Dynamic Full Ring Poker

by James Sweeney

  When considering a bluff CR we think about these factors, among others. Like, what is our opponent’s O-Range and C-Range? Are these two ranges far enough apart to show outright profit here? Would he start taking weak hands and bluffing them? These other factors may make CRing a little odd. Let’s look at some basic things by looking at some standard O-Ranges and how they do on certain board textures. We will take a standard O-Range of 22+/AJ+/KQ and look at it on some different boards. We will assume he has a standard C-Range of TP+, and give ourselves a nothing hand like 22. Let’s explore for a minute:

  We can see that a flop with a broadway combos (AK, KQ, etc.) hits the villain’s range hard. As the flop high card gets lower, it makes it harder for the villain to have a strong hand that can continue. Now, this doesn’t mean we want to CR every single board with a T or 9 on it. Because not every opponent will have that wide of an O-Range. Let’s use a tighter O-Range from EP, say a range of 55+/AQ+ and run it on some boards:

  Now we see that because the O-Range has many fewer broadway combos (AJ, KQ, etc.) that the high card on board drastically changes how often the range has hit. One thing we might notice is that K high boards, against that range, are actually very favorable for us (as they make hands like QQ/JJ uncomfortable, and brick AQ combos). We want to have a very clear understanding on how basic ranges hit basic boards so we can quickly estimate in real-time if a bluff would get enough folds. Given the fact that we are CRing, we usually need to risk a decent amount of money to pick up the pot.

  While it isn’t surprising that a minCR has to work much less often than a 4x CR to breakeven, it is still important to remember. But what we might notice is that most sizes that we would logically use would have to work between 50%-60% to breakeven. Meaning we would need to solicit at least that many folds from our opponent. This is why we need to have such a crystal clear idea on what our opponent’s O-Range is and also how often he would fold to the CR. Some players won’t fold just because we CR them. They might either bluff 3-bet (continuing with hands we needed to fold), or peel more liberally (with second pairs, etc.).

  For instance, say we are playing against a player who can hand read fairly well. He raises from EP, we call from the BB with XX, and we see a HU flop of A86. We check, he CBs, and we CR. Let’s think about that for a minute:

  What would we actually CR here for value?

  We might CR 88 and 66 for value here (assuming that we didn’t donk the flop or call the CB/donk the turn.). But past that, we wouldn’t rarely flat AK PF, so we don’t really have an A in our hand, except maybe a very odd A8s/A6s. So technically our CR range here is polarized, and probably bottom-side weighted.

  Would he CB his entire range?

  Some players would CB their entire range here, and others might start checking behind hands like QQ or KK. If he would CB his entire range, it can drastically change how often he has a hand that could continue here than if he would only CB a polarized range.

  How bottom-side weighted is our range?

  Our CR range being bottom-side weighted isn’t necessarily bad, assuming it isn't totally skewed. For instance, say we would CR all combos of 88 and 66, and also a few combos of bluffs (turning 22 or 55 into a bluff rather than peeling it). This isn’t nearly as bad as having all combos of 88 and 66, and CRing everything else so that our range has 3x as many bluffs as value hands. Then our being bottom-side weighted, against a good hand reader, can really hurt us.

  Does he care?

  Just because a player can hand read well doesn’t mean he will actually put that information to use. If he could read our CR as very weak, but would still fold to it, it still means his C-Range might be tight enough to make for a good CR. But if he does care, and will start 3-betting or peeling the flop more liberally, then his C-Range contorts greatly, making this a possible disaster of a CR.

  The issue with CRing is that our range is usually very polarized. We understand SDV and thus wouldn’t oftentimes turn a hand like TT on a Q84 board into a bluff. We also usually don’t have enough in our CC range to really represent hitting boards. Our CC range is usually pocket pairs, and thus it makes it hard for us to represent well on a single or double broadway card board (*hint: think about how this relates to other TAGs/nits that use similar strategies). This is why we usually can’t do a lot of bluff CRing against good hand readers. Those players can often times sniff it out for what it is, a bluff, and won’t be folding enough of the time for us to really show profit.

  Our ideal players to attack like this are players who have wide O-Ranges (CB range), tight C-Ranges (maybe TP+, maybe set+, etc.), and won’t shift hands from their weak range to their C-Range (by either bluff 3-betting or peeling). And because we don’t bluff fish, we really only do this against TAGs and LAGs who can’t hand read well and/or have the O-Range/C-Range disparity that we like. While these spots don’t arise all that often, they are super favorable for us if we take advantage of them and allow ourselves to win pots without hitting sets.

  The Value Check Raise

  While chapter 15 covers playing big hands on the flop, we’ll first look at CRing them here. There are two major times we CR with value hands:

  We flop a set

  There are times when we setmine, hit a set, and are OOP. We might consider CRing (assuming a donk or c/c-donk line isn’t ideal) if we know a player would CB the flop liberally and the check could trap more money in the pot. Chapter 15 talks about the consideration of donking rather than going for the CR.

  A big hand with a tricky check

  There are times when we might raise PF, hit big on the flop, and check with intentions of soliciting a bet. We might CR here if we need to get a big pot going when another line, like CB flop or call flop/CR turn, isn’t great.

  The big thing we need to do when we consider a value CR is to ensure that our hand is actually a value hand. Many players make the mistake of raising AK PF, and then CRing it in a HU pot on an AT9 board. The problem is that not many worse hands can/will continue, and thus a CR just turns our hand into a bluff. We would be better off check/calling or CBing ourselves if that’s the case. A value hand is one where we could make the CR and have second best hands continue a large percentage of the time. If they wouldn’t, then another line is usually best.

  Let’s go over CRing sets first. Say there is a raise to $.75 at 25NL from EP, a call from the CO, and we call from the BB with 6♥6♦. The flop comes Q♠6♠5♣. We check, the PFR bets $1.75, and the CO folds. The action is back to us. Let’s explore our options:

  Fold. We have a set, we aren’t going to fold here.

  Call. Calling is an option if we think a CR would get him to fold out hands like AA/KK/AQ, etc. However, because he CB into a MW pot, it is more likely that is O-Range is strong, and thus more of it has a higher chance of continuing versus a CR. A call here isn’t bad, but it might not be ideal if he would make mistakes versus the CR.

  Raise. At this point we would just need to think about his O-Range and how he would continue if we were to CR. If he would fold hands like AA or KK, then his only C-Range is QQ and 55. So against a range like that we might be better off just calling and either trying to CR the turn, or donking ourselves. But if he would call a little more liberally with AA/KK type hands on the flop, then a CR can be a great play to get a big pot going and get him stuck to it.

  Like usual, our action is based on how our opponent would react to it. A CR is the default play here, as it gives us the chance to make a big pot against a hand that might overvalue itself, and a c/c-donk or c/c-c/r play is usually done with more information on our opponent. While we do run the risk of him folding JJ or QJ sometimes, we give ourselves a bigger chance to make an AI pot with our very strong holding. As for the size of our CR, we need to think about pot geometry. If we CR up to $5 and he calls, that makes the pot roughly $13 and leaves roughly $19 back in the stacks.

  This makes getting stacks in very easy ($7 on the turn and $12 on the river). If there were more depth in the effective sta
cks, then we might consider a larger CR, or making much bigger bets on the turn/river to get the most amount of money in the pot (assuming of course he would continue versus those bet sizes with a favorable hand range). The big thing to remember with the size is that if we want stacks, we need to ensure that he calls the initial bets. So we don’t want to CR so big that he can’t continue favorably. We also don’t want to go so small that we don’t allow ourselves to create the pot size that we want. Usually a CR between 2.5x-3.5x is the standard, but again, we need to think about what the size accomplishes.

  The other time we might consider a flop CR is when we are being tricky with a big hand. Say we open to $3 with T♦9♦ from the CO and we see a HU flop with the button. The flop comes J♥8♠7♠ and it is our action. Let’s explore our options:

  Check. Going for a CR here is based entirely around our opponent. If he might not peel this flop liberally, and would bet this a ton of the time, then going for a CR can be a great line. However, we do need information to take this line. If we don’t know if our opponent would bet in this spot super often, then defaulting on making a CB would be better. But if we know that a check would really encourage that mistake-rich environment, then checking can be a very profitable line.

  Bet. The default line would be to bet here. We have a big hand and we would like to make the biggest pot possible. While a CR would technically create a bigger pot than a normal “we CB and he calls” line would, we can’t always rely on getting a CR in. If we don’t think we can make a CR a large percentage of the time, then we should just bet here.

  Again, the default line with a big hand as the PFR is just to bet it out ourselves. But if a good situation arises with an opponent who has to bet when checked to, or might make a mistake because they view our CR as bluffy, a CR can be a nice mix up play. We should take notes to find out if we can make certain plays in the future, but we can also use our HUD. For instance, if in that T♦9♦ hand our opponent had a very large FoldvCB% and large FlopBet%, then that might actually push us towards checking to them. With better information we can take more exploitative lines, and really maximize pure value on all of our hands.

  14.Playing 3-bet Pots Postflop

  Many players feel they struggle the most once a 3-bet pot goes postflop. They are tricky spots, often times with odd SPRs, that can make or break a WR very easily. Because not every possible 3-bet spot can be talked about, this section will try to breakdown some of the more common spots, many of which can be extrapolated to figure out the optimal play in situations which we don’t cover in this chapter.

  The 3-Bet Pot Mentality

  The way in which we process information in 3-bet pots is crucial to our success in them. We effectively look at a handful of things, and then plot our line from there:

  Did our opponent flat our 3-bet? If so, with what hands would he normally do that with? What hands do we rep here?

  Did we flat a 3-bet? If so, with what hands would he have 3-bet us with? What hands do we rep here?

  What kind of hand strength do we have? SDV, bluff, semi-bluff, value?

  What kind of texture are we dealing with?

  Is our opponent the kind to CB-n-quit?

  Does he play fit-or-fold postflop?

  What is our goal here? (To get stacks in? To showdown? To stab and hopefully pick the pot up?)

  What kind of player is our opponent?

  Are we IP or OOP?

  What kind of SPR are we dealing with?

  Some of these can be answered very easily. “Do we have a bluff hand on the flop vs a player who would only call our 3-bet with a strong hand?” If yes, then bluffing is probably bad, and thus we check and cut our losses. “Do we have a nuttish hand vs a player that never folds postflop in 3-bet pots?” If so, then we bet. “Do we have SDV and a bet would never get called by a worse hand now?” If yes, then maybe we consider checking more often.

  The Setmine 3-Bet Pot

  A normal situation where we might flat a 3-bet is when we raise from EP/MP, face a 3-bet, and call with a pair to setmine with good odds. However, many players peel the CB too liberally, minimize earnings when ahead, and/or call the initial 3-bet badly. Remember, the reason why we would flat the 3-bet preflop, especially from OOP, is because we think our opponent would only 3-bet super strong, and that there are lots of IO because of it.

  So take this situation where we open 3x with 77 from MP, an 11/7 with a 3b: 2% 3-bets to 9x from the button, and we call. The flop comes 973. This is a great spot to go for a CR because an 11/7 isn’t going to check back AA/KK type hands here, he is going to bet them for value because it is a 3-bet pot and he caught a low flop. But the situation is different if the board came A76. Many players make the mistake of checking this flop, when a donk bet would almost always be a better play.

  Donking here is great because a 2% 3-bet range is super tight. 2% is actually just AA/KK and some QQ/AK. If we run it through flopzilla (with a 50% weight on AKo) we see that he will hit top set about 13% of the time, TP 33%, and under pairs about 55%. Lets run through some logical happenings:

  If we check and he has X he probably does Y:

  AA: bets for value

  AK: bets for value

  KK: checks to pot control

  QQ: checks to pot control

  If we bet and he has X he probably does Y:

  AA: calls it sometimes and raises it sometimes

  AK: calls it sometimes and raises it sometimes. Never folding the flop though

  KK: probably calls it at least once

  QQ: probably calls it at least once

  We see that donking gets us action almost always, while checking only gets us action sometimes. These kinds of situations may not arise all that often, but playing them optimally when they do will greatly benefit our bottom line.

  There is also the odd spot of flatting a 3b with a hand that flops a relatively strong pair. Take a spot where we open raise TT from the button, the SB 3-bets us, and we call. The SB is a TAG with a resteal of 9%. The flop comes J73 and he bets 60% pot. This is usually a standard spot to call, use our position and skill edge later in the hand, and win the minimax game. However, if we expect this player to double barrel the turn often, we need to make a decision on the flop if we are going to get sticky with our single pair or if we should just fold now before we get blown off our hand later. This spot can be very difficult when OOP against an aggressive opponent, which is why we usually 4-bet or fold PF rather than call.

  The Small SPR 3-Bet Pot

  The great thing about small SPR pots is that we use a strong range in them. Because we were well aware of SPR creation preflop, we should have used an appropriate range that makes this spot relatively easy. If we are constantly finding ourselves in this situation with a bad hand range, we need to reconsider our preflop strategy versus smaller stack sizes.

  12 Check out http://dailyvariance.com/fold-equity-calculator/ for a free FE calculator

  There are three main happenings in these spots. We either maintain a very strong hand, we miss the flop completely, or we get into the awkward SDV situation. Let’s talk about them in order:

  The strong hand

  Take a situation at 100NL where a $40 stack open raises to $4, we 3-bet KK to $12 on the button, and he calls. The flop is J83 and he checks to us. The pot is currently $25.5 and we have $28 in the effective stack, for a ~1 SPR pot. Pretty much as long as we never fold, we are fine. Our line is totally based on creating the most mistake-rich environment. If our opponent makes a lot of betting mistakes, then we can consider checking here and giving him a chance to bluff the flop. If our opponent makes a lot of calling mistakes, then we should consider making a sticky bet for something like $13 and getting him to call us down liberally. These situations are easy for us as we never fold and can always default on betting them, especially from OOP, if we aren’t sure what to do.

  The missed AK-type hand

  In this hand we are at 50NL with AK. An unknown shorter stack open raises from MP to $1.5,
we 3-bet to $5, and he calls. The flop is T32 and he checks to us. The pot is $10.75. Let’s look at this from the most important piece of information: the SPR:

  There is .8 SPR. Say there is $8.5 left in the effective stack. With such a small SPR we can simply look at some basic factors, like estimated equity if we get called and pot size, we can use a fold equity (FE) calculator12 to figure out if shoving is good or bad. When figuring out our estimated equity in these smaller SPR pots we can usually just assume we will have about 24% equity (this is running AK against a range of mostly pairs, the occasional nut hand that has us drawing dead, and a few draws). If we punch all this into a FE calculator we see that villain only needs to fold 15% of the time for our shove to breakeven.