Think Outside The Box - Check Raising As PFR On The Flop

  • NL BSS
  • NL BSS
  • Shorthanded
(4 Votes) 1778

JOIN NOW TO VIEW THE FULL VIDEO

Free membership

Join now
 

Description

In the second part of his series, double2 focuses on situations where we are check raising on the flop as a preflop aggressor.

Tags

aggressor check raise flop gameplan preflop raiser range think outside the box

Comments (12)

newest first
  • neverdixs

    #1

    very interesting video i will see the entire serie now, i am in vegas and i was having troubles with some spot like this, that now is easier to know what to do, i was developing this aswell but i think atm you are WAY FURTHER THAN ME, nice job!
  • neverdixs

    #2

    very interesting video i will see the entire serie now, i am in vegas and i was having troubles with some spot like this, that now is easier to know what to do, i was developing this aswell but i think atm you are WAY FURTHER THAN ME, nice job!
  • 2phil4u

    #3

    Fine but very rare, i founded 69 hands in 180k hands with a Flop c/r in this situation.
    They fold 46% and they step 48 amd it was 1500 times, so in 4% it was a c/r
  • 2phil4u

    #4

    and it hink the c/r was mainly from fishes, that even dont knew that a c/r wasnt good with their sets, but 48% isnt this much and of course example is to small to see results for folds realy, esp because BB overfold and have a strong range in general, its not like they swould step 80%.
  • 2phil4u

    #5

    its avout 50% in this small sample, can of course be much more profitable to c/r then to cbet here with this fold value, but only 46 you see a float, so you have to take hands that propably are not good enouph to cbet profitable or you have a draw that is good, with sets i think you should bet.
  • Kruppe

    #6

    Hi,
    At the beginning of the vid you claim that one should check OOP 70-80% as PFR. could you supply some reasoning/justification for this? I've never heard this before, and none of my more solid opponents at nl400 do this.
  • double2

    #8

    @6 you can find the proof for this in the GTO solvers available on the market. But I totally agree people at midstakes are not using this high check frequency OOP (yet). And they have a good reason: people don't exploit that high cbet OOP strategy.
  • caman2103

    #9

    Interesting
  • waterbar1860

    #10

    n the second part of his series, double2 focuses on situations where we are check raising on the flop as a preflop aggressor. At the beginning of the vid you claim that one should check OOP 70-80% as PFR. could you supply some reasoning/justification for this? I've never heard this before, and none of my more solid opponents at nl400 do this.
  • waterbar1860

    #11

    n the second part of his series, double2 focuses on situations where we are check raising on the flop as a preflop aggressor. At the beginning of the vid you claim that one should check OOP 70-80% as PFR. could you supply some reasoning/justification for this? I've never heard this before, and none of my more solid opponents at nl400 do this.
  • Kruppe

    #12

    so i that means should go elsewhere to find answers instead of pokerstrategy videos, ok
  • double2

    #13

    @12
    the "reasoning/justification" for why the PFR should check 70-80% in a lot of situations OOP in SRP is:
    1- if he uses a high cbet strat (the most commonly used) his checking range is massively exploitable by the IP player, using big size bets and thin value. This usually also means that OOP player is betting most of the good draws like FDs and good str8 draws (like JT on 89x), which makes very easy for the IP player to go crazy on draw completing cards when the OOP player XC flop.
    2- IP can also exploit this high cbet strat by raising a lot flop, even if the OOP bet range looks "solid", OOP can't 3bet flop all that often and what ends up happening is that the PFR will end up facing turn situations with a bluffcatcher, in a big pot OOP.

    This would be a reasoning for my statement. If you want to know more about this, I maintain my previous suggestion for the best way to learn about this stuff.