Quote:
Originally Posted by leavesofliberty
My thinking is play AQ as though you have AK, and AK as though you have AQ, and consider checking back the pairs under a K, against a tougher opponent. This is my sad attempt at the game theory. I call it the (one paint off) approach, and basically pretend I have three cards instead of two with a hand. That way I may be bluffing suboptimally, but definately closer to optimally. It'll be a long time before computers play NL optimally, if ever. Probably never. You decide whether or not you have second hand (or a third card) before the flop, and what that is. With a wired pair, it's just a wired pair. I am curious as to your thoughts to this make-shift bluff-range.
I'm no expert at GTO in NL, but the way I'd construct my range in this spot is:
Bet 100%: AK, AA, KK, QJs w/ BDFD, QTs w/ BDFD, A9s w/ BDFD
Bet near 100%: KQ
From there, I can add more from my air bucket and value bucket depending on opponent. Like if he's a station that will call down with any king, any pocket pair between 55-QQ, KTs becomes a viable three street hand.
Constructing bluff ranges are often weird in these narrow spots because a lot of the times, the hands you actually want to "bluff" with are actually best. Also clearly in these spots, we want to bet small. Example:
We have AQ and open to 3x UTG, SB flats and BB folds
7 BB, K43r
He checks. If we bet like 3-4 bb and he calls, no big deal, we'll almost always have some equity and will now at least buy ourselves 5 cards. We bet 7 and he calls, we get the same effect, it just cost us more $ to realize (and will let BB bet more when we hit our most likely "good" hand, one pair).
But yeah, i'd rather just find all the hands I want to go three streets with and then work some bluffs in from the bottom of my range.
Last edited by jdr0317; 05-02-2017 at 09:06 PM.