Ivey111

My thinking process went on the same direction like yours.
I thought TT could be CB 1/3 or check because I think pool tend to overfold vs 2/3-3/4 and we could extract some value of PP (99/88) and FD that could be play XB if we check, and prevent bluff of his PP low.

This is the C3B Range that I put him:

And, this is our strategy OTT with our range and TT (Bet Size Option: 1/4, 1/3, 1/2, 3/4, PB, OB):

The next point to me is analyze the villain range vs different sizes:

Villain vs 3/4

Villain vs 1/2

Villain vs 1/3

And, in my opinion, or at leats on my pool, people underraise vs 3/4 or 1/2, specially A5s-A3s and 99/88. And, overfold vs 3/4 or 1/2, specially AQdd/cc, ATdd/cc and some of this combos.

This should be our strategy vs pool with leaks:

What surprised me was that neither from a GTO point of view nor from an exploitative point of view does TT use 1/3 but 1/2 or 3/4. Even if I only give two bet size options (1/3 and 3/4), the solver prefers 3/4 for TT. And, analyzing different type of river, I think this is because we have more easy strategy's and, more or less, the same EV when we move AI OTR.

These are different River rounouts with his optimal move and Equity when go to showdown with TT:

Only loose significant equity when flush come, on the other runouts the strategy is more easy to play and the equity at showdown bigger or very similar.

So, I think TT should be play on 3/4 Range OTT because have value vs Villain Range, to simplify his River strategy and because don't loose much EV in general OTR vs 1/3 Range or 3/4 Range.

What do you think?

Obviously, I miss equity realization and exploitative lines vs different type's of villain, etc. The analyze could be much more better.

+1

Thank you so much :)

His flop raise should make you doubt since the standard raise is a 1/2 pot size and not a pot size raise.

Sorry, I didn't explain myself well.
His Turn size make me doubt because I think he should bet bigger to stack more easy OTR.

Do you think is a clear fold OTF?

I think that even he is so tight, OTF we can pay.
My intention was to fold OTT too often but his sizing makes me doubt.

I think this is a spot where we have a huge nut advantage but he has more and better overpairs and, of course, we want to play just call OTF with this.
This is our strategy OTF vs 1/2:

It's very interesting to me that Solver develop a check range strategy from villain OTT.

How do you play Sets OTT vs check?
We want to overbet:

How do you play 2p (A9s, A5s)?
Same like set, overbet:

How do you play Ax?
Check 100%:

If our pool do not check range and cbetting his best Ax then we could bet vs check AQ+.

And, this is our bluff range:

OTR, he should be betting with most of TP+ and KK-QQ:

We need to think what part of villain's range play Check + XC OTR, and this is AK-AQ-AJ-KT-QT-JT depend of our sizing. If we start to overbetting he start to overfold Tx but always XC AK-AQ-AJ. So, we want to block this type of combos and our bluff range should be KQ-KJ-QJ.

Betting with 77 is a EV+ move but we lose about 120-100bb/100 with a normal size and 220-200bb/100 with an overbet regarding check.

On this secuency, we wan't to have overbetting range because villain range it's weak and our value range benefit to get call so we prefer something between 3/4 and 1/2. There are not any combo who win EV with overbet, and the only combo who maybe do this is TT or T9s. But, also this combo lose EV overbetting. Like other say, could be a good explotative adjustment but we need info to do this.

Thanks all =)

I think this is a check range flop.
60% - 70% of our range are Ax and high cards so i think we need to think to protect this part of our range more than protect PP like TT-55.

As played, I like block bet OTR. When he XB OTT I think his range is full of medium/weak hands so we want extract value from this. I doubt he XB OTT and Bet OTR with 99-66 with this size, so his betting range could be strong hands that beat us and bluff, but mayority of his bluff bet OTT so I think he could has more strong hands than bluff and XC not is good.

In theory, OTT, villain check about 50% of his Ax. Bet about 80% of his AK and 30% - 40% AQ and check the rest. And, OTR he should play XC with Ax and some KK, and XF with some KK and PP (QQ-TT).
So, our bluff OTR should be good blockers like KQ-KJ-QJ (in my sim, solver bluff 95% of KQs, 20% of KJs and 5% of QJs).
But, if we have not this type of combos in our flop calling range we need to bluff 76s, 65s, 54s, 66, 44.
99 can be a good bluff if villain never has in his range. If he has it, we are blocking part of his XC + XF range and not block XC + XC range.

I think that if we have not many 88-22 or 65s-54s OTT and villain XCalling range OTT and OTR could be {AK%, AJ%, AT%, KK%, KQ%} we start to bluff with good blockers like KJ-KT.
If we remove those PP and SC from the range, the solver starts using those combos on the bluff range.

I think this is a good spot to overbet OTT because villain should cbet a lot OTF and when he XB he capped his range and our bluff gain EV betting big.

I think I prefer overbet vs 3/4 because if we bet 3/4 villain call w/Qx and when OTR missed draws could be call again vs 3/4. But, vs OB OTT and bet again OTR (OB or 3/4) who missed draws he start fold this type of combos and some Ax.

More missed draws there are, bigger we want to bet and more polarized our range should be. Betting big allow us to bluff more and this is a good example where all draws missed where we want to have a overbet range.

Flop is fine. Though, Solver prefer 3/4 than 1/2 because villain has a huge nut advantage, but it's ok 1/2 too. (size option: 1/3, 1/2, 3/4, 1.2P, AI)

OTT three paths open to us:
1. XC + XF (i don't think we can do XC + XC)
2. Block + XF
3. Check + Block

And, in my opinion, not is the same to have KK that QQ-99 by the protection who need QQ-99 and no KK. So, this is the first thing that determine the frecuency of bet or check with this combos.

On the other side, we need to think about how villain range change when we block OTT or check and block OTR. What i think is clear is that we only have 1 bet and we have to decide if do it OTT or OTR. And, i think this point depend of how villain perceibe our range. Maybe, villain tend to call more w/PP or blocker OTR when we check OTT that when we cbet again OTT.

Also, when we check, villain use to bet with most of TPGK+. So, if both check his range could be capped OTR and he need to call more with PP.

Sometimes, when we check we could gain visibility from villain range. And, i think this is a good spot for this with this PP who no need lot protection.

My simulation proposes the following strategy (size option: 1/3, 1/2, 3/4, AI):

This is the strategy with KK-99:

We past from 75% check with KK to 30% check with 99.

This is the Equity:

This is the Villain strategy vs blocking bet:

This is the Villain strategy vs check:

This is the strategy with KK-99 when we check OTT and Villain Bet:

This is our strategy OTR when both check OTT (size option: 1/3, 1/2, 3/4, AI):

This is the strategy with KK-99 when both check OTT:

This is the Equity:

This is the Villain strategy vs blocking bet:

Sorry, I think my answer was too long.

I usually bluff with this combos OTT, mostly if have clubs or hearts. And, OTR bluff or not depend of villain and the pool.
I think good reg betting with this and weak reg checking and when the River is an 8 my pool underbluff and usually give up this type of combos even good reg.
Sometimes I can see some weak reg not thin value betting OTR with Ax in this spot, for example.
I did not check it with solver but i don't think use 1/2 OTR with this combos. I think tend to move AI with a polar range and bluff need to included in this range, and could be have some thin value but without this PP.
But, I didn't check, maybe I'm wrong.

I like analyze both scenarios:

1. Strategy with 2-3 size options
2. Strategy with 1 size options

If the EV difference is low, i usually use the simple strategy.

And, other thing i usually analyze is if villain usually defend (XC and XR) the range of solver. If villain overfold or underbluff the solver usually adapt his strategy cbetting more frecuency with small size. So, if we have some board when the solver use 2 ranges with different bet sizing but pool usually overfold or underbluff we can simplify our strategy cbetting very frecuently or cbet range with small size.

Especifically on the BTN vs BB spot that you mention.

I think that we need some bluffs who villain maybe don't have in his range very frecuently like QJo-QTo-JTo. I think this type of combos Call vs 3B in a low frecuency, so he only has QJ-QT-JT of clubs or hearts calling OTF and not always bluff OTR, at least clubs. I think we need more QJo-QTo-JTo to have enough bluffs OTR.

But, on the value side, he always have AQo-AJo and some ATo (this more or less in the same frecuency than QJo-JTo) Calling vs 3Bet Preflop and CvCB OTF when has BFD, and AQ always.

So, i think we need that villain bluff QJo-QTo-JTo, that he not have enough, and FD that not usually bluff enough with this River. Mostly in low stakes when the pool underbluff. Also, i think this size OTR usually is more value than bluff.

In conclusion, I think we should mix call - fold and the frecuency of both depend of villain info. If we don't have info, more fold than call because pool underbluff; if we have info about villain, we adapt. And, this specific combo who do not block clubs and hearts maybe more call than fold in all situations.

Reviewing with the Solver:

OTF we cbet range to 1/3.

OTT we polarize our cbet range to 1/2 - 3/4 and this combo is a pure XB being the difference between cbet and check of about 40bb/100. The difference goes down to 3bb/100 if we had AQdd/hh.

The key is that if we have Ac we block most XC + XF villain range OTR or XF OTT. Here is more relevant blocker than FD. Therefore, our bluff range here should be combos who block XC + XC villain range and this range mostly is: {QT, Kx, AJ, QJ, JT}. So, our bluff/semibluff could be {AJ, QJ, AT, QQ}. Solver bluff some low Ax FD or AcQx/AcTx but not AcQc specifically.

I think that when you polarized cbet OTT you have not many Jx in your range {KJs (2), JJ (3)} so your value range mostly is {QTs% (4), AA% (6), KK (3), JJ (3), 99% (3), KJs (2)}.

When River is a J your value range decrease from +-21 combos to +-18 combos. I think that if villain have Kx {KQ, KT} can't fold because block your principal value range OTT and OTR {KK, KJs, QT} and maybe some T9s could be call too because block some other value range {QTs, 99}. The problem with T9s is that block AT bluff of your range and maybe T9s too. So i'm not sure what to do with T9s if i'm villain but Kx probably call very frecuently.

Also, having missed FD is bad for us. So, i think i play like you and check back OTR.

In a 3BP Axx like this, our cbet range could simplify on a cbet range 1/4.
Raising range solver use for value , in a low frecuency about 7%, usualy be some M/B set who do not block Ax and some top 2p (A9) who do not block strong Ax and AhXx and FD. And, for bluff, mix some FD mostly KThh-QThh-JThh-87hh and some KQ w/BFD who block AK-AQ and FD of our CvRaise range and could be bluffing OTT or OTR who cames de flush.
Call vs Raise with this combo is fine.

OTT, our value XC range will be: {2p+, tptk, tp w/fd or sd and some 9x/6x w/fd (by block 99, 66 and A9)}. Combos who only have FD should be fold.

In this type of board where we have a huge range and nut advantage we could simplify our strategy cbet range to 1/4.
Solver usually prefer 1/4 than 1/3 because estimate that villain should defend more with his Ax and PP. Betting at 1/4 we are gain about 5%-10% extra value from him wide call range.

Hero strategy OTF (1/4, 1/3, 1/2, 3/4, P, 1.25P):

Villain defend strategy vs 1/4 with Ax and PP:

Villain defend strategy vs 1/3 with Ax and PP:

In both scenarios, 1/4 and 1/3 OTF, OTT we must polarize our cbet range being our value range Trips+ and this specific combo of TPTK is the only TP who can mix cbet and check.

Hero strategy OTT (1/4, 1/3, 1/2, 3/4, P, 1.25P, 1.5P):

AK strategy:

But, having a polarized range does not mean betting big because our value range usually blocking villain calling range. So, we need to bet small with this part of our range and we must balanced bluff with this sizing too. The onlys combos who prefer 1/2 than 1/3 are AQ and QJ, Top Trips and Trips who doesn't block Kx of villain range.

OTR, like the bottom value range OTT was AK this combo must be check. And, vs villain bet is a marginal/breakeven decision. Not having Ad makes the Call beter than Fold.

AK strategy OTR:

As we can see, Solver XC w/AKo about 80% of the time but is a EV- move mostly when we have Ad. When we have not, is a breakeven EV+ move.

So, i think, and solver too, you play perfect this hand.

But, as LetEmKnow say, it's possible that the pool may not be bluffing as much as the Solvers.

Solver villain strategy when we check is:

If villain doesn't bluff this type of combos then AK is 100% XF.

This flop seems like the other 3BP hand you post with TT but without FD.
Like on the other hand, we have cbet polar strategy but having no FD board 1/2 is the best size to use.

Hero Strategy OTF:

When the turn doubles, solver usually prefer cbet with PP who need protection (QQ, JJ, TT) but if we check is for XR vs any sizing bet; mix cbet - XC - XR with AA and mix cbet - XR with KK except when villain bet 1/2 or more that only XR and never XC.

Hero Strategy with PP when check and Villain Bet 1/4 - 1/3:

Hero Strategy with PP when check and Villain Bet 1/2:

Usually, solver think villain must start to bluff with Kx-Qx-Jx when we check and we need to protect vs this part of his range doing XR with QQ-JJ-TT and we don't need as much protection against this part of his range when we have AA.

Villain strategy vs check of hero OTT:

So, if i have not info about villain probably cbet and if i have some info could start to mix cbet and XR according to your trends.

OTF we mix bet polar and check with this combo.
Reviewing with solver, the difference vs both option is 0.5bb/100. And, solver bet about 35% - 30% without heart and about 45% - 50% with heart.
On my sim, Solver strategy is this (sizing option: 1/4, 1/3, 1/2, 3/4, P, 1.25P, 1.5P, AI):

And, the difference vs check range is about 16bb/100. So, we shouldn't checking range here.

I think the sizing we use to cbet it's important because villain's calling range will be some different. Vs 1/2 he always call w/TT+ and 99-88 with BFD and vs 3/4 he always call w/JJ+ and TT w/BFD but fold with 99-88 (this is the solver strategy for villain vs both size).

Villain range vs 1/2:

Villain range vs 3/4:

OTT, when we cbet 1/2 OTF this combo again is mix between check and cbet 50% of the time with 1/4P - 1/3P but when we cbet 3/4 OTF this combo is AI 90%-100% of the time.

TT in 1/2 OTF:

TT in 3/4 OTF:

When we cbet 1/2 OTF and check OTT:
- vs AI we need to XC
- vs any other size we need to mix XR AI (20%) and XC (80%).

When we cbet 3/4 OTF and check OTT:
- vs AI we need to XC
- vs any other size we need to XR AI (100%).

Solver think that villain never has shoving range but if he use this sizing could be with 2p or PP who need protection and have additional equity (TT or 55 w/FD). We need about 37% equity to justify XC vs AI and vs this range we have 49% with TT.

Obviously, if we know that villain or population does not use this type of combo and only move AI with flush, TT+ w/FD or Set or something like this we must XF with TT.

I think it's true, as TPLancaster say very well, that missed FD but i think he has yet a lot of missed SD (KJ, KT, K9, JT, J9, T9) that could be bluff and we don't block him.

For me, this part of his range don't bet to this size so i tend to overfold on this spot because i doubt the reg on this stakes balance correctly this range (1/2 P OTR) and could be underbluffing.

But, not every reg play the same strategy or they know the correct move/size and we need about 25% equity to justify the call, we could be win vs some villain thin value range {A6-A5-A4}, block some value range and it's the spot preflop with the weaker range possible so probably I call and take note.

Reviewing with Solver:
The preferred size for the cbet is 3/4 with a polar range (sizing option: 1/4, 1/3, 1/2, 3/4, P, 1.25P, 1.50P)

But, Solver strategy for hero vs cbet small is:

And, with this particulary combo is Call 100% with huge difference of EV (6.5bb/100):

Villain start to fold some Ax:

OTT, our strategy should be like this:

So, your size it's good. And, Solver prefer XR with this combo. But the most important thing, i think, is how villain react vs our cbet:

Villain continuing to fold Ax. Theorycally, he must be XC with most of AK-AQ but in practice i don't know if population do it. I change villain range OTT and OTR overfolding some Ax and PP and in all cases solver prefer XB with 98cc.

98cc don't block Villain XC range and solver prefer combos who do it, mostly Kx-Qx-Jx that they are the main block of Ax with which villain could arrive at River.

I think the A OTR doesn't have much impact in the CvR + XC villain range so could be a good spot to bluff.

I don't like too much his sizing OTF because our range only have about 10% - 15% of combos who can't call vs this sizing (more or less) and he doesn't have equity advantage or nut advantage. So, to me, not make sense a depolarized cbet strategy here.

I'm not sure if villain CvR w/AK-AT-OC wo/BFD. But, of course, he could call w/{SP+, PP, Ax-OC w/BFD}. So, here we can get some fold of w/Ax reducing the impact OTR.

Turn reduce our value range and range advantage but we still have combos who want bet and this combo never win at showdown. Further, i think we can get fold him of Ax-OC wo/FD but i'm not sure with this size. Anyway, if he don't fold Ax his impact OTR it's about 10% more so still have enough FE if we bet.

River impact in some villain range {Ax w/BFD} but not too much and we could get some fold from his mostly part of his range {PP and OC w/FD}. Checking back we never win and i think is very difficult for him to XC w/JJ-88 and this is about 35% of his range if he Call OTT with Ax wo/FD and 50% - 55% if he Fold this combos OTT.

We need about 40% of FE to justifie the bluff and i think we have it.

Hugely grateful for the effort.

Really useful.

Thank you so much =)

Thank you so much for effort =)

Thank you so much for effort =)

Thanks =)