Capped ranges. Am I thinking about this correctly?

This is the right sort of thinking but you are mis-applying it here. The nuts is TT and the second nuts is 88. Villain can absolutely have those, so he is uncapped.

A correct use of the term would be, if the runout completes 4 2 with no flush, Villain can’t have a straight because he wouldn’t have called the flop bet with any hand that backed into a straight. So then we could say Villain is capped.

sure, but the board would have to run out something like 3456 for you to turn your hand into a bluff here.

First of all don't cold call a 5x open with 98s on the button. Maybe not even on the big blind. Definitely not in a raked game.

OP isn't a good example of very capped ranges. Capped ranges basically have fewer or no nutted combos because they took a passive action on an earlier street.

Say we open button and a reg flats the bb. Flop is AK5. We know reg always 3 bets AA, KK, and frequently 3bets A5s. Villain is going to be very capped on this flop. They can still have some A5 and some K5s, but we have all the AA, KK, AK combos and they don't. So if we wanted to have one bet size on this flop, we could have it be overbet, and we could overbet very wide for value with like AQ, AJ, and we can bluff very wide with hands like 76 bdfd, J9bdfd. It will be extremely hard for villain to call down 2 or 3 overbets when the flop is AK5 because they will be so capped.

Another example. We open btn and reg in BB calls. Flop K76r, check, we bet 33% pot villain calls. Turn 2. Villain is very capped on this card, because if villain had 2 pair or a set on the flopz they probably would have raised. If villain had AK, they would have raised pre. They likely raise KQ pre even. So we can overbet turn for value with KQ, potentially even KJ or lower. And we can be very polar with our bluffs as well.

In general, villain is capped on the flop when they are lacking top set and middle set, and some of or all of the combos of top two paur because of the preflop action. Or because we have more combos of flopped nut straights (QJT as the preflop aggressor).

Villain is usually capped on turn when the turn doesn't change the nuts. When we bet small and they just called the flop and the turn comes out a low disconnected card like a 2 or 3 which doesn't bring in straights or many 2 pair (flopped two pair is still ahead, and turned set would have likely been folded by the preflop caller on the flop, while the preflop aggressor may have range bet flop and now turned a set).

Rivers is similar to the turn, but now it is a little more relevant that there are just some hands one player can be bluffing two streets which now made the nuts which another player can't have. Generally someone bluffing can bet 2 streets with some gutshot or backdoor straight hand that hits a miracle river, but the other player often can't check call those hands. For example, if the flop is AK5r and we bet 150% pot, turn is a 7 completing the rainbow and we bet 150% pot, and river is a Q, villain just can't have JT anymore, because calling turn would have been lighting money on fire. We can have JT though, so villain is capped while we are uncapped. Villain is also going to be severely lacking in sets and two pair combos on that runout. We we can overbet jam all our two pair+ and turn hands like QJ and QT into a bluff. Our rivered pair should never be good, but it might be helpful to block rivered two pair or maybe a hand like AJ or AT which might hero call river, while all the 1 pair hands and even hands like A7 are put in a horrible spot.

In your example, villain is really only uncapped if we know they are always going to bet their strong hands like overpairs and sets, and they checked to you. Generally, the smaller we bet on the flop, the more likely someone is to raise their good hands, and when they just call, the more capped they are.

The more times a player checks, the more capped they tend to be. I would argue after you get checked to twice villain is generally extremely capped, so if we bet 67% pot turn and bet 150% on the river, it almost doesn't matter what we have or what the board is, this is probably a profitable bluff with any two cards. Out of position, when flop goes check check, if we bet 67% pot on the turn and bet 150% pot on the river, we likely get them to fold very often. Another one is where flop goes check, check, turn goes check, then in position bets, and out of position check raises like 200% pot, this line gets folds a ridiculous amount of the time. It generally doesn't matter board texture, players just rarely get to the turn with 2 pair+ after checking back the flop.

6h5h or Ah5h maybe.

Whoops! I thought the flop was rainbow. You are correct.

Great explanation and comprehensive breakdown. Details and examples are greatly appreciated. It'll take some work for me to be able to put it into practice, but I'm starting to see the picture.

Thank you!

The way I think about "capped" ranges is this:

1. Whoever put in the last bet or raise pre-flop has an uncapped range going to the flop, unless one of the players in the hand simply doesn't have a raising range (while most players have SOME raising range, there are situations where a player will not have any raising range, such as not having a 4B or 5B range at certain stack depths).

2. Which boards favor which players in the hand will somewhat depend on the players' positions and pre-flop action. But generally, if the board comes 8d7d2c, that's going to be a better board for the pre-flop caller on the BTN or in the BB, rather than the pre-flop raiser from EP or MP.

So, while the PFR can still have all the over-pairs to the board and some nut flush draws, he's not likely to have very many 2P combos, very few sets, not too many straight draws, etc. Thus we may say the PFR's range is somewhat capped on this middling and very wet and dynamic board.

3. Whenever a player checks or bets, his opponents can cap their range by checking back or flat calling, especially when the board would seem to otherwise favor their range. So, in the example above, someone who flopped 2P or a set would likely bet or raise on such a wet and dynamic board. If they check back or flat call, they're more likely to have 1P or a draw at best.

4. On certain board textures, bet sizing will often be an indication of someone's hand strength, where smaller bets may cap a player's range. Using the same flop example above, a large bet on such a wet board is likely to either be a very strong hand or a very good draw, whereas a smaller bet is likely to be a medium strength hand or a lower equity draw.

5. I'm never really trying to figure out exactly what combos are in an opponent's range. Instead, I try to think about opponents' possible hands as belonging in certain buckets - monsters, thick value, thin value, showdown value, good draws, not so good draws, unpaired high cards, and total air. Understanding when an opponent's range is capped helps to figure out which buckets most of their range will be in. That's going to depend on the positions, action, and board texture.

Thanks, docvail! I like the additional perspective. Your points 1-4 were very helpful and I have added some elements to my notes. The way you approach it in #5 is interesting. I will have to think about that one more to see if that's a good way for me to visualize things, but the rest resonates immediately...thanks again!

It's fine to think about specific combos of hands to put into an opponent's range.

But I've found that when I start thinking about specific hands, I tend to get fixated on the extremes of thick value and bluffs, depending on what hand I have. So I see all his bluffs when I have a strong starting hand that's been reduced to a bluff catcher, and see monsters under the bed when my hand is strong, but possibly been downgraded to second best on the turn or river.

If I focus instead on the action so far, and think about his range in terms of clusters of various strengths, the likely combos tend to become more clear. I also try to force myself to look at the board and ask, what do I beat, what beats me, and do those hands make sense given the way my opponent has played.

I don't think it matters if we figure out what all his bluffs and all his value combos are. It's enough to recognize when our opponent could have some bluffs and some value, and when he only has bluffs or value.

Yup, makes complete sense, especially the part about asking yourself, "What do I beat, what beats me and do those hands make sense..." That is EXACTLY how I try to approach every difficult position in this game.