Post a hand you would like for me to analyze

Poker Strategy Hand Review
21

Hey TomSawyer2112, I’m glad to hear that you are making a big effort to improve your game. Always strive to become better each passing day and don’t let nobody nor the results hold you back. Poker is all about making the right decisions with +EV in the moment regardless of the end result.

Regarding the first hand with AQ, you didn’t lucked out. you made the most optimal play when you 3 bet shoved with 9.9 bb in the BB. You played it great!

Now the second hand with AA should had been a 3 bet shoved preflop too. When villain open raised he was committing himself to the pot and also your stack size was around 11.9 bb so this was a clear 3 bet shove. Dont be afraid if your aces get cracked. As you put it, thats poker. Now your 3 bet raise size preflop was a mistake, always in position look to 3 bet 2.5x - 3x villains open and +1x for every caller. and if you noticed your stack size if you were to 3 bet 2.5x you would had been pot committed on the flop so might as well put it all in pre.

Anyways im glad to see that your approach to the game has change for the better! if you have more questions let me know, il try to answer them as soon as i see them.

22

Nice thoughts, on the hand, thank you. Preflop, I guess I could have just folded this, but I had effective stacks of over 60bb and relatively good position, but its defiantly the bottom of my range. On the flop when you analyze the min bets that my opponent made, I usually consider my raise relative to the pot than how much bigger the bet is than he made. How big the pot is usually matters more to me than how big the min bet is. The reason why I raised this hand was that my top pair was extremely vulnerable and that an overcard was going to come which would diminish its value and I wanted to extract value from him while I still was pretty sure I had the best hand. Out of his entire min-betting range, I would say only like 10%, maybe even less beats me. This includes any weird nines or two pairs, overpairs, (If he has any) and sets. Everything else is worse than me. However, most of his range has overcards in it and I want him to pay to see it. A lot of times when people make these min bets, they really are blocker bets hoping that their opponents will just call so they get great odds to improve their hand. I do not want to let him do this. Maybe my sizing was a bit to big, but I feel like people in my games have inelastic calling ranges, so if I want to get value, why not go bigger if they will call a bigger bet? These players are way too lose and I want to punish them for it. Turn seems to not have much question into it, the ace does help me since I was the preflop raiser, but my hand has showdown value so if I was betting would it be for value or a bluff? The river again, maybe my sizing should have been smaller but same reasons for the flop I think I get more value with bigger bets on average, but maybe I am wrong.

23

I don’t think folding is right because that would make me so insanely exploitable to fold to a min bet like this even when I hit top pair. Why should I be so afraid of it? When most people min bet they have marginal made hands that want to see a cheap showdown and draws that want to see a cheap card. If that is true, shouldn’t I raise to extract value from these hands? Maybe not because the CO is still in, but if I call he will likely call to and by the time it gets to showdown my hand will almost never be good if just call min bets all three streets.

24

Yes, calling was my recommendation given the silly, small bets size. I was mainly pointing out that top pair on a small card flop against a normal sized bet is normally a fold, due to reverse implied odds, especially with any other players left to act behind you.

All this talk of “exploitability” raises the question in my mind: is anyone actually exploiting any of these thing? Don’t worry about plays being exploitable until you actually see people exploiting them. “Balance” is generally about making plays that lose chips in the hand in question, but end up combining with all of your hands to produce a very formidable strategy. But there is no need to take the short term loss if the players around you aren’t deeply observant.

25

I agree with all your other analysis on this hand and the other hands in this thread, but I’m confused by this last point. Are you suggesting that if villain fires half pot on the flop you would fold 97s here? I agree that getting sticky with top pair weak kicker can be a mistake if villain bets huge, bets multiple streets, or even if they raised pre (indicating KK+). But versus one bet?

They had to call 50 to see the flop, so their range includes any 2 cards, meaning they can have weaker 9x or even second or third pair. Even if they have an overpair somehow you have enough equity to continue, especially in position, and there are also straight draws.

I agree that it’s not necessary to be balanced or unexploitable, but even facing a half pot bet on this flop hero can very well be ahead. If villain fires pot on the turn, then you can definitely consider folding. Maybe I’m misunderstanding.

1 Like
26

I understand I dont want to play GTO but I dont think folding top pair on a dry board to one bet less than pot, is good, gto or not. Although Yorunoame brings up a good point that you should be cautious with top pair weak kicker.

27

Yeah, I agree (in case that was unclear from my post). I’m never folding top pair to one bet except in exceptional circumstances.

28

Half pot would be close. I was thinking something closer to a pot sized bet. I’d point out that top pair on a small card board is very different than top pair with a paired ace or king. Top pair here really plays a lot more like middle pair, or even bottom pair, and any over cards to the board in the pool of players you are against then means you are facing reverse implied odds on future streets: if money continues to go in as the turn and river comes, that will usually be in situations where you are behind.

This is mostly just a classic textbook case of reverse implied odds on a small card board. Note though, the word “classic”. I’m not sure that solvers haven’t overthrown this old idea… it might be fun to set up the situation with 97, villain fires pot sized bet (or near pot sized), and you have to act in the middle, with at least one player behind also waiting to act.

Of course none of this happened in the hand played. The initial flop bet was not pot sized, or even half pot, but a min bet, if I remember. Hero then raised over the min bet. I’d call there probably 100%. Raising is probably not horrible, but I’d rather make the raise with two over cards, or a weak, gut shot draw with low cards that have no other part of the board. The raise as played, in my mind, is a classic case of a bet that usually serves no purpose: I don’t think you’ll get many folds from hands ahead of you, and I don’t think you’ll get many calls from hands behind you.

29

Raising with top pair is almost always a mistake unless there’s a specific read that someone can get sticky with a lot of worse hands.

I do think that there are situations on replay where 97 is just a reluctant call, specifically if villain had opened or raised preflop. Most players just have so many over pairs when they open. But this board is basically a dream board for 97 (not flopping the nuts obviously) but top pair in a spot where opponents are less likely to have overpairs. Even without considering balance and exploitability, you’ve got to be pretty happy with your hand. I would just never fold. Against a check raise or some kind of overbet maybe, but even then 87 makes sense as a bluff.

I’m just not sure what you mean by reverse implied odds here. On an 8TJ flop with 2 spades then you have reverse implied odds as a super strong hand that could end up being 2nd best. Top pair of 9s is ok to play a medium pot with and fold if your opponent looks really strong. If they improve you don’t lose much, you can fold on a scary turn or a triple barrel on the river (unless your opponent is weighed toward bluffs). I just wouldn’t worry that much about over cards on later streets. If they’re betting into you with hands as weak as AJ or KQ or other broadways then that’s more hands you are currently beating. Of course they could have you dominated, but that’s why you can give up on later streets if they credibly rep top pair, but it wouldn’t be going wild to flat a pot sized bet on this flop or bet when checked to.

30

I understand why the raise might not be good, but my opponent called me with something worse, so it only proves my point that my opponents are call heavy and therefore there is value in raising 97 becomes more like middle pair if you never bet or raise because you give him all 5 cards for free when you raise now, your hand is stronger than if you let him see a free turn (which happened to be an A which he likely had) His range is capped, and filled with trash, draws, middle and bottom pair, and likely to improve on the turn and river which all make raising seem better.

31

Yes, if you have specific reads on the individual you are playing, that can change everything. Knowing that their range is shaped differently than you might usually expect can radically alter the right line to take against them.

32

What was the flop here? 962 I think? Hero has 97, and led pre flop. Villain donks into hero. In the actual game, the donk bet was a min bet (which seems likely to indicate we have a fish, but oh well), but we’re pondering what we should do if it had been a roughly pot sized bet, or slightly smaller (80% and up, say). Stacks are fairly deep, so there are a lot of chips behind still. We also have one player behind us that has yet to act, and who was the original cold caller of hero’s pre flop raise.

The reason reverse implied odds are involved here: the times we win with this holding will generally be with a smaller pot than the times we lose. This is true to a degree with any moderate made hand, but is more true with a small pair, as there are more cards in the deck that can serve as outs for your opponents, especially in a multi way pot.

2 Likes
33

I think of reverse implied odds as spots where you stand to lose a big pot when you hit, like drawing to a flush on a paired board or calling preflop with KT where you’re often dominated.

I’ll definitely think more about your points. Obviously in terms of balance you’d never fold top pair to one donk bet, but it is valid that facing a real bet with one player behind you don’t stand to win much if your hand holds up, but it seems disastrous to fold all that equity rather than trying to get to showdown. The flop was like 963 rainbow, so there is one straight draw, but we can’t expect many bluffs. I just don’t know how you could ever play suited connectors if you’re going to fold on one of the best flops possible (although you advocated folding pre which I agree with).

34

For your review: Huge river semi-bluff that actually got through.

Same table, a few hands earlier. I flop top set on a wet connected board that runs out 3 clubs, facing a half-pot-size bet on the river. It’s a tough call, but I think I have to pay off both flopped straights and backdoor flushes here. Given I had raised on the flop and gotten called, V is repping very strong to make this bet on the river. Was top set strong enough to be +EV to call here?

36

Good to see that you finally have some good luck stories to tell us about!

First hand: You out-bluffed a bluffer. Well done. I have no idea what the villain was repping. I’m not sure he does either.

Second hand: Prior to your call, you have 447400 chips vs villain with 252000. Pot is 396000. You need, roughly, 35% equity to break even. Any made hand will do.

Given the number of spreadsheets that you apparently run, I have no idea why you have to ask this question.

Hope this helps.

Regards,
TA.

1 Like
37

I do use spreadsheets for keeping track of things, but I am less confident in my ability to calculate odds correctly, especially in complicated spots, and I have yet to invest $$ into a good solver program, so yes I’m asking.

I knew that I had the strongest hand on the flop with top set, unless V had 96, or 64, which the preflop action should have ruled out. I was guessing that V was on a pocket pair, which turned out to be accurate. But by the river, my strong hand had become vulnerable to QQ and Ace-X suited clubs, and maybe some other clubs combos, depending on how many of those V calls a 3! with preflop, I wasn’t sure how much of V’s range could have me beat here. Which, I didn’t think V had a flush, but given the large sizing of their river bet, I couldn’t be sure if they had QQ. So that’s why I only called the river rather than raise. If he shoves, then I have a harder time calling, but I think it’s still a call, but not one I’m so happy about. As played, I doubt that they would have called a river raise without a holding that beats mine, and they’re never folding a hand that can beat 888, so raising didn’t seem like an option.

Overall, I think I played that hand about as well as I could have to get reasonable value from it.

38

See below for the EV discussion! Basic to EV calculations, however, is estimating our equity fairly closely. Just on inspection, I’d say that the villain had a middle pair or something like AK. It turns out that he had 99 so my wild guess wasn’t totally wrong!

Using magic tools and a bit of pixie dust, we can look more closely at what villain might be holding on the river. First up, let’s give our villain a super wide range that is guaranteed to hit pretty much every board!

I’m going to say that villain would raise and call your 3! every time with:
AA-22,AKs-A2s,KQs-K4s,QJs-Q8s,JTs,AKo-A7o,KQo-K7o,QJo-QTo,

Because our villain, in this analysis, is a bit of a loose canon and probably has a few screws loose, I’m going to say that he will raise and call your 3! 50% of the time with:
[50.0000]K3s-K2s,Q7s-Q2s,J9s-J2s,T9s-T8s,98s-97s,87s-86s,76s-75s,65s-64s,54s,A6o-A2o,K6o-K2o,Q9o-Q2o,JTo-J2o,T9o-T8o,98o-97o,87o-86o,76o-75o,65o-64o,54o[/50.0000]

I’ll also assume that villain will play on with anything that has a direct hit, overpairs etc and all “decent” draws.

Preflop: Hero has 63% equity, we’re good to go!

Flop: Absolutely no surprise to discover that our hero now has 78% equity (against villains continuing range). It should also be no surprise that villain has an absolute bucketload of hands to continue with here.

Turn: Villain has a load of Ax diamonds that might have continued from the flop, overpairs, top pairs and so on - the standard stuff. Nothing exciting and our equity against his turn continuing range is 78%.

River: We can assume that our villain is going to bet or call a reasonable bet with any made hand at this stage. Hero is still looking good with 78% equity.

Villain is likely to have:
straight: 16%
set: 18%
two pair: 18%
overpair: 24%
top pair: 24%

What about if our villain is stupid tight? We’ll assume, as previously, that he only continues with overpairs, direct hits and “decent” draws and his preflop range is: 88+,ATs+,KJs+,AQo+

Seems pretty tight to me!!!

Our heroes equity on the river against villains made hands is 82%.

The final possibilities are:
set: 17.65%
overpair: 70.59%
top pair: 11.76%

Notice that, in this scenario, our villain is playing so tight that he just can’t have a straight or flush!

The danger of these sorts of numbers, though, is that I have been assuming that our villain isn’t going to bluff with air!

These numbers may not be right for you, please consult the product disclosure statement or your poker consultant. Past performance is not a guarantee of future performance. These figures are generated using standardised tests in a controlled environment, your mileage may vary.

The basic EV equation is (%win * $win) - (%lose * $lose).

%win = hand equity, %lose = 100 - %win (obviously), $win = pot + your call amount, $lose = your call amount

If I have rearranged things correctly, we get required equity: %win = (100 x $lose) / ($win + $lose)

Interestingly, required equity using this formula is only 20%! I certainly hope that someone clever will double check me on this!

A more interesting, to me, formula that you might enjoy playing with calculates the EV when hero wants to shove. This is particularly useful in tournaments where our hero is down to about 25BB. It’s quite amazing just how little equity is required to justify a shove provided, this is important, you get your fold equity estimate fairly close!

(C2xB24) + (1-C2)x((B2x(B24+B5))-(1-B2)xB5)

C2 = fold equity
B24 = pot size
B2 = heroes hand equity
B5 = heroes stack size

There you go, no need to pay for a solver :slight_smile:

There is an affordable solver, GTO+, that is $75 for a lifetime license. I am nowhere near needing anything more sophisticated than fingers and toes but those of you in the upper echelons may find that this is good value.

If you don’t already have it, I would strongly recommend getting Flopzilla Pro for $25 - it is, pretty much, a surgically enhanced, steroid junkie version of Equilab.

I have no idea what I’m doing with it but all the pretty colours keep me entertained for hours!

Hope this helps

Regards,
TA

2 Likes
39

Hello Puggywug, thank you for sharing your hand. First and foremost I want to make it clear that this analysis does not take account villain tendencies, I’m only basing my analysis with GTO fundamentals. Im not perfect so take my analysis as a different perspective, as stated before I am not using any solvers.
With that being said, I will assume this is a cash game since everyone is deep.
Blinds 4,000/2,000, Hero stack is 838,400 (209 bb) Eff. stack: V in MP+2 w/ 573,500 (143 bb) .
Hero hand is 9h9d.

PREFLOP MP limps, MP+2 raise 18,000, folds to Hero in the BB who calls, MP calls.
Technically you did nothing wrong with the call since the implied odds are huge if you were to hit a set. But this is a really passive line, if over cards come on the flop and villain applies reasonably pressure you will have to fold quite a lot on the flop or on the turn, not ideal. With pocket nines I personally prefer to see a 3 bet somewhere of 75,000 - 90,000 when out of position. You can win the pot on the spot, reduce the field to 1 villain if called while taking control of the pot.

FLOP The flop comes 4h3h3s, the pot is 55,000 (3 players)
Hero in the BB checks, MP checks, MP+2 bets 28,000, Hero raises to 84,000, MP folds, MP+2 calls.
Your range hits this flop hard than your opponents ranges, loved that you checked here that was the strong line. Even though you have the range advantage here, check raising into 2 players was a big mistake with this holding. You have better combos to do it with such as straight draws, flush draws and strong value hands. The sizing was another mistake too. If villain bet 28,000 you want to be x/r around 120,000 - 140,000 (4x -5x) when you are out of position. Here check calling is the better line.

TURN The turn comes 7h and the pot is 223,000 (2 players)
Hero bets 112,000, MP+2 calls.
pretty textbook line, another card that hits your range hard. I would had bet 35% to 40% the pot here and sometimes go with a huge polarized bet. But nothing wrong with your sizing.

RIVER The river comes 7d and the pot is 447,000 (2 players)
Hero bets 448,000, MP+2 folds
pretty safe card, now here on this spot you got to think with what hands is your opponent calling your check raise on the flop and your half pot bet on the turn? how does his range looks like?, at this point it is something like TT+, A5s ATs+. but the way you played you had the range advantage over villain so it would be difficult for him to call a big polarized bet on the river even if he was holding AA, so even though 99 is a bad holding to make this play, I would had prefer a combo with Ah to do this with I still think you executed well on your range advantage and the sizing was perfect. Masterfully played and a great example of how ATC can win a pot by only playing your range.

Also do not show your cards no matter what even if you want to play mind games vs your opponents, just don’t. Other than that well played, let me know if you have any questions.

2 Likes
40

Here are a couple of my hands, which I believe were just not great specific spots but I’m curious about what my opponent is doing. Important context: villain and I have history and she is one of the best active players here, so I know she’s not 3betting only premium hands, especially against me. Prior to these two hands I had folded to an earlier squeeze, so she 3bet me at least 3 times in this 20 minute session, which is important info.

In this hand I had T9 of spades. On flop my plan was to just give up, but the board seems better for my range, so after picking up outs on the turn, I planned to bluff a lot of rivers. Unfortunately, it was a bad river, but it didn’t matter because she shoved. Do you think she’s balanced between bluffs and value? After thinking about it, I do probably have a lot of 1 pair hands that are put in a tough spot, but I think a lot of those hands bet the flop. It just seems like a strange polarizing bet in a spot that favors my range. I can have all the sets and straights, and it prevents me from bluffing my missed draws.

In this one I had QQ with a diamond. Against most players I straight up fold most flops with an ace, but against bw I need to call a bit more and two backdoors made it seem better. On the turn I’m just hoping for a Q or diamond on the small size, but the river jam once again prevents me from considering a bluff. It seems like villain either thinks I’m folding too much or they can get marginal value from my hero calls. I definitely have a lot of hands that call this river after calling two streets, which makes it seem like a value shove. Or maybe these were just two not great boards for my exact hands.

Also important, I’d almost always 4bet QQ here, but I was aware that the player to my left was on a short stack and liked to call a lot, so I was hoping to go for stacks against them in a small spr pot if an ace didn’t flop. In retrospect that thinking was not great.

1 Like
41

On the first hand, I think the call on the turn is probably fine to make some fraction of the time, though I’d obviously default to folding or raising. Maybe 10% call, 15% raise, 75% fold? Obviously have to fold on the river, but for your question about balance: there is some chance Black Widow might think you over fold to over bets, but I hadn’t really thought of her as a super aggro player like GG or El-jog in the past, and so I’d think she doesn’t have too many bluffs in her range here (I’d be surprised if it was even 1 in 2).

On the second hand, with QQ, I’d actually consider a call on the river, though I think the fold is fine, and probably the more standard play. Pre-flop, I think I’d also consider a 4-bet. It basically gets down to how wide I think the 3! range is, though having the dead money in the middle makes me lean more towards a 4!, but without knowing I’m up against a wide 3! range that will also leave QQ ahead of a call, also… calling feels pretty standard in position like this.

1 Like