He shouldn't have much Kx after a flop xr and you've got blockers to AA/AK so I think a big turn bet is in order. He should have QQ/JJ/99 type hands that will grudgingly fold to a bomb. And if that doesn't work you can just run pure and bink the river like so.

To this day, I still cannot any advantage to checking any turn after ckr flop (on such textures). Show me a hand, let alone a range, that takes your pre/flop line and presses any clear advantage choosing to check this turn/any turn. Said it before and it remains true to this day imo, it is very difficult to play against a well polarized range even from IP. If you happen to have a hand that seemingly-correctly wants to check turn, that only means it was incorrectly included as a check raise the prior street.

As for the Ah5 v Ax5h mimi-argument above, far and away the Ah5x is going to outperform the other in a live setting at just about any depth because when going polar because you want to arrive at the river with either the nuts or the nut bluff.


AP, idk man, I think you have a very easy bet but at reasonable sizing considering the majority of your betting range now does NOT want to be called if you make a big bet. This hand does, but that's transparent.

This whole paragraph is very wrong, but the bolded part is especially wrong. The reason we can't just bomb turn with every x/r bluff we had on the flop is that we simply do not have enough strong hands to include in that turn betting range. This does not mean that we have "over-checkraised" the flop. In fact, this is a logical byproduct of multi-street poker where the other streets will change the dynamic of the hand; some turns will be "better" for our range, and some turns will be "worse" for our range, and our frequencies should align with the turn cards accordingly .

For example, AT is strong enough to x/r the flop and is getting x/r at a pretty decent frequency, and even some other Tx. However, on this K turn, it is not strong enough to bomb the turn; therefore we just "lost" a "value" combo and therefore we need to conversely lose some "bluffs" (I'm adding quotes to value/bluff because that term really isn't useful outside of river scenarios but it's easier to explain certain things using these known terms).

Even if the turn was completely neutral and static we still can't just bet every "bluff" candidate we had on the flop, such as flush draws, straight draws, highcards with a flush blocker, bottom pairs, etc, because the villain's range becomes stronger after calling the flop x/r which means our betting range needs to be stronger, both our "bluffs" and our "value"; just because our hand is good enough to raise flop does not mean it would be good enough to bet the turn.

In fact, on certain turns that are very bad for our range, we will actually be mostly just checking and then not defending MDF vs a bet (ie, overfolding vs a bet), just because that specific turn is so bad for us. This does not mean we are playing sub optimally, or that our opponent is exploiting us. We do not need to defend our range/balance our range at MDF frequencies on boards/cards that are bad for our range.

The reason we don't pure bet Ax5h on the turn here in this specific spot is because it's very low EV to begin with (ie why it's mixed between check/bet), and if we bet every combo of Ax5h our opponent could exploit us by calling/raising with a wider range. Also we would lack diversity on certain rivers where our range would contain too much air or too much "value"; we would be stealing EV from certain rivers and applying it to other rivers but overall causing the strategy to be lower EV.

There's so much misinformation and just really wrong and misguided thinking on this forum...

Poker is hard. Like really hard. It should be expected that people confuse concepts or misunderstand/don't understand them on regular basis. That is the whole point of the forum.

If everyone played perfect their would be no point of a forum, right?

Anyways, the above two statements I wanted to touch on.

First one, AT is not the highest frequency Tx to get check-raised. You would XR your weaker Tx like T9s/T8s/T7s before AT.

Why is that? Well these weaker Tx hands are more incentivized to win the pot right now because they become increasingly harder to play on future streets. For example, AT only has a K,Q, or J to worry about OTT.

But a hand like T8s has to worry about any A/K/Q/J.

Also, we keep reverse dominated Ax hands in the pot and allow them to sometimes catch up OTT. Then we get to win a medium-large sized pot off our opponent in an otherwise small pot scenario.

Second point - mixed frequencies have no correlation to low Expected Value like you stated. Mixed frequencies are by definition the same EV. So let's say GTO dictates we bet our super strong hands 90% of the time but check them 10% of the time. Well, both of these actions (betting and checking) are the same EV from a theoretical standpoint.

If you look at Solvers - and go to the EV tab. The Expected Values will mostly be different in mixed frequency actions but that is only a rounding error. No solver can solve to a Nash Distance of 0. The highest setting is .1% dEV (Distance to Nash Equilibrium). So even though it "looks" like one action may be more profitable than another, it isn't.

Also - if you say someone is wrong in a thread. Please list the reasons why, we are all here to learn.

DO YOU EVEN SOLVE BRO!? But instead of arguing why not just look at a sim

Point is building a pot with a draw that can make more nuts is better than not. Your logic of wanting him to have the nfd so you can bluff him may hold true when you get to the river if a flush draw misses and you hold the Ah, but not in picking you best flop check raises. Technically you have more immediate fold eqity otf when you hold the Ah bc you block calls. More nuts are better.





Yes the bad Tx need more protection but that's looking at it through a narrow lense. Point is we make the pot bigger vs more dominated hands when we have our best kicker. Bloating the pot vs more hands that have us dominated when we have to navigate turn and river OOP is more of a concern. Having domination on the turn after just calling when the pot is smaller is less important.

Takeaway is a bigger pot with domination should be more of a priority than having immediate flop protection when OOP in single raise pots.

Do you realize that posting pictures of solves without giving Opening Ranges/Defending Ranges and SPR is a futile exercise?

The A5x vs Ax5 debate is sensitive to SPR - low SPR's prefer the latter and higher SPR's the former.

you guys are way too nerdy for llsnl

Some people actually really appreciate this knowledge man, and this is key information to getting past llsnl and actually succeeding long term.
I want more of these discussions, not less.

yes thats the belief

FYP

Used monker ranges and sim is 100 bb eff. The hand posted is deep why do we care about short stack play? You can tweak the ranges however you want the concepts should remain the same.

When stacks get short both combos prefer call. 5h does not get raised more often

You must be fully aware how important the Ah is on this board. It's borderline trolling to start talking SPR because any time you lower it raw equity and EV converge.

The concepts definitely do not remain the same. Frequencies change drastically at higher SPRs. You are running SIMS at 100BB stacks when the hand in question was 220BB deep.

In regards to what we're talking about yes they do(100bb to 200bb)

The below holds true at both stack depths:

1) If any TP gets XR it's AT
2) If any A5o gets XR Ah is preferred

Pretty straight forward as to why this is the case.

Go re-read Jarretman's post to you. He did a very good job of dissecting the errors in your thought process.

I explained above why T8s/T7s is a better XR than AT. If you are going to post a solve then be thorough.

We need opening ranges/defending ranges/bet sizing and stack depth. Otherwise you are just posting pictures to fit your narrative.

Please comment further, as I'm just not as wide as you seem to be on the turn. Naturally if you have a turn range that can split, then split, I just don't see the advantages in blowing up pots getting deep without certain cards/hands against a so far in line player - tldr; I'm not nearly as wide as you are here.

I actually had asked I asked because as super-wide as we were heading to a flop, everything tightens up real fast facing a 2/3p cbet.

Also, I know you agree (bc it's standard fare/you already wrote it) that if we have a very narrow-polar range heading to the turn, we are going to blast off. That was the tenet behind my post - not to take 100 combos and always bet ldo.

I just said I used solved preflop ranges. the bet sizing is identical to the hand. Again, you can input any reasonable ranges and the concept will remain the same. Check raising tpbk for protection over tptk is wrong.

Already commented on that above. As usual, as with every other post, different ranges change everything.

Arguing to 'lower the spr' and see what happens has no application in 200bb+ live game. In a nutshell, when you're sitting 200bb deep against non-droolers, you are not going to want to arrive on rivers without nut value/nut blockers on the only street where value/bluff matters/is quantifiable. Not that you actually care what I have to say, but if you're sitting in this 5T spot and start piling away without the Ax, you're stone dead.

You talk a lot about theory and solvers but it's very apparent you don't use them based on this statement alone.

First, by default if villain calls the flop x/r his range will now be stronger and therefore we can't use the same types of hands we used on the flop. Second, now there's only 1 card left so our draws that bricked have lost a lot of value. Third, sometimes are draws get there on the turn... which is a reason we can x/r flop but not blast every turn.

But let's ignore everything else, the main reason (there are several) we can and should x/r wider on the flop than we bet on the turn (on average, some turns we will actually bet more frequently) is because villain could've folded!!! Facing every betting action a player should fold a portion of his range. Yes, villain can fold the turn also, but we can't use the same range to bet the turn that raised the flop into a now much stronger range that had the option to fold weak hands facing the x/r. Additionally, a smaller point, is that if we always bet our draws on the turn, after the turn goes check/check, we will not have any flushes/straights on those rivers, which makes us very easy to play against.

Monker ranges are not "solved preflop" ranges. They are more accurate than Upswing/Snowie but they are not even close to being true equilibrium.

Multiway solvers take all kinds of short cuts - especially when the solves are 9-10 handed. Because the game tree is ridiculously huge it would not even be cost effective for the people that you bought these ranges from to solve them to true equilibrium. They would lose money on computing power.

If you bought Monker ranges thinking they were solved preflop solutions, you are mistaken.

Lol ok man. If that's what you want to focus on from my post then idk. Focusing on the microscopic detail of preflop ranges is a waste.

Seems like you are gettting really weird about being wrong here? Take ranges from anywhere, i dont care. The concepts remain the same but you keep making strawmans.

Seriously trying to help here. Enjoy talking about this stuff but this defensive attitude isn't helping

*smacks face hard with open palm

(Don’t ruin this for the people who are devouring this discussion for a late lunch DD)

I can't even take you seriously with statements like this.

The Tx XR Frequencies are all based on SPR again. You guys realize concepts are not static across every stack depth correct?

Your strategy vs 50bb stacks, vs 100bb stacks vs 200bb stacks is constantly changing.

The lower Txsuited hands work better as a XR at higher SPR's because they under realize equity on future streets. And position goes UP in value at higher SPRs so we are more incentivized to win the pot OTF.

I learn more when I'm wrong then when I'm right, so being wrong isn't a negative idea to me. But you seem convinced you are right.

Poker concepts are not static. Concepts do not "remain the same." They change based on a lot of different factors.

I appreciate the virtue signaling though. Thanks for the 100BB solve with "solved preflop ranges" for a 220bb stack depth.