Mid/High Stakes Limit Hold'em Poker Forums

So I´ve tried out my thoughts from http://www.deucescracked.com/forums/1-Mid-High-Stakes-Limit-Hold-em/23537-Thoughts-and-Analysis

I´ve started to check/back flops as a valuecheck (folding some hands on later streets) whenever the board and villains range suggests that 1. he will check/raise a lot 2. I will put in a difficult spot when he check/raises (should I call down or not) 3. He doesn´t fold that many hands and the hands that would fold doesn´t have that much equity anyways.

I´m not asking anyone to agree with my just thought it would lead to some discussion..

5/10 Limit Holdem
6 players

Pre-flop: (1.4 SB, 6 players) Hero is CO T A
UTG raises, 1 fold, Hero 3-bets, 3 folds, UTG calls

Flop: 3 2 3 (7.4 SB, 2 players)
UTG checks, Hero checks

Turn: 6 (3.7 BB, 2 players)
UTG checks, Hero checks

River: Q (3.7 BB, 2 players)
UTG bets, Hero folds

----

15/30 Limit Holdem
4 players

Pre-flop: (1.7 SB, 4 players) Hero is CO A J
Hero raises, 2 folds, BB calls

Flop: 8 T K (4.7 SB, 2 players)
BB checks, Hero checks

Turn: 9 (2.3 BB, 2 players)
BB bets, Hero calls

River: 8 (4.3 BB, 2 players)
BB bets, Hero calls

Final Pot: 6.3 BB
BB shows: J Q
Hero shows: A J

----

5/10 Limit Holdem
4 players

Pre-flop: (1.4 SB, 4 players) Hero is CO Q K
Hero raises, 1 fold, SB calls, 1 fold

Flop: 8 J 8 (5.0 SB, 2 players)
SB checks, Hero checks

Turn: 9 (2.5 BB, 2 players)
SB bets, Hero calls

River: 8 (4.5 BB, 2 players)
SB checks, Hero checks

Final Pot: 4.5 BB
SB shows: 8 7
Hero shows: Q K

#1 I hate the most. Just bet for value. We were a favourite pf and are even more so now. On the turn we have a big edge again. This makes me really sad !!! U are just wastig value.

#2 Hmmm Meh I dunno.

#3 I kind of like better with two BD draws and mediocre SD value. I don't hate a bet either though.


How are u planning to ballance this? For ur opp it's prett easy to get FC when he needs and value-town u with pairs. I think balance is the reason the 100% c-bet has been so succesful. It takes some thought to not become easy to read. Just checking back weak SD value stinks IMO.

And how are u going to balance in say #1? X back Aces ?

In hand 1 I have 49% equity on the flop (of course even less against the hands that call or raise) so I don´t get how you feel that we are losing value? (Oh, forgot to mention that he was a little bit on the tight side). This is a good hand to check back with because the backdoor draws are gonna put us in a spot where we can´t just fold to a flop ch/raise and turn c-bet when we turn a heart or a 4, 5.

As I said in the other thread I don´t find this that difficult to balance. The important thing is not having a bunch of different hands, the important thing is being able to make him indifferent to betting or checking on later streets. This is easily done by folding some hands. In hand 1 my KQ improved on the river, my AJ (and AQ) I could still call with so AT (which is the lowest ace is an easy fold on the river for me). In reality it´s safe to assume that this villain would bluff less then equilibrium so we could still fold even more hands and exploit him after making our flop check. Giving away free cards is of course calculated into the price of checking behind. And regarding him being able to outplay you with pairs... Tell me how do you think villain would play a pair in hand 1 if we bet?

As I said before this is still under evaluation and they might be mistakes. But if they are they have to be really boarderline mistakes. (like a fraction of a fraction of a small bet) Of course these plays do better against agressive LAG/TAGs then weak TAGs.

Appreciate the discussion. Thank you!

This will be a good discussion ! Let's start with hand 1 because that is the cleanest hand, if u know what I mean.

About flop equity: Is he one of those who never cap OOP? I assumed he capped sometimes which gave us a big edge on the flop. I can see that u can give him a reasonable range that gives us the equity u say, so let's use that type of range. Now I can at least stop crying ! But AQ ?

I agree with u that he won't be able to outplay us with pairs when we check, but the hands we are worried about are all the broadways. What hands are u folding on the turn to a bet? My guess would have been zero and that's what I mean by outplaying. If I was him I would X precisely the hands that u beat and bet the ones u are behind.

The idea that we don't need to balance our range, just our actions is ok, but it matters if villain needs to fear a raise or not (on this prticular river he does, on the turn he doesn't). The reason is he can just explode his v-bet range otherwise. And therefore also increase his bluffing range in a good ratio. That means he can profitable bluff a lot more. This is bad .

I agree with u that he won't be able to outplay us with pairs when we check, but the hands we are worried about are all the broadways. What hands are u folding on the turn to a bet? My guess would have been zero and that's what I mean by outplaying. If I was him I would X precisely the hands that u beat and bet the ones u are behind.

The hands that I fold the river with if he just bets the river are the same I would fold the turn with since they both represent an equilibrium solution (roughly a big bet vs the potsize). So I would fold KQ (and KJs but I am unsure if I have that hand vs his pre flop range). Since KQ improves on the river the next hand in line to fold is AT. Having said that I would look to fold slightly more then equilibrium since I would guess his (and as it turns out yours too) biggest adjustment would be to valuebet more and bluff less when I check behind. So in this way I do exploit the average opponents biggest tendency. Actually I´m quite glad that I do know how to exploit the average opponent here (because there are always other spots where this is not always clear).

The idea that we don't need to balance our range, just our actions is ok, but it matters if villain needs to fear a raise or not (on this prticular river he does, on the turn he doesn't). The reason is he can just explode his v-bet range otherwise. And therefore also increase his bluffing range in a good ratio. That means he can profitable bluff a lot more. This is bad .

I like your definition of saying "balancing actions" more then "balancing range". I like the statement Oink once made that it´s more important for our villains to think we are balanced then actually being balanced. Since this is an uncommon move by me I suspect some villains will fear a turn raise by a slowplayed hand (!) On top of that I actually could slowplay a lone combo for effect (like a strong PP or something) when I have first shown him this check behind play a few times.

It´s true that he can explode with his v-bet range but all those hands he would explode with anyways (with a flop ch/r). The exception might be one specific hand, AK. I can see him start valuebetting AK if we check behind this flop (if he doesn´t fear a raise). But if he is strong enough to start valuebetting AK then I think we are up against a good enough player, one who doesn´t fold almost any of his hands to a flop c-bet, and who would ch/r flop with a though mixture of v-bets and bluffs anyways making a check behind more valueable in the first place. Also I would look to actually slowplay a strong combo against him and hope this gets him to back off again.

I´ve actually had players who´d check the turn again with their pair on the turn fearing a raise (or a turn broadway card) !?

I think this play/hand is the most borderline against a weak TAG (which actually this player might have been), against a LAGTAG or LAG I can see myself saving close to half of a small bet with a check.

My calc is based on villain check/raising 33% on the flop (55+ and FD) and not folding more then 22% of his range (some weak Ax and weak broadway combos) to a flop c-bet in this spot.

If you see someone check/behind Ax and Kx a few times would you respect a flop c-bet more or less? (I´m not so sure he should do the one or the other)

Darkhorse u are obv not the typical high stakes forum fish . It sounds like u have thought this through very well. I see ur point now. I'm still not sure how it will work in a longer perspective. Also even if u are unexploitable after the flop, ur X may be bad in the first place. But then again maybe not.

One benefit is that u will get into a dynamic that u are really used to, but ur opponent is not. Therefor chances are u can actually outplay him.

I think I just wait for the big brains now.

Hand 1: If villain is tight as you described (15%ish pf?) doesn't it looks like a good plan to bet flop, and if raised call and fold turn and river UI?

I mean you have 49% equity on average but your equity when he c/c and he c/r are totally different.

Darkhorse u are obv not the typical high stakes forum fish . It sounds like u have thought this through very well. I see ur point now. I'm still not sure how it will work in a longer perspective. Also even if u are unexploitable after the flop, ur X may be bad in the first place. But then again maybe not.

One benefit is that u will get into a dynamic that u are really used to, but ur opponent is not. Therefor chances are u can actually outplay him.

I think I just wait for the big brains now.

Sometimes it feels like the more I know the less sure I get. I would guess confidence comes from knowing and not from being sure.

One thing you mentioned that I forgot is that villains sometimes cap pre flop. But my average opponent seems to just call the 3B when being OOP.

So I´ve tried out my thoughts from http://www.deucescracked.com/forums/1-Mid-High-Stakes-Limit-Hold-em/23537-Thoughts-and-Analysis

I´ve started to check/back flops as a valuecheck (folding some hands on later streets) whenever the board and villains range suggests that 1. he will check/raise a lot 2. I will put in a difficult spot when he check/raises (should I call down or not) 3. He doesn´t fold that many hands and the hands that would fold doesn´t have that much equity anyways.

I like these 3 arguments and it would be very interesting to try to think about them a bit more (im 2 tired right now).

But Im not sure I see how your examples illustrate them.

In first handexample (1) is def. not true.

In second handexample none of them are true. U raise ur top 35% in CO and BB calls with his top 65% minus top 15% that he would have 3bet. A KT8 flop is extremly scary for him so he will not checkrais a ton, and if he does ur AJ still got a lot of outs+ it can be ahead even if he raises. And he will miss this flop a lot, and will not get a good price to go on with semiweak hands since u will connect to this flop so often. ACtually, I dont think its easy to find a flop where BB will checkraise the preflopraiser a lot, his range is just to weak.

Im open for debate, but when I decide to check behind some hands its because I dont know if I can call their flopcheckraise, not because I dont know if Im going to call down all way. I mean if u dont bet flop its not like the difficulty suddenly goes away on turn.

All this said, I think "checking behind on flops" is one of the most neglected areas in 6max holdem.

Now I was just critisizing ur examples, but I actually think its more interesting to expand on which kind of flops with which ranges that should be good for checking. I will try to get back to it later.

Lately I have tried to check flop with some monsters and to balance this I also do it with hands that meets the criteria that u had. A very interesting bettingsequence will then be check-check, bet-raise, which of course is very scary for villain OOP.

Hand 1: If villain is tight as you described (15%ish pf?) doesn't it looks like a good plan to bet flop, and if raised call and fold turn and river UI?

I mean you have 49% equity on average but your equity when he c/c and he c/r are totally different.

With the 15 backdoor outs I´m relatively often forced to call a turn bet (paying as much as I would if I checked behind, 2BB). But you prove a good point and I think this is another reason why a predictable TAG might be the best victim for a flop c-bet. Against a LAG or a LAG/TAG you will never feel safe in folding because they can mix it up. Also (and here is a good counter argument) if we bet, he check/raises and we fold the turn, how often will we be folding a 6 outer that should be calling if we knew he had like 55. So checking behind helps us in seeing more cards post flop too (and thus realize more of our equity, no?) edit: I just thought of another thing... If our villain is predictable (to give info vs a flop c-bet) then what would keep the same villain to be predictable vs a flop c-behind (saving us even more money, no?)

I first got the idea for this play by looking at the polaris/sonia match where both players had no problems in valuechecking flops. But they are of course faced by a player who mixes their play up very well and we are facing more predictable players.

So we can conclude that information is money too. And by betting we might gain some information (by sacrificing money the times we are wrong or fold a hand with outs) that we can use to our advantage. In my calcs betting against a strong player loses us ~.27 of a SB! (this takes most things into consideration, like equity vs different parts of his range and giving free cards and more). But it doesn´t take information into consideration. And I can see that vs a predictable opponent a bet might give us a chance to gain that loss back. edit: As I mentioned earlier a check behind also gives us a chance to act on information against a predictable opponent so maybe these factors outweight each other and we are still faced with a 0.27SB loss?

People to consider a flop valuecheck against are people who:
- Puts you in trouble with a flop ch/r (should I call turn, should I call river?)
- Calls as much as he should on the flop (giving free cards is less of a problem)
- Plays predictable against a check behind, TAG (exploit him by folding a lot)
- Or bluffs a lot against a flop check behind, bad LAG (extra value against weak equity hands)
- Unpredictable opponents who might donk the turn (keeps you from tough spots and bad calldowns/folds)

But this is just the AT hand there are other flop ch/behind hands which are less close then this one I might add.

People to consider a flop valuecheck against are people who:
- Puts you in trouble with a flop ch/r (should I call turn, should I call river?)
- Calls as much as he should on the flop (giving free cards is less of a problem)
- Plays predictable against a check behind, TAG (exploit him by folding a lot)
- Or bluffs a lot against a flop check behind, bad LAG (extra value against weak equity hands)
- Unpredictable opponents who might donk the turn (keeps you from tough spots and bad calldowns/folds)

I want to add: - <50% equity (or slightly above).

This is good stuff. You have showed u can do it in a way that is difficult to exploit. We can also adopt it vs TAGs or trigger happy LAGs (I mean ur idea to fold AT becaue it is bottom of our range doesn't apply to them obv.). We need to have control of the flop equity IMO. A hand like AQ UI can easily ave close to 60% equity vs some opps and then it is too costly IMO.


I also have a question about ur turn X in hand 1. If u think he will bet his pair on the turn I prefer to bet when he X. I see no reason to give a 4-5 outer (like KQ) another free card. I think ur equity when he X the turn is awesome.

However if he is the type who like to trap again, that's a pretty cool reason to X the flop and get to se river for free. It's a lot of stuff going on here!

I will move to hand 2 now.

Was just thinking: Ur pf 3-bet is the good old free card raise. With the exception that vs many opponents (never cap, never donks) it will suceed 100%

I also have a question about ur turn X in hand 1. If u think he will bet his pair on the turn I prefer to bet when he X. I see no reason to give a 4-5 outer (like KQ) another free card. I think ur equity when he X the turn is awesome.

However if he is the type who like to trap again, that's a pretty cool reason to X the flop and get to se river for free. It's a lot of stuff going on here!

This is superclose it would seem.

We have around 70% (!) equity against his non-pair range on the turn but only ~40% equity against the hands that would actually call a turn bet. But there is of course value in protecting your hand.

Of the hands that would fold to a turnbet (~KQ-JTs, A9s-A6s) we have 86.5% equity. So giving a free card to those hands costs us 3.7BB * 0.135 = -0.5BB on average.

Our villains check turn range consists of: (if he never slowplays a pair)

57% a hand that would fold to a turn bet (A9 or worse)
43% a hand that would beat us (AK-AJ)

The profit of a turn bet would then be:
57% * +0.5BB = +0.285
43% * -1BB * (68% equity) = -0.29

+0.285 - 0.29 = -0.005BB

So it seems like it´s pretty much 50/50 bet or check the turn. A definite bet if villain sometimes bets the turn with AK or would fold AJ to a bet (?) or calls a worse Ax (?) and a definite check if villain sometimes slowplays a strong hand (!). I still like a turnbet (as you suggested) because this helps us balance the times we have a slowplayed PP in this spot.

Ok cool. Hand 2 what range are u putting villain on? No pf 3-bets?
22+, A2s+, K2s+, Q3s+, J4s+, T5s+, 95s+, 85s+, 75s+, 64s+, 54s, A2o+, K3o+, Q6o+, J7o+, T7o+, 97o+, 87o, 76o, 65o?