PokerStars - 10/20 NL (2 max) - Holdem - 2 players

SB: 25 BB
Hero (BB): 25 BB

SB posts SB 0.5 BB, Hero posts BB 1 BB

Pre Flop: (pot: 1.5 BB) Hero has 6 8

SB calls 0.5 BB, Hero raises to 3 BB, SB calls 2 BB

Flop: (6 BB, 2 players) A K J
Hero bets 2 BB, SB calls 2 BB

Turn: (10 BB, 2 players) 2
Hero bets 5 BB, SB calls 5 BB

River: (20 BB, 2 players) A
Hero bets 15 BB and is all-in

Standard or spew? First hand of the match.

I think the turn is questionable, since there's a chance we can get blown out of decent equity. There's a risk cause his pre-flop range is still undetermined, but I thought the risk is still worth it cause the population limping range is really weak. I think a bet will fold out some weak Jx and gutshots with showdown value.

After the turn bet and his flat I figure the river is still a +EV shove, since the population limping range little Ax and no strong Kx and little QTo. Also he would probably raise at some point with his strongest hands, since the board is so drawy.

Also kind of interested what people do here pre-flop cause iso-shoving and checking back have merits too.

I like your line all streets.

I wouldn't iso. I think you shouldn't even have an iso bluffing range readless vs a random rec. If there's a reason to have an iso bluffing range, I wouldn't include this hand, but rather use weaker offsuite hands and some of the weakest suited hands.

I would x/c the turn. I wouldn't expect any pair to fold to a 1/2 pot bet and maybe some Qx are still calling, and I don't want to bet larger, as there's simply too many Kx and Jx in a limp-calling range (also some Ax still).

As played, I probably don't bet the river, as too many Kx and Jx will station here. I guess you could bet small to only target Qx and some random missed backdoors. His folding range will be quiete inelastic between a shove and a smaller bet.

+1 what obbudsman said,i think unknown cb turn alot

River jam makes more sense if board doesnt pair

What you said about 3-betting this hand sounded a bit contradictory to me. We shouldn't have an iso bluffing range, but if we do should use hands with no post-flop playability. The first part sounds like villains flat iso's really wide, which contradicts the second part of needing no post-flop playability.

I'm not an expert on precisely what range of hands we should ISO. What I do know is that the population 2x range is pretty strong and which leaves their limping range to be super weak. Therefore I believe we can attack it pretty wide and have it be profitable.

My data shows that population at my stakes limp-call around 44% against a 3x iso, which means that it's close to breakeven without any post-flop equity or them folding to cbets on high card boards. Then again, in 44% of hands we do need post-flop playability, which this hand offers a decent bit.

Of course this hand works just fine checked back too, but considering the population ranges I think the iso options seems valid too.

You need to compare the EV of ISOing vs EV of checking back, not vs openfold, though.
The better your hand is, the more fold equity pre/post you'll need to make it better bluffed than checked.
That and you avoid limp/jams if you don't ISO. Would check this pre vs most.

As played no idea, didn't study population tendencies much in these spots.

FYI I made a mistake estimating the population fold to 3x ISO by only looking at their limp/call. In my data they also shoved over the ISO around 7% of the time and actually only folded to the ISO 47% of the time at 20-25bb. Since we need them to fold 60% for bluffs to breakeven, stone cold bluffs with complete junk are probably not worth it readless.

I didn't mean that the first hands we should add to our iso bluffing range at 20-25BB are hands without any post-flop playability, but rather hands with 'some' playability (like T6o, 43o, 92s). I think we shouldn't iso bluff hands with 'too much' post-flop playability (like 86s), because these connected suited hands benefit from keeping SPR as high as possible, so that our implied odds of hitting a flush or straight are as good as possible. Also, with 86s type of hands, we lose a lot of equity by having to fold to a limp/shove, way more than with a hand like 43o.

If we iso 3x, we need them to fold 50% to break-even. After Villain limped, we invest 2BB to win the 2BB already in the pot. I Villain fold to iso's >50%, then yeah, just use trash like 62o instead of hands with some playability.


Btw, better players than me told me the population flats iso's too often to have an iso bluffing range, but I never studied population tendencies with my own data. I'm surprised to see your population folds 47%, which should be high enough to add iso bluffs. I would be interested to hear from some other regs if it's good to have a (small) iso bluffing range vs random recs.

50% is a breakeven point only if you compare checking back and openfolding every flop vs raising 3x and openfolding every flop when flatted.

If they fold 50% to a 3x ISO, and never 3bet, then you need to capture as much(%) of the pot postflop as when you checked back. If you check back their range is weaker; in comparison, if you ISO, their range is stronger but you have initiative.

Villains 3betting sometime and folding less than 50% to the ISO, requires you to capture bigger fraction of the pot than if you just checked back.

F.e. if we captured 25% of the pot checking back with our complete trash hands(that's an example from my DB), and villain 3bet 11% and folded 43%(again from my DB), we'd need to capture 29% of the ISO pot when we get flatted, to be breakeven ISO'ing as compered to checking.

It may be possible if populations plays much worse in ISO pots than in regular limp pots, etc, but it's unlikely. Being OOP, even with initiative, shouldn't make you able to capture bigger fraction of the pot against a stronger range, in most cases.

I may be wrong, check your own data to decide.

From balance pov its fine to barrel this sometimes, like you shouldnt iso all 86s also you dont have that many air hands on this board besides some other backdoor flushdraws, but exploitatively imo its terrible, SB should fold some Kx otr, I dont expect a rec every do that so you shouldnt have here bluff range vs rec.
Check preflop, as played check flop, as played check turn, as played check river, just iso strong hands and barrel here for value only and print money

Nice post. How do you get the post-flop capture factor of a certain spot in PT4? Looked for it, but can't find it.

OK much thanks for the valid points guys! I don't know about recs calling weak Kx here though. I would think even a random rec would fold a weak Kx here more often than not.

My population data of 47% limp-fold is from a bit over 4k tournaments at 3.5$'s and 7$'s. The numbers were 46% limp-fold at 3.5$ and 48% limp-foldl at 7$'s at 20-25bb effective. At 15-20bb the combined limp-fold was about 49%, but they shove more over limps (about 11%).

I sit anyone though and regularly rematch regs, so it could be a bit lower for someone only sitting recs.

The small stakes population 2x's slightly more than 50% of their strongest hands, open-folds the worst 20% and limps 30% in between, so I think it's obvious that they will limp-fold quite a bit and we can attack this weakness pretty heavily.

they will fold some Kx from time to time, but there will be also people calling down Jx sometimes

Fwiw GTO folds 47.5% vs 3x ISO. So population is slightly over-folding. But they play bad when you check back, so EV(check) is also inflated compared to GTO. In the end bluffing ends up whatever.

Post I think flop bet is fine, just give up turn/river tho.

So is it best to x/fold turn altough we have a huge range advantage and a fd?

Huh, 47.5%? That's interesting, thanks for writing it. How much does it 3bet?
And I guess win-rate maxing also plays a part?

Not quite sure if I do it right, but f.e. you can filter for certain preflop hands, preflop opportunity to raise limpers, not made any 2bet preflop, saw flop, effective stack size you want
Then you check your expectation in adjusted bb/100 from the start of the hand, and compare it to pot size(2bb)/investment(1bb). F.e. if result is -30bb/100, that's -0.3 bb/100, which'd mean you won on average 0.7 out of 2 total.

Alternatively you can filter for same preflop hands/eff. stack, opportunity to raise limpers, 2bet flop with specific sizing you're checking for(PTR bet sizings can be a bit counter-intuitive, check that hands you filter for really have the bet size you wanted), not facing preflop 3bet, and saw flop(this means villain didn't fold to ISO). The total pot size will be dependent on what you filtered for, your investment is half of it, etc.

I don't have much of an idea of how things should be(GTO), but you should be able to check for what's more profitable for (your current/latest) strategy/population, if you have enough sample size.
Just plug in your expectations when flatted into EV formula when villain folded(+1)/called(?)/3bet(- ISO size) and compare it to your expectation when you checked. Although, if you don't bluff ISO readless, the villains you decided to ISO against will play a part in skewing the results as compared to readless play.

Exactly what I needed. Ty!

Very interesting. Does this number only stand for GTO pre-flop ranges, or should I aim for similar numbers with exploitative pre-flop ranges?

Does GTO limp-fold the same amount shallower, or is it just the early game?

Also, should we take into account villains ISO% in determining a limp-fold range?