Select Page
Poker Forum
Over 1,292,000 Posts!
Poker ForumBeginners Circle

Profiting from our opponent's range: Checking behind turn

Results 1 to 14 of 14
  1. #1

    Default Profiting from our opponent's range: Checking behind turn

    This is an initial stab at level 2 thinking (edit: According to bjsaust, this is actually level 1 thinking. My bad.), a scenario where thinking about our opponent's entire range of holdings can affect how we play a TPGK hand. In this case, I try to show that checking behind on the turn can actually increase our profitability against someone who is not a calling station (calling 3 streets with a hand that doesn't beat 2nd pair top kicker).

    A lot of the time we get the idea that aggression means we need to "bet-bet-bet!" We need to c-bet a lot and we need to bet hard with a hand like TPGK or better. There have already been plenty of posts addressing c-betting, so I will attempt to address something I haven't seen much of: checking behind on the turn with a pretty good hand. I will show that even when we are beating our opponent's range on both the turn and the river, checking behind the turn and betting the river can actually be the most profitable line to take.

    The first thing to think about is, "What can my opponent be calling me with here?" For a lot of players at the lowest stakes, the answer is probably "any part of the board," especially on the flop. When we're betting every street, when we're playing against stronger opponents, or as we move up in stakes, however, our opponents will start to find the fold button a lot more often. So let's say a hand goes something like this:

    Hero (button) dealt: A J
    Preflop: Everyone folds, hero raises to 4x, BB calls

    Now what is the big blind calling with? What is this player's tendencies? For a lot of the low stakes players you'll run into, this is something like:
    22+,A2s+,K2s+,Q2s+,J2s+,T6s+,95s+,84s+,73s+,63s+,5 3s+,43s,A2o+,K8o+,Q9o+,J9o+,T9o
    That is any pair, any A, any suited K, Q, or J, a lot of suited connectors and gappers, and a few other hands. That is 46% of hands, but I have seen people call a button raise from the BB both wider and narrower than this, so I think it's a good starting point for our low stakes opponents.

    Flop (8.5x pot): A T 5
    BB checks, Hero bets 6x, BB calls

    What could BB be calling with here? Certainly any A. Also a lot of Ts and even 5s and other pocket pairs. Also probably 2 broadway cards that give them the gutshot, but other than that there are not many draws out there. Let's narrow their previous range down now that they have called our flop bet:
    22+,A2s+,KTs+,K5s,QTs+,Q5s,JTs,J5s,T6s+,95s,85s,75 s,65s,A2o+,KTo+,QTo+,JTo,T9o
    or 31.8% of hands (BB is calling the flop 31.8/46 = 69% of the time).

    Against this range, we are a whopping 75% favorite, so we're liking where we are for the moment. Now let's say the turn comes and it's a Q (K would have a similar result):

    Turn (20.5x pot): Q
    BB checks, Hero ???

    Let's see what that card did for the range above. The following is from Pokerstove (if you don't have it, get it!).

    Code:
    Board: As Th 5c Qd
    Hand 0: 	71.248%  	67.88% 	03.36% 	          7527 	      373.00   { AcJs }
    Hand 1: 	28.752%  	25.39% 	03.36% 	          2815 	      373.00   { 22+, A2s+, KTs+, K5s, QTs+, Q5s, JTs, J5s, T6s+, 95s, 85s, 75s, 65s, A2o+, KTo+, QTo+, JTo, T9o }
    That card actually improved the equity of villain's range somewhat. This is largely because of hands like QQ, Q5s, KJ, and QT. Does that mean that we should be scared of the Q? Absolutely not. Does that mean we should bet here? Not necessarily. If we bet here, a lot of the hands that called us on the flop that we were beating are going to be folding. Here's a new range for BB after they check, we bet, and they call. I have left in all hands that are a paired ace or better (of course this includes 2 pair and sets) and all pair+gutshot hands.

    Code:
    Board: As Th 5c Qd
    Hand 0: 	62.262%  	57.47% 	04.79% 	          4476 	      373.00   { AcJs }
    Hand 1: 	37.738%  	32.95% 	04.79% 	          2566 	      373.00   { TT+, 55, A2s+, KTs+, K5s, QTs+, Q5s, JTs, J5s, A2o+, KTo+, QTo+, JTo }
    The above range is 25.3% of hands, meaning villain is calling on the turn with 80% of the hands he called with on the flop.

    Now we aren't looking quite as good. We are still doing pretty good against the range of hands that is typically calling us, so a bet is still likely to be correct, but I will show later that this actually could be a good spot to check behind. Let's say we bet about 2/3 pot (we don't want to chase off the worse pairs and bad draws that we're beating) and they call with the above range.

    Hero bets 14x, BB calls.

    River (48.5x pot): 6
    BB checks, Hero ???

    What did that river do for villain's range?

    Code:
    Board: As Th 5c Qd 6s
    Hand 0: 	61.143%  	59.43% 	01.71% 	           104 	        3.00   { AcJs }
    Hand 1: 	38.857%  	37.14% 	01.71% 	            65 	        3.00   { TT+, 55, A2s+, KTs+, K5s, QTs+, Q5s, JTs, J5s, A2o+, KTo+, QTo+, JTo }
    It actually helped it? That's because on the turn we still had outs to beat the hands that were ahead of us (sets and 2 pairs), but now we're out of cards and can only win if we're ahead or if we can bluff out a better hand (very unlikely on this board with the hand we have). So let's say we bet here on the river. What could our opponent possibly call us with? Let's say our opponent is a bit of a calling station and will call with any hand JJ or better:

    Code:
    Board: As Th 5c Qd 6s
    Hand 0: 	54.362%  	52.35% 	02.01% 	            78 	        3.00   { AcJs }
    Hand 1: 	45.638%  	43.62% 	02.01% 	            65 	        3.00   { TT+, 55, A2s+, KJs+, QTs+, Q5s, A2o+, KJo+, QTo+ }
    We are still doing all right, so in this case, betting 3 streets is absolutely the way to go. But we've been showing a lot of aggression throughout the hand, so let's see what happens if we're only called by KK or better, as we might expect from a more reasonable opponent:

    Code:
    Board: As Th 5c Qd 6s
    Hand 0: 	45.600%  	43.20% 	02.40% 	            54 	        3.00   { AcJs }
    Hand 1: 	54.400%  	52.00% 	02.40% 	            65 	        3.00   { QQ+, TT, 55, A2s+, KJs, QTs, Q5s, A2o+, KJo, QTo }
    Now we're actually behind our opponent's calling range on the river, and our best move is to check behind and take down a pretty good-sized pot.


    Instead, let's rewind and say that we checked behind on the turn. So villain is bringing his entire turn range to the river:

    River (20.5x pot): 6
    BB checks, Hero ???
    Code:
    Board: As Th 5c Qd 6s
    Hand 0: 	69.388%  	68.16% 	01.22% 	           167 	        3.00   { AcJs }
    Hand 1: 	30.612%  	29.39% 	01.22% 	            72 	        3.00   { 22+, A2s+, KTs+, K5s, QTs+, Q5s, JTs, J5s, T6s+, 95s, 85s, 75s, 65s, A2o+, KTo+, QTo+, JTo, T9o }
    Now we are a big favorite against his range of holdings. Moreover, because we checked on the turn, our hand is looking kind of weak. We can bet a pretty big amount here and get called by a TON of worse hands. Let's assume our villain is somewhat competent and folds all hands worse than a pair of 6s. Considering the way we played the hand, it's not too unrealistic to believe that 77 would call here after they called on the flop with it.

    Code:
    Board: As Th 5c Qd 6s
    Hand 0: 	64.789%  	63.38% 	01.41% 	           135 	        3.00   { AcJs }
    Hand 1: 	35.211%  	33.80% 	01.41% 	            72 	        3.00   { 55+, A2s+, KTs+, QTs+, Q5s, JTs, T6s+, 65s, A2o+, KTo+, QTo+, JTo, T9o }
    This represents 27.5% of all hands, meaning villain is calling the river 86% of the time.

    So now, because of our check behind on the turn, we are way ahead of a river calling range. Moreover, because we showed weakness on the turn, we can put in a sizeable value bet on the river.

    So when we bet the turn, we bet about 2/3 pot (14x), get called by 80% of villain's range, and then check behind on the river with a hand that is ahead 61% of the time. If we instead check the turn and bet the river, we can bet something like 8/9 pot (18x into 20.5x) and get called by 86% of villain's range while being ahead 65% of the time. In other words, by checking the turn and betting the river, we stand to increase our winnings this hand by more than 3.2BBs on average! That is not an insignificant amount!

    So it turns out that against anyone who is not a total calling station, checking behind on the turn and then betting the river in this instance would be much more profitable than betting the turn and betting the river or betting the turn and checking behind on the river.

    One more benefit of checking behind with a hand like TPGK is that we show our opponents that a check doesn't necessarily mean we've given up on the hand. Quite often we c-bet a missed flop and then shutdown when called, even when we risk folding the best hand. By mixing up our play and checking behind at appropriate times with hands like TPGK, we make it a lot harder for our opponents to steal our pots or predict what we're holding.

    In summary this was just a long-winded way of showing you, with real cards and real numbers, that bet-bet-bet isn't always the right approach. But if you've seen your opponent call down 3 bets with 2nd pair or worse, or if the board is more drawish (this board was quite dry), the right play with a hand like TPGK is to fire away!


    Caveat: This post is not totally realistic because it assumes an opponent who never bets or raises, but I still think it's a good starting point. And actually, if we can assume that after our check behind on the turn, our opponent will lead less than 8/9 pot on the river with some hands that are beating us and will bluff with some hands that have no showdown value, the increased value of checking behind on the turn is actually better than what I show here.

    Another caveat: Note that a critical aspect of this post is that we are in position and we are willing to call a reasonable bet on most rivers. If we are out of position or if there are a lot of times that we won't like our hand on the river, we are likely to be better off betting on the turn with a hand like TPGK.


    Comments? Questions?
  2. #2
    I think some of your ranges are a little optimistic, but that's just nitpicking really. The general theory and approach is goot
    There's only one system. Bet. Lose. Borrow. Steal. Lose. Take the drugs. Lose. Prison. Death.
  3. #3
    bjsaust's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    6,347
    Location
    Ballarat, Australia
    I just found this, nice writeup. Just to nitpic for a second, this is 1st level thinking (what does our opponent have?), 2nd level thinking is "what does our opponent think we have?". Just playing your own hand is known as 0 level thinking because...well it takes no thought I guess.
    Just dipping my toes back in.
  4. #4
    Ahh, thanks for the clarification. I didn't realize that poker players count the same way that computer programmers do , starting with 0. We sure are a strange lot.

    Thanks for checking it out and commenting . I was hoping to generate a bit more of a discussion than what we've seen so far, so I'm glad you bumped it.
  5. #5
    I actually read this post (I typically never read these long thangs)

    The only thing I would be careful about is there is a lot of wishful thinking in order to prove the point you wanted to prove.
  6. #6
    will641's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    5,266
    Location
    getting my swell on
    i think your calling ranges are wayyyy too wide. i know players at micro are not good, but they're not all giant whales either.
    Cash Rules Everything Around Me.
  7. #7
    Quote Originally Posted by pdk1010
    so i have been thinking alot about intangible aspects of the game. This post brings to mind something i have been thinking about alot . so in the example i actually think the range is too narrow than wide, being that micro stakes players(especially in tournaments) are playing pretty much any two cards(i know a generalization but experience is what it is). that being said let me get to my point, what happens if we factor in our table image to the example? If we having continuously been cbetting flops, etc, how valuable does a check really become on the turn? Im still trying to put a numeric value to this question but more than anything im just mulling it over in my brain because it seems to me at micro levels players are quick to attack perceived weakness from an aggressive player.....anyway just wanted to get a discussion started about the advantages of exploiting table image in regards to bet sizing, checking and so on especially in regards to an example such as this.....so whadya think?
    This is mostly contradictory because having a table image implies there are people competent enough to notice it, which is usually not the case at the micros.

    Also, I think the ranges in the example are too wide, but he's using them for a generic purpose so it's mostly okay. I think in real time, it can be extremely costly to have this wide of a range for most players. You are not going to lose as much money being too narrow as you are being too wide.
    Ich grolle nicht...
  8. #8
    (imo) micro stakes players constantly have an image of who they are playing against although it is usually the same....."what a donk", "nice bet fish", etc is usually what i see and hear on a regular basis, my thought is that this "cookie cutter" image that alot of good poker players will potray to an untrained eye is something that can be exploited with value if it is entered into the equation as far as checking a turn that normally would solicit a value bet(from a solid player), which to the villain is (after a cbet) perceived as weakness. i think that situation is worth at least a conversation as to which is more valuable long term against players at micro levels......
  9. #9
    Quote Originally Posted by will641
    i think your calling ranges are wayyyy too wide. i know players at micro are not good, but they're not all giant whales either.
    Agreed, although nothing really surprises me anymore at these stakes. However, I like to give villains just a little bit of credit for not being a complete donkey... unless of course they show otherwise.
    Quote Originally Posted by Carroters
    The solution to getting 1 outered is a simple one. We just need to find the site that is the least rigged.
  10. #10
    Quote Originally Posted by Airles™
    Quote Originally Posted by will641
    i think your calling ranges are wayyyy too wide. i know players at micro are not good, but they're not all giant whales either.
    Agreed, although nothing really surprises me anymore at these stakes. However, I like to give villains just a little bit of credit for not being a complete donkey... unless of course they show otherwise.
    Are we to imagine everything you post is being said by Jack Nicholson? Because I do.
    Ich grolle nicht...
  11. #11
    Quote Originally Posted by Illfavor
    Are we to imagine everything you post is being said by Jack Nicholson? Because I do.
    The only one that can do what I do is me. Lot of people had to die for me to be me. You wanna be me?

    Quote Originally Posted by Carroters
    The solution to getting 1 outered is a simple one. We just need to find the site that is the least rigged.
  12. #12
    Lately at 10NL I've been seeing a lot of players (at least 1 or 2 per table in 6 max) who have a Call PFR well above 30. This is especially true in the big blind where they already have some chips in there. I am also seeing a lot of players lately who call the flop with any part of the board (even 2 overs?!) but then check/fold the turn if they have a weak hand and don't improve. So while I agree that my ranges aren't completely realistic for the average player, I don't think they are terrible either. And as someone else mentioned, I mostly just wanted to present a case that can show mathematically that checking the turn and betting the river can sometimes be the most theoretically profitable line. As Spenda said, though, this was a pretty specific scenario, but when you play a lot of hands scenarios like this do come up from time to time.

    Quote Originally Posted by pdk1010
    (imo) micro stakes players constantly have an image of who they are playing against although it is usually the same....."what a donk", "nice bet fish", etc is usually what i see and hear on a regular basis, my thought is that this "cookie cutter" image that alot of good poker players will potray to an untrained eye is something that can be exploited with value if it is entered into the equation as far as checking a turn that normally would solicit a value bet(from a solid player), which to the villain is (after a cbet) perceived as weakness. i think that situation is worth at least a conversation as to which is more valuable long term against players at micro levels......
    There is definitely some merit to this statement. Just today I had a great example where the standard line is to raise the flop and try to get the money in, but instead I opted to just call the flop since I figured to be absolutely crushing his range and didn't want to blow him out. Villain definitely must have thought I looked weak. FWIW, I had no particular reads on him before this hand... he didn't last very long at the table.

    PokerStars No-Limit Hold'em, $0.10 BB (5 handed) - Poker-Stars Converter Tool from FlopTurnRiver.com

    Button ($15.50)
    SB ($6.30)
    BB ($13.75)
    UTG ($11.25)
    Hero (MP) ($30.35)

    Preflop: Hero is MP with 10, A
    UTG calls $0.10, Hero raises to $0.50, 3 folds, UTG calls $0.40

    Flop: ($1.15) 9, A, 8 (2 players)
    UTG bets $0.40, Hero calls $0.40

    Turn: ($1.95) 5 (2 players)
    UTG bets $1.20, Hero raises to $3, UTG raises to $10, Hero raises to $17, UTG calls $0.35 (All-In)

    River: ($22.65) 6 (2 players, 1 all-in)

    Total pot: $22.65 | Rake: $1.10

    Results:
    UTG had 4, J (high card, Ace).
    Hero had 10, A (flush, Ace high).
    Outcome: Hero won $21.55
  13. #13
    Quote Originally Posted by Illfavor
    [

    Are we to imagine everything you post is being said by Jack Nicholson? Because I do.
    lol.I was just imagining J ~Jack waving his finger and speaking them posts.
  14. #14
    Let's say we pick up QQ on the CO. Folded to us, we open for 4x, BB calls. Flop is dry: K-6-3 rainbow. What's everyones thoughts on:

    1. C-betting to represent the king.
    2. Checking behind and hoping villian will pick up something on the turn.

    How about if the flop is the same but with a flush draw? I find myself pondering what the best move would be here because although we'd like to get some sort of value out of a weaker hand, we aren't sure if our opponent has a flush draw and we are basically giving him a free shot at a flush.

    I know this would for sure be very dependant on the opponent, but for the sake of generalization lets assume the opponent is fairly straightforward, not to tricky, not very loose but not nitty either.

    I usually bet the board with a flush draw and check the dry one. But I think I'm leaking chips doing this. It feels akward to me, probably because I lack any real meaning/direction for doing so other than to just win the pot.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •