This is the wrong question. If we somehow knew the answer to this poker would be incredibly easy. But we don't. So against some guys you are good virtually always and others virtually never. Since we don't know who is who or have perfect information we need some sort of close to unexploitable strategy. Clearly you are very high up in your check back and call turn range. The board ran out very well for our hand too.

50/50.

Seems like to me the villian's range is either an Ace, a King, a set, or an airball. Some of the aces and sets potentially re-raise like AQ+, AA, KK (though some flat 100% of their range), and perhaps 55,66. So, without too much calculation, I think there's going to be a lot of airballs, and you'll win perhaps around 2/3 times here.



I think QQ, and QJ are candidates towards the weaker side of the check-back range, planning to fold to a bet on the turn.

I would expect villain to have an ace or a strong king a large percentage of the time, because it's fairly easy to read the kangaroo as having a weakish hand that wants to show down.

That being said, in kangaroo's spot, I'd bet flop, check turn, call river.
If c/r on flop I'd fold turn UI.

I'd highly recommend studying game theory. The thought process here is severely flawed + should be grounded in fundamentals

Then write the book. The only similar book I know of is "The Mathematics of Poker" by Chen.

It seems like you can't decide whether you want to share your knowledge to the world with a book, or keep it hidden as a kind of occult knowledge that only you can possibly understand. Regardless, this is how you come across in your posting style.



I mean, clearly there is a market for your coming book, and you aren't shy about doing commentary and such, and already have a fan base. I don't see what you are waiting for.

why not be thankful for what he does share and not demand a book? not everybody who studies that hard wants to put it into a book that may not sell that well and thus may not be worth the time and effort, not to mention the cost of putting his hard work out there for everybody to benefit from.

Not demanding a book. Just curious.

Sorry if I became agitated, but his participation in this thread wasn't all that much for someone who has infinite wisdom. I realize it is not a dichotomy between writing a book, and not writing a book, but it's just pesky to say "read game theory, everything you say is flawed", and have no intention of elaborating, or explain why. I can't figure-out the motivation. I mean, elaborate?

Please elaborate. I might think it's wrong for completely different reasons. Why even post if you're going to be pompous and vague?

I have to apologize.

Generally i'll post a ton of information; check my history ^_^ Love talking about and teaching game theory. I'm constantly spewing info on the poker show Live At The Bike to the community.

I lost my temper vs leaves based on the way he speaks to our community in most threads. I shouldn't have been so abrupt or blunt, and in general my harsh responses to his constant forum trolling + attitude were unnecessary imo. Taken out of context, or in a vacuum, it really can make me look like a total dick... I have a brutally honest communication style.

Apologies for coming off rude to anyone! Most people know me as an extremely friendly + giving when it comes to poker theory~

To be completely honest duke, I've decided to discontinue the majority of my posting on 2+2 due to the dominance of our forums by guys like him today~ I posted very harshly in several threads with this type of unhealthy response... and it's not a productive or appropriate way to interact! It unreasonably frustrates me when I have to sift through the rude BS just to interact with the guys I really love in our community! There are a ton of you I really love communicating with.

I'm not saying my take on the dynamics are correct - these are just my opinions! However, I would guess this type of stuff is why many of the good players don't post strategy information long term... no idea, this is just me personally. It's just frustrating af for me.

Zero problems admitting when I'm wrong; and here I was very far off base. Decided the best way to avoid this is to stick with communicating via the mediums I have more creative control over.

If yall want to discuss hands/theory anytime hit me up via Instagram/Twitters or on LATB!

One for the road: Hopefully this serves a small purpose to legitimize my apology & general intentions.

The following is all my opinion:
1) We smash this flop texture
2) From my study, a cbet frequency of ~85% is going to be close to optimal here.
- I would check back very few combos of A2. (in tight range spots this is big imo, here it's not that important)
- rarely weak Kx
- always checking QQ-TT, and 44
- rarely all unpaired hands. Playing QJ and 86 at roughly the same frequency. slight tendency to check back QJ QT a little bit more due to showdownability + the hands equity realization/bluffcatching capacity in check back range construction.
3) In general, the xb range I would use would be heavily weighted towards the underpairs, the rare weak Kx, and Q/Jhigh. this allows us to fold turns + river at appropriate frequencies.
4) Checking back small amounts of most combinations gives our check back range board coverage.

---- After checking back, which should be the rare line taken imo
Our hand is much stronger in our check back range than if we cbet the flop with it. When we check this hand back it skyrockets to the top ~20% of our range. Because of this ever considering folding is extremely fundamentally poor. We should easily & happily be getting to showdown in a spot like this against most/all playertypes in my opinion. The purpose of checking back a hand like this is to have the ability to showdown after checking back vs a bet/bet line! (mixed w\ some board coverage concepts imo)


---- Preflop consideration based on the OP
K7s is in the ~55-60th percentile of our opening range. This is clearly no where near the bottom of our opening distribution. We should be raising hands like K9o/K2s on the button within a ~45-50% opening range. I have every intention of checking hands like this back on many different types of board textures.... and even showing down unimproved on great runouts after checking back


--- Options from OP
after checking back, bet folding the turn would be very fundamentally poor. It can be exploitatively correct in certain situations, but in general this is going to lead to over-exploitative play... which opens us up to counter exploitation. When you want to exploit people, do it on the margins.. instead of making huge sweeping adjustments with your frequencies. This idea is called a "minimally exploitative strategy" and is way stronger than attempting to play like the nemesis. Players who over-exploit actually cause the field to learn & get better at poker over time... they force counter-adjustments. (e.g. vs the guy who always bluffs... if you start ALWAYS calling down...he'll realize he's bluffing too much and you made him get better!) So stop it! Just adjust a reasonable amount... don't overdo it and make people better.
We're valuebetting the turn if he checks again since we're extremely high up in our range.
This would be overfolding the turn. Vs a flop XR we should be peeling with a TON of backdoor flush draws. on the turn we can fold all missed bdfd, QJ,QT, and JTo. Folding a king is waayyyy too much folding. We souldn't even be folding a 5 unless we're exploiting... and these are already a ton of combos before we can ever consider a king. Even if you exploitatively fold a 5 on the turn... then you have to fold all combos of 66-99 as well and weaker Kx before K7. Wayyyy too much.
We are too high up in our bet/call range to be raise bluffing the turn. You destroy the showdownability of your hand, and are lowing the equity of your turn raising range. This is extremely vulnerable to people who are willing to 3bet for value correctly on the turn. (or especially those who 3bet bluff correctly) If you take lines like this often.. your turn calling range is too weak (e.g. oop exploits by cbetting river more often) and your turn raising range is WAYY too weak (e.g. oop exploits by 3betting more often as a whole, with value and bluffs) You'll force yourself to have to start calling down with much weaker hands to avoid over-folding.

See y'all on Live At The Bike weekly! Going to be doing a ton of shows & taking a bigger presence w\ the show after WSOP lolaments.

nice posts 9to5 <3

i always try to remind myself that different people post (or use 2+2 in general) for different reasons and with different goals in mind.

also, different people have widely different approaches and responses to debate/being disagreed with/etc

and different people are also at different places in the(ir) lhe development process

so it's no surprise that you can't please everyone all of the time and that you are not pleased by everyone all of the time!

i suppose this applies to how people treat life, as well

Definitely! I have an absurdly low tolerance for certain behaviors. Definitely a personality quirk/flaw <3 Much love everyone

As someone who interacts with multiple poker communities, I believe it's paramount to objectively reevaluate the approaches I take once openly questioned. I'm also hyper-aware that occasionally I can be seen as quite abrasive.

You know, I think you are being somewhat unfair though tbh. I mean, I posted this hand about top pair, and you recommended to me not to three bet to isolate the weak player, because it seemed I was playing the top pair so poorly. I can see how you thought my thread was braggish (and others), but I had just woken up in the morning and it was a hand that bothered me because I don't exactly know on the fly how to incorporate live reads with actual game mechanics because

1) Not as versed on the game mechanics as I should be
2) It's a topic not really written about

I do realize I am argumentative and there are pluses and minuses to this. I am at a point where I simple want *proof*. Oddly unrelated, I do not plan to post on 2p2 much in the future, btw and will respect your space I truly aggravate you with my posting style that much. I do appreciate your content posts, and you have inspired me to get into game theory and am making some pseudo-poker programs for general concepts. Whether or not I start a thread in the Poker Theory section after I'm done, haha not sure. My criticism of 2p2 is that it seems a bit on the cliquish side, but the interactions on the whole are clearly positive.

But yes, I am a noob when it comes to certain aspects in poker. I more or less want to know WHY, and PROOF, and therefore have to do things a certain way. I think analysing pseudo-poker games is a good balance for me at my current level of game theory and coming up with general concepts.

IRL I get along with people fine, and am well liked (though it is not necessary to me to be well liked). I do have a tendency to be a little rude to people I perceive to be a little rude to me.

lol, 9to5, i just read this thread AFTER responding to you, so you may not see this.

leaves-> pls hope he's not serious b/c if you were the straw that broke 9to5's back, you will officially suck.

studying game theory and properly applying it are two different beasts. oftentimes, people deviate from gto play to maximize short term gains. 9to5 posted a key piece of info that demonstrates the need for balance, even in exploitative play.

now, there's some people against whom you can do the same thing and they won't adjust. these people are gold mines, but generally, you don't want to make somebody better. to me, this means adjust plays at the margin (i think 9to5 also said something akin to this). if they guy is betting way way way too frequently, don't adjust in large pots (def call there), but give him leeway to think his methods work often enough to keep doing it in medium/large pots and fold marginal hands you might otherwise call down with in small pots.

leaves-> 2p2 may appear cliquish b/c it is in some respects, but the source of that cliquishness comes from respected posting. if you continually post high quality stuff, you will be respected. if you belittle hard working and generous posters, you're gunna be ostracized and made fun of relentlessly to prevent you from doing that.

sure, some people are trolls, and some are actually excellent players with low post counts whom the community doesn't yet know, but those are relatively rare in this specific forum (mlh).

finally, if you have to say "i'm well liked in real life," you may not be as well liked as you think.

In that case I am absolutely hated in real life. Just kidding. It is not the straw that broke the camel's back. I think 2p2 has the best books available on the market for sure, which is the primary draw to this site. To be honest, I appreciate 95's posts very much and take his thought on pursuing game theory very seriously. It seems essential in order to move up the food chain. I think he's 100% right about that as are you. I think the content of posts is much more important than personalities, which at the end of the day do not matter. Though I insist on pointing out that I do not need to be well-liked, or to join a clique. I may post my work on a computer science forum instead.

Glad we have trolls and fish getting rid of GTO wizards on here.

Screw off, LOL.

Very thoughtful post.

I personally did not belittle anyone who did not first attack me in some respect. Many misread my other OP, perhaps purposefully, where I had a legitimate question about "how sure you need to be" to fold regarding a clear and obvious tell, which is somewhat common. If you want to make this forum based on exclusive membership, and pay dues into it, then go ahead and do so. I feel that I've more than payed my dues personally with my posts which some do appreciate. 95's comment to not three-bet in that thread was terrible and trollish, but you don't see it that way because well, it's a clique. And, that's fine. Be a clique, charge dues, etc.

Where is this 15/30 game?

bet the turn, though.