Experts from 2CardsCollege continue to analyze the most interesting hands played by their students, as well as those sent in by the PocketFives users.

1) https://www.weaktight.com/h/55e7a967d39043102e8b477f

We are in the middle of the pay-zone in the Big $55. I had 102 hands on the villain, who was a regular with 27/23 and a 17.1 total 3-bet. The sample of 3-bets was not representative. I was quite active at the table, but I don’t think the villain would 3-bet me too wide. He only defended by calling on the BB, so I think his 3-bet in such a spot is more likely bipolar.

Here is the villain’s 3-bet range:

Of course, his range may be somewhat narrower or wider, but since I know little about it, I guess we can call this range.

I’m also absolutely sure the villain would not bluff with no equity, starting from the turn and would bet into a paired board in 100% of cases or close to that.

The only hand he could definitely check on this flop is a full house (JJ); he would most likely check TT-77, so I left those with a 25% c-bet probability, but the villain would certainly check the latter hands on the turn instead of turning them into a bluff.

It is also important to note that this is a kind of a flop where anyone would rarely bluff into the pre-flop aggressor’s check, which means overpairs would c-bet in 100% of the cases.

I am starting having difficulties on the turn since I know little about the villain, although almost any opponent would barrel twice in a 3-bet pot on a semi-bluff to make me fold pocket pairs and better AX hands. My range contains flushes, better top pairs, and I’m sure the villain would not continue betting top pairs, even those with flush blockers like KJo and AJo. Nonetheless, the villain would sometimes bet top pair, top kicker, so I’m keeping AJ and KJ with a flush draw in his range.

I’m also sure he would not continue with zero equity hands since it is not a good spot to bluff me with that kind of hands because I would only fold some overcards and pocket pairs at best and if I call he is going to have a difficult decision on the river.

My equity against the villain’s second barrel has significantly decreased, but I’m still good to continue since I need 26% equity for a breakeven call while I have 36%.

I should also note that the villain made his second bet very quickly and it looks like this is his value bet-sizing. He could think a little longer when semi-bluff betting and use the sizing, allowing him to bet more on the river to make it look more solid and thus generate more fold equity. If I only keep the nut flush draw semi-bluffs in his range, then I cannot call. If my guess about his bet timing is correct, I only have 8% equity on the turn.

I guess it was a good fold on the turn, although a quite unpleasant one.

If there are still some semi-bluffs in the villain’s range, then we should consider his most possible bluffs for the third barrel. These are the hands with blockers to my nut flushes, slowplayed KK+, and hands that block my top pairs.

Considering the pot size and his remaining stack, he would bet his best bluffs 100% of the time. These hands are 60% remaining from the total AQo+ combos (this is exactly how many hands have Ac). By the way, the villain pushed the river very quickly.

I need 20% equity for a call, while I only have 19% even if the villain bluffs both the turn and river. However, as I said, I highly doubt that considering his bet timing and sizing.

Conclusion: in light of the analysis of the additional factors, besides the villain’s range, I should not even have seen the river in this hand. As played, it is an easy fold on the river. It is crucial to pay close attention to timing tells and your opponent’s bet sizing to avoid making mistakes.

2) https://www.weaktight.com/h/55e7b25ad39043de188b4567

A hand from iPoker’s Big €75. The villain has a 15/12, 18% (38) raise first in, and the stats on fold to c-bet and 3-bet are not representative. There are 155 hands on the villain.

His pre-flop 3-bet calling range:

Considering the depth of stacks, I think the villain would often call with almost all of suited Broadway and fold some small pocket pairs. Although, considering the stacks again and the Hero’s range strength, he could set mine due to the implied pot odds. I also think he would not 4-bet in this spot since it looks too strong and he would often not get enough value.

The flop that came out was pretty unpleasant to continue. On the one hand, we could barrel to make him fold pocket pairs and he will fold most of those on the flop; however, I don’t want to play a big pot in the tournament’s early stage without knowing the villain’s exact post-flop tendencies.

The most important thing, though, is that the Hero only has overcards equity. It would be much better to barrel with AhQh or AsQs. Another option is a pre-flop call, but the initiative gives us edge over the villain’s range in deep stacks, which allows us to realize our hand’s equity easier and more efficiently.

The turn brings our out and this is not the best spot since we can only get enough value from a weak opponent and only one street from a solid one. Hero now has a transparent range since he would have bet all overpairs on a flop like that. I believe we should sometimes check overpairs on boards with no flush draws in order to balance our range if we think there are no three streets of value against a solid opponent on certain board textures.

The villain knows that Hero’s range contains a few hands that did not hit the turn. Even if Hero 3-bets and checks behind some 99 and TT, he is unlikely to turn them into a bluff on the turn. Because of this, the villain would most often fold KK and QQ, although many MTT players might not fold those hands as well as second pairs due to multi-tabling.

It was also very important for Hero to bet less on the turn to induce a call from a wider range. I give all second pairs a 20% probability of calling. The villain would check sets 100% of the time since the turn card fits Hero’s range well and Hero would often bet into it.

The villain’s turn check/calling range:

We can already see some really interesting figures. If the villain is actually competent as we’ve assumed, Hero does not even have a turn value bet since he simply has no equity for it. Against the check/calling range, his equity is just 33%. Thus, there are only two ways of playing the turn: bet one-third or one-quarter of the pot or check behind, representing medium pocket pairs in case the villain tries to make Hero fold them or try to value bet one-third or one-quarter of the pot after his river check.

The situation becomes very sad for us on this river. We don’t have a correct value bet since there is no equity for it. When playing this hand, Hero thought the villain would sometimes check/raise some busted draw. Moreover, the river card decreases the villain’s number of value hands.

In reality, very few opponents would check/raise bluff a board with two possible flush draws. The interesting thing is that I think the villain should check/shove AK here to make the split fold and rarely (like in this hand) get value from AQ.

I intentionally kept the best bluffing hands in the villain’s range, but we still cannot make a correct call since there are too few bluff combos for Hero to bluff catch. If we remove AK from the range, we get a slightly plus EV call, but only if the villain bluffs 100% of the time in this not too obvious spot due to the board texture I described above.

Conclusion: In a hand against a strong opponent, you should evaluate both ranges – yours and his – to play the hand in the most optimal way in order to maximize value or bluff efficiently.

Do you want 2CardsCollege expert to analyze your hand? Just send it to mail@2cardscollege.com or post it in the training program thread. We pick the most interesting ones and post the analysis next Friday. You can also ask our training program experts in this article comments – they will make sure to answer them.