A few thoughts:

1) It is extraordinarily unlikely that calling down with KK could ever be breakeven. If it were, that would imply that we should be indifferent to how we play KK against a GTO player, and that is almost certainly untrue. Calling the flop c/r should be HUGELY profitable, as should calling a normal-sized turn bet on most cards. In fact, against some smaller bet sizes I would expect calling many rivers with KK to be profitable as well. What I object to is the idea of calling >20x the pot on the flop when we are losing to >10% of our opponent's initial range.

2) Even if we know when facing the flop c/r that we will be indifferent between calling/folding on certain rivers after certain board run-outs, that does not imply indifference to calling the flop c/r.

3) Even if we were indifferent between calling and folding to the flop c/r, that would not imply that we were losing $8. Being indifferent between calling and folding means that your EV is $0, not negative.

4) Villain's goal when check-raising should not be to make us "indifferent" (between what? Calling/folding, raising/calling, raising/folding, raising/folding/calling?) with "bluff-catchers" (all "bluff-catchers" are not created equal and should not be treated/played the same). His goal should be to maximize the EV of every hand he plays. Doing so will almost certainly result in it being profitable for us to continue against a flop c/r with KK but unprofitable to continue with JTo.

5) You can't ignore the possibility of either player improving. If the turn is an offsuit ace, play from that point forward should be very different than if it's a Q putting up a backdoor flush draw, which should likewise be played differently than if the turn were an offsuit 4. Placing hands into static ranges ("value," "bluff," "bluff-catcher") on the flop is inappropriate.

Yes, obviously if you identify an imbalance in your opponent's strategy, you can and should exploit it. However, knowing only that an opponent bluffs too much or too little on the flop doesn't actually help you that much when deciding how you should play various hands. You also need to know other things about his strategy as well before you can put that information to use. For example, even against an opponent who check-raises this flop as a bluff a bit too infrequently, it will still be profitable to continue with KK. The value/bluff imbalance would need to be MONSTROUSLY huge before failing to call a flop c/r with KK could ever be right. Furthermore, even if he bluffs a bit too much, that doesn't necessarily mean that you can continue profitably with A2o or JTo; it simply means that many of the hands you do continue with will be more profitable than they would be if your opponent were playing better/bluffing less (of course, some of the hands you continue with will actually be less profitable against an overly-aggressive strategy than against an optimal one). You are still forced to draw a line somewhere between what you continue with and what you fold.

That's not enough information to influence my decision. We'd also need to know how he plays after we check back the flop, how he plays after checking twice/three times, how he responds to bets of various sizes on various boards after various actions, etc.

To be clear, btw, betting KK here should be hugely profitable, as should calling a check-raise. The argument for checking is that it will be even more profitable. There are many hands for which I expect this to hold true. I'm pretty sure that betting with any two cards on the flop here should produce an immediate profit against an optimally-playing opponent, so the reason we develop a checking range is not that we can't bet profitably but because doing so is even more profitable than simply c-betting.

There is no possible way for anyone to prove what's optimal here. I have what I think are good reasons to believe that flatting is almost always better than 3-betting, but there are people who would beat me that disagree.

To be clear, I expect 3-betting to easily show a profit, I just think flatting should show a higher one.

Hmm, this is interesting. So what you advocate is something like this?

What do you think about sizing preflop. Do you minraise, 2.5x, or what do you do? What % of hands?

Lets say the flop is something else. J87
Would these be good cbet/checkbak ranges to have?

In addition:
*Cbet every flushdraws except Jx, where x is a weak kicker.
*Be more likely to check back backdoor flushdraws when you have showdown value.
*Be less likely to check back backfoor flushdraws when you don't have showdown value.

Do you think that people who cbet 70% cbet way too much?

Something like that, yeah. There are a few important changes I'd make, but you have the general idea.

Depends on stack sizes. 100bb deep I 3x ~5/6 of my hands.

It's impossible to say for sure, but I don't think so, no. For one thing, you definitely want to be c-betting this board more frequently than the 884r one and with a much higher % of your "air." The check-back range you have here is too wide and too weak. Having position on wet boards is a huge boost to your ex-showdown equity, and you should take advantage of it by bluffing a lot and checking back a stronger range of mostly one-pair hands. I would usually bet Jx and be more inclined to check some other flush draws. I agree with your comments about playing backdoor flush draws though.

Yes.

1. Why do you want to cbet a board that is more likely to hit your opponets range more?
---> Is it because all of our hands that hit the board are vulnerable?
2. What hands do we want to check back in order to strengthen our checkback range.
---> I'm reluctant to check back 2 pair or sets, because there are so many horrible turncards.
---> Maybe check back more flushdraws so we are not so weak on hearts? Maybe check back some guthots so we are not so weak on a T or a 9?
3. Am I right that a cbet % of 70% is quite normal? What is your cbet %? How do you exploit someone who cbets 70%? Are you checkraising any two?

A short answer is that the ex-showdown equity advantage of being in position is larger on "wetter" boards.

I'm unwilling to share a long answer.

This is not a sufficient reason to refrain from checking. Checking back weak 2-pair hands in this spot is perfectly fine.

Yes, you should almost definitely be checking back more than 5 combos of flush draws here.

Yes, you should almost definitely be checking back some gutshots here.

Yes, a secret, not enough information to answer, no.

What does this even mean?

A short answer is that being in position with 50% equity is more valuable on a board like



than on a board like



I'm unwilling to share a long answer.

Both of these graphs have 50% equity.

Why is the first one more desirable (and makes it more of a reason to cbet), than the second one.

Just to make sure there's no misunderstanding, the first one is more desirable to the player in position. To see why, let's consider a couple of toy games.

In game 1, two players each ante $1, are dealt a random real number between 0 and 1, and then have three rounds of betting, at the end of which there is a showdown, with the highest real number winning the pot.

In game 2, two players each ante $1, are dealt a random real number between 0 and 1, and then have a round of betting. Next, they are dealt a second random real number between 0 and 1 and have a second round of betting. Finally, they are dealt a third random real number between 0 and 1 and have a third round of betting. There is a showdown, the three numbers are added together, and the player with the highest sum wins the pot.

You must play one game in position and one game out of position. Which game would you rather play in position? Which game would you rather play out of position?

Game 2 is more desirable in position.

That is because each new betting round you get different numbers, so it straights from stratch. You gain info each street.

On game 1 you gain less info because he has already determined the strength of his number.

My question to you though is poker isnt really like that.
Boards change but your hand strength still stays relatively strong even if the board does change. Its not like you get new cards and a new board for each betting street.

I understand where you are coming from though.
Does that mean when OOP on 876hh do you ever c/r there, and what would you say your frequency of c/r (compared to their cbet %) is from a 222 board to a 876tt board.

Good posts Spladle. I take back whatever it was that I disagreed with you about in some other post.

I think you may have misunderstood the rules for game 2. The game does NOT start from scratch on each new betting round. You still keep the numbers from earlier streets, you just add them to the new numbers you're receiving. So the toy game mirrors HUNL a little more closely than you may have realized.

I do sometimes c/r both boards, but I check-raise the 876 two-tone board more frequently. This has less to do with the dynamic v static nature of the boards in question though and more to do with range strength and polarity imbalances. On 222, I simply have many fewer combinations of hands that I can profitably c/r for value, and that forces me to c/r bluff less frequently. The SB holds a higher proportion of 2s, strong pocket pairs, and strong ace-high hands, so I can't c/r as much. I'd c/r an AAA flop more frequently than either of the other two, because I flat from the BB with plenty of Ax combos (way more than 2x combos), and so I can much more reasonably represent a value hand against which a huge fraction of the SB's betting range immediately gets turned into pure bluff-catchers. Though I still hold fewer combos of high pocket pairs on this board, I actually hold Ax with a higher frequency than the SB, since he should be raising a wider range than I'm calling.

I did understand your model I just was trying to find out in what aspects itll mirror HUNL.

Game 2 is still more desirable to be in position on though right, since you gain more information and are in position to utilise it better.

Ok this is where I get confused. If it is better to cbet a drawier board IP, why is the OOP player going to be c/r more? Also if you are OOP and c/r alot of those drawy boards you are forcing yourself in tough spots on later turns especially on a very wet board which will later complete a lot of draws.

Surely having static equity OOP is way way better than having a dynamic even if your combos for c/r a less?

Right. Games (boards) where the equity relationships between the players are more dynamic favor the player in position more than games (boards) where the equity relationships between the players are more static.

It's not necessarily better to c-bet a wetter board IP. The ex-showdown equity advantage of being in position is simply larger on more dynamic boards than on more static boards. But the number of draws on the board is not the only relevant factor when deciding how often we want to c-bet. We must also consider how the board interacts with the players' pre-flop ranges. Some boards favor the pre-flop raiser more while others favor the caller more.

For example, earlier itt I talked about how I thought an 884r board should be played in position, suggesting that checking much more frequently than most do would be best. I still believe that. However, on a 222 board, I basically think you should just bet 100% of your range. The relevant difference between 884r and 222 is the relative frequency with which the SB or BB will hold an 8 or a 2. On 884, I expect the BB to have an 8 much more frequently than the SB. On 222, I expect the SB to have a 2 much more frequently than the BB.

I believe the OOP player should c/r more on an 876 two-tone board than on a 222 board for a couple of reasons: He has many more combinations of hands that can profitably check-raise for value on 876 than on 222, and he will also hold many more combinations of hands that can profitably semi-bluff because they have much better equity when called.

As an aside, here are three statements that could be simultaneously true:

1) At equilibrium, a c-bet on 884r by the SB will force enough folds by the BB to be immediately profitable with any two cards.
2) At equilibrium, a c-bet on J87 two-tone by the SB will NOT force enough folds by the BB to be immediately profitable with any two cards.
3) At equilibrium, the SB should c-bet J87 two-tone more frequently than 884r.

Correct. Playing OOP on very wet boards sucks and is hard to do well.

It's true that having a strong value hand OOP is more profitable when you're less likely to be outdrawn, of course. But having more combinations of hands that can profitably check-raise for value even though they'll more frequently be outdrawn simply means that you'll want to check-raise more frequently in the dynamic situation than the static one, period. Put another way - your check-raises will be more profitable on the static board (because your value hands are stronger and less vulnerable), but that doesn't mean that you can check-raise more frequently if you have value hands less frequently. Range strength matters and can be just as important a source of ex-showdown equity as position.

It's a similar concept to showdown equity, except it relates to the percentage of the pot you will capture taking into account the fact that there's still betting remaining.

So if the board is KKKK5, and for some reason you know that your opponent can never have an A (and would never call anything but an A), you can bet any two cards and your ex-showdown equity is 100%.

Another good example might be (and Spladle can probably correct me if I'm wrong for some reason) low boards like 752r when the PFR checks back and the turn comes a Q or a J. Because SB doesn't have many Qx or Jx in his checking back range (relative to the other hands he's checking back), BB ex-showdown equity increases on those cards.

Terrible call in the first one. Like really bad. Obviously you were beat I don't get why you cold called and called his ship. When he made it 43 you should of shipped or folded. There is no other line to take.

thumbs up spladle

Great posts itt but I don't get this part. Doesn't the bluff:value ratio have an asymptote of 1? How can it be 2:1? I know its the flop and we're using language like "vbets" and "bluffs" to describe things that are considerably more complex and less dichotomous like you elaborated earlier but that kind of turns how I think about the game even on extremely dry flops on its head. You want that ratio to be roughly the odds your laying villain still right?

consider that you have two more streets left to play.

What you said about the ratio being roughly equal to the odds you lay villain: this is true for the river only.


great discussion btw, thumbs up spladle!

+1

If villain perceive you as tilted, you wanna trap him more, not re-raise him to force his weaker hands out of the pot.

1st hand - Calling his flop raise would be great to show weakness and get his weaker hands / draws to continue. And river you'll have a way easier decision.

good rule of thumb is i look at how much equity i have going into the turn and the river. Now if i don't have much as in flush and straight draws or nut outs i pot control more. I do like the flop bet with the kk but when he raises like that i might fold the flop if he never raises big. Really hes not doing that with 4 or pocket 5s its 8 or nothing really and from 3.5 to 11 id put him on 8s right away and fold to big turn bet. I know you got big over pair looks like a great hand but really you dont have much equity if hes nutted their. Also the 2nd hand again not much equity id actually check that flop for pot control and bluff catching and call turn. Without any nut equity just no reason to build pot up to big and id rather just go with bluff catching in this particular situation. NOw if i have a read opponent will call 3 streets with any pair then I would go ahead and fire 3 barrels with the kj no spade but thats only if they are that bad and sometimes they are i have seen guys call 3 streets with small pair. So depends the player too but this is just speaking in general situations.

Which changes and what's the reasoning behind them?

The reasoning behind every change is basically that I think the betting range is too narrow and strong and the checking range is too wide and weak on too many board run-outs.

I'd check the weaker two-pair hands (J7/87) a lot, AT/A9, many more combos of Tx/9x (more inclined to bet with clubs), and 2-3 times as many flush draws (but not JX, ten-high and nine-high hearts make more sense to check imo).

I'd bet JT/J9, A6x-A2x, and pretty much all king-high/queen-high combos. I might check KQ without a I guess.