AKo in a classic 3bet pot

Originally posted by RedsYNWA

Originally posted by killacasey

Originally posted by RedsYNWA

Originally posted by killacasey

Originally posted by zetozinho
I solved this hand out of curiosity.
Flop is mostly a check with the entire range. This board hits BTN flatting range well (very well) so you can't just start betting. Even AA, KK, AQ are mostly checks.
With this combo the solver checks 65% if the time and bets 70% pot the other 35%. The standard line it takes is a check/call and that's something I was expecting.
Even QQ/99 are checks almost 100% of the time because they block hands you want him to continue with (KQ, QT, Q9, J9).

As played, turn is a check/fold. When taking your flop line the solver likes to continue OTT only 30% of the time (hands like AA, AJs, KJs, Q8s small size, KK, QTs, J8s, 65s, 54s bigger size).
The T♣: is a good card for BTN and that's why.
Again, QQ and 99 are checks once you cbet the flop.

Ya I don't know, what pre-flop range did you give villain? I would bet AA alot of the time on that board, I don't think its very useful to constantly run GTO like this instead of studying the fundamentals and effective exploiting of villains.

Correct that's just the GTO solution which runs a sim vs a GTO strategy.For the micros we want to deploy a more exploitable strategy and we would just value bet all our strong value hands like AA AQ KQ etc..

So the whats the point of running all this on this thread if we are a bunch of micro players ?

Because this isn't a clear value hand we should cbet.And we dont want to be making to many betting or folding mistakes if this is a clear check call.

Why not ? we have backdoor diamonds and we can hit A or K for top pair.... along with the fold equity I listed which shows he can fold some stuff.Its technically a semi-bluff with chance to improve.. I think we not playing properly by giving up initiative against an unknown, players make mistakes by applying pressure, you apply pressure by betting. We can force villains to make mistakes when we put them in uncomfortable positions post-flop, and villain holding a speculative hand against a 2/3pot bet on the flop in a 3-bet pot I would consider pressured. If he calls with a pair of 9's and we turn a pair he is going to be in a tough spot with a big pot

Originally posted by killacasey

Originally posted by RedsYNWA

Originally posted by killacasey

Originally posted by RedsYNWA

Originally posted by killacasey

Originally posted by zetozinho
I solved this hand out of curiosity.
Flop is mostly a check with the entire range. This board hits BTN flatting range well (very well) so you can't just start betting. Even AA, KK, AQ are mostly checks.
With this combo the solver checks 65% if the time and bets 70% pot the other 35%. The standard line it takes is a check/call and that's something I was expecting.
Even QQ/99 are checks almost 100% of the time because they block hands you want him to continue with (KQ, QT, Q9, J9).

As played, turn is a check/fold. When taking your flop line the solver likes to continue OTT only 30% of the time (hands like AA, AJs, KJs, Q8s small size, KK, QTs, J8s, 65s, 54s bigger size).
The T♣: is a good card for BTN and that's why.
Again, QQ and 99 are checks once you cbet the flop.

Ya I don't know, what pre-flop range did you give villain? I would bet AA alot of the time on that board, I don't think its very useful to constantly run GTO like this instead of studying the fundamentals and effective exploiting of villains.

Correct that's just the GTO solution which runs a sim vs a GTO strategy.For the micros we want to deploy a more exploitable strategy and we would just value bet all our strong value hands like AA AQ KQ etc..

So the whats the point of running all this on this thread if we are a bunch of micro players ?

Because this isn't a clear value hand we should cbet.And we dont want to be making to many betting or folding mistakes if this is a clear check call.

Why not ? we have backdoor diamonds and we can hit A or K for top pair.... along with the fold equity I listed which shows he can fold some stuff.

It's not a made hand and it's a flop we don't get many folds on.And if you take anything away from the solver solution.It's that check fold is the worst option,and while cbetting probably isn't terrible.By far the best line to take vs thinking regs is to check call.

Originally posted by RedsYNWA

Originally posted by killacasey

Originally posted by RedsYNWA

Originally posted by killacasey

Originally posted by RedsYNWA

Originally posted by killacasey

Originally posted by zetozinho
I solved this hand out of curiosity.
Flop is mostly a check with the entire range. This board hits BTN flatting range well (very well) so you can't just start betting. Even AA, KK, AQ are mostly checks.
With this combo the solver checks 65% if the time and bets 70% pot the other 35%. The standard line it takes is a check/call and that's something I was expecting.
Even QQ/99 are checks almost 100% of the time because they block hands you want him to continue with (KQ, QT, Q9, J9).

As played, turn is a check/fold. When taking your flop line the solver likes to continue OTT only 30% of the time (hands like AA, AJs, KJs, Q8s small size, KK, QTs, J8s, 65s, 54s bigger size).
The T♣: is a good card for BTN and that's why.
Again, QQ and 99 are checks once you cbet the flop.

Ya I don't know, what pre-flop range did you give villain? I would bet AA alot of the time on that board, I don't think its very useful to constantly run GTO like this instead of studying the fundamentals and effective exploiting of villains.

Correct that's just the GTO solution which runs a sim vs a GTO strategy.For the micros we want to deploy a more exploitable strategy and we would just value bet all our strong value hands like AA AQ KQ etc..

So the whats the point of running all this on this thread if we are a bunch of micro players ?

Because this isn't a clear value hand we should cbet.And we dont want to be making to many betting or folding mistakes if this is a clear check call.

Why not ? we have backdoor diamonds and we can hit A or K for top pair.... along with the fold equity I listed which shows he can fold some stuff.

It's not a made hand and it's a flop we don't get many folds on.And if you take anything away from the solver solution.It's that check fold is the worst option,while cbetting probably isn't terrible. but the best line to take vs thinking regs is to check call.

how is it a flop we don't get any folds on? I posted a whole range analysis about whatI thought villain can fold with,all you guys did was run a solver, tell me which one takes more thought. 88 in a 3-bet pot your calling a 2/3 pot c-bet on this flop?

Originally posted by killacasey

Originally posted by RedsYNWA

Originally posted by killacasey

Originally posted by RedsYNWA

Originally posted by killacasey

Originally posted by RedsYNWA

Originally posted by killacasey

Originally posted by zetozinho
I solved this hand out of curiosity.
Flop is mostly a check with the entire range. This board hits BTN flatting range well (very well) so you can't just start betting. Even AA, KK, AQ are mostly checks.
With this combo the solver checks 65% if the time and bets 70% pot the other 35%. The standard line it takes is a check/call and that's something I was expecting.
Even QQ/99 are checks almost 100% of the time because they block hands you want him to continue with (KQ, QT, Q9, J9).

As played, turn is a check/fold. When taking your flop line the solver likes to continue OTT only 30% of the time (hands like AA, AJs, KJs, Q8s small size, KK, QTs, J8s, 65s, 54s bigger size).
The T♣: is a good card for BTN and that's why.
Again, QQ and 99 are checks once you cbet the flop.

Ya I don't know, what pre-flop range did you give villain? I would bet AA alot of the time on that board, I don't think its very useful to constantly run GTO like this instead of studying the fundamentals and effective exploiting of villains.

Correct that's just the GTO solution which runs a sim vs a GTO strategy.For the micros we want to deploy a more exploitable strategy and we would just value bet all our strong value hands like AA AQ KQ etc..

So the whats the point of running all this on this thread if we are a bunch of micro players ?

Because this isn't a clear value hand we should cbet.And we dont want to be making to many betting or folding mistakes if this is a clear check call.

Why not ? we have backdoor diamonds and we can hit A or K for top pair.... along with the fold equity I listed which shows he can fold some stuff.

It's not a made hand and it's a flop we don't get many folds on.And if you take anything away from the solver solution.It's that check fold is the worst option,while cbetting probably isn't terrible. but the best line to take vs thinking regs is to check call.

how is it a flop we don't get any folds on? I posted a whole range analysis about whatI thought villain can fold with,all you guys did was run a solver, tell me which one takes more thought. 88 in a 3-bet pot your calling a 2/3 pot c-bet on this flop?

Many folds i'm sure we get some folds.

check-calling we are giving up initiative so when we miss the turn we fold and have already put more money in the pot on the flop by calling, when we c-bet we keep the aggression and get some amount of fold equity, if he calls we can give up if we dont improve. I don't like check-calling with AK here at all we are more likely too miss our cards than hit them.I like c-bet or check fold

AA, KK, AQs are still cbets with a big size (I used 33% and 70% OTF) at a decent frequency (around 35%).
I may add that when we check BTN is betting around 50% of the time (small size) with basically all hands in its range.
Not having a check/calling range here is clearly exploitable. We should be calling all 9x (A9s-T9s, 98s, 97s), all Qx (KQs-Q8s), AK with backdoors, J8s, T8s.
Funny that the solver also does some check/raising (around 15% of the time). AQ, AA, KK, Q9s, 99, (QQ he doesn't check-raise), T8s, KJs, KTs, 55, 44. All Ax's flushdraws are check/raises 100% of the time (expect for A3s)!
Weak flushdraws (87s, 86s, 76s, 65s) are check/calls too and it quite surprised me at first because they have less showdown value than the Ax's flushdraws, so I thought they should be played more aggressively. I think it is because BTN should also bet this hands when we check to him, so we are blocking them.

As played, BTN shouldn't be raising much OTT, mostly calling despite our small size.
If you used a 70% pot bet OTF, the solver would overbet (150% size) OTT 30% of the time!

Originally posted by Torcato
Thank you for that, really nice to learn
Btw, which solver do you use? Do you think its worth the investment? I never used one before.

I don't know if I'm allowed to write the name of the software, maybe SDK or Vorpal could clarify these ♦
Definitely worth the investment imo. But you need a decent setup to run single-raised pots with multiple sizes (especially in BTN vs blinds and BB v SB).
3bet pots run easily because SPR is much lower.

I don’t know what you mean by not having a check calling range here, you can check call with your marginal made hands

I have changed my play recently with this same scenario as I tend to spew AK high postflop.

If I 3/bet preflop I now c/bet all my range 40% pot regardless if I hit or not with AK. I do this with premium pairs also in 3/bet pots.

In open raised pots I c/bet 70%.

I hope to win some pots when the villain folds to my c/bet, and bet for value if the turn card hits an Ace or King. Otherwise I just give up unless my equity improves, or if a clear bluffing opportunity presents itself.

I am expecting to win my fair share of c/bet bluffs, in addition to value betting my big pairs on the turn and river, with this strategy.

I am not sure if this is the optimum strategy but I would value any expert opinion.

idk but on this board with exactly this hand i would cbet 2/3 pot and then give up on bad turns , this makes most sense to me on NL10 .
It is true that you want to check oop more often but most players on these limits are tighter than they should be, right ?