I'm not saying this particular villain is passive. I'm saying when facing a passive villain, it's better to just bet, since you're ahead of their range and checking only gives them a chance to improve (even if it's a small chance). It's not going to change your ability to get value later.
Ok.
No, his hand sample doesn't have anything to do w/ my comment about his 3-bet calling range. What I'm saying is someone who is opening 10% vs someone who is opening 18%, their 3-bet CALLING range will not be that different (other than what I previously noted about some hand distributions). It will still be right around the 5% range.
I understand now and I agree.
I'm making a rough distribution based on the fact I want X% of suited connectors that are reasonable that approach around a 5% calling range. We can add AQo, but then I'd take out AQs and reduce the AA percentage. I've explained in here how to build ranges in the past, maybe I need to go over this again. But look, I'll show you multiple ranges:
This hand driven to you directly from DriveHUD
Poker HUD & Database
Board: 4c Tc Ad Xx Xx
Equity Win Tie Hand Range
52.6129% 51.5502% 1.0627% [ KdKs ]
47.3871% 46.3245% 1.0627% [ 88+(100), AKs(100), AQo+(100), T9s(100) ]
This hand driven to you directly from DriveHUD
Poker HUD & Database
Board: 4c Tc Ad Xx Xx
Equity Win Tie Hand Range
48.1684% 47.1058% 1.0627% [ KdKs ]
51.8316% 50.7689% 1.0627% [ 88+(100), AQs+(100), AQo+(100) ]
And so on... but including AA/KK 100% as a call, an no suited connectors is incorrect imho.
I haven't read your book yet, or all of this thread, but I think I understand. As I think braveslice suggested, your range is not literally the cards you think the villain may have, it's a shorthand way of entering the approximate distribution of WA and WB hands you think are in the villain's actual range.
Well, I'm pretty bad w/ hand ranges historically. So you're probably correct. So let's go w/ your ranges and talk about what lines make the most sense then. Let's take your tightest range, which I personally don't think is a realistic and representative range, but perhaps you're 100%. You have: only 33% against {AQ+,TT+}. (it's actually about 35%, but we'll say 33% regardless).
So taking our example hand, what do we do? If we check and call and villain makes any bet that is slightly over a pot sized bet, we should be folding correct? What % of the time will villain be betting with worse for perceived value? He'll have no bluffs based on your range. But you should be folding correct? Of course, generally speaking, our opponent won't pot the flop. Typically they'll be betting 50-63% of the pot.
If the hero doesn't c-bet, the villain may bet QQ or JJ because he reads the hero as weak, or may bet for value. I'd say the latter is more likely.
Isn't this where the tricky part of discussing WA / WB using equity kicks in?
If the hero is likely to be WB and most of the villain's bets are going to be for value, I don't think we can say the hero should call if the pot
odds are less than ~33%.
If we check and the villain bets, his range is heavily weighted toward hands that crush us.
And there is a playability concern - our own hand is unlikely to improve on future streets, making it difficult to call any future bet.
If we check the flop, I'd fold to any non-trivial bet by the villain.
But my point main point is, if he won't have any bluffs based on your range, then why even take that chance? Just bet. There are times where opponents will over shove, or do other things. Why allow that to happen?
The chance that the villain gains equity on a later street?
The chance that the villain bets with a hand that is WB us because he thinks we are weak?
The chance that the villain makes a bet that gives us poor
pot odds? As noted just above, I think it doesn't take an overbet from the villain to give us a -EV situation.
All of the above, I suppose, and those are all valid reasons I think.
The argument for not betting is simply that the hero would be building a bigger pot when he is probably WB, and probably unable to bet or call multiple streets even if he is WA.
Now let's say instead we bet 35% of the pot. We just made a Nash equilib bet correct (really you should be betting around 45%)? Whether our opponent calls or folds, it doesn't matter. But now we set the price. If our opponent raises, we fold. I don't bet this amount, but I bet a similar small amount in 3-bet pots for precisely this reason (and because in a spot like this I know we have more equity than this). I can bet a wider range and include more bluffs. Anytime you're the aggressor in a spot like this, you allow your opponent to make more mistakes. When they fold out 88-TT in this spot, vs my bluffs, that's a huge amount of long term EV I switched to my side. Lastly when I do have a big hand I can setup bets vs. bad players that they tend not to fold to. If I bet say 44%, then 42% and then I'll have just under a half sized pot bet typically on the river, so I can goad bad players into 3 streets of value. I don't do this vs. decent regs of course.
You may be overestimating the importance of post-flop range balancing at the $.05 BB level in a site with a massive player pool.
I have no doubt that what you say is true at your usual blind level, and there is some non-zero value to post-flop balance even at this level.
So say our opponent calls our flop bet, if we check the turn, they will likely check behind w/ their whole range. Board texture and turn card play a big role here, but that's the likely scenario.
For the sake of argument, you are giving the villain a narrow range pre-flop. After calling a flop bet, the villain's range is almost entirely Top Pair Good Kicker or a set of tens.
All the hero has done is make a standard flop c-bet.
There are two clubs on the board. I'd guess the odds of a bet by the villain on the turn here are close to 50/50 if we check.
So we're in check down mode expecting that our opponent might turn some hands into bluffs on the river. This is probably a separate discussion on the river spot, but I think you get the general point here (I hope). In one scenario, you potentially priced yourself out, in the second, you made an ideal bet and controlled the pot.
I think I understand your argument pretty well, thank you again.
So now let's say you check and your opponent checks. If they check in this spot, it's likely because they have a smaller pair and you just gave them free equity for no reason. You bet the turn, and they are likely calling.
Good!
You say I gave the villain free equity for no reason.
I gave him free equity to avoid building a big pot when I was probably behind.
Now, in the unlikely event that we have reached the turn after both player check the flop, I am in a much better situation:
- I know I am probably WA
- it is harder for the villain to know where they stand. So far I have 3-bet pre and checked the flop.
Am I just betting now with a medium pocket pair or KQ because they showed no strength? Slowplaying a monster? Semi-bluffing with a draw?
The villain's range is mostly QQ and JJ now if we agree for argument's sake that he has a narrow pre-flop range.
I am probably ahead, and my range here in the villain's eyes includes many hands they might beat.
Are you betting the river? What changed and why?
Depends on board texture (hopefully we have avoided clubs, Queens, and Jacks), but generally yes, I am betting.
Nothing has changed since the turn, and I have no reason to believe this player is tricky. I'm probably ahead here and will get calls from weaker hands.
But these are the ones you want to get away from. You got lucky in respect to you not have 55 in this hand. If you had 55, you couldn't have folded. But because you had bottom set w/ no other real hands that would make sense, this is one of those 1 in 10 spots where you need to find the fold button.