Theory Vs. Practice
If the tick increment overlooking turn ever to make you hate life, this is the article for you. We will discuss the theoretical and practical aspects of this situation so that you can quickly identify the winningest strategy for your hands. Table of contents:
- General Advice for Playing VS Turn Tick.
- Practice vs. theory.
- Example: Facing increase in check-on T 8 5 Q .
General Advice For Playing VS Turn Tick.
Playing against the turn of the check should not be difficult. Some players seem to usually because they bet the wrong hands – a little too weak to be worth a bet – or because they do not come up with a plan to play versus the increase in betting. You can instantly improve the level of your win-rate versus turn by doing two things:
- Betting on the turn with medium strength hand is worth less.
- Always consider what you will do to the increase in checks before the bet.
Theory versus practice
There is a big difference between how things should be done and how they actually completed. This is true in life as it is in poker. When it comes to turning the maintenance, if your opponent using theoretically sound strategy, you should proceed with more hands than you do versus most players. Why? Because the check-upe maintenance strategy theoretically much more aggressive than it actually is done by most of the players in the game. To illustrate this, let’s see how the solver will approach aspects of offensive and defensive situation round programming. Then, we will change the range of the check-raiser to simulate a more accurate representation of what we will encounter in the table.
Example: opponent “optimal” vs opponent realistic.
Cash games. Effective pile 100BB.
Heroes dealt two cards on the button.
Heroes raise 2,5BB. SB folds. Call the big blind.
Flop T 8 5
Big blind checks. Stakes hero 1.8BB. Call the big blind.
Play q .
Big blind checks. Stakes hero 6BB.
First, let’s see how the optimal opponent (according Piosolver) will play versus double barrel in turn:
Solver like maintenance check with:
- ~ 50% of the kj combo (straight sweepstakes is open).
- ~ 20% of the combo QJO (plug + raffle straight).
- Some crushed 98 (pairs medium + raffle straight).
- A high percentage of the series combo (7 4 , 6 4 , etc.).
- 20% of the time by qt (2 top pair).
- All combo J9 (nut straight).
It is very aggressive compared to most players maintenance strategy. Let’s continue with our example under the assumption that the big blind to use it:
Turn (T 8 5 ) q
Big blind checks. 6. Big Blind Bet hero rises to 21,8BB. Hero…?
Here’s how solver like to react to the increase in spot checks Hero: Solver likes to call with:
- All couples who have a straight lottery.
- Almost all draw direct jx.
- Most of the excess, (close to call break-even).
(Side Note: solver actually defend the minimum frequency for the defense of this place.)
Now, it’s time to see this place through a lens that is practical. I have found that a player check-rise with a range of very different and more stringent. Most of your opponents will probably check-ride on T 8 5 Q with a range much closer to this one:
- 100% of straights (J9).
- 50% of the two pairs of top (qt).
- All combo draws.
(Note: This range is already tight, but even these are less restrictive than the range of values of just a lot of players used in spots like this. Try to identify people only and do yourself a favor by playing very tight in response to their check-raise .)
Here’s how pemecahnya will oppose the above strategy: It’s a lot of fold, which makes sense given the composition of the inspection maintenance range. We can see here that all partners hand, many of them are happy to call before, now the snap-folds. The only hand that is clearly a favorable call is a set, straight and combos draw like J 8 . Even the top two pairs must be folded most of the time against this tight check-raiser range.
There is a piece of old poker knowledge posted on forum 2 + 2 many, many years ago still valid:
You must reevaluate the hand of one pair of hand on the face of the increase in turn.
-Dew “Balugawhale” Seidman, 2 + 2 Forums (2006)
That’s all for now. As usual, if you have questions or feedback, don’t hesitate to leave the comments below and I will do our best to answer.
Good luck out there, grinder!