Often I hear people say something like we should not have a check raising range on a dry/static flop, for instance on a K93 board where we hold 33. Imo this is only true if we are aware that villain is barreling turn with high frequency. Against unknown isn't it better to build the pot right from the flop? For balancing we could always add in some bluffs, like in this case TJ or some BD type hands. Any opinions?

Just completely wrong. There's some logic to the idea that on draw heavy boards we should checkraise more due to the need to protect our hand from draws, and due to our opponent's being more apt to put us on a draw which means our value hands get more action. But to say we should "not have a check-raise range" on dry boards is completely bogus.

A board like K93 is dry, but its also a board where our opponent will immediately put us on a respectable hand if we just call (a king), so frequently he'll give up with his bluffs. This is not true for other dry boards like 943, where our opponent can easily put us on 89, 55, or even something like AJ. So I'm much more apt to be checkraising the first hand than the second, because you'll get double-barreled on the second way more often. Still, as a default I'm probably checkraising the second hand. Typical opponents are loose/passive, meaning you can count on them calling, but they typically aren't aggressive enough that you can count on them barrelling.

There are more reasons for call than "V can barrel turn". Reasons like V can hit pair later and pay more, our bluffs have poor chance to improve, calling sets makes our c range stronger, we can postpone our raises to turn or float bet river oop...

I like to think that regarding theory, you can do pretty much anything with any hand as long as you have enough hands to balance it with. That said, we also always need to consider how "creating new ranges" (like check-raising range on dry flops) will affect all the other ranges.

Using your K93 example - sure, we can start x-raising all our 33, 99, K3s, K9 hands and if we add some QJ/QT/JT hands, we can easily be balanced in this spot. However, doing this will weaken and cap our calling ranges to a great extent.

If you look at any of the solvers out there the frequency with which dry flops are ch/r is really very high in alot of spots.
It seems the highest ev way to play big hands is to play them agreesively add the appropriate bluffs and have a somewhat capped ch/c range.
You just have to play your bluff catchers accordingly.

Sent from my SM-G900F using Tapatalk

I'm seeing similar results with the solver I use.

I ran the K93 flop with BB calling against CO open raise. The solver suggests raising 33 74% of the time, 99 38% of the time, and K9s 30% of the time. And balancing with bluffs QJs, QTs, JTs.

My default line would have been to slow play - but the solver suggests otherwise.

...not sure why the solver suggests playing this way. When your opponent calls your c/r you don't know whether you are playing against a capped range or a slow played monster. Whereas if the board were dynamic you are more likely up against a capped range when your opponent calls - and more likely to get folds with your bluffs on later streets.

Not sure I will change my line unless someone can convince me otherwise !

It's the highest ev way to play your range I would guess. You make way more from your values hands once called and with deep stacks makes it easier to get stacks in.
Plus IP needs to fold a lot to a ch/r likely over folds as well actually so you get to bluff alot.

From the spots I have looked at ch/c strong hands becomes more prevalent at shallower stack deeps which makes sense as its still easier to get stacks in but on the other hand tp is then ch/r alot still in those shallower spots (sub 50bb) and even 2nd pairs in a lot of spots.

I am new to the poker theory section maybe someone else has some more sophisticated analysis but from what I have seen alot of lines are spr based (reducing it), equity denial based also and pumping the pot full of money with value hands.

Sent from my SM-G900F using Tapatalk

Thinking a bit more about this....it might make sense to c/r bluff with the QJs, QTs, JTs, combos that also have BD FDs, this gives more of an opportunity to bluff the turn should these hands improve to a FD...the turn barrel would be against a capped range should villain call, setting up a river shove. Can balance this with the 33s K9s and other nut hands.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Why capped? Do we, by default, expect villains to be 3 betting value hands on the flop?

I meant if villain called our turn barrel when we picked up a FD then his range would be somewhat capped - allowing us to shove the river as a bluff. Just trying to rationalise why it might make sense to c/r the flop in the first place.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

We only balance if were intending on using GTO. We only use GTO if we have no profit available from exploitation. There aren't really any set rules when exploiting. We simply take the line which we expect will make the most money from our opponent.

If we are playing a good, brave, level two villain, and we ourselves raise reasonably often, then by all means raise on those dry flops when you have strength, as the villain will probably think that you're bluffing. (to begin with atleast). Usually it'll just be better to raise the turn or river instead, but this should defo be a move in our artillery.

Sorry, but I wont be continuing posting so theres no point in hounding me. I just found myself online and thought I would give a little advice.

Sure, that is why started my post with "regarding theory"

Yeah I did notice that... One of us defo misunderstands what 'Poker Theory' consists of

Man discovers he can google his own name.

Either that or it's a euphemism for beating it to your own youtube channel

Errm, u didn't understand what I meant... Oh no, that was an attempt to mock me. It was really, really, really funny, so Rusty and I will both let it slide. Oh how I miss these threads.