What's the point in playing the nuts?

[Erpel]

At the risk of delving into the obvious this is something I try to think about now and again. When I end up holding the nuts or a very strong hand like a set on the flop I ask myself this: How can I play this hand in a way that (if called to a showdown) will maximise my fold equity when, in future hands, I see a flop like this and I'm not actually holding the nuts?

How can I make my opponents fear that I may have the nuts when I in the future end up betting or raising in a situation where I need fold equity to make my play profitable (semi-bluffing and c-betting comes to mind)?

It's often easy to look at a play you made and conclude that "he shouldn't have called", but you have to ask yourself also - have I given him reason to fear that I could hold a nut hand in this situation, or is this a line that I NEVER take on this board with a nut hand? Often enough you need very little fold equity for a play to be +EV, but very little fold equity is still a whole lot more than absolutely no fold equity - which we often end up giving ourselves by playing predictably.

You have to take every possible line with a nut hand some of the time.

This is particularly pertinent if you play long sessions and with the same players. With average unknowns that you don't expect to see again feel free to maximise your winnings for just the hand in front of you. But at least be aware of what you're doing.

Every time you end up holding the nuts you have been handed a wonderful opportunity to manipulate your image. If you slowplay and end up showing it down you will have enforced one image - if you play it fast and end up showing it down you will have enforced another. If you get very tricky with bet sizing, min-raising and check raising lines that you don't normally use - you're just making it easy for people to rule out a nut hand whenever you play straightforward poker. If you pick tricky lines with nut hands you HAVE to pick tricky lines with non-nut hands.

Next time you get dealt the nuts ask yourself this: What am I trying to accomplish playing the nuts?

[spoonitnow]

At the risk of delving into the obvious this is something I try to think about now and again. When I end up holding the nuts or a very strong hand like a set on the flop I ask myself this: How can I play this hand in a way that (if called to a showdown) will maximise my fold equity when, in future hands, I see a flop like this and I'm not actually holding the nuts?

I read this far and skimmed the rest. The easy answer is to play them both similarly enough that it's hard for your opponent to know what you have, and to play each with a frequency that is +EV.

You also say that when holding the nuts you have a big chance to manipulate your image. The thing is that you have that opportunity with most hands you choose to play, which is more along the lines of what you're talking about here.

You can figure out what bluffing frequencies are mathematically best in certain restricted situations and that can give you insight into how to play in less-restricted situations. It can also give you insight into how to make adjustments against people who call too much or not enough.

[Erpel]

I concur that this is applicable to all hands and that it leads into hand range analysis, range analysis, ABCD theorem, ISF theorem etc etc.

The reasons I chose to focus on 'nut' hands are three:
1) Your opponents are much more likely to remember lines you take with nut hands - especially if your line ends up costing them a big stack of chips. Thus you could argue that it has a bigger effect on your image than smaller hands you play. For instance, I take notes on people playing the nuts weakly and not extracting any value also.
2) I think describing the way the threat of you having a nut hand gives you fold equity will help people understand fold equity and in turn ABCD theorem.
3) It is very common for beginners to horribly misplay nut hands. By this I mean that they (we) slowplay and try to maximise value on THIS hand making it in turn incredibly easy to spot when they are bluffing (cbets count) - since you never play a nut hand fast - when you play a hand fast you cannot have a nut hand and I can call you down or bluff you off your mediocre holding.

[wellrounded08]

Just as a side note since this is directed at Beginners such as myself. I have learned here through simply reading and understanding micro-stakes game aspects, that playing the nuts fast, is essential and there are a couple of reasons.
1.)Micro-stakes opp.'s call down ALOT!
2.)Micro-stakes opp.'s Have the memory of a nat. There is no such thing as building an "image" to get c-bets with air to work "More often" They tend to work whatever your image as long as they are well placed.
3.)Opp.'s can be very weak-tight as well as passive with great hands, and not willing to dump money into you just because you appear weak.(so when you check check- bet big because you want to get your "value" they just fold to the massive river bet.)

Obviously this doesn't apply to all Micro-stakes opp.'s and I am mainly talking about like 2nl/5nl.(somebody correct me here if I'm wrong, I would hate to spread BS into a good thread.)

[Wndllll]

I've been guilty of the exact point that you are making Erpel. I posted a hand recently where I flopped a full house - then checked the flop and turn in the hope the villain would bet at me (he didn't and folded to my stupidly big bet on the end - see Wellrounded08's point 3 lol) . I knew I'd played the hand badly, I simply wanted to know how better to extract value from such a hand.

I'm trying to get my head around the concept you are talking about and that means next time I flop the nuts, I'll try and play it as I would play TPTK for example. I saw an interesting chart somewhere that suggested bet sizing on the flop depending on your hand and if you were to follow it it makes it much harder for your opponent to read you.

I guess one of the key things I'm finding hardest to apply since I began is to play my hand less and play my opponents more. As wellrounded says, at micros, there seems little point sometimes as the majority are only playing on the strength of their hand, but it would seem obvious that becomes less and less the case as you move through the stakes.

[Monty3038]

Shania. In one of those theorem posts around here a while back they discussed the Shania hand. The example was basically if you always raise AA,KK to 6xBB to start, and get shown down and people know you raise them to that level every time, you can then start occassionally throw in 23off at 6xBB in position and not expect to get called.

[Erpel]

This discussion exists on many levels. Here's one.

You may think (and some literature will agree) that there is a theoretical (but not a real) benefit to having a bet size that is appropriate to the strength of your hand. Namely, a bluff should be only big enough to induce the folds you want, but no bigger as you'll lose more money when behind - similarly a value bet should be as big as possible while inducing the calls you want without getting too many folds.

If you establish this pattern anyone will know if you bet small you're bluffing and if you bet big you're betting for value - they'll call your small bets and fold to your big bets.

While it is possible to go opposite what you have gotten other people to expect this is not a safe and reliable thing to do. It requires a lot of ability to read your opponent and it's hard to do online. You often end up leveling yourself rather than your opponent.

A recommended approach for beginners to simplify their decisions is to recommend that they always bet the same amount regardless if they're betting as a bluff or for value. As mentioned in PNL a 2/3 PSB is rarely the best bet size, but also rarely very wrong.

This creates the situation where every bet could just as easily be a continuation bet on a missed flop or a TPTK type of hand.

And this is where I begin. You raised preflop from CO and you were called by the button. Your flop is:
:Kc: :Td:

Your hand is:
1) :Kd: :Kh:
2) :Qh: :Jh:
3) :Jc: :Tc:
4) :Ad: :Qs:
5)
6) :Ac: :Kh:

How much and how often do you bet? 2/3 PSB every time?

A lot of beginners get the basics outlined above and will bet air (4 and 5) and hands with good equity (3 and 6) the same to disguise their hands. But when it comes to 1 and 2 above they will often freeze up, worry about getting paid off on their hands and do "something else".

It doesn't really matter what that "something else" is - what it is is a line they only take when their hand is "too good to waste on folds" and it means they take nut hands out of the betting lines (like just betting 2/3 PSB on the flop) that need the threat of a nut hand to give the air in that betting line fold equity.

Something else:
Overbetting or open shoving may get disbelieving calls so you get more value out of THIS hand - but you suck the value out of cbetting, which to be frank is something you need to be able to do profitably a lot more frequently.
Check-raising is good! The pot gets bigger and it's easier to get the stacks in on later streets. Is this only done with super strong hands and never with TPTK? Very readable.
Betting small like 1/3 pot to get him to raise me is interesting too! Even if he just calls me he'll now think I'm much weaker than I actually am and can get him to call my bet on later streets.

There's nothing really wrong with doing something else with your nut hands - as long as you play them straightforward SOME of the time AND, more importantly, that you sometimes check-raise air - that is, take the special and tricky line with non-nut hands. If you check-raise nut hands you are creating an expectation that a check-raise is a nut hand. You exploit that expectation by check-raising as a bluff. When he learns it can be a bluff you do it with TPTK so when he calls you with a medium pair (bluff catcher) he's still dead.

Those who have recently been playing with the ABCD theorem will see how this relates to the theorem. By having a certain amount of nut hands to an action we are creating fold equity that can be exploited by taking the same action with non-nut hands - this is the origin of the C range, and the amount of hands in the C range needs to be in some degree of balance with the amount of hands in the A range.

ABCD is also a simplified model of the actions you take: A is bet/raise aggressively for value (bet/call/raise/shove), B is hands with value that will pay for a showdown but hopefully not too much (check/call), C are hands with draw potential but too weak to call with - they become semi-bluffs (raise/fold) and D are hands with showdown potential but not so much of it that we want to pay for it - or hands with no potential. Here we check, and if bet into we fold. As someone pointed out in the original ABCD theorem post each of the letters not just designates a hand strength but a betting line / plan for the hand. And this betting line could be check/raise, check/min-raise, bet small/call, bet small/shove etc etc - many more than the ones listed for ABCD theorem. ABCD theorem is simplified and a good tool to BEGIN thinking about hand ranges.

The answer to my question could be that with each of the six hands I check sometimes, bet 1/3 PSB sometimes, bet 2/3 PSB sometimes bet PSB sometimes, check/call sometimes, check/raise sometimes - air will also check/fold sometimes. The actions don't have to be weighed identically for the different types of hands. For KK I may do PSB 1/2 the time and even spread of the others - for AK I may do 2/3 PSB 1/2 the time and even spread of the others. For QJ I may check/raise half the time etc. The weighing doesn't have to be even - you can tweak it towards maximum profitability - but each line you take does need does need to contain a small sample of each hand type. No, obviously don't check/fold the nuts and check/fold air a lot more frequently than check/calling (but do check/call sometimes).

This really gets into range balancing. When talking about the ABCD theorem and using it as a technique I think (and I could be wrong) that we are not talking about balanced ranges - the opposite of balances ranges is polar ranges and I believe (and can be wrong) that it means you act predictably based on hand strength as indicated by the ABCD theorem: Always bet big value and semi-bluff hands - always check/call medium strength hands - always check/fold weak hands. Polar ranges can be very profitable, and are probably more profitable then balanced ranges against very unobservant opponents. It is also much simpler to learn if you consider that ABCD gives you a correct action for your hand based on what range it is in.

This all begins to relate to Shania as well - many things in poker are connected - but the presentation of the example you post is actually sub optimal - you are creating value for 32o by betting it as if it was AA/KK, but you are firmly entrenching 6bb as = AA/KK and to do that you're removing AA/KK from almost all other betting lines, making all other betting lines less profitable because your opponent knows you don't have AA or KK since you didn't raise to 6bb preflop. And the first time you get caught showing down AA or KK after having bet only 4bb you'll have completely undone the effect of establishing 6bb as AA/KK in the first place. Range manipulation comes with a cost and it's easy to do it sub optimally.

[Wndllll]

Ok, if you don't mind I'll post 2 hands, 1 is from a week or so ago where I was trying the "something else" line (and playing it badly lol). The other is from yesterday where as soon as it flopped I sat and thought specifically about this discussion and FORCED myself to play it c-bet-style. Every instinct in my body was saying to slowplay but I didn't and afterwards felt a mixture of "shit, could have won a lot more from that hand" and "that reinforces my c-bets (although without a showdown, perhaps it doesn't)"

PokerStars No-Limit Hold'em, $0.05 BB (9 handed) Poker-Stars Converter Tool from FlopTurnRiver.com (Format: FlopTurnRiver)

MP2 ($4.94)
MP3 ($3.63)
CO ($5.80)
Button ($11.17)
SB ($4.43)
BB ($2)
UTG ($5.12)
Hero ($12.78)
MP1 ($3.69)

Preflop: Hero is UTG+1 with 7, 7.
1 fold, Hero raises to $0.2, 1 fold, MP2 calls $0.20, 5 folds.

Flop: ($0.47) 7, 6, 6 (2 players)
Hero checks, MP2 bets $0.15, Hero calls $0.15.

Turn: ($0.77) 2 (2 players)
Hero checks, MP2 checks.

River: ($0.77) T (2 players)
Hero bets $2, MP2 folds.

Final Pot: $0.77
Ok, so since then I read this thread and thought about it and this happened:


Hand 2
PokerStars No-Limit Hold'em, $0.05 BB (8 handed) Poker-Stars Converter Tool from FlopTurnRiver.com (Format: FlopTurnRiver)

MP1 ($6.85)
MP2 ($8.55)
Hero ($10.17)
Button ($6.80)
SB ($10.13)
BB ($5.90)
UTG ($8.90)
UTG+1 ($9.99)

Preflop: Hero is CO with A, A.
UTG calls $0.05, 3 folds, Hero raises to $0.25, Button calls $0.25, 2 folds, UTG folds.

Flop: ($0.62) A, Q, A (2 players)
Hero bets $0.3, Button folds. (Btw, I know the 1/2 PSB was a bit wimpy and should have been 3/4 but forgive me that.)

Final Pot: $0.62

So, what I'm trying to take out of this is that I should play such hands in the 2nd way, not the first correct? And just to see if I've got the thinking right:
a. I wouldn't have got much more money from this hand without villain holding Qx or bluffing anyway so building a pot was correct.
b. It maintains an image whereby my cbets could be either bluff/semi bluff OR teh nuts as well as the range inbetween.


P.S. I don't usually play as badly as hand 1, I was hoping he'd hit a flush I think...

[Erpel]

Yep, hand 1 pretty much sucks. You're obviously thinking that you can't bet because he'll fold. How would you have played an AQo hand here?

Also, check my comments to wellrounded in Slevin's thread here on paired boards:
http://www.flopturnriver.com/phpBB2/...nd-t74811.html

Hand 2: First good thing - you at least get the preflop call out of it in terms of value. When I play AA I tend to get folds preflop - that's the normal result. Everything on top of the blinds is gravy.

On a bluffy flop it's possibly appropriate to bet small. The basic point is that any queen will call you and give you at least SOME value - maybe KJ, KT or JT hands will also come along - but there isn't much your opponents can have that they will commit a full stack to. Of course you hope he has QQ, but it's pretty unlikely.

a. Yes
b. Yes - obviously moreso when you get to showdown having played fast. Don't show your hand just to tell him you had the goods.

When you are looking to extract value you think about what hand is most likely to give you the value - what hands will bet into you or raise and what hands will call your bets? How strong are they, and how big and how many bets will they call?

One way to play the mortal nuts is to decide before you act on the flop which pocket holding you want to represent. Take 77 as an example.
Bet bigger on the flop because 77 would not want KJ/KT/JT to get cheap draws and 77 might be best.
When called 77 is either behind a Q or ahead of KT/KJ/JT - 77 could try to check the turn hoping for a free card and if that card is not a K, J or T fire the river as a bluff. If we're bet into here he has a hand and we can give up the pretense of playing 77 and can just reraise big expecting at least some calls.
If checked through to river you will have signalled weakness and can make a straightforward value bet on the river which is more likely to be called than a big bet on the turn was due to the display of weakness. Here again you can ignore that a 77 would not bet K, J or T and bet them anyway hoping he'd hit them and think his hand improved. If he raises just put him all-in.

You are obviously happy to get your entire stack in the middle, but your opponent needs to cooperate and while getting him to cooperate you need to pick a line that provides some kind of fold equity to your non-nut hands that you could show up with. Slowplaying is actually an example of this - it protects your B range if he knows you can check a monster - but slowplaying is just so overused that it's worth recommending playing straightforward for a change in most cases.

While just betting all three streets is good because it gives fold equity to a number of your bluffing lines (which arguably need it the most) I also like with a nut hand to pick a weak hand that I would bet the flop with and decide to represent that, as sort of a balancing measure between slowplaying and fastplaying.

When deciding on what size bet to make consider these two (possibly conflicting) things: Don't bet 9bb if he'll call 12bb - bet 12bb. Consider if there's a drawing hand possible in your range that would need fold equity to be profitable, and consider what bet size represents a bet that needs fold equity.

[Wndllll]

Thanks Erpel, that's way more detail than I was expecting! I need to go away and read more about fold equity, I see it mentioned regularly but haven't read anything "definitive" yet.