Micro Stakes Online NL Poker Forums

OK I'm back.

Hi so anyway. Here's what I think UTG's ranges are going to look like…

I don't think his stats are terribly interesting to this spot, which is why I didn't post them. I didn't have many hands but it's 10NL and we know it's a fairly passive game and he had fairly weak tight tendencies. Enough said.

I think he leads his over pairs half the time… and check raises them the rest of the time. I don't see him check calling an overpair here.

I think he'd lead sets half the time, check raise some, check call some in an attempt to be deceptive. That considered I'm going to give one combo of TT and 77 to his flop check calling range.

I think he'd lead AT almost always… and I don't think he has other Ts in his UTG opening range often enough to worry about too much.

I think he would check call 99 and 88 half the time and lead them half the time...

I think he check folds any pocket pair hands lower than 77 that he might have had up to that point.

I think his over cards hands therefore make up the bulk of his check/calling range. A few of those over card combos have flush draws too… but I think a weak tight player won't push the combo draw with something like a check raise so… keeping all those in.

All these assumptions above are exactly that and all come with the caveat that I'm always willing to be surprised by what a 10NL player does with a hand…



So I stoved an opening range of 55+ ATs+ KJs+ AJo+ and KQo (10% of hands… maybe KJs is a bit loose but it's 10NL and KJs is pretty)

I'm a 55/45 favourite vs this entire range on this flop with my 88s.

But that number is not quite relevant because I've said that I expect some hands to lead… half his overpair combos half his sets and almost all his AT.


So with those combos removed I'm a 60/40 favourite vs his combined flop check/raise + check/call + check/fold ranges.

So I get check/raised by 3 combos of AA, 3# of KK, 3# of QQ, 3# of JJ, and 2# of sets. All of which have me drawing to 2 outs.

He check/folds the 55-66 12 combos.

He check/calls 5 combos of 2overcard+FD hands that are flipping with me
He check/calls 6 combos of 99s that have me drawing to 2 outs
He check/calls the 1 remaining combo of 88s that chop with me.
He check/calls 105 combos of over cards with no flush draw (backdoor sometimes)

So wow yeah… Overcard non flush draw hands are the epic majority of hands in this range…

And yes those hands are a 3:1 dog vs my 88s.

So this is surely a bet for value which I get some protection from considering a free turn card is 3 times more likely to help him than me…

The value I get from 100 combos of over cards easily makes up for the occasional bet/fold to a check/raise.




As for bet sizing I don't see a reason to bet bigger due to any sort of elasticity in calling ranges… though I can agree to a larger bet than the one I made in order to make a c/c with over cards worse given I expect them to mostly call a 55c bet as often as a 40c bet. So that just comes down to getting more value at that point and making it more -EV for those hands to call vs a villain who is unlikely to care enough about the difference between a 40c bet and a 55c bet.



A small post script is that I'm never in this hand super worried about "the other guy". I think his range is weak and he has not indicated much interest in the pot on the flop. I expect folds from him the vast majority of the time. That is why I have not gone into much depth for him. Though I guess his presence is a good added reason to make the bet like 55 rather than 40… as @huntse mentioned.


Betting the turn is going to be much much thinner because I expect a huge % of those over cards hands to fold to a turn bet on a blank turn. I still might consider a smallish bet to extract from stubborn AK hands, and Overs+FD hands… but probably not.

Does anyone see merit to the thinking that if I check through the turn I see some stabs from A-high on blank rivers I can call? This might be higher EV for me than attempting to bet the turn but I can't know what this villains tendencies will be. I just think it makes me look like I stabbed at the flop with air to try to pick it up, then shut down when I was called… so now he's going to try to stab at the river… but I dunno… probably over thinking it.

So to conclude for @Estist and others, unless I'm way off with the range (possible), or somewhere in the math, I think this spot warrants a bet mostly for value, and I get some protection for my vulnerable best hand vs a lot of 6-out draws.


@EUSSI while I think the situation where I'm the PFR and have two people OOP vs me… the dynamics of that situation are way too different… However the concept that players are forced to play more honestly in multiway pots does support a bet here when they both check despite me NOT being the pre flop raiser. So I agree with that to a certain extent.

Serious question here...

How much are you guys taking into consideration the vulnerability of your hand when it's likely the best hand now... when you decide to bet or not?

I mean... if we are considering getting your opponents to fold their equity (with say a big draw or 2 overs to my pair in this case) as a part of value (which I'm pretty sure Baluga talks about in EG3) then that reason for betting... protection... IS value.

So I'm getting VALUE from getting worse hands to fold if he folds KJ for example... it's not a bluff because my hand is better... but I get value from his KJ hand which has about 23-24% equity... dropping to 0% equity when he mucks...

@stanmore - I think this is a super good analysis! Given everything that you said it looks like it's definately a bet! However, the following bit is questionable:

A small post script is that I'm never in this hand super worried about "the other guy". I think his range is weak and he has not indicated much interest in the pot on the flop. I expect folds from him the vast majority of the time.

If you stove your equity versus both ranges it should be around 30%-40% depending on what you stick in there. So surely this must change your assessment on the situation somewhat? No reason to skip part of your analysis, a similar spot will come up again in future no doubt

Don't think people bluff very often on the river so might not be worth it at these stakes although versus a loose aggressive regular I'd definately consider it.

Solid analysis Stanmore!

As you showed this spot is pretty much always a bet on the flop here, checking back is a leak, maybe not a major leak but a leak nonetheless.

3betting pre could be ok but flatting will always be +EV, so readless a call can't be a bad option.

Serious question here...

How much are you guys taking into consideration the vulnerability of your hand when it's likely the best hand now... when you decide to bet or not?

I mean... if we are considering getting your opponents to fold their equity (with say a big draw or 2 overs to my pair in this case) as a part of value (which I'm pretty sure Baluga talks about in EG3) then that reason for betting... protection... IS value.

So I'm getting VALUE from getting worse hands to fold if he folds KJ for example... it's not a bluff because my hand is better... but I get value from his KJ hand which has about 23-24% equity... dropping to 0% equity when he mucks...

Perhaps think about how showdown value works a bit more deeply. The reasons for a profitable bet doesn't have to fall into a well defined "bucket" of value, bluff, protection, etc. In order to have showdown value you must actually reach the showdown and win. So think about the various turn and river runouts and your opponent strategies then see if that leads you to a spot where you can win the showdown. Only when you put together the entire hand including the turn and river play can you completely understand showdown value and how to best play hands and spots just like this one.

Also: all in equity calculations on the flop vs ranges misses the whole point here. Think about why this is and you'll get better at poker. Good luck!

How can checking ever be a leak? The essence of a value bet is that you want to get called. If this is such a clear bet then surely Stanmore should be betting bigger and delighted when he gets two calls?

@stanmore - I think this is a super good analysis! Given everything that you said it looks like it's definately a bet! However, the following bit is questionable:



If you stove your equity versus both ranges it should be around 30%-40% depending on what you stick in there. So surely this must change your assessment on the situation somewhat? No reason to skip part of your analysis, a similar spot will come up again in future no doubt

Thanks I'll look at the other guys range too tomorrow and see what that spits out.

Perhaps think about how showdown value works a bit more deeply. The reasons for a profitable bet doesn't have to fall into a well defined "bucket" of value, bluff, protection, etc. In order to have showdown value you must actually reach the showdown and win. So think about the various turn and river runouts and your opponent strategies then see if that leads you to a spot where you can win the showdown. Only when you put together the entire hand including the turn and river play can you completely understand showdown value and how to best play hands and spots just like this one.

Also: all in equity calculations on the flop vs ranges misses the whole point here. Think about why this is and you'll get better at poker. Good luck!

Thanks dude I'm gonna think about that a bit before saying any more. I think I know what you're on about but not sure.

Wow I was working on a range etc. for "The Other Guy" as @estist suggested... and time got away from me.

I'm not finished and I'm dead tired. So I'm gonna sleep and finish tomorrow night.

Then after that I'll combine the two together to examine the spot multiway.

Lastly I'll have to look at the playability of the hand for various turn/river combos.. as @shuttle has alluded to... this is likely to lead me to many more problems and questions. (coz I suck at teh pokerz)

Back tomorrow.

i woudlnt worry about working on a Pokerstove range for the other guy, his relative position is gonna make him play very honest, and so is PFR...shuttle3 is pretty spot on with his post....you shouldnt really be pokerstoving villains ranges multi-way one person etc, because villains arent gonna be playing certain parts of there range passively or aggressive etc...And us looking at there ranges is gonna make us dependant on exactly in a way that pokerstove says.if were 40% well we are gonna play the hand passive cause we are behind...well doesnt mean we cant bluff out parts of his range...Pokerstove is pot equity vs a range...it doesnt include FE, player types or anything like that or planning the hand, there is turns and rivers to come and FE, value etc....Just plan the most +EV line vs villain....just cause we are behind in pokerstove doesnt mean we should be playing passive.

Well in my opinion it's very important to figure out your opponents. I personally like to dive into my database and look for similar spots and see what people show up with, and how they play it. Like I said before, I have no objection against betting if there is reasoning and a plan in place for later streets. My own analysis has shown in the past, especially at 5, 10NL and 20NL that people do not fold very often on these types of boads. So if they are not going to fold and your going to bet, you've got to know what they have in their calling range and how your going to approach turn and river. I argued that if you check it back, and they check another round on whatever turn card, their range is defined i.e. they can no longer have any (or a minor amount) of their betting and raising range but they still have a calling range thats weak and a folding range. We could in such cases still get a street or perhaps even two streets of value. Overall I think that the EV of this play will be a bit higher than betting the flop, but who knows

Yep to both of you I agree... I actually need practice just looking at ranges and seeing how skewed they are anyway. It's frustrating attempting to put fish on ranges.. that's why someone like me gets lazy and just resorts to the pedestrian adage of just betting betting betting and folding when they raise.

I'll be looking at the possible turns and rivers situation after that.

It is true that this hand cannot be analysed properly as though the flop is the only street to be played.

But there has to be better and more efficient ways to look at a poker spot than what I'm doing... Like ok I work full time and such so this conversation is being drawn out over a week or whatever... but even so I've spent several hours just thinking about what their ranges can be, what I think they will probably do with the different parts of their ranges and so on...

So the fact that it's a multiway spot doesn't help...

It looks like what Shuttle wants me to do is extrapolate out different types of turn and river combinations... how I expect the rest of the hand to play out vs the different parts of 2 villain's ranges... if I do different things on the turn and/or river...

It's a mind boggling task IMO... I must be doing something wrong or approaching something wrong.

It's obvious that this sort of analysis in some form is an essential part of becoming balla at teh pokerz... because decent players appear to be able to announce with confidence that they're going to do x with the intention of doing y on these turns and z on these turns etc...

I must be doing it wrong... or maybe it's just because I'm going through the process of forming ranges for my villains along the way... which I'm not used to doing so that's taking time...


Are there any DC videos on this kind of thing worth watching?

Hey contact me on skype, this is a ton easier to explain that way.

pot bet ATC here as a bluff and take it down often.

Why not post it itt Shuttle?

Why not post it itt Shuttle?

We went over it a bit. It's not super-secret but it was in Australian so there will be some delay in translating it to English.

I have barely gotten started with this spot. It's way more interesting to me than I ever thought when I originally posted it.

So the conversation is definitely not over.

I would like to hear more also! Interesting topic...

Im 3 betting pre with about an 80 or 90 cents to iso the fish .... then c betting the wet flop in position if its hu ..
If its not hu then I shut down .b+b... I don't mind flat calling if the fish are 100bb+ deep. It also depends on the fishes stats too ...

We went over it a bit. It's not super-secret but it was in Australian so there will be some delay in translating it to English.

I have barely gotten started with this spot. It's way more interesting to me than I ever thought when I originally posted it.

So the conversation is definitely not over.

??? isnt australlian, english??

??? isnt australlian, english??

short answer yes..long answer no.

Truth is I'm going to do a full breakdown of the spot... using a different method, but that is going to take me some time. Like most of tomorrow.... but it'll hopefully lay out an approach to a spot like this one.

Looking forward to your analysis Something else that might be useful is changing your hand and/or the board texture to see what effect that has on the situation. This will help you on the tables where you've not only analysed just 1 hand in that spot, but several hands

So far done a full breakdown of both villain's ranges and what I expect to go into their flop check/call, flop check/raise, and flop check/fold ranges. I've been painfully slow doing this, but that's because I'm new to looking at them in such detail. With practise I expect to speed up enormously with analysis of this type.

I've already discovered a few interesting things about the sorts of turn cards that are going to affect this.

I'm sorry it's taking so long but I'm having difficulty thinking well. Work has me in on graveyard shift doing the broadcast of the stupid cricket from England. And Australia isn't even beating them anymore. Sucks.

I've got a couple of days off coming up after tonight though and can finish then.

How can checking ever be a leak? The essence of a value bet is that you want to get called. If this is such a clear bet then surely Stanmore should be betting bigger and delighted when he gets two calls?

What do you mean how can checking ever be a leak?

We should think about this spot in terms of whether betting or checking has a higher EV, not necessarily if we can get called by worse.

Edit: not saying that we can't bet for value in this spot, but that's not a complete thought process.

The two villains in this hand will often bet with better hands here imo especially given that the PFR was first to act OTF. We can bet here and expect to often get called by some OC's, draws, 7x, lower PP's. We also don't mind just taking down the dead money because the other two players in the hand have decent combined equity vs. our hand.

Not going to go over the same point over and over but betting AA here is clearly the right play and for value. Betting pockets 8s is a grey area because it depends on your villains and your skill level. Even if it is more +EV, if hero is making mistakes on turn or river that +EV will go quickly down the drain. Stanmore's analysis should clear a lot up though because it will provide his views and reads on villains, which greatly affects the decision of course!

What do you mean how can checking ever be a leak?

We should think about this spot in terms of whether betting or checking has a higher EV, not necessarily if we can get called by worse.

Edit: not saying that we can't bet for value in this spot, but that's not a complete thought process.

The two villains in this hand will often bet with better hands here imo especially given that the PFR was first to act OTF. We can bet here and expect to often get called by some OC's, draws, 7x, lower PP's. We also don't mind just taking down the dead money because the other two players in the hand have decent combined equity vs. our hand.

checking would most likely be a leak because we would be playing these spots to passively and be losing out on money in similiar spots....betting also sets up easier streets to play us being IP...turns and rivers are usually gonna go chk chk....depending on turn overs..so if we were to check flop turn comes high card our FE is gonna go way up and be less likely to get value from made low hands and the card could have easily hit villain so we might be v-cutting ourselves, and now we are making the mistakes by #1 checking the flop # 2 v-cutting ourselves..If we were to bet flop villain is most likely to make the mistake #1 calling without the right odds/gambling, #2 playing fit or fold on the turn #3 not v-betting if he hits that high card..when we could make the right play as betting for value on flop, having turn check through and folding river if he leads or chking and winning the pot., where as flop is the place we should have got it...and betting flop is gonna be a more +EV pot control line on other streets...Only way villain really makes the right play is if hes slowplaying a monster...

*this is of course that pfr calls and second villain is folding...2nd villain calling changes things a lot I think