Mid/High Stakes Limit Hold'em Poker Forums

Okay so this is something I've thought about for a while. These hands are imaginary and were played against the same unknown opponent at the beginning of two imaginary matches. Tell me what you guys think.

Poker Stars $50/$100 Limit Hold'em - 2 players - View hand 353201
The Official DeucesCracked.com Hand History Converter

Pre Flop: (1.5 SB) Hero is BB with Q A
BTN/SB raises, Hero 3-bets, BTN/SB caps!, Hero calls

Flop: (8 SB) K J 2 (2 players)
Hero checks, BTN/SB bets, Hero raises

Final Pot: 5 BB


Poker Stars $50/$100 Limit Hold'em - 2 players - View hand 353204
The Official DeucesCracked.com Hand History Converter

Pre Flop: (1.5 SB) Hero is BB with Q A
BTN/SB raises, Hero calls

Flop: (4 SB) K J 2 (2 players)
Hero checks, BTN/SB bets, Hero calls

Final Pot: 3 BB

Makes sense in so far as the first hand, your range contains more strong hands Jx, Kx, QQ, AA and you are targeting pocket pairs TT and below. There is more in the pot, so it's worth fighting for and you have some equity when you are behind.

In the second hand, your range is going to be weaker on average, your opponent has a lot more worse hands in his range that you want to induce bluffs from, and the pot is smaller giving inducing more value relative to bluffing.

So overall, I really like what you are doing here ...

I feel like hand 2 is obviously fine though I'm not sure if you were implicitly saying that you think that preflop play is fine vs unknowns, I would think its clearly wrong as a general strategy.

Hand 1 I think this is basically bad with exactly AQ and AT. I mean 1) people don't really fold pairs, especially not early in a match with no read, 2) I feel like on this board texture our opponent will only be able to get away from his hand if we improve, so we have no hidden outs, and some reverse implied odds. Sure the pot is larger but that generally reduces fold equity (in fact you would have a much better shot of getting better hands to fold in hand 2, but that still isn't the best argument for making the play in hand 2).

I'm having a hard time seeing what there is to like about the play in hand 1. Even in ring games I sometimes do this and usually regret it, even though in those spots AQ is much lower in my range than it is here. If you are looking for more bluffs on this flop texture (aside from suited connectors in hearts, QT, and T9 which might be enough) I would expect something like 98cc would be preferable to AQ.

im fascinated with these hands Jer

You mentioned a similar line to me recently in a HUHU match when i had ATo and villain capped pf and you recommened a c/r on something like a KJ8 flop (cant remember the board or player tendancies exactly, sorry)

Should have quizzed you more on that hand, although it made sense at the time

Most often I´d reraise pre but once in a while a call pre can be preferable (villain c-bets every flop and/or you feel it would be good meta game wise)

On the flop I´d like a check/raise more in hand 2 then in hand 1. In hand 2 it would be for value (might switch to check/call on the river depending on how the board develops). In hand 1 I´d rather play it as a potential bluff catcher. But I would be very interested to hear why you would want to check/raise in hand 1.

I feel like hand 2 is obviously fine though I'm not sure if you were implicitly saying that you think that preflop play is fine vs unknowns, I would think its clearly wrong as a general strategy.

Hand 1 I think this is basically bad with exactly AQ and AT. I mean 1) people don't really fold pairs, especially not early in a match with no read, 2) I feel like on this board texture our opponent will only be able to get away from his hand if we improve, so we have no hidden outs, and some reverse implied odds. Sure the pot is larger but that generally reduces fold equity (in fact you would have a much better shot of getting better hands to fold in hand 2, but that still isn't the best argument for making the play in hand 2).

I'm having a hard time seeing what there is to like about the play in hand 1. Even in ring games I sometimes do this and usually regret it, even though in those spots AQ is much lower in my range than it is here. If you are looking for more bluffs on this flop texture (aside from suited connectors in hearts, QT, and T9 which might be enough) I would expect something like 98cc would be preferable to AQ.

Maybe I should have switched my hand to QT for the silly preflop discussion and because it illustrates my point with less controversy. But so it goes. Yes of course 3betting is preferable.

That said, Chris, if your preflop 3betting tendencies are like mine, it sounds like your range is going to be a bit too strong when 9s and Ts roll off the deck.

Maybe I should have switched my hand to QT for the silly preflop discussion and because it illustrates my point with less controversy. But so it goes. Yes of course 3betting is preferable.

That said, Chris, if your preflop 3betting tendencies are like mine, it sounds like your range is going to be a bit too strong when 9s and Ts roll off the deck.

I certainly didn't aim to talk about preflop. But choosing QT doesn't really fix things, as that just seems like too obvious of a CR in both hands. I mean its the best pure draw you will have on that board texture.

I feel like you are trying to illustrate that in larger pots you should semibluff more, and that seems counterintuitive to mathematics of poker principles. Your fold equity is obviously reduced in larger pots, and you want to tailor your ratio of value bets/raises to bluffs to be in line with alpha. If I am missing your point I need some help

I certainly didn't aim to talk about preflop. But choosing QT doesn't really fix things, as that just seems like too obvious of a CR in both hands. I mean its the best pure draw you will have on that board texture.

I feel like you are trying to illustrate that in larger pots you should semibluff more, and that seems counterintuitive to mathematics of poker principles. Your fold equity is obviously reduced in larger pots, and you want to tailor your ratio of value bets/raises to bluffs to be in line with alpha. If I am missing your point I need some help

Nope. I'm trying to say that when ranges become narrower, you need to bluff or semibluff more with sd type hands to obtain a balanced range. This should be pretty intuitive as you'll have fewer non-sd type hands in your range (it's narrower/stronger, duh), especially on these types of board textures.

I also disagree somewhat strongly that QT is a clear c/r in hand two because your range is much wider and your opponent will often play perfectly against you when you c/r the flop with that specific hand.


Edit: Note, we aren't semibluffing more. In fact, we'll almost certainly be semibluffing significantly less, both in an absolute sense and as a % of our range...

OTR what is a decent 3-bet range here pf? I mean so we have something to start the discussion from. Hands like Q9, QT, 98s, T9, XX? All looks better as semi-bluffs on this flop in my mind. But perhaps u don't 3-bet those?

I mean as a rule I don't threebet those mostly... 89s I usually do. QTo almost always. Q9o: not as a default.

I'd guess my 3betting range preflop is like A8s+, A9o+, K9o+, K8s+, QTo+, Q9s+, JTs, suited connecters down to 78s, pairs down to 55....


To be clear, yes Q9, QT, 98s are all viable candidates to semibluff, but I think you need more hands in your range otherwise even the worst villains will play relatively well against your c/r range.

but I think you need more hands in your range otherwise even the worst villains will play relatively well against your c/r range.

To play devil's advocate, I would say that (some of) the worst players tend to showdown too much regardless of what we are doing, and in that case not semibluffing enough is not really a problem.

To be clear, yes Q9, QT, 98s are all viable candidates to semibluff, but I think you need more hands in your range otherwise even the worst villains will play relatively well against your c/r range.

When u say more do u mean more types of hands or more combos? Im guessing the first. I agree with u about the problems of XR QT and that is very interesting. How about adding some air balls like suited connector stuff with BDFD (not that many hands I guess).

Edit: I feel that flop play is one of the areas I understand the least about. Tbh I have no clue what a good ballanced flop XR range looks like. And it's really frustrating. When I read ur posts I feel u have a tremendous understnading in this area. Worst part is that it costs >$200/h to find out the truth . (allthough tableratings says u know enough ).

Nope. I'm trying to say that when ranges become narrower, you need to bluff or semibluff more with sd type hands to obtain a balanced range. This should be pretty intuitive as you'll have fewer non-sd type hands in your range (it's narrower/stronger, duh), especially on these types of board textures.

I also disagree somewhat strongly that QT is a clear c/r in hand two because your range is much wider and your opponent will often play perfectly against you when you c/r the flop with that specific hand.


Edit: Note, we aren't semibluffing more. In fact, we'll almost certainly be semibluffing significantly less, both in an absolute sense and as a % of our range...

Ah tyty for clarification. I want to ask a side question which I think a lot of people sometimes do by accident, which is what about the idea that when we lose the "lead" preflop we end up playing more passively with hands that probably have enough SD value to be value bet/raised. I guess a good example would be in your sample hand check/calling to SD with something like QJ. I think this is clearly inferior to your described balanced range but it does tend to achieve balance, and I think people do it almost accidentally all the time.

When u say more do u mean more types of hands or more combos? Im guessing the first. I agree with u about the problems of XR QT and that is very interesting. How about adding some air balls like suited connector stuff with BDFD (not that many hands I guess).

Edit: I feel that flop play is one of the areas I understand the least about. Tbh I have no clue what a good ballanced flop XR range looks like. And it's really frustrating. When I read ur posts I feel u have a tremendous understnading in this area. Worst part is that it costs >$200/h to find out the truth . (allthough tableratings says u know enough ).

Sushi, I mean both as they are completely related. When you have a really balanced range, you'll have the proper balance of hand types and hand combos as we're trying to keep our range as balanced as possible on various turn and river cards.

I'd certainly add some bd draws in hand two. In hand one, there just aren't enough bd draws to do this, which is what makes me think our c/r here might be proper.

To play devil's advocate, I would say that (some of) the worst players tend to showdown too much regardless of what we are doing, and in that case not semibluffing enough is not really a problem.

I would say the very worst players fold too much regardless of what we're doing. But yes, in general you're right. If your opponent is going to blindly show down no matter what happens with the action or board, not semibluffing enough is no biggy...