In Depth Analysis: Episode 40

So this week’s hand on the podcast is all about getting value. The main questions I’m posing in this analysis are about how to best get value from villain’s marginal hands. Here is a quick recap of the action.

Dave opens to $12 utg+1 (covers) with KK. MP ($500) calls. Everyone else folds.

Flop (25) KK7r.

Dave checks, villain checks.

Turn (25) 5, completing rainbow.

Dave bets 15, villain min-raises to 30, Dave makes it 60, villain calls.

River (145) 2

Dave bets 200, villain calls.

So I think Dave’s opening range probably looks something like this in early position.

You may be wondering why this range is important since we know Dave’s true holdings. To me, the value of looking at this range is in trying to gauge how his opponent should play against his range, and hopefully how our opponent will play against him.

Villain called in middle position. I think many players at $1/$2 call fairly wide and don’t three bet often. Therefore, I think villain’s flatting range resembles the following range.

A couple of notes on this range. I think villain will sometimes 3-bet JJ and sometimes flat QQ. Since there isn’t a huge difference in value the way the board came out, I just included all JJ and no QQ since I think it closely reflects the combos of high pairs in villain’s range. Villain may also flat some AK/AQ, but AK is irrelevant given the runout, and AQs vs AJs has a similar treatment to QQ and JJ. A more accurate range probably includes half of AQs and one combo of QQ.

Flop KK7r (25)

So looking at Villain’s range on flop, I notice he has a decent amount of 7’s and a lot of pairs. Still, it would hard to get more than 1 street of value from these hands and villain may bet for protection anyways. Villain also has a lot of A high that could call one street, but seems unlikely given opponents description as a passive player.

A good question to ask ourselves is how should villain bet when checked to? It’s not a terrible idea for villain to check his whole range since he has very few hands that could comfortably get three streets of value. If villain wants to have a betting range, it would probably include 77, kq, and maybe kj for value. He should then probably balance that with qj, qt, jt with backdoor flush draws. That still leaves villain a little value heavy, so he could include 98, t8, t9 w/ backdoor flush draw as well.

Perhaps a better question would be what is villain actually betting given the knowledge that there are no kings in range. It is unlikely that villain has a smart bluffing range and very conceivable that villain has no bluffing range. A flop bet seems very likely to be for protection, so the range probably includes some combination of pairs are betting, maybe some A high.

Above is an estimate of villain’s flop checking range. The hands that I’m having Villain bet are AJs, 99, 88, 97, 87 to represent the protection betting portion of Villain’s range. I’m having Villain bet QJs as a potential educated bluffing hand. I also think Villain will bet about half of 77. I think JJ and TT are more likely to check since they have less to fear on the turn and river. Basically, this shows that we should not raise if Villain does bet the flop since we are likely to shut out any future value from this betting range excluding 77.

In game, Dave checks and the villain checks. We see an offsuit 5 on the turn.

Considering Villain’s range on the turn, I’m not sure we should be value betting yet. Villain turned a lot of straight draws, 98, 86, 64. Villain’s value range includes 55, 77. I think when we check, a similar thing is likely to happen that happened on a flop. JJ, TT, 76, 75, 55 are all likely to bet. There is also a ton of air still in the range that could decide to bluff in addition to some nice bluffing hands like the straight draws. Villain has not turned many hands that will call two streets so I think a check is still best. When we bet call turn, we have a tough decision on the river in terms of checking or leading. I think a small lead is likely best since almost all pairs are checking back. It would be nice to give the missed bluffs an opportunity to continue, but if that seems unlikely, then leading is almost certainly best.

Dave ended up betting 15 into 25, and the villain raised to 30. As played, I think villain’s turn raising range looks something like this.

I don’t think this exact range is likely, but I think the hands represent a type of thought process likely for this villain. 55,77 represent value. 86 and 64 are the hands that I think are likely bluffs. 98 represents a small lower equity bluff range. I don’t think it is much more likely villain is bluffing with 98 than just an A high hand or something. However, it is a slightly more natural fit as a low equity bluff, and the overall frequency matches my assumption about this villain’s low equity bluffing frequency. The final category or weird protection raises contains JJ and 75. Of JJ and TT, I think a call is very likely, so I’ll include some but not all JJ in the raising range. 75 represents other weird protection possibilities and is a better choice to protection bet since it blocks 55 and 77 which are in our range. I think this range shows how a turn jam is sacrificing a lot of value from the non-full house portion of villain’s range. I think calling is best if villain is likely to barrel the river with missed draws. If not, which is more likely, then I like the small raise as played.

Villain probably folds the 98 and 75 (or whatever those hands may represent in the actual range), so we have draws, full houses, and a combo or two of middle pairs heading to the river. After the complete blank of the offsuit 2 of the river, in the podcast episode, we discussed the merits of open shoving, check shoving, betting around 50, or betting 100. I think JJ is likely to call 100, but the draws are never bluff raising that sizing. When we check, I think JJ checks back but the draws are not bluffing that often. I like betting $50 or even a little smaller to try and induce a bluff raise from missed draws. If you are holding 86 on this board and you are led into for $30-$40 into a pot of $145, it’s going to be pretty frustrating to just fold.

So let’s look at sizings of $0, $40, and $100 on the river. I think shoving is wrong since we never get value from the draws and middle pairs and probably don’t get extra value from the full houses which will likely bet and call when checked to.

The ratio of missed draws to JJ is 8:1. When we check, we get (8/9)*(bluff frequency)*(the bluff size). Let’s say the bluffing size is $80 since most amateurs don’t bluff very large. When we bet $100, we get $100 1/9 of the time and probably never get bluff raised. Therefore the value of this bet is $11.

To make more than $11 by checking, we need the value of our check, x*8/9*80 where x is villain’s bluffing frequency, to be greater than $11. When we solve for x, we see that when x>15.5%, we make more than $11 from checking. Most villains are probably bluffing either 0% or 100% of the time when checked to here with missed draws rather than employing a mixed strategy of checks and bluffs. Therefore, we need him to be a player who always bluffs missed draws at least 15.5% of the time.

When we bet 40, let’s assume villain’s bluff raise size is 120. Therefore, we can express the value from this bet as 40*1/9+120*8/9*y where y is the bluff raising frequency. To be greater than $11, y must be at least 6%. So of villain is bluff raising 6% with bluffs, then we are doing better from a $40 bet than a $100 bet. This shows why inducing bluffs is so much more profitable than value betting when villain has an 8:1 bluff:value ratio. I am personally confident that we will be getting bluff raised more than 6% of the time when we bet $40 from the tilt factor alone. Therefore, I think we should be choosing between a bet of $40 (or a similar sizing) and checking. If more combos of pairs are likely (for example, a pair of QQ from preflop), then betting becomes more attractive.

To me, the main takeaways from this hand are to check out of position on the flop and turn when we have a nutted hand and our opponent’s range is composed of stack-off hands, 1-street value hands, and bluffs. Also, when we are in a situation where our opponent has a very large ratio of bluffs to bluff-catchers, we will do better trying to induce bluffs than by value betting, especially on the river.

#indepthanalysis #maxvalue #quads #MarylandLive