Out Now
×

Flop Strategy as Preflop Aggressor (part 2)

Posted by

You’re watching:

Flop Strategy as Preflop Aggressor (part 2)

user avatar

JNandez87

Elite Pro

Video Player is loading.
Current Time 0:00
Loaded: 0%
Duration -:-
Remaining Time 0:00
  • descriptions off, selected

Resume Video

Start from Beginning

Watch Video

Replay Video

10

You’re watching:

Flop Strategy as Preflop Aggressor (part 2)

user avatar

JNandez87

POSTED May 28, 2014

Fernando continues his look at flop strategy as the PFA, this time focusing on out of position single raised pots and how the higher SPR affects his play. He teaches us how board texture should affect our cbet sizing and frequency and explains how to construct balanced ranges in this common spot.

17 Comments

Loading 17 Comments...

Joe Sham 10 years, 10 months ago

Liked the video a lot, definately wanna see more of these.

In addition to those videos you mentioned you plan on making, I would also like to see a sort of continuation to this video - an oop strategy on turn & river after cbetting flop.


spassewr 10 years, 10 months ago

excellent vid, cant think of a better creation than practical examples of tom chambers theory. one question tho, i cant really think of any hand combos (at least not that gets us anywhere near 5-10% after we check) we would want to c-r and play for stacks as the pfr if we remove the top of our range when stacks are 100bbs. sure the AT87 was a good example but the spr was 4-5. does any1 have any examples?

elendil 10 years, 10 months ago

Fernando, great video. I really like the style where you explain a concept and show examples. I find it very practical. Hope to see more of the same.

TianYuan 10 years, 10 months ago

Another thing about the QTT7 hand at the end... why would you bluff here? You're gonna win at a showdown a pretty reasonable amount of the time, or am I misjudging where in our range this hand falls? It doesn't feel like it falls far enough down to be a bluff...

Patrick Leonard 10 years, 9 months ago

I'm not too sure about the AT78 hand, what is our equity vs a reasonable stack off range here? I'd imagine we're not doing too well, and I also think he is capable of checking back a lot of the middling draws that we'd otherwise get value from. Could you maybe expand a bit on this hand? :)

ormhaxan19 10 years, 1 month ago

This series is really really good! I also like it that you don't shy away of showing some missplays of yours, that just happens to everyone.

straight river 9 years, 8 months ago

Hi, first ill say that i think these vids are very good.

So why do we want to be checking dry nutted draws (exceot NFD) on dynamic and very dynamic boards ?

I do understand that we need some hands to strenghten our checking range and having nutted hands is a good thing when we are oop and guessing. But can we really check call oop with a dry nut gutshot or dry nut oesd? Isnt that a bit too weak? Sometimes villan stabs with airy hands he still is doing fine against those hands the way i see it, spike a pair and hes often good. So i dont feel like we are helping our checking range by any substantial amount here, or what?

And dont we need to protect our range with a littlebit more hands than these hands? What hands do we further include in our checking range if villain is an avid stabber when we check? (e.g what would Tom Chambers check?)

Anyone got any thoughts on this?
thanks

JNandez87 9 years, 8 months ago

@aflametotheground

Thank you for getting the discussion started. Check calling with a nutty range is likely better than with non-nutty hand, correct. Nutty flush draws are awesome, as well as good straight draws with overs, I agree that a gutter is going to be too weak to put it into a check/call range. Other than nutty draws I also include these days some very strong made hands into my check/calling range whenever I crush the board in terms of blocker effects or/and as an exploitative adjustment to my opponent.

Do you have any specific hands in mind to get this discussion even further so we both can learn more about it?

Thanks

straight river 9 years, 8 months ago

Hi, it seems pretty hard to find anything that is like the obvious best range to check. I do like the suggestions you have with high value+blockers and dry nut draws +overcards. Potentially one could add weak pair + dry nut draws.

Assume the following subranges 1 value hands, 2 middle str hands, 3bottom of middle str hands/upper air, and 4 air or bottom of range. Then concider if it is the best line of playing for villain to bet polarized (1+3) when checked to and check back his middle strenght hands and air (2+4). Im not sure this is a good idea but lets assume it here.

If we bet
1 will raise (and we fold)
2 will call
3 will fold
4 will fold
if we check
1 will bet and we call ( fine but we are not pushing ev here even with implied)
2 will check and give us freecard
3 will stab and we call
4 will check and both get a freecard

Betting vs 1 is bad. Betting vs 2 is suboptimal. Betting vs 3 and 4 is optimal.

Checking vs 1 and 2 is optimal. Checking vs 3 and 4 is suboptimal.

So its not super clear what is the best play. It seems that the benefit of checking is mostly because we can achieve a freecard vs 2 and we are not raised off our hand by 1 (but i think 1 is a relatively narrow range compared to the other ranges). We must also remember that if its an OESD its going to be tainted on the dynamic/highly dynamic boards and we have no real guarantee of implied odds when hitting. However, if its checked through we are playing vs a capped range so maybe a delayed cbet may be a good solution vs his 4.

If checking were to be the best option here, then i guess that vs opponents that will bet the flop merged instead (more of 2 and less of 3) we dont have the freecard argument any more, pushing the solution more towards the bet region.

What are your (or others) thoughts on this?
thanks

Be the first to add a comment

You must upgrade your account to leave a comment.

Runitonce.com uses cookies to give you the best experience. Learn more about our Cookie Policy