---

Poker Video: Limit Hold'Em by Deepsquat (High Stakes)

> If we agree that we need a turn checking range (if you do?), then what should it be?

If we think villain always bets TT+ and Ax here and calls down when we c/r, what does balancing our play here achieve for our meta-game? Also, you mentioned he is an unknown which means there is a decent chance we will never play against him again.

On the other hand, if this is our assumption, then going for a c/r should be the most profitable play as, according to my calculations, him having KK-TT is more likely than him having Ax (there is a large chance that UTG folded an Ax hand likely leaving only 2 As left).

Going for the turn c/r also has the benefit of saving us a BB when villain has a set and 3-bets after our c/r (assuming we don't cap our top 2 pair - do you?).

So, I think I've come around on this hand. My initial instinct was that villain much more likely to have Ax than a pocket pair here and going for a c/r is likely costing us a BB. But after some work, I see the opposite is the case (that pocket pairs are much more likely). So, while maybe I don't understand the need to balance our checking range here, it appears that the c/r line may be the most +EV.

> If we agree that we need a turn checking range (if you do?), then what should it be?

If we think villain always bets TT+ and Ax here and calls down when we c/r, what does balancing our play here achieve for our meta-game? Also, you mentioned he is an unknown which means there is a decent chance we will never play against him again.

On the other hand, if this is our assumption, then going for a c/r should be the most profitable play as, according to my calculations, him having KK-TT is more likely than him having Ax (there is a large chance that UTG folded an Ax hand likely leaving only 2 As left).

Going for the turn c/r also has the benefit of saving us a BB when villain has a set and 3-bets after our c/r (assuming we don't cap our top 2 pair - do you?).

So, I think I've come around on this hand. My initial instinct was that villain much more likely to have Ax than a pocket pair here and going for a c/r is likely costing us a BB. But after some work, I see the opposite is the case (that pocket pairs are much more likely). So, while maybe I don't understand the need to balance our checking range here, it appears that the c/r line may be the most +EV.

Not usre if i mentioned in the video (thought i did) that these sort of plays should be designated for regs/people you have history with. Like you said, its pretty useless vs unknowns.

In terms of meta-game or whatever terminology people like to use, I like to look at our range as a whole when we cr the flop like we did and then are confronted with this turn card.

Theoretically, it means that villain cant vbet us as thinly as he would like, which means we get free cards occasionally with draws and also means we can save bets with hands like 9x or 66 (if you play the flop this way) that may not want to b/c or b/f turn. I think chk/chk isnt a bad result on the turn in general given his likely range. If he doesnt charge us with TT-KK sometimes thats obviously good.

Overall it allows us to not be transparent and make villains decisions harder.

If we always bet this turn, I think its probably not correct in general. We cost ourself too much to SD
If we always chk with an average strength hand or draw, then we are unbalanced and villain can vbet with impunity

Checking with 100% of our range vs a good player could be xpert??.....interesting discussion

Concerning the A9 hand, I'm sure we need a check range here on turn, but not sure whether a CR range is really necessary and realistic (unless maybe if you go for the 100% check turn option). The thing is, this is a quite special situation already - you cold called in BB and CR'd flop. If you CR your two pairs here for value, how do you plan to construct a bluff range for this turn? If it's just JTcc, QJcc it's looking pretty thin (may be enough though, depending on how many 2 pairs you actually can have here).

What I'm worried about here is villain either checking back the draws (showdownable except for an unlikely JTs!) he has in his range or getting away from his [pair/overs to the flop] at some point in the hand when you go for the double check raise, gaining you nothing but missing the opportunity to 3!.

Oh btw having the "special focus section" in the end of the video is nuts, there's plenty of "play along" videos out there (not that I'm complaining about that part). Might even be in the beginning of the video so if a spot in the real time play actually comes up, you get to say "and as we discussed in the theory part, here's a great spot to...".

lol, just noticed... in case there was any doubt, I meant to say "The Nutzz", not "nuts".

Concerning the A9 hand, I'm sure we need a check range here on turn, but not sure whether a CR range is really necessary and realistic (unless maybe if you go for the 100% check turn option). The thing is, this is a quite special situation already - you cold called in BB and CR'd flop. If you CR your two pairs here for value, how do you plan to construct a bluff range for this turn? If it's just JTcc, QJcc it's looking pretty thin (may be enough though, depending on how many 2 pairs you actually can have here).

What I'm worried about here is villain either checking back the draws (showdownable except for an unlikely JTs!) he has in his range or getting away from his [pair/overs to the flop] at some point in the hand when you go for the double check raise, gaining you nothing but missing the opportunity to 3!.

It certainly an interesting spot. Im pretty sold on checking this turn alot in this particular spot for the reasons i gave earlier in the thread. But i think B/3b can be good with the range i listed above.

Regarding bluff ranges or semi-bluff ranges on the turn, i think we only really need a couple of combos as there are only a few value cr combos we will have. JTs is definately there and any straight draws that pick up a FD on the turn that we raised flop with, 76s will be in my range alot. Some may say its too loose but i think its profitable, especially if there is a bad player in the pot.

I think we need to consider all possible scenarios on the turn with all of our range and weigh them up as opposed to the occasional time we give overcards to our TT or whatever a free card when we chk the turn. You can certainly be unbalanced here vs some opponents and it will be fine, but i think vs regs who will punish you with KK or any Ax on the turn here, we should consider a balanced chk range.

Also, you dont realistically need to be balanced in this turn spot. You can chk/r a predominantly value based range here and get away. As long as there are a couple of semi bluffs in there you are ok. Villain doesnt know your true frequency.

I should also mention that we should be slowplaying occasionally on the flop here too. Probably a KK/AA hand could be good. Its not a disaster to let UTG in, in fact it can be +EV and can mean we can rep a stronger range on the turn here the times we peel with QJs or whatever and can really semibluff credibly because we are rarely strong

As long as there are a couple of semi bluffs in there you are ok. Villain doesnt know your true frequency.

But... but... that's like cheating on GTO

I guess you've sold the "card removal effect" to me here... I've been using that myself more on river CR spots, when A rivers for example. It's not that the effect itself is so huge here, especially when you expect villain to raise any TT+, but there's also the matter of balancing again... if you b/3! all of your 2 pairs here, there just won't be enough bluffs to go around.

Which is part of what's bugging me here. In a [0...1] range game one could theoretically always find the perfect ranges to flopCR-turnB3!-riverCRfold, for example, but with finite card combinations that's not going to happen. Which was why I was wondering earlier about whether a perfect turn CR range (or even any turn CR range!) has to be present in this quite unusual turn spot (CC pre, CR flop, turn is an A).

Maybe this has been discussed somewhere (links appreciated), but how do you figure out which ranges are the important ones to be constructed to reach a good GTO approximation? For a simple example, you seem to have only call and fold ranges when facing a steal in BB (no callers in between). That's an easily balancable set of ranges, but it's likely not GTO (you're in effect exploiting the fact that villain will make later mistakes against your now super wide call range). Most people don't have a donk range on flop hu (and many even multiway, it seems), which once again is not likely to be GTO but exploiting the tendency of contbetting. Turn donk betting ranges seems to be super narrow etc.

As an aside, I've been reading on 2+2 about how Polaris is being developed. They're actually trying to handle the early stages of the hand as precisely as possible and grouping stuff more later on, reason being that any savings on computational intensity preflop are negligible compared to later streets. It's kind of opposite of what I've heard as a reasoning for "no 3! BB hu" (something in the lines of "it makes things easier to just group my hands into one range here").

Hopefully phil reads your post, he knows more than I do about the development of polaris and also GTO in general. I know very little about how its developed, algorithms, game tree etc

I think it definately makes sense though to tackle the easiest street first. As the game tree expands throughout the hand obviously decisions become more complex and it seems each polaris is becoming better each year. So i assume they arent bucketing as many hands together as they were in previous years, but i dont know that much about it tbh

Regarding GTO ranges etc, i will defer to some of the "GTO" guys. I guess the term gets thrown around alot instead of balance. Ive never actually done any specific calcs to decide my ranges, i simply try and make sure im reasonably balanced in each spot. Its prob not the answer you were looking for but id by lying if i told you i sit there all day calculating best way to reach GTO, esepcially in 3handed+

I think it would get so complicated for multiway that most humans will prob do themself a diservice trying to figure it all out while playing. The average reg plays so far from GTO anyway probably