Brokos. Consider All Your Options (4-part Series).

TheGameKatTheGameKat Posts: 3,669 -
edited December 2018 in Subscription Products
In the first part of his new series, Andrew Brokos examines the unusual check-raise-check line. Humans rarely take such a line, but in certain situations solvers seem to like it. Andrew explores why and illustrates areas in your game where you can exploit this line.

The second video in this series is now live; as is the third video.

Time passed. Here's the fourth video on donking the turn.

Please leave your comments on questions on all videos in this series below.
Moderation In Moderation


  • LeChiffreLeChiffre NetherlandsRed Chipper Posts: 641 ✭✭✭
    Excellent series. I like having GTO+ open on the side to follow along and dive deeper.

    Andrew makes a mistake in the first hand of the first video, which takes up roughly 25 minutes. He accidentally analyses a line where OOP check-raises flop, calls a 3-bet, and then checks turn (rather than check-raise flop and check turn). Might be useful to add this to the description of the video.

    I did my own analysis of the check-raise-check line on the same board (AT9r), using the same ranges for the UTG vs BB scenario and bet sizings as in the video.

    The flop analysis obviously stays the same, but just for context: BB is check-raising around 1/6 of its checking range. This range consists of A9s, ATo (neither A9o nor ATs are in BB's preflop calling range), 99, TT, QJs, J8s, 87s, T8s, T7s, 97s, KQs, KJs, AKo at various frequencies:


    The IP player reacts to this check-raise like this:


    i.e. he folds his weakest Ax without a BDFD, as well as 55-88, QQ and JJ at high frequencies. Sets and two pairs will be in his calling range at some frequency too.

    Andrew performs a turn analysis to see how each turn card impacts the EV of BB's range. This is what's in the video (I hope I'm allowed to share this):


    Of course this is in the wrong scenario where IP 3-bets the flop and OOP calls the 3-bet. So here it is for the scenario where OOP check-raises and IP calls.


    The big difference is that a 9 or T turn is not so bad for OOP in the scenario we actually want to analyse. My guess is that as OOP check-raises the flop and IP calls, OOP will have a wider range than predominantly sets and two pairs (which are 9x and Tx heavy). In a check-raise-call scenario, OOP's range will have a higher density of these hands so a 9 or T turn blocks a lot of strength. As a result, the 9 or T is then considered a bad card for OOP.

    Andrew analysis a :2C: card with regards to OOP's checking range. In the video OOP has a 18% betting range. His two pair+ range splits between checking and betting, but checks at a (much) higher frequency. In my scenario, OOP bets 56% of the time. He keeps betting his two pair+ at a high frequency and his strong bluffs:


    The purpose of the video was to analyse what is checked after check-raising flop. On a :2C: turn, OOP checks hands like AKo, non-club KQs-KJs-QJs, J9s, JTs, QTs, T7s. Alongside there are some slowplayed sets and two pairs though these are bet a vast majority of the time. This is a crucial difference between my analysis and the one in the video. Hopefully no one started to check these two pair+ hands as a result of the video :')

    In the video the :QH: turn causes OOP to check entire range on the turn. In my analysis the turn is checked 2/3rds of the time:


    The :QH: is not such a disaster for OOP since he also has straights in his range. Andrew also mentions that the :QH: is bad for OOP since IP has QQ in his range but as we saw before QQ are folded a vast majority of the time.

    What's interesting is that on :QH: OOP should start checking his AT, T9 and A9 since, while they were value hands on the flop, they are now mere bluffcatchers. AQ is in IP's range after all. The frequency at which TT and 99 are bet are also much lower than on a :2C: turn. Which makes sense.

    Andrew also looks at :8D: and :KH: which are supposed to be a great card for OOP. In Andrew's analysis this translates to a high-frequency betting range. The same holds true for my analysis.

  • TheGameKatTheGameKat Posts: 3,669 -
    Thanks for the report and the analysis. Not sure what we can do to fix this other than include your post.
    Moderation In Moderation

Leave a Comment

BoldItalicStrikethroughOrdered listUnordered list
Align leftAlign centerAlign rightToggle HTML viewToggle full pageToggle lights
Drop image/file