Vilain has 70% fold to 3b (first stat on second line) and co rfi 36% so 5Js becomes an option to 3b. His range is very strong after calling the 3 b oop so altough i tend to agree that population overfold in these spots (unsure how to play this board oop) my c bet is way too optimistic. Zero EQ vs a decent opponent with f to c bet 44%.

@ Bietebauw

I get what you're saying about wanting equity to c-bet. But for a cbet of over half pot(in the video), equity is much more of a concern vs. going 1/3 with our range on most king high boards. I feel like it works well to exploit the populations lack of K-x and I predict they over-fold this spot. We are at a range advantage here (I gave us a wide 3-betting range and we had 54% vs a fairly tight cold call range).

If you think about it, he's folding 3/4 suits of suited broadways (ex. QJcc, QJdd, QJhh). Some of the smaller pairs also will probably fold for 1/3 pot without a spade (incorrectly) and all combos of his AQo/AJo without a spade probably fold the flop as well.

Hi Eric, i get your point but still i would not c-bet 1/3 pot. I thinks it's a very dangerous tendency to continue with an extreme wide range (and this hand belongs - as Isther correctly indicates -to the stone bottom of that range) vs a very strong range. As the bet becomes smaller (1/3) a decent opponent (which he is) will also defend wider. Also, i don't think because you might have a range advantage that you need to bet with the absolute bottom of your range. F.E. you are not going to bet 44 from UTG on a AK5 board vs a bb flat because you have the range advantage, are you? This hand particul. has 15 % eq vs his defend range..
Edit: i know i did but to my defense, the footage is from sept 2015 :)

Looking back on it, it's probably not a big deal either way. Your c-bet size is somewhat directly proportional with your frequency. Choosing a 1/3 pot c-bet strategy on a board that we have a range advantage on means we don't need him to fold that often. You talked about this hands specific equity, yes it's low, but what's way more important than that is the equity of our range here, especially if we choose a 1/3 pot c-bet size. If you don't have a range for betting 1/3 pot, checking back the flop is the standard play here. If we do bet 1/3, I listed a fair number of suited stuff that just folds outright, AQ without a spade probably folds, and he might even fold lower pairs without a spade.

Once again, I don't think this spot is probably worth going back and forth over. You know now that if you decide to go over 1/2 half pot we need to be putting this hand in our check back range. C-betting this board for 1/3 pot isn't really "dangerous" given we don't really risk that much and there is a portion of his range that is just folding to nearly any bet size. What is dangerous is choosing a size of over 1/2 pot and using all of our non-equity hands as c-bets.

I'm pretty sure either strategy is fine. If I'm choosing a 1/3 pot size, I'm doing it with nearly my entire range regardless of what hand I have.

Hey, firstly thanks for the kind words =)

If villain were folding >60% pre AND >50% OTF then I can get on-board with pre, even then though I would use a bunch of other hands before J5s. These monotones textures are quite tricky to play, especially for OOP. I tend to cb wide/depolar IP in these spots, allowing me to widen my betting range and make villain's life difficult. When our three-street value-range represents a tiny fraction of our overall range then we need to be sizing down or checking somewhere very often. So yea, I would opt for a 30-40% sizing OTF IP then scale-up sizing OTT vs their weak cont. range. I do agree with your assessment that SS population doesn't connect as well as MS+ pop' on these mono Kxx boards, and thus we can probably widen our bluffing range exploitatively. That said, I still think this is spew barring some strong reads.

Ty mate, glad you enjoyed it!

A few things you can/should be doing:

1) Break out flopzilla and holdem EQ (free with flopzilla) to find out which range hits spots like this the hardest.

2) Plug spots like this into PioSolver to see which types of hands it likes to raise, call, etc. against an opponent with an optimal strategy. If you can come close to devising a strategy that does well against optimal opponent play, it will usually crush non-optimal play.

Calling 3-bets out of position is just a bad spot to be in to begin with. On top of that, floating flops out of position and playing various turns and rivers make things even harder. This is another reason Cameron is talking about raising/folding the flop OOP on this dynamic of a board and tightening up our continuing range. Unless you are extremely skilled, it's hard to make floats like this profitable when we do not have position.

nice post Eric
#patriotsnation

Good question and a hard one for me to answer definitively. I agree with Eric although I must say that I think a decent chunk of my analysis is somewhat intuitive/based on experience as you alluded, not strictly a function of lab-work. Definitely consider investing in some of the software that Eric mentioned in order to delve deeper into such spots and find concrete solutions.

The problem with XR is that we lose 95% when it goes check-check, even to his bluffs which is a disaster. I think we should opt to XR hands that have some SDV (so we don't mind checking river), and also better blockers. Hands such as AsKx, AxKs come to mind.

Cheers!

KQcc: It boils down to populations' weak and overly-vulnerable checking ranges, combined with their unwillingness to bluff-catch (correctly so) vs huge bets. I would wager a lot of money that shoving ATC OTR there will be printing money vs 100z reg pop. I don't think our half-pot sizing accommodates our range well at all in a spot where we should be polar vs his capped show-down-bound range.

I made a video on this; it's basically a function of equity with hand vs range * realisable equity. I run filters every now and then to confirm that my peels are beating folding. However, the profitability of these marginal peels is largely dependent on hero's skill relative to villain/pop., villains strategy, ESS etc, and therefore your ranges should NOT be static.

I would XR/shove not XRAI with my range. I will have a narrow XC range, some combos of AA w/ FD blocker, some mid-pairs/Tx, some NFD and some reverse floats.

I cb aggressively vs BB CC's and my CB is only mid 50's. You should strive to defend at least 40-50% of your checks UNLESS you think pop. is grossly imbalanced towards value in certain spots. Checking ranges/ overall cont. frequencies represent one of the biggest differences between average and good regulars IMO.

Seems reasonable to me and it's something I currently employ. One thing to note though, is that while we have a range advantage in terms of equity, BB should have more trips combos in his range given he's defending more offsuit 8x than we're opening. So basically we can bet often but he should also be raising often vs 1/3pot

Could be, but it's not something I would suggest employing/pursuing given the difficulties in balancing all of our ranges. When we split ranges early in the hand, the game-tree explodes making it difficult for us to keep track of our ranges/remain reasonably balanced.