# Applying frequency-based betting to a hand

Red Chipper Posts: 108
edited September 2014
Hello-
I played a session of online poker today with the idea of analyzing one of the hands afterward, using Flopzilla and frequency-based analysis, as discussed in Ed's "1%" book.

The actual hand was , which I opened in the cutoff and got a call in the small blind.

The flop was , check, bet, call, turn was , check, bet, call and river was , check, bet, fold.

So I was doing my analysis as planned, and this led to some questions. The book talks about betting 70% of the hands in your pre-flop range on the flop, then on the turn you bet 70% of the hands which you bet on the flop, etc.

Then it occurred to me, what if I decide to check on the flop. I understand this is worth considering because so many top pair combos are blocked. Say the flop goes check, check. Now, on the turn, if villain checks, I would bet. But now I seem to be outside the "paradigm" of Ed's book, because I checked the flop. I'm not sure what to make of this. Well I'm sort of answering my own question: you take the hands you bet on the turn and bet 70% of them on the river. But still I wonder if I'm missing something here.

For that matter, the flop could be checked as well as the turn, and then I bet the river maybe to get some thin value, balanced with bluffs. This also seems outside the realm of the book. Am I missing something?

• RCP Coach Posts: 1,867 -
You are right in that Poker's 1% was mostly overviewing the thought process behind GTO, but does not cover the entire game tree.

Check, then bet the turn kind of lines were not covered.

Over all, I say bet the top trips. I swing for homeruns.
Co-founder Red Chip Poker,
Author Poker Plays You Can Use
Author Poker Workbook for Math Geeks
• RCP Coach Posts: 330
Yeah, what Doug said. I didn't cover these scenarios... as I mentioned in the book it's mostly just food for thought to get you started thinking along these lines.

The other thing about these scenarios is that I'm almost always in exploitative play mode by this time. For instance, if someone checks to me on the flop and I check it back, and they check again on the turn, I am betting turn and river with 100% of my hands against most players I play against. The range of hands that they check twice isn't strong enough to withstand turn and river barrels--particularly when they choose not to check-raise the turn or to donk bet the river.
• RCP Coach Posts: 330
Against nits and stronger players I check TT back on this flop. Against looser recreational players, I just bet it three times. And obviously, if I check it back on the flop I will bet turn and river. Against nits, as I mentioned above, I'm betting turn and river with 100% of hands.
• Red Chipper Posts: 19 ✭✭
ScottVal wrote:
Then it occurred to me, what if I decide to check on the flop. I understand this is worth considering because so many top pair combos are blocked. Say the flop goes check, check. Now, on the turn, if villain checks, I would bet. But now I seem to be outside the "paradigm" of Ed's book, because I checked the flop. I'm not sure what to make of this. Well I'm sort of answering my own question: you take the hands you bet on the turn and bet 70% of them on the river. But still I wonder if I'm missing something here.

It seems like you're discovering the same thing I did when first tried to do this type of analysis: it's complicated. There's a couple of ways you could go about this. You could analyze the hand "as played", which in this case would mean that if you were to put in your checking range then that hand would not be available on future streets because in this hand you bet flop. Top set would be in your checking range, but you didn't check, you bet. You bet with a range of hands that doesn't include , so that hand is not in your possible betting range on the turn.

The other option is to analyze this flop using many different lines and coming up with a range for each. This is obviously much more rigorous. You have to have a flop betting and a flop checking range. Then, if you're check raised, you have to have a calling/raising range. If it's checked through you have to have a turn betting range and a turn checking range (for various turn cards), etc. You get the idea. Not to mention your opponent may bet into you at some point. Then you would need a calling range and a raising range.

The most beneficial method is probably what Ed recommends, which is to analyze the hand as played. You note about 5 hands from a session and analyze them exactly as they played out on the felt. You do this every time you play. The problem for me is I only play about 15 times a year, so if I wait to play to record some hands for analysis, I'll never figure this out.