Experts from 2CardsCollege Pro Poker Training continue to review the most interesting hands received from PocketFives users.

1) https://www.weaktight.com/h/55f8c6e5d3904303468b4737

The villain I was against in this hand plays with a 25/19 image, cold calls about 12, 6 versus EP, 270 hands. It was the pre-final stage of a $55 regular tournament. I also think the villain would 3-bet with offsuit blockers and call with suited broadway in this stage of the tournament instead of 3-betting dipolar due to variance in order to avoid “burning” his hand’s equity if I 4-bet him because he would have to 3-bet/fold then.

There are several ways to plat this hand:

1. Playing by check/pushing is a standard and definitely plus-EV option due to fold equity and high equity in case of villain’s call. Besides, the opponent in position would often bet this board.

2. Playing by check/raising is a more complicated option since we risk weakening our draw on the turn in case the villain resists, although this play looks stronger than check/push.

If we check/push, we have more top pairs and draws in our range, but never two pairs or a set. When we check/raise, our range looks stronger since now we also have two pairs, sets, and strong draws. This is why Hero picked this option of playing the hand.

What interests us the most is how profitable can this play be after narrowing the villain’s range on the flop and what would his turn range of call be.

Let us look at the villain’s pre-flop cold call range:

I already regret that Hero did not check/push because the turn fits the villain’s range very well. Anyway, let us see what the villain would bet on this board after two checks:

I think the villain would bet weak and second pairs to try to make the open-raiser fold his overcards’ equity and Hero would fold often enough, so the villain would only check with AJo and AQo and suited, but without a backdoor. I’m not completely sure since the villain would sometimes bet those hands for the same reasons. Nevertheless, I believe it to be a rare occasion, which is why I neglect to define even an approximate probability of this outcome in the analysis.

This is how a range of calling Hero’s check/raise would look like. I should also mention that since the villain might think he has no fold equity against Hero’s check/raise, he would call with all drawing hands, although he would 50/50 push/call the strongest ones like KQs, KJs, QJs, and just push AA since he has no blocker for a flush draw and top pairs:

Of course, the villain might not fold 9d8d and Jd9d, so it is reasonable to assume he would not fold gutshots and backdoors. However, after Hero’s play, turn SPR would be equal to 1 and then the villain would not be able to make a correct call with drawing hands, while he would have more equity with hits plus backdoors on a blank turn card.

The turn is not the most pleasant one for us and the profitability of our push would depend primarily on whether the villain would fold his second pairs or not. I guess he should definitely fold some of them because the turn card strengthens Hero’s range of check/raise.

Villain’s range of calling a push:

Thus, it turns out Hero has a slightly positive EV of pushing the turn (see the screenshot below). In addition, if the villain would not fold a portion of TX hands, Hero’s push becomes a significantly negative EV:

Conclusion:Due to Hero’s maximum fold equity on the flop against the villain, it is better to pick a fast line and check/push the flop since our draw would weaken significantly if we don’t get there on the turn and we would need a lot of fold equity to make a plus-EV push on the turn.

2) https://www.weaktight.com/h/55f8c9b3d3904303468b47bd

Big $22. The villain is a solid regular, playing 15/13 over 722 hands, total call-open 8%, bet vs missed c-bet 100%(3), has a high river aggression.

I remember a player sitting out present in this hand, so I think the villain’s pre-flop call-open range would be wider, somewhere around this:

Actually, the villain has 83(6) fold to c-bet, but this is a small sample and I’m sure I would get fewer folds and more floats on this texture. I would have to bet with a gutshot and an overcard, which is not our best out on several streets, and I would like to avoid that.

In this hand, I thought the villain would bet vs my missed c-bet all of his broadway draws and pocket pairs and most often check AX hands since I have a lot of AX hands and he is generally ahead of them. With my hand, I beat all the villain’s bluffs except AX, which might bet with a flush draw, although the villain does not have a lot of made hands on a texture this low. Anyway, let us see what came out of this reasoning:

The turn is a 6 and considering I check/called a flop like that, the villain might decide to check with all hands he would most likely continue bluffing on any non-paired card because he now has slightly fewer made hands in his range and his semi-bluffs did not strengthen, so I’m absolutely sure that on this card, the villain would continue betting either made hands exclusively or balance his range by checking some of them together with his non-made hands, otherwise he would not have almost anything to call the river.

The villain checks back. The river is a 5. It seems I picked a controversial option of betting. A few hands would pay me and I did not know the villain’s tendencies for some moves. The hands, which would pay me are not enough for a correct value bet on the river. However, if we review the hand after the event, we can see that in order to win the hand, the villain has to bet after Hero’s check or bet the river. I also think my bet looked to him as a pure bluff, as if I turned my overcards with an ace into a bluff for some reason.

It turned out one of us leveled himself too much. Anyway, let us try to make a conclusion: on one hand, this card strengthens the villain more than Hero, thus the villain should bet the river after Hero’s check. On the other hand, solid opponents do not like to give up and since my bet looks illogical, he might try to take the pot by raising.

Most of his combos would be bluff ones, but after all, he is more or less balanced on the river. If I bet and the villain’s river range is actually wide, he would be exploitable to my bet and forced to fold often (only when the turn pairs the board as I mentioned above), so he would have to devise something to make me fold.

I don’t know if the villain would always bet after my check or raise my bet. I only have 19% equity against his made hands and actually cannot bet for value, the only exception is when the villain would bluff. In addition, we would often find ourselves in a situation when all his value hands on the river will be straights exclusively because he might not think too hard and continue value betting the turn with sets and overpairs. If I’m right about the last statement, it is better to bet, since we often force an aggressive opponent to bluff. If I’m not, checking would be more optimal.

Conclusion: I prefer betting since I really think that even an aggressive villain would not always think about his turn balance on a paired board if he is multi-tabling and has little time for a decision in a major tournament. He would continue betting value hands, which leads to forced bluffs on the river.

Do you want 2CardsCollege expert to analyze your hand? Just send it to mail@2cardscollege.com or post it in the training program thread.

In order to facilitate the process, please post your hands here in a converted format using сonverters like weaktight.com or similar. Links to the posted hands or screenshots from the hand viewer in Holdem Manager are okay too. We will accept your hands for review from today and our coaches will have the analysis ready for you within a week from the receipt.