SB is a 27/15/1.4 AF nitty reg,

I tend to freeze on the river and check a hand as good as KK against very tight players like this on A-hi boards, I'm not sure if this player type raise a low ace at any point. My question is, am I missing an easy vbet here?

This must be too simplistic for you guys to bother answering, I had a long downswing at the end of 2016 that forced me to drop down stakes and made me question even the most fundamentals part of my game like river v-bets. The old me would have bet there 100% of the time.

The more I think about this hand the more I realize I missed easy value. If villain raises all Ax and stronger hands on the flop or turn he has only weaker than KK stuff left in his range. I'm targeting Qx and smaller PPs with a river bet,

If he only calldown to the end with, let's say : A7, A6, A4, A3, A2 (12 x 5) = 60 combos I'm behind of ( I think he would raise pre with A9+)

If he also only call with : 77, 66, 44, 33, 22 (5 x 6) = 30 combos
and QJ, QT, Q9 (12 x 3) = 36 combos

30 + 36 = 66 combos I'm ahead of (he would raise pre with AQ, KQ, 99+)


So even if he calls down weak aces, it's closer but I think I have a thin river value bet, I hope that makes sense (I suck at combos counting and estimating ranges)

Think the spot is close, and I'm not at all sure that someone you describe as nitty just snap shows down with 22. Maybe the combos with the 2 call to suck out on your "he can't have both top pair and the NFD" card removal thing. You're going about this correctly, taking his preflop range, removing combos that he raises flop or turn. Removing combos (if any) he donks and river, and looking for a value bet. If you're perfectly bet/folding the river because he only raises when you're screwed, then you need to win >50% when called. If you can't fold to a river raise, you need more, think the old school number was 60%.

Yeah, I think you're right, he probably folds all small pairs up to 77 when the 8 falls on the river. The river check can't be THAT bad since we're only getting value from a few combos of Qx. I think I've taken my aggression level too far and I'm looking for spots to tone it down like this one. I would post more but the only feedback I'm getting in this forum is from you DougL, lol.

I just read in the live section that you are considering merging the forums, that can't be a bad thing. The micro and SSSH are pretty much dead now, I suggest combining them in one online forum, that might help the traffic. I don't read the higher stakes sections often, but they seem in better shape.

Just my 2 cents

Nice hand, I'd play it the same.

I think I'd bet the river if the turn didn't pair the board but depends if villain calls down lightly or not.

Garwin,
This has been a helpful hand for me to read through, I need to get better at thinking like this. I consider myself quite nitty and bet this river all day - but like i say I need to get better at thinking.

The only thing that matters is how much of a station the guy is. If he is a good player, and you bet bet bet you will never get called by worse on the river. Personally I think KK on an A high flop is a 2 street hand, and I would prefer to check the flop and give him the chance to bluff the turn and river, and if he doesn't start betting then I would go for value. Ike Haxton, WCGrider never bet the flop in this spot. Of course limit and no limit are different, because people station you more, but you're still going to have trouble when you overrepresent the strength of your hand. Also it isn't like you have 99 and are afraid of free cards. KK is either way ahead or way behind. I would much rather bet 99 on that board than KK.

It's close but I probably bet again, the open limp from a 'nitty reg' feels like small pocket pairs, maybe weak Ax? Maybe QJ is in there too?

Villain in the hand was SB and he completed after an open limp. By "nitty" I really meant "timid ABC player", that's why I was concerned he had just called with Ax to the river. Against most players I think we would have heard from Ax before that.

According to the combo counting I made earlier in this thread, I need an almost perfect read that he will just calldown Ax to the end AND will fold small PPs to a bet for checking to be correct. I think that's a lot to ask on a paired board BvB even against this player.

I also think it's close but I hate to miss value and need to rely more on math and less on reads. I probably should have bet.

So the one time you bet 3 streets and win because he called with 2nd pair and you feel great. Do you forget about all the times he either folded air on the flop that he might have bluffed with had you given him a chance. Or the times he calls you down with Ax. And if you say everyone always checkraises any Ax on that flop then they are lol terrible. That only isolates them against better aces, better hands and big draws and by the time they bet the river they are screwed.

Are you saying the the passive WA/WB line is ALWAYS the right play with a low Ax? In this hand my range for raising 2 limpers from BB is tight :

http://www.pokerstrategy.com
Board: AdQd5s
Equity Win Tie
BB 44.18% 42.72% 1.46% { 99+, ATs+, KJs+, QJs, AJo+, KQo }
SB 55.82% 54.36% 1.46% { A2o }

A2o has only 55.82% equity with really bad implied odds, so the passive line seems like the best choice here.

OTOH if BB calls a 50% BTN open with A2o on the same board :

http://www.pokerstrategy.com
Board: AdQd5s
Equity Win Tie
BTN 24.60% 21.23% 3.37% { 22+, A2s+, K2s+, Q5s+, J6s+, T6s+, 97s+, 86s+, 76s, 65s, 54s, A2o+, K6o+, Q7o+, J7o+, T8o+, 98o, 87o, 76o }
BB 75.40% 72.02% 3.37% { A2o }

Now A2o has a large equity edge, the c/r bet bet line doesn't seem as bad to me anymore.

I understand that by raising we risk winning the minimum when ahead and losing more when behind. But by c/c c/c c/c ing villain could check turns behind that he would call a flop c/r.

tbh, playing pair of aces weak kicker or KK on a-high vs a wide range is a gray area in my game. I usually mix things up between c/c c/c c/c and c/r bet bet depending on villain post-flop tendencies and board texture

He *could* do that. But does he do it with a significant enough proportion of hands that you lose more to this than you gain from things like allowing him to bet the second best hand on the turn?

The assumption that villain is raising 50% of his range preflop is probably strongly correlated with post-flop aggression. Given that this statement is the only one we have to work with, I see no reason to immediately assume that he's checking a huge range HU on the turn against someone who just check-called. I think his turn betting range is probably larger (ie, weaker) than his turn calling range, so you want him to keep betting.

Incidentally, the way I remember the classic WA/WB is check-call, check-call, bet. Have things changed in the last decade or so?

Expect very passive players to have some weak Ace here, could also have a hand such as QJ or KQ. I'm value betting this river all the time if he has an Ace so be it

I think it is a bet here not only for value in this spot but to discourage people from chasing on later hands. When people check river too often with a hand as strong as KK it leads to more calls in other hands people leading out on the river or betting more often with missed draws. Im not surprised when they show up occasionally with ace rag in your example but I would say you come out ahead by betting river.

A good example of what I mean.... I was playing 3 6 limit at firekeepers and was up about 150 in the 1st hour mostly showing down premium hands. Sitting in the 9 seat player in 1 seat had raised alot pre flop and continuation bet alot but slowed down when he didn't have top pair or better. Twice in about a ten hand span i made him lay down queens when i had 10s then 9 10 suited. Each time it was capped pre 4 handed flop came down A K baby card with a flush draw. He bet MP called w flush draw then he ck turn. MP bet and I raised knowing he would be unlikely to call 2 bets cold w/o top pair. So basically I found a way to exploit him because of him being tenative in heads up spot but waited for a 3 handed spot to use the info gained.

Aaron, I recently read a thread in the Library "http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/35/micro-stakes-limit/constructing-ranges-potm-article-re-post-923166/" about constructing ranges that seems to contradict what you're saying. The scenario is almost identical, 50% Btn vs BB steal, A72r flop.

Quote from OP "... a balanced range means we should raise with some hands, we get to the point that we have a few clear-cut cases on either end – we’ll raise any Ax for sure and we’ll fold our worst air ..."

Don't you think Axs are good candidates to value-raise for balancing our bluff-raising range on this flop, especially if we 3-bet stronger aces pre? I'm a bit confused here.

Silly me thought that the decison to bet or check-call on the river depended on how aggressive villain was. I doubt it has changed so I'll trust you on this one

Good point I haven't thought about that.

They're not that similar. In this hand, you're in the BB against a limper and SB, and the analyzed scenario you're talking about is a steal raise from the button. The ranges are completely different and so the analysis will be completely different.

It doesn't appear you've done the type of analysis that Fret was suggesting, so it's hard to really say what's going on here. Are you trying to make a GTO-ish type of analysis of this situation? What hand ranges are you looking at for SB? For BB?

Things change over time. The understanding of poker strategy has changed significantly, so it's entirely possible that the lines that used to be standard are not viewed that way anymore.

It was easy to miss, but at some point the discussion deviated to :

Let's suppose that BB calls with a 48% range and the flop is A72r so we can use Fret's analysis.

He suggests c/ring around 25% of our defending range for value, namely Ax, T7+ or better. He also suggest c/ring around 12% of our defending range as a bluff.

I'm new to the GTO thing, but if we choose to use the WA/WB line and check-call low Axs instead, doesn't that leave our entire check-raising range too bluff-heavy?

Thanks. I did miss that.

Fret's analysis is about balance. If you only did X when you had a strong hand, then your opponent could theoretically exploit you when you do X.

What he doesn't do in his analysis is assert what the "best" frequency is for this sort of thing.

This is actually just an assumption for the purpose of the analysis. He's saying that *IF* you want to raise those hands, then in order to have a range that's balanced to avoid being exploited, then you should then also raise such-and-such. But he doesn't argue that this is the range you should definitely be raising.

Anyway, with regard to the analysis, WA/WB is considered an exploitative line. You're playing this way with specific regard to the tendencies of your opponent. Fret's analysis is a GTO-like analysis. The idea here is that you want to play in a way that even if your opponent knew exactly what you were doing he wouldn't be able to take advantage of it.

It's not hard to imagine scenarios when one or the other happened to work better.

My decision here will depend on how active I've been at this particular table. If I've been involved in lots of pots, I'm betting and expecting to get called by worse quite often. If I've been quiet or card dead, I'm checking.

I think minimum defense frequency isn't a good metric.

This is a good recipe for overadjustment. It also doesn't answer the question of what you might do in an "average" situation.

A good metric for... ?

There are only a few hands that I'd use this read for. Probably just KK here and maybe KQ.

...telling us how often to calldown.

Be very careful. This is an area where it's extremely easy to underestimate the number of arbitrary adjustments you're making.

I don't know what you're responding to.

Basically I think frets post is outdated.

Then I think you have not understood it. The employed methodology is reasonable for the process of range construction. You may disagree with this assumption or that assumption, but for a GTO-style of play (which I don't think you're on board with, given the types of adjustments you're talking about making), I see nothing in it that's particularly problematic.