Since the big blind is checking and donking at frequencies, we can't really say that the big blind is capped. However, there must be a good word to describe his checking range, which will be slightly bluffcatcher heavy due to the donking range.

So we should be able to value bet somewhat more effectively in position after the big blind checks here on the 567r flop because of the strong hands that have been used in the big blind's flop donking range than we could against a 100% flop checker.

What you do with your range also depends on the range of the flatter.

This is true of course, but I'm trying to get a better position based strategy for playing against unknowns and good players like yourself.

With a read that the big blind is tight preflop, static boards will no longer favor the preflop raiser as much.

A strategy I use when I'm trying to analyze play from a GTO stand point is take my approximate preflop ranges and then basically play against myself.

So say you have this 765hhh board like you mentioned, CO vs BB. Assign yourself a BB flatting range vs CO and a CO opening range.

Then, determine (without continuuing throughout the entire thought process) what you are betting and checking with as CO, and what you are folding, calling and raising with as BB.

Change your strategy as necessary.

Yup this is pretty much how I analyze hands. I like to have ~60%-65% equity with my betting range and ~45%-50% equity with my calling range. I pay special attention to the equity of what I think are the threshold bluffcatchers, which form the bottom of my calling range.

I don't think that's particularly a great way to view it tbh. On a lot of textures and specifically rivers you're going to have ~0% equity bluffs for one. You also don't necessarily need 50%+ equity for betting to be higher EV than checking, even if it is something like a 40% equity vs. a calling range. There are other things to take into consideration when deciding whether a check or bet is higher EV, although it does get a little harder to quantify at that point.

The equities are not a goal, but instead they're the product of what I think good ranges result in as far as equity goes. It's like the "what should my stats look like?" threads in the beginner's forum that always get the same answer of "just learn to play good poker and the stats will figure themselves out."

I agree that sometimes betting with <50% equity is the best play, but it's very dependent on both the opponent having a capped range that limits his ability to raise and me having an uncapped range that will further limit my opponent's ability to raise.

Just be careful with the "broad stroke" type of strategies.

could someone give me a definition for 'asymmetric' or 'asymmetrical', relating to a pair of ranges?

One of the ranges has a clear advantage in terms of nut or really high equity hands with a low probability of being outdrawn.

On a more basic level, the "a" at the beginning means "not" and "symmetric" means "the same." So it just means that the ranges are different.

Like when utg6max raises preflop, four players fold, and the big blind calls, the big blind probably can't have QQ+ or AK, so the ranges are said to be asymmetric. The ranges are different. Usually this results in the preflop raiser having a range vs range equity advantage on the majority of, but not all flops.

If I'm in the BB vs UTG, I almost always flat AKo and only 3-bet QQ half the time. But I'm special.

right, but it doesn't just mean different, does it? otherwise you'd just write 'different'. your example suggests that the concept of asymmetry is related to the concept of capped ranges.

Not necessarily. Consider these ranges going head to head:

TT+, AK

88+, AQo+

Neither range is capped, but the ranges are different. This will result in one range having a raw equity advantage postflop.

Doesn't seem like two years have passed since I wrote this op.

Ever since I got the hang of thinking about the stuff I learned in this thread at game speed, I haven't tweaked my strategy one bit. Of course, I still make mistakes, particularly calling down too light too often, but that's more of a bluffcatcher problem than a betting or raising strategy problem. I now feel like I have a pretty solid grasp on what makes up a decent betting or raising strategy postflop, and I have you guys that helped me in this thread to thank.

I've found that another seemingly hidden benefit of giving up with my junky hands on dynamic boards yields many good river bluffing opportunities after the flop and turn both check through. I've even won some pots with as little as nine high on more than one occasion when I felt that I had enough showdown value vs my opponent's range to make checking more profitable than bluffing. On other occasions, I've made smallish 1/2-2/3 pot sized bets on the river and those bluffs get through quite regularly. This is especially true when I've been observed previously betting rivers with decent value hands after checking the flop and turn.

I've almost completely abandoned the idea of attempting to make my opponent indifferent to calling or folding. I only try to think of which play has the highest expectation and I go with that. I haven't had fantastic results by any means, but I think I'm ready to go to the next level. I'm just not sure what that means anymore.

The only thing that really bothers me on occasion is that I don't check call enough strong hands on the flop. I have no idea how often I'm supposed to check call strong hands, so I usually just end up check raising the flop. I know this is a weakness in my game, but I don't really think it's that much of a liability.

Nice to hear Bob,

I think checking ranges are likely one of the biggest leaks people have in the game these days. Specifically when it comes to playing OOP as the PFR, so in that regard you are not alone.

Still, if you approach the problem the way you have been you'll have a good idea in no time. For now the basic advice I'd give you with regards to checking is to simply check more OOP than IP. A lot more.

For example:

button raises 3x, small blind folds, I call in the big blind.

flop J92r

I check call 2/3 pot.

Here, on the more static turncards like A, K, 6, 5, 4, 3, my check raising range is hampered. On A or K turn cards, the best hand I can hold is two pair. On 6-3 turn cards, I rarely have a check raising hand such as 66 or 33.

I'm not sure, but I think this means that I need to check call sometimes with J9 and 22. I just have no idea how often.

Well sometimes some basic logic can help you out with stuff like this.

Let us assume that we have decided we need to check sometimes with J9 and 22. Under this assumption then it follows we should raise more often with 22 than with J9 and this is because J9 blocks some of our opponent's calling range and 22 does not.

Simple and effective. Nice. Thanks.

This flop is more dynamic then static IMO, so best to c/r your J9 and 22 (or just the 22 as suggested). Save your c/c for a more static flop.

The goal is to win in the long run and maximize spots for value. whether its' min raising to induce shoves otf or flatting the whole way down. Do whatever will give you the most gain not only in the hand, but the overall session. If you feel villains gonna call light, go for it. You need to make sure he has a calling range that can beat some weak value hands/bluffs or potentially make a better hand. The key point is if he will actually choose to go with it and how frequently.

couple things about check raises..
When you check raise it changes the ranges villain plays back with. It can cause villain to cbet less, or c bet more depending on how he perceives you. It narrows your ranges big time, so you're hand is more defined on certain turn and rivers and villain can play back easier putting you in tough spots post. It also affects you're calling range on future hands.

I would call if I think there's more value in him repping boards, overcards, than him calling. or if I don't want a dynamic to change that will hurt long term profits.

came to this thread from http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/15...uency-1638187/
very nice read
one problem. a central theme in your theory is that on a flop where hero has the range advantage (eg. hero BTN open v BB flat call), hero should cbet a lot, preferably with small sizing, correct? So if we are playing a very nitty game where the BB only calls 30% and fold the rest, we have to tighten up our cbet a lot and check back those backdoor hands now?

Yes but I would consider that an exploitive adjustment. If instead we continue to attack with low equity bluffs, we will be likely to lose money. However this will be more than compensated by the preflop value gained by the big blinds more frequent folds.

Also we could further exploit a high bb folding frequency by raising more hands preflop and giving up more often postflop when called.

"preferably with small sizing, correct?"

Depends on what you consider small sizing. I like betting ~2/3 pot on the flop as a default heads up in position. Out of position I go with 1/2 pot. Really though many different sizing can work. Bigger bets accommodate more bluffs and less value hands. Smaller bets accommodate more value hands and less bluffs. I like 2/3 pot in position because it allows me to bluff more than 1/2 pot sized bets did in the past. Also it gets more value from my strong hands. Seems like a win win to me. On the more dynamic boards I use smaller bets in position as default. I think this is strategically aligned with the general theory that big hand = big pot / small hand = small pot.

I've tweaked my strategy in the past few months to include changes in flop bet sizing that are dependent on the flop texture. The more static the flop is, the bigger my bet size is. The more dynamic the flop is, the smaller my bet size is. This is true for me both in and out of position, however my out of position bet sizes are a bit smaller than my in position bet sizes.

On the most static flops, I'm betting ~90% of the pot in position and ~2/3 of the pot out of position.

On the most dynamic flops, I'm betting ~1/2 of the pot in position and as little as 1/3 of the pot out of position.

----

There is now something bugging me regarding the classification of flop textures that I've been struggling to put into words:

Range vs range equity is not the end all regarding flop texture classification. The way the involved ranges interact is quite important.

For example:

200 big blind no limit holdem

I raise 3x on the button, big blind 3 bets 9x, I call.

589r

big blind bets 1/2 pot, it's on me...

On the surface, this looks like a very dynamic board. My draws have lots of equity vs all but my opponent's very strongest hands such as 99, 88, overpairs, and of course discounted 76s. If I raise now on the flop simply thinking "my range vs range equity is pretty strong so I can raise a lot here" then I'm in for a rude awakening, particularly vs strong opponents that will check a lot on this flop, which will significantly take away from my range vs range equity.

The simple act of my opponent betting here has shifted the range vs range equity in my opponent's favor relative to the flop equities before any action occurs. However, I don't think that this will shift so much equity in my opponent's favor to make low equity bluffs profitable. Hands like A2s with a backdoor flushdraw come to mind, which I think are clear checks on that flop. Thus this flop cannot be considered static even after the big blind bets. It's still a dynamic flop because I'm going to call or raise so much that low equity bluffs will not be profitable bets on the flop for my opponent. It's just not quite as dynamic as it was before the flop bet.

I'm not even sure what I'm getting at here because my spacial visualization and reasoning abilities are failing me. So instead of finishing with a conclusion, I'll ask a question:

Once your opponent bets that flop, how do you react with these hands:

76s
87s
98s
55
JTs
QJs

???