KQ high, low board

[Leader]

Originally Posted by pg_780

Betting 100% is an ok strategy, but having a properly constructed c/c, c/f and c/r must be better than just auto-betting 100%.

That isn't always true. The stronger your range is reletive to your opponent's the better a 100% strategy is. Eventually, it can overcome even a perfectly executed split range strategy. This can happen both in a GTO and exploitive context. For example, it often develops in GTO when the turn card hits your range, but can also happen against tight opens where your 3b range is very narrow and strong. In an exploitive context, we see this develop if your opponent has various strategic flaws that weaken their flop calling range. You pointed out one example of not waiting for the turn. A player might also over peel the flop on boards that smash your range or cap excessively pf.

[gaming_mouse]

nice post, leader

[MattS]

Since I have written an application which approximates a nash equilibrium through fictitious play of a game where two players play the turn and river with defined initial hand ranges I can add some data to the discussion.
The algorithm is not optimized and to reduce the strategy space and save computation time it uses the following simplifications:

1. Betting per round is capped after two bets
2. The player out of position alway checks the turn

Because of (2) I don't know if betting the turn 100% is better than a mixed strategy consisting of k/f, k/c and k/r.

Initial ranges: (If you don't agree with these ranges just give me new ones.)


Turn strategy:


River strategy: (The numbers in the status line are the expected values in small bets if you play against the approximated nash equilibrium of the player in position)

[CloseTheBorder]

I would c/c the river, seeing as he's good I would rather be more showdown bound so he won't try getting overly out of line against us.

[pg_780]

Nice post matt s, as well as leader. Although I think your pf range for oop player is too tight, matt.

[RedHot]

Originally Posted by pg_780

Nice post matt s, as well as leader. Although I think your pf range for oop player is too tight, matt.

Much too tight, it must have like 60 percent equity or something against that button range. No JTs is criminal!! Also more (or all) pocket pairs, suited aces etc.

[daiquiri]

Originally Posted by henholland

never bad to c/r bluff a hand like this on river once in a while but i also do feel that in this exact spot it could easily be better to both c/c and c/f. I mean we really are repping a super thin range on this river with a c/r and if he has any sense that we are able to make this kind of play i feel it could easily open up the can of worms that we could get 3bet bluffed some, which would suck and add some nasty -EV possible outcomes to the play.

idk, we are repping exactly A3s and nothing else (44 and 78s are both betting the turn). I don't like it, smells like a bs raise.

[henholland]

Originally Posted by daiquiri

idk, we are repping exactly A3s and nothing else (44 and 78s are both betting the turn). I don't like it, smells like a bs raise.

yep and this "bs factor" i think is why its often no good in practice making plays that in theory could easily be fine or even 100% correct from a balance perspective. Most players add sunconciously a human-randomness factor to every decision opponents make, so if you are trying to make bluffs in super polarized narrow range spots its so easy for your opponent to just by default call with their bluffcatchers. Making your bluffs in this spot not profitable.