---

Poker Video: No Limit Hold'Em by WiltOnTilt (Mid Stakes)

Yes I agree that by default we weren't sure if he was capable of realizing that KJ is a very easy value bet there, so without knowing how good villain is and how he views the flop with his various top pair hands and how he views the turn with his various Jx hands, it becomes a turn call as we can discount many value combos between the two streets, given the turn card.

related to my previous post, doesn't the above uncertainty make cbetting the flop better?

I'm kind of lost also when i reread it. But to make it short: When we play vs a regish player, can we say that villain thinks that his perceived range is the same as his actual range?

I think most players (many regs included, esp at the lower stakes) will assume that they have way more value on the flop/turn/river in these spots than they actually do. So I think many think their perceived range is stronger than it really is.

Lets say you have a lot of air in your turnrange (when you are IP), how would you construct your value- and bluffrange to make them balanced (if villain is supergood)? Do you pick the best semibluffs to bluff with, or do you go more random?

On NL200, what turnspot are you most balanced?

Take your best semibluffs and hands that have good backdoor potential and use board textures where we can conceivably represent good value/hands that want to bet to protect. When we start a bet here, it should be with the intention of firing multiple streets...so try to choose hands that either start with decent equity or can turn a lot of equity or textures where the very nature would lead you to bet very wide for value. For instance, a board like QT9ss. Vs guys that 3bet a lot, we could easily have every combo of KJ, QT, T9 KQ, QJ, Q9, J8s... etc (obv keep an eye on things like his 3bet % and our fold to 3bet% vs aware opponents to see what we can actually rep on various board textures). Compare that to a board like J 4 3 where yea we can have some Jx but that's about it unless we are betting thinly for value/protection, and usually thats not a 3 street proposition. Also, dry boards where we can represent more top pair combos... like Axx are better to keep firing.

In some way I dont understand balance. Lets say we play vs a very observant and adjusting player. If we choose to play vacuum optimal all the time, then our game will get very exploitable. But how does that matter if our decisions is vacuum optimal? Exactly how is "balanced range" defined? Like, what if we have a very wide bluffingrange one time in the match in a spot, but later in the match we have a very narrow bluffingrange, in the EXACT same spot/stacks etc. Is that balance, even our range is very unbalanced each time?

Balance refers to making your opponent indifferent to either calling or folding. He can't change his strategy to take advantage of ours... That is the theoretical definition. In practice, we will rarely achieve true balance. As you note, the dynamic shifts after each hand and more psychology comes into play. If you truly can construct your range properly in each spot then it wouldn't matter (ie, you could be at worst neutral ev), but in the heat of the moment it's basically impossible, so instead we want to be conscious of what we are representing/roughly how many combinations, both for value and for bluff, we have and compare that to our bet sizes to make sure we aren't too out of whack toward value or bluff. Again, it will never be perfect, and because we aren't playing against robots, we should take recent history/psychology into play if we want to try to gain an extra edge. If he c/c c/c c/f in this type of spot earlier and it happens again in 25 hands and we're on the turn thinking about whether or not we want to empty the clip, we might choose to go lighter for value or give up with some bluffs this time because of it. That's an exploitative adjustment though. Often times in HUNL vs good opponents, you want to try to be balance aware for the entire situation, but also aware of the game flow/psychology to deviate from a more balanced strategy *this time*

table 2 with A4, after the villain checks the turn, i fire the river alot here. I figure most people don't have much, and would have bet a king or queen on that turn. So i don't want to give a show down to Tx, 8x or 66 or some other winning hand.

I do understand that the king is a decent barrel card, so his check does contain some showdown value hands, but this villain was not aggressively going after pots, so i want to keep lots of weak hands in his range ( both hands we beat and hands that just slightly beat us).

Is this a reasonable spot to lead the river 2/3 pot? It seems to me that only the top of his range can call, while most of it is forced to fold.

Yea, should be reasonable

What do you think of 3betting 9s here and x/c'ing the flop. You did say our hand is face up, but is there merit to taking this line here vs this guy. He's not barrel happy.

it seems to me that x/c'ing here vs him, is just hoping he'll bluff once and give up.

Yea given that he's not barrel happy, playing your hand face up and weakly could be ok. Each situation is different though and I think on the A we can expect more bluffs from random 1/2nl guys (in general). See the other posts in this thread for some discussion on that.

related to my previous post, doesn't the above uncertainty make cbetting the flop better?

Yea cbetting definitely makes it easier to play. We can also get called by some worse pairs and hands like AQ/AT and get a street of value from them and show down.

Time Link to 00:06:42

Thank you for your well forumulated answers!

QT on Q75ss,T,A, OOP: I dont understand why this is a bet.

We barely get value from his Tx, and majority of his callingrange is Ax. Even he isnt calling turn that often with Ax, he still have hands like J9/J8/98 or weak pairs that maybe want to turn into bluff because of the ace. He could be the type to play AK/AJ like this 100% of the time. Wouldnt we get much more value from those hands by checking and letting him bet? Isnt this a card that is perceived to make it less likely that hero would bluff? KJ I would believe that he would bet the flop because of the backdoor potential, and 7x and 5x would probably bet flop more often than not because of their vulnerability. What do you think of this?

Thank you for your well forumulated answers!

QT on Q75ss,T,A, OOP: I dont understand why this is a bet.

We barely get value from his Tx, and majority of his callingrange is Ax. Even he isnt calling turn that often with Ax, he still have hands like J9/J8/98 or weak pairs that maybe want to turn into bluff because of the ace. He could be the type to play AK/AJ like this 100% of the time. Wouldnt we get much more value from those hands by checking and letting him bet? Isnt this a card that is perceived to make it less likely that hero would bluff? KJ I would believe that he would bet the flop because of the backdoor potential, and 7x and 5x would probably bet flop more often than not because of their vulnerability. What do you think of this?

Don't forget how many busted draws we represent. I think it's very conceivable that any bluff catcher looks us up there... Qx that checked behind flop (rare, but happens), Tx, 7x, 5x, and the rare Ax (mostly AJ/AK like you said). Also those hands that you want to check to induce from, I would expect all of them to bet the flop the vast majority of the time (although, in fairness, Tx is in the same category). It's just a spot where we are at the near top of our range, and his check behind on the flop typically represents showdown value, we can rep plenty of busted hands that we would want to bluff with, so why not bet? If he sees us checking this type of hand here, what does that say about our future value/bluff range in these types of spots?

Don't forget how many busted draws we represent.

If its in his mind that we have busted draws on the river, then its more likely he puts us on a semibluff on the turn? If He puts us on a semibluff on the turn, he is more likely to call with Ax on the turn also?

If he sees us checking this type of hand here, what does that say about our future value/bluff range in these types of spots?

If this is a valid argument, why not just flip the range and bet with made hands and get two streets of value more easily in the future, and c/r more often with bluffs when backdoordraws miss?

Also, if we are wrong in a vacuum, and he checks behind, we have at least more info about his floprange which also is going to gain our future EV in that spot...?

What do you think is his bettingfrequency with 5x, 7x and Ax on the flop? My guess is that he has more Ax before bets on the turn than the small pairs. I would also guess that AT is much more frequent than other flop-airish Tx on the turn. If he is the type to check back with non-AT air that is Tx on the flop, he also has more missed draws on the river. If villain checks back all Tx on the flop, that becomes a total of 2*9 = 18 combos. If villain does that he probably has all J9, J8, K9 combos too, which is a total of 3*16 = 48 combos. Im not saying he calls with those 100% of the time on the turn, but he is not calling with 100% of combos with Tx on turn and river either.

If its in his mind that we have busted draws on the river, then its more likely he puts us on a semibluff on the turn? If He puts us on a semibluff on the turn, he is more likely to call with Ax on the turn also?

sure, he certainly could, since Ax beats the semibluffs

If this is a valid argument, why not just flip the range and bet with made hands and get two streets of value more easily in the future, and c/r more often with bluffs when backdoordraws miss?

Assuming you read the range accurately, you could certainly do that. I'm just not as convinced that he has air nearly as much as you seem to think. Most air is betting this flop. When he has a made hand it's usually 7x, 5x, or Ax. I also don't think it's out of the question to get looked up by any showdown value here, given the run out, against a guy who is a decent hand reader. Vs bad hand readers, you might only get river value from Ax, which you could be able to c/r the river against (which brings bet size considerations and how often he will bet/call 1pair), but more often in these spots I'm just concerned with value betting thinly enough given that I represent a good number of busted draws (depending on how loose we're playing oop). If you're playing vs someone who isn't aware of what your range looks like then that can lead to other considerations.

Also, if we are wrong in a vacuum, and he checks behind, we have at least more info about his floprange which also is going to gain our future EV in that spot...?

That is one benefit of checking

What do you think is his bettingfrequency with 5x, 7x and Ax on the flop? My guess is that he has more Ax before bets on the turn than the small pairs. I would also guess that AT is much more frequent than other flop-airish Tx on the turn. If he is the type to check back with non-AT air that is Tx on the flop, he also has more missed draws on the river. If villain checks back all Tx on the flop, that becomes a total of 2*9 = 18 combos. If villain does that he probably has all J9, J8, K9 combos too, which is a total of 3*16 = 48 combos. Im not saying he calls with those 100% of the time on the turn, but he is not calling with 100% of combos with Tx on turn and river either.

hard to know for sure what his flop betting strategy is... been a while since I did the video, but I don't recall any hands where we got to showdown when he checked behind the flop. Given his 76% cbet at the time of the video, I would assume he's probably checking 5x behind most of the time, cbetting 7x some of the time, and betting Qx most of the time, and sometimes cbetting A high and sometimes checking it. I agree AT is the most likely Tx, I don't think he has Tx that much compared to other hands though. Your combo math looks a little off, and don't forget to add some frequencies to hands like J9, J8, K9 because theres no way he's checking those anywhere close 100% on the flop (maybe 20% maximum).

Your combo math looks a little off, and don't forget to add some frequencies to hands like J9, J8, K9 because theres no way he's checking those anywhere close 100% on the flop (maybe 20% maximum).

It wasn't my intention to get the two numbers of combos perfectly, but the ratio between them, since I thought the ratio was the only real relevant number that got out of that math. What I got to was that he has a missed gutshot twice as often as Tx, if he always called with a gutshot on the turn. Given that he always calls with a gutshot on the turn, IF he has a gutshot on the turn, do you still think the gutshot vs Tx ratio (roughly 2:1) is wrong? Is my focus wrong? Im just using this as a counterargument for him calling with Tx, and thought it wouldnt only neutralize it, but make it directly wrong, based on the assumption that he probably puts more money in with a bet than with a call with those two ranges totally, since he now can rep the Ax, and we rep c/f with a weak made hand worse than ax, or missed draw.

How close is the two decisions? Is there any way for you to quantify how big of a mistake the check is?

I'll try to forumlate my feeling in this situation with variables.
X = Number of Ax combos
Y = Number of 5x of 7x (I'm excluding Tx based on the reasoning above. Ok?)
Z = The amount of credit he gives us on having a strong enough hand on the river
B = Betsize if hero or villain bets
R = Raisesize if we C/R (lets say its 2.7*B)

You formulate Z as him calling a lot if we bet because of missed draws. Won't that affect his callingfrequency with Ax also if we C/R?

Lets say Y = 2X (you agree?)

Isnt
((Y*Z)+X)*B < X*Z*R ?

Or am I too optimistic when I draw a parallel between the Z value in the bettingspot and the raisingspot?

Oops the formula should be: ((Y*Z)+X)*B < (X*R*Z)+((1-Z)*B*X)
Its meant to be a comparison between the EV's of the two options. Bet vs Check.

I'll try to forumlate my feeling in this situation with variables.
X = Number of Ax combos
Y = Number of 5x of 7x (I'm excluding Tx based on the reasoning above. Ok?)
Z = The amount of credit he gives us on having a strong enough hand on the river
B = Betsize if hero or villain bets
R = Raisesize if we C/R (lets say its 2.7*B)

You formulate Z as him calling a lot if we bet because of missed draws. Won't that affect his callingfrequency with Ax also if we C/R?

I don't know if he will call a lot, but if he's a good hand reader, I wouldn't be surprised at all to see him look us up with any bluff catcher. I think trying to equate the frequency of a single call with the frequency of him bet/calling a river checkraise is too optimistic. They are too different here. Also I alluded to earlier, I think it's a mistake to assume the bet size B would be the same for both players. I think it's much more likely that we would bet a bigger amount than villain simply because we can rep way more busted draws and villain can rep very little air.

To answer your previous post, there's really no way for me to quantify how big of a mistake a check is (given that we are treading on lots of assumptions based on our individual playing history, checking might not be a mistake at all). Given some of these assumptions and the lack of concrete reads from this match to know which is better, then it comes down to more of a theory/gameplan thing for me. My approach is usually not to bluff catch with the top of my range when my opponent represents very little air and I could be perceived to represent a lot of air.

Lets say Y = 2X (you agree?)

Yea that should be close depending on a few assumptions.

Isnt
((Y*Z)+X)*B < X*Z*R ?

Or am I too optimistic when I draw a parallel between the Z value in the bettingspot and the raisingspot?

Yea I just think the bet/call of the river c/r is just too different of an animal. You could certainly construct an opponent where you are absolutely correct and that he is folding all his 5x and 7x and bet/calling all his Ax. I'm sure we've played people like that and it makes sense why you want to go this route, I'm just not so sure it matches up that well with the average reg, although to be fair, "average reg" could mean a whole host of different things depending on what stakes we're talking about. You've definitely made me take another look at this situation, so thanks for that. It's conceivable that the regs at 1/2nl would be much more likely to bet/call Ax here than they would to just click call with 7x or 5x (how much more likely needed obv depends on the differential in bet sizes and the raise size).

You bring up some good food for thought and I can tell you've put in a lot of effort to think this question through, which is really appreciated. Thanks!

edit: one last thing that I should add here that helps your case quite a bit. If we are playing against expert players who realize what both players ranges look like, they should be very inclined to turn 5x and 7x into a bluff on this river when we check. See why? This definitely helps your case for going for a river check, although to be clear, I would not even give most high stakes players credit for identifying this situation in game (partially because it also hinges on the oop player reading hands well).

You've definitely made me take another look at this situation, so thanks for that.

You bring up some good food for thought and I can tell you've put in a lot of effort to think this question through, which is really appreciated. Thanks!

That was good to hear! I was at times worried if i bothered you with too many questions. Thank you very much for you effort to explain things also, and seem to be humble/honest/precise even your first decisions is supposed to be trusted!

The reason I kept on asking is because of the experience with having students/discussions. They seldom ask when they dont fully understand, they just want to agree and move on, which I think is a bad mistake, and makes me frustrated.

edit: one last thing that I should add here that helps your case quite a bit. If we are playing against expert players who realize what both players ranges look like, they should be very inclined to turn 5x and 7x into a bluff on this river when we check. See why? This definitely helps your case for going for a river check, although to be clear, I would not even give most high stakes players credit for identifying this situation in game (partially because it also hinges on the oop player reading hands well).

Thank you! Let me try:
To me "turn 7x and 5x into bluff" sound like trying to make Tx and Qx fold.

Would villain need to turn 5x/7x into a bluff?
To answer that, I think we need to know how often we have Qx/Tx in our range. If villain thinks we think that he checks back 5x/7x on the flop, and that villain thinks that we think that we get a lot of value on the river because of all the missed draws, we have less Qx/Tx in our river checkingrange. But this is maybe only relevant for Qx, since Tx should be too thin.

Villain could also think that we wouldnt bet Qx/Tx on the river because its too thin because villain could improve to top pair.

These two factors would make it hard for villain to estimate our checkingfrequency with Qx/Tx because we could have different thought processes that counter each other. But that implies at least that we could have Qx/Tx in our checkingrange. Especially Tx. So, yes, he could have use to turn 5x/7x into bluffs if it worked often enough.

Will the bluff work often enough?
When villain calls the turn he has a lot of made hands (including rivered made hands), which means that when he bets river after calling turn, he caps his range towards the top end, which means he has Ax. Another factor is that when we check river, we should have a lot of air because it isnt a good spot to bluff vs a handreader because of all the missed draws, which makes 5x and 7x less likely to be turned into bluffs seen from heros perspective, which strengthen the capping effect of the riverbet. So yes, it will work often enough if hero reads villains range well enough.

right, very good points. I'll say much of the same stuff just in a different way:

Depending on how each player views the other's range, the river A could be viewed as a good or bad bluff card for bb. If it's a bad bluff card because the view is the button hits the ace very often, then by extension its probably a bad value betting card too (esp if the assumption is button is too weak to call with 7x), therefore the guy should be checking his Qx and Tx instead of going for value. Most people will not expect others to turn showdown value into bluff after they clearly bluff catch the previous street, so therefore it would be a reasonable spot for the button to represent the A and use 5x/7x to basically freeroll a bet. If bb is value betting Qx on the turn, it makes little sense (given previous discussion) for button to have much air, so when the A peels off, bb checks and button bets, button "should" be just showing down his weak showdown value, betting with his air, or betting with the rivered A. Given we said it should be hard for button to make it to the river with air and given that default assumptions should be that people will just showdown their weak made hands and won't turn them into bluff, then it makes little sense for bb to c/c with Qx or Tx.

Recognizing and exploiting these types of situations is one subtle area where regs gain edges over other regs.