So, as some of you may or may not know, I play a lot of 1/2 at my local casino. I consider myself to be a pretty bad player but I try to put some thought behind my plays. While I play purely as a hobby, I still take my gaming seriously.

An interesting hand cropped up at one of my sessions last week that got me thinking about ranges.

I had KK on the BTN with ~$300 behind. It folded to the CO who limped. This V limps a ton and plays a lot of hands. I have very rarely ever seen him be aggressive and he usually c/c a lot. He has about ~$240 behind.

I raise it up to $10. The SB calls, the BB folds, and the limper calls. The opponent in the SB limps a lot and is capable of bluffing. He has about $140 behind.

The flop was 336. The action checks to me. Since I flopped an overpair and there is a flush draw out there, I feel like I should be putting money in to charge draws. Any of these opponents could have a 6 or having something like 45o so I should begin charging them. I put in a half pot bet of $15.

The SB folds and the V in the CO min-raises me and makes it $30.

So, at this point, I am trying to figure out if I should continue or not. I have watched a lot of videos and they talk about how if you are at the top of your range, then you should continue and if you are at the bottom of your range then you should fold.

But, what would be considered the top of my range here? I obviously continue if I have pocket 6's or pocket 3's. But, what about overpairs? I could fold 7's, 8's, 9's, 10's, and even maybe J's. Q's? A's? What about non-paired hands? I would obviously continue with either a call or a raise if I had AX. But, what about AKo? How does the K being in my hand factor into his raise? Does that mean he most likely is not bluffing with a flush draw?

I have not seen this player make raises like this very often over a six hour session. Could it actually be conceivable that unless I have pocket 6's or pocket 3's, then I should *ALWAYS* fold since it appears that V's re-raising range is always for value?

For a click back I would continue here with pretty much my entire range, including two overs. Call and play in position - there is no point in raising.
Against a bigger raise and vs deeper stacks you can fold here the bottom of your range which is all suited connectors w/o spades and any overs. I would still call with all OPs but proceed cautiously.

Sent from my ONEPLUS A3003 using Tapatalk

"But, what would be considered the top of my range here?"
Just start with your pre range, are 66 33 A3s within the range? When you overlimp e.g. overlimp small pps and raise Axs then 2 combos of A3 is top, follows AA KK...
Continue with your cb range. Very likely you bet all pairs plus FDs, maybe some BDFDs but not many 3way otf.
I doubt you cb something like QJ hearts thus such hands are not bottom of your range. Bottom are BDFDs (if you have any) and small FDs like JTspades.
From this it should be visible that KK is close to top of range, can call all pairs+ and high FDs, fold small FDs as they have reverse implied odds.

You seem to be trying to use a GTO thought process against a clearly exploitable villain. You don't need to follow your actual range at all when making an exploitative play. You just consider your actual cards. Which is a far simpler calculation...

We're not going to try to bluff this guy now or later on in this hand and so we are playing purely for value - All we need to do then, is calculate whether our two cards are strong enough to play.

To find out whether they are strong enough, we weigh up the cost of the play with our win chance. So, by the river, will we beat enough of the villains range to cover the price?

This bet is tiny. The price is 5:1. And if the villain does have the odd bluff in his range we clearly have the price to continue with our KK. We still beat his bluffs, his 6's, his smaller overpairs. And we're only losing to the 3's, 66, or AA. We probably beat more than half of his hands and so this call is easy.

All we really need to worry about is how often he is going to bet by the river. This passive kind of guy could slow down for lots of reasons. He could do so planning to check raise, or if the turn brought a flush perhaps, or maybe if he gives up on his bluff, etc etc. So even by the river I reckon we will beat enough of his range to outweigh the price. And so, we should call, and hope he starts checking! Or hope we hit our K. We might well have to fold to a turn bet.

... Fwiw, in this example I don't think the villain is bluffing. I do think he has a value hand. But I think his range is far wider than the nuts and so continuing with an actual range of only 66 and 33 is definitely way too tight here... I also think that folding the weak flush draws is too tight as he could slow down... But I do think we should have Cbet with some of our big back door draws and should usually fold them to this min raise... And so, I do agree that we do continue with almost all of our cbetting range. It's just that there is no reason to work all that out! We don't have a flush draw. We have KK. Following our actual range is a massive waste of brain power.

What did he have, an annoying A3? AA??

Yup. I think this is one of your best posts; the simplicity is what makes it great imo.
You want to fold your whole value range except for the 4 best combos for a <20% pot investment? Seems like a recipe for disaster.

I'm all for exploiting on the margins, but KK isn't marginal in that spot. Vs some players I'll 3 bet the flop if I want to call a shove from an overaggressive player. Not vs unknown limpers though. I just assume that they either (a) have me beat, or (b) have a weaker value hand that I have crushed, or (c) they're bluffing. Getting 5:1, I think it would take an awesome read to fold here.

So, I called for a couple of reasons. KK is too strong of a hand so I felt it definitely at the top. He could be doing this with 45 or something silly and for only 15 more to see a turn, I decided to send another card and reevaluate the turn.

An off suit 4 came on the turn. He bombed it for 90.

Against a different player (one who isn't so weak and passive), I think I would definitely consider calling here. But, against this player who rarely shows aggression, is KK still high enough in my range to continue?

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G928A using Tapatalk

The bottom of your range is a hand like AK without a flush draw.

Some players min-raise here with a hand like 88 to see where they are at. Some players min-raise with trips or better because they are afraid a bigger raise will lead to a fold. If your opponent truly is a passive player, whether loose-passive or tight-passive, then he probably will only call with a small overpair. If you've played a lot with this opponent and never seen him bet a draw or raise with a one-pair hand, he almost certainly has you beat here.

There are some passive players who will raise with a strong draw like a straight flush draw or a pair with the nut flush draw, but check and call on the turn if they brick, so you might consider calling and folding to a significant bet on the turn.

There happens to be a flush draw possible and small stakes players are often paranoid about flush draws. Some will try to raise big on the flop to charge draws. Others will play passively and wait for a safe turn before trying to get significant money in. The former might only min-raise here with 66 and 63 (while slow-playing 33).

KK might be the 2nd best hand in your range, unless you also iso-raise 66, 33 and/or A6s pre-flop. Obviously villain can have some trips or even boats in his range, as well as some draws, but can't he also be minraising hands like A6, 76s, 65s or 88 "for protection" or to "find out where he's at" ()? You beat loads of combos he could theoretically be raising, and the price is dirt cheap. You should definitely call the flop and then re-evaluate on the turn.
When it comes a 4, that's no good for your range, let alone your actual hand, so when villain bombs it, you can give serious consideration to making an exploitative fold. I don't think I would fold KK, however. I don't play live, but when I play online against weak players they often show up with one pair (especially pair+draw) in spots like this, so KK is often ahead. Hands like TT/99 would be easier folds since they are further down my range. Blockers don't have much of an effect on this board, as villain has a wide starting range with tons of FDs, isn't likely to be consciously "bluffing" in the first place, and 99-KK don't block any straight draws on 6334.

I would raise A3s on the BTN after one limp and I would raise 66 but not 33.

From what i have gathered, it sounds like continuing with KK on the flop is okay but I should make the exploitative fold on the turn. Keep in mind, this is 1/2. These folks are not thinking about frequencies, ranges, balancing, or anything like that. When he bombs the turn, I'm fairly certain he doesn't have flush draws or 45 in his range anymore. Im certain it has to be a 3.

I decided to fold and he was kind enough to turn over 73s.

So, if he limp calls with 73s, that tells me he is virtually playing ATC. How can I exploit that? Bigger preflop raise? Reraise more in flops? Call down lighter?

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G928A using Tapatalk

Value-bet thinner when he takes passive lines such as checking to you. However, if he is a typical loose-passive, then one exploit is folding more often when he breathes at the pot. One pair is usually not good against him if he seems interested in getting it in.

The important thing is to concentrate on the passive part and not get fixated on the loose part. A loose-passive player often requires the same hand strengths to bet or raise as a tight-passive player. He might be more likely to have a random two-pair hand instead of a set, but he is usually not bluffing or betting his draws.

If you would fold your hand to a raise from a tight-passive nit, then you should usually fold the same hand to a raise from a loose-passive calling station, but you should bet more hands against the loose-passive player, when a hand like TPGK might not be a good value bet on some boards against the tight-passive player.

your takeaway from this hand is pretty good sir