So all the hsnl players that have all moved to cbetting paired boards smaller and often are wrong?

Also, why would you bet this flop less often than usual? BB has 50.8% equity and a bit more 8x, but it's not an especially good board for BB. I feel this is an above average board for BTN. One thing to point out is that due to card removal effects the amount of 8x BB can valueraisetostackoff isn't that large.



Why? This comes out of nowhere. You have an equity advantage vs the range that continues vs the 3bet, so it's just straight up value, and you yourself advocated 3betting non-polarized vs minraises in the other thread

I would think that 3betting non-polarized HU against pretty much any (normal) openraise-size is good? Position makes it correct for SB to call somewhat wide. I think it's probably correct to 3bet polarized when your opponent thinks 4bet>call with his continuing range. And I think the opposite is true when the villain thinks call>4bet. Would assume the second scenario applies to HU, since you are oop when you 3bet.

1) All paired boards are not created equal.
2) Not necessarily. They could be exploiting a tendency in their opponents to over-fold the flop and/or fail to check/raise bluff as aggressively as they ought to.

I feel like these claims are contradictory. If BB has both more equity and more strong hands, how is this not an especially good/above average board for him?

I suppose it depends on what you think "that large" means.

1) The fact that I agree with 3-betting some non-zero % of the time means I think the decision is very close. 3-betting is definitely profitable, I simply think flatting is more so.
2) 3-betting every hand that has an equity advantage vs the range that continues vs the 3-bet is an extremely bad idea.
3) Compare KJo to a hand like 43s. KJo is obviously just a much better hand, yet I think you should usually 3-bet 43s and usually call KJo, even though 3-betting with KJo is more profitable than 3-betting with 43s. What matters isn't just whether you can 3-bet profitably or how strong your hand is, but whether 3-betting compares favorably to calling.
4) I'm much more likely to 3-bet KJo against a 3x than a 2x.

Sorry I meant -5.5bb(pre+flop bets), which would be the money you had put in before he check-raises ?

Given that both players have about the same amount of trips+ here, maybe 9.5 for bb and ~8 for sb, it seems to me that no matter which strategy bb is playing sb is going to make a ton of money barrelling for very thin value if bb check-raises a ton of trips+ here and sb is going to make as much when check-raised, calling down his 8+/turned boats vs bb's bluffs/weaker value hands.

It seems to me that whenever either players strategy is known(including his entire betting tree), that it's very easy for the other playing to change his strategy to exploit it. (Likely vs the check-back range, given your betting range)

I'm not sure whether or not sb should have a checking range here. I think it makes it 'easier' to play though if you do something like you suggest, just not sure it is the most profitable.

Well, I'm guess BB callrange has more equity than SB openrange (edit: when SB 2.5x's at least), so 50% equity on a specific board would be below average. But I mainly meant that position is very valuable on a board like 884. Not as valuable as on 832r, but still.


Well, given your cbet range, when someone c/raise bet bets, I don't think you'll be calling all that many non-8x hands, so only the stronger 8x hands can valuecheckraise flop probably.



Yeah, makes sense. Are there any hands you would more likely call vs 3x than a 2x though?

No, if you're indifferent between calling and folding, that means the EV of both decisions is 0, because the EV of folding is always 0.

Right, every strategy except for the Nash equilibrium is by definition exploitable. Our goals in developing our own strategy, then, are two-fold:

1) Mimic what we believe to be the Nash equilibrium as closely as possible by default.
2) Identify weaknesses in our opponent's strategy and deviate from our default in order to exploit said weaknesses.

I think the exact opposite. A strategy of "bet 100%" is vastly simpler than splitting your range into a betting and checking range, but it is almost certain to be less profitable.

I definitely disagree with this, I think the BB's flatting range should have <50% equity against the SB's opening range when the SB makes it 2.5x.

Why do you think that? I agree that position is more valuable on 832r than on 884r, but I think 884r offers less of a positional advantage than an average board.

That's true enough, but it's important to remember that the BB can c/r ~3 non-8 hands for every 8, so that's still a lot of hands he can profitably c/r.

Sure. I 3-bet more pocket pairs against a 2x than a 3x (more likely to flat vs 3x), and same goes for some weaker off-suit broadways.

Why exactly?

Against a 2x open you get sick odds on flopping sets.

Theres also less of a reason to make people fold hands which have high equity because the preflop raise is smaller.

Probably because a hand like 88 is usually further ahead of a 2x open, than a 3x open, and their respective calling-ranges (vs a 3bet), so there is more value in 3betting it.

Well, every non 8x hand that BB flops/continues with is extremely vulnerable to getting outdrawn. I'd say position is more valuable on 884r than on say T32r.


Does non-8 hands mean air (as in: not 4x or something)? If so, how do you defend vs floats?


Is this because you think 3x openrange should be stronger than 2x openrange? I was talking about the same open %, but I didn't make that clear.

I am also confused about this, maybe I didnt read it right but if our ip cbet range consist in general in, lets say, 33% tp+ and 66% "pure" air, how are we supposed to defend vs an exploitative c/raiser? Or vs call flop donk turn line?

You're not factoring in bottom and middle pair? Perhaps factoring in these makes it easier.

The guy said 2/3 of our betting range should be air. Perhaps it makes it easier.

But if that were the reason, then why would I be more likely to 3-bet KJo against a 3x than a 2x?

It has more to do with the SPRs created by 3-betting and how much a hand hates getting 4-bet.

Are you forgetting that every non Tx hand the BB flops/continues with is extremely vulnerable to getting outdrawn on the latter board? What's worse, even the Tx hands are pretty vulnerable - much more so than 8x on 884. I'd guess that position on T32r is MUCH more valuable than on 884r.

No, non-8 just means non-8, and there's no such thing as "air." So you start defending against floats by constructing your c/r range properly - you never, ever c/r K2o, and you almost always c/r your gutshots. Other good hands to c/r bluff are pretty much the same as the best hands to defend against a c/r - hands with two overcards to the 4 + a backdoor flush draw. So your c/r bluffs will improve to either a fairly strong pair or a good draw on ~1/3 of the deck. By strengthening your range in this way, you increase the frequency with which you can c/r the flop, bet the turn, and bet the river (and of course, you'll more frequently be able to check and bluff-catch the later streets as well, because you'll more frequently turn a hand worth bluff-catching with).

Not really, though I do think a 3x open-range should be stronger than a 2x. Answered this question in a post above.

1) There's no such thing as "pure air."
2) Don't always fold without tp+. Sometimes continue with what you call "air."

No, I specifically said that ~2/3 of our betting range should be worse than king-high.

Yeah, you're right.


This still makes it very hard to defend against floats, unless you checkraise 4x on the flop, no?

Against a no-raise strategy otf--or against the non-raising components of villain's range--value-bluff ratios can be quite heavily weighted towards bluffs. In a vacuum, it's the click-it-backs we should be worried about (but can still construct a viable counter-strategy against).

Hand 1 looks petty bad to me, hand 2 is a little loose, but ok.

To Spladle or other 2:1 bluff value bet IP advocates. At first that strategy seemed counter intuitive but thinking about it, it is not clear how to immediately exploit it. First is it safe to say that such an extreme ratio in this case is due to the "static equity distribution" you were referring to in another thread? 884r would certainly seem to fit that. Second I assume following that strategy would require you to be 1) cbetting the flop right around 50% in order to avoid having a check back range that is far too value laden 2) continue at least to the river on almost all runouts with your flop value hands vs a flop check raise. Are those assumptions correct? So you would be vbetting any bdfd less that khi with a kicker >4? Would you also be betting some Ahi, Khi + bdfd otf as well?

If you're asking whether I usually check-raise 4x on the flop, the answer is yes.

1) I don't think 2:1 is a very extreme ratio.
2) Ranges on 884r are only static once you get to the very top of the value spectrum. Everything that isn't trips or a strong overpair is either pretty vulnerable to being outdrawn if best or capable of outdrawing a better hand if not (except the aforementioned trips and strong overpairs).

See post #20 itt.

Depends on bet sizing.

No, no, yes.

and my question would be why? o_O

surefire way to get owned