Whenever I get check-raised on a flop when I hold the nuts I find myself almost automatically putting my range into a calling category and never 3-betting.

If I have KK as the preflop raiser on a K72r flop and I get check-raised. I just call.

Even on some more wet flops like 88 on 853tt I probably just call the re-raise. Sometimes I will 3-bet, but usually I'm going to trap.

Ocassionally when I suspect someone to being greedy and check/raising me on a board like AAK, I'll throw in a 3-bet with the goods and also with a bluff here and then.

On monotone flops. Same thing. If I 3-bet then my calling range of sets, two pair, and pairs is going to be in a world of hurt. I sometimes raise the nuts but usually I'm calling especially if it is deep stacked.

The same thing happens when people donk bet pot sized bets into me. I usually don't raise unless my hand is unusually vulnerable such as a str8 or I have good reason to think they'll spaz.


What are the best ways to decide whether to not have a raising range and putting them all into a calling range when facing a check/raise? Also, if both ranges should exist how do you determine the proper frequency of whether to raise the nuts or just call?


I was in a thread where someone was in a 4-bet pot with AKs IP with the nut flush draw facing a c-bet and someone said something along the lines of "you shouldn't have a raising range here".

I'm guessing it has something to do with your opponent's range being value heavy, but what is the best way to determine the correct frequency in a spot where both should exist.

When villain check-raises, he's essentially saying "I have the range advantage, my raising range is polarized, and you're being forced into being the bluff-catcher."
When someone is repping a polarized range, you're generally going to be calling more often than raising, because most of your range is losing to his value hands, but beating the bluffs. To use a phrase Norman Chad once used to describe a donk bettor, "He either wants you to raise or fold, so you should call".
A similar thing happens when you face an overbet. Villain is repping such a strong/polarized range that it rarely makes sense to re-raise, because he's 'saying' he has the nuts and wants to play for stacks, but he could also be unpaired and is praying that you fold to his bluff.

If you've actually got more nut combos than villain, and can balance them appropriately (with combo draws, for example), you can 3-bet. More commonly, you have so many mid-strength hands in your range, that you need to "protect" them by also calling with some of your best hands.
You kind of have to work out which parts of villain's range will play for stacks immediately, and which combos he'll fold if you re-raise. And also consider how weak your calling range will be (and therefore vulnerable to bluffs) if you re-raise too often.
e.g. It's a mistake to 3-bet with bottom set if villain only continues with top/middle set and a couple of combo draws. You'd make more money by calling down and losing the minimum when he has you crushed, while also allowing him to continue with bluffs. It would be very profitable, however, to raise top set and a couple of combo draws if villain will stack middle set and bottom set (or worse). It depends on the situation of course, but calling with bottom set would usually be enough to "protect" your overpairs etc. The actual nuts can usually be re-raised every time.

Okay, I have the perfect hand for you to dissect.

Solid UTG player at a 9 handed 50NL table opens for $1. It folds to me in the CO with AK and I only call. Button player calls. 128 BBs effective.

Flop($3.55) T 4 Q
UTG checks
I bet $2.37
BU calls
UTG folds

Turn($8.02) T 4 Q 8
I bet $5.35
BU raises to $10.70
I call

River($28.23) T 4 Q 8 J
I check
BU bets $28.23
I raise all-in $50.21
BU snap folds

Okay, so straight flush is possible, but I think we can pretty much discount it since it is only 1 combo and treat this hand as the nuts. Is there any frequency with this hand where I should be 3-betting the turn? I mean, I have to call some of the time so I'm not capped on non paired rivers. At the same time I do allow for some weirdly played semi-bluff like 44 or Q8s to catch a boat on the river.

3-betting this turn seems like turning my hand face up since I can't really 3-bet as a bluff because I'll be running into the A too much. That means he can correctly fold everything when I 3-bet this turn. If I flat 100% of my continuing range here and my opponent knows this then he can semi-bluff without fear of getting knocked off his hand. Maybe this isn't too significant though.

Is it correct for me to never 3-bet this turn?

That's a bit of a weird board, and I haven't studied 4-flush boards much (they are rare, and most of my study is about flop textures), but I don't think you should be worried about "turning your hand face up". If villain has a (weirdly played) set, he shouldn't fold to a turn 3-bet. Similarly with a hand like K9dd (with the straight flush blocker/draw), he shouldn't fold.
That's not to say you should definitely 3-bet. You need to think of villain's entire range and how he'll play it on the river. Is there more EV in 3-betting the turn and getting value from a few combos you beat, or is there more EV in giving villain a chance to bink a 10-outer, or to give him another chance to bluff? (Quite what he'd bluff with, I'm not sure).
I would expect villain to check back very often with hands you beat on the river, because your range looks super strong even when you just call on the the turn, so I'm kind of amazed that this particular villain bombed the river. In game, I generally get stacks in on the turn, expecting it to be a cooler of some sort, and I'm not at all concerned with balancing my own range with bluffs, because I'd literally never try bluff-raising on that board vs that action. Particularly as the hand was multiway, it should be a nuts vs 2nd nuts kind of spot.

It's likely you're almost never supposed to bet the turn anyway, and/or at the very least not for a large sizing, so talking about GTO here is kinda wtvr.

FWIW, I play the hand the exact same way, and trying to ascertain what you should be doing ott vs. someone who minraises your bet is to exploit the F*** out of them because they are clearly a whale

OOP, yes you 3bet to avoid the situation where villain gets to check behind and see free cards or free showdowns.
IP, no you almost never 3bet because you can leverage the extra info and playability position gives you and remember it's no limit so you can always bet any size you want to get all the value your hand is entitled to on later streets.

This is actually an area where human play is still far off. Solvers will use allin sizings all the time OTR even with huge SPR. To go on a further tangent it's all the reason that playing face up and capped ranges isn't as bad in practice as it would be in theory. That's because making standard 3/4th pot bets OTR does not in any way punish a capped range.

I don't know why it didn't occur to me when I read the first post, but you're completely right. Position is the overriding consideration. The OOP player can't rely on his opponent to get stacks in, so he kind of has to 3-bet with the nuts. It's often an EV disaster to just call on the flop and have villain check back the turn.

This is played perfectly. Play it this way and you are printing the money.