Turn CR vs PFR, strong ranges
Posted by Nick Howard
Posted by
Nick Howard
posted in
Mid Stakes
Turn CR vs PFR, strong ranges
SB: MadAgenda: $382.05
BB: VernonH: $145.70
UTG: CLICKBUTTON9: $203
HJ: daymom: $200
CO: SiKCalL_A7: $200
CLICKBUTTON9 folds, daymom raises to $5, SiKCalL_A7 folds, ssljvr folds, MadAgenda calls $4, VernonH calls $3
I'm trying to construct a good CR range OTT. I think this is a texture where we both hit pretty hard, so I expect villain to defend very aggressively. Here is the range I gave him, it's about a 1:1 range of value:bluffs:
AA-JJ,99,66,AKo-AJo,KQo,AKs-ATs,A8s,A6s-A2s,KQs-KTs,QJs-QTs,JTs-J9s,T8s
(A8s-A2s are FD only).
This range is 27.5% overpair+, 21%OESDorFD. So it's pretty easy for villain to defend vs CR >50% of the time if defends even a small % of his TP hands (AJ is probably a better call than QQ anyway).
I think my range is probably stronger, since my SB calling range is significantly tighter than if i were BB here. i'll have a much higher concentration of sets than him, esp since i don't make a habit of trying to play a flop raising range HU on rainbow.
With stronger ranges on both sides, it makes me think my bluffraising hands might need to be stonger(?). Or maybe they're just naturally stronger and this is what also causes IP to defend vs CR more aggressively? I thought KT was a good candidate b/c my low-end outs are pretty tainted in a c/c line.
Based on the distribution of HJ's turn calling range, it seems like this is probably a good spot to bluff river on (Q,J?9,7,6,5,4,3,2)non-clubs. In hand I thought bluffing most rivers would actually be pretty losing. My river bluffs also do better if we assume he plays some sort of turn RRR range with sets. It seems like even with all his sets intact, he'd have to felt almost all of his overpairs on those rivers to be calling enough (and even then i don't think he'd still need some TP felts b/c i'm getting a pretty good river jamming price).
I guess my conclusion is that i think i might be overly paranoid of bluffraising turns and following thru at solid fqcys on boards where both ranges are very strong.
Another thing that seems sort of counterintuitive to raising into a v strong range is that i seem to be able to raise a hand like 66 more safely when i expect villain to be defending turn more aggressively ... since he'll be required to felt wider OTR the more combos he defends OTT? Basically i think it's too rigid to use a model like "villain defends at 1-a to turn CR, and 1-a to river barrel" to try to get an idea of how many combos he needs to felt here. It seems like it's going to vary a lot based on the composition of his turn range ... and here i feel like he will be defending vs turn CR a lot.
My hunch would be that he is supposed to defend vs turn CR more aggressively than on most textures .. but regardless of what he's supposed to do, i think it's pretty easy for him to make stubborn calls vs CR with the turn c-bet range i gave him.
Loading 14 Comments...
I honestly don't like having a turn c/r range in my game. So I won't really comment on that. (I think it makes it too difficult to balance your entire range)
I do want to ask why you don't have a c/r range on mono-tone flops? This hand plays better as a c/r on the flop. You can barrel any diamond, K, Q, 8, 7. Being able to c/r gutters and bd fd or overs and bd fds, AA and KK that you flatted pre to induce BB to squeeze, sets, Q10 and top two allows you to play the hand much easier imo. C/Cing K hi on the flop is going to make it a very tricky/tough hand to play.
your reason for not wanting to play a turn CR range seems similar to mine for not wanting to play a flop CR ... i'm basically trying to limit my strategic options earlier in the hand so that i can control my ranges better.
I don't think i can delay raises all the way to the river in most spots without sacrificing a good deal of EV vs observant opponent's. here for instance, i think my range is strong enough that i lose too much value by never CR'ing turn (villain can bet TP+ and check back river too effectively)
Quick comment: Your sizing seems big on turn and doesn't leave much in stacks for a river barrel.
yea, i'm not really sure about what the right turn sizing is. MOP advocates trying to get money in with equal fractions on each street, but this seems to fall apart as ranges depolarize, and i would guess it makes more sense for the river sizing to be giving the best pot odds proportional to the other streets (?).
Again i have conflicting thoughts that sort of balance each other. On one hand you could say it doesn't give me much leverage to barrel river. On the other hand you could say i'm getting a great price with bluffs.
I think when you c/r to 79, a river bluff is pretty unattractive because of the price he'll get (you're jamming 107 or ~55% pot on riv) and the strength of his turn bet/call range. If you make it 70, you can 2/3 pot jam river. What do you think about the elasticity of your opponents turn bet/call range vs c/r sizings between 65-85?
I'm making no statements about what's theoretically sound.
i think it probably follows the trend it's supposed to in theory .. he probably lays down a little more of his weakest draw and/or some more TP+
i'm inconclusive on the psychological effect of the smaller river jam. On one hand villain is getting better odds and should be naturally more inclined to call. On another hand, villain could also just reverse that logic and give even more credit to the smaller bet size, since it seems to line up the river to induce a call.
What's wrong with flatting medium PPs from the SB vs HJ?
Dario why are you talking about 22-66? I thought we were discussing the actual board in this hand so 66-JJ?
"AA-JJ,99,66,AKo-AJo,KQo,AKs-ATs,A8s,A6s-A2s,KQs-KTs,QJs-QTs,JTs-J9s,T8s"
I think it is extremely optimistic to assume that villain will double barrel all of his AKo/AQo hands here, they probably check flop or turn a lot. Also, facing the range you x/c 3way in the sb here, would not think villain would fire turn with all his gutters, maybe even some FD's and AJ/overpairs check turn as well.
Also, why would you think that villain will defend very agressively here, when both ranges hit hard? Seems to me that dbl barreling and then calling a x/r on the turn with all AJ/ overpairs is a pretty bad idea.
i agree. i was trying to fill the range out with what i thought would be a ~balanced amount of bluffs. Taking a lot of those hands out of the range would make us harder pressed to argue bluffraises, since UTG basically runs out of legitimate bluffs very quickly after that.
As far as how he's supposed to defend to raises in a spot where both ranges are v strong, I'd really like to do some more work here. Intuitively i want to say that when his turn range is more concentrated to overpairs+ and 8-9 out draws, it can defend vs CR's more frequently than if it's avg value hands are weaker, and it's avg draws are weaker. There is a counter argument that we can only define the strength of his range as it relates to our CR range. My guess would be that there's a lot of small EV gains that give hands like KK more playability vs a CR. For instance, when i bluffraise KT, a river K helps me less. If i bluff a NFD, my A outs are stunted when he has AA at a higher fqcy. These are effects of his turn betting range being stronger.
I'm not sure about this and i definitely want to work on this more with someone who is good at CREV
I would be leading the flop here fairly often. Then when we barrel on a turn that makes the board pretty wet (like this one), most opponents will raise with nutted hands so I'd feel comfortable barreling a lot of rivers as well when called on flop and turn. I think this is a good spot to play nutted hands similarly as well.
In fact I don't really like having a c/c range here OTF. Villain is not likely to cbet light in this board multiway with a fish, so I'd rather just donk pretty much anything I want to continue with.
thoughts?
i think a flop leding or flop CR range is fine. but if you're gutting your x-c range that seems strictly exploitative, can't see how it would hold up vs a strong villain
There's a fish in the pot; what's wrong with being strictly exploitative?
nada
Be the first to add a comment