I decided to analyze a recent hand I played at 6-max 100NL, and I'm getting hung up on one aspect.
Here's the hand:
Folds to HJ 158bb who raises to 3bb. Folds to me in the SB and I make it 13.5bb with KTdd
Flop Ad Js 3c (28bb)
I bet 9.3bb and he calls
Turn 2h (47bb)
I bet 29.5bb and he calls
River 3d (106bb)
I bet 65bb and he folds.
According to my simulation, I played this hand pretty well. It slightly preferred sizing up bigger on the turn and shoving river, but my line was solver-approved.
I wanted to simulate this hand because I wanted to figure out if my turn bluff was a good play, and what my bluffing range should be. The results have me very confused.
Pio lists my best bluffs as KTs, JTs, KJs (in that order). To my surprise, it plays KQs as a high-frequency check (80%+).
I've been trying to figure out why KTs is almost a pure bluff while KQs is almost a pure check, and I'm stumped.
If we look at Villain's response to a turn bet, we see that a large majority of his folding range holds a T, and he calls with most Qx hands. So if KT blocks his folding range while KQ blocks his continue range while unblocking his folding range, I don't see why pio prefers KT as a bluffing hand:
From here, I thought that maybe KQs has a higher EV as a check than KTs does. In other words, is KQs too strong to turn into a bluff? It turns out this is false too. KTs has a higher EV as a check than KQs does.
What's also surprising is that if we check to Villain, pio wants villain to bluff us with a ton of hands that include a T, while checking back many hands that include a Q. When we check with KQs and Villain bets, we have a pure fold. I don't understand why we would c/f KQs when we unblock villain's bluffing range in this spot.
Anyway - if anyone could shed some light on this spot I would be very grateful. I feel like I am missing out on a heuristic here that may allow me to improve my game in general.