0% found this document useful (0 votes)
876 views100 pages

Modern Poker Theory Páginas 601-700

The document discusses the strategic importance of bet-sizing in No-Limit Hold'em (NLH) poker, emphasizing the need for a balance between complexity and practicality in betting strategies. It explores the concept of optimal bet-sizes, the impact of stack-to-pot ratios (SPR), and the potential pitfalls of using multiple bet-sizes, particularly in early betting rounds. The findings suggest that while multiple bet-sizes can theoretically enhance expected value (EV), they often complicate execution for human players without yielding significant benefits against competent opponents.

Uploaded by

Bárbara
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
0% found this document useful (0 votes)
876 views100 pages

Modern Poker Theory Páginas 601-700

The document discusses the strategic importance of bet-sizing in No-Limit Hold'em (NLH) poker, emphasizing the need for a balance between complexity and practicality in betting strategies. It explores the concept of optimal bet-sizes, the impact of stack-to-pot ratios (SPR), and the potential pitfalls of using multiple bet-sizes, particularly in early betting rounds. The findings suggest that while multiple bet-sizes can theoretically enhance expected value (EV), they often complicate execution for human players without yielding significant benefits against competent opponents.

Uploaded by

Bárbara
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 100

The main thing that sets NLH apart from other poker games is the ability to bet any

amount,
from a single big blind to your entire stack, at any given point. When we discussed complex
strategies in Chapter 4 we proved that playing a more complex strategy than push or fold gains
Hero EV. The following questions are interesting:

♦ How important is it to have the ability to use several bet-sizes post-flop?

♦ How many bet-sizes do we need?

♦ Does true GTO play require the use of an infinite number of bet-sizes, or is there a cap to
the EV gained by adding multiple bet-sizes and increasing the complexity of our
strategy?

♦ Could it be the case that there is a GTO optimal bet-size that will always maximize our
EV?

NLH is a continuous game in the sense that the full game tree with infinite bet-sizes cannot be
drawn. So, in order to computationally solve any given NLH situation with modern GTO
Solvers, we must use a betting abstraction with a finite number of bet-sizes. If true optimal play
requires the use of an infinite or very large number of bet-sizes, then computational solver
applications would be quite limited, or even useless. Furthermore, as mentioned before, the cost
of implementing extremely complex strategies can surpass the value they add and can, in
practice, hurt your expectation because more complex strategies are more difficult to execute.
Unlike computers, for us humans, even more than a few bet-sizes across multiple streets quickly
gets out of hand.
In this section we will use results from known toy games and modern solvers to answer these
questions, improving our understanding of GTO bet-sizing and use the results to develop
strategies that are both powerful and simple enough to be effectively implemented.

The Pot-size Raise


The pot-size bet or pot-size raise is a bet that lays exactly 2-to-1 or 33% pot odds to your
opponent. Betting the size of the pot is widely used in Pot Limit Omaha (PLO) as the biggest
possible bet or raise players can make. For this reason, PLO players are probably going to be
more familiar with it than NLH players.
The way to calculate a pot-size bet is straightforward. Imagine the pot is $100, and you want
to bet 1/2-pot. All you have to do is multiply $100 × 1/2 = $50. But this gets a bit trickier if you
want to make a pot-size raise after someone else has already made a bet.
To calculate a pot-sized raise, follow this formula:

Match the previous bet.


Calculate the total pot including your matching bet before you raise.
Add that amount on top of your matching bet.

Example
The pot is $100 and Villain bets $50, how much should you raise if you want to make a pot-size
raise?

If you want to raise to a fraction of the pot, the formula would be as follows:

Full pot = 100%, so the pot-size raise stays the same:

If you want to raise a different amount such as 50% pot, then the calculation would be:
A 25% pot size raise would be:

Alpha and MDF Revisited


EV has to be compared between all the different actions a player can take and never in a vacuum.
I’ve seen many top players, and even famous poker coaches, making the mistake of using the
Alpha Number and MDF to justify making bad plays. The discussion often goes something like
this:

“My flop bet is profitable, it only has to work X% of the time and the Villain is folding
more than that, therefore I’m making money!”

While that statement might be true, we cannot forget where Alpha and MDF numbers come
from. They are derived from the EV equation. They assume that the EV of checking back your
hand is 0 and that every time you are called and hold a bluff that you lose the pot and your bet.
However, on the flop most poker hands will almost always have some equity as even the worst
hands can improve on future streets. For this reason, the Alpha and MDF numbers are
misleading. In reality, the BB does not have to defend nearly as many hands as MDF suggests,
because they do not have to make IP’s worst hands indifferent to 0. IP has to make them
indifferent to the EV of checking back. Also, IP won’t always lose the entire pot when they are
called and hold a bluff because sometimes this bluff will pick up equity which makes the
continuation bets more profitable than expected.
These numbers become more relevant on the river when there are no more cards to come and
you know if your hand has some equity in the pot or not. When deciding whether to bet or check
a hand, you need to compare the EV of both actions and take the action you think will yield a
higher expectation.

Alpha and MDF can be used as a rough guide, but you cannot build your core strategy
based solely on them and think it is GTO.

Splitting Your Range Into Multiple Bet-sizes


How many bet-sizes do you need on any given flop? Should you split your range as much as
possible by betting different amounts according to hand strength?

The [0-1] Toy game

The [0-1] Toy Game can be used to analyze a heads-up situation when both players have
symmetrical ranges. In this game, both players get dealt a random number between 0 and 1
(including decimals such as .04563) that represent their hand. Higher numbers beat lower
numbers. This game is played across a single street. OOP always checks to IP who can bet or
check. If IP bets, OOP can only call or fold, and cannot x/r.
In this set-up, both players can have an infinite number of hands as there are infinite numbers
between 0 and 1. The general result is that the optimal strategy for IP is to use an infinite number
of bet-sizes based on the strength of their value hands. So IP should pick a value hand, say 0.99,
and pair it up with a bluff chosen from one of the weakest hands in the range, say 0.01. IP then
bets a specific amount that varies with the strength of the value hand, using the biggest bet-size
with the strongest value hand, the second biggest bet-size with the second strongest value hand,
the third biggest bet-size with the third strongest value hand and so on.
We can replicate the [0-1] Toy Game in a modern GTO solver by giving both players a fixed
range of 10 hands carefully selected so there are no blocker effects:

Hero: IP with a range of A♣A♦, K♣K♦, Q♣Q♦, J♣J♦, T♣T♦, 9♣9♦, 8♣8♦, 7♣7♦, 6♣6♦, 5♣5♦
Villain: OOP with a range of A♠A♥, K♠K♥, Q♠Q♥, J♠J♥, T♠T♥, 9♠9♥, 8♠8♥, 7♠7♥, 6♠6♥,
5♠5♥
The board: 2♥2♠2♦3♠3♥ so there is no interference with the ranges.
Stack depth: 2x Pot
Bet-sizes: full pot, 2/3-pot and 1/3-pot.

In this experiment we get the same results as the [0-1] Toy Game predicts with Hero’s
strongest hand AA using the biggest bet-size, KK using the second biggest bet-size and finally
QQ using the smallest bet-size and balancing it out with 55, and 66 using all three-bet-sizes (the
fraction of 55 in the range is not enough to make up all the bluffing frequency so a small portion
of 66 is used to make up the difference). JJ-77 are always checked.
The Villain’s response in this toy game is to always call AA against all bet-sizes, then add
enough of all other hands to make IP bluffs indifferent to a bet or check.

[0-1] Toy Game Example A

However, this toy game has some limitations that real poker does not have. For example, in real
poker, your opponents can raise your bets so, if you use the 1/3-pot bet-size, they will know you
can only have QQ or 55 and use that information to attack your capped range by raising with a
range that is polarized against that distribution, for example AA, KK and some bluffs. This will
allow the Villains to pick up extra EV (Hand Range 337).
Hand Range 337: No x/r allowed • Bet Full Pot 15% / • Bet 2/3 Pot 14% / • Bet 1/3 Pot 15%/ •
Check 56%

[0-1] Toy Game Example B

If the Villain is allowed to x/r against the 1/3-pot bet-size, they can leverage the information
Hero is giving to take advantage of Hero’s range construction. So, Hero immediately adjusts to
never use that bet-size and QQ will shift entirely to the 2/3-pot bet-size (Hand Range 338).
Hand Range 338: OOP x/r vs the 1/3 Bet-size • Bet Full Pot 15% / • Bet 2/3 Pot 28% / • Bet 1/3
Pot 0%/ • Check 57%

[0-1] Toy Game Example C

If we allow a x/r against all three different bet-sizes, Hero is no longer able to split their range
into multiple bet-sizes and will adjust to only use the full pot-size bet, shrinking the value range
to KK+ and checking back QQ-66 (Hand Range 339).
Hand Range 339: OOP x/r allowed vs all bet-sizes • Bet Full Pot 30% / • Bet 2/3 Pot 0% / • Bet
1/3 Pot 0%/ • Check 70%

[0-1] Toy Game Example D

If we give Hero the option to go all-in and to additionally bet pot while the Villain is allowed to
x/r, Hero will indeed split their range into the two bet-sizes:

♦ The all-in bet-size is used by AA 42% of the time and balanced by bluffing with 55 26%
of the time.

♦ The full pot bet-size is used by KK 100% of the time and is balanced with AA 58% of the
time, which gives IP protection from OOP x/r and with 55 74% of the time as a bluff.

All-in is a special bet-size because it limits the Villain’s options to only call and fold. At this
2x pot stack depth, OOP cannot effectively use the information given by Hero for exploitation.

Hand Range 340: IP All-in allowed (2x Pot) • Bet All-in 7% / • Bet Pot 24% / • Check 69%
If we increase the SPR to 3, Hero never goes all-in and reverts back to using only the full pot
bet-size. With an SPR of 3, bluffing with 55 starts to become too expensive as OOP’s range is
strong enough to defend effectively (Hand Range 340).

Summary

Table 89: Summary of Toy Game Outcomes

In Toy Game A, when the Villain is not allowed to x/r, Hero can split the betting range
between three different bet-sizes which allows capture of 56.11% of the pot.
In Toy Game B if we allow the Villain to x/r only against the 1/3-pot bet-size, Hero’s response
is to stop using that bet-size and their EV will reduce to 54.98%. If we lock Hero’s strategy in
Toy Game B to force the use of the 1/3-pot bet-size, even though it can be exploited by the
Villain’s x/r, Hero’s EV reduces to 54%.
In Toy Game C, Hero reverts to a single bet-size due to exploitation by OOP x/r.
In Toy Game D, Hero’s stack depth allows them to split their range into an all-in and pot-size
bet when the SPR is 2, which grants a small EV gain for a total EV of 55.06%. However, Hero’s
EV is virtually the same as in toy game C which only uses the pot-size bet. If we increase the
SPR to 4 in toy game D, Hero won’t be using the all-in bet-size any more and chooses to use
only the pot-size bet and there is no EV loss by restricting Hero to only the pot-size bet.
Limiting Hero to using only the pot-size bet retains EV, while limiting to the 1/3-pot size bet
only reduces Hero’s EV to 53.27%. So, choosing the wrong bet-size loses EV.

SPR Effect
Testing various SPR results on Hero’s strategy shows a preference for the following bet-sizes
(Table 90).
Table 90: [0-1] Single Street Toy Game Optimal Bet Sizes (Shaded boxes are all-in bets)

♦ If the SPR is 1 or less, the optimal bet-size is in fact all-in.

♦ For SPR 1-2 the range gets split between pot and all-in.

♦ For SPR 3 the all-in bet stops being used and the betting range gets split between 75% pot
and 125% pot

♦ For SPR 5 to 10 the betting range gets split between 75% pot and 150% pot.

If we simplify Hero’s strategy in the [0-1] Single Street Toy Game by removing the least
frequently used bet-size from the game tree across all SPRs, leaving Hero with a single bet-size
option, the EV loss diminshes as the SPR decreases and the average EV loss across all SPRs is
0.21% of the pot (Table 91).

Table 91: Comparing Single and Two Bet-sizes for Hero

Conclusion
Using multiple bet-sizes is dangerous and it’s more dangerous in the early betting rounds.
Splitting your range into different bet-sizes gives away information that your opponents could
leverage against you when they have the option to raise or bet. This effect gets magnified when
betting happens across multiple streets. The way ranges interact with the board and cards to
come shift equities, as is the case of real poker. When the board runout can change the hand’s
value and there are possible blocker effects by the board or Villain’s hands blocking value hands
or bluffs, fewer bet-sizes should be used.
For this reason we don’t have to worry about optimal play containing infinite bet-sizes
because there is always going to be a tradeoff between the possible EV gained by using the
perfect bet-size with a specific portion of your range and how much you lose by giving your
opponents additional information about your holdings.
Even if GTO solvers can manage to split and balance out multiple bet-sizes the EV gained by
doing so is not, in most cases, substantial enough to warrant the increased difficulty for a human
player to implement them.
I tested many different bet-sizes on thousands of post-flop GTO simulations across all 1,755
flops and found that most flops will have one or two dominant bet-sizes. If the bet-sizes are close
to each other, for example 25% pot or 33% pot, they will have virtually identical EVs, making
the solver indifferent between them. If the solver splits a player’s range evenly between two
similar bet-sizes, the game tree can be simplified by removing the lower frequency bet-size and
keeping only the higher frequency bet-size with no EV loss because most of the time the EV
difference is within the Nash distance. The same thing can be done if one bet-size is very
dominant and the solver chooses several other bet-sizes infrequently. The low frequency bet-
sizes can be removed from the game tree and the new strategy that only uses the higher
frequency bet-size will preserve the EV. Finally, if the solver splits its range between two bet-
sizes that are very far apart, both bet-sizes can be replaced by another bet-size that is in the
middle.
Simplifying a strategy by removing the smaller bet-sizes and leaving only large ones typically
lowers the player’s overall betting frequency as many hands that are profitable bets with the
smaller bet-size might no longer be profitable bets with the larger bet-size. Conversely, removing
the large bet-sizes from the simulation leaves only small ones, which generally boosts the
player’s betting frequency.

Both theory and practice agree with the premise that splitting your range into multiple
bet-sizes does not add substantial EV to your strategy against a GTO opponent who can
react properly. However, changing your bet-size exploitatively with different parts of your
range against a player you think will be prone to making mistakes can be extremely
profitable.

Optimal Bet-size
Is there an optimal bet-size that will always maximize your EV?
Bet-sizing is affected by the range’s polarization and the number of streets left to play. Earlier
in Chapter 2, we went over the Clairvoyance Single Street Toy Game that shows how, with a
purely polarized range vs a bluff-catcher range, the optimal bet-size is to bet all of your chips,
and the optimal bet-size for the player with the depolarized range is to bet 0 chips (always
check).
In the [0-1] Single Street Toy game, we saw that the optimal bet-size when the players’ ranges
are symmetrical was to bet big but since both players have the exact same range there is a cap as
to how big the bets can be and that cap depends on the SPR. But NLH is played across multiple
streets, so how would playing across multiple streets affect the play in these toy games?

Geometrical Bet-sizing

The optimal bet-size that maximizes EV for the player with the polarized range on the multi-
street version of the Clairvoyance Toy game is given by the geometrical growth of the pot. This
implies a betting structure where the same fraction of the pot is bet on each street so that the river
bet is always all-in.
The general formula to find the final pot size after a number of betting streets is given by:

Where:
FP = Final Pot Size
SP = Starting Pot Size
R = Pot Growth Rate
S = Number of Betting Streets

Which can be rearranged to find the Pot growth rate (R) that can later be used to find the
Geometrical Bet-size. (The proof of this concept goes beyond the scope of this text. If you want
to expand on it you can find more details in The Mathematics of Poker by Bill Chen and Jerrod
Ankenman.)
Example
Game: Live Cash game
Stacks: Hero $1,900, Villain: $1,000
Players: 9
Blinds: $5/$10 (no ante)
Pre-flop: Action folds to Hero in the SB who raises to $35, the Villain in the BB calls, and we
get to the flop. How much should Hero bet on each street if wanting to use the geometrical bet-
size?

We need to figure out the pot growth rate (R). In this example the betting is calculated across
three streets starting on the flop, so the starting pot is $70, the final pot size when both players
are all-in will be $2,000 and the number of betting streets is 3.
First we calculate the pot growth rate (R):

Then the geometrical bet-size is given by:


If Hero wants to use the geometrical bet-size, it is necessary to slightly overbet the pot on each
street:

It’s important to notice that implementing the geometrical bet-size when stacks are very deep
results in very large bets (often these are overbets). In real poker, the ranges will never be
perfectly polarized and betting too large forces the Villain to fold the weaker portions of their
range and only continue with the strongest hands. If you bet large enough to make the Villain
only call when you are beat, you won’t be able to value-bet any more because betting will lose
you money. Thus, there is a cap to the bet-size Hero can use across multiple streets. Particularly
when stacks are deep, this cap will be lower than the geometrical bet-size.
The geometrical bet-size only applies for situations when one player’s range is perfectly polar
(made of hands with 100% equity and hands with 0% equity) and the other player’s range is
100% bluff-catchers, which will never be the case in real poker. So, it is unlikely that the
geometrical bet-size will be optimal for Hero, but it at least gives us a good general idea of what
Hero’s strategy should be when their range is polarized: big bets across multiple streets!

Range Polarization Effect

We now return to the [0-1] Single Street Toy Game with the following set up:

The board: 2♥2♠2♦2♣3♥


The SPR: 4
Bet-sizes: 30% Pot, 60% Pot, 90% Pot, 120% Pot, All-in
Hero: IP
Villain: OOP
In this toy game Villain always checks to Hero, but is allowed to raise if Hero bets. In this
setup both players always have 50% equity.

[0-1] Toy Game A: Hero Has a Big Polarization Disadvantage


Hero’s range is QQ, JJ, TT, 99, 88, 77, 66
Villain’s range is AA, KK, QQ, JJ, TT, 99, 88, 77, 66, 55, 44

[0-1] Toy Game B: Hero Has a Slight Polarization Disadvantage


Hero’s range is KK, QQ, JJ, TT, 99, 88, 77, 66, 55
Villain’s range is AA, KK, QQ, JJ, TT, 99, 88, 77, 66, 55, 44
[0-1] Toy Game C: Symmetric Ranges
Hero’s range is AA, KK, QQ, JJ, TT, 99, 88, 77, 66, 55, 44
Villain’s range is AA, KK, QQ, JJ, TT, 99, 88, 77, 66, 55, 44

[0-1] Toy game D: Villain Has a Slight Polarization Disadvantage


Hero’s range is AA, KK, QQ, JJ, TT, 99, 88, 77, 66, 55, 44
Villain’s range is KK, QQ, JJ, TT, 99, 88, 77, 66, 55

[0-1] Toy game E: Villain Has a Big Polarization Disadvantage


Hero’s range is AA, KK, QQ, JJ, TT, 99, 88, 77, 66, 55, 44
Villain’s range is QQ, JJ, TT, 99, 88, 77, 66

Table 92: Hero Stats According to Range Polarization

Hero’s EV increases as they gain the polarization advantage (Table 92). The smaller size 30%
Pot is never used and the bigger bet-sizes are increasingly used as Hero’s range gains the
polarization advantage.

♦ Toy Game A (Hero’s range is very depolarized): The strategy is to always check and
simply split the pot 50% of the time.

♦ Toy Game B (Hero’s range is slightly depolarized): Hero can start betting ~15% of the
time using the 60% bet-size with the bigger bet-sizes not being used.

♦ Toy Game C (the ranges are symmetric): Hero’s range gets split among the bigger bet-
sizes of 90% and 120% but all-in is still not used.

♦ Toy game D (Hero starts to have a slight polarization advantage): the all-in bet-size
starts to get used, but the dominant bet-size is the 120% overbet.

♦ Toy Game E (Hero has a large polarization advantage): all-in becomes by far the
dominant bet-size, with the small and medium bet-sizes never used.

If Hero’s range becomes perfectly polarized and the Villain’s becomes bluff -catchers only,
the strategies will result in Hero only using the all-in bet-size.

Multi-street Betting

[0-1] Multi-street Toy Game


The board: 2♥2♠2♦2♣ (turn play)
The SPR: 4
Bet-sizes: 30% Pot, 60% Pot, 90% Pot, 120% Pot, All-in
Hero: IP
Villain: OOP

In this toy game Villain checks to Hero on the turn but is allowed to raise if Hero bets. Both
players can bet, raise, call or fold on the river.
Using the same range distribution examples as in the Range Polarization Effect section, we get
the following range polarization stats (Table 93).

Table 93: Hero Stats According to Range Polarization

In this set-up, Hero not only has the polarization advantage, but also has equity advantage, so
the expectation is even bigger than in the single street toy game. Also, betting across multiple
streets is always beneficial for the player with the polarized range.
In Toy Games A and B, Hero has the depolarized range. In the single street toy game Hero
was still able to bet with a small frequency when we removed KK and 44 from their range. Here,
however, in the multi-street version of the game, even a slight polarization disadvantage is
enough to stop Hero from doing any betting at all. Despite having position, Hero chooses to
never bet, as checking back effectively removes one betting street from the game tree, allowing
Hero to get to the river with their full range. Meanwhile betting would result in Hero having to
fold some hands to a x/r. Going all-in will not help Hero either because Villain’s range is
stronger than Hero’s range and putting in very large bets with the weaker range is a losing
proposition.
In Toy Game C, the ranges are symmetric and Hero starts using the smaller bet-size of 30%
Pot for the first time. As Hero gets the polarization advantage, the overall betting frequency
increases, and the bigger bet-sizes are implemented. With SPR 4, the geometrical bet-size with
two betting streets is 100% pot, but the bet-sizes chosen by the solver are far smaller than that, so
Hero’s range has to be even more polarized compared to the Villain for the bigger bet-sizes to
become dominant.
In Toy Game E, Hero’s strategy is to bet small on the turn with a high frequency, combining
the polarized and depolarized portions of their range. This action is often referred to as range
merging. The reason Hero chooses to bet a merged range instead of a polarized range is the
Villain’s ability to bet the river. If Hero polarizes their betting range too much on the turn,
choosing big bet-sizes with the top and bottom of their range, opting to check back middling
hands such as TT-88, then Villain has the option to bet the river and attack Hero’s capped range
and thus to increase expectation. By betting a merged range for a smaller bet-size on the turn,
Hero gets to increase their betting frequency, minimizing the effect of checking back a weak
capped range. Furthermore, after Villain has called the turn bet, Villain will mostly check to
Hero who will then be able to check back middling strength hands, realizing their equity.
If we increase Hero’s polarization advantage by shrinking the Villain’s range to JJ-77 (Toy
Game F), Hero will be able to bet 100% of their range on the turn. The 30% bet-size remains the
highest frequency bet-size, but the middling 60% bet-size starts to disappear, while the 90% bet-
size frequency increases and Hero even starts tapping into the 120% overbet (Table 94).

Table 94: Results of Toy Game F

Conclusion

The more polarized Hero’s range is compared to Villain’s range, the more they are incentivized
to use bigger bet-sizes. If betting can happen across multiple streets, Hero is more likely to
choose smaller bet-sizes on the early streets and choose to bet a merged range, waiting until
future streets to start polarizing their betting range, unless they have a very substantial
polarization advantage. In that case, their bet-size will approach the geometrical bet-size unless
the SPR is very high because of the threat of the Villain’s range containing traps, which reduces
the profitability of making large bets. For this reason, all-in bets are rarely used on early streets
unless stacks are shallow.

Bet-sizing Based on Runout


We already know that you don’t need to split your range into different bet-sizes on the flop, but
should you have different bet-sizes for different flops?
Different flops will have a different effect on the ranges’ equities and polarization. Our test
with the [0-1] Toy Game proves that bet-size is affected by the range polarization and also that
using the wrong bet-size can cost EV. This suggests that GTO play on different types of flops
will involve the use of flop-specific bet-sizes.
To test this hypothesis I ran all 1,755 flops in a Single Raised Pot (SRP) BB vs BN scenario
with 40bbs effective stacks. In one simulation I used four different bet-sizes: min-bets, 1/3-pot,
1/2-pot and 2/3-pot, and got IP average EV across all flops accounting for each flop’s individual
weight, in order to represent all 22,100 specific flops (accounting for suits). Then I re-ran the
same scenario using only the 1/3-pot size. The results are summarized in Table 95.

Table 95: Summary of Simulations with Varying Bet-sizes

The average EV difference across all flops is -0.14% of the pot, or 0.9 bb/100, when using a
single bet-size compared to using four-bet-sizes. However, this test compares the single bet-size
simulation to a simulation that has four-bet-sizes and can maximize the EV of each individual
combo by choosing any of the four available bet-sizes. This is different than running each one of
the 1,755 simulations using only the best of the four-bet-sizes for each flop. Still, if I had done
that, the EV of using only the “optimal bet-size” among the four options cannot be higher than
the EV of using 4 bet-sizes that maximized each combo’s EV because if that is the case, the
solver will only choose one of them even when having four options to choose from. At most, the
EV of solving each flop with only one optimal bet-size has to be the same as the EV of a
simulation that has all four-bet-sizes.
Assuming perfect play from each player, the average EV loss using only the 1/3-pot size in the
tested set up is at most 0.9bb/100. This number could change with different stack depths and
different ranges, but it gives us a reasonable starting point, since this is the average across all
1,755 flops. It is not the same as if it was -0.9bb/100 lost on a single flop, so this number is very
significant. However, it assumes perfect play from both players and we know that is far away
from real poker, as both Hero and Villain will make mistakes.
Some people advocate for oversimplifying their strategies with a “single bet-size fits all”
approach based on the premise that adjusting the bet-size according to the flop is not worth the
hassle, given the small, if any, EV to be gained when compared to using a reasonable bet-size
across all 1,755 flops. While I understand this reasoning, I don’t agree with the “single bet-size
fits all” approach. Yes, there might not be too much EV to be won against a GTO player when
changing your bet-size on different flops. However, you won’t be playing against a GTO player.
Putting in the extra effort to understand how some flops are different to others and what bet-size
to use makes more sense. Given the way ranges interact with the board will not only make your
hand easier to play, but it will also make life more difficult for your opponents who might not be
used to facing different bet-sizes. Even if the GTO player could defend with the exact calling,
folding and raising frequencies to make your bet-sizes indifferent or just slightly better than the
“standard” bet-size, that might not be the case for your human opponents who could struggle to
defend against non-standard lines. You won’t have that problem. If your opponent uses the GTO
bet-size or close to it against you, you have a very good idea of how to defend. If your opponent
uses a non-GTO bet-size, then you can try to exploit this suboptimal bet-size selection.

Example
You are in the BB with a 30bb effective stack, UTG min-raises, the action folds to you and you
call. The flop comes J♠2♥2♦ and you check.
On a paired flop such as J22, UTG’s GTO play when checked to is to min-bet the flop 100%
of the time and this will generate an EV of 77.05. If your opponent instead makes a 2/3-pot bet,
they can no longer continuation bet their entire range, because if they do, then you will be able to
exploit them by switching to a x/r only strategy which will make the Villain’s EV diminish to
71.01. If they are a good player and lower their C-bet frequency to match the new equilibrium,
they should be c-betting the flop 42.45% of the time and their EV will be 74.10. If this player is
good enough to know what a good 1/3-pot GTO c-betting strategy looks like from UTG vs BB
on J22, why are they using a suboptimal strategy that loses EV instead of simply going for the
GTO line? Chances are they are not c-betting at a GTO frequency for that bet-size and their
range is probably going to be highly unbalanced, so there might be even more room for
exploitation.

To make money playing poker, you don’t need to play perfect GTO in every single line
and to know the absolute optimal bet-size on any given flop because your opponents are not
playing perfect GTO themselves. All you have to do is make, on average, better decisions
than them, enough to create a solid win rate, and keep improving so they don’t catch up to
you.
Most of the time the solver is indifferent to similar bet-sizes. For example, there probably isn’t
too much difference between betting 25% or 33% Pot, or 60% or 67% Pot. Most of the time it is
good enough to know if the flop is a “big bet-size” flop or “small bet-size” flop. For MTTs, I
recommend using two c-bet sizes: 1/3-pot, and 2/3-pot. If you want to play a more complex
strategy, you could add min-bets and 120% overbets to the mix. If you want to simplify your
strategy to only one bet-size, you could opt for the 1/3-pot across the board, which is in fact what
most online MTT regulars are doing in modern games. This strategy works fine against the
population as it simplifies the game tree, is really easy to implement, and it allows you to c-bet at
a high frequency on most boards. This forces Villains into making a decision, revealing
information about their range at a low cost. It also exploits population tendencies, as most people
still overfold to small bets.
My recommendation is to become proficient with at least a couple bet-sizes (a big one and a
small one), and to understand how to implement them correctly. They you have a solid strategy
you can play against tough opponents to keep them guessing while also being able to defend well
when they are the ones using non-standard lines. Against weaker players, you can mix it up and
play an exploitative strategy. Don’t be afraid of being counter-exploited when playing against
unaware opponents because even if they knew what you are doing, chances are they won’t know
how to properly adjust to counter you. Keep hammering on them until they start fighting back. If
you think you can get away with c-betting at a higher frequency than optimal against a Villain or
manipulate them into folding or calling with your bet-size, then go for it! Always be aware and
mindful of the situation you are in.

Bet-sizing and Modern Solvers


Modern GTO solvers can be set up to solve for a specific spot with several bet-sizes, but it is up
to the user to input those bet-sizes. A GTO solver cannot figure out the optimal bet-sizes by itself
and build the game tree for us. That job is left to the user, so it is up to us to use our knowledge
and expertise as poker players to input bet-sizes that we think are a good representation of the
situation we want to model and solve the game tree within those parameters.
When you choose the bet-sizes a player can use in any given spot, you are limiting their
actions to only those options. For example, if you input flop bet-sizes of 1/2-pot and 2/3-pot,
those are the only bet-sizes the player can use on the flop. As another example, if you don’t give
the OOP player the option to x/r the flop, if they can only call or fold, that will have an effect on
IP Betting strategy as IP now knows there is a 0% chance OOP will x/r the flop. IP is now
incentivized to bet at a higher frequency because their equity in the pot cannot be denied. For this
reason it is important to make sure all the players in the GTO simulation have proper bet-sizes
and can react effectively to most lines so that the solver’s output is not skewed as a result of a
bad betting structure affecting one of the players in a given line – unless you are actively trying
to exploit a player’s known leak.
It can be tempting to use as many bet-sizes as you can in GTO calculations but, unfortunately,
using too many bet-sizes is impractical as each bet-size added increases the game tree size
exponentially. This makes it almost impossible for a human to correctly implement all of them in
game. Furthermore, bigger game trees increase the computational power and time required for
the GTO solver to finish the simulations which also makes the use of too many bet-sizes
impractical.
We are faced with the dilemma of making the game trees as accurate as possible to represent a
wide range of possibilities while at the same time trying to make the size of the GTO simulations
manageable and the strategies simple enough to be implemented in game. Fortunately, we don’t
really need to test for all possible bet-sizes, as trying something like the square root of Pi would
be absurd. Most poker players bet a fraction of the pot, so bet-sizes such as 1/2-pot and 2/3-pot
are reasonable approximations. Testing for common bet-sizes and finding the ones the solver
typically likes the most could help us develop strategies that can be easily implemented while
remaining relevant to our own games.
Sometimes the solver will show a clear preference for taking an action with a hand because the
EV for that action is clearly higher than the EV of taking any other action. Many times the EV
reported by the solver for individual combos will be virtually identical for different actions, such
as betting or checking and this can make players think that it doesn’t matter how to play post-
flop because everything is indifferent. This is a huge mistake. The EVs reported by the solver
assume both players are playing at equilibrium. If we start changing the frequencies of the hands
to a point where the overall strategy and range composition is no longer the same, the ranges
become exploitable and the EV is no longer guaranteed, as the Villain would be able to adjust
their strategy.
Imagine a hypothetical situation where the GTO strategy is betting all hands in the range with
a 50% frequency. In this situation, you would be indifferent to betting or checking each combo.
If you take the top strongest half of the range and bet it at a 100% frequency and check the
weaker half 100%, your overall bet/check frequency would be the same but clearly the new
strategy will be a lot more exploitable than GTO. An aware opponent could start to fold more
often when you bet and attack your checks by playing very aggressively. Of course, it is
impossible to play all combos in the exact GTO frequencies, but it is important to try to keep the
ranges reasonably balanced and maintain board coverage. If the changes are too drastic, they
won’t go unnoticed, so before making any big changes to the GTO strategies, thinking it doesn’t
matter, first lock the new strategy in the solver and re-run it. See if there is any substantial EV
loss when playing against a min-exploitative opponent before implementing them in your games.
It is vitally important to remember that the indifference between two or more actions is created
by your opponent’s play. If they are not aware that their strategies are fundamentally flawed and
unbalanced, then a seemingly close spot becomes more binary and against that particular Villain,
one given action will always yield a higher expectation than any other.

11

THE THEORY
OF FLOP PLAY
So, you’ve put in the effort into understanding pre-flop play and have a good idea of what
player’s ranges look like in general. The three board cards are dealt and you ask yourself, what
now? Well, in this section we will study the different flop types, how the different flops interact
with the players’ ranges, and what the effects of these interactions in post-flop betting strategies
are.

Suit Isomorphism
Isomorphism is a general concept that appears in several areas of mathematics. The word derives
from the Greek iso, meaning “equal”, and morphosis, meaning “to form” or “to shape”. Two or
more objects are isomorphic if they cannot be distinguished from one another by using only a
specified set of properties.
As we saw in Chapter 1, by representing hands such as A♠K♠, A♥K♥, A♣K♣, A♦K♦ in the
same square of a 13×13 grid as AKs, and repeating the same process to all other suited hands,
pocket pairs and offsuit hands, we can effectively reduce the 1,326 combos into 169 Poker
hands. This is possible because suits only become relevant post-flop when they interact with the
community cards, and pre-flop no suit is better or worse than any other suit (they are
strategically equivalent – in other words, isomorphic).
Based on the previous premise, there is no reason for a player to have any particular suit in
their range more frequently than any other. So, suit isomorphism can also be applied to the
22,100 specific flops, effectively reducing the game to 1,755 strategically unique flops.
The four flops A♠K♠Q♠, A♥K♥Q♥, A♣K♣Q♣, and A♦K♦Q♦ can be studied as if they were
the exact same flop because on each of them, any given range will always have the exact same
number of flopped flushes, flush draws, sets, top pair, etc, and a hand like a flush will always be
played the same regardless of the suit. For example J♠T♠ on A♠K♠Q♠ will be played exactly as
J♥T♥ on A♥K♥Q♥.
There are two main reasons why we would want to reduce the size of the game. The first is
that, as humans, it is easier to “learn” strategies for only 1,755 flops rather than 22,100. The
second is for saving server time in solver calculations. Instead of calculating redundant flops
over and over again, we can run only one of each type of isomorphic flop and extrapolate from
the results.

Dynamic and Static Boards


The concept of Flop Volatility was first introduced by Will Tipton in his excellent book Expert
Heads Up No Limit Hold’em, Volume1: Optimal and Exploitative Strategies (D&B Publishing).

“So, the second important texture-related property of a flop is how likely future cards are
to change the relative values of players’ hands. This likelihood is a property of the flop in
combination with players’ ranges. We will call boards on which hands are very likely to
change in value by the river ‘volatile’. Boards on which good hands are likely to stay good
and bad hands likely to stay bad are called ‘static’.”

In essence volatile (or dynamic) boards are those in which the player’s hand equities can shift
drastically in value on future streets, and static boards are those in which the hand equities tend
to remain relatively constant on most runouts. Low and connected boards with possible flush and
straight draws are very dynamic, and offsuit disconnected flops with high cards tend to be static.
For example, in a typical BB vs EP single raised pot, the flop 8♥7♥3♦ would be a dynamic
board because there are many cards that can come and promote or demote the hand values in
both players’ ranges. Any heart will complete a flush, and any 5, 6, 9, T or J can complete a
straight. Also, any turn or river card higher than an 8 can make a random hand improve to a
higher pair than the flopped top pair, while on a flop like K♠7♦2♥, the hand’s value will remain
relatively constant on most turns and rivers.
Flop Classification Scheme
A lot of poker players never study the game. They learn by playing, and this is probably the best
thing to do when you are first getting into poker. However, soon you will realize that, given the
immense number of different situations that can occur, even if all you did was to play poker 24/7
for years, it is impossible to learn everything there is to learn by just playing. Many players
understand this and they take the next step by getting professional coaching, but even the best
coaches won’t be available 24/7 to answer all your questions. Even if that was the case, they
surely won’t always have the right answer to every single spot. For this reason, people have tried
to develop assisting software for years. It has already happened in games such as chess, where
players can access top engines from their computers and even smartphones to get an immediate
answer to what the correct play is in any given chess position.
In modern poker we have access to GTO solvers and, just as in chess, we now can get almost
immediate answers as to how to play any spot at any given time. But again, we are faced with the
issue of there being way too many spots to actually study each one of them. There are as many as
1,755 unique flops for any given spot, so this methodology is highly inefficient and would take
an enormous amount of time. Thus the need for a better system.
Classification is the process of grouping things based on their similarities to make them easier
to identify or study. Flops that share common characteristics tend to be played in a similar
fashion. In this section, I describe a full comprehensive flop classification scheme, effectively
dividing the problem into smaller, easier-to-solve pieces while at the same time keeping an eye
on the game as a whole.

Flop Structure
The flop structure is the first thing to look at when the board is dealt. There are three possible
flop structures, and post-flop play will accordingly vary completely.

♦ Trips: A trips flop is a flop that contains all cards of the same rank. For example:
A♥A♣A♠, 7♥7♠7♦ or 3♣3♠ 3♦.

♦ Paired: A flop is paired if it contains two cards of the same rank. A paired flop can be
paired rainbow, for example K♥K♣5♠ or paired two-tone, for example Q♦8♦8♣.

♦ Unpaired: A flop is unpaired if all the cards have different ranks, for example: Q♥7♦4♣
or A♥K♥Q♠.
Flop Textures
Flop texture is also important and can take three forms.

♦ Monotone: A monotone flop is a flop that contains all cards of a single suit, for example
A♥K♥T♥ or J♠6♠5♠.

♦ Two-tone: A two-tone flop is a flop that contains two cards of a single suit and a third
card of another suit. There are three subtypes of two-tone flops. If the top and medium
card are suited, the flop is said to be two-tone high-mid, for example A♥K♥Q♠. If the
medium and low cards are suited, the flop is said to be two-tone mid-low, for example
J♥6♠5♠. If the high and low cards are suited, the flop is said to be two-tone high-low, for
example A♥9♠2♥.

♦ Rainbow: A rainbow flop is a flop that contains all three cards of different suits, for
example Q♥9♠7♦, 6♦4♣2♠ or K♣J♦7♥.

Table 96: All Possible Flops Categorized by Structure and Texture

Flop Rank
The flop rank will depend on its highest card. For example, Kxx represents all flops that contain
a king and two other cards that are a king or lower (Table 97).
As we can see, the higher the rank of the flop, the more flops of that rank exist. A-high boards
are the most common, with 21.74% of all flops being Axx. Notice how 85% of all flops are rank
9 or higher while the remaining 15% flops are rank 8 or lower.
Flopped Straights
Flops can also be categorized by the number of possible flopped straights (Table 98). For
example, on the flop AQ7 there are zero possible flopped straights. On KT9 there is one possible
flopped straight (with QJ). On 875 there are two possible flopped straights (96 and 64). Finally,
on JT9 there are three possible flopped straights (KQ, Q8 and 87).

Table 97: All Possible Flops Categorized by Rank


Table 98: All Possible Flops Categorized by Possible Flopped Straights

Flops that have zero flopped straights can also be subcategorized according to the number of
possible OESDs, but for the scope of this book we will only focus on the number of straights.

Flop Families
Some flops can be grouped together into families and subfamilies according to their rank. For
example, the flops A54, A53, A52, A43, A42 and A32 are so similar that in many situations,
they can be treated as the exact same flop: Ace with two low cards.
First let’s group all the cards according to their rank:

High Card (H): Any card K, Q, J, T


Mid Card (M): Any card 9, 8, 7, 6
Low Card (L): Any card 5, 4, 3, 2
Ace (A): The lonely A

Now the flops can be categorized using the card ranks as follows (Table 99).
Table 99: All Possible Flops Categorized by Card Rank

Flop Subsets
As often mentioned previously, there are 22,100 possible flops in hold’em and, using suit
isomorphism, we can reduce that number to 1,755 strategically different flops. For practical
purposes, this number is still very large. For this reason, poker players, as well as programmers
and theorists, have attempted to simplify the game by creating smaller flop subsets that
accurately represent the whole game.
The first publicly known attempt to develop a subset of flops was performed by the poker
theorist Will Tipton. His methodology consisted of first creating conditions a good subset must
satisfy and then finding the minimum subset of flops that satisfies all of them.
Tipton’s proposed subset conditions:

♦ Any particular single card comes

♦ A flush draw of a particular suit comes

♦ A monotone flop of a particular suit comes

♦ A paired board with the pair being of a particular rank comes

♦ A three-straight board of any rank comes

♦ A board with any particular one-gap in the rank comes

♦ A board with any particular two-gap in the rank comes

Tipton’s flop subset contains 103 flops but, unfortunately, it has some issues and cannot be
used to fully represent the entire game. His methodology makes sense and was improved upon
by others, but I found that it is simply too difficult to significantly reduce the game size while
keeping an eye on all of its characteristics. I also tried a different approach, by selecting a flop
representative of the different structures, textures, ranks, families and number of possible
straights, and the lowest number of flop subsets I could create was 356 flops.
PioSOLVER developers Kuba and Piotr created a different methodology, consisting of
defining some metrics which a good subset must satisfy, and then ran custom software to find the
best subset of N elements that scores the best on the metrics. The metrics they used are equity
against full range, against 50% range and against AA, as well as EVs from all 1,755 flops.
Kuba and Piotr tried several metrics and determined that a mix of EV and EQ performs better
than others including EV alone. They developed subsets of different sizes, including 25, 49, 74,
95 and 184 flops. The more flops in the flop subset, the more accurate results you will get. This
is particularly the case with high SPR, because of the different ways some elements of the range
can hit some boards very strongly and create cooler situations that will end up with the players
playing massive pots. For these situations to be accurately represented, you need to have as many
flops as possible. You can find the subsets and more details on their blog at www.piosolver.com.
Their pre-flop subsets are optimized to accurately approximate equities and EV for the pre-
flop solver, not post-flop strategies. For this reason, these subsets are not guaranteed to produce a
good approximation of post-flop play. This is why I decided to go for a different approach and
simply use super-computers to solve the full game, all 1,755 flops in many different spots, and
create custom software to analyze the data. This chapter was written using the results from this
investigation. You can find more details of this work on www.gtopoker.io.

The Flop Donk Bet (DK)


A Villain who is IP (BN, CO, MP, EP), raises and the action folds around to Hero who is in the
BB and makes a call. At this point you should have a pretty good idea about Villain’s pre-flop
range because of their position, stack depth and any tendencies you might have noticed. You also
know what your own BB defending range looks like, what hands you would most likely be 3-
betting pre-flop and what hands you are calling against this Villain in this particular situation.
The flop is dealt and it is your time to act. Should you bet or check?

This is by far the most common situation in poker. Most poker hands will be played
heads-up in a single raised pot between the BB and IP. Thus playing well post-flop after
defending the blinds is of vital importance for any poker player’s success.

So, this will be the first post-flop situation we will study.


In this BB vs IP setup, the IP Player is commonly said to have the “betting lead” because they
were the pre-flop aggressor. For this reason, IP is expected to continue the aggression on the flop
by betting frequently when checked to. This type of bet performed by the previous street
aggressor is known as a continuation bet (c-bet). Since IP is expected to c-bet the flop at a very
high frequency, the BB is also expected to check to the pre-flop aggressor and never take the
betting lead. When the player in the BB doesn’t check and instead takes the lead by making a
bet, the poker regulars would call this a donk bet, because it’s a bet that goes against the norm.
But does this general consensus of not taking the betting lead away from the pre-flop aggressor
make sense conceptually from a game theory perspective?
First of all, in game theory there is no such a thing as the “betting lead”, so taking the betting
lead away from a player does not make sense in GTO. As we saw in the theory of betting,
making a bet is a function of leveraging informational advantage, range composition and SPR
with the objective of realizing your equity or preventing the opponent’s equity realization. If we
want to confirm or refute the general ideas about donk bets, we must do so through GTO
principles.
I aggregated the data of GTO solutions across all possible flops in BB vs BN and BB vs UTG
situations in single raised pots with stack depths 20bb, 30bb and 40bb. The BN and UTG were
used because they represent the widest and tightest ranges, while strategies from other positions
will fall somewhere in between. The results show that the overall BB donk bet frequency is only
2% (for 1/4 and 2/3 bet-sizes) and the average IP c-betting frequency is 84%. The GTO
simulations agree with the general consensus about donk betting not being widely used and c-
bets being very common. However, if we look deeper into the data, there are some spots where
the solver actually likes donk betting at a high frequency (Table 100).

Table 100: BB and IP stats (20bb/30bb/40bb)

On average, the highest frequency donk betting flop is 654r (67%), and one of the lowest donk
betting flops is A76r (0.3%), Why is the BB betting frequency on A76r so low compared to
654r?
If betting was clearly the highest EV option for any hand in the BB range, the solver would
always do it. If betting is indifferent to checking, then the hand will be played as a mixed
strategy. If a hand is never being bet, it is because betting is lower EV compared to checking.
Returning to our EV equation:

The EV of betting a hand depends on how often Villain folds, how often they raise, how often
they call and the amount of equity Hero has when called. The stronger Villain’s range, the less
they will fold, the more often they will raise and the less equity Hero will have when called.
The GTO solver assumes play against a GTO opponent who knows your strategy and will call,
raise and fold optimally against you. If IP’s range is so strong that they won’t be folding much vs
a bet and, in contrast, will be able to raise a lot and call effectively, then betting becomes a lot
less enticing than it would be against a weaker range distribution.
Clearly IP has the equity advantage with 62% equity vs the BB’s 38% on A76r, which will of
course reduce the profitability of the BB’s bets, while on 654r, the BB has the equity advantage
with 51% equity vs IP’s 49%, making the BB’s bets more profitable on this flop texture.
Range vs range equity is an important factor as it is difficult to develop betting strategies when
having a substantial equity disadvantage. However, as we discussed in the theory of betting
section, the range composition is even more important than raw equity.
Applying the concept of equity buckets that was introduced earlier, we can go beyond raw
equity and get a better idea about the range distribution for both players across the different flops
(Diagram 25).
Diagram 25: Average BB vs IP Equity Buckets for 20bb/30bb/40bb Stacks

For the definition of strong, good, weak and trash hands, see the Equity Buckets section
of Chapter 10.

On 654r, the BB has 7% strong hands, and IP has only 4%, while on A76r, the BB has 8%
strong hands and IP has a staggering 31% strong hands! What happens is that, on A76r, IP’s top
pairs (any Ax) have on average 85% equity vs the BB’s range, while a top pair on 654 will
average about 65% equity. Additionally, on 654r, all of IP’s Ax will have an average of 49%
equity, effectively turning them into weak hands. On 654r, the BB’s good hands increase from
17% to 40% and the trash hands reduce from 49% to 18% when compared to A76r.
Because of this distribution, the IP Player will be incentivized to lower the c-betting frequency
on 654r, given that the bulk of their range are weak hands that don’t perform well against a flop
check/raise. So, by checking back more often, IP gets to see a free turn and realize equity. The
BB reacts to this by donk betting many hands, forcing IP to either fold or put more money into
the pot with the hands that would have been happy to check behind and see a free turn.
Donk betting makes sense on 654r because it denies IP EQR, and also helps BB realize equity
by leveraging the informational advantage of leading out with a well-balanced range that cannot
be easily attacked by IP. This takes advantage of IP’s lack of strong hands that would be happy
to raise for value. This also limits the number of hands that can be raised as a bluff, resulting in
IP having an overall low raising frequency of 20% on 654r, whereas IP has a raising frequency
on A76r of 53% (GTO frequencies vs a donk bet-size of 1/4-pot).
Donk betting on A76r doesn’t make sense because it does not help the BB deny IP EQR. In
this case, the opposite actually occurs, because IP’s range is so strong on this board that a donk
bet can get raised with such a high frequency that the effect would be reversed. It would be the
BB who is forced to continue putting more money into the pot with hands that would rather see a
cheap turn card or fold, reducing their equity and resulting in a lower EQR and EV loss for OOP
(Table 101).
Table 101: A76r BB vs BN 30bb Stats for Different BB Strategies

A76r is so good for IP that they get to c-bet 100% of their range and not worry about being x/r
too often. For this reason, the BB doesn’t need to lead out with their strongest hands to get value
as IP will keep putting money into the pot with their entire range when checked to. If the BB
starts leading strong hands on A76r, it would only help IP as they could then choose to fold weak
hands that would have continued putting money into the pot in the form of a c-bet and only
continue when it is profitable to do so.
If we force the BB to donk every time they have top pair or better (10%), their total EV
reduces from 25 to 13, as this strategy is highly exploitable. In the GTO solution, the checking
range is well protected because the BB is never leading out but, in the locked strategy, the BB is
donking their strongest hands, leaving their checking range vulnerable. This makes their EV after
checking decline to 5.6. In this case, the BB’s EV when betting is extremely high because the
betting range is strong but betting only happens 10% of the time, while checking happens 90%.
If the BB starts to include many bluffs in the leading range, then IP would start calling wider
and frequently raising the donk bets. If the BB tries a strategy of leading only with weak hands,
the result is even worse as now IP will be able to raise 100% of the time, making the BB not only
lose the entire pot when betting, but also their 1/4-pot size bet. For this reason, it works better for
OOP to not split their range and simply check 100% on A76r.
If we subdivide all flops by donk betting frequency, we can get a better idea of how the ranges
interact with the flops (Table 102).

Table 102: BB Stats by Donk Bet Frequency

Unsurprisingly, the highest equity and EV flops for the BB are also the highest frequency
donk bet boards. However, it is important to understand that the high donk betting frequencies
are an effect and not a cause. As we will see in this section, the main cause of the BB having
higher equity and EV on some flops is the way the ranges are distributed which in turn results in
higher donk betting frequencies.
High Donk Bet Frequency Flops (50%+)
There are about 34 distinct flops that result in an average donk bet over 50% of the time against
both the BN and UTG. They are in ranks 7-x-x and 6-x-x with one to three possible flopped
straights. The higher the number of flopped straights, the smaller the donk bet-size and the
higher the donk bet frequency used. Rainbow flops are donked at a higher frequency than two-
tone flops and, in general, monotone flops get donked a lot less frequently.
Table 103: High Donk Bet Frequency Flops

On the high donk frequency flops, the BB has an average of 50% equity and is able to over-
realize that equity (103% EQR), capturing an average of 52% of the pot (Table 103). The main
reason why the BB over-realizes equity is the way the equity is distributed (Diagram 26).

Diagram 26: EQB on High Donk Bet Frequency Flops

Here, the BB’s range is more polarized than IP’s range. The BB has the advantage in both
strong and good hands, while 50% of IP’s range are weak hands that will have a more difficult
time realizing equity and will therefore benefit from playing passively. This range construction
resembles the Clairvoyance Toy game, with the IP having the more depolarized range, which
makes the BB want to take the betting lead.
Diagram 27

With stack depths between 30-40bb, the BB wants to bet strong hands 73% of the time, good
hands 64%, weak hands 59%, and trash hands are bet 49%. The most used donk bet-size is 1/4-
pot, with 2/3-pot size bets used on average 5% (Diagram 27). If we allow bigger bet-sizes in the
simulations, the BB will even choose to overbet the pot with a small frequency, but the overall
range composition on this type of high donk bet board seems to favor the small donk bet
(Diagram 28).
Diagram 28

With a 20bb effective stack, the 2/3-pot size donk bet is preferred. It seems that at 20bb, the
BB’s SPR is small enough that the BB is happy to stack off with a lot of good equity hands on
the flop, so the bigger bet-size protects the BB’s equity by getting more folds and helps the BB
realize equity by getting all the money in on the flop when their equity is high. The BB’s
strongest hands seem to prefer the smaller bet-size because they aren’t as vulnerable, so they
don’t mind getting called more frequently.
When stacks are deeper, there aren’t many hands that are happy to get all-in on the flop so,
instead, a smaller donk bet-size allows the BB to call a re-raise and see the turn without having
to get all the money in on the flop.
Strong and good hands are also an important part of the checking ranges. The more checking
happens, the more important it becomes to have strong and good hands in the checking range so
the range remains balanced and protected.
Donk betting also happens on average more often vs UTG (67% of the time) than vs the BN
(53% of the time). This is because the high donk betting boards are missed a lot more often by
UTG ranges.

Donk Betting Range Example


BB vs UTG on 654r (30bb effective stacks)

Strong hands are bet 77% of the time

♦ Straights are the strongest hands the BB can have on this flop. The lowest straight 32 is
the most vulnerable and it unblocks IP’s continuing range, so it gets bet 91%, while the
other straights 87 get bet 80% and 73 only gets bet 50%.

♦ Sets. Top set gets bet at a very high frequency (94%). The smaller sets are bet very
infrequently (16-31%), because they don’t block top pair.

♦ Two Pairs are bet at a very high frequency. 54 is bet with the highest frequency (96%),
followed by 64 (94%) and 65 bets the lowest frequency (73%) because it blocks more of
IP’s continuing range and is also the least vulnerable.

Good hands are bet 70% of the time

♦ Overpairs. The strongest overpairs TT and 99 are bet 100% of the time, mid pairs 88 and
77 are bet 38% of the time.

♦ Top Pairs are bet 78% of the time. The ones with the highest kickers and the ones that
have an OESD betting the highest frequency. The middle kickers are checked more
frequently.

♦ Second Pairs are bet 71% of the time. The ones with the highest kickers and the ones that
have an OESD betting the highest frequency. The middle kickers are checked more
frequently.

♦ Third Pairs are bet 65% of the time. The ones with the highest kickers and the ones that
have an OESD betting the highest frequency. The middle kickers are checked more
frequently.

♦ Under Pairs 22-33 are bet 78%. 22 is bet more often than 33.

Weak hands are bet 61% of the time


♦ OESD are bet 67% of the time. 7x hands are bet more often than 3x.

♦ Ace High is bet 67% of the time in a reverse linear fashion. The weakest A-high being bet
more often than the strongest ones. For example, A9s is bet 99% of the time and AQs is
only bet 40%.

♦ King High is bet 54% of the time in a reverse linear fashion.

♦ Gutshots are bet 70% of the time. The ones that have two overcards being bet more often
than ones with a single overcard.

Trash hands are bet 62% of the time

♦ Air, no pair, no draw, two completely disconnected overcards and gutshots with a 2 and
no pair and combos with back door flush draw are bet more often than combos with no
BDFD.

Mid Donk Bet Frequency Flops (25%-50%)


There are about 100 Flops that get donk bet 25-50% of the time. The main examples of flops that
can generally be donk bet 25-50% of the time are: unpaired subfamilies 8MM, 8ML, 8LL, 7ML,
7LL, 6LL, and 5LL with one to three possible flopped straights. The only monotone flop is 764,
and the paired flops are 766, 755, 655 (Diagram 29).
Diagram 29

Donk betting happens with the same frequency against UTG and the BN, roughly 35% of the
time and checking happens 65% of the time, as the equity distribution doesn’t change too much
in either case.
Diagram 30

On the mid donk bet flops, equities run very close. IP has a slight equity advantage, 52%
compared to the BB’s 48%. However, the BB’s range is more polarized with the bulk of the
range being strong, good and trash hands, while IP still has a lot of weak hands that benefit from
playing passively and seeing free cards in order to realize equity (Diagram 30).

Diagram 31

With 30-40bb, strong hands prefer using the bigger bet-size on paired boards and a smaller
size on unpaired boards. Hands are bet linearly according to their equity with the highest equity
hands being bet more often than low equity hands. The structure of the betting ranges is similar
to what we saw previously in the High Donk Bet frequency flops, betting the same type of hands,
but doing so with a lower frequency, checking everything more often so the checking range is
more protected (Diagram 31).
Diagram 32

With 20bbs, the donking strategy is extremely polarized, betting mostly strong, good and trash
hands. For this reason, a bigger bet-size is preferred, with the smaller size being used in the
opposite way, mostly with weak hands, but also with some frequency of strong, good and trash
hands in order to make the strategy well balanced (Diagram 32).

Low Donk Bet Frequency Flops (10%-25%)


Approximately 181 distinct flops get donk bet with 10% to 25% frequency. In this situation the
67%-pot size bet is preferred (9%) over the 25%-pot size bet (7%). The BB donks slightly more
frequently against the BN (16%) than against UTG (14%).
The unpaired donked flops subfamilies are: ALL, 9MM, 8MM, 8ML, 8LL, 7ML, 7LL, 6LL,
5LL, and 4LL.
The paired families are: 99A, 88A, 77H, 77M, 77L, 66A, 66H, 66M, 66L, 55A, 55H, 55M,
55L, 44H, 44M, 44L, 33M (Diagram 33).
Diagram 33

Diagram 34

In low donk bet frequency flops, IP’s range dominance is clear (Diagram 34). OOP’s equity
drops to 45% and under-realizes by 6%, capturing only 43% of the pot. The number of OOP
trash hands finally outweighs the number of weak hands. OOP’s strong and good hand
percentage is significantly lower than IP. For this reason, checking starts to become the dominant
strategy.
On low frequency donk bet flops, the donk betting ranges are a little more polarized and, for
this reason, a larger bet-size is preferred. Donk betting does not seem to be too affected by stack
depth and so the frequencies are similar with 20bb, 30bb and 40bb effective stacks (Diagrams
35-36).

Diagram 35
Diagram 36

No Donk Bet Flops (0%-10%)


The vast majority of flops belong to this category. Pretty much all flops that were not included in
any of the other groups. In general, this means trips, monotone, high card paired, disconnected
two-tone, HXX and AXX flops are bad donk betting flops.
In general, this group of flops are bad for the BB, providing an average of 39% equity and low
EQR of 76%, for an average EV of 30% of the pot. On these boards, IP’s range is so strong that
OOP is forced to check with a high frequency, for an average donk bet frequency of about 1%.
OOP’s range is so weak that it doesn’t have enough strong hands compared to IP to be able to
split this range so, for the most part, removing the option to donk bet on these kinds of flops does
not reduce BB’s EV too significantly. Playing a 100% checking frequency is recommended.
Diagram 37

Flop families that have similar structures and textures tend to be played in a similar
fashion. So if you want to dig deeper into donk betting range composition, I recommend
running sample flops from each donk bet frequency group in a GTO solver to familiarize
yourself with the different spots, how to react to flop raises and how to follow through on
future streets.

The Value of Donk Betting


The general consensus states that donk betting is bad and should not be done. However, as we
have just seen, donk betting is widely used by the solver on some flop textures. Given that donk
bets are rarely used, how big of a mistake is it to opt for a simpler strategy that always checks to
the pre-flop aggressor when OOP in a SRP?
In Table 104 we can see the key flop metrics of BB vs BN with a 30bb effective stack on the
654r flop. The GTO strategy is compared to a simulation where the BB’s donk betting option is
removed to make the BB check 100% of their range.
Table 104: 654r BB vs BN 30bbs Stats

654r is one of the highest donk bet flops. When the BB loses the ability to lead out on this
board, they lose 1.1% of the pot or 6.5bb/100 and the EQR decreases by 2.25%. In a 5.6bb pot,
playing a 100% donk bet strategy cost the BB 6.27bb/100 when playing against a minimally
exploitative opponent.
The value of donk betting will change depending on the SPR and what the value of the option
for the OOP player to bet is. For example, on the A76r flop, OOP should donk bet about 0.4% of
the time and, if we remove the BB’s option to donk bet, their overall EV remains the same.
Donk betting only happens at a high frequency on a small number of flops that are also low
frequency flops, so the impact of the EV loss of choosing a simpler strategy that always checks
when OOP will not be significant in the grand scheme of things. Additionally, implementing
donk betting strategies correctly can be difficult in-game. That said, if you play in really tough
games where every possible edge counts, taking the time to study and incorporate donk bets can
become a valuable tool, particularly if your opponents are not used to dealing with flop donk
bets, which can result in them making more mistakes that you could potentially capitalize on.
You can of course also choose to donk bet exploitatively against weaker players. For example,
if you know that the Villain will c-bet at a high frequency but would never raise a donk bet
without a strong hand, you can put in a small bet with some hands that will work as a blocking
bet, allowing you to see the next card cheaply with some weak hands while giving you
information on your opponent’s holding.
Another example is if you know the Villain is overly aggressive and will almost always raise a
flop donk bet. Then, you can lead out with very strong hands to induce a raise from the Villain.
This would of course leave you exposed to counter exploitation, so it requires excellent
knowledge about your opponent’s tendencies.

The Power of Position


In this section, we will use the high and low donk bet frequency flops 654r and A76r in BB vs
BN situations with 30bb effective stacks. We will compare the GTO simulations against
modified hypothetical simulations that will help us better understand the effect of being IP and
OOP post-flop.

GTO: Modified GTO Solution with new flop bet-sizings for both players: 1.25-pot, 2/3-pot, 1/4-
pot.

Positions Flipped: Modified solution where the players’ ranges are flipped, so now OOP has the
BN range and the IP Player has the BB range.

Table 105: Result of Flipping BN and BB Ranges from BN Perspective

Hero is on the BN and opens a standard GTO 49% opening range and the action folds to the
Villain in the BB who calls with a standard 64% GTO range. Now imagine the positions are
flipped on the flop, but both players keep their original ranges. Now Hero is OOP with a 49%
BN range, and the Villain is IP with a 64% BB calling range (Table 105).
Let’s start by analyzing what happens to Hero after flipping the positions.
On A76r, Hero’s range is so strong compared to the Villain’s that Hero still over-realizes
equity, but not as much as with position. Hero’s EV reduces from capturing 75% to only being
able to capture 68.3% of the pot, costing Hero 6.7% of the pot. Hero’s strategy also changes. It is
still optimum to bet 100%, but now the 125% and 1/4-pot bet-sizes are used more than the 2/3-
pot sizing.
When playing IP, Hero’s strategy is almost always aimed to bet across three streets. For this
reason, the 67% size is used more often as it allows an effective triple barrel. When we flip the
positions, some elements of Hero’s range only want to play a two street game. Therefore, after
overbetting the flop and getting called, Hero will mostly go all-in or check on the turn. After
checking and facing a bet, Hero will mostly x/r all-in or fold. This way, Hero reduces the
positional disadvantage.
On 654r, Hero has a range disadvantage so, unlike on A76r, betting the entire range isn’t
advisable because the risk of the check-raise (which would destroy Hero’s equity) increases
drastically. So, with position, Hero can only bet about 48% of the time after the BB checks.
When Hero is OOP with the BN’s range on this flop, the total betting frequency drops down to
9.23% and the most used bet-size is the 125% overbet. Again, Hero aims to play a two street
game and go all-in on the turn with a reasonably high frequency.
Weak hands make up 51% of Hero’s range. When in position these would be checked back
most of the time to realize equity and would prefer to play a small pot, so as not to risk being x/r
and blown off their equity. Unfortunately, when checking OOP, Hero is not guaranteed to see a
turn card and will instead often face a bet and be forced to give up equity with many hands that
would benefit from seeing a free turn card. For this reason, when OOP, Hero has to check many
strong hands that can x/r the flop, forcing the Villain to bet less often, and thus allowing Hero’s
weak hands to realize equity. If Hero does not protect the checking range, Villain will bet at a
higher frequency, costing Hero a lot of EV. For this reason, Hero’s checking frequency is even
higher when OOP with a range disadvantage. When OOP on 654r, Hero’s EQR decreases from
100% to 79%, costing 9.7% of the pot!
Next, we will analyze the same situation from the Villain’s point of view, with the BB now
being in position, and compare it to the GTO simulations. In the flipped simulations we will
assume OOP checks 100% of the time to IP, so the ranges are the exact same as when the BB
was OOP (Table 106).

Table 106: Result of Flipping BN and BB Ranges from BB Perspective

On A76r the Villain’s range is so weak compared to Hero’s range that, even when having
position, it is best to check back 100% of the time as betting would result in being x/r at a very
high frequency. The main difference is that, after checking back the flop, the Villain gets to
realize a lot more equity than when OOP and gets forced to fold a lot of weak and trash hands
that will improve to made hands or draws on the turn. This results in a huge EV increase from
25% when OOP to 37.8% when IP for a total gain of 12.8%!
On 654r pretty much all hands that wanted to bet when OOP still want to bet when the Villain
is IP. The main difference is that now the larger bet-sizes aren’t as necessary and the Villain opts
to use the 25% bet-size almost exclusively. In this case the BB increases their EV by capturing
an extra 10% of the pot.

Symmetric Ranges: Modified solution where both players have the exact same range. We will
examine one example with both players having the BB range and another with both players
having the BN range (Tables 107-108).

Table 107: Symmetric Ranges from IP Perspective

Table 108: Symmetric Ranges from OOP Perspective

Despite having identical ranges, the IP player captures on average 5% more of the pot than
50% equity, for a total EQR of 110%. Meanwhile OOP only realizes 90% of their equity,
capturing on average only 45% of the pot.

Different experiments that use different sample flops, or even a large subset of flops, give
results that are consistent with the value of position being between 5-10% of the pot.

The more streets left to play, the bigger IP’s information advantage becomes as IP gets to act
last on each street. As mentioned previously, every action taken at the table conveys information,
so every time OOP takes an action, this reveals some information about their range to IP, who
can use this information to his advantage before having to make a decision. This continues to the
river, where IP will have the most complete information possible regarding OOP’s range.
Furthermore, when studying complex strategies in Chapter 4, we established that there is a direct
correlation between stack depth or SPR and Hero’s ability to realize equity. Deeper stacks
benefit the IP Player and hurt the OOP player. For this reason, OOP tends to use larger bet-
sizings than IP, either to get more folds and end the hand immediately or, if called, to decrease
the positional disadvantage by reducing the SPR.
Another measure OOP takes to decrease positional disadvantage is to avoid splitting their
range on flops where they have a large range disadvantage and thus not give away any
information to IP by checking 100% of the time, as seen in the donk betting section of this
chapter.
Being IP with a weak range is not as bad as being OOP with a weak range. In general, strong
ranges will realize most of their equity and sometimes even over-realize it when OOP, while
weak ranges heavily under-realize their equity when OOP. For this reason, over-folding the big
blind to steals was a predominant strategy in both live and online poker for many years as
players generally tried to avoid this unfavorable situation. This in turn created an opportunity for
observant players to capitalize on this by loosening up their opening ranges and attacking the
tight players’ big blinds. Subsequently, players started to readjust their BB strategy and began
calling very wide vs open raises, which resulted in the BB defending way too many marginal
hands that made post-flop play too difficult for the BB, hurting their overall EQR.
Now, with modern solvers, both pre- and post-flop play have in general improved drastically,
resulting in players defending in a close to optimal fashion from the BB. This is particularly true
in high stakes online cash games where most regulars play a sound baseline pre-flop GTO
strategy and are now forced to look for possible edges elsewhere. However, even at the highest
level, players still make mistakes. The game is not completely solved and there is always room
for improvement and exploitation.

The goal with this chapter is to improve the players’ underlying understanding of the
game so that they are capable of finding these edges by themselves and to turn them into
winning strategies applicable to their own games.

12
THE FLOP
CONTINUATION-BET (C-BET)
Flop c-betting is one of the most important topics in poker. It is a complex subject that has been
studied and discussed by poker players and theorists for decades. Contrary to most typical theory
books, I decided to begin the flop discussion with the BB instead of leaping directly into c-
betting. This is because I want readers to first develop a good conceptual understanding of
betting in general, how the post-flop action is a function of the players’ relative positions, range
distributions and SPR. After studying OOP betting and the power of position, all that is left in
order to understand the flop c-bet is to analyze the situation from the IP player’s point of view.
Just as we did when studying the donk bet, for this section we will use the aggregated data
from thousands of GTO solutions with stack depths 20bb, 30bb and 40bb with standard GTO
MTT starting ranges. The ranges in your own games might be different to the ones used for these
simulations, but I have found that, as long as the ranges used are “reasonable”, the overall results
for post-flop play won’t be significantly affected. If the standard ranges in your own games differ
too much from the equilibrium strategies, you can still benefit by understanding equilibrium and
then applying the principles discussed in this chapter to understand how your standard ranges are
different from GTO and how you can deviate from equilibrium to further attack the imbalances
introduced in the new strategies. Getting your own solver and running some custom simulations
can help you better understand this effect and find good exploitative lines against population
tendencies.
In the previous section we found that, from a GTO point of view, there isn’t too much
incentive for OOP to bet out on the flop, but what about IP? What is their equilibrium strategy?
Are they incentivized to bet or check? Can they play a pure strategy that always checks back the
flop without a significant EV loss in the way the BB can?

Table 109: Result of IP Playing 100% Check Back


If IP plays a strategy that always checks back the flop, they will have an EV loss of 26bb/100,
so c-betting the flop is of massive importance to IP. In this section, we will study the principles
behind the flop c-bet and use that knowledge to effectively develop sound c-betting strategies.

Overall Flop Metrics


This analysis starts on IP’s decision point after the BB checks. For these calculations, we used
simulations where the BB had the option to donk bet. However, donk betting happens very
infrequently and, in general, checking GTO ranges will remain well balanced even when donk
betting is widely used. Therefore, we can expect IP’s overall strategy to not be affected and be
applicable to players who have a GTO donking range and players who check 100% of the time.
Players who have a non-GTO donking range are in general quite exploitable as their donking
range tends to be always strong or always weak, so all you need to do against them is figure out
their strategy. If they always donk strong, you can start to overfold the bottom of your range
when they bet and bet at a high frequency when they check. If they donk weak, you can bluff
raise them on the flop, trap them with your really strong hands that don’t need much protection,
and check back the flop a little more than usual to avoid being x/r by a checking range that is
heavily skewed towards strong hands.

Table 110: IP vs BB Overall Metrics

Both the BN and UTG over-realize their equity by 15%, but since UTG’s range has higher
equity, they are able to capture a bigger portion of the pot than the BN (Table 110).
Diagram 38: BB vs IP Equity Buckets

Clearly IP has the overall range advantage. As expected, UTG’s ~15% range is much stronger
than the BN’s ~44% range (Diagram 38). This aligns well with UTG’s higher c-bet frequency.
Diagram 39

Strong hands
Strong hands are incentivized to bet and increase the size of the pot but, as we know, betting only
your high-equity hands and checking your low-equity hands would be a highly exploitable
strategy. For this reason, IP also has to bet some weaker hands on the flop so that the c-betting
range remains balanced.
Sometimes checking back strong hands works well in situations when they don’t need as much
protection. When they block the Villain’s continuing range, or when they are so nutted that it
doesn’t matter if you give a free card so the Villain can catch a small piece or start bluffing,
checking behind with some of your strong hands makes sense. This is referred to as trapping. An
added benefit is that checking strong hands also helps protect your checking range.

Good hands
Good hands also benefit by betting and gaining value from worse hands as well as for protection
to get some folds from hands that have equity. However, sometimes it makes sense to check back
your good hands when the BB’s range is very polarized to hands that are either stronger than
yours or have very little equity. By checking behind, you give the Villain a chance to pick up
some equity with trash hands or start bluffing with them, while keeping the pot size under
control when you are beat. This action is often referred to as pot controlling.

Weak hands
Weak hands benefit from checking back when the Villain’s range is strong and you risk getting
x/r and pushed off your hand. However, they do well as semi-bluffs when your opponent’s range
is generally weak and cannot x/r you at a high frequency.

Trash hands
Trash hands will not improve too often when checked back, so they are in general c-bet more
often than weak hands. They mostly benefit from having fold equity. If called, they will still
have some equity in the pot, but their equity is sufficiently low that you don’t mind having to
bet/fold them vs a x/r. Betting your trash is often referred to as a pure bluff.

Diagram 40

UTG’s c-bet frequency and bet-sizes are bigger than the BN because the UTG range is
stronger than that of the BN. In general, the more strong hands your range has compared to your
opponent’s, the more frequently you can bet. This is because the more strong hands your betting
range has, the more you can bet other hands in your range because your range is protected. The
fact that UTG’s range is in general stronger than the BN’s also allows the use the bigger bet-
sizes more frequently (Diagram 41).

Diagram 41

The bigger sizes are generally used less often when stacks are shallower, and the use of bigger
bets (and even overbets) becomes more relevant when stacks are deeper. This makes sense
because, in general, when stacks are shallow, big bets aren’t needed to get all the money in
across two or three streets. There is no need to overcommit large portions of your stack when the
SPR is low. The only exception is the all-in bet, which gets used more often when stacks get
shallow, because the risk/reward ratio is much better when all your chips are going in and you
are guaranteed to realize your equity (Diagram 41).
Diagram 42

Since the BB has more offsuit connectors than IP, flops with more possible flopped straights
will, as expected, favor the BB. So, the c-bet frequency decreases as there are more straights
possible on the flop. Flops with zero flopped straights are the highest c-bet ones.
Within the flops with zero possible straights, we can create a subcategory for the number of
possible open-ended straight draws (Diagram 42).
Not surprisingly, the flops with three OESDs are the ones with the lowest c-bet frequency and
with the larger bet-sizes, as the BB will have more possible straight draws and IP’s strong hands
need more protection (Diagram 43).
The only 2xx flop is 222 and it is c-bet 100% of the time. Axx flops are the second most c-bet
flops, with a 96% c-bet frequency. 3xx flops are only 333, 322 or 332 and are c-bet 93% of the
time. Kxx flops are c-bet 88%, Qxx and Txx are c-bet 85% and, as expected, middle and low
flops are c-bet at the lowest frequencies, with 6xx being the lowest at only 62% (Diagram 44).
Diagram 43

Diagram 44
Diagram 45

Diagram 45 shows how often IP should bet in terms of the flop texture. Clearly, paired boards
should be frequently min-bet. This will be examined in greater detail in the forthcoming sections.

Flop C-betting by Structure


The flop structure is one of the key characteristics that drives post-flop play as the strategies
differ drastically if the flops feature trips, are paired, or are unpaired.
Trips are by far the absolute best flops for IP, who can capture on average 81% of the pot on
this texture. Paired boards, on the other hand, give the BB a lot of strong hands, polarizing their
range and allowing them some counterplay. This range polarization is one of the main reasons
why betting very small is optimal on paired boards. Small bets force the BB to reveal a lot of
information about their holding, as there are a lot of trash and weak hands the BB has to fold,
regardless of IP’s bet-size, and IP loses the minimum when having to bet/fold the flop with the
bottom of their range.
In general, small bets are preferred when IP’s range has this type of depolarized distribution
with the bulk of hands being good, but not great, and a low frequency of trash and weak hands.
In situations where IP’s range distribution is more polarized with a bigger proportion of strong,
weak and trash hands, bigger bet-sizes are used more often.
Diagram 46

Table 111: IP Metrics by Flop Structure

Diagram 47
Diagram 48

On flops featuring trips, there is a clear pattern of bigger bet-sizes being used more often on
the lower ranks, while 1/3-pot is the most frequently seen bet-size.
On paired flops, min-betting is clearly the preferred bet-size for most flop ranks, although 1/3-
pot is preferred on flop families AAM, AAL and LLL, 1/2-pot is seldom used, while 2/3-pot is
never used. The most checked families are MMH, HHA, LLM, LLH, LLL, MMM, MML and
LLA. As expected, flops with the paired card being of low or middle rank tend to benefit the BB
more than IP, and so they get checked more often than flops that contain a paired high card or an
ace.
Diagram 49

Diagram 50
On unpaired flops, the least c-bet flop families are LLL, MMM, MML, MLL and HMM. We
still see a lot of bet-size mixing, so we have to look deeper into the unpaired flop textures to get a
better idea of how to approach them.

Flop C-betting by Texture (Unpaired Flops)


Unpaired flops make 82.82% of all flops. In this section, we will look into the different textures
of unpaired flops and how they affect the players’ range distributions and flop strategies.
Diagram 51

Table 112: IP Metrics by Flop Texture

Diagram 52

Monotone flops are the most c-bet but they also have the lowest EV for IP. On this texture,
IP’s strong hand percentage diminishes by a large margin, while the BB’s strong hand
percentage increases because a lot of hands that would be trash on other textures are now flushes
and a lot of IP’s hands that would be strong on other textures reduce in equity. The BB’s weak
hands percentage also increases, as many hands that would be complete trash on other textures
now have some sort of flush draw. This range distribution creates a similar situation as on paired
boards, with the BB having a polarized distribution, while IP is more depolarized. For this
reason, using smaller bet-sizes is preferred as they will get a lot of folds from the BB’s hands
that have terrible equity while not overcommitting with all of IP’s good, but not great hands.
I often see players making the mistake of betting large on monotone flops, thinking that they
need to protect their good hands and make the BB fold. The problem with that is that if your bet-
size is too large, you force the BB to fold the weak hands that would continue against a smaller
bet and will be isolating yourself against the top of their range that will either have you beat or
have a ton of equity.

Diagram 53
Diagram 54

The lower the ranks and the more connected the board, the less IP gets to c-bet, with MMM,
LLL, MML, and HMM being the least c-bet flops. Flops with three possible flopped straights are
checked 31% of the time, flops with two straights are checked 28%, flops with one straight are
checked 17% and flops with zero straights are checked only 10% of the time. Stack depth also
has an effect, with deeper stacks being more likely to check the flop.
We could easily simplify our strategy on monotone flops to use only 1/3-pot bet-sizes or min-
bets without suffering a significant EV loss.
Again, we see the trend of lower ranks being c-bet less frequently. However, we see a big
difference in the way bet-sizes are used compared to monotone flops, with bigger bet-sizes being
used a lot more frequently. Again, this is a function of the way the equities are distributed on
two-tone flops, with IP having 24% strong hands compared to the BB’s 5%.
Diagram 55

On rainbow flops, IP’s range advantage is even greater than on two-tone flops, which will
again result in an even higher preference for larger bet-sizes. Hands that are strong on rainbow
flops usually also tend to be strong on the turn and river. Conversely, on two-tone flops, the
presence of possible flush draws will result in more abrupt equity shifts. The absence of flush
draws on the flop also increases the percentage of the BB’s trash hands that would have a flush
draw on a two-tone board. For these reasons, IP will be able to triple barrel more effectively on
rainbow flops and get all the money in by the river.

Developing IP C-betting Strategies


The first thing you should consider when deciding to c-bet is your opponent’s skill level. If the
Villain is a weak player who is completely oblivious, you can get away with doing pretty much
anything you want. If you think they are likely to call your overbets across three streets very
light, then you should by all means take them to value town any time you have a hand that is
ahead of their calling range.
On the other hand, if you have a hand that has very little equity and bad blockers, you should
either give up or bet small, trying to take down the pot right there, and be ready to give up if your
first bet is called because this type of player will simply not fold, regardless of the bet-size you
choose. As with this example, there are many different situations where you should tweak your
bet-size and frequencies in order to manipulate your opponent’s range. The problem with making
these adjustments occurs when your opponent is smart, aware and capable of counter-
exploitation. Then, you need to have a solid strategy so you don’t get exploited instead.
If the Villain is a good player, or at least you think that they will likely defend well on the
particular flop with the ranges in play, then there are two main concepts to consider:

♦ The flop GTO c-betting frequency

♦ The c-bet-size

In this section, we focus on these two key factors and try to use them to develop our intuition
so we can more effectively develop our own c-betting strategies.
All the simulations that were used to develop the data in this section had the familiar flop bet-
sizes: min-bets, 1/3-pot, 1/2-pot and 2/3-pot. We can categorize flop bet-sizes into two groups
according to the c-bet size that is preferred by the solver:

♦ Big bet-size: 1/2-pot, 2/3-pot

♦ Small bet-size: min-bet, 1/3-pot

We can also categorize flops according to c-bet frequency as follows:

♦ High c-bet frequency flops (80%+)

♦ Mid c-bet frequency flops (60%-80%)

♦ Low c-bet frequency flops (less than 60%)

In poker, it is rarely the case that something is true 100% of the time, and the equity buckets
system is no exception. Still, we can use the EQB diagrams to get a good idea of how the
players’ equity distributions affect post-flop play by studying the EQB in the previously used
flop categories.
Diagram 56: Big Bet-size: Average Flop Equity Buckets

In general, when a big bet-size is used by IP, the BB has the most depolarized range with
about 4-5% strong hands and a higher number of good hands, 19-36%. When a small bet-size is
used, the BB has 7-9% strong hands (twice as many strong hands) and a lower number of good
hands, 20-27%. So, IP sizes up when OOP has many hands that can potentially call the flop, and
sizes down when OOP potentially has more raising hands.
Diagram 57: Small Bet-size: Average Flop Equity Buckets

Another interesting trend is how IP’s c-betting frequency increases as more trash hands are in
the BB’s range and decreases as the IP’s range becomes more depolarized. When the number of
strong hands in their range decreases, the number of good and weak hands in their range
increases.
In practice, on 80%+ c-bet flops, you can get away with c-betting 100% of the time with little
to no EV loss, even against a minimally exploitative opponent. Due to IP’s massive range
advantage, there is little the Villain can do to attack the flop c-bets.
On mid frequency c-bet flops, IP’s range still dominates the BB, but the ranges are now much
closer, as IP’s range becomes more depolarized by having fewer strong hands and more weak
hands than on high c-bet flops, while the BB’s range gets stronger. Because of this shift in the
range composition, IP cannot get away with c-betting at a high frequency without it costing EV,
even against weak players, as their ranges hit these flops too well, making it easy for them to
defend against flop bets. Instead of betting a merged range, IP splits their range, checking back
good, but not great hands that benefit from keeping the pot small and seeing a free turn card at a
high frequency, while c-betting a more polarized range, which results in bigger bet-sizes
becoming more dominant.
Playing turns after checking back the flop can be challenging and, for this reason, I frequently
hear players come up with excuses to bet hands they should be checking back on the flop so they
don’t have to deal with playing difficult turns. One of the most typical arguments is that the bet
is a so-called “information bet”. Some players are eager to make a flop bet with a weak hand that
would benefit from checking back and playing a small pot, only to get raised off the pot in
situations where the BB is likely to x/r the flop. Or, even worse, they will call the flop x/r only to
fold on a turn bet 100% of the time when they fail to improve. This is a massive mistake that
amateurs and even many pros make on a regular basis simply because they want to avoid losing
the “betting lead”. They are happy to put more money into the pot just to fold to aggression so
they can feel good about themselves for making a “good fold”.

Playing poker is easier when you have the stronger range and you are the one making
bets, putting your opponents to the test, but that cannot be an excuse for making -EV plays
by overplaying your hands.

Poker is not about trying to win every single hand you play by force, but instead about
making the highest EV play every time.

Sometimes the highest EV play is to simply give up.


Learning how to balance your ranges so you are not an easy target, and being selectively
aggressive and smart, is what makes the difference between a rookie and a top player.

General IP C-bet Guidelines

♦ You don’t need to know the exact range composition combo by combo. All you need to
make educated decisions is to have a good idea of the composition of each player’s
equity buckets.

♦ If your opponent has a lot of trash in their range, you should c-bet at a high frequency and
expect to get many folds. If they have very few strong hands compared to you, you
should size up!

♦ High c-bet % and big bet-size flops are the absolute best flops for IP. They allow for
aggressive play and you should expect to capture most of the pot.

♦ Low c-bet % and small bet-size flops are the best flops for the BB. Equities run close and
you should be cautious, generally betting small and at a low frequency.

♦ The types of hands that the solver likes to check back on the flop are generally the same.
What changes is the frequency they are checked.

♦ Bet-folding high equity hands on the flop is a disaster. If your range is not strong enough
to c-bet 100% without risking being x/r at a high frequency, you should split your range,
c-betting a more polarized range and checking back good and weak hands that benefit
from taking a free turn.

♦ If you do have a checking range on a given flop, check back strong hands that block your
opponent’s continuing range, particularly if, on that flop, you are likely to get many folds.

♦ If you expect your opponent to fold a lot or raise your bet, you should bet small at a high
frequency, and if you expect them to call a lot, you should size up.

♦ Don’t put yourself in areas of the game tree where you are not comfortable. It is a
completely different thing to ask yourself how the solver would play a tricky spot and to
ask what the best play you can think of right now is.

♦ It’s better to have a plan, even a simple plan, than have no plan at all.
♦ In multi-way pots, blockers are more important than raw hand strength.

♦ Generally, play passively in multi-way pots. Don’t bet draws too often unless they are to
the nuts.

♦ Never think about a hand in a vacuum. Always think about the context.

♦ Hands with backdoor equity and no showdown value generally work well as semi-bluffs.

♦ If you have a checking range, make sure to check back strong hands with some frequency
so you don’t get easily exploited by aggressive players stabbing at the pot after you
checked.

♦ If you are unsure about the flop strategy with your range, you can default to c-betting 1/3-
pot in most short and middle stack situations.

♦ If you are unsure whether you should bet or check your hand, ask yourself what would
happen if you are raised. If your hand hates being raised and you are likely to face a x/r,
then you should probably check.

♦ If the BB does not have a donk betting range on good donking flops, you should c-bet less
often than equilibrium suggests because you will get x/r more often.

♦ If your hand can get value across three streets, it is almost always ideal to start by betting
the flop.

♦ Don’t try to get recreational players off top pair. More often than not, they will not fold it.

The Way Ahead or Way Behind Situation

Sometimes IP’s range is so strong compared to the BB’s range that, even if they could profitably
c-bet 100% and get a lot of folds, the strategy involves checking back the flop at a high
frequency. This happens on flops where BB’s range is extremely polarized to strong hands and a
lot of trash with little in between.

Example
Board: A♠T♥T♦
Situation: BB vs UTG
Stack depth: 30bb
IP EQB: 57% strong hands, 37% good, 5% weak and 1% trash
BB EQB: 7% strong, 12% good, 0% weak and 81% trash.

This situation is commonly known as way ahead or way behind because your opponent will
either have a monster or little to nothing, without much in between. In this set-up, IP wants to
check back the flop with many good hands for pot control, alongside a big chunk of strong hands
as traps. IP also wants to c-bet all trash hands and most weak hands, balanced with the remaining
strong and some good hands. This allows IP to often win the pot uncontested on the flop with
trash while being able to bluff-catch effectively on future streets after checking back the flop.
When facing a x/r, you should always consider your opponent’s range and your hand vs range
equity. If the Villain is likely to x/r the flop less than equilibrium suggests, they will probably be
missing the optimal bluff. Their range will be heavily skewed towards strong hands and your
overall equity will be a lot lower than you would expect it to be. If that is the case, you can
exploit the Villain by over-folding the flop. Even if they bluff you once in a while, their
frequencies are so far off to the point that it is not worth the risk of continuing with middle
strength hands. Depending on the Villain, you can even lay down some strong hands you would
never consider folding against someone else.
If Villain’s range is skewed towards draws, then you can 3-bet aggressively with your good
and strong hands that can benefit from protection. If the Villain’s range is polarized to strong
hands or bluffs, your range will play better as a bluff-catcher. Let them keep putting money in
with bluffs and don’t raise back with medium strength hands.

IP C-bet Examples
Flop Strategy Example 1

High c-bet % and big bet-size: BB vs UTG on A♥Q♦3♠ (40bb)


Diagram 58: High c-bet % and Big Bet-size: BB vs UTG on A♥Q♦3♠ (40bb)

If we give IP the option to use a 120% overbet, the solver will use it 14.45% of the time,
although this does not generate any extra EV to IP. On the other hand, simplifying the strategy to
c-bet 100% for 1/3-pot bet-size loses 1.07% of the pot, or 6.6bb/100. Simplifying the strategy to
c-bet 100% using the 2/3-pot bet-size retains all of IP’s EV.

Diagram 59
Table 113: UTG C-betting Range Breakdown on A♥Q♦3♠

On A♥Q♦3♠, UTG has all very strong hands, such as AA, QQ and AK, while the BB would 3-
bet AA and QQ all the time and AK most of the time. This lack of nutted hands in the BB’s
range allows IP to bet big across multiple streets, over-realizing the 72% equity and capturing
85% of the pot.

Facing a Min x/r


On this flop, IP has a massive range advantage and, at equilibrium, should only face a flop x/r
about 5% of the time. OOP’s x/r range contains hands such as 33, AQ, A3, Q3, AJ, a few AT-
A7, and bluffs such as gutshots and some bottom pair plus a BDFD and BDSTD.
UTG’s typical response should be to fold about 30% of their range, including most pocket
pairs, K-high without a gutshot and pure air. UTG’s 3-bet range contains hands such as AK, AJ,
a small frequency of AQ, and about 5% of sets for value, plus some KJo, QJs and QTs without a
BDFD and about half of JJ as bluffs. 52% of UTG’s range calls vs the x/r and plays the turn
including any top pair, middle pair and gutshots.

Flop Strategy Example 2

High c-bet % and small bet-size: BB vs UTG on Q♥J♥T♥ (40bb)


Diagram 59: High C-bet % and Small Bet-size: BB vs UTG on Q♥J♥T♥ (40bb)

Diagram 60

On Q♥J♥T♥, UTG has a substantial range advantage, so they would like to c-bet at a high
frequency, but the BB’s range is too polarized, with many hands that would not be able to
continue on the flop if UTG used a big bet-size. At the same time, BB has many strong hands
that will be happy to continue vs a big bet-size. So, by betting big UTG would be making the
BB’s life easier, allowing them to correctly fold weak hands and continue with a very strong
range. If instead, UTG bets the minimum, this will lure the BB in with many weak hands that
UTG dominates, keeping their range wider on future streets.

Table 114: UTG c-betting Range Breakdown on Q♥J♥T♥

The strategy on this flop can be simplified to min-bet 100% with no EV loss. Many times,
when people see all the small frequencies being used, they freak out, thinking that playing with
that level of detail is impossible, and they are right. Only a solver would be capable of that kind
of mixing but, as we saw in the post-flop bet-sizing section, we don’t need to use multiple bet-
sizes, as a single bet-size will retain virtually all the strategy’s EV.

Facing a 50% Pot x/r


The BB x/r range on this flop includes many strong hands such as flushes, straights, sets and two
pair, alongside flush draws and straights draws and not too much pure air.
UTG’s response to a flop x/r on this texture is to almost never 3-bet, folding about 35% of the
time and calling the remaining 65%. UTG’s continuing range includes pretty much all hands that
are two pair or better, a pair with a straight draw and pretty much any hand that has a flush draw.

Flop Strategy Example 3

Mid c-bet % and big bet-size: BB vs UTG on 9♥8♥4♦ (40bbs)

Diagram 61: Mid c-bet % and Big Bet-size: BB vs UTG on 9♥8♥4♦ (40bbs)
Diagram 62

On this flop texture, IP has 59% equity and is able to capture 69.04% of the pot. Simplifying
the strategy to a single 2/3-pot bet-size retains most of IP’s EV, 68.95%, for an EV loss of -0.09
or -0.6bb/100.
A 100% c-bet strategy cannot be implemented on this flop as it would cost UTG an EV loss of
4.25% of the pot, or -24bb/100. At equilibrium, the BB’s x/r frequency vs UTG is about 4%, but
vs the 100% c-bet strategy, the BB can attack UTG by increasing the x/r frequency to a gigantic
48.42%.
Table 115: UTG C-betting Range Breakdown on 9♥8♥4♦

The UTG strategy breaks down as follows:

Strong hands
Strong hands are bet most of the time. Hands such as AA, top set and middle set get checked
back ~8%.

Good hands
Good hands are played passively, with made hands such as middle pairs mostly being checked.
Good draws such as combo draws and flush draws are mostly c-bet, while weaker draws such as
OESD mostly get checked. Top pair wants to check back 24% of the time and can be c-bet in a
reverse linear fashion, with the strongest kicker A9 being c-bet 100% and T9s being c-bet 66%.

Weak hands
The only weak hands in IP’s range that don’t have any sort of draw are K-high and A-high. In
general, combos with a BDFD get c-bet more often than combos without a BDFD.
Trash hands
The only hand with less than 33% equity in IP’s range is 65s, and it gets c-bet ~95% of the time.

Facing a MIN x/r


On this flop, the BB should only x/r about 4% of the time, given a lack of strong hands in their
range. The flop x/r range includes hands such as two pair, overpairs, combo draws and some
overcards with a BDFD.
UTG’s response at equilibrium is to fold about 32% of the time, including mostly overcards
without a BDFD. UTG 3-bets all-in ~13.5%, and 3-bets a smaller size about 8% of the time. The
3-betting range includes hands such as overpairs, top pair top kicker and the nut flush draw
(particularly with two overcards) and some bluffs with hands such as A♥ plus an overcard. The
rest of the range calls, for a calling frequency of ~47%.

Flop Strategy Example 4

Mid c-bet % and small bet-size: BB vs BN on J♠6♥6♦ (40bbs)

Diagram 63: Mid C-bet % and Small Bet-size: BB vs BN on J♠6♥6♦ (40bbs)

On this flop, the BB’s range is very polar and has a healthy number of strong hands at 14%,
not too far away from the BN’s 23%. More specifically, the BB’s range has 8.9% trip sixes,
while the BN only has 5%. For this reason, the BN cannot use a large sizing, but the BB still has
52% trash hands that will struggle to continue against even a min-bet. This allows the BN to
have a high overall c-bet frequency of 72%.
Diagram 64

Table 116: BN C-betting Range Breakdown on J♠6♥6♦

The BN strategy breaks down as follows:


Strong hands
Some strong hands such as quads (66) and full houses (JJ) block the BB’s continuing range, so
they benefit from trapping and checking back the flop with some frequency. This gives the
Villain the chance to either start bluffing or catch some equity. Also, IP’s range is protected
when they check back the flop. Overpairs QQ+ like checking back the flop with some frequency
when they block the BB’s BDFDs that would continue on the flop. So, a hand like K♣K♦ is more
likely to c-bet than a hand like K♠K♥.

Good hands
Good hands are pocket pairs TT-22 (except 66) and these are c-bet half the time.

Weak hands
Suited A-high gets c-bet linearly, with the strongest AK-AQs being c-bet 100%, then the
middling ones ATs-A7s being c-bet 80% and the baby A-high A5s-A2s being c-bet only 34%.
The logic is that the stronger A-highs have better equity vs the BB’s x/r range, so IP wants to
have them more often when facing a x/r. Also, they have better blockers to top pair, and get
called by worse A-high more often.

Trash hands
Air gets c-bet 75% of the time.

Facing a 50% Pot x/r


The total BB x/r frequency on this board is about 27%, with a polarized range including some
strong hands such as trips, a few good top pairs and some very weak hands such as BDFD and
BDSTD combos.
The BN’s equilibrium response to the x/r has them folding about 35% of hands, 3-betting 11%
using a min-raise and calling 54%. The BN’s folding range includes all air, and many weak A-
and K-high with only one overcard to the flopped J. The BN’s 3-betting range is extremely
polarized, including hands such as A6 and K6, some strong top pair, and some bluffs with two
overcards with a BDFD or BDFD and BDSTD. The calling range contains any pair+, most A-
and K- and Q-high and hands with backdoor equity.

Flop Strategy Example 5

Low c-bet % and big bet-size: BB vs BN on 8♥6♦2♠ (40bbs)


Diagram 65: Low c-bet % and Big Bet-size: BB vs BN on 8♥6♦2♠ (40bbs)

Diagram 66

On 862r, the BB has few strong hands compared to the BN. This incentivizes the BN to use a
big bet-size. However, the BN also has many good and weak hands that benefit from playing a
small pot and taking a free turn card. These range distributions results in a more polarized big
bet-size with a low c-bet frequency.
Table 117: BN C-betting Range Breakdown on 8♥6♦2♠

The IP player strategy breaks down as follows:

Strong hands
It is important for IP to have some strong hands that can continue on brick runouts. For this
reason, some strong hands such as top set and top pair weak kicker get checked back with some
frequency. In fact, top set wants to check back or bet small. Since I advocate one bet-size by
flop, I think a good strategy would be to simply always check back top set in this spot. A trend
that typically loses a lot of EV to IP that I see all the time is to c-bet all strong and good hands on
the flop and checking back an unbalanced and capped range that can be attacked by the BB on
future streets.

Good hands
Good hands really want to check back a lot and realize equity instead of being raised off the pot.
Middle and low pocket pairs mostly want to check back the flop, except 77, which can be bet
half the time, as it can get value from middle pair. The strongest middle pairs such as A6 and K6
are mostly c-bet and the weaker ones are typically checked back. Bottom pair top kicker is
mostly c-bet, and the rest are checked back. Ace-highs without a BDFD are c-bet reverse linearly
(A6o is c-bet more often than AQo) except AKo, which is mostly bet and the ones with a BDFD
are c-bet linearly (AKs is c-bet more often than A3s).

Weak hands
Weak hands are c-bet reverse linearly when they cannot call a flop x/r. For example, K6o gets c-
bet more often than K9o, which also gets c-bet more often than KQo. So, the strongest Kx that
will do well on many turns can be checked back, while the weaker ones better serve as bet/folds.
OESDs are mostly checked back, while gutshots and Q-high with two overcards are mostly c-
bet.

Trash hands
Weak Q-high, J-high and T-high with no draws are c-bet more often than not, but you have to
give up and check back some of them because c-betting all your trash would make your c-betting
range too weak.

Facing a 50% Pot x/r


On 862r, the BB’s range does not have many strong hands, thus the equilibrium flop x/r
frequency is low, at ~8%. The x/r range mostly includes hands such as top pair good kicker,
some OESD, some weak hands like gutshot plus BDFD and some random overcards.
The BN’s equilibrium response is to fold 43% of the time, call 34% and 3-bet all-in 23%. The
BN’s 3-betting range includes hands such as QQ-99, top pair good kicker+, and some random
two overcards with a BDFD such as KTs, Q9s, J9s and T9s. The calling range is pretty much any
pair, any gutshot or better draw and most overcards with a BDFD. Air and overcards with no
BDFD are always folded.

Flop Strategy Example 6

Low c-bet % and small bet-size: BB vs BN on 5♥5♦4♥ (40bbs)


Diagram 67: Low c-bet % and Small Bet-size: BB vs BN on 5♥5♦4♥ (40bbs)

Diagram 68

On this flop, the BN doesn’t have a significant range advantage, hence the preference for the
smaller bet-sizes. In fact, most of the BN range is made of good hands, giving a depolarized
distribution that will result in a low c-bet frequency, as many good and weak hands in the BN’s
range will benefit from checking back the flop.
Table 118: UTG C-betting Range Breakdown on 5♥5♦4♥

The IP player strategy breaks down as follows:

Strong hands
Strong hands are slowplayed ~28% of the time. Quads are mostly checked back, full houses are
checked back about 22% of the time, trips are almost always c-bet and overpairs get c-bet in a
reverse linear fashion. TT gets c-bet 76%, JJ 64%, QQ 50%, KK 40% and AA 22%, as the
bigger pairs need less protection and make great hands to call down on many runouts after
checking back the flop. A-high combo draws get c-bet ~55%.

Good hands
Good hands are c-bet ~59% of the time. Mid pairs 66-99 are c-bet almost 100%, OESD gets
mostly c-bet, gutshots mostly like to check back and A-high flush draws are c-bet linearly, with
the strongest kickers being c-bet more often than the ones with weak kicker. K-high and Q-high
flush draws gets c-bet reverse linearly, with the highest kickers being checked back more often
and weaker flush draws being c-bet ~ 2/3 of the time.
Weak hands and trash hands
Air gets c-bet about 64% of the time, getting mostly bet/folded vs a flop x/r and only continuing
when having a diamond BDFD and a small frequency when having a heart.

Facing a 25% Pot x/r


On 5♥5♦4♥, the BB isn’t as polarized as it was on J66r because, on 5♥5♦4♥, many of the BB’s
hands that would be trash on J66 now have a flush draw, OESD or some sort of gutshot. This
makes the BN c-bet the flop less frequently on 5♥5♦4♥. The BB should x/r the flop vs a 1/3-pot
c-bet with a range that has a good mixture of strong hands such as full houses, trips, flush draws,
SD, gutshots, and backdoor equity combos.
The BN’s GTO strategy vs a flop x/r has them 3-betting the flop 19% of the time using a 25%-
pot raise, calling 56% and folding 25%.The BN’s 3-betting range includes hands such as 38% of
trips (mostly with a high kicker), 34% overpairs (mostly JJ-66), 26% of flush draws (mostly A-
high flush draws with two overcards) and some A♥ and K♥ bluffs. The folding range is mostly
air and overcards with no draws or backdoor BDFD. The calling range is made of any pair+ and
draws that are raised and overcards with BDFD.

Note About Mixing and Balancing


It is important to understand that all of the mixing that happens with all hand types across all the
range examples does not have to be memorized. It simply serves the purpose of illustrating how
the solver divides up the ranges. In-game against human opponents, the options with any given
hand tend to be more binary and one action will yield a higher expectation than any other action.
Mixing can be used as a defensive measure against good players but, even then, getting the exact
right frequencies often times is neither possible nor necessary.

Developing OOP C-betting Strategies


OOP c-betting is fundamentally different from IP c-betting. When you are the player in position,
the Villain will generally be playing from the blinds with a wide range of about 50%-70% hands.
When the Villain cold calls (and is thus IP), their range will be much tighter, typically 4%-20%
hands. This significant difference in the Villain’s pre-flop range produces a more symmetric
post-flop equity distribution that results in a reduced overall betting frequency. The closer the
ranges are, the less incentivized you should be to start betting the flop.
Now that you are OOP, there is another issue you don’t have when you are IP. Checking the
flop does not immediately allow you to see the turn and realize equity because, when you check
the flop from OOP, the IP player has the option to bet and force some of your hands to fold. For
this reason, you have to check a stronger range when OOP than when IP, as your range can be
immediately attacked by the Villain. This forces you to check a range that not only will be
balanced on the average turn card when the action goes x/x, but also a range that is balanced
immediately and can withstand aggression.
Stack depth has a significant effect on pre-flop strategies and thus the cold call ranges will be
substantially different from one stack depth to the other, resulting in different post-flop equity
distributions. In this section, we will focus on BN cold calls because the BN is the position from
outside the blinds that typically cold calls the most. As for the opener, we will focus on CO and
UTG opens, to provide the two most extreme examples of this set-up, one against the widest
possible opening range, and once against the tightest. The play from all other positions will fall
within these two extremes.
The stack depths we will study are 40bb and 20bb, typical for a MTT setup with 12.5% antes,
and the following betting structure:

♦ OOP can bet (20bb): all-in, 2/3-pot, 1/2-pot, 1/3-pot, min-bet

♦ OOP can bet (40bb): 3/4-pot, 2/3-pot, 1/2-pot, 1/3-pot, min-bet

Table 119: Hero vs BN Overall Stats

The best situation for Hero is when is playing UTG with 40bb. In this set-up, both players
have almost the same number of hands in their ranges but Hero’s range dominates the BN in all
other set-ups. The BN’s range is tighter than Hero’s, creating a more equal situation that will
ultimately benefit the BN, given that they are playing IP post-flop.
Of course, for the BN to achieve this favorable post-flop situation, they had to take a risk
when calling the open raise in the first place. So it is not as if the BN could simply cold call any
hand, as they would risk being pushed off by the blinds and also risk playing multi-way post-

You might also like