-
This is a pretty complicated spot, and I’m definitely not saying I’d get it right in real time (or even that I’m right about it…I’d be curious what others think). I’d certainly have trouble avoiding a cbet after a 3bet pot and when presented the OESD. I guess we can start to think about this by investigating some other parts of our 3betting range. If we want to lead here with this draw, what makes up our leading value range? Would we lead with KK-55? What about AA, 33, or 44? AK-A10? Junkier hands like Jc10c?Are we even 3betting all these hands?
Let’s come back to that question in a second. But it’s a good spot to think about and a larger checking range does start to make sense when we’re out of position. An Ace, low, low, rainbow flop is fairly static—the best hand now is more likely to remain the best hand by the river. This is especially true when we get there with a 3bet and call, even though heads up ranges are much wider. This makes it easier for V to call down with Ax than in other spots.
I haven’t looked at the solver to confirm this, but I suspect this is a much more frequent cbet on a K34, Q34, or J34 rainbow board. Unlike most 3bet/call spots, when we’re heads up, V is likely weighted MORE toward Ax combos than us (unless we’re 3betting every Ax combo heads up?). While V is unlikely to have top of A range (AK, AQ) because they may have 4bet, they have more combos of AJ-A2 in this spot (including the two pair combos).
This means that while they have the more condensed range, likely capped at two pair, our path to believable bluff/polarization with our OESD is very narrow (it is just really sets and maybe AK that are believable if we fire away and get stacks in. If we suspect V has a decently large Ax range, they will block and more easily call what we’re trying to represent when they hold Ax). This means that while V has condensed value, they are condensed exactly toward the type of range we don’t want them to have. When they have that range, it blocks all of our best bluffs, which makes calling down easier for V.
To come back to that leading value range on the flop question, I think the only real hands we want to be leading with for value on the flop are 33 and 44. We are likely check raising with some of our better Ax hands (AK, AQ, AA, A3, A4). As we’ve said above, it is too easy on this static board for V to call down with Ax, so we would want to lead with value that both beats and is likely to get called (doesn’t block V having Ax). This ultimately means we have a very small value leading range in this spot even though we were the aggressor, and if that is the case, we should have a very small bluffing range as well.
After thinking about this spot a lot, and if I wanted to continue the aggression, I’d be more likely to put 56 in my check raising range than in my leading range. If the flop checks through, I can bet with abandon on the turn almost regardless of the turn card.
