HI, in boards like this

PokerStars No-Limit Hold'em, €0.02 BB (6 handed) - Converted at http://www.handhistoryconverter.com/

Hero (BB) (€3.67)
UTG (€1.64)
MP (€0.84)
CO (€2)
Button (€1.90)
SB (€1.95)

Preflop: Hero is BB with K, A
2 folds, CO raises to €0.06, 2 folds, Hero raises to €0.24, CO calls €0.18

Flop: (€0.49) 8, 2, 10 (2 players)



PokerStars No-Limit Hold'em, €0.02 BB (6 handed) - Converted at http://handhistoryconverter.com/

Button (€4.19)
Hero (SB) (€2.44)
BB (€2.12)
UTG (€2)
MP (€1.97)
CO (€3.87)

Preflop: Hero is SB with A, K
2 folds, CO raises to €0.06, 1 fold, Hero raises to €0.24, 1 fold, CO calls €0.18

Flop: (€0.50) 6, J, 2 (2 players)



PokerStars No-Limit Hold'em, €0.02 BB (5 handed) - Converted at http://www.handhistoryconverter.com

SB (€1.65)
Hero (BB) (€2.11)
UTG (€8.24)
MP (€1.25)
Button (€1.84)

Preflop: Hero is BB with A, K
2 folds, Button raises to €0.06, 1 fold, Hero raises to €0.24, Button calls €0.18

Flop: (€0.49) 8, 6, 7 (2 players)

In flops like Axx, Kxx and TJx i know need cbet this hands all time vs all, but in this flops I can/need cbet with AKo AQo vs any specific villain? i think ip is a check all time, but oop i have doubts, vs a villain with low wwsf and bet vs missed is check all time,no? and vs other villains?
in play i am being semi tilt when lost a big pot with XF this hands because dont know play good this situation
sorry for poor english

you can always c-bet, it doesn't mean it's necessarily a good idea

I think my questions are clear, you no help me and you know, so i no need explore what are your intention with this answer.

AP Thank you for put up my thread

Flops like this are when you start to play poker, not cards. What is your range as seen by your opponent(s) and, more importantly, what is your opponent's range as seen in your eyes. How often are you going to give each other credit for a pocket pair or connecting to this Board?

It's almost always more likely that a 'caller' hit those types of boards than a raiser, and it's even more true when a 3-bet is involved (normally). And in all three cases here you have an opponent who flatted a 3-bet after they opened. IMO this puts them even more likely to have connected somehow (or have a 'slight' overpair) to the Board. Does this mean you can 'never' c-bet?

In spots like this I think you can actually c-bet smaller if you want but also larger if you want as well. It's important not to give away your hand strength with your bet sizing. My point is that if your opponent is going to call, they are probably going to call 'any' bet ... so size the bet based on the Board texture, but also mix it up when you are strong and weak.

You will probably have to double barrel into most players. You are OOP and Vs tend to 'defend' more when IP, so make sure you watch your stack sizes in an effort 'not' to get caught up playing for stacks with Ace-high. When I say double barrel it doesn't necessarily mean firing the Turn 'every' time. If the Turn gets checked through, especially if the Board get's 'worse' and your opponent still doesn't bet out, then you can fire at most safe River's and get quite a bit of credit IMO.

This is a classic spot where I say "Try to win the war, not every battle." The Board didn't work out this time so don't get all caught up with winning 'every' hand in lieu of putting your stack at a greater risk by doing so. If your opponent is sticky, then go ahead and c/f or c/c a Flop like this and evaluate the Turn. GL

TY for answer man, I think understand good 1st part of your post, but i have problems to understand 2nd part because no understand english, and traductor no help me with this.
you say i can cbet (low size?) in this type boards vs nits and if turn is bad I check, and in river can bet? but if turn are broadway or scary is better bet turn?

i no understand sticky, is a loose player? vs this guys never cbet no?

unfortunately, you probably need mixed strategies to play all three of those spots correctly (h1 might be even mix between 4 options, b, x/c, x/f and x/r, and h3 is the simpliest with mix of b and x/f)

Yes, mixed play. C-Bet more based on the Board texture than your hand strength since opponents either are or are not going to call a bet.

I never mentioned a Nit in my post, but I would consider checking more often when out of position to a Nit than an average player simply because they have a stronger range pre-Flop.

If you do choose to c-Bet and the Board gets worse, then checking is better. If my opponent also checks then I'm more willing to bet 'safe' River cards in an effort to steal the pot without a showdown.

If you do choose to c-Bet and the Turn is a 'safe' card, then I'm more willing to bet the Turn in an effort to get my opponent to fold. But once my opponent calls the Flop and Turn bets I'm very less likely to bet, or even call a bet, on the River.

Players in general do not want to give up when they are in position, so they are more likely to call a bet even if they missed the Flop. That is considered 'sticky' or defensive. My point was that if you choose to c-Bet in these spots that you will probably have to be willing to bet a second time, on the Turn or River, in order to win the pot without a showdown since a lot of players will not trust your first bet on these types of Boards but will give you credit for a pocket pair if you bet a second time. GL

this is not what mixed strategy means. It means taking different actions (randomly) in the exactly same spot.

You could list out your entire range in each spot to work out where each combo of AK fits into it. (A backdoor flush draw on the first example makes that combo slightly better than others, if that's not obvious). When you count how many value combos you have, you can choose an appropriate number of bluffs. AK will often be somewhere in the middle of your range, because you have more "obvious" value-bets (top pair or better), and more obvious bluffs (king high, queen high, weaker Ax), leading to a fair amount of checking with nut air, but betting (as a semi-bluff/bluff/protection bet) can be appropriate too, especially on boards where you have more fold equity, or multiple turn cards that will allow you to barrel.
I don't think any of the examples posted are mandatory bets or checks, so I wouldn't be surprised if mixed strategies would be correct for all of them. I'd be most reluctant to bet the 876r though. Villain's range connects most strongly on that, and the turn is gonna be very hard to play.

FWIW, your 3-bet size is larger than I would use by default. I just press "pot". In the BB, for example, a 9.5bb 3-bet size would be fine. 12bb seems a bit excessive, unless your range is very tight.

The first two seem like pretty standard c-bets to me. The third is a bit tougher, since it's such a connected board and hands like 78 suited will often call the 3 bet. It really depends on your opponent though. Take stock in how often they fold to c-bets.

Thank you all for answers, a lot of good info

Man, Its hard for my poor knowledge, but can you explain me why need use a mixed strategy¿ never listen this , What conditions need a spot for need use this¿ and the line options for use randomly depends Only on Board or in villain too¿

to put it the simpliest, you need mixed strategies in spots where there is no obvious best play, like the ones you showed.

Fwiw, too my knowledge solvers suggest mixed strategies in almost every single spot, unless we restrain them too much with bet sizing (but those are the spots where you will often check range or bet range), however Im not very well versed with using solvers.

1; bet half pot and prepare to barrel some spade and broadway turns. Betting 0,24 and 0,56 sets up a decent river jam threat on the turn. Mainly targeting underpairs on the flop, middle/weak T on the turn and the whole range on the river.

2; cbet 1/3 pot and check on the majority of turns.

3; checkfold

These would be my default. Long time since I actually studied these spots so not sure if they're correct.

Against a perfectly balanced unexploitable opponent (e.g. a GTO bot), some hands maximise their EV by always betting (e.g. the "obvious" value bets and "obvious" bluffs") and some hands maximise EV by always checking (e.g. an "obvious" bluffcatcher, or an air combo that won't be profitable as a bluff), but many hands (usually in the middle of your range) are "indifferent". They have the same EV whether you bet or check. Putting a combo into both ranges at the correct frequencies makes you unexploitable.
e.g. If you always bet AK on T82, then villain knows you never have TPTK if you check the flop and the turn comes an ace or king. He could exploit that by bombing A/K turns and making you fold. By checking sometimes and betting sometimes, you can turn TPTK with either action sequence, and this makes you harder to play against and maximises the overall EV of your strategy. (You can make money by betting and you can make money by checking).

Against an exploitable (weak) opponent, there is less need to mix. It's unlikely that betting and checking have exactly the same EV if villain is himself unbalanced/exploitable. Against him, you should pick the option with the highest EV against him. But in cases where you're not sure if betting or checking is best, you can flip a coin.
FWIW, I sometimes laugh at long hand history debates where someone will be adamant that betting is best, and another player will say "you have to check" and a big argument ensues. In such spots, it's often the case that both people are correct, because GTO play features a LOT of mixing. With the marginal spots, even if a pure strategy is optimal in theory, it's usually the case that picking the "wrong" option only costs a tiny bit of EV, and the small EV loss gets lost in random variance. (e.g. some people run better than others with their low EV bluffs).

e.g. on T82, it's probably a mistake (that costs you significant EV) to check with red KK. So you should always bet with red kings (for value/protection). However, you won't cost yourself significant EV by checking (or betting) AK, because there's not much EV at stake in the first place. You're in the middle of your range, so both options are fine.

A couple of visual examples from Snowie, with the usual proviso that Snowie is not perfect/GTO.

1. Hero 3-bets red KK pre in BBvCO and gets a T82tt flop. According to Snowie, he should always c-bet, because betting has an EV that is almost 2bb more profitable than checking. (KK clearly gets most of its EV from being called by worse. Its EV on the flop - 18.66bb - is almost the size of the pot. It wants to build a big pot when it expects to win!)



2. Hero 3-bets AK and gets the same flop. According to Snowie, betting and checking have the same EV. You can do either one. There are benefits to betting (better hands could fold, worse hands could call, or you could bink the turn or runner-runner the nuts) and there are benefits to checking (you could just be bloating a pot you're going to lose). Note the EV of each option now is only 6.29bb. You're only expecting to capture about a third of the pot with this hand in this spot, no matter what you do. So go with a bet if you think villain will fold (either immediately, or on the turn) more often than he "should". Check if you think you have very little chance of taking it down.



EDIT: FWIW, Snowie would always bet AsQd in that same spot. I think this is because AQ is less likely to win if it starts with a check. It literally has less equity than AK, so it becomes a clearer choice as a bluff. Note that AQ is also in villain's range, so if you bet with AQ, you can make him fold a chop. If you bet AK, he folds a hand you're crushing, when you'd prefer the flop to check thru and then on the rare occasions you bink an ace, you get 2 streets of value.
If you'd misclicked pre and saw this flop with 73o, then the correct play would be to check and give up. It wouldn't make any sense to bluff with it, because - unlike AK or AQ with the As - you can't pick up a draw to the nut flush on the turn.

do note that you used your own preflop betsizing for the sim, Arty, which is significantly smaller than what any reg uses (and imo incorrect), which changes ranges very significantly. You can peel EXTREMELY wide vs pot sized 3bet ip. While most people stopped using otbredbaron-like 3bet sizes (smth like 2,2bb->14bb or even bigger), using pot size oop is still just suicide.

Imo, don´t bother too much with snowie in this stakes