2/5 300BB Deep River Checkraise Bluff

RoblivionRoblivion WisconsinRed Chipper Posts: 269 ✭✭✭
2/5 ~1500 effective with main villain

UTG limps - this guy is lost in the woods, asking questions about calling bets that are more than his stack size and wrap-around straights.

Hero in CO raises to 25 with :9d :8d .
Main V calls on button. BB calls, UTG calls.

I have played with main V once or twice recently. He seems to be a winning player. Both sticky and aggressive, especially in position.

Flop (100)
:7s :7c :6h

Action checks to V, who bets 55. Folds to hero. Hero calls.

I didn't see much reason to bet here. I think the button is likely to at least float if not raise, and will probably bet more hands than he should when checked to. My plan is to let him keep the lead with an overly bluffy range and look for a spot to take down the pot.

Turn (210)
:Ks

Hero checks. V bets 115. Hero calls.

I considered putting in a raise here, but felt that he could have a lot of Kx and as mentioned he is sticky, so I felt there is a good chance he would call with those hands and I would still be left guessing OOP on the river. I would also probably just x/c my AK on this turn, so raising is repping pretty thin.

River (440)
:Js

Hero checks. V bets 225. Hero raises to 750.

This is the line I would take with KK and JJ, and a couple possible flushes. I think he gets here with a lot of Kx, KJ, air, and probably some weak pocket pair hands, but definitely has a handful of 7x, boats, and flushes as well.

Interested in hearing thoughts on all parts of this hand.

Comments

  • RedRed Red Chipper Posts: 1,848 ✭✭✭✭
    I don't understand why you left your FE go away by x/c on a not scary board - because you block 97 and 87, and 76 is blocked by the board - with a draw to the nuts.
    And for balance, if you don't fire top OESD on a XXYr board, what combo do you fire for bluff?

    Also, I don't really see what hand do you try to rep for value on river. Would you really check/call KK or JJ instead of c-bet ? Maybe... but not that often...? And I don't see you x/c OOP with 2 :SPADE: overcards (without :KS: and :JS: ! ), so no flush. Maybe you have 76/66 and slow played a monster, but that's it...
    So I think any hand V is able to fire 3 barrels with is a call. Except maybe if he is bluffing - but then you block OESD 98 as well as gutshots T9 and T8, making V's bets more value oriented and less likely to have a bluffy combo.

    Last but not least: re-reading the HH, I'm not a fan of this line on a stack size point of view. Because your c-r isn't a shove at the end, this allows a good V to 3-bet shove you, forcing you to fold a lot of the time. I'd be already more on board if your river c-r was a shove, forbidding V to raise bluff with a 3bet, which he should with the hands that have no SDV and you should beat (like 54s or T8s)
  • Wiki_LeaksWiki_Leaks Red Chipper Posts: 563 ✭✭✭
    edited December 2018
    TLDR:
    1. check range on the flop when we dont have nut advantage, especially in multiway situations.
    2. check raise the flop frequently vs an aggressive button who will likely stab the flop wide.
    3. check fold turn as played
    4. River move is fancy play syndrome and likely reveals a lack of understanding of blockers and river ranges.
    5. probably not a good idea to bluff an uncapped villain where you rep very few combinations of the nuts.


    Flop: When action checks to you, I'm almost certain we should check range. The field of opponents has significant nut advantage vs us. The percentage of 77, 76, 66, or 7x in our range is lower than almost all your opponents. When our range >opponent(s) range, we should play more defensively and check.

    Now our aggressive opponent bet on the button and everybody folds. The button has a significant incentive to take a stab here. He is an aggressive player, its a paired board (which is hard to hit), he can credibly represent combinations of the nuts or high equity hands, and he has seen everybody check.

    For these reasons, I think a check raise is in order. We protected ourselves by checking all of our hands and now have gotten to see all our opponent's actions. We are deep and OOP, and therefore our range has a large incentive to capitalize on our equity, especially vs one opponent with a relatively weak range. Our hand has good equity and favorable blocker properties. We block combinations of 7x as well as 88 or 99 our opponent decided not to 3 bet pre flop.

    You mentioned the button has "an overly bluffy range" and that you want to "look for a spot to take down the pot." The flop is that spot. As a default, the best check raise candidates have a combination of the following attributes: hands that are ahead of villain's bet/call range (best value hands), hands that have outs to overtake strong hands, and hands that block our opponents highest equity hands. An aggressive opponent like the button will stab on the flop far too often. The optimal adjustment vs a wide betting range on the flop should be to raise, and raise often.

    Turn:
    as played, we should probably check fold. We simply have better hands to continue with: all pairs, all backdoor spades, and maaybe A high are all better calls than 87.

    River:
    This seems like a punt to me. First, our opponent's range is uncapped, and our range is veery capped. Second, our blockers kinda suck. We only block thin value bets and bluffs. If we are going to bluff we at least want to block the nut flush, but more preferably block full house combinations (6x). Third, a check raise reps a tiny value range. Are you really going to CR flushes on the river, on a paired board, vs an uncapped opponent? probably not, so we have.... quads, KK, JJ? Your opponent likely perceives you to CB KK and JJ at least some of the time, so IMO he is going to put the cape on and call.

    On a more general level:

    The field does not value bet rivers thinly enough. They're "happy taking down the pot with trip 7s/small flush."

    The field doesn't fold rivers often enough. They either over fold or check back on previous streets. So when they get to the river after betting the flop, turn, and river, they will have a range which is more value heavy than it should be.



  • persuadeopersuadeo Red Chipper, Table Captain Posts: 3,832 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited December 2018
    1. Great post by Wiki. it's important to see that range wants to check here most often. Play in synchronicity with your range and poker becomes much, much easier.
    2. Let's say we are in exploit mode and want some low frequency bets. This one is the worst of the 98s to lay a merged price on the pot. Figure out why.
    3. As played, great low frequency exploit line to capture the most dead money from aggro players and faux GTOers, but not as likely to work on these guys who will not bet turn and river often enough thinly and hand read you for top boat. Hence the punt designation from Patrick. A classic Either/Or spot, and you are on the wrong end of the choice. But I hope you won as you were thinking about some good things.
  • RoblivionRoblivion WisconsinRed Chipper Posts: 269 ✭✭✭
    Thanks for the feedback, everyone.

    @Red as others have pointed out, this flop misses my range and potentially hits the other players in the hand. Betting will only get messy. Point well taken about general lack of spades, though I do think I would come up with a few flushes on the end (98, T9, AQ) but so will V.

    @Wiki_Leaks I think a flop checkraise is definitely the right move. I do still think a lot of my range should be a check-call, but because 89 blocks V's 7x so hard (especially :9s :8s specifically) a checkraise should get through quite often and have decent equity when it doesn't.

    Also, to the point about not likely checkraising the river with a flush on a paired board, I have actually done just that twice in my last couple sessions. Of course the hands played out a bit differently.

    @persuadeo Thanks. Always nice to get a minor vote of confidence from the table captain.
  • Phil EbbsPhil Ebbs Red Chipper Posts: 191 ✭✭✭
    edited December 2018
    Wiki_Leaks wrote: »
    TLDR:
    1. check range on the flop when we dont have nut advantage, especially in multiway situations.
    2. check raise the flop frequently vs an aggressive button who will likely stab the flop wide.
    3. check fold turn as played
    4. River move is fancy play syndrome and likely reveals a lack of understanding of blockers and river ranges.
    5. probably not a good idea to bluff an uncapped villain where you rep very few combinations of the nuts.


    Flop: When action checks to you, I'm almost certain we should check range. The field of opponents has significant nut advantage vs us. The percentage of 77, 76, 66, or 7x in our range is lower than almost all your opponents. When our range >opponent(s) range, we should play more defensively and check.

    Now our aggressive opponent bet on the button and everybody folds. The button has a significant incentive to take a stab here. He is an aggressive player, its a paired board (which is hard to hit), he can credibly represent combinations of the nuts or high equity hands, and he has seen everybody check.

    For these reasons, I think a check raise is in order. We protected ourselves by checking all of our hands and now have gotten to see all our opponent's actions. We are deep and OOP, and therefore our range has a large incentive to capitalize on our equity, especially vs one opponent with a relatively weak range. Our hand has good equity and favorable blocker properties. We block combinations of 7x as well as 88 or 99 our opponent decided not to 3 bet pre flop.

    You mentioned the button has "an overly bluffy range" and that you want to "look for a spot to take down the pot." The flop is that spot. As a default, the best check raise candidates have a combination of the following attributes: hands that are ahead of villain's bet/call range (best value hands), hands that have outs to overtake strong hands, and hands that block our opponents highest equity hands. An aggressive opponent like the button will stab on the flop far too often. The optimal adjustment vs a wide betting range on the flop should be to raise, and raise often.

    Turn:
    as played, we should probably check fold. We simply have better hands to continue with: all pairs, all backdoor spades, and maaybe A high are all better calls than 87.

    River:
    This seems like a punt to me. First, our opponent's range is uncapped, and our range is veery capped. Second, our blockers kinda suck. We only block thin value bets and bluffs. If we are going to bluff we at least want to block the nut flush, but more preferably block full house combinations (6x). Third, a check raise reps a tiny value range. Are you really going to CR flushes on the river, on a paired board, vs an uncapped opponent? probably not, so we have.... quads, KK, JJ? Your opponent likely perceives you to CB KK and JJ at least some of the time, so IMO he is going to put the cape on and call.

    On a more general level:

    The field does not value bet rivers thinly enough. They're "happy taking down the pot with trip 7s/small flush."

    The field doesn't fold rivers often enough. They either over fold or check back on previous streets. So when they get to the river after betting the flop, turn, and river, they will have a range which is more value heavy than it should be.



    @Wiki_Leaks , since we don't have a nut range advantage, what value hands are you X-raising here? overpairs and trips? What worse hands are calling our value X-raise hands?

    And if we think he is stabbing wide, then why raise with those hands? Wouldn't we rather call and let him barrel?
  • jfarrow13jfarrow13 Red Chipper Posts: 1,245 ✭✭✭✭
    I don't think it's the worst play, and TBH your repping so thin here, if I was V, I'd be like....no one would C/r river with anything but a really strong hand. As such, I'd think the main hands V would have here are KJ and KQ. Perhaps a FD. THE problem is, V always bet bet bets his 7's. And his FD's when he picks up additional turn equity. You really counting on a V being able to lay that down? Cause he aint laying down and 7 or a FD. NEXT. I can see the rational for checking your KK here, as equity denial isn't as important as few cards overtake you on the turn, but I don't check my JJ here. While people may argue that "OH you only get action from a 7 or perhaps 98, both of which can potentially raise you off your equity"...cool. I don't see enough people bluffing me here with random over floats, and if you mix up 7's and OESD's in there, take it from my JJ. I dont wanna just let it check through, and get over cards coming my way, where I'm just basically giving up on the flop with a hand this strong.


    So...TBH I'm taking JJ out of your range as V. Most derpy players will even see this board with JJ and KK and say "overpair lol smash in bets". So that leaves you playing possum with a 7, which I think is a good check here (even though I C/r it on the turn), So yeah, KK would play it like this. And 66. And 76, but as everyone else already pointed out, it's just so few combos. But, then again, when most pots like this happen, so often it does seem to be "man...really? No way. He's gotta have the XX hand, it just seems like suicide to bluff here" and people when and call it off anyways. So cudos to you if you ID'd this player to be good enough to just lay it down. Interested to see how this one turned out.
    Because your c-r isn't a shove at the end, this allows a good V to 3-bet shove you, forcing you to fold a lot of the time
    If V 3-bet shoved with air here, he deserves the pot. That's heart. The only thing would be if V has a weak 7, and was trying to get hero to potentially (stupidly?), fold out another 7, or a flush. That would be a ballsy play, and I'd love it, knowing that likely hero isn't raising here without the flush or a FH, BUT, if hero would play a 7 possum, then he has a tough time calling here.
  • RoblivionRoblivion WisconsinRed Chipper Posts: 269 ✭✭✭
    For those interested:
    V grumbled something along the lines of "Pocket jacks?" and folded without much fanfare.
  • RedRed Red Chipper Posts: 1,848 ✭✭✭✭
    jfarrow13 wrote: »
    Because your c-r isn't a shove at the end, this allows a good V to 3-bet shove you, forcing you to fold a lot of the time
    If V 3-bet shoved with air here, he deserves the pot. That's heart. The only thing would be if V has a weak 7, and was trying to get hero to potentially (stupidly?), fold out another 7, or a flush. That would be a ballsy play, and I'd love it, knowing that likely hero isn't raising here without the flush or a FH, BUT, if hero would play a 7 possum, then he has a tough time calling here.

    TBH I don't see many low stakes Villains able to do it.
    Still, I've encounters this advise twice or 3 times from pro (in pro material) about bluffing the river.
  • Steve JonesSteve Jones Red Chipper Posts: 95 ✭✭
    Ive read this thread 4 times and I cant tell if you played the hand really great or just got lucky that the other guy had nothing.

    What do you think the guy folded?

    What range does the other guy have on the river here, and how much of that range is not trips or a flush, and what will he fold?
  • RoblivionRoblivion WisconsinRed Chipper Posts: 269 ✭✭✭
    Ive read this thread 4 times and I cant tell if you played the hand really great or just got lucky that the other guy had nothing.

    That is pretty much why I posted this hand. That line between genius and madness can be hard to see, especially when I'm the one drawing it.
    What do you think the guy folded?

    What range does the other guy have on the river here, and how much of that range is not trips or a flush, and what will he fold?

    See, that's why I chose this path against this player. I think he calls pretty wide on the button preflop, then bets almost all of his range on the flop. Once the only caller is me, the PFR, rather than some field caller whose more likely to have a 7, I think he is going to barrel off more often than he should, because I'm "capped."

    I think he's going to fire a third barrel on the river with 76, 66, 7x, spades, KJ, and Kx, but I also think he's going to have a lot of weird 22-55, 54, AXs, T9, 98 sort of hands that he's just trying to push me out with. I do think he probably finds a fold with K9 and KT and maybe KQ. I don't expect him to fold 7x, but you do see these hero folds frm time to time. And he's of course calling with a flush or better, and probably KJ.
  • Steve JonesSteve Jones Red Chipper Posts: 95 ✭✭
    Roblivion wrote: »
    Ive read this thread 4 times and I cant tell if you played the hand really great or just got lucky that the other guy had nothing.

    That is pretty much why I posted this hand. That line between genius and madness can be hard to see, especially when I'm the one drawing it.
    What do you think the guy folded?

    What range does the other guy have on the river here, and how much of that range is not trips or a flush, and what will he fold?

    See, that's why I chose this path against this player. I think he calls pretty wide on the button preflop, then bets almost all of his range on the flop. Once the only caller is me, the PFR, rather than some field caller whose more likely to have a 7, I think he is going to barrel off more often than he should, because I'm "capped."

    I think he's going to fire a third barrel on the river with 76, 66, 7x, spades, KJ, and Kx, but I also think he's going to have a lot of weird 22-55, 54, AXs, T9, 98 sort of hands that he's just trying to push me out with. I do think he probably finds a fold with K9 and KT and maybe KQ. I don't expect him to fold 7x, but you do see these hero folds frm time to time. And he's of course calling with a flush or better, and probably KJ.

    So I guess if you think he fires 3 barrels with so many combos on the river, then this line is profitable long term then correct?

    You must know him pretty well, I dont think in game, I could put too many opponents on this many combos after 3 barrels. But if you know him well and knw he has this many combos of hands, then you must be good here like 50% of the time, and the c/r is profitable.
  • Wiki_LeaksWiki_Leaks Red Chipper Posts: 563 ✭✭✭
    post got a little long, my b.

    @Phil Ebbs

    from what i have read from your posts its likely you are likely further down the poker path than I am. I will still answer these questions to the best of my ability. If your questions were intended to be leading, then thanks as it forced me to further examine the spot. If not, then thanks as it forced me to further examine the spot.

    concerning your question, "if we think he is stabbing wide, then why raise with those hands? Wouldn't we rather call and let him barrel?"

    On a general level:
    In my experience with PIO, if we node lock a betting range for a player which is wider than is what considered optimal for a given bet size, the correct adjustment vs such a strategy is to increase the check raise frequency with both value hands and bluffs. I will admit I don't fully understand why this is happening. My guess is we gain more EV from denying our opponent equity than letting him realize equity.

    I have also found the inverse of this adjustment to be true. When our opponent raises less frequently than what is optimal, PIO's adjustment is to bet significantly more often vs the passive strategy. This makes sense; we get to maximize our chances to garner folds and we dont need to worry about our opponent denying us of our equity realization.

    on paired boards:
    Equity rich parts of ranges are more rare. This is intuitive because there are fewer sets available, and, particularly when the pair is a middling card, trips combinations are fewer. This is because we typically only play suited and pocket pair varieties of these hands. This is important to the discussion for two reasons:
    1. Blocker effects are highly important. Blocking villain's potential trips combinations removes a larger percentage of villain's possible nutted equity.
    2. the bottom of continuance ranges will be relatively light compared to other board textures. Practically, this means the field is likely over folding on paired boards. For example, consider a COvBUT srp on the 776r board. Optimally, button should call the check raise with KQs nearly 100% of the time, some KJs, A9 with a backdoor flush draw, and A5-A8. My guess is the vast majority of players are folding these hands at least some of the time. If we are supposed to check raise this often facing an optimal opponent, imagine how frequently we should be check raising an opponent who over folds (assuming he stabs at least the correct frequency when checked to.)


    Again, consider the COvBUT srp on 776r. Lets examine an extreme example where button will increase his betting frequency to 100%, i.e. bet range. If there is merit for CO to check call flop with some portion of his value range, we should see the solver do this at some frequency.

    Inputs:
    x0si1tzpjruy.png
    note: i did not replicate suits from rob's original board. sorry about that.
    CO is opening about 25%, BUT is calling approximately 9.5%
    solving to 0.4% of the pot

    "since we don't have a nut range advantage, what value hands are you X-raising here?"

    Here is the "optimal" strategy except co and button are heads up:
    CO EV: 2.11
    BUT EV: 3.89

    CO: check range
    BUT: bets 50% pot with 73% of his range
    CO: check raises 3.5x about 21%, calls 33%, and folds 46%
    BUT: raises 2%, calls 53%, and folds 45%

    Check raise strategy:
    CO EV: 2.18
    BUT EV: 3.82
    ahi3kxyrijxb.png

    Despite button possessing nut advantage in this spot, the optimal strategy for CO is still to check raise relatively frequently.

    when we node lock IP to bet range:
    CO response to IP bet: raise 32%, call 25, and fold 42%
    7jwnq528a5c6.png

    in both simulations the CO should occasionally call with overpairs to protect his calling range, but the general adjustment facing an aggressive opponent who bets too frequently is to go to war with them and raise more frequently instead of playing opossum.

    Its interesting to note how similar the EVs are for each scenario. The button only loses 1.8%% of EV by betting range if our opponent adjusts optimally.

    I realize the response was a bit general. I didn'tt give concrete directions for how to adjust, just to check raise more. If we were to construct a check raise strategy vs an aggressive opponent vs an optimal one, what would this strategy look like?

    -always check range to our opponent since he will have nut advantage
    -vs optimal/default check raise strategy would be:
    1. check raise all our nutted value
    2. check raise KK-TT, AcAs which blocks A7s (call with KK sometimes), check call other overpairs
    3. mostly call our A highs+backdoor flush draw+ 2 overcards (fold AJo and lower and ATcc) while sprinkling in some AK raises which block 7x for thin value
    4. mostly raise non A high backdoor FD+overs + backdoor straights (JTs, J9s), sometimes fold
    5. sometimes raise 2 overs+backdoor FD that DONT block villain's open enders and gutshots (example: mix raise and call with KQss but check fold all QTs)
    5. sometimes check raise gutshots and open enders, sometimes call
    6. mostly call 6x, but raising the suited club variety is good because of the insane blocker properties

    vs an opponent who bets range:
    1. mostly check raise overpairs TT and bigger, check call 88, 99
    2. we are check raising overs+backdoor flush draw quite often (at least mixing raise and fold now instead of pure folds with QTs)
    3. check raise open enders almost 100%
    4. check raise overs + gutshots at least 50% of the time
    5. check raise non A high double backdoors+ overcards nearly always (A9, A8 are exceptions because they block 7x hard)
    6. AK-AJo mix raise and call if raises if it blocks 7x (Ac and As)
  • RoblivionRoblivion WisconsinRed Chipper Posts: 269 ✭✭✭
    Roblivion wrote: »
    Ive read this thread 4 times and I cant tell if you played the hand really great or just got lucky that the other guy had nothing.

    That is pretty much why I posted this hand. That line between genius and madness can be hard to see, especially when I'm the one drawing it.
    What do you think the guy folded?

    What range does the other guy have on the river here, and how much of that range is not trips or a flush, and what will he fold?

    See, that's why I chose this path against this player. I think he calls pretty wide on the button preflop, then bets almost all of his range on the flop. Once the only caller is me, the PFR, rather than some field caller whose more likely to have a 7, I think he is going to barrel off more often than he should, because I'm "capped."

    I think he's going to fire a third barrel on the river with 76, 66, 7x, spades, KJ, and Kx, but I also think he's going to have a lot of weird 22-55, 54, AXs, T9, 98 sort of hands that he's just trying to push me out with. I do think he probably finds a fold with K9 and KT and maybe KQ. I don't expect him to fold 7x, but you do see these hero folds frm time to time. And he's of course calling with a flush or better, and probably KJ.

    So I guess if you think he fires 3 barrels with so many combos on the river, then this line is profitable long term then correct?

    You must know him pretty well, I dont think in game, I could put too many opponents on this many combos after 3 barrels. But if you know him well and knw he has this many combos of hands, then you must be good here like 50% of the time, and the c/r is profitable.

    In fact I do not know him very well. I just know that he seems to be either "on" (I'm taking an aggressive line, so will bet often on all streets) or "off" (I'm going to check/fold.) I don't know that he bets all of these combos on the river, but have a strong feeling that he bets lots of them on the flop and turn, and probably bets them all with some frequency on the river, though I do not know what that frequency is. This assumption is based on a combination of his aggressive nature and the perception that he "can" have 7x here and I "can't."

    @Wiki_Leaks Thanks for putting in the elbow grease on the PIO.
  • SullySully Red Chipper Posts: 744 ✭✭✭
    edited December 2018
    Just thinking out loud here:

    Don't understand how BU has range advantage. If we ISO with 8,9s I would assume we would be doing it with 66,77,78s,67s,56s,97s

    Paired board where we have as many nut combos and top end advantage looks like advantage PFR to me.

    I also don't like this hand to CR with. You are not ahead of BU bet/call range and have zero outs to the nuts if called and have like no barreling turn cards other then hitting your straight

    Why are we so gung ho to get the BU to bet and then bloat the pot with a CR bluff trying to get him to fold hands we could could just as easily accomplish by making a bet for cheaper or taking a bet/bet line for the same price?

    With all this overfolding going on by opponents on paired boards what about actually having a slightly larger bet frequency, with some actual bluffs, even multiway?

    Finally, with this particular hand: Can we bet/bet on flop and turn? Can we bet/fold to flop raise. How about all our 89s or 45s if that's in your iso range

    I would say yes to both
  • Phil EbbsPhil Ebbs Red Chipper Posts: 191 ✭✭✭
    Wiki_Leaks wrote: »
    post got a little long, my b.

    @Phil Ebbs

    from what i have read from your posts its likely you are likely further down the poker path than I am. I will still answer these questions to the best of my ability. If your questions were intended to be leading, then thanks as it forced me to further examine the spot. If not, then thanks as it forced me to further examine the spot.

    concerning your question, "if we think he is stabbing wide, then why raise with those hands? Wouldn't we rather call and let him barrel?"

    On a general level:
    In my experience with PIO, if we node lock a betting range for a player which is wider than is what considered optimal for a given bet size, the correct adjustment vs such a strategy is to increase the check raise frequency with both value hands and bluffs. I will admit I don't fully understand why this is happening. My guess is we gain more EV from denying our opponent equity than letting him realize equity.

    I have also found the inverse of this adjustment to be true. When our opponent raises less frequently than what is optimal, PIO's adjustment is to bet significantly more often vs the passive strategy. This makes sense; we get to maximize our chances to garner folds and we dont need to worry about our opponent denying us of our equity realization.

    on paired boards:
    Equity rich parts of ranges are more rare. This is intuitive because there are fewer sets available, and, particularly when the pair is a middling card, trips combinations are fewer. This is because we typically only play suited and pocket pair varieties of these hands. This is important to the discussion for two reasons:
    1. Blocker effects are highly important. Blocking villain's potential trips combinations removes a larger percentage of villain's possible nutted equity.
    2. the bottom of continuance ranges will be relatively light compared to other board textures. Practically, this means the field is likely over folding on paired boards. For example, consider a COvBUT srp on the 776r board. Optimally, button should call the check raise with KQs nearly 100% of the time, some KJs, A9 with a backdoor flush draw, and A5-A8. My guess is the vast majority of players are folding these hands at least some of the time. If we are supposed to check raise this often facing an optimal opponent, imagine how frequently we should be check raising an opponent who over folds (assuming he stabs at least the correct frequency when checked to.)


    Again, consider the COvBUT srp on 776r. Lets examine an extreme example where button will increase his betting frequency to 100%, i.e. bet range. If there is merit for CO to check call flop with some portion of his value range, we should see the solver do this at some frequency.

    Inputs:
    x0si1tzpjruy.png
    note: i did not replicate suits from rob's original board. sorry about that.
    CO is opening about 25%, BUT is calling approximately 9.5%
    solving to 0.4% of the pot

    "since we don't have a nut range advantage, what value hands are you X-raising here?"

    Here is the "optimal" strategy except co and button are heads up:
    CO EV: 2.11
    BUT EV: 3.89

    CO: check range
    BUT: bets 50% pot with 73% of his range
    CO: check raises 3.5x about 21%, calls 33%, and folds 46%
    BUT: raises 2%, calls 53%, and folds 45%

    Check raise strategy:
    CO EV: 2.18
    BUT EV: 3.82
    ahi3kxyrijxb.png

    Despite button possessing nut advantage in this spot, the optimal strategy for CO is still to check raise relatively frequently.

    when we node lock IP to bet range:
    CO response to IP bet: raise 32%, call 25, and fold 42%
    7jwnq528a5c6.png

    in both simulations the CO should occasionally call with overpairs to protect his calling range, but the general adjustment facing an aggressive opponent who bets too frequently is to go to war with them and raise more frequently instead of playing opossum.

    Its interesting to note how similar the EVs are for each scenario. The button only loses 1.8%% of EV by betting range if our opponent adjusts optimally.

    I realize the response was a bit general. I didn'tt give concrete directions for how to adjust, just to check raise more. If we were to construct a check raise strategy vs an aggressive opponent vs an optimal one, what would this strategy look like?

    -always check range to our opponent since he will have nut advantage
    -vs optimal/default check raise strategy would be:
    1. check raise all our nutted value
    2. check raise KK-TT, AcAs which blocks A7s (call with KK sometimes), check call other overpairs
    3. mostly call our A highs+backdoor flush draw+ 2 overcards (fold AJo and lower and ATcc) while sprinkling in some AK raises which block 7x for thin value
    4. mostly raise non A high backdoor FD+overs + backdoor straights (JTs, J9s), sometimes fold
    5. sometimes raise 2 overs+backdoor FD that DONT block villain's open enders and gutshots (example: mix raise and call with KQss but check fold all QTs)
    5. sometimes check raise gutshots and open enders, sometimes call
    6. mostly call 6x, but raising the suited club variety is good because of the insane blocker properties

    vs an opponent who bets range:
    1. mostly check raise overpairs TT and bigger, check call 88, 99
    2. we are check raising overs+backdoor flush draw quite often (at least mixing raise and fold now instead of pure folds with QTs)
    3. check raise open enders almost 100%
    4. check raise overs + gutshots at least 50% of the time
    5. check raise non A high double backdoors+ overcards nearly always (A9, A8 are exceptions because they block 7x hard)
    6. AK-AJo mix raise and call if raises if it blocks 7x (Ac and As)

    I think you are right about PIO wanting to check raise more often as an equity denial, especially given position. calling often goes check check to the river, which isn't great with overpairs.

    And for sure, I'm not further on the poker path than you =)
  • Loveomaha3223Loveomaha3223 Red Chipper Posts: 6
    Feels like you played this as poorly as possible even though you might have gotten lucky to get away with river bluff there are just better lines to take. Pre flop not sure why raising 5x with speculative hand that plays well post flop I'm probably raisin 2.5x leaving more manuverability post flop. Check raise on flop is less expensive and more profitable long term than spewing your whole stack on river imo.
  • Loveomaha3223Loveomaha3223 Red Chipper Posts: 6
    P.s. You also need to know your opponents stack sizes when evaluating the hand which I didn't see posted
  • RoblivionRoblivion WisconsinRed Chipper Posts: 269 ✭✭✭
    P.s. You also need to know your opponents stack sizes when evaluating the hand which I didn't see posted

    First sentence of the OP.
  • persuadeopersuadeo Red Chipper, Table Captain Posts: 3,832 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Nice. A master of details in the house at last. Raisin to 12.5 at 2/5 is def solid. definitely, definitely.

Leave a Comment

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