Playing post flop against a villain with good equity

Just been thinking about the best way to go about these hands where we are likely ahead but villain has good post flop equity against our hand and is likely to float. An example.

Grabbed by Holdem Manager
NL Holdem $0.25(BB) Replayer
SB ($28.41)
BB ($23.93)
UTG ($25.35)
Hero ($25.35)
UTG+2 ($39.97)
MP1 ($38.49)
CO ($25.35)
BTN ($25.20)

Dealt to Hero 7♥ 7♠

fold, Hero raises to $1, fold, fold, fold, BTN calls $1, fold, fold

FLOP ($2.35) 6♠ 4♠ 2♣

Hero

Let's say villain in this hand is fairly competent and will likely float here with two overs or a flush draw if we bet. What is our plan in this type of hand? We could be betting for value as we probably have the best hand but when another spade, A, K or Q comes on the turn we will often be behind. If we check/call and try to get to showdown cheaply we will only be good say 60% of the time and we give villain 3 streets to bluff us off our hand.

There are other similar spots to this but I think this is the best example I could find. At the moment I am losing more by continuing with these hands than I would be by check/folding so I thought someone may be able to point out something that I am missing before I start doing that.

Of course I don't have any history at 25nl but I think it holds true for any stakes that it is virtually impossible to control pot size and get to a showdown cheaply when OOP and up against a decent player, especially one who likes to float. This is why playing a hand like 77 from early position is such a risky idea. Almost any card is a scare card and you will have a hard time getting past the turn if villain tries to push you out. Your example is an excellent reason to play ultra tight from Early Position. My default opening range here is TT+ AQs+ AKo so face cards don't usually scare me. I have actually been toying with the idea of tightening up from the 1st two spots just a little more to JJ+ , AK as in researching my PT3 db AQs is a very slight money loser and TT only a small gainer here so I figure why bother. The other reason to play this tight here is when you get 3bet you are 4betting a huge part of your range so only folding a small part of it here and in fact against certain opponents you could 4 bet for value with AA & KK and 4 bet semi-bluff with QQ JJ AK.
Also when against a tricky villain and OOP and you are playing hands that are likely to flop an overpair or TPTK you can alternate between check/calling and check/ raising the flop on dry boards. If you check/raise about 50% of the time you keep villains a little more honest when you check/call and in this way you are in fact helping to keep the pot smaller.

FWIW, depending on the table I sometimes play 77 from MP and sometimes won't even open with it until the Hijack seat (LP1). Experience is showing that tighter play is more profitable and I have recently (over the past 30-40k hands) whittled down my MP opening hands as hands like KJs are slight money losers for me here. So from MP I am playing 88+ AQ+, Hijack: 77+ AJ+ KQ, CO: 55+ AT+ KJ+ QJ+. I am starting to not get as excited about Suited Broadways as I used to, Flushes come about so rarely and since at my stakes you can't generate much FE getting aggressive with Flush draws just falls flat so often. Over and over and over I'll flop tons of equity with a Flush draw plus overs and/ or gutshots (10-15 outs) and start raising only to have to fold to a large River bet when I miss completely which is more often than not.

Definitely bet the flop for value. If he floats a lot, check/call the turn as he'll be bluffing often enough, then re-evaluate on the river.

Bet the flop. Villain is unlikely to be getting the odds he needs to call unless you're just always ch/folding the turn when the scare card hits. In the hand posted you also have a little backdoor str8/flush equity. Bet flop, ch/call most turn bets.

bet fold the flop.

You are never betting this for value you are collecting dead money.

Lets assume his preflop calling range is all suited aces, all suited connectors, KJs+ QJs all PP AJo+ and KQo (12%)

Lets assume he would 3bet JJ+ AK

Lets assume his postflop calling range is

Against that range he calls about 40% of the time and against the range he calls with you are behind

If we drop the SC's he calls about 45% of the time and again against the range he calls with we are behind

If we bet 3/4 pot, we need to win about 43% of the time to show a profit. (collecting dead money as if he calls we are OOP against a range we are behind)

We can see he folds 55-60% of the time.

Other than hitting a set, there isnt really any turn card that then puts you ahead.

Therefore the flop bet cannot be for value as his calling range has more equity than you do, and I have made that turn range as wide as can be.

Whats killing you is most of his FDs are also 2 overcards.

For the particular hand he used as an example your advice is good but it sounds like he is looking for some general guidelines when he thinks he may be ahead but villain is possibly floating with position. I think the crux here is he's wondering how he can play a decent hand when out of position vs a tricky opponent. The basic premise of my response is to not play out of position with medium strength starting hands.

Calling range so you can put it into pokerstove

TT-66,44,22,AsQs,AsJs,AsTs,As9s,As8s,As7s,As6s,As5s,A s4s,As3s,As2s,KsQs,KsJs,QsJs,JsTs,Ts9s,9s8s,8s7s,7 s6s,6s5s,5s4s,4s3s,3s2s,AcQs,AdQs,AhQs,AsQc,AsQd,A sQh,AcJs,AdJs,AhJs,AsJc,AsJd,AsJh,KcQs,KdQs,KhQs,K sQc,KsQd,KsQh

I think you range is just a bit heavy on the FDs which obviously have great equity against us. Also he said villain likely calls with any 2 overs or FD but you fail to include hands like ATo or A9s without the FD or Ax where x has paired the board. Basic point is that if villain floats enough we can certainly be betting for value.

Do people float any 2 overs on drawy boards or do they tend to do it with 2 overs and a BD draw?

Which should be our default assumption?

Added a bit to your range:

TT-66, 44, 22, AsQs, AsJs, AsTs, As9s, As8s, As7s, A6s-A2s, KsQs, KsJs, QsJs, JsTs, Ts9s, 9s8s, 8s7s, 7s6s, 65s, 54s, 43s, 32s, AcQs, AdQs, AhQs, AsQc, AsQd, AsQh, AcJs, AdJs, AhJs, AsJc, AsJd, AsJh, KcQs, KdQs, KhQs, KsQc, KsQd, KsQh }

Hands added A6s (not just spades),A5s,A4s,A3s,A2s,65s,54s,43s,32s (I mean if he's playing these hands when they're spades he's not folding pairs + str8 draws right).

Against this expanded range we have 50% equity. If A2o-A6o are in his range preflop we have 60% equity.

I think you are saying what I said only with math. Really unless you would need to play 77 from early position for a balanced range you are hoping to break even? By playing for only set value you are hoping that villain would stack off with a hand that he didn't 3 bet preflop. If as Stubzy alluded to that villain was decent what kind of hand would he flat call a raise and then stack off with? The only real example I can think of would be a strong suited Ace such as AKs AQs possibly AJs. In that case villain would likely not just shove but bet/ raise/ re-raise/ re-re-raise-shove and as you mentioned all those hands have 10 outs in these examples so with the money already in the pot this would be +EV for him.

an easier way to avoid all this is to not play 77 from EP.

OK so at best we are 50:50 (Im ignoring A2o and A6o.. why would anyine call with them IP? Im more inclined to put A2o in someones 3betting range .. if they have one.. than their cold calling range) They would be CC 25% to include hands like A2o

The general rule of poker is that in a 50:50 situation (equity wise) the overall equity in the hand is more like 45:55 favouring the person in position. Assunming the guy OOP isnot Phil Ivey

Edit: To fx obviously. Stu snuck a reply in there before I was finished.

77 is most certainly a winner from EP. Just because you're willing to give up money to avoid playing poker postflop doesn't mean the rest of us are.

We know your advice, you don't have the nuts, fold preflop. Well frankly that's just stupid.

Also Stu isn't advocating folding this pre. He's saying there is plenty of money to be won by cbetting the flop but that we're not betting the flop for value (to be called by a range lacking the needed equity to call). There is a huge difference there.

That is what I'm saying.

As for the turn, I think we are 50:50 which translates to behind when OOP.

I also think most of the cards he calls the flop bet with he calls the turn bet with... so I cant really think of a reason to bet the turn.

However if the turn gets checked through, then I revise his range to be virtually entirely FD's (and many of them have overcards)

That basically means we can check call any river.

There isnt much point in betting the river as he wouldnt be able to call with a missed FD but after seeing us go limp on the turn and then check the river he may well decide we were c-betting the flop with air and hopefuly bet the river with 100% of his range.

If you don't mind please show from your db results for 77 from seats 5 & 6. If you show that it is a clear money maker I will revise my advice.

Will have to wait till tonight when I get home but will do.

Going off at a tangent but the reason being OOP sucks is the structure of the game.

If we invented a new form of poker whereby the game were HU and the positon never changed (so the guy OOP was always OOP and the guy IP was always IP) AND we cloned Phil Ivey so he could play himself.

The Phil Ivey IP would always beat the PI OOP.

Mathematically here is why.

Lets assume PI always makes a pot sized bet

on the flop the pot is (p)

OOP makes a pot sized raise. So he bets (p) to win (p) so he has to be correct 50% of the time to win. (be correct means he has the best hand more than 50% of the time and then dosent bet if his opponent spikes on a later street.. it means he puts his opponent on a range thats accurate enough that when he bets to collect dead money, he is correct on that range more than 50% of the time, or it means that when he bets to set up a bluff on later streets again he knows that bluff will work more than 50% of the time).

So PI bets (p) into (p)

Now the action is on IP Phil Ivey The pot is now (2p) and he has to call (p) to continue. Obviously he only continues if he has some plan to win.

IP he only needs to be correct 33% of the time.

So not only does PI need a slightly stronger range OOP than IP, he also needs to make decisions that are more often correct than he does when sat IP AND he has to do that with less information.

So to win OOP you need a bigger edge than you do to play IP.

This translates to 2 things.

1.) OOP cards matter more than IP
2.) You need to be better than your opponent to play OOP than IP (better not roughly equal)

BTW the reason for that post was to highlight why Being OOP in roughly coinflip situations (or even slightly ahead situations) sucks. Which is what the turn will be like in this situation.

So the flop was a +ev bet but the turn wouldn't be +ev even if we were slightly ahead.

I wouldn't say this is off tangent at all, I think it goes right to the heart of the matter.

There are 3 advantages to be gained in NLHE; card advantage, positional advantage and skill advantage.

If I were to play, say WV he would have a strong skill advantage so the only way I could hope to compete is make sure I had advantages in the other 2. Since most poker players are long term losers by definition they are bad. Therefore the best way for bad players to neutralize their poor skill is to not play out of position and to make sure they only play strong starting hands.

I don't really know exactly what cocktail of mental abilities and personalitiy traits are required to be a great poker player, although obviously some math skills, logical reasoning, willingness to take risk, bravado and dissimulation are in that mix. I think someone like me who has some but not all of those traits can compensate by playing only strong hands and not playing out of position.

I think the truth is that there are way more players like me than WV Hillbilly, Owen Gaines, Dusty Schmidt, Tom Dwan or Phil Ivey.

I advocate folding hands like 77, AQ, KQs, etc from EP for any player who is a struggling or novice player. By avoiding marginal situations where your ability to quickly put villain on a range, calculate your equity against that assumed range and then make the best possible assumption the neophyte poker player eliminates the possibilty of making a huge and costly mistake.

I think I am very good at putting villains on range of hands and fairly good at making assumptions about how they will react to the board based on that assumption but for whatever reason I think when it comes time to making the best possible decision my inputs get crossed and I not only often fail to make the best decision, I in fact make the worst decision.

Will I ever get better? I don't know. I still lack a lot of confidence in my game and am extremely risk averse, however I have figured out a style which consistently beats 2nl for 3BB/100 with a huge sample to prove it. Perhaps 3BB/100 is somewhat pathetic at 2nl but I think I will be able to replicate that success for the next few limits once my bankroll gets there. At some point I will hit a wall where I can no longer consistently show a profit because my style will be too predicatable and exploitable. At that point I will either need to adapt or stay stuck in the micros. I am not afraid of either possiblity, I enjoy grinding because I think it creates tremendous emotional discipline for me, only a few short months ago I was a tilt monster but now I can get my Aces cracked twice in a row and just keep grinding.

MY advice may be 'stupid' for some but I think for others I think it could possibly be sage indeed.

Sorry for the hijack, I read the OP and instantly saw that playing Out of Position was the problem. That riffed into 77's equity vs a range of hands on a drawy board. I tried to steer it back to talking about positonal play. Fortunately Stu did a way better job articulating that point.

77.jpg (http://www.cardschat.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=35079&d=1294706226)

77 from EP is worth about 1 bb per occurrence on average.

So if we can determine that villain will fold to a c bet enough to make c betting profitable we should c bet but if our c bet is called we should be re evaluating the turn (especially when the scare card hits) and in some cases, calling one street (preferably river) as there will be some bluffs (more likely on the river) in villains range.

thanks for posting this.

I notice you win from UTG+1 but lose from UTG. Are there other starting hands where you have such a big discrepancy between those two seats in winrates?

should u not just play 77 for set value here why would you raise preflop anyway from early position likely to get reraised then ur just guna fold so seems pointless raising to me.

It's actually something I noted while pulling these numbers. My overall winrate is positive with all pairs from UTG+1 and slightly negative with most pairs 22-77 from UTG (slightly positive UTG with 44 just due to variance).

My overall loss rate from UTG with 22-77 is only .25 bb so the losses are small and of course I have no way of judging how the fact that I play small pairs from UTG might effect my WR with other hands.

Thought it was interesting though.

i would trip barrel.

Have a look at why you lose with these hands.

Is it because you have just run into set over set more often than normal or are they just not profitable?

If not why not remove them and add a few JQs type hands so your range is as wide but contains more high card type hands

JQs OOP will run into all sorts of trouble making a pair with 3rd kicker or a non-nut flush. If you need to play a certain percentage of hands for balance wouldn't it be better to pick random unconnected offsuit cards with a -EV? Pocket pairs 22-77 represent 2.7% of all possible hand combinations. You could pick 72o & 83o which would be 2.42% of combos and thus indistinguishable on a HUD. You will win the same percentage of hands that don't go to showdown and when you hit the flop hard it will be totally unexpected and by showing down a few of these you will keep your opponents from being able to put you on a narrow range of hands.

No loses with 27o or whatever would undoubtedly be higher than for 22-77. 27o basically never makes a strong hand where the pairs can at least make sets.

At 2nl Id rather have a PP than QJs but at 50NL id rather have QJs than a low PP because hand selection changes the more people try and play back.

The reason WV wont be profiting with his low PP is that people wont fold enough to his c-bets (the float too much) and his small PP dont have enough equity to continue on most turns.

The more aggro people get the more you are forced to play postflop with less than the nuts.

I'm not advocating playing 72o UTG, just that if 22-77 are overall losers from UTG even with the sets you make (due to set over set, losing to straights/ flushes or just not getting paid off enough when you hit) AND you want to keep your opponents guessing then playing 72o type hands you can get away easily if your c-bet gets called and once in a blue moon you'll flop an unexpected monster when the flop comes down A72.

A balanced range is nothing I need to worry about personally. I play in the land of the droolers.

This whole discussion re-asks one question though: When you are OOP and you flop a single pair hand, whether it is Top Pair, an overpair or an underpair is is it generally better against an unknown villain to check/call dry boards than to c-bet? By check/calling with the occassional check/raise you mgiht keep the pot smaller when you are either way ahead/ way behind. If ahead, your opponent on a dry board is drawing to 2 or 3 outs against you and if they've flopped a set or 2 pair then you are the one drawing to 2 or 3 outs. Or is any attempt at pot control when OOP usually futile and it's better to c-bet in heads up pots on various textured boards?

You really should never ever pick -ev cards in any situation.

you shouldnt polarise your opening range.. there just isnt any point.

Even when polarising your 3bet range, you are often better off picking cards that are +ev against your opponents range.

i.e. A3o It dosent have much equity but it has a lot more than 72o infact against most opponents opening ranges (the ones who can fold) A3o is going to be around breakeven.

Polarising is better off explained in terms of the nuts or nothing, but preflop in 6max or FR Why polarise to that extent? Infact when you get onto the topic of optimal poker you find that you shouldnt play any hand that is -ev.. you just end up playing a ton of hands that are breakeven.

c-betting is more to do with board texture and your opponents tendencies than what you hold.

People like to call and wet boards hit more of someones range than dry boards.. hence you cbet most dry boards and fewer wet boards.

If villian folds less than 50% on most flops then you need to start considering double barrells and whether or not this flop is going to be a good one to DB in general.

But non of that really applies when if you are playing at a table where you can play nitty and show a profit.

There is no point in DB and TB if you can make the nuts, shove, and get called often.

If your cbet success is lower than around 40% -50% with these hands then you need to take them out of your UTG range and substitute in other hands that have more post flop playability.

If your c-bet success is 50%+ then just stop betting after called on the flop unless you hit a set.

The problem with small PP being you cant really barrell turns with them (well you can but your equity is lower than it is with QJs)

I guess I should shut up about all these metagame issues when they irrelevant at most stakes, especially the one I play at.

After all I'm the guy who just dropped AQs from my EP range becaause it is a money loser for me from seats 5&6 and now am playing TT+ & AK only. I researched my results when drawing to nut flushes from EP when I flop a Flush draw and I have at least one overcard and it is -EV.

I'm becoming a bit of a zealot about not playing out of position.

The reason its difficult for you to play AQs OOP is people arent aggressive enough.

You need people to raise lots of flops rather than keep flatting in order to come over the top. The problem with simply open shoving with 100bb stacks is that you are putting in a ton of money to win a few bbs, whereas when people start making healthy raises then you can come over the top of those and you end up risking less to win more.

This is all villian dependent.. people often think that in order to be good you have to do these aggressive things. It makes sense by the reasoning that good high stakes players do this so theer has to be something in it.

However it completely misses the reason good high stakes players actually play the way they do.. which is they tend to play other good high stakes players.

Most of what you do is very villian dependent (Durrr actually showed this in a HU match last year when he faced a weak passive player who kept hitting the nuts.. Durrr kept folding and folded hands not air.. he correctly decided that this guy wasnt capable of playing back so when he raised he must have a good hand.. and Durr was correct and actually showed that he does have a tonn of discipline its just usually he is playing more aggressive opponents so thsi side of his game dosent usually show).

Thats why hand ranges change with agression and aggression usually means higher stakes.