Hand 2 Hand Combat -- Rob Eckstut

Want to study real poker hands with the Internet's most successful players? In this series, Card Player offers hand analysis with online poker's leading talent.

Villain raises to $12 from the button. BobboFitos calls with the A 7.



Craig Tapscott: Share your calling and raising ranges here from out of position.



Rob Eckstut: Many people argue about what the correct ranges are for out-of-position blinds defense; I could probably spend the entire length of the article detailing both sides. The gist here is that my subgroup of hands that I'm going to three-bet (unless I feel my opponent is exploitable in the sense that he's opening and folding to three-bets a lot) generally won't include A-X offsuit, since I feel they do not function for value. Furthermore, I'm able to cold-call them, so it's almost a waste (odd terming, "wasting" a hand that looks semi-trashy) to three-bet/fold. If I had a hand like the J 2, which plays worse as the cold-caller, I'd be more inclined to use that as a bluff.



One should note that your cold-call frequency (versus both three-bet percentage and raw times folding) should be very dependent heads up on your opponent's opening size and frequency; the old cliché "play the player" is pretty much objective number one when heads up. (And the best way to do this – learning your opponent – is to test bounds.)



Here, I was pretty positive that my opponent was opening 100 percent of buttons, and up to this point had been potting it (three times the big blind), so I settled into my "standard" range.



Flop: A K 6 (pot: $24)



RE: I started the hand with 100 big blinds, and my opponent covered me, so on the flop, there is $24 in there and $388 behind, or, about a 16 PSR (pot stack ratio). This is a pretty invaluable ratio to constantly think about; the deeper you are, typically, the tighter a stack-off (or, "playing a big pot") range should be, and the converse is true: If there was just one PSR, for example, I wouldn't fold any hand with any equity. Likewise, if we were super deep – say, 50 PSR , with $1,200 behind (300 big blinds) – I probably wouldn't even be happy sticking it in with K-6, although that doesn't mean I wouldn't!



CT: On the flop, you led into the raiser. Explain your thinking here.



RE: Right. Most people naturally check to the raiser. Thus, when taking the lead (and donking into the raiser), people consider this to be nonstandard. In point of fact, leading out generally represents a marginal to strong draw, because to a cognizant opponent, you have the intention of shoving (or three-betting) over the top of a flop raise. That said, against opponents whom I am not three-betting preflop very often, I want to be able to steal the initiative, meaning I don't want to start every hand out of position by simply checking to the raiser. Generally, I'll lead flops as a bluff when either I will get credit or my opponent won't. So, I don't just donk randomly; let's look at this specific spot and see why I feel this situation is a profitable one to start donking.



CT: OK … so if you had checked.



RE: If I checked, I would assume my opponent continuation-bets a wide range; some people check back smaller pairs, some people go for a delayed c-bet with air, and some people check back monsters, but in a vacuum, this is the sort of board (given its ace high) that people c-bet with their entire range. Top pair, 7 kicker versus that range fares very well – but rather than compare your equity in a vacuum in that light (we're not simply putting one bet in, then checking down), it's more appropriate to imagine what I call "the stack-off range." Or, ask yourself, if I am to get all the money in here, will I have the best hand often enough to turn a profit? (With dead money in the pot, the number generally hovers around 50 percent.) This is easy to visualize if we have 6-6, A-6 offsuit, or the 7 6. On the flip side, there are certain hands that do not fall into this category; think 7-7, the 6 5, and Q-10 offsuit. Those hands, we may turn into a bluff, decide not to go to showdown, and so on, but the gist is, we're likely not going to form a plan around playing a big pot.



CT: So, what do you do with top pair and a weak kicker here?



RE: A hand like A-7 offsuit and hands with marginally strong value are difficult to play out of position because it's unclear if we want to play a big or small pot. If our opponent is one who bluffs too often, we can play our hand in a passive manner and check-call all three streets. This way, we don't lose value for our hand; we get a bet on the flop, turn, and river. By virtue of playing our hand in this manner, we induce bluffs from these aggressive opponents. The problem is when we don't feel our opponent is aggressive enough where we're comfortable check-calling all three streets; hence, the "unsure if we can play a big or small pot."



So, before deciding what to do, I like playing a process of elimination. If I check-raise (essentially trying to play a big pot, as I would with A-6, 6-6, and so on), I'm not positive I will turn a profit. If I check-call, barring the read that my opponent will in fact bluff too much, I play into the hands of my opponent (and his advantage of position), because he will be able to take a street off. (These are things that, due to my inherent hand strength, I don't want.) Neither of these options, therefore, is particularly attractive – barring a read, of course.



BobboFitos bets $18. Villain calls.



Turn: J (pot: $60)



CT: Bad card?



RE: The jack is a very good card for me. Here's why: Our opponent could two-pair any card if we feel he's peeling the flop with any pair, and since he is opening 100 percent of hands, every turn is a potential card that "hits him." That said, of all the hands our opponent is likely to raise/get it in, A-J fits in the upper echelon of stronger hands. Therefore, a jack (or Q-10) is actually a less likely two pair. Also, since we label most of his floats to include a jack (J-10 or Q-J), all of a sudden he has a pair less than ours.



BobboFitos bets $45. Villian calls.



RE: So, leading again serves a few purposes:

• It doesn't let him take a freebie with a marginal draw.

• It's more likely that our opponent paired, therefore enabling us to extract more value.

• The jack is harmless enough to allow us to keep pumping money out of the marginal to weak made hands.



River: Q (pot: $150)



BobboFitos checks.



RE: Terrible river card. Of his range that peels again on the turn (draws, some pair plus gutters, and so on), this hits. All of a sudden, rather than wanting to go for value (which I would on a blank), I need to start asking myself, "Is my hand any good?" The answer is … not really. I check, hoping that my opponent doesn't turn his hand into a bluff, but if he does bet, I need to believe he suddenly made two pair, hit the flush, or had 10-X.



Villain checks and turns over the K 8. BobboFitos wins the pot of $150.



Robert "BobboFitos" Eckstut is a successful cash-game no-limit hold'em player, both online and live. Robert was one of the first poker coaches, turning lessons with his students into a highly touted e-book, Bobbo's Bible. He is also one of the founding coaches, as well as co-owner, of the video training site LeggoPoker.