Have I Done It? Have I Actually Taken an Intelligent Line?

Jordan PowerJordan Power Red Chipper Posts: 230 ✭✭✭
(Disclaimer: This hand has results in it. I wanted to post this because I think I've played the hand as well as I reasonably could and in situations like this, even when I win the pot, I want to make sure that I actually HAVE learned something and applied decent reasoning.)

I may have taken an intelligent approach from pre flop to showdown and I would like to share it with you all. (And, almost certainly, have something pointed out to me that disabuses me of this notion for which I'll be very grateful.)

Hero ($502) has more or less just sat down playing $1/$3 on Friday evening. I've played one hand other hand and chopped AQ.

Hero is dealt :Ac: :Ah: on the button. One player, an OMC I have played with before, limps, but otherwise the action folds to me and I raise to $15. SB ($125), also a known weak player calls and the limper in MP ($390) calls as well.

This OMC limps calls a ton of hands. He doesn't really raise. His limp/call range preflop probably looks like 22 - 99, 67s - JTs, 67o - KQo, A2s - A9s, A5o - ATo K9 - KJ, Q8-QT, J7 - J9

Flop ($48): :7d: :8c: :9d:

MP checks. Hero checks as well. SB checks. I think Vs ranges connect with this flop in a much stronger way than my range does. I don't see a ton of worse hands that are continuing here. Maybe some combos of a A7, A8, A9, etc, maybe K9, but there's a ton of draws out there and some are just going to get there. I know from playing with him that SB will not be priced off a draw so I don't see the need to even set one. Is that logic flawed?

Basically my thought is Vs ranges connect with this board better than mine and I'm not going to gain much fold equity by betting to deny them the chance to realize any equity on draws (well maybe OMC but SB is not going anywhere on a draw), so why bet? This is probably where I'm flawed even if my decision to check isn't so bad.

Turn ($48): :7c:

SB checks. MP bets $10. The small bet sizing suggests to me OMC is trying to induce either myself or SB to raise and try to buy the pot so I'm thinking he's holding a set, strong two pair, or a straight. $10 is not going to get SB out of the pot on any draw or honestly with most of his range. He's a maniac. I thought briefly about raising but decided against it for same reason I did not bet flop. Plus the small bet sizing made me think V is just trying to get any money in this pot.

SB calls as well.

River ($78): :AD:

SB checks. MP bets $30. I actively remembered something @moishetreats said in a post from a few months ago about choosing bet sizing. I thought there was a chance that SB would shove so I nearly decided to flat, hope he would shove, and reopen the betting if MP just flatted as well and get it all in. But I thought this might be a bit too fancy and I figured SB probably was not going to check if he had made his diamond draw so I raised to $90. SB folded.

OMC shoves all in immediately; snap call. He had flopped a straight.

I understand that I got lucky with the ace on the river, but to my mind, I put myself in a good situation to catch that card by playing this hand the way I did. I never would have seen the ace had I played the hand how I would have a few months ago. I did not bet the flop and open myself up to a check raise (which I probably just fold to that OMC). I did not raise the turn for the exact same reason. More importantly, I made conscious decisions throughout the hand and was rewarded for doing so.

Comments

  • RedRed Red Chipper Posts: 1,699 ✭✭✭✭
    edited December 4
    Nice!

    2 comments:
    - I think you're too generous with the limp/call range. All OMC I've played against limp a tighter range and limp/fold a lot, keeping a range close to PP, strong but not premium broadways and very good SC (JTs+/T9s+). I'd not give an OMC A5o, QX, etc.
    - Raising river is good. I'd but size bigger. a) Even if we don't need to be balance and raise 100% for value against an OMC who seems happy (because close to 0 FE), we should think about it to prepare ourselves for higher stakes / better players; 90 doesn't apply enough pressure (less than 25% pot odds to call +EV). b) if OMC is happy with his hands, then he can be willing to call for more. What about 100? 110? 120? 140 ? He still has 320 in his stack, so if we don't expect him to 3bet-shove often (which is rare at low stakes; and here only expected with a boat or a good flush), we should invite him to pay more.
  • DeadliftsDeadlifts Red Chipper Posts: 79 ✭✭
    I would consider a cbet OTF as well as an alternative; yes no real worse hands continue on this texture, but also the flop is dripping; why not bring some of those draws with you on the turn?
  • Jordan PowerJordan Power Red Chipper Posts: 230 ✭✭✭
    On a board like that, I felt I was opening myself up to a check raise (mostly from SB) to which I would have to fold. I did consider betting but decided against it based upon how much more it hits Vs ranges over my own. If I bet there, say, $25 and get raised, I'm going to have to fold a large chunk of the time.
  • Phil EbbsPhil Ebbs Red Chipper Posts: 100 ✭✭
    edited December 4
    The flop check is really the only question in this hand, everything else is very standard imo.

    I'm OK with the flop check since it's multi-way, although it's worth noting that if this pot were heads up, I think cbetting this flop without the Ad should be your main line.

    1. I don't think you are right that this board hits their range harder than yours. Yes, it hits their range, but I would say this board is pretty equal for you and the callers. You have all the sets, all the straights and overpairs here. There is nothing that they have that is not also in your range (except maybe T6s, depending on how loose you open your button).

    2. Your logic about not betting because the SB calls anything doesn't really make sense. Betting to get someone to fold their equity is fine, and has its place. But you can also bet to get someone to call when they don't have the proper equity. If you run into a maniac who calls with all his draws, then giving him a free card is the opposite of what you want to do. You want to be giving him 2:1 pot odds and having him call with bad equity OOP. If you are in position on a maniac like that, you are winning when he calls big bets with draws. Granted, with 3 players in the hand, checking is fine, but if you were heads up v. a maniac who calls with draws, you should be charging.

    If you did decide to bet the flop (which I think is also fine), I would not fold to a check raise. Too many diamond draws (you don't have the Ad) and pair + SD are going to be raising to fold on the flop. I'm not happy about it, but I'd have to call and play some turns and rivers.
  • moishetreatsmoishetreats Red Chipper Posts: 1,819 ✭✭✭✭
    Phil Ebbs wrote: »
    1. I don't think you are right that this board hits their range harder than yours. Yes, it hits their range, but I would say this board is pretty equal for you and the callers. You have all the sets, all the straights and overpairs here. There is nothing that they have that is not also in your range (except maybe T6s, depending on how loose you open your button).

    It seems like you're presuming that Vs' calling range is about the same as Hero's opening range. Okay, let's go with that. First of all, two players call, so there is a much stronger chance that at least of them hit their range harder than Hero.

    Secondly, and more importantly, Hero's range also includes AA, KK, AK, QQ, and probably JJ and maybe a couple of other hands that Vs would have raised with. By removing those hands from their calling range, they actually now have a higher percentage of hands that would hit this flop hard.

    Finally, a good portion of Hero's range that is ahead could easily be outdrawn.
  • Phil EbbsPhil Ebbs Red Chipper Posts: 100 ✭✭
    edited December 4
    Phil Ebbs wrote: »
    1. I don't think you are right that this board hits their range harder than yours. Yes, it hits their range, but I would say this board is pretty equal for you and the callers. You have all the sets, all the straights and overpairs here. There is nothing that they have that is not also in your range (except maybe T6s, depending on how loose you open your button).

    It seems like you're presuming that Vs' calling range is about the same as Hero's opening range. Okay, let's go with that. First of all, two players call, so there is a much stronger chance that at least of them hit their range harder than Hero.

    Secondly, and more importantly, Hero's range also includes AA, KK, AK, QQ, and probably JJ and maybe a couple of other hands that Vs would have raised with. By removing those hands from their calling range, they actually now have a higher percentage of hands that would hit this flop hard.

    Finally, a good portion of Hero's range that is ahead could easily be outdrawn.

    I don't disagree with any of this. I agree that with 2 villains, there is a higher chance that straights and sets are out there.

    The fact that premium hands are not in villain ranges I don't think has that big of removal effects. That's like 40ish combos, and they are probably calling here with like 300-350 combos, from Jordan's range estimate. To your point, Jordan kind of has to figure out whether the non-nutted hands that villains are calling with that he doesn't have (like J7,J8,Q8, for instance) outweighs the percentage of non-nutted hands that he has that villains don't, like JJ-AA. But J7,J8,Q8 is already like 30ish combos on this board, so I feel like the removal effects are kind of a wash. So I don't think the ranges are identical, but I do think the percentage of villain and hero ranges that are nutted are very similar (but I'm happy to be wrong about that). Depending on preflop ranges, it seems to me that nutted hands make up a similar percentage of Jordan's range as the caller's ranges.

    But with 2 callers, you are right, he is much more likely to face a nutted hand. So I think a check is a totally fine way to proceed. But I think betting isn't much lower (if any) EV, and it could potentially be higher EV if SB maniac is check raising and calling with lots of draws.

    Checking here does reduce your losses when draws hit, but it is basically giving up a fraction of the pot as you let your opponents realize their equity with pair + SD and diamond draws. Figuring out that tradeoff between avoiding dicey situations and charging draws is a challenge, and something I don't think I myself am very good at (yet).

    Also worth noting you guys aren't super super deep here. If you were like 200BB+ deep, I would check much much more often.

    But I like Jordan's line, and think it was a fine way to play his range. The worst play of this hand for sure is the villain river shove. Idk what that was.
  • persuadeopersuadeo Red Chipper, Table Captain Posts: 3,617 ✭✭✭✭✭
    The flop check is the basis of this being a well played hand, even if other options are viable. It's not just the top of your range which defines what you should bet - recall how now departed Austin used to insist every board was his range advantage. It's how your range interacts with the opponent's vis a vis the board over streets. For instance, you may not lose by betting aces, but you will by betting ak and everything else that gets into trouble. So now where is your continuance and how does it respond? It's not just about this holding.

    The eq of your opening range will almost always be favorable, but as chips go in, especially when augmented by depth, the ev of betting much of it starts declining. For instance, as you expend x amount, there is no protecting against the draws - they continue. The question is always what range shows up later and what happens next, whether you rationalize b/f the winning hand, b/3b a loose range, or expend the least chips possible by small bets right down to zero.

    Congrats on this hand Jordan - it's not even the result that matters.
  • Jordan PowerJordan Power Red Chipper Posts: 230 ✭✭✭
    Thanks, @persuadeo. Slowly but surely, I am learning and improving.
  • TheGameKatTheGameKat Posts: 1,268 -
    Thanks, @persuadeo. Slowly but surely, I am learning and improving.

    IT WORKS! THE FORUM WORKS!!!
    Moderation In Moderation
  • moishetreatsmoishetreats Red Chipper Posts: 1,819 ✭✭✭✭
    Phil Ebbs wrote: »
    Phil Ebbs wrote: »
    1. I don't think you are right that this board hits their range harder than yours. Yes, it hits their range, but I would say this board is pretty equal for you and the callers. You have all the sets, all the straights and overpairs here. There is nothing that they have that is not also in your range (except maybe T6s, depending on how loose you open your button).

    It seems like you're presuming that Vs' calling range is about the same as Hero's opening range. Okay, let's go with that. First of all, two players call, so there is a much stronger chance that at least of them hit their range harder than Hero.

    Secondly, and more importantly, Hero's range also includes AA, KK, AK, QQ, and probably JJ and maybe a couple of other hands that Vs would have raised with. By removing those hands from their calling range, they actually now have a higher percentage of hands that would hit this flop hard.

    Finally, a good portion of Hero's range that is ahead could easily be outdrawn.

    I don't disagree with any of this. I agree that with 2 villains, there is a higher chance that straights and sets are out there.

    The fact that premium hands are not in villain ranges I don't think has that big of removal effects. That's like 40ish combos, and they are probably calling here with like 300-350 combos, from Jordan's range estimate. To your point, Jordan kind of has to figure out whether the non-nutted hands that villains are calling with that he doesn't have (like J7,J8,Q8, for instance) outweighs the percentage of non-nutted hands that he has that villains don't, like JJ-AA. But J7,J8,Q8 is already like 30ish combos on this board, so I feel like the removal effects are kind of a wash. So I don't think the ranges are identical, but I do think the percentage of villain and hero ranges that are nutted are very similar (but I'm happy to be wrong about that). Depending on preflop ranges, it seems to me that nutted hands make up a similar percentage of Jordan's range as the caller's ranges.

    But with 2 callers, you are right, he is much more likely to face a nutted hand. So I think a check is a totally fine way to proceed. But I think betting isn't much lower (if any) EV, and it could potentially be higher EV if SB maniac is check raising and calling with lots of draws.

    Checking here does reduce your losses when draws hit, but it is basically giving up a fraction of the pot as you let your opponents realize their equity with pair + SD and diamond draws. Figuring out that tradeoff between avoiding dicey situations and charging draws is a challenge, and something I don't think I myself am very good at (yet).

    Also worth noting you guys aren't super super deep here. If you were like 200BB+ deep, I would check much much more often.

    But I like Jordan's line, and think it was a fine way to play his range. The worst play of this hand for sure is the villain river shove. Idk what that was.

    @persuadeo beat me to it (and, as usual, both far more eloquently and succinctly).
  • jfarrow13jfarrow13 Red Chipper Posts: 1,193 ✭✭✭✭
    Let's all pause and ponder, if you will, for a second, the fact that this guy shoved a straight....on a paired flush board. Later that night at home his wife asks him about poker, and he begins his seething tale of how bad players always suck out, and how this guy had 2 outs.
    Mhmmmmm
  • Jordan PowerJordan Power Red Chipper Posts: 230 ✭✭✭
    jfarrow13 wrote: »
    Let's all pause and ponder, if you will, for a second, the fact that this guy shoved a straight....on a paired flush board. Later that night at home his wife asks him about poker, and he begins his seething tale of how bad players always suck out, and how this guy had 2 outs.
    Mhmmmmm

    Oh it didn't take him until he got home; the antics started immediately. I eventually moved right next to him and he explained to me for a while how I should have realized I was behind on the turn and not even paid him the $10. He really gave me a great primer on poker strategy - you should limp call a lot at low stakes because when you crush a flop MW, you have a much better chance of the fish paying you off.

    I thanked him for the advice and continued to 'run so unbelievably hot' against him for the next 3-4 hours.
  • persuadeopersuadeo Red Chipper, Table Captain Posts: 3,617 ✭✭✭✭✭
    We should start a thread to collect all the classic "advice" we hear.
  • Phil EbbsPhil Ebbs Red Chipper Posts: 100 ✭✭
    persuadeo wrote: »
    The flop check is the basis of this being a well played hand, even if other options are viable. It's not just the top of your range which defines what you should bet - recall how now departed Austin used to insist every board was his range advantage. It's how your range interacts with the opponent's vis a vis the board over streets. For instance, you may not lose by betting aces, but you will by betting ak and everything else that gets into trouble. So now where is your continuance and how does it respond? It's not just about this holding.

    The eq of your opening range will almost always be favorable, but as chips go in, especially when augmented by depth, the ev of betting much of it starts declining. For instance, as you expend x amount, there is no protecting against the draws - they continue. The question is always what range shows up later and what happens next, whether you rationalize b/f the winning hand, b/3b a loose range, or expend the least chips possible by small bets right down to zero.

    Congrats on this hand Jordan - it's not even the result that matters.

    I don't really follow this, persuadeo. All of your comments are undeniably true (it's important how our range interacts, big depth puts us in dicey spots, a lot of draws continue, etc.). And I do think a check here is good. But you seem to think it's more obvious than I do. This is an honest question, not trying to be contentious: I don't quite know why you think betting this flop with most of the top of our range is lower EV than checking? Is it because you think we are running into better hands too often on the flop? Is it because you think we are going to have difficult spots on scary runouts? What exactly is it? Because to my thinking, if we know that villains are continuing with a vast majority of draws that are behind us, this bet is making money. What am I missing?
  • Michael WMichael W Red Chipper Posts: 135 ✭✭
    Phil Ebbs wrote: »
    I don't really follow this, persuadeo. All of your comments are undeniably true (it's important how our range interacts, big depth puts us in dicey spots, a lot of draws continue, etc.). And I do think a check here is good. But you seem to think it's more obvious than I do. This is an honest question, not trying to be contentious: I don't quite know why you think betting this flop with most of the top of our range is lower EV than checking? Is it because you think we are running into better hands too often on the flop? Is it because you think we are going to have difficult spots on scary runouts? What exactly is it? Because to my thinking, if we know that villains are continuing with a vast majority of draws that are behind us, this bet is making money. What am I missing?

    not persuadeo and also just started studying poker seriuosly a few months ago, but these are the things that immediately pop up in my head:


    - while AA is the top of our range preflop it isnt anymore on this flopas its strength has dropped quite a bit

    - range distribution: the callers range contains a higher % of hands that have connected hard to this flop

    - when we bet, we manipulate the callers range even more towards the afforementioned part of his range. like we narrow it in a way that is unfavourable for our hand and therefore its lowers our ev.....and probably (never done any math here and dont even know how to) up to a point where its less ev than checking

  • moishetreatsmoishetreats Red Chipper Posts: 1,819 ✭✭✭✭
    edited December 5
    Phil Ebbs wrote: »
    persuadeo wrote: »
    The flop check is the basis of this being a well played hand, even if other options are viable. It's not just the top of your range which defines what you should bet - recall how now departed Austin used to insist every board was his range advantage. It's how your range interacts with the opponent's vis a vis the board over streets. For instance, you may not lose by betting aces, but you will by betting ak and everything else that gets into trouble. So now where is your continuance and how does it respond? It's not just about this holding.

    The eq of your opening range will almost always be favorable, but as chips go in, especially when augmented by depth, the ev of betting much of it starts declining. For instance, as you expend x amount, there is no protecting against the draws - they continue. The question is always what range shows up later and what happens next, whether you rationalize b/f the winning hand, b/3b a loose range, or expend the least chips possible by small bets right down to zero.

    Congrats on this hand Jordan - it's not even the result that matters.

    I don't really follow this, persuadeo. All of your comments are undeniably true (it's important how our range interacts, big depth puts us in dicey spots, a lot of draws continue, etc.). And I do think a check here is good. But you seem to think it's more obvious than I do. This is an honest question, not trying to be contentious: I don't quite know why you think betting this flop with most of the top of our range is lower EV than checking? Is it because you think we are running into better hands too often on the flop? Is it because you think we are going to have difficult spots on scary runouts? What exactly is it? Because to my thinking, if we know that villains are continuing with a vast majority of draws that are behind us, this bet is making money. What am I missing?

    As another advocate for checking (and it being pretty obvious), I'll pose some questions:

    When you bet and V calls, have you narrowed V's range at all? Does V have a drawing hand? Does V have just a piece of the flop and is V being sticky? Does V have a vulnerable hand and is V attempting to pot control (i.e., 2-pair)? Does V have a monster hand and is V looking to trap? Could be any those.

    When you bet and V raises, have you narrowed V's range a lot? Does V have a drawing hand? Does V have a vulnerable hand and is V attempting to protect V's equity by giving you poor odds to continue? Does V have a monster and is V looking to induce you to get it all in way behind? Is V simply using position, range advantage, and other factors to try to push you off a hand with nothing because there is fold equity and it's the only way to win the pot?

    In addition, this board hits V's range not just hard but widely. In other words, a large percentage of V's range hits at least something. You're fold equity isn't particularly high on this flop -- and certainly not high enough to justify betting into it given all the aforementioned concerns (and, as noted above, if you then double-barrel, then you're just double-barreling blindly).

    Let's keep going... When you bet, following the classic axiom, are you getting any worse hands to call? Not a lot -- most of the hands that stay in either are ahead and/or have enough outs to get ahead a strong percentage of the time. Similarly, when you bet, are you getting any worse hands to fold? Absolutely not.

    So, barring a specific player read on this V that would suggest that betting is best, why would you bet here? What does it accomplish? It only inflates a pot where your hand turns into a bluff-catcher -- at this point, aces has only two real outs to improve the rest of the way...

    I'm checking as an absolute default and not thinking too hard about it.
  • persuadeopersuadeo Red Chipper, Table Captain Posts: 3,617 ✭✭✭✭✭
    It's too much to say here, but i want to start by acknowledging that it is not obvious. Maybe i just have been thinking this way for so long i sound like it is abc.

    I'll say two things. First, all of this is assumptive about ranges, so the principle is general. Betting can be made viable, as i said in my post. The answer down this path lies in how the betting strategy is mixed.

    Second, the main problem is that the unimproved PFR range will make bigger, more costly errors on boards which do not explicitly favor him when he chooses to make merged bets, such as any pair here. The rational strategy of the caller will be to turn all those thin value hands into bluffcatchers at his leisure when the frequency of pfr aggression is high. Now the pfr makes his biggest mistakes in his biggest pots.
  • moishetreatsmoishetreats Red Chipper Posts: 1,819 ✭✭✭✭
    persuadeo wrote: »
    Second, the main problem is that the unimproved PFR range will make bigger, more costly errors on boards which do not explicitly favor him when he chooses to make merged bets, such as any pair here. The rational strategy of the caller will be to turn all those thin value hands into bluffcatchers at his leisure when the frequency of pfr aggression is high. Now the pfr makes his biggest mistakes in his biggest pots.

    Interesting that your main focus is on the pre-flop raiser and his or her likely betting errors. Why is that the "main problem" for you? Isn't that error what leads to the main problem, which is what I was attempting to note above?

    Or do you mean that what you address is the first problem and, therefore, the one that directly leads to or causes all the follow-up problems?
  • persuadeopersuadeo Red Chipper, Table Captain Posts: 3,617 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Moishe, it's the latter. In fairness, i'm trying and probably failing to boil it down to a few things in a thread i don't want to get too deeply involved in other than to praise Jordan for having a strategy here that is beyond pushing equity one street at a time. I'd have to expound on a number of other ideas to bring full clarity and all of a sudden i'm writing an essay.
  • Jordan PowerJordan Power Red Chipper Posts: 230 ✭✭✭
    I mean, if you wanna write that essay, I'm game. I'm bored at work and decoding persuadeo wisdom would help my day go a lot faster.
  • Steve JonesSteve Jones Red Chipper Posts: 53 ✭✭
    I would use a mix of betting and checking back this flop. You put him on a range of 99-22,A9s-A2s,KTs+,QTs+,J7s+,T9s,98s,87s,76s,ATo-A5o,K9o+,Q8o+,J7o+,T9o,98o,87o,76o

    For most OMC's I deal with, their range will be a bit different than this for limp calling, but I will use the range you assigned. Against this exact range on this flop AA has 65.4% equity, so you have range advantage here. If he check raises that narrows his range to most likely something like JJ-77,AdQd,AdJd,AdTd,Ad9d,Ad8d,Ad7d,Ad6d,Ad5d,Ad4d,KdQd,KdJd,KdTd,K9s,QdJd,QdTd,JTs,87s,65s,A9o,JTo,98o, in which case our equity would be 36%, but that's not what happened as played here.

    To be balanced we should bet more often than check this flop. Checking is fine a smaller percentage of the time prolly around 30% of the time. I would mostly bet about $20-$25 on this flop. You get value from A7-AJ, 67-69, KT,QT,KJ, TT, JJ, and tons of combos of draws. Yes, you will be beat here sometimes, but there is a ton of value to be had here. If you are using an exploitative strategy, you should c bet here almost 100% of the time. If you are worried about balance then you should check back a small percentage of the time.

    There are just so many combos of hands he can have here that you are beating, and not that many combos that beat you. You are leaving a ton of value on the table by checking back this flop.

    As played, I would prolly be raising this turn most of the time because now I am ahead of all the 2 pair combos that didn't make a full house. If you bet this flop and got raised you could have easily folded vs this opponent. I think you are being results oriented in this hand analysis. Good discussion though. Try not to post results next time.

Leave a Comment

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