Hey 2+2, shall we do some thinking on some (probably very) basic hands and help me get my sea legs on the game?

PokerStars - $0.02 NL FAST (6 max) - Holdem - 6 players
Hand converted by PokerTracker 4

BTN: 105 BB
SB: 60.5 BB
BB: 225.5 BB
UTG: 107 BB
Hero (MP): 100 BB
CO: 171 BB

SB posts SB 0.5 BB, BB posts BB 1 BB

Pre Flop: (pot: 1.5 BB) Hero has J K

UTG raises to 3 BB, Hero calls 3 BB, fold, fold, fold, fold

Flop: (7.5 BB, 2 players) 6 K Q
UTG checks, Hero bets 4 BB, UTG raises to 8 BB, Hero calls 4 BB

Turn: (23.5 BB, 2 players) 9
UTG checks, Hero bets 11.5 BB, UTG calls 11.5 BB

River: (46.5 BB, 2 players) 4
UTG checks, Hero checks



Preflop: I think 3bet would have been fine/better here to discourage other players from coming along.

Flop: I tried to grab the pot in the spot (which I think was correct), I think I should have gone for a bigger sizing though (maybe 6 BBs). I really dont have the knowledge yet of whether this check-raise was a call, would be great to hear your thoughts. Mental note: read and study on check-raise mechanics.

Turn: Unhappy with the bet here. Yes I had showdown value, but I still lose to a hands like QQ, KK, QK, AK, AA which are obviously not going to fold to any bet and are check-raise candidates. I wasnt building the pot for value, and my hand was not likely to become weaker so there was no real need to bet here. In-game I was thinking of not giving a free card, but now I think the free-card was less important than the fact that I was facing a check-raise.

River: At this moment I realized what I should have thought of in the turn: that I had made a bet that was only going to get called by a likely better hand.

On results:

You played the hand perfectly fine, preflop is fine. Flop sizing is fine but you can bet bigger but in game theory you should be checking flop a lot considering your range is much weaker than your opponents. His play with 99 is totally nonsensical on other hand and his sizing of the raise is obviously bad. Turn play you can check or bet again I don't think there is a big mistake either way especially against a weaker opponent like this one. River is firm in checking range I think.

What hands are likely to check raise the flop? Which are the most likely bluff hands and how are those hands affected by the turn card?

What free cards are you afraid of on the turn? You have a gutshot yourself.

I'll let others talk about preflop

You don't want to have a flatting range pre in any other position than the BB in high rake environments.
Your flop reasoning should not be "i want to take the pot down" when you have top pair. You are betting to extract value from weaker hands.
Turn is most likely too thin and getting c/r sucks when we have a GS

UTG standard open. In my pre solved ranges, KJs is a fold in HJ vs utg (LJ). Hence we would not be in this situation. Its also a fold (though not KQs, nor KTs) at very high frequency in CO vs UTG.

As played, UTg range has you beat a lot of the time (KQo, K9s, etc.) Check turn (though a bet isn't that bad). Gave up river, that is good.

Definitely not a three bet, unless going light. In my charts, 99 would fold to 3bet vs HJ, but we are playing with humans, so.....

Probably work on [pre flop play. This will lend loads to future win rate. Was watching coaching video the other day. Person being coached opened utg with 55 (not in the coaches ranges), and had to fold to 3bet from BB. 55 does very poorly from utg. Just saying.

In interesting note, KJs is a CO 4bet vs BU 3bet in my ranges, go figure.

Big brain line from UTG by the way.

In this day and age, all environments, including live, are high rake. If you don't have flatting range, you are missing out on equity vs ev post flop.

If you want to 3bet or fold every hand, you will get a lot of folds, with folks only calling with better pre, and probably beating you post. This eats up all the 2.5s and 3x opens you collected.

No coach, nor professional I know, is 3bet or fold. Newbie strategy.

On tough tables, KJs is definitely folded or 3b but I think KJ is still a decent flat in micros like 2NL.

It's close. Not a huge mistake.

I totally agree with futureinsights. Poker is a drawing game. People have been trying to outdraw the top pair hand since before Doyle wrote Super System and since before Negraneau coined the term small ball.

There is nothing wrong with calling a raise with suited broadways, suited connectors and middle pairs. This style works best when you are in position and when the pot ends up multiway.

You've got to remember what you are trying to build with a hand like KJs, you are not looking to battle too much with a 1 pair hand, you're hoping to flop a nice little 2 pair, trips or a strong draw to a flush or straight.

You don't win huge pots by 3 betting with AQ offsuit. You win huge pots by hitting your straight with 98s when you are up against AA or KK or a guy with AQ who can't lay down top pair or who overbets his top pair.

Magnum

I think pf a call is good, as would be a 3bet. Even a fold wouldn't be terrible, but it's my least preferred option. The key is that whichever line you take is part of a solid, thought-out strategy.

Otf, I think a bet is good, and a check back isn't too bad either. I don't think your hand is good enough to go for 3 streets of value and your hand isn't too vulnerable, so I think either option works. I'd size up to 2/3 pots though, but I'm not convinced that's better than half pot.

Villains raise is fairly polarised (you'd assume) between the occasional monster and very frequent random nonsense (or well thought-out bluffs).

Once you get to the turn, I think your bet is actually pretty good. You might still get another street of value against some of villain's possible hands, like KT, FD or some gutshots. Also, if villain does have a monster, like a set or a turned straight, you disincentivise him from betting the river, as he'll assume he's fairly likely to be able to check raise, and with the relatively small sizing, you give yourself a cheap price. I think here if you check back turn, you will face a bet from villain quite often on river, it will be a larger bet, and you will have to call it.

So overall, I think the hand is well played on your part. It is absolutely atrocious from villain I think.

Pre you can have a calling range from bu also, but from HJ, you are inviting mw and squeeze. You'll then have to fold or be oop against a stronger range or other callers, which is not what you want.

How many coaches/professionals do you know that main microstakes?

The bolded part doesn't make sense. If villain folds a ton pre but still lets us realize our equity in position (even if his calling range is stronger than our holding) that's perfectly fine. 3betting preflop can not be simply split in value/bluff orientation.

Also you do realize that it depends how high the rake is right?

Stars EU actually caps rake on NL2 at 15bb when 2 players are involved in the hand with 3,5% takerate.

NL 100 rake is capped at 1bb with 5%

You can have an IP flatting range on NL100 on NL2 its just burning money, especially given that people don't 4bet enough.

Actually took the time to look this up in case I remembered something wrong here:

Preflop Guru preflop solves:
Rakestructure 5% 3bb cap, Preflop 3bets+ raked
Open size 2.2

In this structure BU has 0% flatting range vs any position open.

What we learn from this:
Dont just imitate what pros are doing on Nl500
Take rake serious and educate yourself about adjustments to rake
Micros are literally a different game because of rake structure which is a shame

From preflop guru faq: "In simulations with rake, the solver naturally assumes all other players are also rake-aware (folding when they should, cold-calling less, etc).

But they're not.

yeah but this changes things in relation to what you should open (e.g. blocking their 3bet range vs. hands that perform better when flatted). It shouldnt relate much to flatting IP

Don't take drawing out of poker. Drawing is part of the game and drawing involves some flatting sometimes.

You'all aggro only-raisers need us flatters to call too much, and us small-ballers need you aggro only-raisers to overplay your weak top pair hands. It is all part of the game.

Playing poker like a computer is ...blech.

So the computer says never flat?
And the computer says open for 2.2bb? (BTW this phenomenon of min-raising is great for small ballers because it makes it so much easier to call with bs like pocket 4's and 86s).

I know I'm old school, but whatever happened to the idea that "poker is about position and people?"

What about open-raising big against the fish who is on tilt? Is that ok? Or does the computer say no?
What about taking the pot away from someone using just position?
That's poker. But a computer can't really tell you how to do that.

Playing poker like a computer is like playing blackjack with a hit/stand chart, only in blackjack that makes sense because there is no human element and it's all math.

1. Rake is just one factor, of many. A fairly minor consideration, imo.
2. There may be situations in which it makes sense to raise more than 2.2x, or less than that.
3. There may be situations in which flatting is more profitable than folding or 3 betting.
4. A lot of this is very opponent specific and game specific. That's poker.
5. I think what I am talking about is the difference between what has been called vacuum EV and long term EV.

NL is about stacking MF'ers and you don't do that by 3 betting AJ off suit out of position, you do that by getting your money in with "better-than-top-pair" and cracking the better pre-flop hand. Hands like QTs and 87s are perfect for this. Playing like this is going to require sometimes calling into pots when you know that you don't currently have the best hand and it may require drawing, post-flop. Whether you want to draw or not depends on a whole host of other factors. It takes guts and judgment. That's poker.

Always folding KJs on the button versus any raise and any opponent is no better than always calling with it. Both extremes are bad poker.

Magnum

Everything reasonable exploit adjustment is good. Given that you have info about villain. No one argues with that.
Its not about playing like a computer its about making theoretically sound decisions in the lack of other information. You severely underestimate rake as a factor in high rake games.
Most flatting pre apart from flatting from BB is marginally +EV as you openyourself up for Squeezes and enter the flop with a capped range. Very high rake just happens to make this -EV

Its not VERY HIGH RAKE. My ranges tighten up in position vs an open. If we get squeezed, we have a defend range, which is why the looser alternatives are button and BB.

Lets take HJ vs others, and KJs.

vs UTG, we are 3betting.

vs CO, we are supposed to fold to 3bet, we can let that be a sometimes call.

vs BU, we are 4betting

vs SB and BB, we are calling all 3bets.

So, in my hands, I only see one fold vs 3bet in one position. Doesn't look to tight to me.

vs Squeeze on BU, we are also calling. In HJ, we are calling that hand from most squeezes (haven't gone over all the positions yet).