Is KsQs6d a bad flop against a loose passive?
Do two-tone two-broadway flops favor the hero or the villain in your typical low stakes raked game? A theoretical hand history (sorry no humiliating results):
V is loose-passive calling station. VPIP 35/9/2.
Hero is TAG.
Hero in HJ with QdTd raises 10. V CO calls. Blinds fold.
Flop (19 after rake) KsQs6d
Hero?
Do the draws add enough equity to bet middle pair bad-kicker as a bluff? Do you plan to fold if V bets?
Do you ever bet 1/3 here?
What's the worst hand you bet on a two-tone two-broadway flop?
8 Replies
I don't think you are "bluffing" if you cbet this hand in this spot. Your hand has value and your range on this board is really strong. You can decide to turn your hand into a bluff on some runouts (say, the turn is the 8d and the river is an A) and you can go for thin value in other spots (say, the turn is a 2 and goes xx and the river is another 2.) You can also turn trips or two pair and go for thick value. I think checking is also very reasonable though, and it really depends on your personal strategy and reads on your opponent. If I check this board, I am never folding to a reasonably sized bet, though.
Asking what the "worst hand" someone would bet on the flop isn't really a productive question, IMO. Some boards you can bet your entire range. Some stronger hands are better played as checks, and some weaker hands are better played as bets.
Do two-tone two-broadway flops favor the hero or the villain in your typical low stakes raked game?
I feel like you know that the answer to this depends on position, stacks, and the cards, Eg. UTG vs. BB: AKx is very different to JTx.
V is loose-passive calling station. VPIP 35/9/2.
Hero in HJ with QdTd raises 10. V CO calls. Blinds fold.
Flop (19 after rake) KsQs6d
Much happier to bet this than KsTs6d, note that just because bet is fine it doesn't mean bet is better than check.
Honestly my default line is to check range when OOP and HU as the PFR. Most low stakes opponents will stab at the pot often enough, and their bet sizing will often telegraph their hand strength. If we check and it checks through, we can feel better making a delayed c-bet.
Where I'll deviate is if I have a strong hand that's very vulnerable to being out-drawn, and I think V won't stab with their draws, or I think V can also have a strong hand that will call down if we just go bet-bet-bet.
So on this flop, I'd probably go bet-bet-bet with QQ, 66, and KQ. I might check KK on the flop because we block so much of our opponents' calling range. I'd probably also bet JTss or JTdd. I'd check AA, AK, AQ, all my PP's from 77 to JJ, and all my weakish KX and QX.
I'd probably check QTdd here, and occasionally c-bet QJdd, but not often. I'd almost rather c-bet some lower PP that is very unlikely to win at showdown, has very little little chance to improve, and doesn't have any good blocker properties.
Like, QT and QJ have some chance to improve, and block combos of KJ/QJ and KT/QT that might fold, whereas 77-99 are basically dust, but don't block many combos of weak Kx or Qx.
The cool thing about this board is that most opponents will feel compelled to bet if they have better than Qx when there are so many draws in our range.
All that said, it can't be terrible to c-bet K-high boards as the PFR, even when they're two-tone and two-Broadway. We can rep KK, QQ, and KQ here, and not worry too much about getting raised off our equity and folding to a bluff, because so few opponents will find enough bluffs on this board.
OOP on the flop is such a massive mix-fest, and 2nd pair-no-over, double backdoor in particular is a combo that plays well enough in any bucket that I really don't think this is a very high leverage decision.
Factors for Overall Aggression with Our Range
To get at the question about how our ranges compare, the most important factor for how aggressive you want to play a flop--before even seeing a card--is how wide the opponent's range is. Play around with GTOw with different raise sizes and rake structures and configurations, and you'll see that any factor that makes the caller's range relatively wide (because they're defending their BB and/or the raise size was tiny and/or there's no rake, etc) is going to have at least as much of an effect on the raiser's flop betting frequency and sizing as how many broadways there are or whatever.
So IN THEORY, a cold caller has a stronger range than a raiser (the raiser's EV is buoyed by the possibility of scooping the blinds uncontested, whereas the caller only calls because the specific scenario of seeing a flop is 0EV+), so in classic parlance would "have the initiative" here. This is where a lot of the OOP range checking comes from.
IN PRACTICE, this player's very leak is calling (and in particular, cold calling) too much, so the range dynamics are going to be more similar to SB raiser vs BB caller. So we're going to want to play very aggressive against this player type, even when we raise 3bbs+ and they cold call in a high rake environment (though even more so when we raise smaller, they're defending their straddle, etc).
I know people who would range check this flop, others who would range bet it B25, and others who would mix a medium size and still others who would range split and have quite big sizings as an option against this particular player, and while I have my preferences and quibbles with each of them, I think they're all reasonable and profitable approaches. So I guess what I'm saying is even looking at this from a range perspective it still happens to be quite low leverage.
To answer your questions more directly...
As for the board itself, KQx is obviously very good for the preflop aggressor.
To answer your last question, if I'm betting any hand, then the worst hand I bet is air.
This is a clear check. You’re out of position with middle pair on a board that hits both ranges, and your opponent is a calling station — you’re not getting value from worse, not folding out better, and you risk bloating the pot with a hand that doesn’t want to play for stacks. QT has some equity and can improve, so just check and reevaluate.
KQ6 two-tone is generally better for the preflop raiser, but being out of position against a loose caller changes things. Betting range here isn’t mandatory — you can play more straightforwardly and focus on pot control.
Worst hand I’d bet? Probably some total air like 98 of diamonds — something with a backdoor flush draw and no showdown value. QT is just a bit too strong to turn into a bluff and not strong enough to go for value. Plays better as a check.
Calibrating your GTO homework vs some live players, Adonson? Lol.
Put me on Team Cbet. It's not a great hand, is very likely not going to improve, and I'm folding if V plays back. Still H has middle pair on a board that's both good for the initial raiser, yet hits a lot of LLS call instead of 3! or fold ranges. We also want to charge draws/get value from currently weaker hands, and there are a few here.
Thank you everyone for your responses. I have been reading your responses, thinking a lot about the hand, then more important matters.
Results
I chose "based on GTO" hero bets 5 against a calling station who pays no attention, about 50 percent the time on this flop. You can bet more if you better smaller. I think the value GTO comes on the turn when you gain equity and bluff. If you whiff the turn, you just fold to any big bet. Of course, GTO can't really model a capped loose passive. My instinct live was always to bet here. I appreciate wisdom.
