Today, 2CardsCollege Pro Poker Training expert “Iwantbearich” analyzes two hands from a student, Natalia “Matters71” Sarosek, who recently took the first place in the Big $11 on PokerStars.

You can read a full interview with her in our thread.

1. https://www.weaktight.com/h/55ffebeed39043787e8b45f2

The villain is an adequate regular, playing with a 16/12 image over 855 hands, fold to steal 76% (16/21), river aggression 1,67.

I think the villain would often 3-bet Hero with a mixed range with effective stacks of such depth. Therefore, I take the average broadway with 50/50 probability, meaning he would either 3-bet or call pre-flop. The villain’s approximate range:

Actually, I consider the villain’s range wider because nowadays almost no regular calls steals so narrowly. Most likely, it’s just due to the sample structure, although 855 hands is a decent history with an opponent in an MTT.

On this flop texture, we should not miss a continuation bet. The villain would check/call all top pairs, second pairs, straight draws, and often ace-highs. Since we would bet this flop a lot, he might often take down the pot with a river bet after we check behind on the turn.

One of the most important reasons to c-bet is that we are almost never getting a check/raise on a flop where we have an edge in equity over our opponent.

In the hand, Hero checked back representing weak KX hands and hands with medium showdown value (QQ, JJ, TX, pocket pairs lower than TT, maybe some AX hands).

This gives the villain an opportunity to bet at least once depending on how the turn and river cards strengthen his range. I don’t think the villain would turn any hit into a bluff since he is often simply ahead of AX hands. When a 9 comes out, he might only turn some pocket pairs into a bluff – 22, 44, 55, and not even 100% of the time. Hero would have a tough decision with weak hands and ace-high.

Nonetheless, I decided to include at least 30% of AX hands in the villain’s range since his ideal decision is to try to make Hero fold pocket pairs and try to make him fold second pairs on favorable river cards.

I agree that it’s not an ideal decision, but with a bare AX, the villain would rarely win at showdown. We don’t consider raising because we are not going to have sufficient equity for a value raise against the villain’s range of calling a raise.

The river is an A, which is not a dangerous card for us because after hitting the river, the villain would not bet any Ace, but only the strongest ones. The villain has low river aggression, which means he would not continue bluffing on the river 100% of the time, so I only include bluffs with blockers for QQ, JJ, QT, and JT in his river betting range. I also believe he would often bet with worse hands (like 87 or worse) because he has nothing else to do, although if we include those hands, we are definitely ahead of his betting range.

This is roughly the picture:

We have 43% equity, while we need about 28% for a breakeven call. The villain does not have many value hands on the river; the best of those are mostly two pairs and straights, but it is a small fragment of his calling range. At the same time, the villain should often bluff the river to try to make Hero fold TX hands, which is a decent portion of Hero’s checking range.

I almost forgot to mention that the villain’s turn and river bet-sizing looks polar. He does not try to value bet weak KX and second pairs more thinly with a sizing like that. If I were him, I would bluff with exactly that sizing to try to make the opponent to fold weak river hits. From the villain’s perspective, I like over-betting the river to make me fold second pairs more often.

Conclusion: In this hand, Hero should have bet, bet, and check behind on the river. As played, he should have called the villain’s river bet.

2. https://www.weaktight.com/h/55ffedd4d390435d338b467d

Another bluff catcher hand. This time villain is unknown with a 17/15 image over 48 hands. Based on the info from a statistical website, he may be characterized as an average player of low stakes.

Almost every regular would push any AX and pocket pair pre-flop, as well as the top of broadway range. Although Hero open raises with an 18 BB stack, this cannot prevent the villain from pushing since Hero would fold a lot of hands to a 3-bet push.

The villain’s calling range:

The villain has a lot of JX hands in his range, which is why I like the idea of checking the flop, mainly because although we can have equity for a flop value bet, we can lose a part of value from the villain’s bluffs since we would have to check/call the turn in any case.

The villain might also bet second pairs because our play represents the absence of top pairs and overcards, which makes his second pair almost equivalent to top pair. However, he would not bet all of them because Hero also has those hands in his checking range.

The villain would often just check behind with third pairs. I guess he does not have to try to make Hero fold broadway hands because Hero often pushes those pre-flop and raises only AT+.

I did not include a lot of bluffs in the villain’s range. Otherwise, the river call would be undisputable. This how I see the rough betting range into Hero’s missed c-bet:

Some gutshots with KX might check back the flop sometimes, but I would not give the villain 100% bluffs on the river anyway, so I just keep it as it is.

After hitting third pair on the turn, the villain might often continue and check back less often. Top pairs+ and second pairs continue betting and hands with equity should bet as well, trying to make Hero fold his best hands.

Turns out, it is still huge +EV to check/call the turn for us. We beat a portion of villain’s value bets and he still has a lot of bluffs in his range.

This is the worst case scenario, when the villain only has top pairs and better and 40% of bluffs. Nevertheless, we still have 29% equity against the betting range, while we need 27% for a breakeven call. In reality, we have more equity because we are going to see some value bets with 9X (second pair) and a lot of bluffs.

Conclusion: Hero should have gone all the way with catching a bluff in broader ranges of blind wars.

***

The training program is arranged in such a way that in training sessions and in Skype conferences created for each group, 2CardsCollege’s coaches analyze their students’ hands, helping them plug leaks and find strengths they did not even know of.

Do you want 2CardsCollege expert to analyze your hand? Upload one or several (so we can pick the best one) hands on Weaktight or a similar website and send it to mail@2cardscollege.com.
Of course, you can also ask 2CardsCollege experts a question in this article comments or our thread.