Two questions for you:

1. What's your range for 4-betting here?

2. What do you think Villain will expect your range to be for 4-betting here?

Jon_Allan said:

Hey Andrew,

1. In this situation I'm going to want my four betting range to be very wide indeed compared to both my flatting range and my opening range, since: a. I want to keep the lead often when so deep with position; b. I want to find out more now rather than later when necessary (KK-TT,AK); and c. I want to set up an aggressive image.

I'm worried that none of the reasons you give for 4-betting involve causing your opponent to make mistakes, which is really the name of the game. Can you explain how these things make you money? In particular I don't follow (a), why does being deep and in position imply that you want to keep the betting lead? (b) sounds like raising for information, I have a lot to say on that subject: …..formation/

I would flat some middling hands, like suited aces or suited broadways which I'd raised to start with (the latter mostly to balance my small-middle pairs), but I'd four bet 67s-JTs, TT+, and AK.

Why do you choose suited Aces and broadways as flatting hands over suited connectors? Also, what's your reason for 4-betting TT and JJ? TT has only 45% equity against the 3-betting range you give for your opponent, and JJ is only a very small favorite. I don't think you should be eager to shovel more money into the pot with them.

I would just call with 88-22 to set mine. I'd be in debate over fold/call with 45s and AQs and call/4b with 99 (but probably fold 45s and call with AQs and 99). I'd fold AQo (and other worse hands if I'd even decided to open them, which is a non-zero but low likelihood).

Even AQo has 42% equity against Villain's 3b range, so I think folding any of these would be a mistake.

I believe it's certainly much more exploitative than exploitable (and with no history it's not exploitable at all, and probably would not be be until we've met many, many more times).

Anything that's exploitative is exploitable. Basically to exploit your opponent you predict some mistake you expect him to make and then deviate your own play from the optimal in order to take advantage of that mistake. If you're right, then you exploit him. If you're wrong and he doesn't make the mistake you thought he would, then he exploits you. In this case, if your opponent 5-bets a wider range than you think, he will exploit you, whether he realizes it or not. No history required.

This probably leads us on to whether I should c-bet, but I think the answer is yes as the flop does hit my four bet range quite hard with a flopped straight, trip Qs, bottom two pair, an overpair, middle pair plus gut shot, and open enders all in there and mostly in relatively good shape and easy to play.

I don't hate the bet but the fact that it's a good flop for your range doesn't imply that you should bet every hand in your range, which seems to be your argument here. It could be that KK is neither close enough to the top of your range to bet for value nor close enough to the bottom to bet as a bluff.

This was yet another reason to four bet small – I could find out if I was up against AA right now in my opinion although, admittedly, not with absolute certainty (the other two kings being very unlikely but folding a chop not that bad while still so deep).

You aren't playing against one hand, you're playing against a range. What you're really talking about doing here is helping your opponent play well by letting him get away from the part of that range that you beat. When you have a strong hand, you shouldn't be trying to narrow your opponent down to the point where you no longer have the best hand if he keeps putting money into the pot. When you 4-bet KK that's not all you accomplish, because he will call with worse. But this is why you don't want to 4-bet JJ, because you have to fold to a 4-bet AND getting called is also bad for you. So by 4-betting you go from being a favorite against his 3-betting range to being a dog against his continuing range. That's what people are talking about when they say “Don't turn a good hand into a bluff.”

Very nice post Jacob.

Jon_Allan said:

I realised that really I want to create bigger pots more often when deep and in position, and to do so means making another bet, which in turn gives me the betting lead (so without realising it I am thinking of “keeping the lead” as the justification from prior experience, when in reality it is just an effect). Position means I'll be able to make more informed decisions on all later streets, since we are deep I want the mistakes bigger if possible (yes, mine as well as villain's since, with the positional advantage, they should average out in my favour). From my experience this seems profitable, but if it is theoretically unsound or less profitable than another path I, of course, want to address the issue that is costing me.

What you're saying makes sense, but I think it's more applicable if you are a lot deeper than you are (say 300BB deep), where you're unlikely to get stacks in by the river unless you 4-bet. In that case, building the pot pre-flop greatly increases the likelihood that you can take max advantage of your position because there will still be room to make many post-flop decisions, and as you say the stakes will be higher. Here, though, I think a 4-bet actually reduces your positional advantage by making it less likely that there will be 3 or more significant post-flop bets (it happens, in your case, because you employ such small sizing, but you can imagine that it really wouldn't be too hard to make a pot-committing bet on the turn had you bet a bit bigger on the flop). That's OK – good, in fact – when you have KK, but it makes your suited connectors actually play less well because it will be harder to make your opponent fold when he flops a decent pair.

Also, what's your reason for 4-betting TT and JJ? TT has only 45% equity against the 3-betting range you give for your opponent, and JJ is only a very small favorite.

I am four betting for only 178 (338-210) chips into a pot of 480 (210+210+60), so I only need 37.1% (178/480) equity to break even when called, no? If we take out all AA from their calling range, which may not, in fact, be reasonable, our equity for both goes over 50%, although barely so for TT (but I still want to know why we theoretically need 50% here if I am missing something fundamental!)
vs {88+,AJs+,AQo+}: TT 47.873%; JJ 53.239%
vs {KK-88,AJs+,AQo+}: TT 50.436%; JJ 56.413%

Big misunderstanding here. The odds you quoted are calling odds. You don't voluntarily WANT to put money into the pot when you have less than a 50% chance of winning, it's just better than folding. Think of it like this: there is $1,000,000 in the pot and you have $100,000 in your stack on the turn. Your opponent checks to you and accidentally exposes his cards: he has top two pair. You have a flush draw. You have a better than 10:1 chance of winning. Do you want to put your last $100,000 into the pot, or check back and take a free card? Even though you'd be correct to call a bet, you aren't correct to bet. Also you can't just ignore your equity against AA because it will 5-bet. Not getting to see the flop against AA costs you something, especially when you have a real chance of outflopping it.

if your opponent 5-bets a wider range than you think, he will exploit you, whether he realizes it or not

Whatever we do we can be exploited without our opponent realising they are exploiting us – isn't that just an uncontrollable aspect of the game? Obviously ranging better and balancing our ranges will mitigate this, but other than that should we really concern ourselves with something out of our control?

What I wrote was a response to your claim that your opponent couldn't exploit your 4-betting range without history. Also, no, a perfectly balanced range is not exploitable. There are plenty of instances where you shouldn't be concerned about getting exploited, and mostly I was making a theoretical counterpoint. I do think, though, that when playing against very good players it's more of a concern, and a lot of people underestimate the extent to which it will be obvious to good players when they have a value- or bluff-heavy range.

I don't hate the bet but the fact that it's a good flop for your range doesn't imply that you should bet every hand in your range, which seems to be your argument here. It could be that KK is neither close enough to the top of your range to bet for value nor close enough to the bottom to bet as a bluff.

I was not trying to imply I'd bet my entire range, but this is a valid point maybe KK is too marginal here. I was betting for value at the time, but thinking about it now it's probably too thin – a bit of a merge in reality, which I do not like the sound of for a flop bet with an SPR of 3.25.

Maybe I misunderstood you, it sounded like what you were saying initially was “This is a good flop for my range, so I bet.” The better line of thinking is to talk about which hands in your range make good betting candidates and which make good bluffing candidates. The more bluffing candidates you have, the wider you can bet for value, and vice versa.