board: 6d 9d 4d
Hand Equity Wins Ties
9s Kd 29.80% 295 0
6c 6h 70.20% 695 0


board: 6d 9d 4d
Hand Equity Wins Ties
9s Kd 30.10% 298 0
4c 4h 69.90% 692 0



Why does 66 win .3% more than 44 in this situation

66 wins on 4 4 boards, the opposite isn't true.

Why is A5s so much better than Axs?
The difference when i'm odd calcing lets say against KK is under 1 percent...?

you have two to a straight already?

Figured I'd post in here, hopefully it's the appropriate place to post. So i'm in need of some advice/criticism on the way I played the following hands. Apologies in advance for the long post.





I'm unsure what action I should've taken on the river in the first one. At the time it was pretty obvious I was behind at that point, but I've had a few instances where bluffing on the river at the microstakes has got me in to further trouble, people calling with bottom pair etc. Should it matter whether I think villain will call or not? or should I be bluffing regardless if I think that I am behind come the river?

The second one is similar but probably more straightforward. Should I be calling villains reraise on the flop? It's likely i'm behind but do I have too much equity with the AK to fold?

Any advice or other input on how I played either hands would be greatly appreciated.

Hi guys, I am new to this forum and have been playing poker for less than a year. I have recently discovered a study done by spadebidder which is quite interesting actually. http://www.spadebidder.com/flop-analysis/part7/

Now, concluding from his study, because of the card removal effect, low cards will flop more than high cards on the long run ( because of the fact that players usually tend to play holdings that include high cards : A J, A Q, K Q, K J, etc. ). I find myself unable to answer the following question : does this mean that hands like A K, A Q, K J etc.( you get the point) lose their equity in the long run ?

In the first one I think it is a pretty bad spot to bluff, what are you representing given the fact you checked the flop and called the turn? Maybe a flush draw? But even that would have usually bet the flop. In the second one, the line your opponent is taking is pretty odd to me, but since it's microstakes you expect to see a lot of bizzare stuff. You could have tried to bluff represting the straight... but think you would ve been called since at the micros you should expect light calls. Now, you could have tried to represent more strength by three-betting the turn and shoving river no matter what.. but again, I think you would've got called.

My best advice to you on how to play the micro's is play a tight game. Bluff occasionally and don't try big bluffs. Put in some C-bet's if you miss but if you get called you should tend to slow down on the later streets. IMO at the micro's it's all about letting others make mistakes and call you with 2nd or 3rd pair when you have the nuts. Or in the examples you posted, I would put my money on 90% of the cases that if you would've had the nut straight, your opponent would've called all in. It's ABC poker that makes you profit in micro's. Again, let others make mistakes, try crazy bluffs etc. Also, don't be afraid to value bet big. If at the higher stakes you see c-bets and value bets that are usually 1/3, maybe a little less than 1/2 the pot, at the micro's value bet big. Your opponents, usually if they have something, they are gonna call you even if you bet 1/3, even if you bet pot. Hope this helps.

Thanks for the reply Alex, very informative and detailed post. If you don't mind me asking what you mean by villain playing a bizarre line?

I'll get around to playing some cash games tomorrow and keep you're advice in mind, that's generally how I've looked to play (especially when I started). I feel like I'm playing a bit too nitty at times so I think value betting larger could definitely be beneficial.

I mean he min-raised you twice. Usually this is a sign of, I like my hand but I am not so sure. In higher stakes, I think that a big 3-bet turn shove river would ve got him off his hand, but not in the micro's. In the micro's if you would've 3-bet turn he would have definitely called and if you would ve shoved river his line of thought most likely would have been ( meh, it's only 2 bucks ). Again, most likely, cause there are some good players at the micro's as well.

And yes, tight is right at the microstakes. Value bet big, don't try fancy moves. Bluff small here and there, if you get called, settle down. Don't try to use concepts like fold equity, pot odds, ranges etc. Most of the players at the micros do not know this stuff and don't use it. To give you an example, players usually call pot-sized bets with a gutshot, some even on 2 streets and if they get a pair by the river, they most likely call all-in. You have to exploit these mistakes and make sure you do not make them.

Then the author didn't do quality work.....or your wording is incorrect.

Dealing 6M or 9M, cards are cards. There is no card removal to calculate as you evaluate the flop. The 2 could be in any of the hands, stub or burn.

Of the players to see the flop, yes there is a card-removal effect. But look at it this way....if you are heads-up PF,,,, how much card removal do you actual consider?

Or more generic than that....what is a "high card"? A-T, A-9? Then just sheer numbers say there are more low cards than high as probably flop cards.

He analyzed several hundred million flops at different formats ( HU, 6-max cash, full ring cash ). HU, of course card removal doesn't count. For the other formats, he concluded that the flop distribution isn't 100% random because of the player's hodings they choose to play. For instance people like to play more ace-x hands and therefore the probability of flopping an ace diminishes if two or three players holding an ace came to see the flop. Therefore, for example, you will likely see more deuces on the flop then aces. Maybe I am not explaining very well, but if you click on the study it's pretty straightforward and you will get a clear picture from there. I was more interested to find out if the more experienced players tend to take this aspect into consideration when playing. Furthermore, he concluded that flop distribution is not 100% random and is influenced by player behaviour. I don't deny that I may interpret the study wrong. If you can clear this up, I would very much appreciate it.

Of the players to see the flop.


Do this simple thing. Deal six hands (or nine,,,doesn't matter) and a flop. Don't look at any of the hands...simply the flop.

Card removal has nothing to do with flop distribution in my example.

You use the term flop distribution. It does NOT change. Flop distribution can be calculated by mathematics.

What you might be asking is....if I am at a table full of nits and find myself 4 handed to the flop...... does a 8 4 2 flop hit their range? What if you are at a table full of LAGs....... 53 is CLEARLY within range, correct?

So to take it to the next level...... the strategy you might be grasping for..... is player dependent.

Yeah, that makes sense.

Please explain your identical preflop raise sizes in these two hands.

You mean he should have raised 3 BB + 1 BB for each limper?

If I'm opening with my good hands I usually raise 3BB. Any suggestions of alterations to this?

I think he was reffering that in the hand where there were 2 before you, that you should have raised bigger. I for instance, know that the standard for this is 3 BB + 1 BB for each limper. In your case 0,10c.

AXV, Cry Me A River (CMAR for short) is asking about your raise size being the same..... yet under different situations.

One you are first to open from MP
One you are after two limpers...and you are in better position (HJ)

Do you have an idea why he may think that it is important to have two bet sizes?

As I am still learning myself I will try to answer this. Is it because in the second situation, where there are two limpers, if you raise to 3 BB, you are giving the others a good price to call? A reasonable raise would be 3 BB + 1 BB for each limper. Also, you would like the BTN and CO to fold and also isolate the limpers and would most likely want to get HU with somebody to the flop ? Is my reasoning correct?

Basically the formula of 3 bb + 1 bb for each limper is a 'pot sized raise' (technically you would also count the .5 sb so 3bb + 1bb per limper + .5 bb). Essentially your wagers should be determined by the size of the pot. Now you don't necessarily just make pot sized bets or pot sized raises. Part of the joy of big bet poker is considering what various sizings will accomplish against different hands and selecting just the right bet size. Also it is fun to bet $4.20, $6.66, $13.37 etc. But whimsy aside bet sizing is serious business and you should give some thought to what the optimal sizing should be. But briefly it is simply that with more limpers, the pot is bigger, ergo your raise should be bigger. Also your hand must be stronger, both because you are raising more and because you are raising more active players.

Yeah I know, I just figured 3BB was just the standard opening size for whatever reason. It definitely makes sense that I should consider the strength of my position as well when determining bet sizes. Thanks for the response, also to Omaha and Alex, I'll keep it mind.

On a side note, how often do you limp when playing cash games? Obviously it depends on the circumstances, but what sense does it make to limp? If you're in early position, you're open to be raised by others and if you're in late position it makes more sense to raise with your decent hands given the advantage. I know people use it to induce with their stronger holdings sometimes, but is that more prevalent in SnGs and MTTs? Any responses appreciated.

what do you thing is best to 3 bet ballance in the sb vs btn , 3 bet the entire range or 3bet unballance with more bluffs but with some flat range to ? if i have ballance range and get it in vs 4 bet with ak-qq+ i thing we have small 3bet % and we must flat or fold some of our range, but if we 3 bet the entire range villian can 4 bet us wide right? so what we do?

Realise that this is beginners questions and that this sort of thing isn't applicable against standard opponents?

A QUESTION for me
With playerscope i can see my tournament statistic online, is there something similar where i can see my cash game statistics/results? Thanks!

I keep hearing streamers saying things like "we have to be right here x times out of x" when facing a rather hero call or thin call on a river bet. I'm sorry I have no specific examples but can anyone explain this?