1/1/2 with a $4 kill in MP (which is like a Mississippi straddle except that the action starts from UTG itself and MP gets to act last)... also, it’s $8 to limp

Young Asian mostly ABC passive limpy guy ($500) limps $8,
1 more limper,
Snug Hero (BTN, $400) raises to $40 with QcQd,
V snap calls,
All others fold.

Flop ($95): Ac9c3s
Checks through

Turn ($95): 8c
V bets $60, Hero ???

Is this always just a call (esp with Qc) since we checked behind flop? I don’t really have much of a read on the guy except that he made a small raise in BB with 99 earlier over 2-3 limpers and checked down an AQxxx board and took it down. Play on the table has been very passive so far with most people limping and we are the only two big stacks, quiet type guys at table, and haven’t really been involved with each other in the hour.

If the guy hasn’t shown any aggro tendencies, shouldn’t he always have like two broadway-ish clubs OR a set of 8s or 3s or AJ/ATc type hands here? Especially with his sizing?

I’m kind of tired of checking behind KK/QQ type hands on Axx flops and then playing guessing games OTT. I kind of hate calling in these spots and facing another river decision.

Vs 1 opponent, I just bet the flop and if called then maybe slow down. Not like there are 5 players in so the likelihood of an Ace is all that high. His pre calling range contains tons of other hands without an Ace.

AP, I suppose you can call Turn and eval river. But again, if you were planning on calling all turns, then betting the flop is a much better alternative IMO.

Show your work please...

here is what i think is a fair limp/callling range from a typical passive player
88-44,ATs-A2s,KTs-K8s,QTs-Q9s,J9s+,T8s+,98s,86s+,75s+,65s,54s,AQo-A5o,KTo+,QTo+,JTo

After I remove our cards, and the flop cards, that's 230 possible hands.

90 hands, or 40% of V's holdings contain an ace.

Our equity against that range pre-flop was 75%. Now it's 58%. That's a pretty big drop.

Assuming he continues with only top pair or better, and any flush draws, our equity against a continuing range is 19%

Lol. Poker isn't played inside a calculator by robots. It is played by people. There is a big difference. But go ahead and check all Ace high flops HU in position with TT-KK....sounds like a solid strategy.

Checking flop is fine. Not the conventional wisdom here but the CW is wrong. Betting gets no value from anything except club draws and maybe the occasional 9x/TT-JJ.

On the turn, you absolutely have to call. The drawback of checking the flop is, unless you're willing to sometimes call down with TT-KK and other times fold, you're making it too easy for a player who knows your tendencies. To set up the gauntlet properly, you have to make thin calls when you pick up equity on the turn. But that's if there's some history; let's assume you are unknown to this guy. Even a "Young Asian mostly ABC passive limpy guy" will see your check as permission to bet 2/3 pot and take it down. You're ahead of his range and you will have position on the river. Call.

If the river blanks and he bets, fold. "Young Asian mostly ABC passive limpy guy" doesn't think about how his opponent checked the flop so two barrels will do the trick. He fears he's getting slowplayed by a set. He fears he's getting slowplayed by clubs. He's pretty sure if he barrels to get you off QQ or KK, you won't fold QQ or KK. He's not bluffing this river. Fold.

If the river blanks and he checks, I'd probably check back. Such a player will often miss value with a weak ace. There's a case for betting QQ for thin value but it's hard to see him calling with worse.

If the river is a club and he bets, this is also a genuinely tough spot. He's probably not bluffing, but us calling the turn with QcQ and folding the third-nuts seems crazy. At the table I know I'd call, and given the weird way the hand played out it's probably justifiable, but really, you're just praying for JA or TT or something, plus the occasional surprising bluff.

If the river is a club and he checks, bet like 40% of pot.

If the river is a queen, do whatever gets money in the pot.

If you're willing to construct ranges so sometimes you're calling down and other times you're not calling down, it does sound like a solid strategy. What's your rationale for betting?

I had some math in my calculations above, but I botched it. This is simpler and better...

If V continues with TP+, and FD's, then he's continuing against a c-bet 45% of the time and folding 55%. So let's say we bet $60, we're gonna win the pot of $95 55% of the time, and we're going to lose $60 to the pot 45% of the time.

That's about +$26 in +EV.

Now, from that point your equity is 19%. That means you're giving away 81 cents of every dollar you put in the pot from this point on. And only getting back 19 cents of every dollar he puts in. So you would burn through $26 of profit that you've made thus far if you put any more than $42 in the pot from here on out
$42 x .19 = +7.98
-$42 x .81 = -34.02
Total -26.04

Are you really telling me you're shutting down after the flop? If V bets $50, offering you 5 to 1...you're folding?

Further analysis...
C-betting gets V to fold some 120+ hands. I'm wondering if we can find more than $26 of +EV if we let those hands see a turn...

Also, I'm wondering how much of our 19% equity we might actually realize if we continue past the flop....I'm guessing not much.

We have position, we were the PFR so Ace high flops hit our range solidly (probably moreso than a pf caller), we have been checked to, if we check flop V's bluffing frequency goes up substantially OTT so we will have less info on whether calling down is profitable or we are value owning ourselves, we have BD FD equity, we get value from flush draws, we get value from middle pairs and pairs + FD's, if V calls the flop bet we narrow his range somewhat allowing us to play the rest of the hand better, we set the bet size now instead of him when he bets the turn so can manipulate that to get to the river more cheaply, most V's at these levels don't CR bluff a lot so if that happens we can safely fold, etc, etc.

Is that enough?

Shorn, what size do you pick to cbet flop?

Probably $45-$50 if you think the guy is totally fit or fold (not sure what you mean by ABC), possibly higher (like $60). Kind of depends on how this V will potentially perceive your sizing if he has seen you c-bet previously.

Im just range betting otf for 1/3; we have a huge range advantage and he cant really do anything vs our range bet. Vs that sizing he has to defend more than just Ax hands to avoid being exploited and given we have a decent amount of bluffs here (he’s getting good odds).

So by repping an ace we can get him to fold hands like 88 and 97 that have few outs against QQ. Why do we want that?

So by betting we make it less likely that he'll bluff a hand worse than QQ. Why do we want that?

So if we bet and he folds, we know he couldn't beat QQ and calling down would have been profitable, except he's not in the hand.

But if we bet and he calls, we know that we've been value owning ourselves, so we can stop value owning ourselves.

Why do we want him to fold worse hands?

A club comes on the turn with precisely the same frequency whether we bet or check.

This is the first argument I consider reasonable. How many of those are calling the flop but not giving us value on later streets?

FDs will give us value but not on the river if they miss and they don't bluff. Note that club hands are a tiny part of his range, even less since the A is on board.

Hands like T9 and 77 are more likely to call us on the turn after the flop checks through. Wouldn't we prefer to get more calls from hands like that?

Hands with the 3 and another club should be rare here, but yes, they'll call more streets than a naked FD.

So basically we expect to play the turn and river poorly, in position, against an opponent on whom we have a decent if speculative read and don't perceive as expert. Instead we'd prefer to bet to avoid that situation where we play poorly. Also, our presumed non-expert opponent might be better at bet sizing OOP than we are IP, so we should try to end the hand to prevent that.

This is true. And most V's at these levels don't two barrel bluff a lot after we check back the flop. How is losing a bet on the flop preferable to losing a bet on the turn?

Oh, right. We're terrified our non-expert opponent is going to size bets better than us OOP.


Yep. I'm ready to diagnose it as a huge leak: Always pay off better hands and rarely get value from worse just because you fear making "difficult" turn and river decisions.

But see, I don't think the turn and river are difficult here. We have a speculative read that he's passive and ABC. Rarely is he turning T9 into a two-barrel bluff, so with this read I'm fine with calling the turn and folding the river UI*. And sometimes a third club hits the board which makes a straightforward player play even more straightforwardly. We have position. In my view, turn and river decisions are something we should welcome here.

In contrast, in your view turn and river decisions are so agonizing that they're worth giving up quite a bit of value to avoid.

NLHE is profitable because we can make better decisions than our opponents. Position is profitable because we can make even better decisions IP than OP. Giving up both of these just so you can take the pot down is diminishing your edge. You can think, "Whew! That's a relief. He didn't have anything so my QQ held up. I'm just happy I didn't get outdrawn." Or you can think, "Maybe I'm ahead, maybe I'm behind. How can I make the most when ahead without losing a lot when behind?"

The best players think about the latter.





*Against tougher opponents I'd be more worried about effectively turning my hand face up. But I'd still check the flop and then be more judicious in constructing ranges. Always call down KK, sometimes QQ, rarely JJ, never TT. Obviously the presence of the flush draw moves any hand up in the order too.

In GTO-world: There's an interesting discussion to be had about whether QQ should fall in our value range against a GTO-aware opponent. Do you have a flop check range?

In live $1-1-2-4-8-whatever : My prior assumption is that "Young Asian mostly ABC passive limpy guy" has no idea or concern for what strategy would be GTO. It also seems unlikely though possible that we get to this preflop spot (limp-raise-call) in GTO. Thinking about range-vs-range isn't a bad perspective to consider but it shouldn't be our primary concern. Using range-vs-range as our main principle instead of exploitatively maximizing value for this particular hand in a live $1-1-2-4-8-whatever game is fancy play syndrome and wastes value.

Also, I strongly suspect some people would appeal to GTO reasons to bet here when their visceral reasons are the ones covered in my previous post: Checking means you have to play turns and rivers, and calling turns and rivers (against a different opponent; against this one you just fold to the second barrel and sleep great at night) with a hand that can't beat top pair is scary. Just a hunch.

Can definitely argue for betting or checking flop.

Betting super small on flop with entire range is completely fine.

Checking this combo of QQ esp with a club is also fine.


AP,

Turn is an easy call and decide river.

How many people playing 1/1/2 do you think can even spell GTO let alone know what it means or how to use it?

Precisely my point. Did you read the second part of the post? Yet on 2p2 you'll find thread after thread after thread where people debate why we need to do such and such to our range in a game where we sat down 30 minutes ago and/or may never see this player pool again.

I think people (not you) confuse GTO and mixing up (balancing) your play. You can beat low stakes live poker by playing ABC. You can crush live poker by adding in good balance (which people here love to call FPS).

None of that is really GTO which is almost useless in low stakes.

In this particular hand, you could bet or check the flop and nobody can really say which is better with any reliable amount of certainty. Its very close and probably inconsequential. Hands like this one are NOT the ones that make up a huge part of your win rate.

If you check, you have to call the turn bet. If you bet, you can get to the river cheaper (by betting the flop for less than $60) which is probably what you want (unless you have very reliable reads) so I would mostly bet the flop.

Good post. My previous post probably came across as more confrontational than I intended.

Good point about the distinction btw GTO and balance per se. But simply a little bit of imperfect balance goes a long way. For example, if a GTO bluffing frequency is 30% but we bluff 10%, many opponents are still going to perceive us as "someone who is capable of bluffing at any point" and pay us off as though we were bluffing 30%.

But I think the post I was replying to:

isn't just about being balanced. We can bet AJ+ and anything queen-high or worse here and be balanced, which means we can check back QQ and be balanced. "We have a huge range advantage and he cant really do anything vs our range bet" implies that there's some advantage to keeping one pair below aces in our flop bet range. I just don't see that advantage; a typical small stakes opponent is going to fold the vast majority of what we beat and call with the vast majority of what beats us.

So that's why I think worrying about "range betting" is a waste of value here.

Very true. But since we're at this spot with QQ, we might as well try to get some value from it. Given our present, speculative read, I would almost say the turn and river play themselves. If six hours later we have enough info to decide he's a tricky player who may have two-barrel bluffed us off the obvious underpair, well, good for him for manipulating our perception. But most 1-2-whatever players aren't doing that.

If he folds a weaker hand here like 66-JJ, he’s making a big mistake vs our entire range otf. It’s not just about playing the single hand you have.

It’s also a SRP so ranges are going to be pretty wide. I doubt he’s folding a pair here vs 33% pot

I definitely see people using GTO and balance interchangeably. I'll admit, I'm not really positive of the exact definitions myself.

But I think of it like this. GTO is what tells you what range you need to have with what frequency given the bet size and odds and such. Simple example, if you're facing a half pot c-bet, you need a range that can continue 67% of the time.

I also agree that in LLSNL this is not the most effective way to play. And I think that's because balance really only matters if you're playing someone balanced. If you're playing someone un-balanced....even slightly....the correct play is to take an exploitative counter-measure 100% of the time.

Imagine you're playing Rock/Paper/Scissors against a GTO robot who is making each play with exactly 1/3 frequency...perfect balance. You'd never be able to beat this robot over the long term. You could only hope to match his frequency and tie him.

Now imagine you poured water on the robot's circuitry and now the robot is malfunctioning. It's throwing rock 40% of the time, Paper 30%, and Scissors 30%.

How would you balance your range to maximize your wins against this malfunctioning bot?


Go ahead, check the math. Throwing all paper against a bot imbalanced toward rock will yield the maximum possible win rate. Fact.

So exploitative play is as simple as identifying an imbalance, and then always taking the countermeasure. Say you're on the river considering a pot sized bluff It's -EV if your villain calls more than 50% of the time. So evaluate his range. Will he call a pot sized bet with more than 50% of his range....if so, screw balance, you should never bluff.

Got a villain who only c-bets when he has it. Always fold

Got a villain who c-bets way too much....always call/raise

Maybe a loose-passive player called your raise with a massive range of junk and the flop is non-threatening. if you bet half pot, you win if he folds more than 33% of the time. If he's got a range that's going to fold more than that (he probably does), then screw balance, screw flop texture, screw live reads....your c-bet frequency is 100%

And then after turn goes c/c, won’t we get put in the same spot if he decides to bluff river?

Maximizing our win at live $1-2 (or equivalent) is roughly 90% about playing the single hand we have against our opponents' ranges.

Thinking in terms of range-versus-range is a wonderful higher-order poker skill that will serve you well throughout your poker career.... but you can waste a lot of money trying to apply higher-order thinking against opponents playing Level 0 fit-or-fold.

We bet KQ so he'll fold 66 (and other hands that beat us or have decent equity). We check QQ so he'll stay in with 66 (and other hands that have poor equity). Against a typical small stakes opponent--against "Young Asian mostly ABC passive limpy guy"--making it more complicated than that is wasting money.

You make it sound simple. I wish poker were this easy, but in reality we often don't know what a villain's strategy is. It's really hard to effectively evaluate whether villain is folding >50% of the time until we have played quite a bit with him. This is why we choose "good" bluffs and check/fold the "bad" ones when we don't know villain's strategy and don't have a strong population read.

Also, how do you decide what size to bet? Are you going to simultaneously predict villain's response to every possible bet size and pick the one with the highest EV.

This is incorrect and demonstrates one good reason to study poker theory at all levels. Our half-pot c-bet doesn't have to just work more than 33% of the time. It has to be better than checking. This is not a terribly difficult concept, but a huge number of people don't get it.

That's why instead of trying to get a complete read on his strategy and then wait until our read is fairly airtight, we start with priors and update them as new info calls them into question.

In this case we know:

• Our opponent is a small-stakes player
• He is described as "Young Asian mostly ABC passive limpy guy"

That's all we need for priors. We can infer he probably plays fit and fold on the flop.

Suppose he check raises the flop. So we update priors. We still think he's passive limpy guy who maybe just had 99 or 33. But we don't know that for sure. Now suppose he plays aggressively on 3 of our next 4 cbets HU after that. Maybe he's not so passive after all.

Or, best of all, suppose he check raises us then shows us JT after we fold. Now we really need to update priors.

But in live poker it could take hours for all of that to happen. People come, people go, sometimes you never see them again. Sometimes they become regulars for 10 years. Until we have reason, there's no need to adjust. Against most players, our read is more or less accurate. Based on that read, checking back QQ is probably value-maximizing.


Also if we do 100% of anything, even unobservant opponents adjust. But if we throw Paper 50% of the time instead of 33%, they might play against us for hours before realizing we're exploiting their predilection for Rock.

Nope. We develop a read based on priors, optimize to that read and what we want our opponent to do with his range, and then update priors as new info comes in.


Very important point... unsurprising that I would agree since I advocate checking QQ here.

You conveniently ignored my second post lol. Like I said, he cant only be defending Ax and wont only be defending Ax otf vs a 1/3 pot sizing. He’s going to call a lot of pairs, especially in a SRP where our perceived range is wide

Imo your opponent is going to make way more mistakes if you bet 1010-KK along with your entire range for 1/3, while Hero will make more mistakes by checking 1010-KK otf along with weak Ax. It’s really obvious to any decent player what you have here bc with bluffs you’re just betting to rep the ace, and if you had two pair or a strong ace like AQ/AK/etc almost all the players here are just betting.