Since we're only required to win, for example, 25% of the time when our opponent bets 1/2 pot (or even only 33% versus pot), what's preventing us from floating any 2 cards?

If, for example, we're in position with 2 napkins, and our opponent has a 66% cbet across all streets (I think this is "reasonable" percentage), what's preventing us from floating flop or turn and betting when we're checked to? Yes, we might get check/called some of the time--but our opponent would have to balance their check/call or check/raise ranges in these spots. This is not to mention the fact that we will have virtually always have nonzero equity whenever we call.

Obviously I must be missing some variables here. This is a pretty dumb question, but if anyone could provide insight, that would be great. Hoping for a theoretically sound answer, not exploitative. And FWIW I am asking this question because I often feel this is the case when I am playing versus fishier opponents OOP.

Edit:
I just checked my database for hands in 25nl I recently played. For 200k hands, population is cbetting 61, 54, 52. Call float bet is 40, 41, 37.

If you have 0% equity and opponent is barelling 66%/66%/66% for pot size, you'd only make money (~break even) with float if the opponent folds 100% of the time when he checks (which obviously isn't the case irl).

That's why pure floats are -EV.

Even if OOP is calling a float bet OTT 41% of the time, according to those 25nl stats, that means IP is still winning with blank cards .46*.59=27.14% of the time on average. Plus, IP will almost always have nonzero equity.

So it must come down to the fact that we're losing our float bet OTT 41% of the time--which is important, because I think that's where I have a major leak. My call float bet is very low on turn and river. Any advice to this end? I'm not quite sure how to construct my check/call ranges after betting flop, etc.

This seems like a very easy exploit to employ (or even accidentally employ, in the case of fish) on players who don't bet, check/call enough (like me).

You can fold up to 100% after you check if you barell often enough. Maybe that's what you should aim at.

Is that a simplification? It seems bad to me to always x/f whenever we bet, check. But this is something I'm banging my head against the wall trying to figure out. It seems like such a stupid problem.

Barreling that much seems like it would lead to overbluffing, getting value owned, and increasing variance... wouldn't it? Is my mindset towards this just totally wrong?

The flop value hands in your opponent's range that turn into bluffcatchers when the turn card hits prevent you from floating any 2 cards.

Okay, that makes a ton of sense. In other, more polarized situations though, we won’t need to create a check/call range (unless we’re exploiting villain, of course)?

Does this mean we should virtually always bet small when the board doesn’t change and OOP checks?

Just the act of calling the flop bet strengthens your range to the effect that some of your opponent's flop value hands should check the turn.

The board always changes. When the out of position player checks the turn after betting the flop, his range should be constructed like this:

check some draws
check some flop value hands that have regressed in strength
check fold junk
check raise some strong hands
check raise some strong draws

Exploitable opponents will often have a piece or two missing here. For example some opponents will incorrectly bet the group of flop value hands that have regressed, in an attempt to deny equity. This is probably the most common error here, which actually does a fine job of exploiting loose flop callers, but it's vulnerable to an increase in turn raising frequency. Other opponents might never check raise in that spot, in which case the in position player may exploit by value betting thinner(the threat of a raise is a primary deterrent of thin value betting).

If the opponent barrels much too often on the turn with thin value hands and draws, then the checking range will become heavily weighted toward (junk) and is in turn exploitable because of the missing puzzle pieces.

Autobetting vs check prints against almost all opponents. Even people who like to think they're "balanced" are far from it. Especially if you attack their checks over multiple streets. Optimal play as a check involves way more mixing than the vast majority of regs do today. The basic blueprint of how to beat regs boils down to play conservatively vs bets and go crazy vs checks.

It's actually the other way around in my experience.

Regs usually bet/barell with air and check the strong hands to slowplay them.

My default is to check behind 70%+ once they don't CB.

They think gmoc is a showdown bound donk and they think ZK is a nit that folds too much.

QED

Forgive me for not replying again to this thread sooner--I read your reply a while ago, Bob, and have been turning it over in my mind since.

I believe I am guilty of all three of these problems, though not for lack of trying to resolve them. In fact, GMOC's reply sums up the strategy that I am facing that's causing my problems--if only mostly unintentionally by spewy players. Ever since the first time I started playing 50nl+ (maybe a couple years ago), I began to realize how exploitable I was when I wasn't in the driver's seat, so to speak. Reading Applications gave me some insight to this, but also made me hyper-aware of this "missing puzzle piece" to the extent that it's taken the confidence out of my game.

I've been trying to experiment with the concepts that you mention, but I can't seem to figure out how to construct my ranges (mostly OTT and OTR). The most puzzling thing to me is the disparity between wanting to balance my checking/call down ranges and also to deny equity--your statement that betting thinner acts as an exploit (and is thus exploitable) makes a ton of sense in this regard.

Anyway, what I'd like to ask is, how did you come to understand this area of the game better? I know very few regulars who play in the manner you suggest--so in other words, it seems to not be a very well understood area. I can't even think of the last time I've seen someone check/call a draw or check/raise turn or river as any position other than the BB. I keep trying to experiment and research, but I can't seem to find solutions that actually make sense.

It's the internet; people come and go as they please. Your absence requires no apology. Hope you had a nice weekend.

perhaps you're going into the turn with a poor distribution, lending you to be in positions where you're either very showdown bound, or very draw heavy(we all have this problem to some degree).

sb vs bb ranges are the widest of any given 3+ handed poker game; being aware of how wide the ranges are(or should be) bvb leads you to a better understanding of (available strong hands + available strong draws + available weak draws) and how these hands earn ev as part of your betting range. Naturally, the wider the starting ranges are, the weaker the betting range may be(in an absolute showdown value sense) relative to other out of position spots.

I think the most important turn range segments bvb oop vs a preflop/flop caller are the portions of the flop betting range that has similar ev between these hands:

check fold/check call (the 0ev threshold)

check call/bet fold (a positive profit margin)

bet fold/bet call (even higher profit margin)

bet call/check raise (we're getting into very strong hand territory)

check raise/bet 3 bet (huge pot = huge hand)

Now, if you list your sb vs bb flop strategy for a given board, I would think that the ranges are wide enough to fill each segment with a relatively high number of hand combos, depending on the exact turn card of course.

Try that. Give yourself a flop and a turncard, and tell us which combos you think should go in which group. Bonus points if you put hands that you think should be mixed(because the hand is directly on the ev threshold) in bold lettering.

So you have no check call range here?

check some draws
check some flop value hands that have regressed in strength

This range will call or fold based on betsize, stronger draws can check call or check raise.

Got it. Somehow misread it the first time. I would add check-calling some monsters for balance and especially where you need V to catch up or draw a card that encourages him to pursue his bluff.

Okay let's give this a try then. Starting with an easier one, here is sort of my strategy at the time being:

Dark red = Strong value hands
Light red = Draws and bluffs
Dark green = Possible check/calls (Marginal SDV)
Light green = Check/folds (Weak-no SDV)

SB RFI range (Around wide as possible) 53.5%
{AA-22,AKo-A2o,KQo-K7o,QJo-Q8o,JTo-J8o,T9o-T8o,98o-97o,87o-86o,76o,65o,AKs-A2s,KQs-K2s,QJs-Q5s,JTs-J6s,T9s-T6s,98s-96s,87s-86s,76s-75s,65s-63s,54s-53s,43s,32s}

Flop: J53



Turn: 8


This is of course a simplification, since selecting suits isn't possible with this range building tool. The problem I immediately see is that all of my "intuitive" (for me personally) check/calls on the turn are 8s that we happened to turn. I'm not sure that QJ is worth 3 streets, but it seems like a special case--BB still has some KJ+ combos here depending on his tendencies.

For check/calls, I firstly just realized I'm not sure exactly what you meant by check some draws. Are these mostly draws we're planning on giving up with? Should we, for example, be check/folding some of our weakest gutshots? Or should we be check/calling some OESDs etc. to balance our check/calling range? Do we not prefer to bet our strongest draws here? Pair+fdraw combos look great here, but what do we do when we don't have these obvious combos?

As far as check/raises, I'd consider all of our under-sets, so that BB still has the most jacks to call with. Also, potentially some overpairs. But I'm not sure which are best and what percentage of our range or frequency we should look to do this with (and why). Also, should we have any flop/river check/raises and how do we select them/on what cards?

Feel free anyone also to comment on how I constructed my flop/turn ranges, suggestions, etc. Thanks a lot in advance for the help, you guys are awesome.

Trying to play pure strategies is not the way to go. You need to mix stuff. If you're not exactly sure even simple 50% mixing will usually outperform a pure strategy. There will be some hands that benefit a lot from a pure strategy (two pair or bottom set on a drawy board just wants to get it in) but for the most part you need to mix.

Otherwise you will end up where most people who try to play "balanced" end up. Their check call range is just a bunch of weak bluffcatchers. That's the worst situation you can find yourself in poker.

So I get that if we cap our range at any point in time throughout a hand, we're going to be crushed... but otherwise isn't there merit to having a vast majority of only bluffcatchers in our checking ranges? At a certain point, villain will have to be bluffing at some frequency if he is always barreling into our checks. I heard an interview w/ Jungleman recently where he said solvers indicate that we should have traps in weird places... but it seems like we'll be missing a lot of value if we check our strongest hands constantly--right?

I guess that is the crux of my question. I have a similar thread that's kind of developing into the same idea. If we can't call down with only weak 2nd pairs, etc., how do we make decisions to split our value range without weakening it severely? Already as it is, my cbet frequencies have gotten quite low.