calls $1, 4 folds, Button calls $1, 1 fold, Hero raises to $4.50, UTG raises to $10, 1 fold, Hero calls $5.50

Flop: ($21.50) 5, J, 4 (2 players)
hero ??

Originally Posted by Robb

Here's my 1st attempt, spenda. I'll look for more later tonight. Villain is 60/25 over 50 hands w/ 42% Flop Agg%. He's donked the flop the one time he's had a chance.

$0.25/$0.5 No Limit Holdem
9 players
Converted at weaktight.com

Stacks:
UTG ($54.35)
UTG 1 ($59.70)
MP1 ($48.25)
MP2 ($49.25)
MP3 ($50.70)
CO ($41.35)
Hero (BTN) ($50.00)
SB ($24.50)
BB ($81.65)

Pre-flop: ($0.75, 9 players) Hero is BTN
5 folds, CO calls $0.50, Hero raises to $2.25, 2 folds, CO calls $1.75

Flop: ($5.25, 2 players)
CO bets $1.50, $1.50 to Hero ($47.75)?

Yea this is a good example of being WA/WB, The only hand that will has more than about 12% equity against us is AQ and everything else is going to have 2-3 outs. Also, if we are behind Kx or 8x we have about 10% equity. Change either 8 to a diamond and the scenario changes.

Now that we have identified a wa/wb situation, what's the best way to proceed?

It all comes down to us not being able to valuebet/raise

Originally Posted by bigspenda73

Yea this is a good example of being WA/WB, The only hand that will has more than about 12% equity against us is AQ and everything else is going to have 2-3 outs. Also, if we are behind Kx or 8x we have about 10% equity. Change either 8 to a diamond and the scenario changes.

Now that we have identified a wa/wb situation, what's the best way to proceed?

What I did was raise - I was under time pressure since the donk made NO FREAKIN' SENSE given his preflop range. He's obviously repping 8x or Kx, but both are pretty unlikely pieces of his preflop range. I raised hoping 8x would shove and bad Kx would fold. This has to be a bluff a lot of the time, or a small pp trying to take it down.

On the call side, idk. It's hard to know where I'm at. If he checks the turn, I check behind and call most river bets on most boards. If he barrels the turn, then what, call? I don't see calling 3 streets here. But calling the flop is better than raising him off his weak hands if his range is as bad as I think it is.

On the side of raising, I get checked to on the turn a lot, so I can check behind and see the river card more often and in a more comfortable position and for about the same money. But I sure would appreciate help.

WA/WB is often synonymous with pot control.

The basic characteristics of a WA/WB situation are these:
1) You don't know if you're ahead or behind
2) If you're behind you are unlikely to improve so you don't want to put more money in the pot
3) If you are ahead you are unlikely to get called by worse if you show aggression

It's interesting to consider betting for information here. Let's say we bet for information.

If we're WA we learn that we are WA because our opponent folds. The value of this information is in that it tells us that we had the best hand and we failed to extract any value from it. We learn that we were wrong to bet.

If we're WB we learn that we are WB because our opponent calls or raises. The value of this information is in that it tells us that we had the worst hand and we invested more money on the worst hand. We learn that we were wrong to bet.

WA/WB situations are classic examples of the problem with betting for information.

The more the hand is checked before we act, the more likely that our hand is the best as every check narrows our opponents range a little bit in the direction of weaker/missed hands.

Similarly, the more we check, the weaker our perceived range is. This means the more we check, the wider our opponents calling range becomes with worse. Likewise, the more we check the wider the opponents betting range becomes with worse.

As Stacks said so well, like basically every poker decision the most important thing here is a range consideration. What range did villain get here with, and what part of his range will he take which actions with. If we know this, we can calculate exactly how many bets it is optimal to make or call, and if it's optimal to make them or call them. As a rule of thumb though, the number will tend to be between one and two.

Stacks also talked about range balancing with checking AK/AQ occasionally. Another thought that occurs to me is range balancing by betting KK and checking A-rag. I haven't really thought this through yet though and it may be completely misapplying the range balancing concept.

Great idea for threads Robb, and a great one to start.

I AHA'd when I understood this elsewhere recently, though Gabes thread is killer too. Its all so simple really

Not the clearest example with the limp/rr but villain heard somewhere that l/rr'ing was cool and is noted doing it with JJ+,AK

$0.25/$0.5 No Limit Holdem
9 players
Converted at weaktight.com

Stacks:
UTG Wolfske ($80.70)
UTG+1 flupp ($48.90)
MP1 burle25 ($54.00)
MP2 Hero ($53.60)
MP3 WALLAS22 ($20.20)
CO roidameas ($47.75)
BTN redevils ($49.95)
SB krasste ($18.30)
BB Madmat ($43.70)

Pre-flop: ($0.75, 9 players) Hero is MP2
1 fold, flupp calls $0.50, 1 fold, Hero raises to $2.25, 5 folds, flupp raises to $7.50, Hero calls $5.25

Flop: ($15.75, 2 players)
flupp checks, Hero checks

Turn: ($15.75, 2 players)
flupp bets $1, Hero raises to $11, flupp raises to $41.40, Hero raises to $46.10

River: ($103.25, 2 players)

[Results Hidden]

Originally Posted by Erpel

Stacks also talked about range balancing with checking AK/AQ occasionally. Another thought that occurs to me is range balancing by betting KK and checking A-rag. I haven't really thought this through yet though and it may be completely misapplying the range balancing concept.

I would rather range balance by betting a hand like TT on an A95 rainbow than by betting KK. At least betting TT has the advantage of knocking out hands like KQ, KJ, QJ that have decent equity against us.

And I'm with everyone else... it's a great idea to bump this thread (although I've read it before). Reading all those comments by people wanting to bet for information or rep the A or not give a free card makes me want to cry. And for posters that say, "But if we check here a hand we're beating will sense weakness and try to steal from us on the turn," they really must be missing something.

Originally Posted by Robb

For Week 1, let's discuss this oft-quoted classic from Gabe:

KK with an Ace

Check the thread - it's really good. The original scenario is an SnG where Hero has position and 3bets KK. When the flop comes Axx, UTG villain checks. Gabe's OP has been quoted in at least a dozen threads I've seen in the past year-and-a-half, mostly by the generation of regs just before my own.

Questions to think about:

1. Does Gabe's concept apply to cash games? If so, when and how?
I play mostly Cash, not SNGs any longer, but I think the concept definately applies to cash games at the limits I play (10NL). The concept applies when you have no reads or history on villian, since you don't know what he is opening with. If you have information that he opens only with AA in UTG, you know you're dead... for now you really don't have an accurate range on villian but have to make some assumptions, most would agree that UTG players tend to be tight, but HOW tight, how much of his range are you ahead of? How much are you behind? Betting only makes a hand better than yours call... while valuable for informtion and it might in the long run save you from getting stacked, it doesn't increase your profits on this hand.

2. Does Gabe's concept apply to non-3bet pots?
I believe it does. I think that if you are on the button and raise behind a limper, or get called by the blind, you are in a similar situation. Without reads on what those players are calling an open raise with, you are in a similar situation of trying to determine how much of their range you are ahead/behind and whether you should try to take down a better hand (not likely) or check behind to keep the smaller hand involved. Also, a point I did miss is with stats that indicate villian is a calling station, would mean that it might be more correct to build a pot here, as they will likely come along with any hand with any equity.


3. How should Hero react oop?
Wait... I have to re-read this... Ok, I think I get your drift... OOP... you have to act first and they act behind you. Betting would look like you hit your ace, causing worse hands to fold... no value. Checking may give them free reign to open up on you with a bet, which leads you (without reads and history) to believe they hold an A... meaning you're shot. Here betting may be more correct, both for pot control when you are behind but can improve and to gather information. This may not make a lot of sense, but I do often bet this flop since the scare card if paired beats me. I am looking to take what is in the pot down right now, without a fight... the button's range, who has yet to act behind me, has a wide variety of Ax hands in his range... this is a question I struggle with. I'll go read the responses now and see if I can gleam some help from them...

Wow the original thread was an amazing thread to read through. Funny thing is it took me reading through 3/4 of the thread before my very dim lightbulb lite up. As I write this I'm thinking this may have been one of the best learning moments for me. I know I have posted very similiar hands in IRC and received very similiar feedback but for some reason it just did not sink in.
Thank you Robb for bringing it back to life and also thanks to Gabe and all who posted in this thread, even those who did not get it cuz they still helped me get it!

Robb I originally posted this before reading through your thread cuz I was just excited about my AhHa moment. I am going to read through your thread now and see what I can come up with. Dude you do a great job provoking thought and I really appreciate it!

Oh, I didn't address the original questions.

1. As borges said, the early stages of an SNG play very similar to cash. We're explicitly saying that betting here is -EV, and any time we're talking about EV we're most directly talking about cash games. More directly, we want every play we make to have the best expectation possible. Betting this flop has no value whatsoever except against the biggest calling stations, so most of the time checking behind here is just as correct in a cash game as it originally was in gabe's post. Moreover, we don't even have top pair... there's no reason to be building a big pot.

2. Things change a lot in a non-3bet pot. First of all, we're expected to c-bet at an A-high board after raising preflop, so it is possible that we will get floated by a hand we're beating like middle pair or a pocket pair. If we decide to bet the flop and then get called, we can always check behind the turn for pot control and to induce a bluff on the river. We don't have to bet though. Against a villain who has a 60%+ fold to cbet on the flop, checking behind could be correct to give him a chance to at least pick up a draw or a middle pair worse than ours, and to give us a chance to truly value bet on the turn.

3. OOP is a little different. I like check/calling 1 street against a straightforward opponent, 2 streets against a somewhat aggressive opponent, and all 3 streets against a maniac. Against the more aggressive types, I might even donk the turn if it puts some kind of draw on the board that I think they might have. If we check the flop and they check back, I like leading most turns and then check/calling the river.

Didnt read through the replies, but heres my thoughts:

1. It basically applies identically to cash games.

2. No. The concept is that theres little value c-betting KK on an A high flop, but in a std pot theres still value c-betting an A high flop as villains are less likely to fold smaller pairs than in a 3-bet pot. Not a bad tool to have though.

3. OOP sucks, your options are basically b/f or c/f. You dont have the option of trying to get to showdown cheaply. Very much read specific and much harder to have a general rule for.

I like these two responses to #2:

Originally Posted by DoanDiggy

2. Things change a lot in a non-3bet pot. First of all, we're expected to c-bet at an A-high board after raising preflop, so it is possible that we will get floated by a hand we're beating like middle pair or a pocket pair. If we decide to bet the flop and then get called, we can always check behind the turn for pot control and to induce a bluff on the river. We don't have to bet though. Against a villain who has a 60%+ fold to cbet on the flop, checking behind could be correct to give him a chance to at least pick up a draw or a middle pair worse than ours, and to give us a chance to truly value bet on the turn.

Originally Posted by bjsaust

2. No. The concept is that theres little value c-betting KK on an A high flop, but in a std pot theres still value c-betting an A high flop as villains are less likely to fold smaller pairs than in a 3-bet pot. Not a bad tool to have though.

The main place I think about Gabe's post is against a TAGGfish whose cc pretty much eliminates Ax from his range. Then I wonder if he's like fnord says: "monkey checked to, monkey bets." If I have read that villain will fire almost any two on the turn when checked behind on the flop, I think I get a ton more value. We keep the pot small when he hits and profit when bluffs at us. Aagainst the TAGGfish at 50nl FR, I've found it (like BJ says) a useful tool in limited read-specific situations. Against the right villain, I'll call two barrels.

I read Gabe's thread for the first time. Thanks for posting the link!!

Regarding your questions: I am sure wanted these answered indirectly through HHs and in depth discussion rather than direct answers but I thought I'd give my 2 cents anyways.

1. Does Gabe's concept apply to cash games? If so, when and how?
It applies more to cash games imo, where we are playing deep stack poker much more often. In tournies we are thinking more about the rising blinds and are pressured to build a big stack quickly. In cash games we want to make the highest +ev play possible. His post showed how we often should not bet even when we are pretty sure we have the best hand in order to induce a bluff and raise our expectation on later streets. Too many people waste their biggest hands by betting people off of slightly less big hands early on in the hand.

2. Does Gabe's concept apply to non-3bet pots?
I assume we are talking about being flatted by the blinds while raising in position... because we usually want to 3bet KK to isolate.. of course sometimes flatting with AA/KK is okay to mix things up and confuse our opponents.

In non-3bet pots ranges are wider so the chances of non Ax hand being ahead of us increases. But I feel the principle still works... except now middle pair hands might pay us off on a later street as well. The concept remains the same.. don't bet if only better hands call and worse hands fold, on a dry Axx board with a big pair.

3. How should Hero react oop?
Things are always more difficult oop. So we are in the blinds with the villain flatting. It all depends on his flatting range positionally adjusted. If he raised utg I am much more likely to be thinking "AK/AQ" than if he flatted from the button.. there he could have anything depending on our image and his laggyness. I think checking the flop is still the best play, but am more likely to float with a more late position villain.

Note: At micros floating oops seems to always be spew for me. I think Gabe's concept applies much better to thinking opponents.

Originally Posted by Robb

I like these two responses to #2:

Originally Posted by DoanDiggy

2. Things change a lot in a non-3bet pot. First of all, we're expected to c-bet at an A-high board after raising preflop, so it is possible that we will get floated by a hand we're beating like middle pair or a pocket pair. If we decide to bet the flop and then get called, we can always check behind the turn for pot control and to induce a bluff on the river. We don't have to bet though. Against a villain who has a 60%+ fold to cbet on the flop, checking behind could be correct to give him a chance to at least pick up a draw or a middle pair worse than ours, and to give us a chance to truly value bet on the turn.

Originally Posted by bjsaust

2. No. The concept is that theres little value c-betting KK on an A high flop, but in a std pot theres still value c-betting an A high flop as villains are less likely to fold smaller pairs than in a 3-bet pot. Not a bad tool to have though.

The main place I think about Gabe's post is against a TAGGfish whose cc pretty much eliminates Ax from his range. Then I wonder if he's like fnord says: "monkey checked to, monkey bets." If I have read that villain will fire almost any two on the turn when checked behind on the flop, I think I get a ton more value. We keep the pot small when he hits and profit when bluffs at us. Aagainst the TAGGfish at 50nl FR, I've found it (like BJ says) a useful tool in limited read-specific situations. Against the right villain, I'll call two barrels.

I will say I like these responses but I'm a little confused... in the OP weren't we discussing someone new at the table, with no reads on the player? So how can we feel confident villian with fold to c-bet percentage or know that he will fire the turn after a check behind?

Originally Posted by Monty3038

I will say I like these responses but I'm a little confused... in the OP weren't we discussing someone new at the table, with no reads on the player? So how can we feel confident villian with fold to c-bet percentage or know that he will fire the turn after a check behind?

Spenda made the point earlier in this thread: the point is a hand where we have KK and we're way ahead / way behind which is typically the case on an Axx flop. In cash, we be the preflop aggressor with KK and get flatted. Generally, we're way ahead, but it's dicey on an Axx flop. When we're almost sure we're way ahead and almost certain some agro-monkey will try to "take down the orphaned pot" if we check behind, we can often make more by letting them bluff at it on the turn. Same basic situation, but an "increased earnings" application.

Originally Posted by Robb

Originally Posted by Monty3038

I will say I like these responses but I'm a little confused... in the OP weren't we discussing someone new at the table, with no reads on the player? So how can we feel confident villian with fold to c-bet percentage or know that he will fire the turn after a check behind?

Spenda made the point earlier in this thread: the point is a hand where we have KK and we're way ahead / way behind which is typically the case on an Axx flop. In cash, we be the preflop aggressor with KK and get flatted. Generally, we're way ahead, but it's dicey on an Axx flop. When we're almost sure we're way ahead and almost certain some agro-monkey will try to "take down the orphaned pot" if we check behind, we can often make more by letting them bluff at it on the turn. Same basic situation, but an "increased earnings" application.

Ok, so here is my problem...

I'm the preflop aggressor OOP with KK, get flatted, now I'm OOP on the Axx flop... especially early or with no reads, and I check behind, I have no idea if he is an aggro monkey betting ATC repping the ace or has the ace... so I have no tool to determine if it is a bluff post flop or not... if I raise them, I'm only getting called by hands that beat me... meaning I'm spewing. If I call, it's dicey, so wouldn't that be spewy also?

If I fold, am I giving his bluff too much credit?

I'm only scared of three cards at this point, so that is potentially around 6% chance he held the A pre-flop... when we don't have a range on the player how much credit are we giving them? Or should we let this go without a read and then wait to develop that read before counting on our play against them?

I wish spenda would come back and discuss this, because I struggle a lot in WA/WB pots. But I try to determine BEFORE I play the flop what type of player I'm up against and what his typical reactions will be to different lines. I do know that if these two things are true, I can check behind and profit:

1. If I can be pretty sure I'm Way Ahead
2. If I can be pretty sure he'll bluff

Is spenda not contibuting anymore because of Grinderschool, or because of him and spoony?