These Charts forget one important element of this game… The Flop.
If you are talking about the pre-flop range charts, I’ve mostly just used one’s from Jonathan Little’s site, which seem likely to be solver solutions, as they match up with solver output quite closely. Most players ranges will of course look different, and you can make other assumptions often, but I think you’ll find that most stronger players (there are exceptions of course) will fold the vast majority of their pre-flop starting hands in early position, or facing a raise.
I thought this was another good hand for the thread.
Here, I’ll try to look at this from my opponent’s perspective, @ SNAKEMX, with the question being if he should have bet for thin value on the river.
Pre-flop, Snake limps behind another player with Ah9h.
The flop is 4c9cAs, and some fish in the big blind donks into everyone with a half pot bet. Snake has top two pair. Obviously too good to fold, so it is call or raise. It is a mostly disconnected board, though there is a club flush draw, so Snake chooses a middle sized raise, and the big blind calls.
What hands usually continue against the raise?
- probably some flush draws
- some top pair hands with ok kickers
- some marginal holdings that decide to get sticky, like JJ, TT, or even 88 or 77, though at least some of these might have attacked all the limpers pre-flop
- almost all two pair hands, and the big blind could have any of them
- all sets
Snake is ahead of everything but the sets, and so in good shape.
The turn is 5h, for 4c9cAs5h, and the big blind checks. Snake makes a pot sized value bet for 6 million, and the big blind calls. What hands call the pot sized bet on the turn? I think it is a lot of the same.
- Some flush draws may continue, especially with a pair, as they might feel that 12.5 million behind provides sufficient implied odds for a profitable call. But note that combinations are reduced, as many will also either fold or raise all in.
- Some top pair hands are probably likely to get sticky, especially if this fish in the big blind is a call station. But again, this probably shakes at least most of the Ax hands without a good kicker or 2 pair.
- Most 2 pair hands probably call, though some might even raise.
- sets are probably torn between calling and raising, given the 5 creates some potential straight draws on top of the flush draw (say if the big blind had 7c3c or any similar combinations). So again, sets get diminished a bit as some won’t call.
The river is Td, for 4c9cAs5hTd, so none of the draws hit. The big blind checks. Snake has $12.5 million left behind, and is covered by the big blind, and the pot is now just shy of $20 million. Can he bet for value?
The natural size here is to just go all in, for a bet of about 2/3 pot.
- The draws will all fold to a jam, so no value there
- Most top pair hands should probably fold, but there will be at least a few calls. But the big blind probably doesn’t have many AK combos, as he probably would have raised with that pre-flop, and might have done the same with at least some AQ and AJ combos, so that leaves Ax hands that are probably folding mostly, if they got here at all.
- A lot of the 2 pair hands might be prone to call.
- Probably all of the sets call, along with AT, which now beats us
So it is a question of whether there is more density of two pair type hands or sets plus AT. Given the disconnected nature of the board, from most seats there should not be many 2 pair type holdings, as most players won’t enter the pot with 94, and of course A9 heavily blocks other hands that had 2 pair on the flop, but the big blind’s starting range is 100% of hands, and so all remaining
(after accounting for blocking) combinations of A4 and even 94 are present, and could have reasonably taken the line so far. Hands like A5, and AT, that hit two pair later, also have a reasonable number of combinations, if not quite as many (there might have been earlier folds).
So in conclusion I think there are enough calling combinations still behind to make a thin value bet here, especially given that the big blind started with a 100% range, creating a higher density of calling combinations that lose than other seats would have.
I think the first hand is the most interesting, at least to me, because I think I would find the value bet in all the other cases, but not that one.
I think the solver analysis is flawed though. If you look at 3 handed ranges, the BB should be calling almost every 8x hand:
(that’s short stacked, so not entirely accurate either, but closer than the 6-max ranges I believe)
Secondly, although the solver is checking Kx nearly 100%, I don’t think you can read too much into that. Besides probably not having the correct pre-flop ranges, almost every hand is a mix, which means checking and betting are both the same EV. Given it’s checking back all the good Qx too, that likely indicates that Kx is neutral as well. It’s most likely checking Kx back because it wants to have a very high percentage of checks from the BB, and those are the hands that don’t need protection or to bluff. (I can’t run the spot, but maybe BW can post a screenshot with the EV for K4s)
In any case, I think I’m betting Kx nearly 100% there from the BB on the turn, but couldn’t imagine making the value bet on the river, even though I’m pretty sure it’s good if you solve for 3 handed
1 Like
Here’s one played today where I reached the river and found it difficult to compare the combos of hands that call and beat me to the hands that call and lose. It’s often easy to just look at the result and assume I played it well, but it’s nice to try and examine some of your big “successes” to see if they might have been mistakes as well.
The hand starts with an unorthodox limp from under the gun, and then folds around to me on the button with AcQc, and I raise 4.5 big blinds ($2,250,000). Every still in the hand (the small blind, the big blind and the UTG+1 initially limper) all call. and the flop comes 3c4dJc.
It’s a relatively wet board multi-way. I think ranges for the other players are fairly wide, if somewhat capped. While I have more jacks and over pairs than any of my individual opponents, my opponents clearly have more sets, straight draws and 2 pair type hands. The small blind checks, and the big blind makes a surprise pot sized donk bet into everyone.
This is a pretty polarizing line, and with it being made into 3 opponents, I’d be inclined to say it leans more toward a strong made hand like a set or 2 pair than toward bluffs. The early position player folds, and I’m in a tough spot already, as I still also have to worry a little about the small blind. I think raising, calling and folding are all viable here. Given that we were pretty deep (240 big blinds effective), I felt I had the implied odds to call, but did also consider raising and folding. I called, and the small blind folded.
The turn was the 9 of clubs for a 3c4dJc9c board, and gave me the nuts. The big blind makes another pot sized bet. Here I think mostly raising all in is fine. If a 4th club hits on the river, it will likely be hard to get paid, and if the board pairs, all of a sudden I’m losing to the sets that improved. I think most sets and flushes will call, and so there is plenty of value to be had just from raising. I elected to just call, and the board pairs with the 4 of hearts, and my opponent checks.
I elected to go all in (a pot sized bet), but are there really now more combinations of hands that call and lose, than hands that call and win? Hands I lose to:
- 1 combination of 44
- 3 combinations of 33
- 3 combinations of JJ
Hands that call and lose are all combinations of flushes, but with the A and the Q I block the flush combinations, especially as Ax suited makes up so many combinations that will continue, and the big blind is presumably not calling 100% of the time with any two suited cards. Further, will every flush call? I think some of the lower flushes will at least consider folding, even if they call some of the time. How many combos of hands that call are we really left with? Further, while a set is probably going to take this line nearly 100% of the time, I think any given flush is not firing a pot sized be on the flop and turn at anything close to a 100% frequency, especially with 3 opponents on the flop. Doesn’t that drop us below the 7 combos above?
Let’s return to those combos. Some of you may have realized immediately that not all 3 combos of JJ should be out there, as at least some of them will have 3 bet. That probably drops us to something like 1 or 2 combos of JJ. What’s more, does a set bet pot on the turn and then check the river 100% of the time? On both streets it seems like sets take that line at a somewhat lower frequency than made flushes, which now seems to support this play as a value bet.
What is your verdict? Was this thin value, or am I mostly only going to get called by a better hand (it looks like even the king high flush came close to folding)?
I can’t see his cards but as played I suspect he had 65c or 52c
His full pot donkbet postflop into 3 players is very revealing. This is either a strong equity bluff or 44 33 or 43 of spades, possibly also AJ if he’s is playing on the aggressive side. I can’t give him JJ, I expect a top 10 player to be 3betting this hand nearly 100% from the BB after a button open and SB flat.
I don’t see any reason for him to check on the river hoping induce a bluff with a full house or quads given the main draw arrived and you’ve shown considerable strength by calling his large bets. Meaning a decent river bet has a high chance of being called. After you call his full pot turn bet and he checks river, I cap him at a mid flush. Good shove IMO.
I thought you played the preflop, flop, turn and river very well.
I suspect he had a king flush (or a flush), A4 or AJ because most players would call the allin river bet.
How come his hole cards were not displayed after the River call?
Is this a (recent) programming change?
I’m pretty sure they used to be shown since you paid to see them. Now, you’ll never be certain if he was bluffing or why he called.
I was able to see his river cards when reviewing the hand, and thought everyone else could too, but now two people have confirmed they are not visible. Still, I suppose that helps people focus on the real question of what the full calling range probably looks like.
My guess is he had something like T8 of clubs. He has a much larger stack than you, so he can afford to make the semi bluff on the flop. His flush comes home, so he makes another pot size bet, fearing that you have JJ. You call, so he suspects he’s in trouble, and when the 4 comes on the river, he would rather see your hand without any further betting, as he suspects he is behind. However with the stack size disparity, he’s not going to fold his flush.
If being unable to see the other player’s hole cards is a new programming change except for the player involved in the hand ruins the Replay concept of Hand Reviews, IMO. Replay should just stop the Hand History option and save memory space.
I can understand not showing both of the players hole cards if one doesn’t pay to see.