After betting big on the turn, my range is polarized (ie I’m not doing it with KQ, 77, or 54) and weighted towards the strong side (43, KJ, 33, 44). I think Villain’s range is exactly hands that beat my bluffs but lose to my value range, with the possible exception of exactly 99. I don’t have many hands in my range that need to bluff, so it’s important that I bluff with the few weak hands I can show up with:
Full Tilt No-Limit Hold’em, $10.00 BB (7 handed) – Full-Tilt Converter Tool from FlopTurnRiver.com
UTG ($2160.25)
MP1 ($1324.50)
MP2 ($1381)
CO ($1502.50)
Hero (Button) ($1813.75)
SB ($647)
BB ($2764.75)
Preflop: Hero is Button with 6
, 7
UTG bets $35, 2 folds, CO calls $35, Hero calls $35, SB calls $30, 1 fold
Flop: ($150) K
, 4, 3
(4 players)
SB checks, UTG bets $90, 1 fold, Hero calls $90, 1 fold
Turn: ($330) J (2 players)
UTG checks, Hero bets $222, UTG calls $222
River: ($774) 9 (2 players)
UTG checks, Hero bets $666, 1 fold
Total pot: $774 | Rake: $3
Results:
Hero didn’t show 6, 7 (nothing).
Outcome: Hero won $771
Hey Andrew..
First up – great job on this blog. Really enjoying the balanced and insightful thoughts of both yourself and your other commenters. My work implemented a new content-filtering system at work recently which has been preventing me from visiting your site for a while now, but amusingly, I found a guy in the IT department who plays a bit of poker, so I challenged him to a HU NLHE match. If he wins, $20 to him. If I win, he has to unblock your site from the filter. Anyway, here I am 😉
Secondly, a question about this specific entry: why do you completely exclude KQ from your own range on the turn exactly? Is it not reasonable to think that you flatted the flop (maybe jointly for pot control and deception value) and then are betting two-thirds pot on the turn for value/protection? Curious about why you would “never” show up with KQ here, at least on the turn.
Cheers,
Luke
Awesome story, Luke! Seriously, that’s really cool. Sorry about the suit images. Someone else was having trouble with them as well, but it seems like a pretty small minority, and I do think they make it easier to read. If there are others that can’t see suit images at work, though, please speak up! I can start posting differently if others are affected.
Re: KQ, I don’t think I’d bet the turn, at least not that big. There aren’t second-best hands to pay me off nor many draws to protect against.
Maybe its just me, but on a board like this, I don’t really see how villains range to c/c turn is impacted by our bet-size.
Once he checks, he rarely has Kx or stronger. So, I imagine his turn decision to c/c, c/r, or c/f is normally decided before you make your bet.
Perhaps a very small or very big bet will impact his decision some, but I don’t really see why you wouldn’t bet big when his range is basically bluffcatchers, and he knows that you know that.
Good point, except that I may make a bet he’s not anticipating. Like, with KQ, I would probably bet something pretty tiny like 1/3 pot. I agree that his reaction to a bet anywhere from 50%-100% pot probably won’t change, but I think something uncommonly small may get called by a wider range.
I also don’t agree that his range is purely bluffcatchers. I think he may well have had AK or AA here, hoping turn will go check-check so he can value bet river.
I guess my question here is – why you wouldn’t pick a balanced turn bet size to keep your range the widest possible.
If you’re betting 1/3 primarily for thin value, and 2/3+ with a range of nuts/air type holdings – why is this better than betting either 1/3 with your entire range or 2/3 with your entire range?
My guess is – he’s just never going to notice a difference and these sizes net you the highest EV.
Oh… Apologies, I should add – I’ve just realised that although your site is now unblocked, it is still blocking the images for the suits, so if there happens to be a four-flush or something on the turn then that answers my question heh. But otherwise, appreciate your thoughts.
Well seeing as you asked us to speak up, I’ve never been able to see the suits either. I don’t know if it’s something to do with my work’s firewall (it can do strange things sometimes like let you on to a site but then block certain chunks).
It doesn’t impact my enjoyment of the blog *that* much, as I can usually work out what’s going on from the accompanying text if there’s any ambiguity – but it would certainly be a big help to be able to see what the suits are.
Great blog, either way – one of my daily go-to sites.
Thanks for letting me know. It probably is your firewall, as the images are hosted on a poker-related website.
Glad to hear you’ve been enjoying the blog!
I’ve got the same problem with the suits. I just see a blank image, because the image source is blocked by our corporate firewall. I’d selfishly love a change of format.
Hi Andrew,
Just a thought – perhaps the images could be rehosted somewhere like imageshack and linked from there? I don’t think any corporate firewall would have an issue then.. Just a thought.
Luke