Hi all, I've only recently started analysing hands properly using equilab and ranges. I wanted to know if there's anything I'm doing wrong/reassurance I'm doing things right. This was the first hand I analysed which gave me any significant insight - when playing the hand, I tanked on the river and in the end just pressed call out of curiosity I think, assuming I'd almost certainly be beat (really bad I know). I was surprised to find I was ahead but wanted to know if I made the correct play, and I finally stopped being lazy and decided to analyse it with equilab.

I would love some comment on:
1. My range assumptions
2. The rest of the insight, given the range assumptions
Any improvement, suggestions or differences from your experience?

Hand:
Pacific Poker - $0.02 NL (6 max) - Holdem - 6 players
Hand converted by PokerTracker 4

MP: 104 BB
CO: 72 BB
BTN: 98.5 BB
SB: 105 BB
BB: 124.5 BB
Hero (UTG): 151.5 BB

SB posts SB 0.5 BB, BB posts BB 1 BB

Pre Flop: (pot: 1.5 BB) Hero has A A

Hero raises to 3 BB, fold, fold, fold, fold, BB calls 2 BB

Flop: (6.5 BB, 2 players) J 6 7
BB checks, Hero bets 3 BB, BB raises to 6 BB, Hero calls 3 BB

Turn: (18.5 BB, 2 players) Q
BB checks, Hero bets 9 BB, BB raises to 115.5 BB and is all-in, Hero calls 106.5 BB

River: (249.5 BB, 2 players) 5

BB shows K K (One Pair, Kings)
(Pre 18%, Flop 8%, Turn 2%)
Hero shows A A (One Pair, Aces)
(Pre 82%, Flop 92%, Turn 98%)
Hero wins 234 BB

So villain in big blind was showing 11/0 over 20 hands. I know it's a small size but for the purposes of analysis, let's just assume it's a large sample size.

Preflop (after the call):
I gave him a range of [22+, AJ+]. He's nitty and passive, so he shouldn't be calling an EP raise OOP very wide at all, and he's uncapped (so AA-KK included) because he plays passively.

Flop (after the min check raise):
If I didn't already know he has KK in the end, I would have assumed he's only checkraising with sets, but given that he has KK, the full range I gave him was sets and overpairs, so only [AA-JJ, 77, 66]. If he was a good player, I'm guessing he would do this with flush draws, but (as I was surprised to realise, helped by equilab) he has no flush draws here because I have the Ad.
AK and AQ are gutshots with overcards and I don't think this type of player raises those.

Turn (after the check-jam):
Once again, if I didn't know he had KK in the end, this jam would have confirmed to me that he has a set. However, given he had KK in the end, I don't think his range narrows any further due to this action so it's still [AA-JJ, 77, 66]. Before the Qd came as the turn card, equilab said my equity was 57% as I was beating his KK and QQ. After the Q comes, my equity drops to 48% because his QQ just improved to a set too, so I'm only beating his KK. I need to be ahead 43% of the time to call, and my equity is 48%, so it's a call but way more close of a call than I thought. I'm actually surprised that despite the fact that I only beat 6 (KK) out of 19 (12 sets, 6 KK, 1 AA) combos, I have 48% equity. That must be because even when I'm behind, any diamond or any A on the river brings me ahead.
If I change it on equilab so I don't have the Ace of diamonds, my equity plummets to 31%, so this confirms the importance of the flush draw. Without this, it would've been an easy fold, which I would never have realised! (as an aside, it's good to know that the equity contributed by the flush draw is about 18% in this example as this follows the rule of 'equity with one card to come = outs * 2')

My take home message/summary:
- This was a much more marginal call than I had assumed - doing the analysis made me realise I'm only ahead of one hand (KK) because the turn card improved his range. This on its own makes it an easy fold, but then the fact that I had a flush draw brings it back to a call.
- I think my range assumptions were okay, but in the future I will keep in mind that people can play overpairs aggressively. Or maybe it's specifically KK because people feel AA and KK need to always win so they try to win the pot no matter what, even if they have a showdown value hand. If QQ didn't turn into a set, I wonder if he would do the turn checkraise with QQ
- My intuition regarding almost certainly being beat was correct. Ironically, if I didn't call I wouldn't have been able to do this analysis to be sure of that.

Please let me know your thoughts!

Going through a thought process like this will be really helpful to you over time. Good for you for putting in the study time. Whether or not your analysis is correct, I am not so sure. Exposing your thought process to 2+2 is a good way to test it.

1) You call him a nit, but he has played 11 of the last 20 hands. So he can't be a nit.

2) Your estimate for his BB calling range is way off, imo. I think you are giving him way to much credit at 22+/AJ+.

First of all, this is 2NL, so who knows what this guy might be playing.

Second, many GTO'ers are playing around 30% vs. a LJ raise when in the BB. I'm not kidding.

Third, you say he is not capped and could still have AA and KK, but he is playing a capped range by definition because he didn't 3 bet you he just cold called.

I'd put his calling range at more like, 99-22, ATs-A2s, KTs-K2s, QJs-Q8s, suited connectors, 1 gappers, AK,AQ,AJ,AT,KQ,KJ. Something like that.

Or rather, I think he is also 3b AKo and maybe AQo.

That range is just a rough guess. But I still have him calling with over 250 combos which is about 20% of hands, while you have him calling with less than 10% of hands.

Hey Magnum, thanks so much for the reply, I appreciate it a lot!

Regarding your first point, sorry maybe I wasn't clear enough - when I said "showing 11/0 over 20 hands", what I meant was his VPIP is 11 and his PFR is 0. Isn't this a conventional to display them? These are percentages - I know I'm a beginner but I'm pretty confident of that (if they were absolute values, then as you get more and more hands on someone, the numbers would start to go up and up to even above 100 rather than converge to a single number below 100 e.g. 18). Let me know if you think I'm making a mistake.
(granted I'm not actually sure how you can get a percentage of 11% from a denominator of 20 :S - but anyway he hasn't played 11 out of 20 hands, he's probably played 2 or 3 out of 20 hands)

Given they are percentages, let's take a situation where his stats are actually 11/0 over 1000 hands. If this is the case, surely it makes sense to say:
1) he is a nit - he is only playing 11% of hands. Or at least you can definitely say he is tight.
2) he is extremely passive - he is literally never (0% of the time) raising and never 3betting.

11% looks like [22+, ATs+, AJo+, KQ]. Even though he is probably a bad player, a lot of players know that you should be playing tighter when calling a raise than opening when it's folded to you, so I just made the range a bit tighter. I don't think a micro stakes player like this with these stats knows how much to defend their big blind? He's definitely not a 'GTO-er' - surely? this is 2nl! But yeah maybe I'm wrong.

Given how passive he is, he is probably always uncapped and can always have AA, KK, AK, or AQ because he never 3bets. Also players at 2nl don't 3bet enough in general right, so for the future, doesn't it make sense to always err on the side of including more of the nuttier hands (e.g. AK and AQ) in a calling range? A lot of players from what I've seen 3bet AA and KK only.

But it's useful to see the BB calling range you've suggested - I think I will keep that in mind for players who are a bit better and players who I don't have preflop hud stats on yet.

Anyway so please let me know what you think - maybe the percentage thing was just a silly mistake and now my logic is clear to you? Maybe despite that, you still think his calling range is wider? I'd love to hear back!

You are correct about vpip. My mistake. I thought you were indicating that he played 11 out of 20, lol. Anyway, 20 hands is not much of a sample so it is hard to draw any conclusions. I would not conclude that he cold-calls AA/KK.

"A lot of players from what I've seen 3bet AA and KK only."

I think that there are many players who only 4bet/5bet AA/KK, - which is still not good poker - but if you are playing in a game in which opponents only 3 bet AA/KK, that's a good game because you can open very wide and out of position without fear of being raised and your 3 bets will be given respect so you can also 3 bet very wide. You can also overfold to 3 bets.

I have played a ton of poker and I have been in many passive games without a lot of 3 betting and I still don't think I have ever played in a game in which players only 3 bet AA/KK. This would be really extraordinarily tight and passive.

I still think most players are playing pairs, suited Aces, suited broadways, suited connectors and AJ/KJ/QJ+ from the BB, and more.

----------------------
The important thing is to keep analyzing your play and your opponent's play. You've done a good job thinking it through. if you find that your ranges or results are a little off, recalibrate and go at it again. It is not a perfect science.

GL, Magnum