Poker Out Loud: Episode 5

This post was originally published on March 21, 2020, on my personal website, Lukich.io. I have since consolidated all of my poker-related content by reposting it onto Solver School.

I’m a bit later than normal in getting this recap post out. Like many, I’m struggling to adjust to this temporary, new reality. My wife and I are both lucky enough that we can do our jobs from home. But our two kids are also home from school. So we spend every day juggling and trading the kids back and forth. When we finally get them to bed at 9, it’s hard to find the energy to continue working some nights. I’m sure I’ll adjust and develop a routine at some point, but keeping up with my poker work is challenging.

Episode 5 of Poker Out Loud was released on Friday. I’ve recapped each one so far:

• Episode 1

• Episode 2

• Episode 3

• Episode 4

It took a few hours, but I finally joined the action. This week, I played two hands. I’ll break down the second one below, but I think the first impacted me more mentally.

I previously shared my struggles with staying engaged. In this first hand, I was dealt AKo. You can see me perk up a bit in my chair. I was excited to finally play a hand, particularly after being dealt the bottom half of the deck for the previous 3 hours. I opened UTG to 4x…and everyone folded.

As I watched the episode, I could see the frustration in my eyes. I suddenly remembered that moment from filming and thinking, “You’ve gotta be kidding me!” at the time. After mostly folding for a few hours, I finally had a playable hand. I was looking forward to seeing a flop and analyzing a problem. Instead, the action just folded around, and the hand was over. Seeing the frustration in my eyes helped put the second hand below in more context.

There weren’t any huge pots in this episode, but some tough situations. Chin and Fausto played an interesting hand against each other in the first hand of the episode. I was also featured in a mid-episode S4Y promo, complete with a clip of me butchering a hand from the academy in May (thanks for the find guys).

You can catch the latest episode every other Friday by subscribing to the S4Y channel on YouTube. Here is this week’s:

The second hand I played was the most in-depth one I’ve played to date. In this hand, the action folded to Chin on the button. He decided to open with 98hh. I was in the SB with Ad9s and was faced with a decision. Below was my default range from the SB in this situation.

As I mentioned in last week’s episode, I had planned to widen my range slightly in this game. I don’t think that’s called for in this scenario, though. In this tough lineup, I should only consider widening my range when I have position in the hand. If I did choose to widen my range, I should choose hands with better playability — not hands that aren’t suited or connected. Ultimately, A9o should be a fold against Chin’s open.

You’ll notice that I played a simplified 3-bet or fold strategy from the SB at this point in October. Honestly, I didn’t have a great reason for doing so — I only constructed it that way for simplification and because it was a popular strategy amongst pros. However, as I demonstrated in this past article, a well-constructed SB flatting range can cause problems for a wide button opening range. I have also seen additional preflop solutions that include a SB flatting range. I discussed this last week on the Poker Zoo podcast, but developing a more robust calling and 3-betting response from the SB is an area I plan to explore.

I think I may be able to widen up and play a range similar to the one below from the SB against Chin’s open. This range includes a linear 3-bet component with additional hands included as a call.

As played, I chose to 3-bet the hand. I won’t rehash whether I should be playing this hand or not. It’s clear that I was pressing at the time and chose to expand my range.

Even with the flop deviation, I think the rest of the hand has some interesting decisions. I examined the spot within GTO+ to see how the hand would play at equilibrium. Below are the ranges I assumed for me and Chin. The faded boxes are discounted only to include 50% of combos.

I gave myself a 17% 3-bet range, which is too wide. A9o is the bottom of my range, as I think this is the worst hand I would 3-bet. I mention this in-game by saying that I’m going outside construction preflop with the open. I think I would fold this hand under normal circumstances, so I included 50% of these combos to discount it somewhat. I also assumed I would face a similar decision with hands like KJo-QJo, K9s-J9s, 76s, and 66, giving myself 50% of those combos.

I assumed Chin would play a polarized 4-bet response and flat with a strong, protected range. I think this is probably accurate at the time, but as we’ll see in an upcoming episode (spoiler), Chin can adjust to the game flow well. I discounted some of the hands, such as AJo, KQo, JJ, and some of the wheel aces, to 50% of combos, as I think he’ll 4-bet them at some frequency. I think the 13% of hands I gave Chin is a decent approximation.

After he flatted, the pot was $260 with another $2685 behind, leaving an SPR of 10:1. The flop was Kc Td 8c. When analyzing our range interactions with this board, there are arguments for and against betting.

I have a nut advantage on this board. I have AA, KK, and AK in my range, and Chin doesn’t. I will also have the range advantage. In addition to having those premium hands, I’ll also have very strong Kx coverage, with 33 top-pair hands on this flop. Chin will have far less Kx in his range since he’ll likely choose to 4-bet or fold a portion of the Kx in his opening range, such as AK, KQo, KJo, etc. This gives my range a fairly high equity advantage of 57%, suggesting that I should want to bet often.

On the other hand, I am out of position, and the board is very dynamic. Only 12 cards can come — the non-clubs 2’s through 5’s — that won’t change the nuts on the turn. Chin and I will both have a lot of nut coverage on this board across all those turn-changing cards. These other considerations should lead me to want to include more checks in my range.

At equilibrium, the solver generally agrees with betting most, but not all the hands in my range. It chooses to bet 2/3 of combos, as shown in the graphic below:

The solver generally prefers a smaller bet sizing due to the dynamic nature of this board and our position. This is fairly common on dynamic boards, as the positional disadvantage will be amplified in these situations. Many hands within my range play as a mix, but weaker hands with some showdown value and give-ups check. My specific combo — Ad9s — plays as a pure check at equilibrium.

My analysis is fine on the flop, but I could probably be a bit more thorough. I correctly assessed that A9o would be at the bottom of my range. The solver does bet some A9o combos but mostly chooses to do so when it contains a club. I correctly realized that Chin will have a lot of continues on this board and that I won’t be betting all of my range. However, I underestimated my range advantage on this board and thought Chin would have a lot more Kx coverage than he should.

After my check, Chin is faced with a decision to check back or bet for protection and to deny equity. While he is at an equity disadvantage against my overall range, my check should somewhat weaken it. That said, Chin accurately mentioned that I should be protected somewhat by checking often. Therefore, he should check a sizable portion of his range back. At equilibrium, the solver has him taking this check line with 2/3 of his range.

When the solver does bet, it only chooses a polarized sizing at equilibrium. It does so for a few reasons:

• When I check, I weaken my range somewhat. I may have a few traps planning to check-raise, but it mostly caps my range at Kx.

• While Chin doesn’t have AA, KK, and AK, he has many high-equity hands, such as TT, 88, KTs, and T8s.

• Chin will also have some good combo and nut flush or straight draws.

Because of all these factors, Chin can choose a polarized sizing with a portion of his range. 98s, however, does not fit into this polarized range. As a result, Chin decided to check back.

At this point, I could continue looking at the equilibrium turn and river outputs. But I’m not particularly eager to use solvers for this analysis. The further we get away from the inputs, the more we remove ourselves from an accurate model of an in-game simulation. Solvers mix considerably, so the ranges that make it to later parts within the game tree will likely be more diluted than in-game. Because of this, I generally like to adjust range inputs as I move forward to later streets.

I node-locked what I thought were reasonable ranges for me and Chin going into the turn — or at least, I’d assume they are in-game.

I gave myself a pure strategy. In other words, I chose not to mix any individual combos within my range. In following the equilibrium strategy, I only chose the small bet sizing and bet 2/3 of my range. My betting range consists of value hands KQ+ (some better hands included in the check/raise range) and many straight and/or flush draws. I did keep a few trap hands, Kx, and nut flush draws in a checking range for balance.

I have less clarity over Chin’s range. Even when inputting values into the solver, I will never have clairvoyance over his strategy. When this is the case, I like to assume a gradient scale:

• If I think he’ll usually bet a hand, I gave him 75% of the combos

• If I think he’ll sometimes bet a hand, I gave him 50% of combos

• If I think he’ll rarely bet a hand, I gave him 25% of combos

There are some hands in his range that I feel more confident he’ll choose a pure bet or check strategy.

After locking flop inputs and rerunning the solver, below is the turn equilibrium solution that details my strategic actions:

I was very surprised at the output. Specifically, I didn’t think I’d have nearly as high of a betting frequency. After reviewing this solve, I think I will need to focus some future effort on my turn play, as my gut instinct was pretty far off the solver-selected frequencies. My in-game analysis is a bit flawed in retrospect. I said that the turn didn’t change the situation much. I thought that Chin would be well protected with showdown value in his range, and I wouldn’t have many strong hands in mine.

I didn’t account for that Chin would have likely bet many of his better hands on the flop. And the turn 3h is a brick that didn’t complete any draws or improve his check-back range, except 33. Because of this, Chin’s check-back range should contain a lot of weak hands. About 75% of the range I gave him in this simulation is a weak pair or air. So, while only 7% of my range is top pair or better, my overall range has a 58% equity edge on this turn. As a result, the solver chooses to bet over 80% of my range at equilibrium — this betting range includes A9o.

Continuing through the rest of the hand, the solver continues betting most of my range, including A9o, on the river. When everything bricks on the river, most of Chin’s range is put in a difficult proposition trying to call another bet.

Chin played the hand perfectly. When I chose to check on the turn, the equilibrium solution for Chin is below:

Chin bet some of his range at equilibrium, particularly the rest of his top pair and better hands. He also bets some of his draws, including all remaining combo draws. However, 98s falls clearly in a checking range as it has plenty of showdown value and doesn’t gain much from betting.

The river play is somewhat less interesting as played. The solver agrees with my selection of checking on the river after checking the turn. After I choose not to bet the turn, Chin can easily call one bet with any pair, which I correctly assessed in-game. I don’t get any value from worse or get any better to fold. Chin could go for a value bet on the river after I check, but it’s certainly thin, and he risks betting into a hand like JTs.

Ultimately, my biggest mistake in the hand was preflop (as is the case with many downstream mistakes). Chin is an outstanding player. Trying to navigate a bigger pot while out of position against him is a recipe for losing money. A9o is not a hand I can likely play profitably against him from this formation.

I’m happy with my flop and river analyses for the most part. I do need to do a better job of constructing turn splits. I’ve done much work on the flop over the past year but haven’t spent as much time examining the downstream implications on later streets. Had I put a bet on the turn and the river as the solver preferred at equilibrium, I think Chin would have had a hard time hanging on with a lot of his range, including 98s. The solver recommends that he calls both turn and river, but that’s tough to do in-moment with 3rd pair on that board.

I find breaking down a hand like this very productive. The Poker Out Loud format helps, as I can test the validity of my in-game assumptions through the solver. But even without the commentary, it’s a valuable way to dig into my decisions and challenge myself to find areas where I can improve. I highly recommend similar exercises for others to improve how you build your ranges.

To catch the latest episodes, subscribe to the S4Y channel. Stay tuned for the next one, dropping on Friday, March 28. I’ll have a recap of that episode on here the following week.

If you have any comments or thoughts, please feel free to leave any comments below. You can also contact me at [email protected] or on Twitter or YouTube through the links in the footer below.

-Lukich