Quote:
Originally Posted by Ihooper88
https://gyazo.com/42d030e8c401ecccf48b298bdc1ccd6c
This is co v bb in a srp, the co betting range on the flop. Is the reason for checking some AA and some Jx for balance, to have some strong hands in our checking range? It seems like both AA and Jx strongly satisfy both reasons for betting?
I'm keen to read Matthew's article about balance when it comes out. I kind of feel like balance arises naturally as a result of trying to maximise the EV of your range/strategy given that there are various responses to your actions and various runouts still to be navigated.
There are clearly some good reasons to bet with AA, but there are some other combos that satisfy those reasons even more strongly. e.g. JJ or 86s or 75s are pretty much mandatory c-bets (sets and two pairs are "obvious" value bets. The 75s OESD is an "obvious" bluff, and all of these combos have robust equity. They're still in good shape if villain check-raises and threatens to play for stacks).
AA and J9s/J7s have mixed strategies because they work
equally well as bets for value/protection, or as check backs that can be used as delayed c-bets or as bluff-catchers. If you
always bet AA and
all Jx combos, then your check-back range would definitely be somewhat weak and vulnerable to turn and river bluffs by villain. You've got to check back
some made hands on the flop so that you can adequately defend against turn bluffs. On J86tt, AA and J9s/J7s (and TT/99) seem like very good candidates for doing that.
FWIW, I suppose that KK/QQ are more likely to bet the flop than AA is in that spot, despite being "worse hands", because they are slightly more vulnerable to free cards. Denying free equity is apparently more important with those hands, because some turn cards could mean they are close to drawing dead, and they won't be able to bluff-catch profitably on many runouts.