Turn decisions against polarized ranges
Posted by Chael Sonnen
Posted by
Chael Sonnen
posted in
Mid Stakes
Turn decisions against polarized ranges
BN: $1200.74
SB: $648.03
BB: $1380.09
UTG: $507.50
HJ: $500 (Hero)
CO: $520
SB: $648.03
BB: $1380.09
UTG: $507.50
HJ: $500 (Hero)
CO: $520
Preflop
($7.50)
(6 Players)
Hero was dealt
Q
Q
UTG raises to $15, Hero calls $15, CO folds, BN folds, SB calls $12.50, BB folds
UTG raises to $15, Hero calls $15, CO folds, BN folds, SB calls $12.50, BB folds
Flop
($50.00)
9
7
9
(3 Players)
SB checks,
UTG checks,
Hero bets $27.21,
SB raises to $72.50,
UTG folds,
Hero calls $45.29
This is one of many spots I face where Villian is pretty polarized.
He probably checks many 9x, draws and backdoor c/r bluffs that didn't pick up equity.
Betting big makes no sense im my opinion, but should I bet at all?
If I stab, I open myself up to double check-raises. Perhaps not on this particular board, but most boards.
He probably checks many 9x, draws and backdoor c/r bluffs that didn't pick up equity.
Betting big makes no sense im my opinion, but should I bet at all?
If I stab, I open myself up to double check-raises. Perhaps not on this particular board, but most boards.
Turn
($195.00)
9
7
9
7
(2 Players)
SB checks,
Hero bets $37.50,
SB calls $37.50
Betting tiny here can get him to fold some draws that have equity against my hand.
I generally bet on the smaller side, to allow myself to bet a wider range for value and protection.
SB shouldn't have too many 9x to flat in the SB, and there are some draws he can have.
Does anyone consider folding the flop? i think I'm ahead for sure, though there are few runouts I can happily call down on. If I were to fold the flop, there would be little point in betting in the first place, right?
I generally bet on the smaller side, to allow myself to bet a wider range for value and protection.
SB shouldn't have too many 9x to flat in the SB, and there are some draws he can have.
Does anyone consider folding the flop? i think I'm ahead for sure, though there are few runouts I can happily call down on. If I were to fold the flop, there would be little point in betting in the first place, right?
River
($270.00)
9
7
9
7
3
(2 Players)
SB checks,
Hero checks
Loading 21 Comments...
This is a spot where I usually check back the turn but am unsure if it's best. Although we risk a rare double checkraise, I do like betting very small as you did here if I do happen to bet so we don't lose too much if villain is getting tricky with 9x.
The small bet is an invitation to double-x/r imho, I´d make a normal bet.
And by the way ... again the word "polarized", it´s like RIO-virus. :D How do you define "polarized"?
Polarized to me means his range contained hands that either have 99% or 1% equity against your holding, but this is rarely the case, I´d say the absolute minimum of equity Villain will show up with is ~30%, if we took a mix of 9x, oesd and fd´s he has 50% against your range.
A normal sized bet would be pretty much a bluff, imo.
His range is backdoor give ups, FDs, and boats.
Against that range I'd like to protect against FDs, check back against the boats and against it air it doesn't really matter because he likely won't bluff river, and obviously he will not c/c.
My bet-calling range is somewhat 9x heavy, so I'm not sure Villian can pull off a c/r here comfortably.
His range is pretty polarized. We are crushed against his boats, crush his give ups, and are moderately ahead of his FDs.
"His range is pretty polarized."
You mean his turn-range, right? I was talking about his flop-range ...
"This is one of many spots I face where Villian is pretty polarized."
Hey Chael,
as long as you don't bet 100% when checked to (with that bet size every time) it is true that EV(Check-Raise)<EV(Bet) with his nutty hands. Having said that, given you want to check back a % of the time I think QQ is a hand you might consider putting in that range.
I think your fine to stab since i feel he makes a mistake check calling turn unless he plans to lead rivers.
"We are crushed against his boats, crush his give ups, and are moderately ahead of his FDs."
His turn range is fairly polarized, but his flop range isn't.
I prefer to check back the flop, UTG can still have us beat as well. There is no protecting against flushdraws, they call anyway, you can call it charging but they are supposed to continue. It's hard to get multiple barrels from worse imo, so I prefer to xb flop and give them an opportunity to bluff with the part of their range that we do well against, or comfortably value bet turn and river if checked to again.
Both players can have us beat, they just aren't likely to have us beat.
If you were one of the villains and had a flush draw or straight draw, what would you want hero to do on the flop and why?
I just feel like we don't dominate much in their xC and xRaising ranges, and we do dominate plenty of things in their xFolding ranges and their 1 street calling hands.
I think you are right that we aren't likely beat when they check, but that likelihood increases a lot when we bet and they start calling/raising.
Sure if I had the flush or straight draw I would want to make it as cheaply as possible and then get as money in as possible when I hit, so yeah have the other guy check back the flop, the turn making my flush or straight, then betting and opponent shoving with a hand that has 0 equity, ideally.
They also miss more than they hit, and will call a bet on the turn or bet themselves with significantly less equity against our specific hand than on the flop, if that same bet goes in on the turn instead of the flop, they would make a big mistake against our hand.
So yeah maybe the EV of a draw goes up when you let them see a turn card for free, the EV of all their non made hands goes up when you do that, does that mean we should never check back the flop? I don't see how that is significant since we have a very playable hand with a redraw to a boat or Q high flush.
I'de agree a bit more with you if the flop was HU, in which case I don't think checking back QQ is all that bad (although it would be far from my "standard"). But when it's 3way and villain's combined equity is decent enough against your hand, I think it would be a mistake to give both players a free card.
I agree with what you say, but in my opinion in situations like this the other side of the full picture is often overlooked. It is true that we are up against two ranges when we decide to check back, and they have combined suck-out equity against our hand. The reality is when we bet we also ask two ranges with combined equity to become stronger. So it is less likely that we continue to have the best hand if we have it now if we check, if we are up against multiple ranges, it is also more likely that we are beat already because we are up against multiple ranges. That being said I think the Qd makes it a check!
If you are villain with a FD , you are definitely fistpumping when flop checks thru.
@Robert - the charge is effective, b/c the EV of the draw goes way up if you don't charge it OTF.
I think betting and checking flop are both probably fine. Multiway i could see more merit to betting QQ since your folding / charging equity share of 2 players as opposed to 1, and your hand is somewhat vulnerable. Then again you'll get called by narrower ranges when multiway, so there's a lot going on. I think betting small with JJ-QQ here and balancing it with bluffs and some premiums could be good. Then you use a larger, more polarized flop bet sizing with the rest of your range.
On the turn i think a good way to look at it is that villain gains incentive to CR based on 2 factors - how often we reopen the betting, and how much we reopen the betting for. Of those 2 i think that the fqcy at which we reopen is more critical, since it opens up an extra street into the game for villain to utilize.
So i would guess that of these 2 strategies, #2 is going to leave us more exploitable:
#1: We make a larger size bet with KK+, and some bluffs
#2: We make a smaller size bet with TT+, and some bluffs.
I'd really like to get more well versed on how to get a better feel for where these equilibriums exist .. it's something i actually just mentioned in the video i made today. For now i'm staying on the nittier side of the fence. I'm pretty confident that the goal of our strategy should be to penalize the polarized range for slowplaying too often OTT, and this is done by taking a street out of the game at a "high" frequency. whatever high is.
another interesting thing to think about is that if hero is not supposed to bet much OTT, it seems like raising some FD's as semi bluffs OTF in villains spot is now very effective (they realize a lot of equity vs overpairs by getting to see 2 free streets)
"On the turn i think a good way to look at it is that villain gains incentive to CR based on 2 factors - how often we reopen the betting, and how much we reopen the betting for. Of those 2 i think that the fqcy at which we reopen is more critical, since it opens up an extra street into the game for villain to utilize.
So i would guess that of these 2 strategies, #2 is going to leave us more exploitable:
#1: We make a larger size bet with KK+, and some bluffs
#2: We make a smaller size bet with TT+, and some bluffs."
Hi Nick. Very happy to have you as a coach at RiO,and I'm very glad to see you participate in the forums. Better hurry up with a new vid, though.
A couple of questions regarding what you wrote here.
I think I agree with the first paragraph, but I'm not sure why you come to the conclusion that strategy #2 leaves us more exploitable? Is it correct to extrapolate that you therefore prefer strat #2 to strat #1?
Also, in strat #1 would your plan be to bet/call KK+?
I would prefer strategy #1 , b/c i think that strategy #2 has us rewarding his slowplays by adding another street into the game at a very high fqcy. Even though we lose less when we bet/fold for a small sizing, i think it would incentivize him more to slowplay everything if he knew we reopen 70% of the time for a small bet, than 30% for a large bet. I'm guessing there's an equilibrium somewhere where we can bet slightly more aggressively if we use small bets than if we use large bets ... but my point is that when we take a street out of the game its devastating for his slowplays, and when we insert one back in he fistpumps with slowplays.
In strat 1 I'd be betting a value range of KK+, so i'm allowed to fold if villain puts me allin. I'm not in love with this strat at all but i think it's better than #2. Part of me wants to just check back my whole range since betting our super-premiums doesn't make much sense to me in practice, with so much removal. This would become a worse idea though as flush draws make up a higher distribution of his bluffs from the flop that checked the turn.
this is not correct
Chael - 'My bet-calling range is somewhat 9x heavy, so I'm not sure Villian can pull off a c/r here comfortably.'
We don't have any 9x here do we? QQ seems like the absolute top of our range if you 3b KK-AA pre.
Robert - 'I think your fine to stab since i feel he makes a mistake check calling turn unless he plans to lead rivers. '
I can't think of any hands where he is making a mistake calling turn with this sizing. He only needs 14% to call and if he calls turn with FD he has 25%. It's not like he x/c's a hand like 88 with <14% equity here.
At the same time betting bigger to charge him doesn't make much sense either since we have hardly any bluffs in our range, maybe like 6 combos KQdd,QJdd,JTdd, AJdd+ I'd assume, so we just lose more money when he has a boat. For these reasons I would check back the turn.
I don't see the point in the small turn sizing. Your range is not that wide to begin with, and it also contains few FHs. This is indeed an invitation to get XR turn, so if that's what you have in mind (inducing, because you have, say, a read), why not.
If we don't assume our opponent will spazz out, then the small sizing puts us in a situation where our opponent won't make many mistakes (he'll probably fold weak draws or XR sometimes, call with draws that have enough equity, etc)... whereas we really put ourselves in a situation we don't know how to adress, considering how infrequent it is: we have no idea what to do against his turn raising range, or if he ever donks river.
It's not to say that we will have more clues with a bigger sizing, but at least we're less likely to level ourselves, and our opponent is less likely to play perfectly. All in all, I'd rather check turn and play my range on the river (bluffcatch or fold for the most part, and a tiny raising range).
I like this b/c it flips it from a spot where we put ourselves in a position to make huge mistakes, to where we put villain in a position to make huge mistakes (by bluffing river too wide). in a spot where betting small or checking in a vaccuum might be close, i'm favoring keeping his range wider.
there would be no real problem until you started betting at a high enuff fqcy to incentivize him to CR all his premiums instead of barrel. i'd guess the spot is rare enough that in a vaccuum you're probably fine to just bet all your value for small.
Be the first to add a comment