Flop Texture Statistics

Not at all sure yet what I can do with the following information, but it was posted recently on a flop texture thread on 2+2. The stats represent the results of 500 million random flops simulated on a computer.
All-in for now...
-Bug

FLOP TYPES FREQUENCY

---------------------------------------------------------------------
[ Flop Type ]            Calculated     Example
[ Rainbow              ]  39.76471%     Kc-8d-Qh
[ Monotone             ]   5.17647%     Kh-9h-6h
[ Two-suited           ]  55.05882%     2d-8s-4s
[---check suit types---] 100.00000% 

[ Paired flop          ]  16.94118%     3h-3c-Kd
[ Triplet flop         ]   0.23529%     Kc-Kd-Ks
[ Unpaired flop        ]  82.82353%     2d-8s-4s
[--check match types---] 100.00000% 

[ Pair & connector     ]   2.82353%     6s-6d-7c
[ Pair & 1gap          ]   2.60633%     3s-Ad-3d
[ Pair & 2+gap         ]  11.51131%     3h-3c-9d
[ Triplets             ]   0.23529%     Kc-Kd-Ks
[ 3-Straight           ]   3.47511%     3c-5d-4c
[ Connector & 1gap     ]   6.95023%     Qd-Ts-Kh
[ Connector & 2+gap    ]  26.93213%     Kc-8d-Qh
[ KA2 double connector ]   0.28959%     Kh-2d-Ad
[ Double gutshot       ]   3.18552%     6s-8s-4c
[ Other 1gaps          ]  21.42986%     2d-8s-4s
[ No cnct no 1gap no pr]  20.56109%     Kh-9h-6h
[-check connect types--] 100.00000% 

[ 28 Flop Combinations ]  Calculated     Example

[ Pair & cnctr  rainbow]   1.41176%     6s-6d-7c
[ Pair & cnctr 2-suited]   1.41176%     4h-4c-3h
[ Pair & 1gap   rainbow]   1.30317%     Qs-Ad-Ah
[ Pair & 1gap  2-suited]   1.30317%     3s-Ad-3d
[ Pair & 2+gap  rainbow]   5.75566%     3h-3c-9d
[ Pair & 2+gap 2-suited]   5.75566%     7s-7d-4d
[ Triplets             ]   0.23529%     Kc-Kd-Ks
[ 3-Straight    rainbow]   1.30317%     2s-3d-Ac
[ 3-Straight   2-suited]   1.95475%     3c-5d-4c
[ 3-Straight-Flush     ]   0.21719%     4s-6s-5s
[ Cnctr & 1gap  rainbow]   2.60633%     Qd-Ts-Kh
[ Cnctr & 1gap monotone]   0.43439%     Tc-8c-Jc
[ Cnctr & 1gap 2-suited]   3.90950%     5d-3c-6c
[ Cnctr & 2+gap rainbow]  10.09955%     Kc-8d-Qh
[ Cnctr & 2+gp monotone]   1.68326%     Ac-Jc-2c
[ Cnctr & 2+gp 2-suited]  15.14932%     6d-Jh-Td
[ KA2 dbl-cnct  rainbow]   0.10860%     2d-Kh-As
[ KA2 dbl-cnct monotone]   0.01810%     Ks-As-2s
[ KA2 dbl-cnct 2-suited]   0.16290%     Kh-2d-Ad
[ Dbl gutshot   rainbow]   1.19457%     3d-7c-5s
[ Dbl gutshot  monotone]   0.19910%     6d-2d-4d
[ Dbl gutshot  2-suited]   1.79186%     6s-8s-4c
[ Other 1-gaps  rainbow]   8.03620%     5s-7h-Ad
[ Other 1-gaps monotone]   1.33937%     Td-Qd-6d
[ Other 1-gaps 2-suited]  12.05430%     2d-8s-4s
[ No cnt/gp/pr  rainbow]   7.71041%     2d-Tc-6h
[ No cnt/gp/pr monotone]   1.28507%     Kh-9h-6h
[ No cnt/gp/pr 2-suited]  11.56561%     Jh-6h-As
[--check combinations--] 100.00000%

When 50% does not equal 50%

"They say of Texas Hold'em that it takes a minute to learn and a lifetime to master. This is not true. It takes about ten minutes to learn and it cannot be mastered, ever." - Pat Walsh, "How to Win the World Series of Poker. (Or Not)"

The quote above is the opening line from an entertaining little read I picked up at a local used bookstore this past weekend. I've only gotten about ten pages into the book, but I've LOL'd three times thus far....

...which has absolutely nothing to do with today's topic on c-betting, but what the hell, it's my blog, and if I want to non sequiturize my way to the the topic du jour, well then así es la vida.
---
A few posts ago (here) I discussed a couple of weekly podcasts I listen to. Well, yesterday was a good example of why I do this; Bart Hanson's podcasts make me think. Specifically, in this week's podcast (on the topic of light check/calling situations), Hanson made a comment about opponent cbetting stats. I didn't write down his exact quote, but it went something like this:

"A loose player's cbet range is wider than a tight player's range, even if they're c-betting at the same frequency."

Ah......ha!

Or, maybe that should that be written as "Ah.... duh!"

Let's consider two opponents: Player A plays a TAg style preflop (e.g., 15/12), and Player B plays a LAg style preflop (30/25). Everything else is identical about these two players, including HUD-displayed postflop stats. For argument's sake, let's assume that they each continuation bet the flop 50% of the time (i.e., when they were the preflop aggressor).

Now, let's say you're in the big blind with a medium pocket pair. Call it 8♦8♣. Preflop, they raise in EP and you decide to just call. Everyone else has folded, so you're heads-up.

The flop comes out Q♥-7♦-2♣, which is as dry and light as a calcified bone. You check to the raiser. Your opponent fires out a 2/3-pot sized bet. What do you do?

The standard answer here is to look at their post-flop aggression numbers, focusing on their cbet stats, and then make a decision. But both of these players are identical, right? Both have 50% c-bet numbers, so how you react to Player A should be the same as how you should react to Player B's c-bet, right?

Bzzzzt.

They may have identical HUD stats, but the two players are definitely not playing the same way. Player A is much more selective preflop with his starting hands, so the 50% of the time when he cbets he still has a very strong hand and/or connected to this flop. Player B, however, has a much wider opening range, and therefore there is a higher chance that he missed this flop. Flopzilla can show this better than I can explain it; here's how hard the flop hit the two players:

Player A is twice as likely to have hit a set than B, and 25% more likely to have top pair. They both have ace-high an equal percentage of time, but B missed the flop completely 32% of the time, while A only strikes out one out of eight times, or 13%.

Said another way, I'd be much more likely to give up against A in this situation, but against the Player B I would strongly consider check/raising the flop and then leading the turn if he hasn't gone away.

Remember, there are lies, damn lies, and then there are statistics. Be careful what you read into your HUD display numbers. The numbers aren't wrong, but your interpretation of them might very well be.

Alles klar, nicht so?

All-in for now....
-Bug
PS: So, Mr. Multi, is this post more to your liking?

Poker Quiz Question #52 Analysis/Answer

Here's my analysis of Q#52, which is the last official quiz in the Donkey Test series....

You're in a $5/$10 NL cash game. Everyone has $1000 stacks. It's six-handed. You raise UTG with A♠-T♠. The big blind calls. He's loose-aggressive, but has been check-folding to your flop bets during the last few rotations. The flop is 2♥-9♥-J♣. Is this a good flop for you? What should you do?

1. Good Flop, Bet
2. Bad Flop, Check
3. Good Flop, Check
4. Bad Flop, Bet

Reads: A LAg flat called your UTG raise from the big blind. Given the stakes of the game, let's assume he's a competent player. He is probably putting you on hands like AT+, A8s+, 22+, and a bunch of broadways and/or big SCs. He knows he'll be OOP in the hand, he doesn't reraise, and he's normally aggressive. WIth all this in mind, his range looks and smells like a small to medium pair to me, plus maybe some other random suited connectors. Call it 99-22,QJs,JTs,T9s,98s

Estimate: The problem didn't explicitly state this, but I assume that he checks to you on the flop of 2♥-9♥-J♣. This is a moderately wettish flop, and/but it missed you completely. Against his range on this board, you're a dog at something like 25:75. Said another way: bad flop for you.

Decide: The problem statement says that he has a propensity to check-fold to your flop cbets. The board is wettish, and has either hit him (in which case he's coming along) or it missed (in which case he's probably going to fold to a cbet). In other words, I think you can probably bluff here and get him to fold out many of his small, non-set pairs and most of his SCs that are of the wrong suit/flavor. Our line is therefore a Bluff.

Implement: Bet, but fold to a reraise and/or shut it down on the turn if the villain doesn't go away.

Answer: Bad Flop, Bet

------------------------------------------------------
And now what do I do now that the quiz series has run its course? It's been almost a year since I started work on analyzing and discussing all 52 Donkey Test "Quiz Questions" within this blog-- and now I'm finished. Whew.

Seriously, I really enjoyed doing this exercise, and in fact plan on continuing from time to time with my own questions, hands-of-the-day from other websites, reader-submitted hands, and interesting poker questions I  see in the forums. I've received a lot of really useful and positive feedback on my analyses from various folks reading this blog, so I'd like to keep some type of regular quiz going.

When I first started out with Q#1, I admit I didn't really do a great job analyzing some of the hand situations in a formal, logical process. In fact, I think made some mistakes. That's the bad news. The good news is that knowing I was flailing away to get to an answer on each quiz helped in part to lead me to creating REDi (initially called "RED-M," and proposed on or about the time I tackled Q#16). After some evolution and tweaking, I now honestly believe REDi represents a pretty good approach to breaking down a poker hand situation and arriving at a well-reasoned and defensible answer. The more I use REDi, the stronger I think it is in analyzing both simple and complex poker questions alike.

In any case, I hope you guys and gals enjoyed reading my quiz question analyses as much as I did puzzling over them and writing down my thoughts. If you've missed any of the questions, or want to go back and reread any of the posts, I've created a separate page (found at the top of my blog home page, as well as here) that provides a hyper-linked table of contents that will get you to each of the 52 individual questions and answers. Thanks for your indulgence...

All-in for now...

-Bug