Hand range check

About 30 hands on SB. looks like an aggressive set miner. Stats like 10/7.

PokerStars No-Limit Hold'em, $0.25 BB (6 handed) - Poker-Stars Converter Tool from FlopTurnRiver.com

saw flop

MP ($33.10)
CO ($24.50)
Button ($17.95)
SB ($25.45)
BB ($29.65)
Hero (UTG) ($29.95)

Preflop: Hero is UTG with 10, 10
Hero bets $1, 2 folds, Button calls $1, SB calls $0.90, 1 fold

Flop: ($3.25) 6, 3, 3 (3 players)
SB checks, Hero bets $2, 1 fold, SB calls $2

Turn: ($7.25) 4 (2 players)
SB checks, Hero bets $3.50, SB raises to $10.25, Hero raises to $26.95 (All-In), SB calls $12.20 (All-In)

River: ($52.15) A (2 players, 2 all-in)

Total pot: $52.15 | Rake: $2.55

When SB checks the turn I felt that his hand range contained predominantly weak overpairs: 77-99. I think AA-JJ could easily have been raised preflop, been a lead on the flop, a raise on the flop or a lead on the turn. Most 55,44,22 and AK/AQ hands would fold the flop. Since I'm showing fairly unapologetic strength I would have assumed 66 to either lead flop, raise flop or lead turn. While 33 could have slowplayed this way, it could also have bet out. Thus I feel this particular line is taken almost 100% with 77-99 and between 10% and 30% with most other hands that can take it.

Therefore I size my turn bet to be something I think 77-99 would call - something too small for them to fold. I think I can definitely bet for value, but I do also want an element of pot control. I don't mind if this does not become a stack-off hand.

When I get raised I start reassessing the opponents range. This now looks like a committing bet. I revisit the hands that crush me: AA-JJ, 66, 44, 33 - and I just don't think an aggressive set miner who relies on his sets and strong overpairs for profit would play these so passively on his first three post-flop actions. Then I examine my own hand range, and it occurs to me that my bet size seems weak and that I could easily be put on unpaired overs, especially all unpaired hands with two diamonds. I assess my opponents bet size and decides that it was picked to contain fold equity. It's not that all-too-common cocksure small raise that doesn't want you to fold but just wants to bloat the pot.

So I go back to the core of the range I put him on when he checked: 77-99 and ask myself if he would raise that subrange when I show weakness - show myself to have a hand that would like a cheap bluff or a cheap showdown. The other hands in my opponents range that do become more likely when he raises are AK/AQ that sometimes call the flop to see if they hit a pair on the turn, and which in this case responds to my weakness as a semi-bluff.

I suspect he will respond to apparent weakness because in the few hands he has played he has been consistently aggressive.

I consider calling and discard it. If he has 77-99 or AK/AQ and he doesn't improve on the river to beat me he'll fold the river. If I raise the turn he'll likely call 77-99 and fold AK/AQ, which means the raise serves to extract more value from hands I beat and protect my hand against being drawn out on by AK/AQ. I think it can also be interpreted as bluffy making it more likely that he'll call the 77-99 hands that I focus on.

My problem is this: When I played the hand and I thought what I did above, I focused an awful lot on a pretty narrow range of hands. I know that the whole point of hand reading is to be able to put your opponent on a narrow range of hands and make superb plays based on knowing exactly what he has and him not knowing what you have - but I worry if in this case my decision to narrow his range to 77-99 was sound. What's your thoughts on this?

Originally Posted by Erpel

What's your thoughts on this?

1) you are far too quick to discount TT-QQ, random threes, 66, etc. You really think a player like this 3-bets JJ?
2) you are far too quick to try and make huge reads based on a trivial sample (30 hands wtf, 6-max i can easily run between 8-6 and 60-45 over a 30 hand sample), especially reads on post-flop tendencies
3) your bet-sizing makes no sense post-flop
4) re-do your range analysis based on actions not results, don't do it to try and justify your play, post again
5) you assume that villain is thinking a whole lot more about line and betsizing than he actually is - well, more than most 100nl regs anyway...
6) how many flop check-call, turn check-raises without monsters have you seen recently?

also check

Since I'm showing fairly unapologetic strength

&

and it occurs to me that my bet size seems weak and that I could easily be put on unpaired overs,

for logic-consistency

looks like 66/44/33 only

I'd discount 77-99 only because I tend to think ppl think like me, which is incorrect, but I'd never c/r 77-99 on the turn here for value obviously.

Originally Posted by daven

Originally Posted by Erpel

What's your thoughts on this?

1) you are far too quick to discount TT-QQ, random threes, 66, etc. You really think a player like this 3-bets JJ?
2) you are far too quick to try and make huge reads based on a trivial sample (30 hands wtf, 6-max i can easily run between 8-6 and 60-45 over a 30 hand sample), especially reads on post-flop tendencies
3) your bet-sizing makes no sense post-flop
4) re-do your range analysis based on actions not results, don't do it to try and justify your play, post again
5) you assume that villain is thinking a whole lot more about line and betsizing than he actually is - well, more than most 100nl regs anyway...
6) how many flop check-call, turn check-raises without monsters have you seen recently?

also check

Since I'm showing fairly unapologetic strength

&

and it occurs to me that my bet size seems weak and that I could easily be put on unpaired overs,

for logic-consistency

Excellent, thanks for your comments. This is exactly what I was looking for. I worried that I had been focusing my attention on a very narrow range and wasn't confident that it was justified.

The logic-consistency check works for me. The first sentence refers only to my actions pre-flop and on the flop (and suggests that 66 would have thought me strong enough to continue against him betting/raising me, justifying faster play). The second one refers strictly to my turn bet sizing which I think is easily read as pot controlling or a drawing hand.

That said, I've gone over the ranges a couple of times and I'm not really coming up with many differences. While I agree the sample size is pathetic I go with what information I have and that strongly favours the opponent being nitty or a set miner. I think post flop he will continue with sets and overpairs and generally steal if a pot looks orphaned or people look very weak.

Going back to talk about hands - whether or not they belong in the opponents range for the actions: call preflop, check/call flop, check/raise turn
AA-KK: Both somewhat likely to be 3bet pre. These could have been bet on flop, raised on flop or bet out on turn, but are strong enough that a passive line could be perceived as justified some of the time. Probably follow this line pre-flop around 50% and get to this turn around 10-15% of the time.
QQ-JJ: Unlikely to be 3bet pre. These I feel should have been bet for protection/value on either flop or turn. Any ace or king coming would be bad news for them and they might well be the best hand at this time. Probably call to see a flop 80-90% and get to this point on the turn about 10-15% of the time.
TT-77: Pretty consistent. More towards the TT end is probably more likely to bet for protection. Would definitely all call flop. Probably at least checking this turn 70% of the time - check/raising is not really the preferred play. I would consider check/call to occur quite often due to the smallish bet size. Key concern for the whole situation is probably how often these hands decide to raise in this particular situation when they have seen my bet size.
66: If opponent is playing set-it-or-forget-it as his master strategy that also involves stacking off when he hits his set. He may be slowplaying to let me throw as much money in on bluffs and semi-bluffs as I like before he takes it down. I still think he'd bet out on either flop or turn some of the time and think he gets to the turn check-raise about 50% of the time.
55-44: While I think there is a case for opponent calling flop with these hands, if behind they only have 2 outs and I think most set miners would set it or forget it - meaning fold flop with these hands most of the time. If 44 calls turn is consistent. With so many flop folds I expect 44 to arrive on the turn 10% of the time or less.
33: Consistent. Could bet flop or turn or raise flop. Probably preferring this line though at 70%
22: I think would fold flop.
AK/AQ: AK is a possible PF 3bet. I don't think it's in character for a nitty player to call flop with unpaired overs too often.
6x, 3x: I really don't see them in the preflop calling range of a nitty player who may even be a set miner. 76s? 43s? A6s? A3s? Calling OOP preflop in a 3way pot? While I can certainly see the argument for doing it with Axs, I doubt a nitty player would feel comfortable with it.
Axdd, KdQd: I think these are loose calls for this type of player preflop and on the flop. I don't expect them to occur very often. Not sure if he's comfortable c/r on a semi-bluff.

Regarding bet sizing: On the flop I bet TT for value and protection - I don't particularly want to see an overcard. I consider not betting because it's multiway reducing the chance I have the best hand, but I decide that even though I am multiway I am still good if called. I would not mind giving Ax and Kx hands bad odds for drawing to their hand. The flop is super-dry which suggests that a bet size between 1/3 to 1/2 pot is perfectly reasonable. But since the flop is multiway I increase the size of the bet. I don't want to make it so cheap that I get multiple callers where the second person gets fantastic odds when the first has called. I'm not looking to stack off. I'm ok with the flop bet size.

Turn bet sizing: At the table I felt when I was just called on the flop and checked to on the turn that I was most likely up against TT-66, 33 with the occasional 44. Since TT-77 are 19 combos and 66/33 are 4 I felt pretty good about continuing in the hand. My basic idea with the bet size was to find one that will be called by 77-99. What I should have done was pick a size that might be called by 77-99 and where if I was raised I could fold confidently. I think I botched the turn bet size and made it too small.

I still think opponents make similar bet sizing mistakes - like if my opponent had KK+, 66 or 33 he might very well have raised me to $8-$9 to make it cheaper for me to call and get pot stuck. Also I think the turn raise was slow - either he didn't plan to check/raise and only decided to raise after having thought for 20 seconds and deciding I was full of shit and his hand was best - or he deliberately slowed down the raise action.

I agree that check/call, check/raise is a typical monster line, and the only reason in this case I felt that it might be something else is because I noticed after the fact that my bet looked like I was looking for an excuse to fold - the turn check was quick and the turn raise was very slow and considered. Either he is aware of timing tells or the turn check was automatic (weak) and the turn raise was something he made only after considering the strength that I was representing. Or he was just playing multiple tables and didn't get around to acting earlier, which is also possible.

I accept that 66/33 certainly are in his range and crush me. 44 would also crush me if it got past the flop. However, I feel due to my display of weakness and I guess the timing of my opponents actions that he would certainly play 77-TT like this some of the time. And since that's many more combos and I felt it would be happening often enough for it to be a mistake for me to fold I went with it.

I realize I'm not really changing my tune much, but thanks for slapping me around a bit for trying to make soulreads on a super thin basis. I need that occasionally.

Spenda, thanks also. Especially thanks for somewhat agreeing that JJ+ might not be a big part of his range. I agree that 66/44/33 certainly play this line often and are the value segment of his range. I don't think 77-99 check/raise here for value. I think they check for pot control and if they put me on overs/55/dd with the weak bet size they may raise simply for protection. I'm not saying they would be right to do so, but I wouldn't be surprised to see it.

hate your turn bet-sizing

I think the main point is what Daven mentioned: "6) how many flop check-call, turn check-raises without monsters have you seen recently? "
Especially from this type of opponent.
I think that his call on the flop most likely is a set or a weak pair (relative).
And when the check-raise comes on the turn I would be very surprised if you are ahead. Also consider you opened from UTG so he will expect that you can have a high pair.
I would fold on turn.
Bet sizes looks fine to me since it is very unlikely he is on a draw.

$5 on turn, fold to the raise imo.

(1) 30 hands isn't enough to get a solid read. Add to the fact that these stats tell nothing about the way in which villain thinks about poker, plays postflop, or views you, and it's hard to make such exact assumptions about his ranges.

Some villains might think that on the turn 77-99 is worth a value c/r. Most villain's realize that is not the case facing an UTG opening range. I think more than likely this villain is off the latter that isn't loving getting 77-99 allin on the turn, and will likely opt to c/c or c/f (should probably be a c/f barring reads on you).

(2) Even over these 30 hands, villain has shown to be on the tighter side of things. Very much so in fact. 10/7 is tight at FR, it's a fucking nitty nit at 6m. So why do you believe that a nit is c/raising the turn light, or stacking off light for that matter?

(3) I said bet $5 on the turn because yes you are likely to be ahead on the turn when he checks. Villain probably 3bets KK/AA, maybe QQ. Without more stats/reads, I don't know what to make of JJ, but I would say not. So when he c/c flop, checks turn, you are looking at a likely range of {33,66-JJ} with a few combos of 44/55 tossed in. Although for him to c/c an UTG opens multiway cbet here with 44/55 is I believe bad. He also might have AK/AQ some % of the time, but probably not likely at all (which would also be bad).

Against that range, we can surely bet the turn for value. I can see the merits of a small bet, which is to try to get value from the 77-99 hands that you are ahead of, which might not like calling 2 or more streets. However, I like making it a bit bigger to setup the river pot size to stack size a bit better.

(4) When he check/raises, I find it hard to believe he is doing it with 77-99 (fwiw, he probably had 77-99 just because you are showing the hand.. Got a feeling this one turned out good). If he is that's absolutely turning his hand into a bluff. And not a very good one because (1) you appear to assume his range isn't that strong, and (2) your range is strong.

Which ties into my next point. From his point of view, if he's a decent thinking player that is (doubt he is), your range is very strong. You raised UTG, cbet into 2 villains, and are now betting a blank turn. Even though your betsizing is smallish on the turn, which could be a sign of weakness, your line overall is not. Which without a solid betsizing tell, he can't tell if you are betting small on the turn because you have a marginal hand, or are betting small just because you have a monster and want to keep him in. So the sizing can be read both ways (if he's even thinking).

So since you are repping a pretty credible strong range of sets + overpairs, we have to think he isn't doing this light on the turn. Which 77-99 would fair very poorly against your range. So given he now check/raises the turn, I assume his range is much stronger than yours, and fold.

So yeah.. In conclusion: Turn raises are srs bizness.

I'm not going to lie, I didn't read Erpel's second novel in this thread the 1st time through. But I did go back and read it, and now have a few more things to address.

Originally Posted by Erpel

I think post flop he will continue with sets and overpairs and generally steal if a pot looks orphaned or people look very weak.

As stated, it is okay to assume he will continue with sets/overpairs (obv); however, I don't think an overall nitty player is going to become absolute gung-ho on the turn with hands as marginal as 77-99 in this spot. However, it does depend on if the villain is thinking about your range. If he is, then he either c/c, or c/f turn. If he isn't, then he might c/r because "lol overpair".

Originally Posted by Erpel

AA-KK: Both somewhat likely to be 3bet pre. These could have been bet on flop, raised on flop or bet out on turn, but are strong enough that a passive line could be perceived as justified some of the time. Probably follow this line pre-flop around 50% and get to this turn around 10-15% of the time.

Obv KK/AA are likely to be squeezed preflop. However, I'm a bit confused on why you keep saying things like "these could have been bet on the flop", as you do here, and on numerous other possible strong hands. I mean sure it's possible that he donks the flop with 66/33/AA/KK/TT/etc. However, I think that will happen much less often than he will check (much much less often). And this is for a few reasons:

(1) You have a strong range. You raised UTG, and the majority of UTG ranges consist of pairs, therefore, here you likely have an overpair, and are likely to cbet.

(2) Even bad players realize other players cbet. Surely he is capable of checking 66/33, and KK/AA if he has those hands.

(3) Checking squeezes the other villain in the middle of the pot, and is more likely to get more money in the pot. If SB checks, you are likely to bet the bulk of your range (overpairs), whereby the Button can then make his decision on whether to continue, before SB has to act. However, if SB donks flop, you call/raise, Button can make a much more informed decision as to your range, and SBs range.

Note: this would be different if say a villain limp/called your open, and you were last to act on this flop. Then a lead from SB is maybe a bit more common as it forces the other villain to make his decision before you have to act, but still isn't the standard.

QQ-JJ: Unlikely to be 3bet pre. These I feel should have been bet for protection/value on either flop or turn. Any ace or king coming would be bad news for them and they might well be the best hand at this time. Probably call to see a flop 80-90% and get to this point on the turn about 10-15% of the time.

The same applies for these hands as did for the AA/KK/66/33 hands. They are much more likely to c/call, c/raise the flop I believe.

TT-77: Pretty consistent. More towards the TT end is probably more likely to bet for protection. Would definitely all call flop. Probably at least checking this turn 70% of the time - check/raising is not really the preferred play. I would consider check/call to occur quite often due to the smallish bet size. Key concern for the whole situation is probably how often these hands decide to raise in this particular situation when they have seen my bet size.

If you believe c/call to occur quite often, then why are you stacking off on the turn? I agree that he is likely to c/call 77-TT, which if that's the case makes stacking off on the turn pretty bad.

66: If opponent is playing set-it-or-forget-it as his master strategy that also involves stacking off when he hits his set. He may be slowplaying to let me throw as much money in on bluffs and semi-bluffs as I like before he takes it down. I still think he'd bet out on either flop or turn some of the time and think he gets to the turn check-raise about 50% of the time.

Players LOVE to slowplay when they have the boards crippled. 66 has the board crippled. He will be checking the flop like 100% of the time. If I have 66 here, I think I like a check/raise against a good player because I'm repping like 66/33, which is a very small range, and your range is also strong so you are not likely to fold when I'm repping such a thin value range. But I don't mind check/calls.

I bet he c/calls 66 here like always.

55-44: While I think there is a case for opponent calling flop with these hands, if behind they only have 2 outs and I think most set miners would set it or forget it - meaning fold flop with these hands most of the time. If 44 calls turn is consistent. With so many flop folds I expect 44 to arrive on the turn 10% of the time or less.

Him calling the flop with 55/44 is bad I think. However, that isn't to say he won't do it. Albeit not too likely because he is a nit. But if 44 does c/c flop, he is pretty likely to c/raise turn.

33: Consistent. Could bet flop or turn or raise flop. Probably preferring this line though at 70%

33, like 66, probably never, ever leads flop (for good reason).

22: I think would fold flop.

Yeah

Originally Posted by Erpel

I consider not betting because it's multiway reducing the chance I have the best hand, but I decide that even though I am multiway I am still good if called.

You shouldn't even consider not betting here. Near every villain is going to call at least 1 streets here with an overpair. You will be getting loads of value from those hands + you can get value from AK/AQ while also protecting your hand. But definitely a valuebet.

Originally Posted by Erpel

The flop is super-dry which suggests that a bet size between 1/3 to 1/2 pot is perfectly reasonable. But since the flop is multiway I increase the size of the bet.

I disagree with the part about the dry flop suggesting a 1/3-1/2 betsizing is good. We need to put villain on a range, and size our bets accordingly. In this spot, we can assume the majority of villain's continuing range is overpairs+. He is obviously calling whatever size with 66/33. However, we can rightfully assume he is likely to call up to a potsized bet with any overpair for at least 1 street. So we bet to reflect his likely continuing range. So I wouldn't say that 1/3-1/2 is standard here. I would opt for a larger bet because we get more value from the hands that we are ahead of as most call at least 1 street here.

If the board is A22, and we have 22, and we know that villain has AA 100% of the time. Just because the flop is super dry doesn't mean we have to bet small. His range is super strong, so we can size our bet accordingly. (obv extreme example).

Originally Posted by Erpel

Turn bet sizing: At the table I felt when I was just called on the flop and checked to on the turn that I was most likely up against TT-66, 33 with the occasional 44. Since TT-77 are 19 combos and 66/33 are 4 I felt pretty good about continuing in the hand. My basic idea with the bet size was to find one that will be called by 77-99. What I should have done was pick a size that might be called by 77-99 and where if I was raised I could fold confidently. I think I botched the turn bet size and made it too small.

I said I was against the turn betsizing, and wanted it a bit bigger, but here's something interesting to think of. You said it would be best to pick a raise size that would get calls from 77-TT, while also allowing you to fold if raised. That is you believe the best bet size is one that will unbalance villain's turn range. Which is true. If you can bet a size here that will make 77-TT want to call, but 66/33/44 feel as if they need to raise, then you win. A bet of that nature would not only allow us to fold correctly if raised on this turn, but also allow us to valuebet thinner on the river when called.

Maybe your turn betsizing did just that. I know he would have certainly felt he has to raise with 66/33 to build the pot, while he probably thinks with 77-TT that he s getting solid pot odds to call another street and evaluate the river. Just a thought. Manipulating ranges, and playing against unbalanced ranges is something ISF talks about a ton.