Share your hands to review

Poker Strategy Hand Review
21

Here is a hand that includes some range based decision-making. Hand #684777440 · Replay Poker

Hero is UTG 5-handed w AKo. Open to 3.5x is pretty standard. Might go smaller short-handed but it is pretty standard to generate some folds and plenty of value. Hero has history with BTN and SB, so it is easier to define ranges than versus unknowns.

BTN 3-bets to 7.75x and SB cold calls and it’s back on hero. BTN is loose-aggressive and likes to raise rather than call, has position on hero. Generally, the very small 3-bet seems like a mistake, but it actually makes some sense. He is getting a great price if he generates a fair amount of folds, which he probably does, plus he has a chance to play in position and get more folds on later streets or get paid when he does have a hand. A bigger 3-bet would not allow his opponents to make as many calling mistakes to see flops against him OOP. But, because he knows hero’s opening range is wider than most, he can 3-bet a bit more often.

SB’s cold call turns his hand pretty face up, or he is making a strange play. The only hands that really make sense to cold call are hands with lots of equity that have the potential to outflop big hands like KK/QQ, so his range should be pocket pairs and maybe AQ/AK. Weaker aces will lose big pots when outkicked, broadways are dominated, and suited connectors don’t flop monsters often enough, which will put him in weird spots with draws against big pairs.

Hero now has a decision to make. The price to call is extremely good, and on Replay a 3-bet often means exactly KK+, especially a small 3-bet because it doesn’t look like it is intended to generate folds. However, BTN is the kind of player to make a light 3-bet, especially against hero, so AK is actually ahead of BTN’s 3-bet range. Plus, the cold call by SB makes the pot bigger and seems to cap his range, so it is more lucrative to try to win the pot with a 4-bet. Calling leaves hero out of position, and since he will miss the flop 2/3 of the time he will most likely have to give up. The other benefit of 4-betting is that it defines ranges. If either BTN or SB has KK/AA, then against a 4-bet they are likely to shove rather than call because it looks like hero won’t fold. On the other hand, if hero calls the 3-bet and an ace or king hits the flop hero is going to want to play for stacks but could be up against a real monster.

So, hero 4-bets to 30.5x. This means that to break-even on a call SB and BTN would need 38% equity against my range, but the decision is not that simple because BTN would be in position but have SB still to act behind him and SB would be out of position. It would actually be surprising to see a call because it seems like either folding or shoving would make the most sense. SB does call, and it is difficult to define a range that can call.

If SB defines hero’s 4-bet range as QQ+/AK then the only hands with 38+% equity are QQ+/AK, and he is OOP so it will be extremely hard to realize that equity against hero. If he includes some bluffs in hero’s range like A5s/A4s and 76s then he has the equity to call with pocket pairs and suited Ax, but again it will be tough to realize that equity. On the other hand, if there is a chance hero makes a wild bluff or bluffs way too much then calling could make sense. Most likely SB has a pocket pair and believes he can win a stack every time he flops a set and easily get away on bad boards. Calling with AK/AQ does not make sense because they do not hit often enough, he is OOP, and if he does flop a pair it can be dominated by QQ/KK/AA.

So the flop comes J25 rainbow. Checks to hero. I would define SB’s range as exclusively pocket pairs and capped at JJ or maybe QQ, particularly 88 to JJ. So, SB has 9 potential set combos, but if we assume villain has more 88-JJ than 22-77 that leaves only 3 combos of sets versus 18 combos of 88/99/TT. Hero bets 40bb into a pot of 70bb, meaning that if hero loses every time SB calls, he needs SB to fold 36% of the time to make the bet profitable. But if SB’s range is 88-JJ and he folds 88-TT then he will be folding 86% of the time (18 out of 21 combos), making the bet massively profitable. If SB’s range is 22-QQ and he folds everything except 22/55/JJ/QQ then he folds 74% of the time (15/57 combos), again making hero’s bet very profitable.

Now, SB could continue with a much greater proportion of his range (66+) and make hero’s bet less profitable, but it will be very difficult for SB to make it to the river with less than top pair, and hero still can improve with an ace or king or backdoor broadway draw. This shows the importance of aggression and position, as well as the inherent weakness of calling. It requires a much stronger hand to withstand aggression and not fold so often that you make an opponent’s bets automatically profitable.

Now, you may be saying, what if SB is slow-playing AA/KK and has hero nearly dead? It would still be a huge mistake from SB. Why? If hero simply calls BTN’s 3-bet then SB is going to a flop OOP against two opponents. Both his opponents would also have all possible sets in their range and could have lots of equity with draws. Slow-playing a monster here (and in general) would sacrifice value, lose iniative, allow opponents to realize their equity, and create very difficult decisions later in the hand.

2 Likes
22

I’m curious how you’d play the rest of your range on this flop. Are you c-betting everything here, or are there some hands you check back?

Also, what’s your thinking behind your bet sizing on the flop? I agree with you that V is capped here and SPR is only 2 so would you also consider jamming?

1 Like
23

Hey, good to see you here. Your questions definitely require some deeper thinking into the hand.

I hadn’t actually given much thought to my own 4-bet range here, only what the other player’s might think it is. Given BTN’s propensity to light 3-bet, my 4-bet range could be wider than just QQ+/AQ+/A5s. I struggle to think of hands that I might check back. Do you think it’s essential to have a check-back range? If I were trying to be balanced, I would potentially check back JJ or hands like AJs or 65s if they are in the 4-bet range. AA might also be a check-back because it would be easy enough to get stacks in on later streets. But I am not really trying to be balanced (at least in this exact situation on Replay). My goal was to rep QQ+, and given the cold-call from SB I would think there are hands that these hands could get value from on this flop (66/77/88/99/TT or even QQ/KK if I have KKAA), so I would bet overpairs for value. So, I am playing my bluffs the same way. AK is the nut nothing, but I don’t expect to be ahead of anything on this flop except AQ. With this dry board, I am either betting all hands that missed or just giving up. It does seem like the kind of board to just give up because decent pocket pairs might be willing to go for stacks. But it seemed like a good board for the kind of hand that I was repping.

Jamming might be a better option to get value in the long run. The reasoning behind the bet sizing is that it was big enough to fold out the kinds of hands I wanted to fold out but less risky against SB’s monsters. I wanted it to look like an overpair wanted to get more value, and there was ample opportunity to get stacks in later. Jamming seems more polarizing. If they put my range at KK+/AK then they have enough equity to call with AJ or TT, while betting a smaller amount looks more like a value bet than something I might do with my whole range. What are your thoughts?

1 Like
24

It could be useful if you think V is aggressive and will fire a lot of time on the turn and/or river, or if you think V will x-r jam the flop aggressively. For specific hands, I think in addition to JJ/AJs you could check back AA as there are pretty much no turn cards you’d be worried about. If you have hands like QJs and JTs in your 4bet range (hopefully at a low frequency) they would also be good candidates to check back and then bluff catch.

Yeah, V has already gone unbalanced with the two flats preflop, so balance is no longer required from you. V’s counter-exploit would be to x-r jam the flop frequently as a bluff so I guess you’d need to watch out to see whether that’s happening.

Given that you’re betting your whole range (which makes sense given the massive edge your range has on this board) you could also consider betting small on the flop with a plan to jam on most turns.

1 Like
25

Here I made a crazy call on the river with a hand I was going to give it up on the turn.What do you think?
Hand #596617323 · Replay Poker.

1 Like
26

Mother, that’s a shocking call. Do you have a history with that player or was it a mis-click on the wrong button?

27

I was on the way to give it up and would have folded instantly if he had bet half the pot on turn or river. But on the turn he checked and on the river he shoved suddenly. This isn’t the way I personally would play a strong hand out of position. Maybe I would try to trap on the turn but would never expect to get a call with a shove on the river if villain checks back on the turn. There were some possible draws on the flop and I have seen a lot of the time that players moved all in on the river after they missed their draws. That I had in mind when I made this call. Now I know that players especially on replay move also all in with strong made hands on the river. But again, if he had a full house on the river, why he didn’t bet it on flop or turn? Until the river he would have had at least two pair - unlikely, should be a set - and should defend it against the various possible draws on the flop.

1 Like
28

Thanks for posting a hand. I like your instincts, though for a few reasons I don’t think your call is profitable in the long-run against the dodgy way people play here.

Preflop, you open to a good sizing. On the flop, I would just check-back. This flop is better for your opponents’ ranges than yours and a half pot c-bet just isn’t going to work enough of the time.

On the turn, checking back is definitely the right move from you, but here is where your explanation is a bit off to me. Villain checks to you as the original raiser, and you check. There is no reason to expect that they would bet into you if they had a good hand. You have shown that you will bet this board, and except for turning 79 into a straight the turn didn’t change anything, so they could expect you to bet again and go for a check-raise or call.

On the river the shove looks very fishy, and maybe they think the 10 looks scary because they can have trip 10s or a boat, but it actually greatly reduces the number of 10x and boat combos they can have, which makes it more likely they are bluffing. It also makes it less likely they have 79 because the board pair would not be great for a straight. The missed flush draw also increases the likelihood of a bluff, so your instincts are dead on that it looks like a weird bluff. But does that mean you should call?

I say no for a few reasons:

  1. you lose to some of their bluffs. Hands like 87/76/77/75 or even 54 would make good bluffs on this river and still beat your call. You could even weirdly be losing to AK of clubs or chopping to AQ of clubs. Clearly, this particular opponent can have a wider range of hands and bluffs than a more conventional calling range, which makes your call better. But when I plug a range into Equilab that includes offsuit combos of connectors that beat you and a wide range that also includes value hands, you only win ~13% of the time, not enough to call. So, basically unless you think they are almost never betting this way for value, you don’t want to call in this exact spot.

  2. You have much better hands to call with. I don’t know what your button open range is versus these limpers, but it should be kind of wide. Even if you usually bet the turn with your strongest hands (55/66/88/AA/KK/QQ/JJ/TT/79), if you have a wide range, you can have better hands to call with like your own 76/75/87/98/77/99/44/33/22. If your range is tighter and you are more likely to check back the turn, then you could check back the turn with hands like AT/JJ/99, or even AA, which are much stronger on the river than ace high.

So, your instinct was good and you made the right decision this time. It would help to have a read on the opponent (do they call to see every flop?), but the flop range actually doesn’t matter as much because a tight player could take this line against you with AA while a loose player could have T8. Where the read matters is whether or not they would bluff. Some players, even the top players on Replay only raise for value (I stupidly learned this lesson for the 1000th time in a 300 million chip pot recently), and you definitely want to fold against these players, while other players often make wild bluffs like this one.

2 Likes
29

Thanks for your answer. I have to admit that I didn’t think about AK/AQs when I made that call. Very much players on replay limp in with every hand, even aces, so, it was possible indeed. Villain was new on the table, so I didn’t know anything about him.
A bluff with a pair of eights wouldn’t make any sense in my opinion because the pair has showdownvalue. Would make more sense for me to check on the river to get a showdown as cheaply as possible or to make a small blockerbet. But every player has his own way of thinking, so maybe it was possible too.
You are definitly right that I shouldn’t have made a c-bet on this flop with three opponents, but in this time I made a c-bet 100% of the time.
And yes, my call was risky, but not completely without reasons. Thank you for explaining me the horrible odds. I’m not good in math, maybe I shouldn’t play no-limit because of this.
I guess it was one of my craziest herocalls ever on replay. I remember the adrenalin during and after my decision :smiley:
In another situation a few month ago I called in a similar situation too, just to discover that my opponent slowplayed a pair of aces on the flop, wich became trips on the turn and I called his one big bet with king high on the river. Luckely for me this time it wasn’t a shove. So, yes, herocalls a risky, even if there are reasons for them.

1 Like
30

Don’t get me wrong, while there are reasons your call may not be “correct” in the long term, the read you had that the bet did not make sense puts you far ahead of a lot of players. Many people would think “I just can’t call”, but this is a critical skill to have at high level play. You can see similar instincts when watching the high roller wizards face each other for millions of dollars.

What your opponent did was make a polarizing bet, meaning they were either extremely strong or extremely weak, and you were correct to read that there just weren’t many extremely strong hands they could have and even those hands might not bet so aggressively. So, assuming they had to be really weak to make such a suspicious bet, it is a great decision to call. My previous response was just to highlight some factors to consider (do you beat all the bluffs and can you have better hands to call). There are few better moments in poker than to pick off a bluff like this, though it can be the complete opposite feeling when you are wrong.

1 Like
31

Here is another hand I played recently: Hand #691067376 · Replay Poker
Classical dream situation if you call with a pocket pair: set vs top pair vs good draw. I think it was really hard for butters2 to escape this situation. I fear I for myself am not good enough to get away in such a situation, especially after the turn when he turned a flush draw to go with his top pair top kicker.
My main question is JEFF331: Was the way he played his open ended EV+ or not? I personally love to semibluff good draws in ring games when villain bets pot size. But maybe he hoped that I and Sofie09 would flat as well to give him better odds. But than I think he should either fold after my checkraise or make a four bet as a semibluff. What do you think about it?

32

That was a fantastic flop and turn for you.

UTG min-raises, which is never a good idea. AKs is a great hand, but also a drawing hand. Against a min-raise and one call I would consider 3-betting with 88, but it is marginal depending on what hands your opponents would min-raise/call, so I think calling is fine.

On the flop they bet pot, which is fine considering that people call too much. And you raise, which is great to get value from Ax. It is a tough spot for UTG, but he should at least consider folding. I have definitely made this kind of lay down. He is crushed by AJ/JJ/88/J8, or even AA. There don’t seem to be many reasonable bluff hands that they would beat.

Now, your question about the CO. I plugged in ranges into Equilab (a strong range for you and top pair+ and gutshots for UTG, with no weird bluffs for either of you), and his hand has 28.5% equity. Without having a chance to do any math, I would have assumed he had 30-33%. He needs 25 equity to break even (call 6400 to win 19200), but that is his pure equity, and he is only paying to see one card, so calling is probably -EV. His two opponents look super strong, so his outs might not be clean as a board pair could give one of you a boat, one of you may hold straight blockers like AQ, and their straight might not even end up being the nuts.

I don’t think that raising would be better because it doesn’t look like either of you would fold based on the action so far. Similar to calling, if he were to 4-bet (which is effectively shoving), he would be getting a marginally -EV situation if he never gets both of you to fold, and I don’t think it’s reasonable to expect much fold equity.

The turn is also a great card for you. UTG is basically pot-committed by his preflop call with his remaining stack size (if he believes he could be ahead on the flop then the turn does not change that), and obviously it gives both of them the flush draw, which prices them in to continuing (even though they unknowingly are stealing each other’s outs).

This hand is a bit of a cooler for UTG, but with some good discipline both of your opponents should probably fold the flop unless they have a specific read that you might bluff like this. It is not a particularly draw heavy board and crushes UTG’s range, so it would not be a good bluff spot.

1 Like
33

Thanks for your good thoughts. What I learned on Replay, what maybe is wrong against better opponents, that a raise means mostly a very strong hand and a threebet with 88 against a hand wich is likely QQ+ isn’t a good idea. I didn’t know this opponent. His price was very nice - though I would also have called a pot sized raise of course with this hand - so I tried to flop a set to break him and that was exactly was happened. But of course you are right - with a lot of discipline he could have folded his hand after my reraise. My drawing opponent should have done the same with even more reasons. For me it is easier to fold a good draw, if the price is too high and I don’t think that my opponent will fold to a semibluff than to fold top pair top kicker but maybe I should consider doing it too on a dry board.

1 Like
34

As I watched the first hand myself, not knowing what you had, I started to wonder if I continue with AA. I obviously call the check raise on the flop, but I think I wilt like a flower without water on the turn or river. The turn clearly looks like he is triangulating for a jam, and is very polarizing. I think the line gets taken pretty much only by hands that beat AA (or at least top pair), or bluffs. He happened to have a bluff, but the ratio is the question, and given the over bets on the turn and river, he needs to have a pretty decent number of bluff combinations. I think CKEnvoy is probably well balanced, and I think you are just in a very tough spot there, beating none of the value bets, and all of the bluffs. You probably need to call some of the time, but I wouldn’t want to be in that spot.

35

I’d be really surprised if CKEnvoy is taking that line with all of the combos you list (all reasonable straight draws and one pair + straight blockers), for the simple reason that it creates too many bluffs. He is certainly very aggressive, but I think he is also very good. But I agree you’ve made a good case that calling with AJ as a bluff catcher is a play you have to consider making there.

36

guess i should have paid more attention to the pair on the flop, but how many would have bet it differently? ie not get all their chips in the middle? I’m Ks 3s in the BB.

37

I’m kind of ok with your river raise… I think you have to make that play once you choose to call both the flop and turn bets, in order to have the implied odds you needed to make those calls. But, on a paired board, you do need to remember that you are no longer drawing to the nuts, and so you should really be folding to smaller flop and turn bets than you would normally fold to.

Should you have folded on the flop or turn here? Well, you did not have the direct odds you needed to make either call, even without factoring in that the board was paired. I think it gets down to how aggressive your opponent was. Against a GTO monster, I think you need to make those calls, as you’ll need to defend pretty wide to keep from over folding. Against players that don’t bet much, I think you can probably argue for folding at either the flop or the turn, but even here, I don’t think calling is a huge leak (though probably a leak).

One thing not discussed: a raise on the flop or turn should be considered. I don’t think either is mandatory, and with your opponent’s actual holding, I don’t think that would have changed anything, but overall I think raising there is certainly at least good to have in your arsenal.

1 Like
38

I agree with your conclusion and analysis (and I think it is worth considering a raise on the flop in particular), but I think your math is off in terms of having direct odds to call.

On the flop, hero needs 22.5% equity to break even (calling 300 to win 1050) and against villain’s exact hand he has 25%. Of course, he isn’t going to realize all of that equity by calling flop, but if we give villain a very strong range with all Ax and 9x (including AA/99), hero has 29+% equity. Plus, based on a 1bb min-bet it isn’t a safe assumption that villain has anything, let alone exclusively top pair+. After adding some lower pocket pairs and villain’s own flush draws, hero has 35+% equity, and villain can also have some random junk or broadways, which would put hero’s equity over 40%. So a call is good, and a raise is probably even better with that kind of equity, especially since villain is more likely to raise Ax preflop and there are few combos of 9x (which hero can also rep).

On the turn, hero needs 25% equity to break even (calling 675 to win 2025), and against the widest range I gave villain, hero has ~30%. Against a very stronge range hero’s equity is closer to 18% and including some draws in that range brings it to ~27%. So, the turn call is a bit more marginal, but it is fairly close.

I agree with your analysis that 1) it is important to consider raising, 2) folding is not good, and 3) raising the river is good. There are plenty of hands that villain can call with that you beat (Ax and 9x that aren’t boats and smaller flushes).

39

If you re-read my post, I think you’ll find the word “not”. :slightly_smiling_face:

Well, you did not have the direct odds you needed to make either call, even without factoring in that the board was paired.

40

Maybe I am not understanding, but I would say that at least on the flop they did have the direct odds to call if we include Ax/9x+ and a few draws or broadways as villain’s range. On the turn, I would say they did not. But it all depends on what ranges we are assigning.