So this is something that comes up from time to time and reared its head twice in the same week. How narrow do you let your range building go when you know your opponent can be playing a wider range, but something (your gut) is telling you that the range is tighter in this instance?

Both hands I'm about to share were against players I've played many hands against before. The first was a league tourney hand and the second was from a home cash game. In both instances I not only had position, but the opportunity to rebuy so that weighed a bit into me calling.

#1 $60 tourney with rebuys and addons vs OMC Villain (I have seen him play looser than a traditional OMC stereotype, especially before the rebuy period ends, he just happens to be old and drinks coffee). 30min before the first break, re-buys shutting down and the end of the third level (100/300/300) in our monthly league tournament.

OMC (50BB) is in UTG1 and RFI to 3BB. 1 call from MP and HERO (40BB) in the CO 3! to 12BB with A♠J♣. UTG1 calls. MP folds.

Pot is 29.5BB
Flop: A♣Q♣5♥

OMC checks. I bet 10BB. OMC C/R all-in after thinking about it for a bit. Based purely on his "sigh" before jamming, I thought that I was way behind. He trapped me with a set or two pair. It just felt like one of those spots. On the other hand, I started thinking more about his range. Has he shoved with worse hands like top pair mediocre kicker? Yes. Could he be playing weak aces this way? Yes. Do I have a blocker or backdoors? Yes. All of these answers started expanding the range I put him on.

I also still had a free rebuy. So I said, "sigh, I guess it's time to gamble." I made a note of the range I put him on and ran it when I got home. I had about 30% equity against the range.

When he flipped over his red aces, it wasn't as close as I had had hoped. I picked up a Tc on the turn and the river bricked. RE-BUY!

#2 - The second hand was in a cash game 200BB max - .25/.50. I was dealt A♣K♣ in the CO. V was in the SB. 150BB effective. I opened to 8BB after two limps, the SB 3! to 24BB, BB and limps folded. I flatted. I thought about 4! but only realized it was pretty much a pure 4! spot afterward.

Pot was 51BB
Flop: J♠8♣3♣

He open-shoved. That was not expected. I was expecting a check, or maybe a c-bet. This was confusing and as I was ranging him, something told me I was more behind than I was ahead. I was actually ready to shove myself when I saw the flop, so his jam really threw me off. After giving it some thought, I called thinking I still had a good amount of equity. He flipped over AJo and it held.

Anyway. These are not bad beat stories, but simply two recent spots where my gut was trying to be tighter than an opponent's more logical range in a particular situation. The first hand was much closer than the second, but with the re-buy still available, it made it an easier call.

Why do you think that calling in the second hand was a mistake? Because you ended up losing the hand?

51bb in the pot with 126bb behind. V jams 126bb. You need to call 126bb to win a final pot of 303bb. That means you need 42% equity to call. You have 46% equity against AJo. You have 54% equity against a hand like QQ. The only hands you aren't getting the right price against are JJ and AA, and even those are pretty close. Sounds like this guy is wide enough he could have a whole lot of stuff you are a favorite against in this spot.

Calling off in the second hand is absolutely a standard, winning play. I agree that 4betting pre-flop is better as well, but you played the hand fine. Villain sounds like a fish.

Not going to comment on the tournament hand because I don't play tournaments or study tournament strategy but it looks OK I think?

I think both are "correct" calls. The second one beyond correct and it is one I probably make with AKo against this opponent in this situation. I just had to fight my gut instinct of putting them on more narrow ranges like "OMC? This is a set of aces or two pair" or in the cash game hand "he might not do this with a set, but I have a feeling he is doing it with a pair that doesn't want me to catch up". In hand two he thought I had aces or kings before I showed him my hand.

I feel like a year ago I would have made what felt like big hero folds and that urge to do so, creeps in to my head when it's a spot where I am likely behind but have the equity to call.

Ah I see. I misunderstood I guess.

It's good that you are identifying these leaks in your game and logically thinking your way to the correct decision. I have the opposite problem where my instinct is always to call off in spots where I should be folding. It's not easy to go against your natural inclination and make the correct play. Taking notes, reviewing hands, and studying what better players (and computer programs) do helps for me. You are bound to make mistakes but, fortunately, your opponents will likely make more.

What you seem to be asking is, how do we listen to what our sub-conscious mind is telling us, without abandoning a theoretically sound approach to hand-reading?

I try to remember to do two things.

1. Whenever it seems like my gut is in conflict with theory, leading to the fear of making the wrong play, I pause, and go back over how the hand was played, looking at how the action on each street helps to define V's range, and asking if V's line is more consistent with what my gut is telling me, or what theory tells us.

2. When my gut feeling contradicts theory, I'll allow myself to go with my gut more often when the consequences of being wrong are smaller - the smaller the cost of being wrong, the more willing I am to go with my gut. I may only let myself make a big hero play once per session.

Sometimes our gut knows what the theoretically correct play is, and it's our conscious mind that gets in the way. Sometimes I'll ask myself if I'm contemplating an action simply because it seems like it's "good player approved", despite another action being reasonably defensible, logically speaking.

very well put.
I always go with my gut.
far too often on here we see ranges being expanded to where a call makes $$$$$ when our gut tells us V's range is far smaller.

Don't know if someone said it before him but 3 decades ago the GOAT said to me " winners look for reasons to fold, losers look for reasons to call" and I have lived by that rule.
BTW He calls his gut feeling's "WHITE MAGIC" and look where it got him.

Hand 1 in a tournament i think you committed yourself preflop. If you are near a bubble or pay jump still fold the flor c/r. There's literally no hand other than spazz bluffs you are ahead of.

When did Phil Ivey start talking about having white magic in his gut?

Sent from my SM-G781U using Tapatalk

This is the main part I would think about more.
AJo is super loose 3bet here. Then what do you do after? 3bet/fold is burning money on a 40bb starting stack, although probably burning less than 3bet/call.
"OMC" needs to be opening very wide, or folding a lot of premium hands for this to be good.
Then MP can have like 88 and decide "Eh, let's just backraise all in" no matter what UTG1 does.

If you have say 20bb and just 3bet all in, I like it better (although not sure if any robots would approve).

He would open with small to medium pairs and fold them to a 3! or on a board where he misses. He would also open weaker broadway hands. Normally I would lean to a flat here, but against this group it is a strong hand, even to early agression, this early in a tournament.

You're step 1 is usually how I try to settle the internal debate. More often than not, my gut is nitty and theory is the loose cannon. I think it simply goes back to instinct and that theoretical approaches to playing hands is generally still new to me.

That's the salient statement.

Does that mean your gut tends to be more loosey-goosey than what might be theoretically correct?

His ranges seem close to normal ... your AJo is, at best, on the cusp.


50bb 6max UTG opens down to 66 pure and 55 50%, ATo+, ~65% KTo, ~50% KJo, pure KQo, all suited broadways, all suited Ax.

CO vs. that open ... 3bets AJo 25% and folds the rest.

BTN vs. UTG open and CO call ... AJo is almost a pure fold.


To repeat the above is all 6max opening to less than 3x ... UTG 9max should be tighter, bigger raises should be tighter for everyone.


At 100bb UTG open (6max or 9max) ... CO folds AJo pure.

He was UTG1 and I think we were down to 7 or 8 at the table at the time. Let's say it was 8. How does the table size and position change your range with AJo in the CO?

I don't have GTOW paid anymore so have been primarily studying the tourney charts on pokercoaching. It has ATo in the CO vs UTG1 open at about a 50% 3!, 40% flat and 10% fold. AJo is 50/50. Their UTG range is wider than yours, however. So that could explain the difference. They have 55+ pure open UTG, ATo+ pure, KJo+ pure, KTo about 20%, QJo about 70%, A3s+pure, K8s+ pure, Q9s+ pure, J9s+ pure, T8s+ pure and a smattering of other suited gappers opening at a mixed rate.

When the gut seems nitty, that may be "monsters under the bed". Fear is a powerful emotion, and can work against our own self-interests. But, at the same time, our "fear" is borne from our survival instinct, the product of thousands of years of natural selection.

If every instinct we have is screaming "fold", when theory says we should call, because we're at the top of our range, or whatever, I think it's reasonable to at least consider choosing discretion over valor, especially when we're protecting our stack, our bankroll, and avoiding tilt.

But we should also pause long enough to consider whether or not our fear is rational (never seen this guy bluff this big), irrational (how stupid will I look if I'm wrong), or instinctive (don't know what it is, but something doesn't feel kosher here).

Sometimes my gut says a guy is FOS and I want to hero call, even if theory says, "he's never bluffing here." Not sure if that's just the flip side of the same coin. Do I fear making a bad fold as much as I fear making a bad call? Not sure.

Same thing with bluffs. I've made them in spots when theory would say not to. No blockers, no reason other than "eff this guy for going to the well one too many times. I don't think he has anything here."

Intellectually, we have to see the value in adhering to theory as the foundation in our baseline strat, and the underpinning of all our decisions at the table. I don't know how often I defer to theory vs my gut, but I try to weight decisions in favor of theory.

My gut might be the tie-breaker in a close spot, but shouldn't over-rule theory more than, say, 10% of the time. Playing 90% theory, 10% gut, has to be better than 100% gut, or 50-50. And I think it's better than 100% theory, inasmuch as most, if not all of our opponents are deviating from GTO to some degree, and our sub-conscious may be better at noticing it than our conscious mind.

Which just goes back to how our natural instincts evolved to get really good at pattern recognition. That rustling in the reeds could be nothing to worry about, but maybe we ought to climb a tree until we see what emerges, if our very survival depends on it. If something doesn't feel kosher, it may not be.

Well said @docvail. I think you're absolutely right on the survival instinct and in the case of the first hand I turned away from my gut feeling (which might actually have made more sense, especially after seeing the red aces) simply because math was close and I had a re-buy available. (I ended up 3 of 17 in this tourney after the re-buy, so it paid off). In the second example, I feel it was more bravado that helped sway my decision. My gut said I was behind but also this would be a sick call if I wasn't.

In both examples the analysis afterward of the hands, understanding that mathematically it was either close or a slam dunk, really helped ease my concerns. I think after the first few hundred thousand hands I played in my mid-twenties during the 03-11 boom, nothing really phased me. With the theoretical side of the game, it makes it even easier to justify stuff. However, like @snowman said, sometimes we can take it too far and justify an action if we stretch that theoretical range too far in our favor.