JJ Not my best moments, but learning be had

SB is 22/6/0 over 32 hands
HJ is 23/19/0 over 26 hands

Pre: My raise was off by 10cents as I didn't notice the HJ caller.
Flop
SB's and HJ range is wide as there calling range is prob close to their VP range minus the premium hands.

TT-22,ATs-A2s,KJs-KTs,QTs+,J9s+,T9s,98s,87s,76s,AJo-ATo,KTo+,QTo+,JTo, though the HJ may not have AJ in at as he would raise with it.

Thus, on the flop my equity is : 43%, now before I bet I need to figure out my equity against there calling range, the good news is that there are no draws of any kind so this should let me narrow down there stuff.

Their range becomes 44,88,99-TT,AXs,98s,87s, based on this range my equity is 13%. Does this mean i c/f? Yes, but before I continue I am going to look into this a bit further. When I bet they will fold 66% of their preflop range, that the probability that they both fold is .66^2 or 43%. So if i treat the flop as there is no more action, thus assuming that I c/f turn. If I bet 51 cents, and they only with the range above I break even. (Not to mention that I get some value out of hitting trips on turn.

In reality I checked cause I am slow and I can't think through all of this on the spot. Turn brings a four, which is a good card for me as it creates a true rainbow and doesn't strength my villains range.

This four also hurts my equity against their calling range and thus my equity in this pot is 11.3% against their calling range. Same logic as on the flop applies that since they fold 43% of the time I can still profitable bet 51 cents (prob. a little more). In reality the SB bet and I call. BOO, at least i have position

SB's betting range is 44,88,99-TT,AXs,98s is the same as his calling range minus 87 as i don't see too many poeple betting that for value. Further, giving the action 44 is unlikely or 88 as many would raise, but I can't get rid of them entirely. To call this profitable I need at least 21% equity against his betting range, since the only thing he may bet that doesn't beat me Is TT, this is a clear fold. However, being noob poker player I call.

But I am not done with this torture yet. How much of his range will he dump to an all in? Considering he only has 2 bucks left and He would have 3:1 pot odds he would call with everything but TT, which I already beat. Thus all in is not an option.

Comments appreciated.

PokerStars No-Limit Hold'em, $0.10 BB (9 handed) - Poker-Stars Converter Tool from FlopTurnRiver.com

Button ($10.30)
SB ($4.15)
Hero (BB) ($14.65)
UTG ($3.05)
UTG+1 ($2.85)
MP1 ($1.85)
MP2 ($2)
MP3 ($8.65)
CO ($5.70)

Preflop: Hero is BB with J, J
4 folds, MP3 calls $0.10, 2 folds, SB calls $0.05, Hero bets $0.40, MP3 calls $0.30, SB calls $0.30

Flop: ($1.20) 4, A, 8 (3 players)
SB checks, Hero checks, MP3 checks

Turn: ($1.20) 4 (3 players)
SB bets $0.70, Hero calls $0.70, 1 fold

River: ($2.60) 9 (2 players)
SB bets $1, Hero calls $1

Total pot: $4.60 | Rake: $0.20

This isn't really that bad to be honest. Based on the villain's stats and stack size I'd say he's probably calling here with almost any Ax hand and small PP maybe the occasional suited connector. Being the PFR I might have been inclined to b/f the flop to protect my hand. As played I thinking calling on the turn is okay and the river bet is pretty small so he is kind of pricing you in. However, having logged an excessive amount of hands at the micro stakes I see this as a pretty obvious Ax line. Something like A4-AT. Shrug, I'd probably fold river. But then again I'd have had him define his hand earlier than that.

I know I cbet too much (90%) and the other 10% is most of the time OOP against more than 1 opp or when opp donked bet on a bad flop, so don't take my word for it.

I think I b/f this flop for about 80-90% pot trying to represent a strong A. If I am called or raised, which I expect to be by any A, no more of my money goes in (unless of course a set of J shows up).

In this case, there are no draws on the flop, so the chances of somebody chasing without an A are slim indeed.

This means that the bet is neither a value bet (no worse hands call) nor a bluff (no better hands fold). You're picking up dead money in the pot against weaker hands and you are also protecting your hand from being outdrawn by a K or Q hand.

Against Ax hands, a flop bet representing a strong A may get you to a cheap showdown and give you about 8% chance to improve, especially if you have position on the caller. It might also give you an opportunity to bluff the river if you feel weakness.

This

Originally Posted by daviddem

This means that the bet is neither a value bet (no worse hands call) nor a bluff (no better hands fold).

is why this

Originally Posted by Donachello

Being the PFR I might have been inclined to b/f the flop to protect my hand.

and this

Originally Posted by daviddem

I think I b/f this flop for about 80-90% pot trying to represent a strong A.

make no sense. Instead you should realize that your hand has decent strength against your opponents' ranges once a few checks happen. So we check, and after a few checks happen, on the turn or river we can start making decisions about value betting or making a call.

Our flop betting range should consist of some appropriate amount of value bets with strong hands (sets down through Ace-something) and [semi]-bluffs with hands that have much less showdown value, like KJ of diamonds or 76s. Then we check a lot of medium-strength hands since we will be able to play those profitably against our opponents' checking ranges.

What this comes down to is, like many things, putting your opponent on a range and thinking about how your opponents play their ranges, which neither of the replies so far have done.

Now I know you guys have probably skimmed over some poker eBook you found laying around on the Internet and think you have good reasons for betting here, but you don't. So get with the program here and figure out why that is.

Mmm I think I kind of get it. Betting the flop basically folds out everything we beat and gives money to hands that beat us. Since JJ has quite a bit of SD equity vs single pair hands it's better to get there as cheaply as possible when facing what is possibly a pair of aces.

Since we both check the flop and he bets the turn chances are he has a piece of the board say an Ax, 44,88, 54s,78s,89s, and maybe 77-TT. So then given that range is the correct play to fold the river? Since vs that range and facing two barrels we are losing 80% of the time, not even getting 3.7:1 on the money makes the call correct.

Is that thinking at all right?

Originally Posted by spoonitnow

This

Originally Posted by daviddem

This means that the bet is neither a value bet (no worse hands call) nor a bluff (no better hands fold).

is why this

Originally Posted by Donachello

Being the PFR I might have been inclined to b/f the flop to protect my hand.

and this

Originally Posted by daviddem

I think I b/f this flop for about 80-90% pot trying to represent a strong A.

make no sense. Instead you should realize that your hand has decent strength against your opponents' ranges once a few checks happen. So we check, and after a few checks happen, on the turn or river we can start making decisions about value betting or making a call.

Our flop betting range should consist of some appropriate amount of value bets with strong hands (sets down through Ace-something) and [semi]-bluffs with hands that have much less showdown value, like KJ of diamonds or 76s. Then we check a lot of medium-strength hands since we will be able to play those profitably against our opponents' checking ranges.

What this comes down to is, like many things, putting your opponent on a range and thinking about how your opponents play their ranges, which neither of the replies so far have done.

Now I know you guys have probably skimmed over some poker eBook you found laying around on the Internet and think you have good reasons for betting here, but you don't. So get with the program here and figure out why that is.

It's true I read a few books and I probably do not yet make sense of everything. I have a few more lined up such as Professional No Limit, Let there be range and Easy Game which I hope will help clarify these issues.

It very possibly is totally stupid to bet this flop. However, Spoon, let me ask you: does what OP said here also not make sense then?

Yes, but before I continue I am going to look into this a bit further. When I bet they will fold 66% of their preflop range, that the probability that they both fold is .66^2 or 43%. So if i treat the flop as there is no more action, thus assuming that I c/f turn. If I bet 51 cents, and they only with the range above I break even. (Not to mention that I get some value out of hitting trips on turn.

And is that not reason #3 for betting mentioned in Easy Game, (capitalization of dead money)? Later on in the "showdown theory" chapter, the author argues for example that one should be inclined to cbet TT on a A22 flop (A22 being taken as an example of dry flop) far more than KK on the same flop, first because TT had less showdown value than KK, but also because TT is much more likely to be outdrawn than KK. Finally, in "the great debate" chapter (vol II), he gives the arguments of both the "tend to bet" side and the "tend to check" side, one of the compelling ones in favor of betting being that aware players will know what part of our range we check and what part we bet, and we become exploitable unless we start to balance.

I'd be glad to hear your thoughts about the above, and how it applies (or not) to this hand.

Finally, if I understand correctly - and I am happy that you correct me if I am wrong -, is the idea here not to get to showdown as cheap as possible with our decent hand? Is it not arguable that against an aggressive player who will hammer weakness, the cheapest way to do that might be to bet the flop?

In the hand above, could we not possibly have gone to showdown cheaper had we bet the flop? I would argue that SB's turn betting range is possibly his entire preflop range, which would compel us to call or raise. He may very well simply be making a stab at the pot following the general display of weakness on the flop and the blank turn card. I would not at all be comfortable with raising. As for calling, which does not show much strength, he could well second barrel the river with all his range. And if we think that is the case, then we are again compelled to call or raise. Basically, are we supposed to mathematically decide whether to put money in on the flop or not without looking at how the hand might play out on the later streets?

Edit before I get yelled at: in the above paragraph, we are not "compelled" to call or raise on the turn and river, we are eager to call or raise, because we are ahead of the range of our opponent. In fact, we "manipulated" his range by checking and so doing possibly inducing a bluff on the turn and/or river. So rephrasing this, I would say that the difficulty lies into putting your opponent on a correct range on the turn, because you have to decide how often he is bluffing in this spot or not, and that is not easy. On the other hand, the information you get by betting the flop (not a reason to bet by itself) makes the job of putting your opponent on a goddamn range much easier for beginners...

Finally, if anyone has a reference to some book, post or article that further explains the concepts above, please pass on.

Originally Posted by Donachello

Mmm I think I kind of get it. Betting the flop basically folds out everything we beat and gives money to hands that beat us. Since JJ has quite a bit of SD equity vs single pair hands it's better to get there as cheaply as possible when facing what is possibly a pair of aces.

Donachello kind of gets it and daviddem is super pre-occupied with trying to be right. Why don't you both take a look at your opponents' ranges and what you stand to gain by betting the flop? The so-called "capitalization of dead money" is not sufficient to bet here.

Thanks for your reply. Always great to have a conversation with you.

Betting the flop does not get all worse hands to fold... almost all pairs will peel.
By checking you telegraph the strengh of your hand to your opponent.
IMO checking back here is waving a flag saying you are now ready to get barelled off whatever it is you're holding there.

I'd c-bet half pot. Fold to a raise, unless you have reads that he will c/r bluff Axx boards with air.

It's also betting for protection... and you can all beat me off... betting for protection is legit, yo.
If he want's to bluff you off he has to either c/r this flop which represents a really narrow range. Or he has to c/c, donk turn - which isn't in the playbook of most microstakes players. or c/c c/r turn... all that on a board where he can't really have any draws.
But if you check back he can just mash pot on two streets and he doesn't risk nearly as much.

I check back there against some regs, but against the same regs I will check back AK, sets and some backdoor draws, and raise the turn a bunch. But that's not a great idea against unnkowns.

Originally Posted by oskar

Betting the flop does not get all worse hands to fold... almost all pairs will peal.
By checking you telegraph the strengh of your hand to your opponent.
IMO checking back here is waving a flag saying you are now ready to get barelled off whatever it is you're holding there.

I'd c-bet half pot. Fold to a raise, unless you have reads that he will c/r bluff Axx boards with air.

It's also betting for protection... and you can all beat me off... betting for protection is legit, yo.
If he want's to bluff you off he has to either c/r this flop which represents a really narrow range. Or he has to c/c, donk turn - which isn't in the playbook of most microstakes players. or c/c c/r turn... all that on a board where he can't really have any draws.
But if you check back he can just mash pot on two streets and he doesn't risk nearly as much.

Checking does not telegraph the strength of your hand. You have a checking range that considers of hands of various strength. Your opponent will not immediately know you have a JJ-like hand by checking.

If you think your opponent will barrel often to a check then you should be checking a wider range of hands.

If you are behind your opponent's continuing range on the flop (which you are here) then your flop bet is worse than checking.

Betting for value dominates betting for protection whenever the bets are large relative to the pot.

I don't think OP is ever going to check back Ax or stronger, and I'd feel supremely confident barrelling ATC on turn and river if I'm the villain...
is all I'm saying. though I'm obviously betting bigger as a bluff... villains bet sizing seems fine with Ax

I can count on one hand the number of player notes I have that say they're checking back TP as the preflop raiser.

Some people give $10NL players too much credit. We can balance by either checking some strong hands and some air here as well at times vs thinker, check raising at times will have guys thinking you still have strong hands when you check as well. Neither of these guys are thinkers, so play them that way. Check and make money later in the hand,

Spoon, don't get me wrong, I am not pre-occupied with being right, I am pre-occupied with getting it right. I am perfectly willing to accept that I am wrong, but not until I perfectly understand why.

So, I will do this range exercise you propose, and in the process I am going to try to show (as mathematically as I can) why I am not comfortable with the check play.

We will make the following assumptions:
- I start with the preflop range of the OP, as I accept it is reasonable
- if we bet the flop, no better hand folds and no worse hand calls
- if we do not bet the flop, we will call (and not raise) bets by our opponent as dictated by pot odds and our equity against his estimated range. We will do so on both the turn and river.

Case 1: We check back the flop. We estimate that opp's betting range on the turn is 44,88,99-TT,AXs,98s,87s (as per OP) and we are right (I mean that the range is correct). This implies that we think opp never bluffs on the turn. As pointed out, this is 66% of his original range and against this range we have 11.3% equity. We assume opp always bets with this part of his range and is not stupid enough to bet so small as to give us calling odds. Against his no betting range (44% of original range), we have 83% equity. For simplicity, we will assume for this part of the range that at no point both opponents will put more money in the pot, so the pot size stays $1.20 until the end and 83% of the time we will win it and 17% of the time opp will win it. What is our total EV here:
EV = 0.66*0 + 0.44 * (0.83*$1.20 + 0.17*0) = $0.4382

Case 2: We check back the flop. We estimate that opp's betting range on the turn is his entire preflop calling range and we are right (the range is correct). This implies that we think that opp always bluffs his air on the turn. Against his entire range on the turn we have 71.6% equity. We will also assume that he continues to bluff on the river even if we call the turn, whatever the river card is, and let's be optimistic and assume he will bluff his entire stack, and he will also bet his entire stack when he does not bluff. We call all the way. No raising. Our EV here is:
EV = 0.716 * ($1.20 + $3.75) + 0.284 * (-$3.75) = $2.4792

Case 3: We bet half pot on the flop. He continues only with 88,44,ATs-A2s,AJo-ATo, which is about 32% of his starting range. So he folds 68% of the time and, worst case scenario, he raises the other 32% and we fold.
EV = 0.68 * $1.20 + 0.32 * (-$0.6) = $0.624

Case 4: We check back the flop. We estimate that opp's betting range on the turn is his entire preflop calling range but we are wrong. His turn betting range really is that of case 1. 44% of the time he will not bet and we will know we were wrong and correct the range to the actual one. 66% of the time, he will bet and we will think we have 71.6% equity against his range when we really have only 11.3% equity. So we will wrongly call all his bets to showdown.
EV = 0.44 * (0.83*$1.20 + 0.17*0)
+ 0.66 * (0.112*($1.20+$3.75) + 0.888*(-$3.75)) = -$1.3937

Case 5: We bet half pot on the flop. He folds 68% of the time (all hands we beat) and calls 32% of the time (all hands that beat us). The turn always goes check/check and he checks the river. By the river, we hit a set 8% of the time and extract an extra half pot bet half of the time and get nothing more the other half of the time. 46% of the time we bluff the river (half pot bet) and he folds. The remaining 46% of the time we bluff the river for half pot and he calls and let's say we always loose for simplicity and conservatism.
EV = 0.68*$1.2
+ 0.32 *(0.08*(0.5*($2.4+$1.2)
+0.5*$2.4)
+0.46*$2.4
+0.46*(-$1.2) = $1.0694


Now let's combine case 1, 2 and 4:
- If we always assign him the tight range, our EV is $0.4382.
- If we always assign him the wide range and we are wrong half of the time and right half of the time, our EV is
EV = 0.5*$2.4792 + 0.5*(-$1.3937) = $0.5427
- If 50% of the time, we assign him the tight range and the other 50% of the time, we assign him the wide range, and we are right 50% of the time, but wrong the other 50% of the time. What's our EV?
EV = 0.5*$0.4382 + 0.5*$0.5427 = $0.4904

So apparently, if in doubt, it is better to always assign him the wide range and call his bets all the way. In play, I would not f*cking know which range to put him on because I would generally not have good enough reads to estimate a correct range. I defy you to ask 10 people for a turn betting range in this spot and get less than 10 different answers.

For case 3 and 5 let's say that case 5 never happens. We are always raised by better hands on the flop and fold. Our EV is still more than that of any of the checked flop scenarios.

So in the end I can't help finding more EV in betting this flop. I just spent two hours doing this instead of playing and I honestly wish I could have proved myself wrong here to end this conundrum but I don't seem to be able to. I think I have made enough efforts to deserve a clue to put me on the right track. Where do I go wrong here?

Originally Posted by oskar

Betting the flop does not get all worse hands to fold... almost all pairs will peel.
By checking you telegraph the strengh of your hand to your opponent.
IMO checking back here is waving a flag saying you are now ready to get barelled off whatever it is you're holding there.

I'd c-bet half pot. Fold to a raise, unless you have reads that he will c/r bluff Axx boards with air.

It's also betting for protection... and you can all beat me off... betting for protection is legit, yo.
If he want's to bluff you off he has to either c/r this flop which represents a really narrow range. Or he has to c/c, donk turn - which isn't in the playbook of most microstakes players. or c/c c/r turn... all that on a board where he can't really have any draws.
But if you check back he can just mash pot on two streets and he doesn't risk nearly as much.

I check back there against some regs, but against the same regs I will check back AK, sets and some backdoor draws, and raise the turn a bunch. But that's not a great idea against unnkowns.

wow just wow

I'm a little pressed for time atm so I'll try to make this as simple as I can. A few notes from looking over your analysis:

* In case 1 Hero will have the chance to extract extra value on the river when it checks down.
* You can simplify how you think about case 2 by just saying Villain shoves the turn, etc., since it's the same thing.
* I think you might have forgot there were 2 Villains on the flop. If for example each of them folds 65% of the time, then they both fold about 42.3% of the time, and this lowers your EV of cases 3 and 5 a bit.
* You're a bit dependent on thinking that we have to call off bets just because we check the flop which lowers the EV of checking in case 4. Similarly, calling the turn in case 2 is only slightly +EV.
* Case 5 is a bit optimistic in thinking he's going to always give you some free card action.

For the most part your analysis wasn't too bad. But okay here's the big idea. In a vacuum, the EV of checking and the EV of betting will probably be somewhat close to each other depending on how fuzzy the variables are, but checking with JJ is still better because there are other hands you can bluff with on the flop that will have similar or more value against your opponents' calling ranges that doesn't have as much value against the checking ranges. It's related to that thing where you're like you want to bet and be aggressive with your best hands for value, bet some of your worst hands with equity as bluffs and semi-bluffs for balance, then check your medium-strength hands because betting them doesn't accomplish much of anything.