Dynamic Full Ring Poker

by James Sweeney

  Our Opponent

  As we know, certain players are more likely to make big bluffs, and others are far from it. For instance, we almost never hero call a nit because their range doesn’t tend to have enough bluffs in it. And even if their range did have bluffs in it, only rarely would they pull the trigger and run the bluff. We also don’t want to get in the habit of hero calling P-Fish and unknowns, as P-Fish tend to make more calling mistakes than bluffing mistakes, and we need information to hero call.

  Our ideal player to consider hero calling against would be an aggressive opponent who has shown the capability of running big bluffs. Players who understand SDV and polarization are usually perfect to consider hero calling, because their betting range on the river becomes more polarized. And if the weight of their polarization gets too bottom-side weighted, we can call a bit wider than we might normally.

  Board Texture

  Very definitive textures are usually better candidates to hero call on. Boards like 4 straights, 4 flushes, A high, K high, etc. These boards polarize a good player’s betting range, and then it just becomes a weighting exercise. Low boards, like 96343 are usually pretty bad for hero calling because a player can easily be VBing a hand like TT or K9, making a hero call with something like A high really bad.

  Range Reading

  Like always, we need to think about ranges. Does our opponent have the ability to have better hands? Or would he have 3-bet those types of hands preflop? And when considering range reading against better players, we want to think about what we represent as well. A good player might just attack us because he thinks we will fold enough of the time.

  How Did We Get Here?

  Whenever we are considering making a hero call we want to consider the entire line. Say we get to a spot on the river where an opponent bets pot on an AJK3Q board. Did he really get to the river with a T in his hand? In a hand where we checked down to the river, the chances are higher that he has a T than if we bet the flop and turn. Again, we want to think about the entire hand’s actions and logical ranges before we consider making big calls like this.

  Effectively we are looking for a spot where our opponent’s actions don’t line up with the hand he is representing, on a board that is definitive, in a spot where we know he has a large enough bluff range, and we have something with SDV. In an essence, this spot doesn’t come up all that often. But let’s look at a spot where it might. Take a hand where we raise with TdTs from MP. The button (a solid TAG) calls and we see a HU flop of A♦K♦3♦. We CB for $4 and he calls. The turn is a 6♥. We bet again as a semi-bluff for $11, and he calls. The river is a 4♦ and we check to him. He bets the river for $30. Let’s look at a few things:

  The Board is Definitive

  The board has a 4 flush on it, so it is very definitive.

  Our Opponent

  He is a solid TAG who we know can run bluffs if he feels it is good spot.

  His Line

  He really can’t have many hands that beat us. He could have the Q♦ or J♦, but they would have to be made with hands like Q♦Qx or J♦Jx, as it is unlikely that a good TAG is going to flat AQ or KJ type hands from the button. His line looks like a double float type hand, or a hand with some SDV that he is turning into a bluff because he feels bluffing it is more valuable than checking behind. Being a good TAG means his bet on the river should be very polarized as he would usually check strong SDV hands behind (33 or 8♦8♥ type hands) and only bet nuts/bluff type hands.

  Our Hand

  We have some SDV (the third nut in this situation is really only a bluff catcher after we check it), so our hand strength fits right into hero call territory.

  On the river we are calling $30 to win $67.5, getting a little better than 2:1. As long as we think at least ⅓ of our opponent’s range is bluffs, we can make this call. Of course, we need information to do so. This is why we heavily focus on the board texture, his line, his bluff frequencies, etc. Again, these situations don’t come up all that often, but when they do we can pick them off with information.

  The “OMG I’m Confused” Line

  A lot of this book, postflop especially, mentioned default lines in passing. The reason that default lines were not heavily discussed is that my goal for this book was to keep it as timeless as possible. I didn’t want to put in default lines that work today, but might not work tomorrow. The entire goal was to talk about the composition of good plays so that you knew what information to look for and how to use it. This section will talk a little about default lines to an extent, just so we have a basic idea when we get confused in a hand.

  Let’s just list some of the basic questions we want to ask ourselves during a hand:

  What would happen if we bet?

  Because we will usually have the aggressive lead in a hand (we don’t do much flat calling or calling of 3-bets, etc.), we usually are the decider of whether or not a bet goes in, at least on the flop. Because of this, we want to ask ourselves what would happen if we bet. Do we expect a lot of folds or calls? Do we expect to get raised a lot? What actions would we ideally like and at what frequencies do we expect them?

  What is my hand strength?

  As always, we want to fully understand the strength of our hand. As a default, if we have a value hand, we should just bet (we can consider trickier lines with information). If we have a SDV hand, we should aim for a street or two of value, and take lines that allow for that. If we have a bluff hand, we should bluff if we expect enough folds and give up if we don’t. If we have a semi-bluff hand, we should usually bet if we expect enough folds and not many raises.

  What is his range?

  What does our opponent logically have? Of course, this necessitates information which can usually be gleaned from HUD stats. Even if we don’t have enough stats to put someone on a definitive range PF, we can still decipher range from their actions. While it will never be exact, we could assume that players are strong when they raise. If we default folded weakish hands against raises, we wouldn’t make a massive mistake against players in information-less situations.

  How did he logically hit the board?

  This ties in heavily with our opponent’s range. Of course, if we do not know our opponent’s range, then it will be difficult to figure out how they hit the board. But if we spend some time with Flopzilla we can see how basic ranges hit different boards. The default ranges we can use are a setmining range (22-QQ), the 18% range (all pairs, and all double broadway (AT, KJ, QJ, etc.) hands), and the 22% range (all pairs, all double broadways, suited connectors, and some other suited hands like Axs and Q9s). Just becoming familiar with how different logical ranges hit flops can help us quickly visualize how a villain logically hit the board.

  When we are IP, confusion is always easier to handle. Essentially we can always check back and just go on to the next street. An important part of confusion is our default action. Many players, when confused, default on betting. In FR, checking should often times be the default action when we are confused. Why would we want to make a bigger pot that will only create more confusion? Our goal when we are confused should be to keep the pot size smaller and more controlled, not to bloat the pot and make it even more difficult.

  From OOP it can be much harder. Because checking every time we are confused can encourage our opponent to bet more liberally. However, checking is still a fine default line when confused. We don’t want to be running big expensive bluffs when we don’t know how they will work. And we don’t want to find ourselves betting and creating pot sizes that are too large with SDV hands.

  Of course, poker is about more than just our hand strength, but it's the basis of our actions. Here are some basic default lines I use:

  Preflop. If I have a big hand (KK+) I 3-bet as a default. If I have AK and expect a lot of folds, I 3-bet as a default. If I have a small pair versus a strong range with minimal squeezers behind me, I setmine as a default with correct odds. I do not cold call other hands as a default. Against shorter stacks I will default st
ack off QQ+/AK in a HU pot preflop.

  Flop. If I miss and expect at least 50% folds, I CB as a default with bluffs. If I have a value hand I will bet it. If I have a SDV hand (QQ on Axx), I will check as a default if the pair is jacks or better. If I have a SDV hand smaller than a pair of jacks, I will bet as a default. If I have definitive SDV (AJ on an A87 or KQ on a K64) I will check if I think I am getting raised too often and don’t have a plan versus the raise. If I have a definitive SDV hand I will check if I think the check will create a very mistake-rich environment and that a bet wouldn’t be quite as +EV. If I have a value hand (set or better) I am raising as a default. If I have a no information, I will only CR for value as a default. As a default, I will not float and will only peel pairs that are relatively strong.

  Turn. As a default I will not bluff. If I have SDV IP and the board has few bad river cards, I will check behind. If I have SDV IP and the board is very wet, I will bet the turn and check the river as a default. If I have a value hand I will bet it as a default. As a default I will only give raises action with very strong hands. If I am confused, then I check as a default.

  River. As a default I will not bluff. If I have SDV IP and don’t think a bet gets called by a lot of worse hands, then I check behind as a default. If I have SDV OOP and don’t think a bet gets called by a lot of worse hands, then I check as a default. I only call with a SDV hand if I think my hand is best a lot of the time as a default. I will VB my value hands as a default, IP or OOP. I will fold to raises from passive players without nuttish hands as a default. If I am confused, then I check as a default.

  Again, information trumps default lines every time. If we know a player will do this or that, or wouldn’t do this or that, then we use that information to take better and more exploitative lines. In general, our goal when confused is to showdown as cheaply as possibly. We don’t want to make bigger pots without big hands or big information. So if we keep that mantra, we should stay out of a lot of the trouble that other poker players encounter.

  20. Creative Line Composition

  In certain circles creative lines are either often times not discussed, or are discussed and focused on too much. For fun, we’ll touch on the topic here, but keep in mind that a good understanding of all of the concepts talked about earlier will be imperative to creating the sorts of lines discussed here.

  First off, what are creative lines? Creative lines are lines that are “outside the box.” They attack odd or special parameters and veer away from the default lines that we might normally use in a situation. Being able to create new lines isn’t the most important skill in the world, but it will allow us to stay ahead of our opponents and adjust more correctly to various situations. Herein we will talk about some things to look for when creating lines ourselves, and some lines I have created or seen that are, in my opinion, awesome examples of creative plays.

  Global lines

  When we consider lines, we either look at specific lines or global lines. Global lines look at the parameters of a global entity. For instance, if a level on a particular site, players do X, we can do Y to more accurately combat them. We care about global lines because they can shape things like our entire preflop strategy, our entire CB strategy, and even our turn and river lines. Understanding global lines will keep us focusing on big strategic aspects of our game as opposed to a singular play against a particular opponent.

  Specific lines

  Specific lines focus on particular players or particular situations. So while a global line might focus on our overall 3-bet strategy, a specific line might focus on our 3-betting against one player. Or maybe we change our CB strategy on a particular board against a particular villain. These lines are usually created when we do analysis on a particular player and dissect his weaknesses for future exploitation.

  How “XXX” plays

  Overtime we notice that certain player types tend to trend and do certain things all at the same time. TAGs might all start aggressively restealing, and LAGs might start increasing their 4-bets. Fish might start check/MRing more liberally, and nits might start open limping small pairs. If we pay attention to how the different player types are playing, we can start forming ideas on exploiting whatever action they are tending to take.

  How pools play

  Pools of players tend to play similarly as well. Fish are always in a “monkey see, monkey do” mode, which makes our lives easier. If we see the TAGs are more aggressively restealing, and overtime fish start doing the same, we know that we should expect resteals more often and need to adjust to play closer to optimal. If fish start getting aggressed upon more often, then they will start aggressing back because they think that’s how one should play.

  There is always a “trickle down” in the poker community. It is very common for a video to get released on a training site, have a play start being used by those that watched it, the fish see it and try it, and before we know it, everyone is doing whatever play the pro on the video did. The same with articles. On the 2p2 micro-full ring forum there is a concept of the week (COTW), and oftentimes the play discussed there will be heavily used by players, the fish will see it and start using it, and then everyone plays differently. Being ahead of “group-think pools” is vital to staying ahead of the game.

  There are plenty of other things to consider as well, but these are the basic building blocks of line creation. We always start with the parameters that we have available, and then we start focusing on the exploitation of the strategies being used. Let’s look at a few of my favorite adjustments from the last year or so.

  The EP Steal

  One of my favorite plays is the EP steal. I noticed that the games were giving lots of respect to raises from EP. Players weren’t 3-betting liberally, were really only calling with a setmining range, and were playing pretty set-or-jet postflop. This gave me somethings to think about:

  I can pick up the pot PF

  This is great. Low risk (risking 3x-4x) investments for solid profit plays are always something I appreciate.

  I can pick up the pot postflop

  This is even better. If someone is going to call PF and fold to my CB about 80% of the time (he hits his set+ about 12.5% and we give some float allocation for things like TT on an 8 high flop), I can make some real money. Again, low variance, and even at worst my risk is 3x-4x PF and a ½ PSB CB (4x-6x) for a 10x max risk. And if my plan goes awry and I go MW, I can always abort the CB plan if it doesn’t look like a good spot (because let’s face it, not every spot will go perfectly every time).

  If I get 3-bet

  If I get 3-bet I know I am against the nut part of somebody’s range, so I can take IO if I have the right hand against the right player with the right price, or just fold and lose 3x-4x. I can’t complain about being able to play perfectly with minimal downside and massive upside potential.

  Because of this I needed to choose a range of hands to use. I didn’t want to do it at 100% because my VPIP/PFR would get too high and players might treat me as a fish and start approaching me differently. So I decided to use my normal range of 77+/AQ+, and add all broadway combos, suited connectors, and suited gappers. This gave me a range of hands that could catch winning TP hands, and hands that could cooler my opponents (having 86s on a 975 board versus 55, etc.).

  As soon as pots started going MW more, players started floating flops more liberally IP, and players started 3-betting EP raises more liberally, the play went away and I went back to my standard EP range and actions. Plays like this don’t stay around forever, but when favorable parameters present themselves, there is no reason why we shouldn’t attack and exploit them.

  The LRR

  A LRR is a limp/reraise, and there was a point when the games were getting very aggressive with isolating limpers. It seemed that every TAG was going out of their way to isolate every player that was limping at their table. If these TAGs, who tend to take up the most amount of seats on a table, were all doing this, there seemed to be some opportunity. Also, the LRR at t
hat time was usually considered to be a KK+ type hand getting tricky. So I decided to consider open limping and reraising if I got isolated from a TAG. Here are some things I considered:

  If I did it, how much would I have to risk?

  The average situation would be a limper, a TAG isolation to 5x, and then action back to the limper. This would mean to run the play I would have to LRR to about 14x. My original risk would be 1x (the limp) and then 14x total (the LRR) if I got isolated.

  How often would it logically work?