10NL : Turn bet ?

[Evilpopcorn]

(VP$IP/PFR [Street Aggression] FoldToC-bet%
3-bet% FoldTo3-bet%)

BTN : 23/15 [4 9 inf] 50%
3% 25%
over 333 hands

Is my turn bet good ?

Poker Stars $0.05/$0.10 No Limit Hold'em - 5 players

BB: $4.85
UTG: $18.15
Hero (CO): $10.85
BTN: $12.85
SB: $10.95

Pre Flop: ($0.15) Hero is CO with 8 8
1 fold, Hero raises to $0.30, BTN calls $0.30, 2 folds

Flop: ($0.75) 9 3 T (2 players)
Hero bets $0.50, BTN calls $0.50

Turn: ($1.75) 4 (2 players)
Hero bets $1.10, BTN raises to $2.20, Hero folds

[Stacks]

c/f flop.

[Evilpopcorn]

really ? c/f ? Reasons ?

[Micro2Macro]

maybe this will help you think through the reasons:

why did you bet flop?

[LawDude]

I don't particularly mind the c-bet on the flop because Hero was the original raiser, but once we get called, really the BEST we can hope for is Villain is on a straight draw. Otherwise, he has us crushed.

So my answer is check/fold the TURN. You are betting into a player whose range is way ahead of us, and we don't really have any fold equity either.

[kmind]

No sir. C/f flop.

[mrhappy333]

Is this 6max?

[Stacks]

really ? c/f ? Reasons ?

Well.. We can't be betting this flop for value because when looking at his calling range, not many worse hands call. Sure we can bet and get value from QJ/78, and he will float with a worse hand some % of the time (AJ, AQ, KJ, KQ type hands}. However, against his calling range, we do not have the needed 50% equity to value bet.

And since a bet doesn't get called by worse hands often enough (>50% of the time), as I expect him to fold hands like 3x, 22, 44-88, and since we don't fold out many better hands, as he will likely peel a street with 9x, Tx, JJ+, draws, 99-TT, 33, then a bet is likely incorrect.

So say we decide to check here. Sure there is quite a few hands in his range that we are ahead of that he bets (KQ, QJ, 78, 3x, 22}, it's likely -EV to check/call here with 88. I mean we expect him to check back a fair amount of the hands we beat here, such as {44-77, AQ-AK [some % of time], etc), so if the flop checks through we aren't in terrible shape.

However, if he bets we are facing aggression OOP with a hand that rarely improves. So against the range he bets when we check, I would likely check/fold 88, and if I felt like check/calling bets here because of his betting frequency when checked to, I would do it with hands that have more equity against the range he bets {9x, etc as we then have 5 outs when behind instead of 2, among other reasons}.

So in essence, unless he's a calling station we aren't value betting the flop. Since we aren't getting calls from worse, and better isn't folding, I'm checking. So while we beat a decent portion of his range {worse pps, air, draws, etc}, the majority of the range we beat aren't calling a bet anyways. Because of all of this, I'm likely checking the flop.

Fwiw, if we don't expect him to bluff multiple streets we can likely check/call here, but we will be in a load of shitty turn/river spots.

[Stacks]

Also I would just like to note, that if we expect him to be betting often when checked to, we should likely move some of the moderately strong hands that we would bet this flop with {JT,QT, etc} into our check/calling range. This is so that our checking range isn't too transparent, and by doing so, we maximize the EV our checking range makes as a whole.

On the flip side, if we expect him to be calling with a wide range here (aka calling station) we should move some of the hands we would check/call here (89, 97, T7, etc) into our bet/folding range. As we can expect him to call with worse often.

[kmind]

Ban stacks!

[Evilpopcorn]

Great response XxStacksxX !

Say the guy had a very high fold to-cbet then could we check flop and if he checks back then we fire a good turn card ?

My understanding with cbets was that hu u should be cbetting alot. My hand 88 OOP is tough to get to showdown but def has showdown value. I thought that enough drawy hands still call me with the T9x board, and cos he was aggro i planned on firing a 2nd barrel on a good turn. Mostly cos if i checked felt he would blow me off all the time on turn with the drawing part of his range.

So i am taking from this thread that i cbet a little too much hu OOP. Would this hand have changed if we were IP and he checked it too us ?

[Stacks]

I advise you head to the FR forum and read Renton's "ABCD Theorem" article. I'm by no means an expert at all of this, so my advice on check/folding could just be plain bad. And I would be willing to hear arguments against it.

However, if we implement ABCD theorem in this instance, acknowledging that in this situation we have not just a hand, but a range of hands. Hands which we should break down into sub-ranges, which should depending on a number of factors regarding villains range, board texture, etc, determine how we are to play the hand.

According to Renton's theorem, 88 seems like it would be a nice fit into the bottom of Range B/Upper C. Which in this instance means we should check/evaluate, and our evaluation pivots on the number of better hands villains bets, and the number of worse hands he bets. If our equity against his betting range > pot odds, we should call. If not we should fold, or possibly consider check/raising as a bluff (but likely not with our exact holding [88 has little equity when called if we c/r]).

The above analysis fits in nicely with the previously provided question of M2M, and my subsequent analysis. Basically, every bet should have a purpose. And we group the reasons we bet into two situations.. Either we are betting for Value, which entails that worse hands call often enough (we must have >50% equity against his calling range to vbet). Or we bet as a bluff, which means better hands fold often enough.

Given this situation I don't think we meet either case for betting. So I choose not too.

Now when we check and are faced with a bet, we must consider his betting range, and how our hand fairs against that range. As I said, if our equity > pot odds we can call. If not, then folding > calling, and unless we expect a raise to fold out better hands often enough to be profitable, we fold.

[BlueBull]

I find this thread enlightening and confusing at the same time... (Im probably going to say stupid stuff below so take into consideration im ASKING not ADVISING and this is after all the beginners forum!)

What I dont understand is why we take the approach of just handing this pot to the button on a platter every time. I understand all the reasons for not betting but by not betting we also telling this guy he can abuse us at will.

When we check here we absolutely invite him to take the pot down with any 2 cards. And he is pretty much never going to decline that opportunity.

I like check check raise "bluffing" here a fair bit (maybe 30% of the time) and check folding the rest is fine. I think it has a reasonable chance of being successful but more importantly its gna keep this guy from abusing us. I prefer it to double barrelling simply because I think this viallin is going to expect us to barrel a lot.

Ok.... flame me now!

[Stacks]

What I dont understand is why we take the approach of just handing this pot to the button on a platter every time. I understand all the reasons for not betting but by not betting we also telling this guy he can abuse us at will.

This is where you problem is. You are assuming just because we are check/folding this hand, that we are going to be getting abused. This is not the case. We don't just have a single hand here. In fact we have an entire range of hands that we will have in this spot, much like the range we assign to the villain.

I realize that if we check/fold, we are essentially giving up the pot. However, "I" feel that it is the right play here with this particular hand. Therefore, I feel the right play is to place this hand in our check/folding subrange. Reasons I believe this is correct (until told otherwise by better players), is because I think we can all agree that we are not happy about being called on this flop with 88. The reason we are uncomfortable with getting called is because we don't have the needed equity to valuebet. And as I showed in previous posts here, there is no need to bet hoping he folds, as we beat the majority of the hands he would fold. So a check seems correct here.

Now you must consider the other factors as play here. If you legitimately feel that if we check here, villain will bet with 100% of his range, then our 88 hand against the range of hands he is betting will have enough equity to call given the pot odds he gives us. So then calling would be correct. However, without much reads I would assume that isn't the case, and make a fold here. Also keep in mind that if we check/call, and he's the type to barrel the turn and river it could be some very tricky poker on future streets.

Now note, what this check/folding of 88 does to our other subranges. Now our betting range on this flop has become stronger, as we aren't bet/folding hands like 88 as often. Our checking range has become wide, which means that while without making further adjustments our checking range is still really transparent. However, depending on the frequency with which he is betting when checked to, by checking hands that are as good as 88 (in relative terms to him betting a wide range), we make it harder, and less profitable, for him to bet a wide range when checked too. As we now have stronger hands (again in relative terms) in our checking range, and can begin calling him down (usually with reads).

[BlueBull]

Makes sense... my post probably actually didnt belong in this thread as my question is not hand specific. Im trying to work out how to counter a regular when we do have sufficient eveidence to believe he is simply abusing his direct position on us (this hand simply stod out as an example of where I think we are forced to fold the best hand quite a lot of the time). And actually some of what you said may still apply to my general question...

Thanks.

[bigspenda73]

learn to give up

[Luco]

To re-open the betting, would b/f be an option if we had a weaker hand than 88, i.e. getting better hands to fold? ducks or missed overs for example.

[LawDude]

1 problem I have with checking the flop is that it seems to me that you are opening yourself up big-time to bluffs on later streets. In other words, there's a 10 and 9 on the flop. Given Button called our raise, do we really believe that this flop hit his range? If we bet and it didn't, we probably take down the pot right then.

If we check, well, we're either going to be making loose calls or folding on the turn or on the river. We've given up what was probably our best chance to take down the pot.

So I still like the idea of firing one c-bet, seeing if we can't take down the pot with the best hand on the flop, and then stopping (unless we hit something big on the later streets).

It's fine to talk about getting worse hands to fold and better hands to call, but when you have a marginal hand, it actually isn't a bad result to get all the worse hands to fold, because you never are really going to know whether you are ahead or behind on later streets and that is going to make you extremely vulnerable to bluffing. The desire not to have worse hands fold is much more important when you have a pretty strong hand than when you have a marginal one. If you c-bet this flop and villain folds, that's a victory.

[kmind]

lawdude - we are talking about c/f flop not c/c and then c/f. That'd be like my last line. It's player dependent for sure but we need a c/f range on the flop and this hand is like at the top of that range.

[LawDude]

lawdude - we are talking about c/f flop not c/c and then c/f. That'd be like my last line. It's player dependent for sure but we need a c/f range on the flop and this hand is like at the top of that range.

And what I am saying is because a c-bet will take down many pots on the flop, b/f the flop and c/f the turn and river (unless we improve) is fine.

I only b/f here against fish

[kmind]

Ok, lawdude. I won't disagree with you anymore as Stacks wrote some nice posts and specifically mentioned the ABCD theorem by Renton when in actuality my main reasons were from articles/discussions with ISF (and a nice discussion with nutsinho) awhile back about PPs. For some odd reason their advice on similar situations seemed to help my winrate but if you are set on that, by all means use that line.

[LawDude]

Ok, lawdude. I won't disagree with you anymore as Stacks wrote some nice posts and specifically mentioned the ABCD theorem by Renton when in actuality my main reasons were from articles/discussions with ISF (and a nice discussion with nutsinho) awhile back about PPs. For some odd reason their advice on similar situations seemed to help my winrate but if you are set on that, by all means use that line.

I'm not set on anything. I may very well be wrong. I quite often am.

But my basic thinking-- which may well be less advanced-- is that one of the purposes of c-betting that we don't think about very often is not simply as a sort of a bluff and also to create some value when we hit the flop (so that people may think we are just c-betting and call us), but also because it's basically the best way to ensure you collect when you have something less than top pair and the other players missed the flop. Absent a c-bet, you are going to be in deep water when players start betting on the later streets.

But I am quite open to the idea that I may be dead wrong about this and that this strategy constitutes throwing money down a rathole. I've been wrong many times before.

[sil693]

Absent a c-bet, you are going to be in deep water when players start betting on the later streets

why is this? we can just c/f.

[ ] deep water

[LawDude]

Absent a c-bet, you are going to be in deep water when players start betting on the later streets

why is this? we can just c/f.

[ ] deep water

Most of the time, Villain has missed the flop and doesn't have an overpair. So if you are just going to go ahead and give up on this hand from the flop forward, it means that you aren't getting much value from your pre-flop raise.

Again, part of the raise and c-bet strategy, heads-up, is to ensure that you actually win pots where the other guy missed the flop. If you don't c-bet the flop and shut down on later streets, you are deciding that you would rather lose pots even where the other guy missed.

As I said, if there is some deep strategic reason why this line is right, fine, but it seems to me like you are giving up on the whole reason why you would raise a mid-sized pocket pair pre-flop in the first place. When you have a hand like 8's, you know there are likely to be overcards. You want to be heads up so that the other guy may not hit the overcards and you can bet and take down the pot.

Most of the time, Villain has missed the flop and doesn't have an overpair. So if you are just going to go ahead and give up on this hand from the flop forward, it means that you aren't getting much value from your pre-flop raise.

We don't know that villain missed this flop. We do know WE missed this flop. You also forget that some value of our preflop raise is when everyone folds. We basically don't need to c-bet every time to show a profit on our raise preflop. We also flop a set 1/8 of the time. It's easy to see that if we c/f flops that seem like they hit our opponent's range we can still make a nice profit.

Again, part of the raise and c-bet strategy, heads-up, is to ensure that you actually win pots where the other guy missed the flop. If you don't c-bet the flop and shut down on later streets, you are deciding that you would rather lose pots even where the other guy missed.

As I said, if there is some deep strategic reason why this line is right, fine, but it seems to me like you are giving up on the whole reason why you would raise a mid-sized pocket pair pre-flop in the first place. When you have a hand like 8's, you know there are likely to be overcards. You want to be heads up so that the other guy may not hit the overcards and you can bet and take down the pot.

Dude I have like 49% W$WSF
I don't see the need to shoot for 100%

[Stacks]

First off, the board isn't bad for his range at all. Alot of his preflop calling range has some piece of the board, whether it's TP, 9x, gutshot, gutshot + overs, overs, straight draws, sets, two pair, etc. {AT, KT, QT, JT, T9, T8, T7, 98, 97s, QJ, 67, 87, AQ, AJ, KQ}. Alot of those hands have some piece of the board and aren't all that likely to fold to a single barrel. We expect him to call his made hands believing he is ahead the majority of the time, and we also expect to get floated with overs, and gutshots a good % of the time. So against his range, while we might very well have the best hand on the flop. rarely is he going to be calling with a hand that has little to no equity against us (44-77).

I would just like to note, that we aren't just giving up. IF we check/fold the flop we are making a play based off of the action, board texture, villain, etc that we believe is the correct play. This situation could very well be like 3betting QQ preflop OOP, getting called and having a flop of AKx.

[LawDude]

We don't know that villain missed this flop. We do know WE missed this flop. You also forget that some value of our preflop raise is when everyone folds. We basically don't need to c-bet every time to show a profit on our raise preflop. We also flop a set 1/8 of the time. It's easy to see that if we c/f flops that seem like they hit our opponent's range we can still make a nice profit.

If your plan is to make your money based on setmining alone, you should never raise 88 pre-flop. Because getting yourself heads up is terrible for setmining-- you are cutting your implied odds. So you can't really justify shutting down with your 8's on the ground of setmining. If we were setmining, we shouldn't have raised pre-flop.

The reason to raise 88 pre-flop is to reduce the number of callers because you are trying to make most of your money either through everyone folding pre-flop (as you note) or through a post-flop c-bet.

And most of the time, when you see the flop, there are going to be overcards. That's the reality with 88. Almost half the deck beats you. So you can't be afraid simply because overcards hit-- UNLESS those overcards are going to hit villain's range.

And of the possible overcards, 9's and 10's are actually the LEAST likely to hit villain's range if the villain called a pre-flop raise. Would you rather see a flop with T9 or a flop with AK when you have 8's and got one caller to your pre-flop raise?

If you are this afraid of overcards with your 8's, then your pre-flop raise is going to be -EV unless you have a boatload of pre-flop fold equity.

But in most games, you basically have two choices with middle pocket pairs-- play them very aggressively to get them heads up with less fear of overcards, or setmine in multi-way pots and get out if anything bad comes on the flop.

[Stacks]

This isn't a matter of being afraid. This isn't a matter of just giving him the pot everytime. It's a matter of whether a bet is correct or not, and I don't think it is. You seem to keep addressing how we should be more fearless of the overcards, and bet anyways.. Yet you have not mentioned what a bet would accomplish besides winning the pot when we are already ahead.

It doesn't matter if we are currently ahead of his range on this flop. When we bet, we manipulate his range. We are no longer dealing with his preflop calling range. We are now dealing with his flop cbet calling range, which we are likely not doing well enough against to bet (depending on his calling range obv).

So since we don't have enough equity to cbet for value, and better hands don't fold often enough, it seems like a clear check. Don't think of it as giving the pot to him just because we check. If villain is betting his entire range when we check here, then we likely have enough equity to call his bet. It's true that will put us into a shitload of gay turn/river spots, but it would likely be a +EV flop call.

However, that's likely not the case, and he will probably check back the majority of his marginal made hands with SD (44-77, 9x, weak Tx) with the intention of either getting to showdown or inducing bluffs on later streets. And he will likely bet his made hands and air. Once again, if against his betting range our equity > pot odds, a call would be correct.

[Stacks]

Also, you do realize that if we had 88 on an AK3r board, the likelihood of us folding out better hands increase, as we would expect most villains to toss 99-QQ. Also the number of gutshots, straight draws, overcards he could have would be reduced dramatically.

[bigspenda73]

BUT WHAT IF HE BLUFFS US OFF OUR HAND BECAUSE WE CHECKED?!?!?!@??@$?@!$?!?!

[LawDude]

This isn't a matter of being afraid. This isn't a matter of just giving him the pot everytime. It's a matter of whether a bet is correct or not, and I don't think it is. You seem to keep addressing how we should be more fearless of the overcards, and bet anyways.. Yet you have not mentioned what a bet would accomplish besides winning the pot when we are already ahead.

I actually addressed this above. I think you are way too attached to the pristine logic of the statement that you bet to make better hands fold.

When you have a hand that isn't really very good, getting worse hands to fold is actually a perfectly good result, because you aren't actually going to be able to extract value on later streets-- rather you are increasing the likelihood of being bluffed off your hand.

Part of the point of a c-bet is precisely to get worse hands to fold so that we don't have to worry about figuring out whether our marginal hand (ace-king, middle pair, whatever) is ahead on later streets.

So if you decide that you aren't going to c-bet because you see the 2 overcards which are LEAST likely to help the villain, then I think you are playing a bit too scared of overcards, you can't do that when you have 88 heads up. Most of the time, even with 2 overcards on the flop, villain will have missed.

I didn't say our plan was to make money on set mining
our plan was to make money by getting everyone to fold pre or by flopping good (flopping a good flop to bluff is also flopping good obv)

JJ3 is a good flop for our hand
T9x or JTx are bad flops for our hand
Axx is a good flop for our range and we'll bet/fold it every time
K94 is also a good flop to b/f

I think when villain calls preflop in position he has a hand like:
76, 87, 98, T9, JT, QJ, AJ, AT, KQ, KJ, 22-TT
if he had AK/AQ/JJ+ he's more likely to 3b

so T9x is the SECOND WORST flop we can hope for because he either has two pair, oesd, two overcards + gutshot or just two overcards, the only flop that's worse is JTx
WORSE, he might just call with KJ on the flop and fire at it on the turn and there's nothing we can do about it

I don't agree that if we c/f flops with two overcards it will make our raise preflop EV-
first of all: we're going to flop an overpair some % of the time and people with overcards will peel one street
second of all: when there's one overcard we're a lot more safe than when there's two
lastly: we don't get called on a K94r flop as often because there are no draws so it's EV+ to b/f

the more drawy the flop, the worse off we are
it's not the "overcard" consideration that's important here, but how often we get called
we probably get called more than half of the time on this flop because the only cards that fold are 22-88 and 67

[LawDude]

Also, you do realize that if we had 88 on an AK3r board, the likelihood of us folding out better hands increase, as we would expect most villains to toss 99-QQ. Also the number of gutshots, straight draws, overcards he could have would be reduced dramatically.

That's true enough, but you are ignoring that high pocket pairs are significantly more rare than overcards. And lots of players will call a pre-flop raise heads up with a strong or moderate ace, a suited ace, or 2 high cards. So you are getting a few rare hands to fold while betting into much more common hands that the villain is likely to have.

Thus AK4 is an awful flop heads up with 8's. T93, not so much.

uhh, wrong
AK4 is a great flop for our hand
T93 is a terrible flop for our hand

What does he do with T9, 98, JT, QJ, QT on T93? he obviously doesn't fold
which hands does he fold on T93 that he doesn't fold on AK4?
maybe Axs, that's about it
but the vast majority of his "two broadway cards" hit the T93 flop hard, in fact harder than AK4 because he might fold gutshots on AK4

tl;dr version: T93 bad, AK4 good

[LawDude]

uhh, wrong
AK4 is a great flop for our hand
T93 is a terrible flop for our hand

What does he do with T9, 98, JT, QJ, QT on T93? he obviously doesn't fold
which hands does he fold on T93 that he doesn't fold on AK4?
maybe Axs, that's about it
but the vast majority of his "two broadway cards" hit the T93 flop hard, in fact harder than AK4 because he might fold gutshots on AK4

tl;dr version: T93 bad, AK4 good

I think the real problem is that I think that Ax is a far bigger part of his range than you do.

Maybe I am wrong about this, but I don't really think you have nearly as many players calling pre-flop raises heads up with mid-range connecting cards. I think they are calling with an ace (other than AK) or with KQ or KJ or QJ, as well as with pocket pairs other than AA and KK (including some that we beat). Put simply, I assume that people call raises heads-up with the types of hands that play well heads up (big cards and pocket pairs) rather than the types of hands that play better in multi-way pots (moderate connectors).

You really think that people generally play 98o heads-up against a raise?

[sil693]

whats all this heads up stuff about?
villain calls from the BTN - so it not like he's calling 100% of the time to play a heads up pot is it.
if either of the blinds are loose it makes it more likely his range is stuff like 89 etc imo.

also, back to the cbetting issue:

Again, part of the raise and c-bet strategy, heads-up, is to ensure that you actually win pots where the other guy missed the flop.

well villain will miss the flop more than he hits the flop. so are you cbetting 100% to make sure we win when he misses??

[LawDude]

whats all this heads up stuff about?
villain calls from the BTN - so it not like he's calling 100% of the time to play a heads up pot is it.
if either of the blinds are loose it makes it more likely his range is stuff like 89 etc imo.

also, back to the cbetting issue:

Again, part of the raise and c-bet strategy, heads-up, is to ensure that you actually win pots where the other guy missed the flop.

well villain will miss the flop more than he hits the flop. so are you cbetting 100% to make sure we win when he misses??

1. If your read is that villain will make a loose call of a raise on the button in the hopes that the blinds will be brought along, I agree that this changes the analysis a lot.

2. We don't have to c-bet 100 percent of the time. We c-bet when there is a significant probability that the flop missed villain's range. And we c-bet because unless you hit a set or a big draw or have very low cards on the board, you really don't want to play too deep into a hand with 88. You want to take the pot down, even if all you are doing is getting worse hands to fold.

[Stacks]

We c-bet when there is a significant probability that the flop missed villain's range.

How are you not seeing that T93 isn't bad for his range. He more than likely has at least an overcard. Most broadways either have a straight draw, or overcards + gutshot. A fair amount of hands have made either TP or 2nd pair, and we can't expect him to fold them to one barrel. So really by c-betting here, the majority of hands that he folds are not only hands we beat, but hands we crush (44-77), because as I said he is likely to peel at least one street with overcards, gutshots, straight draws, 2nd pair, TP, etc.

You have to see how this is terrible. Not to mention when we are called, we have very little equity to improve as we have 2 outs when behind. And we would much rather cbet a hand like 97s or something if we were going to cbet such a weak hand, as then we have 5 outs to improve + the chance of a bdfd/bdsd.

And we c-bet because unless you hit a set or a big draw or have very low cards on the board, you really don't want to play too deep into a hand with 88.

I agree we don't want to play deep into this hand, as when we are behind we have very little equity. So why are you, after not getting any of the favorable situations you mention in the above quote, and realizing that this board is decent for villains range, wanting to put money into the pot on the flop? Don't play deep into the hand here = c/f the flop.

uhh, wrong
AK4 is a great flop for our hand
T93 is a terrible flop for our hand

What does he do with T9, 98, JT, QJ, QT on T93? he obviously doesn't fold
which hands does he fold on T93 that he doesn't fold on AK4?
maybe Axs, that's about it
but the vast majority of his "two broadway cards" hit the T93 flop hard, in fact harder than AK4 because he might fold gutshots on AK4

tl;dr version: T93 bad, AK4 good

I think the real problem is that I think that Ax is a far bigger part of his range than you do.

Maybe I am wrong about this, but I don't really think you have nearly as many players calling pre-flop raises heads up with mid-range connecting cards. I think they are calling with an ace (other than AK) or with KQ or KJ or QJ, as well as with pocket pairs other than AA and KK (including some that we beat). Put simply, I assume that people call raises heads-up with the types of hands that play well heads up (big cards and pocket pairs) rather than the types of hands that play better in multi-way pots (moderate connectors).

You really think that people generally play 98o heads-up against a raise?

I didn't say offsuit, 98s and 87s
but he's never going to call with A5o unless he's a huge fish
so really we're talking about like 40 hand combos (A2s-AJs) that he calls with
and maybe 20 small suited connectors and gappers (add hands like T8s and crap)

but if he calls with both offsuit and suited broadways like JT, QJ, QT that's 48 hands he's c/f on a AK4 flop (he only has 4 outs in his mind) that he's definitely calling on a T93 flop

so AK4 hits 40 hands harder
T93 hits 64 hands harder (he c/f 76s, but calls with the rest of his suited connectors)

[Renton]

on paper, this flop is a c/f, but i don't especially mind a bet vs some 10nl donk.

He might call with any pair, any draw, most ace highs, and kq. Betting also shuts down his ability to bluff you out other than raising the flop which players at this level aren't likely to do as a bluff.

[Renton]

the main reason we give up in spots like this is

a) because we are afraid we'll face cbet face exploitation by bluff raising and floating (NOT AN ISSUE AT 10NL)

b) we expect people to check down worse pairs and ace highs mostly (PPL AT 10NL JUST SEE U CHECK AND ARE LIKE "LOL BET" NO MATTER WHAT THEY HAVE)

so yeah, definitely bet here, you can c/f like A7 if you want.

the main reason we give up in spots like this is

a) because we are afraid we'll face cbet face exploitation by bluff raising and floating (NOT AN ISSUE AT 10NL)

b) we expect people to check down worse pairs and ace highs mostly (PPL AT 10NL JUST SEE U CHECK AND ARE LIKE "LOL BET" NO MATTER WHAT THEY HAVE)

so yeah, definitely bet here, you can c/f like A7 if you want.

yeah I did say I bet vs. a fish, but someone that's an NL10 reg with a 50% fold to cbet probably does some floating on the flop
I mean even NL100 regs sometimes have 60% fold to cbet so his number is a bit on the low side

[Evilpopcorn]

What are ranges for the fold to cbet ? Obviously this is dependant on the playing style.

What is the expected fold to Cbet for say a 17/15, or say a 25/22 ?

Just curious at what numbers we start abusing them with our lines focused on the folding too little or folding too much.

What are ranges for the fold to cbet ? Obviously this is dependant on the playing style.

What is the expected fold to Cbet for say a 17/15, or say a 25/22 ?

Just curious at what numbers we start abusing them with our lines focused on the folding too little or folding too much.

what matters is fold to cbet and their cold-calling range not vpip and pfr

[Evilpopcorn]

Hmmm being thinking for a while now i should add cold calling onto my HUD.

Are villian limp/call and cold ranges normally pretty much the same ?

Lots of boardway cards, soooooted aces and small/medium pairs. This would be a general cold calling range i would assign to an unknown. Now at what cold calling percentage can we drop the worse broadways, maybe the smaller pairs etc ?

I would assume that all villian have their own cold calling "style" also so player notes are important too.

Just some of the thoughts rambling around in my head

EDIT : Sorry for kinda hijacking my own thread a bit now

[bigspenda73]

Alright, my thoughts in a huge mindfuck of a thread,

I think you'll find a 2/3psb slightly +EV against the right opponents on these board textures, renton described a few. There are ppl who are going to bet every time we check, which most would then deduce it's great to c/c, but it's not really b/c we have to play some OOP guess-game with a lot of shitty turn cards.

We've taken the initiative PF so I don't mind c-betting here but I think the turn will be a safe c/f, expecting this player to check behind a lot of their unimproved draws and then maybe picking off a bluff on the end although I'd still c/f the river.

I'll agree with stacks/iopq that this is not a great board to continuation bet on, but it's not the worst.

Hmmm being thinking for a while now i should add cold calling onto my HUD.

Are villian limp/call and cold ranges normally pretty much the same ?

Lots of boardway cards, soooooted aces and small/medium pairs. This would be a general cold calling range i would assign to an unknown. Now at what cold calling percentage can we drop the worse broadways, maybe the smaller pairs etc ?

I would assume that all villian have their own cold calling "style" also so player notes are important too.

Just some of the thoughts rambling around in my head

EDIT : Sorry for kinda hijacking my own thread a bit now

I'm pretty sure the pop-up stats have that info when you need it, I could be wrong though
also you have to keep in mind good players will cold-call the most on the button and almost not at all from CO and earlier
in fact when someone cold-calls in like MP they usually have a pocket pair

[Stacks]

Alright, my thoughts in a huge mindfuck of a thread,

I think you'll find a 2/3psb slightly +EV against the right opponents on these board textures, renton described a few. There are ppl who are going to bet every time we check, which most would then deduce it's great to c/c, but it's not really b/c we have to play some OOP guess-game with a lot of shitty turn cards.

We've taken the initiative PF so I don't mind c-betting here but I think the turn will be a safe c/f, expecting this player to check behind a lot of their unimproved draws and then maybe picking off a bluff on the end although I'd still c/f the river.

I'll agree with stacks/iopq that this is not a great board to continuation bet on, but it's not the worst.

This is like everything I've tried to say in this thread. You've just said it in less words.

[LawDude]

Alright, my thoughts in a huge mindfuck of a thread,

I think you'll find a 2/3psb slightly +EV against the right opponents on these board textures, renton described a few. There are ppl who are going to bet every time we check, which most would then deduce it's great to c/c, but it's not really b/c we have to play some OOP guess-game with a lot of shitty turn cards.

We've taken the initiative PF so I don't mind c-betting here but I think the turn will be a safe c/f, expecting this player to check behind a lot of their unimproved draws and then maybe picking off a bluff on the end although I'd still c/f the river.

I'll agree with stacks/iopq that this is not a great board to continuation bet on, but it's not the worst.

This is like everything I've tried to say in this thread. You've just said it in less words.

He agreed with your analysis (not a great flop for a continuation bet) and my conclusion (bet/fold on the flop, check/fold on the turn). Split the baby.

[Stacks]

btw... I was hoping that I didn't come off as being 100% against a cbet. I understand what you were saying about just taking the pot down now and having villain relinquish any equity he has that he doesn't want to continue with (especially if it's true that they don't float at 10nl). However, I just think we could cbet a worse hands, and try to check 88 down (which will likely when a checked SD unless villain hits). And cbet something like 22.

[LawDude]

btw... I was hoping that I didn't come off as being 100% against a cbet. I understand what you were saying about just taking the pot down now and having villain relinquish any equity he has that he doesn't want to continue with (especially if it's true that they don't float at 10nl). However, I just think we could cbet a worse hands, and try to check 88 down (which will likely when a checked SD unless villain hits). And cbet something like 22.

That's an interesting thought that I hadn't considered. Why c-bet 22 but not 88?

EDIT: to answer my own question, I suppose it depends on how likely we think we are to be able to check down to a showdown with 88.

[siltstrider]

btw... I was hoping that I didn't come off as being 100% against a cbet. I understand what you were saying about just taking the pot down now and having villain relinquish any equity he has that he doesn't want to continue with (especially if it's true that they don't float at 10nl). However, I just think we could cbet a worse hands, and try to check 88 down (which will likely when a checked SD unless villain hits). And cbet something like 22.

That's an interesting thought that I hadn't considered. Why c-bet 22 but not 88?

EDIT: to answer my own question, I suppose it depends on how likely we think we are to be able to check down to a showdown with 88.

I think it's because when you cbet 22, you can expect more stuff that beats it to fold. 33, for example, would probably fold to cbet on this board. If you have 88, it doesn't matter since you beat 33 anyway. If villain is the type to let you check down when he holds 22 - 77, then just checking down your 88 will let you win the same as a cbet, no?

With 22, if the villain just checks down his 33 - 77, you lose the pot when a cbet would have taken it down. You have more to gain by cbetting here.

Please correct me if I'm wrong, I'm still new to this.

[LawDude]

btw... I was hoping that I didn't come off as being 100% against a cbet. I understand what you were saying about just taking the pot down now and having villain relinquish any equity he has that he doesn't want to continue with (especially if it's true that they don't float at 10nl). However, I just think we could cbet a worse hands, and try to check 88 down (which will likely when a checked SD unless villain hits). And cbet something like 22.

That's an interesting thought that I hadn't considered. Why c-bet 22 but not 88?

EDIT: to answer my own question, I suppose it depends on how likely we think we are to be able to check down to a showdown with 88.

I think it's because when you cbet 22, you can expect more stuff that beats it to fold. 33, for example, would probably fold to cbet on this board. If you have 88, it doesn't matter since you beat 33 anyway. If villain is the type to let you check down when he holds 22 - 77, then just checking down your 88 will let you win the same as a cbet, no?

With 22, if the villain just checks down his 33 - 77, you lose the pot when a cbet would have taken it down. You have more to gain by cbetting here.

Please correct me if I'm wrong, I'm still new to this.

That is right, but remember, as I said earlier, unless we really are pretty confident of getting a free showdown and not getting bluffed, the maxim of "don't bet if you are only getting worse hands to fold" doesn't necessarily apply here. Where your hand is marginal and can't be defended against any sort of action, getting worse hands to fold is a fine result.

So this all turns out to be a fascinating question. The ultimate answer is we need reads on two things-- (1) what is Villain's range, and is it more likely to be weighted towards high connectors that hit the flop or very high cards that didn't, and (2) is Villain likely to give us a free showdown if he didn't hit the flop?

If we have those two reads, we can make a sounder play in this situation.

[siltstrider]

Would a smart opponent flat pf with the types of high cards that would miss this flop? I thought it was pretty much standard to throw away hands like KJ and KQ when you're facing a pfr. That is, depending on reads, position, etc.

So if we know your opponent will call a raise before the flop with say, AJ, and would try to take a stab at pots we checked to him, we consider a bet here.

If he usually just calls with pocket pairs and suited connectors for the implied odds, while avoiding reverse implied odds hands, and he won't usually try to bluff at us, we probably won't bet.

So the correct answer is pretty much "it depends." Right? Just trying to get this through my head and into my own words so I can make sure I understand it.

This is a pretty neat idea that I haven't given much thought to before. There are a ton of nits at 10NL where I play, to the point where it's not extremely uncommon to see the %players seeing flops stat in the single digits. I've been trying to take advantage of this by raising pretty wide and by making small, 1/2pot cbets, but sometimes they wake up with a set or something.

I'm starting to wonder if I would be better off not cbetting every time that I hit the flop, say AK on Axx, since only their sets and 2pair are calling me and they're folding anything I beat anyway. Of course, if I miss completely, I should strongly consider making a bet because I'll fold out stuff like 22 and 66 which I probably won't beat by the river. Of course, I wouldn't check a flop that could have given them a draw, like Ah7h8s (I'd bet full pot on this one), since I don't want to give a free card, but a flop like Ah9s4d might be fine to check once in a while? The only hands calling me on that one are 99 and 44.

Would a smart opponent flat pf with the types of high cards that would miss this flop? I thought it was pretty much standard to throw away hands like KJ and KQ when you're facing a pfr. That is, depending on reads, position, etc.

if you're on the button it might be fine to call

but remember that the opener must be opening a very wide range that you crush with your KJ to be able to call here where he would fold KT/QJ to a 3b and play only with KQ/AJ type hands

[Stacks]

This situation/question really breaks down to subranges. And not only our subranges, but the subranges of our villain, and how he is likely to play his subranges.

Preflop villain should have subranges, which will allow us to make some assumptions about what range we are actually facing postflop. That is, we expect him to 3bet his premiums for value. Then we expect him to call all the hands he feel is profitable to play a pot with IP (SCs, Suited Broadays, AJ, etc type hands). Then we expect him to 3bet bluff some % of the time, and those hands would come from the hands that he couldn't profitably call with (suited gappers, K9,Q8, etc type hands). Of course we can't be sure he is playing in this manner, and he cold just be flatting anything, even premiums.

However, postflop his range, and ours, are going to become divided even more. On this flop, we are going to want to bet our strong hands to extract value from his many worse hands that can call. Remember in order to value bet we need to have >50% equity against his ranve (to truly be getting value when called). So, we would bet things like 99+, AT, KT, etc} because we expect worse to call often enough.

Likewise, we are going to want to bet a good % of the hands that didn't connect (assuming he doesn't float often, or call too lightly). That's stuff like KQ, KJ, etc. We aren't betting because we have >50% equity, but we are betting because we aren't likely to win a showdown if we check down, some better hands will fold, and our fold equity in combination with pot equity (having gutshots + overs, etc) will make this profitable.

Now in between we are going to have a range that we can't bet for value, as we don't expect worse to call often enough, but we feel that if we check we are ahead of his betting range. This will form our check/calling range and will incorporate hands like 9x, weaker Tx, and depending on his betting frequency when checked to, check/calling hands like 77-88 will likely be profitable. Profitable on that street that is, but you might be setting yourself up to a fair amount of tricky turn/river spots that you are going to be prone to making mistakes in.

Then obviously we are going to have a check/folding range, and that's hands we either can't bet for value or don't need to bet, yet we don't feel is ahead of his betting range when we check. So we check/fold, and that's where 88 fits in this spot assuming villain isn't going to play incredibly straight forward and toss everything missed on this flop and call everything that hit (aka.. If villain can float, bluff, etc I would check/fold 88 here).

SiltStrider hit the nail on the head with what I was referring to with cbetting 22 and checking 88. With 22, there are going to be alot of more hands that have decent equity against us, and a fair amount more hands that beat us. Any pp 44-88 now has us crushed, yet those hands are likely to fold to a cbet. Any overcards have at least 24% equity or better, and because we hold 22 villain will obviously have overcards. So as a whole, 22 is not going to win showdown as often, and therefore profits more from turning it into a bluff and picking up on our flop cbet fold equity.

[Stacks]

So if we know your opponent will call a raise before the flop with say, AJ, and would try to take a stab at pots we checked to him, we consider a bet here.

In theory, it depends. Here's the best way I can think of explaining it.

If we knew our villains hand was AJ, then our 88 hand on this flop has approximately 74% equity against villains AJ. If we knew that villain would call a cbet with AJ here, then we would valuebet the flop. This is simply because we have >50% equity when called. And since we expect him to call with AJ, we benefit by value betting.

If we knew he had AJ, but we didn't think he would call a cbet, we wouldn't bet. The reason being is because even though we have >50% equity, and a value bet is +EV, a value bet only encompassings the hands villain calls our bet with. And since he isn't calling our bet with AJ, we would be better off checking and letting him bet. Which we would obviously call if we knew his hand, and he didn't know ours.

I'm starting to wonder if I would be better off not cbetting every time that I hit the flop, say AK on Axx, since only their sets and 2pair are calling me and they're folding anything I beat anyway. Of course, if I miss completely, I should strongly consider making a bet because I'll fold out stuff like 22 and 66 which I probably won't beat by the river. Of course, I wouldn't check a flop that could have given them a draw, like Ah7h8s (I'd bet full pot on this one), since I don't want to give a free card, but a flop like Ah9s4d might be fine to check once in a while? The only hands calling me on that one are 99 and 44.

Well if it is in fact true that villains don't call with anything but sets/2pair+, then the frequency with which you value bet should decrease, and the frequency with which you bluff should increase. This is because villains calling range is relatively narrow, yet strong. So your marginal value bets wouldn't be as profitable, because they aren't likely to call with worse often. Whereas, your bluffs would be very profitable, as they are folding so often.

However, I doubt this is entirely the case. You should definitely be cbetting AK on A83r boards in nearly all cases. AK is basically at the top of your range, and the majority of villains will be calling at least one street with worse Ax, some underpairs (99-KK), and even 8x some % of the time. So a bet with AK there will be getting value from worse. I'm not saying it's not +EV to check, it's just less +EV than betting.

[LawDude]

In theory, it depends. Here's the best way I can think of explaining it.

If we knew our villains hand was AJ, then our 88 hand on this flop has approximately 74% equity against villains AJ. If we knew that villain would call a cbet with AJ here, then we would valuebet the flop. This is simply because we have >50% equity when called. And since we expect him to call with AJ, we benefit by value betting.

If we knew he had AJ, but we didn't think he would call a cbet, we wouldn't bet. The reason being is because even though we have >50% equity, and a value bet is +EV, a value bet only encompassings the hands villain calls our bet with. And since he isn't calling our bet with AJ, we would be better off checking and letting him bet. Which we would obviously call if we knew his hand, and he didn't know ours.

That's poker theory 101. And it's right.

But the balancing point is that when you have a pocket pair with 2 overcards on the board, having worse hands fold is a lot better result than it would be if you had a better hand, because it's so hard to know where you stand on later streets and you have so little chance of improving.

Essentially, "make better hands fold and worse hands call" requires sufficient information. When you know you have a hand that can't win a showdown, or you know you have a hand that will win that showdown, you have that information. When you have a relatively good hand and a decent read on opponent's range, you also have that information to some extent. But when you have a pocket pair with 2 overcards and 1 pre-flop caller, you don't really have that information. Without that information, it's less important to be worrying about whether you are causing worse hands to fold unless you think you can get to the showdown cheap.

[surviva316]

i like a cbet against a player who has >50% fold to cbet BECAUSE so many cards can come on turn that we can double barrel profitably (7,T,J,Q,K,A,8), NOT BECUASE the flop has great FE

If we knew he had AJ, but we didn't think he would call a cbet, we wouldn't bet.

that's wrong, we'd bet for protection
unfortunately, we don't know that he has AJ, we only know that we're behind his calling range on the flop

so many cards can come on turn that we can double barrel profitably (7,T,J,Q,K,A,8)

actually those cards hit the shit out of our opponent's range
he's also not folding a T to a barrel anyway and we might have to put in two bets
if we think that most of the hands that call flop are like Tx and QT/QJ/KJ/KQ/AJ type of hands then obviously a queen or a jack are terrible cards to bet on the turn

[Stacks]

If we knew he had AJ, but we didn't think he would call a cbet, we wouldn't bet.

that's wrong, we'd bet for protection
unfortunately, we don't know that he has AJ, we only know that we're behind his calling range on the flop

I meant to say, "we know villain has AJ, and will not call a cbet, but will bet if we check". In which case we would check, and call his bet. And do the same on any non A/J turn, etc.

If we felt that he would check back AJ if we check, then yes we would bet for protection, as we aren't getting any more money in the pot whether we bet, or we check expecting him to bet. Therefore, we are better off winning the pot 100% of the time, which we will because he is folding to our cbet. Rather than winning the pot only 74% of the time, especially when the pot is going to be the same size, since he isn't betting.

If we knew he had AJ, but we didn't think he would call a cbet, we wouldn't bet.

that's wrong, we'd bet for protection
unfortunately, we don't know that he has AJ, we only know that we're behind his calling range on the flop

I meant to say, "we know villain has AJ, and will not call a cbet, but will bet if we check". In which case we would check, and call his bet. And do the same on any non A/J turn, etc.

If we felt that he would check back AJ if we check, then yes we would bet for protection, as we aren't getting any more money in the pot whether we bet, or we check expecting him to bet. Therefore, we are better off winning the pot 100% of the time, which we will because he is folding to our cbet. Rather than winning the pot only 74% of the time, especially when the pot is going to be the same size, since he isn't betting.

again, we should c/r if we KNOW he has AJ

[surviva316]

putting ten in the list of cards i'd love to see for a double barrel was a typo. i double barrel J because of the fold equity PLUS the fact that now we have ten outs against most of his range (we're screwed against KQ regardless, but other than that our outs are pretty clean unless we can put AK in his flatting a PFR and calling a double barrel range).

now that i think about it a Q isn't a good double barrelling card because it gives JT a straight, moving it from his range of hands he folds to the range of hands he continues with.