AA vs raise turn

Too many bluffs, should be around 1:1 on the flop and 2:1 (value:bluff) on the turn. (or correct me if im wrong, but we shove on turn about pot size stack)

Makes sense, but I don't really like check/raising AsX, KsX, because after villain calls flop, I don't think we'll have FE on turn, 100bb deep.

So I'd just bet FDs, and strong BDFD + 2 OC. Not sure we should balance our checking range here. Maybe we should put overpairs without spade to our check/raising range, and some FD, but not sure which ones.

I assume most people will bet IP around 1/2 pot, so 7.5bb. After that I min raise, so 15bb.

Flop:
pot odds for raise are 0.16, pot is 45BB

Turn:
I bet 23BB, pot odds 0.25, total pot 91bb

River:
I bet 54BB, pot odds 0.27, total pot 200bb

So the number of bluffs on flop are 14 as you said. I could go for a bigger raise and shove. But I like more min raise to fold his weak holdings which I expect to bet.

Now in the range I have also few fd and bdfd with strong overcards which all have decent equity and blockers, which is why I add 12 more, but maybe it is too much more. I also added more because I do it exploitatively, as I said I expect bluffs to have nice EV.

I would generally have both checking and betting ranges on this flop as the pfr. Both c/c and c/r are fine with this combo. Don't really agree with the c/r range construction, since hands like AK/AQ have so much showdown value. That leads me to not having much of a c/ring range unless I know someone is clearly exploitable with c/raises (aka I have stats).

What do you think about river raise? I think he can raise turn KK, and maybe AQ to stack of my KQ because he probably expects me to bet QQ+? Also his bet size river looks as thin value

Menu, I just call river. The combination of your read that villain bets flop wide with bluffs and this unusual line choice makes me think he's more likely to show up with something nutted or air. I think KK very rarely checks flop and KQ would never raise turn and bet river. Only hand I think you could get value from is AQ and there are only 6 combos left.

Yes, his river bet kinda makes me think that AA is good but I just don't see enough worse hands calling it off. Also, I don't really know how you can rep a bluff here.

I like a flop x/r range in 3b pots.

I think I'd prefer to on the flop have AA in a x/c range and have QQ in a x/r range. Assuming MP is stacking off with QQ+ preflop, they're effectively the same, but AA is less vulnerable to being out drawn (AQo,AQs,AJs,KQs)when it goes x/c.
As bluffs I'd have gutshots, so I'd have a few low suited aces and 76s. I'd also chuck in a few of the worst nut FD's. I think like Shevts said AK,AQ is too strong to x/r.

On the river, I think raising anything but QQ/straights for value is too thin. I'd expect some 99 as the worst part of villains value range here. Villain raising AQ on the turn would have to mean villain gives zero respect at all for hero's flop checking range.
I guess I'd have one missed combo A:s5:s that could bluff the river sometimes with a raise.

I think with c/c AA we lose a lot of value, villian might check any street to pot control. It is good vs agro villians imo. Maybe makes sense c/c flop AA and c/r turn? We anyway dont have hands that can bluff catch 2 streets, AK would c/c only flop.

Bug

Why not just bet 3 times with AA here? This is much better board for us, so we should bet with very high frequency, also we want to bluff often.

Only thing that comes to my mind which favors checking is that we assume villain will either stab too much or he plays non4bet strategy. Am I missing something?

My assumption is that average reg in nl100 will bet close to whole range on low drawy boards
Where my check range is perceived to be give up mostly so i wanted to exploit it. I am not sure if my assumption is correct so i posted hand. Villian hits weak on this board so if i make him bet his bluffs then c/c and c/r should be higher ev than cbet, unless he floats too wide. Well for this guy i dont have sample, but then i use my population read that people dont float wide, and bet wide after check on such boards.

If you are doing it exploitatively because of population tendencies, then you don´t have to count combos in order to balance

This is what I think. I am no authority.

The damage of capping ones range (i.e not x/c flop with some hands like like AA) goes up exponentially with each street (or bet/raise) to play.

Without a decent x/c range villain can very profitably call 3bets superwide and spaz bet/barrel IP with air all day long. Spaz betting IP is a pretty common occurrence imo. Which makes sense exploitatively because peoples checking ranges are very bad.

x/calling the flop with AK then x/f the turn (to hands like AQo/a, AJs,KQs,JTS) JTs) would be pretty disastrous I think. If one doesn't have hands they can x/c 2 or 3 streets, they should take some stuff out of their betting ranges.

A flop x/r helps, but it's no substitute for a decent flop x/c range. This would be worse in wider range situations (and/or deeper) where villain can rep more 'nuts' combos (which he can do if he calls 3bets wider to exploit this) and do stuff like raise wider and deny your equity of your bluffs.

If I saw someone capping their flop x/c range like suggested I'd assume it's likely all their streets x/c ranges (i.e bet flop, x/c turn or bet flop, turn, x/c river) are capped and easily exploitable too.

Originally posted by jules97
This is what I think. I am no authority.

The damage of capping ones range (i.e not x/c flop with some hands like like AA) goes up exponentially with each street (or bet/raise) to play.

Without a decent x/c range villain can very profitably call 3bets superwide and spaz bet/barrel IP with air all day long. Spaz betting IP is a pretty common occurrence imo. Which makes sense exploitatively because peoples checking ranges are very bad.

x/calling the flop with AK then x/f the turn (to hands like AQo/a, AJs,KQs,JTS) JTs) would be pretty disastrous I think. If one doesn't have hands they can x/c 2 or 3 streets, they should take some stuff out of their betting ranges.

A flop x/r helps, but it's no substitute for a decent flop x/c range. This would be worse in wider range situations (and/or deeper) where villain can rep more 'nuts' combos (which he can do if he calls 3bets wider to exploit this) and do stuff like raise wider and deny your equity of your bluffs.

If I saw someone capping their flop x/c range like suggested I'd assume it's likely all their streets x/c ranges (i.e bet flop, x/c turn or bet flop, turn, x/c river) are capped and easily exploitable too.

Agree about all. However, it is imo almost impossible to balance all lines and be unexploitable. If you put enough value hands in c/c range, you cant use bluffs for those value hands as you would with c/r or bet. Then you cbet low %, thus allow villian to realize equity easier. So there are advantages and disadvantages. I prefer agressive line because in poker in most cases agressive line is higher ev. Also i am sure i can play +ev with my bet range, but if i decide to take passive line vs unknown frequencies i am not sure if it is higher ev because not all villians will attack like crazy our check range for multiple streets.

Originally posted by Fiskantes
If you are doing it exploitatively because of population tendencies, then you don´t have to count combos in order to balance
Sure. But when i post hand i want to learn how to play with whole range.

I think you can balance your ranges and sure, you wont be playing perfect, but you will be doing a lot better than being aggressive for the sake of being aggressive.

An aggressive line over a passive line is only +EV if villain is making mistakes that suit the aggressive line. If villain is making mistakes that suit a passive line, or is balanced, being overly aggressive is going to be -EV. If villain is a good, thinking exploitative player it's going to be very costly.

Passive lines are harder, but not worse. The reason why people love 'the initiative' is because many (both themselves and villains )can't play well passively. Big opportunities exist here I think.

With being aggresive i consider having balanced frequencies. Bet bet bet line is not hard to construct balanced. If we have such range, there is no way villian can have defense strategy that makes our line (whole range EV) -EV. This is the case because he cant bluff raise us on any street +EV, cant bluff catch any street +EV, cant donk +EV. He can just try to lose minimum by defending X% on each street and prevent us from bruttaly exploiting him. His good bluff catchers will play +EV, also good draws, strong hands. But since he needs to defend X%, he will need to have many weak hands which will play -EV. In our agressive range all hands will play EV >= 0, because worst EV (EV=0) will have our worst bluffs, because the best villian can do is make our bluffs EV=0, and lose min vs our value hands.

Of course you will have hands that cant 3barrel for value, so they will be in defense check range which tries to lose minimum together with give up range. Then if you think somebody is exploiting you with bluffs a lot, you dont have to protect range with srong hands to prevent him bluffing you. You can instead bluff catch with weak pairs, or extreme case A high. Bluff catcher is anyway bluff catcher, just depends how much it blocks. You can also fold on flop exploitable amount instead of protecting it with strong hands.

How would you exploit someone playing like you describe in your last post?

Namely

1. Having a large betting ranges at expense of checking ranges.
2. Bluff catching their checking range with 'weak made hands'

Originally posted by jules97
How would you exploit someone playing like you describe in your last post?

Namely

1. Having a large betting ranges at expense of checking ranges.
2. Bluff catching their checking range with 'weak made hands'

I am not sure if I understood question. How would I exploit somebody that is betting too wide vs missed cbet on a low drawy board ? (which was my assumption)

I would exploit him by checking all value hands and basically not betting at all. If
he would be then wide bluffing on turn and river, I would again check/call all value hands (if we assume that his betting wide range is bigger leak than calling range, or calling raise range).
On river I would play check/raise with all value and bluffs being bluff heavy (if he is really wide on river). If we don't have deep enough stacks I would c/r turn also bluff heavy, and would c/c flop with draws, AK, AQ and similar. I would call down only bluff catchers, meaning I would c/r turn with clear value hands and bluffs. It is also ok imo to c/c flop and turn and donk shove river vs wide range

In this hand I just assumed that average reg bets too wide on flop on such a board, but I don't have idea how he bets on turn and river. Thats why I decided to be bluff heavy on flop with c/r and thus have +EV with bluffs and value.

no, i meant, how would you exploit someone playing like you do, as the aggressor like you suggest in your post