Thanks for correcting math. I did 6 +4 + 4.5! d'oh.

But you're being disingenuous by asking me about what my read is on the turn w the A if you have KK, in response to my pessimism (AK+) after being bet/3bet. Naturally I am more pessimistic after being 3bet on the turn. What is your range on the turn after the 3bet?

After being 3bet on the turn, you're beating nothing w KK. Some will lead the turn w air when the ace pops but most will respect that it's "your card" and not rep "your cards".

After a bet/3bet I assume AK minimum here for most players, AQ still possible for some players who like to spew, but overwhelmingly Aces up, especially w KK because it blocks AK but not AX. After a 3bet it's not ace rag, though my default is to call down. After leading the turn I give most players credit for an ace but not all.

If you're betting w AK on the flop, are you betting w AT? Where do you draw the line? If you c-bet too frequently here, then that's fairly exploitable. It may even come up often enough that it's noticeable in a few sessions, or even one session. Perhaps c-betting AKs bdfd is okay, but auto-c-betting can't be good. IMO you should draw the line somewhere. You might win a weak showdown, and prevent the total air from out drawing you. I was perhaps too pessimistic about the flop at first look. I do think it's close though.

No, I mean what do you think of villain when he bets the turn. The argument is that raising is bad because villain likely has two pair or better when he leads.

I'm saying that if you hold KK and villain leads on the turn, it seems unduly pessimistic to believe that he has two pair there. It really only represents an ace.

In a 5-handed pot, I'm not so worried about being exploited. I'm playing against the field and not against an individual. It's unlikely that anyone is really going to be in position to take shots at me even if they know what I'm doing.

I'll really only worry about it if one of the players to my left is capable of trying to check-raise bluff to knock out the field and will barrel down with no pair.

If you take away the backdoor flush draw, I'm less inclined to bet, but I still might. I'm not betting any Kx hands that I raised preflop.

I prefer the AKs,AQs with bdfd. That's three suits, making 6 combos total. I think it helps to give you board coverage if an ace peels (the card that will most hurt the time you have a pair), and will keep them guessing as to whether you have an overpair or only ace high. If you do more than that, the way to exploit it is from the blinds, and start semi-bluffing and value betting more with straight draws, and small pairs that hit the board. If they do not bet the flop too much, then you're more inclined to lead yourself on this flop given the weak texture.

If the table is passive, then maybe I'd deviate from that and bet a little wider on the flop.

Oh, you have me confused with someone else. I recommend raising the turn and calling down if 3bet because there's still chopping possibilities. But, I'm not thrilled to call down.

Whoops! Sorry!

How narrow is your hand range when raising from the HJ against two limpers?

I am raising around 88+, A7s+, A9o+,KJs+,KQo+,QTs,JTs, limping 22-77, A6s-A2s,K9s-KTs,KJo,KTo,QTo,T9s-87s,J9s-86s, and folding the rest. I might raise A8o, and raise the 66,77. And I think it's somewhat debatable, and statistics would find a range better. By limping some of the suited aces I have some board coverage if the flop comes ace high in a limped pot, and with the KJ,KT some board coverage if the flop comes king-hi. I also think KJ/KT doesn't get hands better to fold, while chasing out worse hands that might call, such as K8o,K9o, which is why I go ahead and place it as a call to protect my calling range. It sucks some of the value out of being raised, and since I'm using a limping range here, KJ/KT seems like a good value-limp. But, I might be overthinking it. I view the unsuited aces as a slippery slope, so I am folding many of them with two players left to act.

If you're raising this range preflop, you're probably betting all your pocket pairs (42 hands) and A8s (3 hands). The rest of your range looks like this:

A9+ = 80 hands
A7s = 4 hands
KJs+ = 8 hands
KQo = 12 hands
QTs = 4 hands
JTs = 4 hands

I think you definitely can afford to bet more than AKs/AQs with the backdoor flush draw from among your unpaired hands.

I'll have to think about it more, but I'm wary because at first glance it looks like a value-bluff though multiway pots are complicated. It depends on how often you truly expect to win a weak showdown versus getting raised.

Call me pessimistic but against all sets and straight we are drawing dead. It may only be 28 combos but we still only have 3 outs vs. A8 and 8 outs vs. A3 which decreases our equity even further. Raising the turn is also borderline spew.

Been toying w/ PPT Odds Oracle. If you assume the other four players are playing 25% of hands you have about 22.3% equity, but it goes wayyy down and you're a dog if you bet ATs to a whopping 15.4% equity! AQs is 19.9%, and AJs is 17.5%. But having equity is not enough to bet, because it re-opens the betting for when you're behind. Though it is enough if you do not get check-raised, which I admit is usually the case. I can look a little further and refine these ranges. If I had raised with more suited aces pre (not recommending it, but others would), then the wheel draws have 23.9% equity, and the pair w/ ace w/ bdfd has 24.5%, and would become value bets that contain an ace, and the pairs would be too.

I'm, after looking at it again, am only c-betting AKs in passive games. And, even a 9c instead of the 8c changes the equities a couple percent because of the RIO (reverse implied odds).

With the door card being

7 - 25.75%
8 - 22.32%
9 - 21.89%
T - 19.30%

And J,Q,K are similar to the percentage of a T.

So, this is why I'm cautious because the "value-bluff" (a hand that is neither value nor bluff, but is seemingly both) is not helpful. I was surprised by how much better a 7 was compared to an 8.



tl'dr
The three major questions are

1) Do you have value on the flop?
2) Do you risk being check-raised?
3) You can increase your equity by betting

The Oracle doesn't take into consideration how much equity you gain by getting rags to fold the flop, so that's still a missing component. I don't know how to put a number on that though. You might still want to bet more than just AKs bdfd. You can perhaps tweak the ranges so they don't have the rags that fold on the flop, and then come up with the adjusted equities. Perhaps I'll do that another time.

That's *really* pessimistic as far as hand ranges go. At the *bare minimum* you've got the big blind calling with a much wider range than that. You might also want to throw out the top tier hands that are often (though not always) raised like AA-QQ.

You should do that. This first attempt doesn't seem that reasonable to me.

A better value to look at is not what your equity is, but the percent you are ahead or behind on the flop. I don't know if the software will do this for you.

With this many players, unless you can do simulations, there's no easy way to put a number to it. It's extremely sensitive the number of folds you assume you're going to get. This is why the question of how often you're ahead seem more important to me than your equity. If you're ahead, betting and getting players to either call or fold is a win. (Call = money in with equity, fold = players giving up reasonable equity in a big pot.)

Just cranked out again thinking to myself,

"How do I factor in folds?" Well, it gets REALLY COMPLICATED quickly, but a shorthanded way to do that is to compare the equity when you're up against two players instead of four players. So you can get an intuitive feel for how much fold equity you have by assuming two folds (which is in the neighbordhood of what happens.)

So, your AKs flies to a whopping 29.6% vs three opponents, and 41.6% vs two opponents! The part where they fold their missed J6s or whatever counts for a lot. But, there's still the blinds, who are playing more than 25% and are playing like 95% of their range for a limp, and raising the rest of their range. So, they also are more apt to hit the two or three. So, you'd have to compare various possibilities (some call, all call, you're raised, etc.) and well it's hard.

You might increase your odds of winning the pot around 12% though by betting in my guesstimation. So I am thinking I need to be a little more aggressive here and be willing to continue bet against passive players.