10/20 nl

I haven't played no limit for a long time, but played a week ago in a short handed late night game and I'm super rusty so thoughts on every street appreciated.

Villain is solid, taggish but more on the nitty side. He has been playing and running well and is sitting on 10k+.
Hero won a few big pots earlier from other players but has generally been losing most pots to villain who has run hot against me. Hero has almost 7k.

four handed
Villain opens button to 60, Hero calls in sb with 98dd bb folds

Flop: J 10 6 one diamond
hero checks villain bets 60 Hero calls

Turn A
Hero checks Villain bets 120 hero calls

River 7
Villain bets 240 Hero c/r to 800 villain ships it after five seconds or so almost automatic shove

Is this a snap call? Can you ever find a fold? A little lost

Wait he jammed about 6k over your river check raise, he plays on the nitty side, and you are not sure what to do here?

It's the second nuts but it's a bluff catcher at this point - he's repping KQ pretty well, it's consistent with all streets, and now he's shoving effective 5900 more if you started with close to 7k. Into a $1540 pot.

You need to have him shoving worse like 80% of the time to have a neutral expectation, although you could adjust that down a bit to factor in the times he has the same hand, and you'd be chopping. But just on combos available hes much more likely to have the KQ than the 89. Unless he is a maniac that you've seen do these big overshoves as a bluff I don't see seriously considering calling it off. That's not the player in your description as I read it - you describe him as "on the nitty side". And you don't mention any live reads that would make you think he's bluffing/over playing.

I guess you might reason "why so much" and talk yourself into a call (had a guy say that to me last weekend before calling my overshove). But it's closest to a snap fold, rather than a snap call imo.

pretty sure the number is less than 50%

God his snap shove is terribad. Fold now.

How do you get to that? I just use the old "(bet to call) divided by (pot + bet) formula to get the % needed to break even with a call.

I have to say in this case its academic as I don't think hero has even close to 50% wins based on the description. And as Avarita said Villains snap shove would normally be horrible, but it sounds like op was trying to find a call.

say op needs to call 6k to win 7k, he only needs to be right 6 in 13 times, which is less than half.

i'd fold

I assume no flush got there

Should have shown aggression earlier in the hand, particularly preflop and flop.

Easy fold as played

Trivial fold. I've only played with a handful of guys in my life that this would be a call against and if this guy were one of those guys you wouldn't be making this thread.

If he has KK/QQ then kudos to him because he made a largely -EV play and got away with it.

3bet pre.

Lead turn or c/f.

As played, fold.

I'd c/f turn. Q outs are dirty / we won't get paid so we're drawing to 7 outs really. As played fold.

id definitely fold river but i think some of the earlier streets are interesting, esp as your pf 3b strat varies

I would call river. Somewhat read dependent, in the sense that I would need very strong reasons to fold--sans super reads I'm calling.

I think the mistake was made on turn, which is a fold without backdoor flush. Prob check raise bigger on river since his bet sizings on all streets are somewhat small at these stack depths, there are a ton of hands he can call with, your line looks suspect, etc.

I think the basic formula relates to how often you need to be right in one try.

Could be the difference between online and live?

your formula is right, but it sounds like you are not putting V's bet into the pot.

(6k to call)/([1k pre betting+villains 6k]+our 6k)=6/13=~46%

if you don't put V's bet in, then if V bets 1 into a pot of 0, you would have to be right 1/1 or 100% of the time, although we know that if you are right 50% of the time you will get 1 back from the final pot of 2, and will break even.

the "practical" implication of this is that as spr approaches infinity, the % equity you need to call a jam approaches 50% (but can never reach 50 bc of the pre-bet pot's overlay)

Equity Needed= size of bet/total pot size (after bet is called)

so if somehow there was no money in the middle and the bet was 1k. we call. 1k/2k = 50%

is more like it - I left our call out of the numerator in the excel formula. Once again indicating only post when you are of sound mind.

Denominator, that would be. And it is obvious that you always have a little more than 50% once there is prior betting. Wow - have to retire from posting again I guess.

Preflop should be a 3-bet usually and a call sometimes. Flop should be a lead or a check-raise. Turn is just a c/f. I fold river, but I've found that nits seem to be more aware of blockers than most and I've seen them do things like this with QQ. I'm also a little surprised that he bet 1/2p every street with KQ on a 3 broadway board with a flush draw, but hey, nits!

jrr63, if someone bets infinity into a infinitesimal pot, you need 50% chance to win in order to call. I think what you maybe meant to say is that villain needs us to fold ~80% of the time in order to profitably bluff for such a huge overbet. Which we probably do since we almost never have KQ in this spot.

The turn did not bring a flush draw, I had a three flush on the flop. What is your reasoning behind check/raising the flop? This deep and with the dynamic I think most turns would be put me in a bad spot and depending on the turn card it would allow him to play pretty optimally against me in position. I like lead better than check raise but even if he flats still leaves us in a funny spot on the turn and if he raises then what? Three bet small or muck?

Your hand will essentially have 95%+ equity or 0% equity on the vast majority of turn-river runouts. It's very difficult to play optimally against a polarized range, even from position, so OOP's best strategy is to build big pots with ranges that will be as polarized as possible, which should therefore include some hands like this. It's basically a value check raise for the runouts that complete your hand (something like 36% of them), and it will be a natural bluff for the boards that brick your hand, where you should still get lots of credit for JJ/TT/JT/66. If you didn't have the bdfd it would be more of a c/c since you have a lower value draw in that case.

You have it backwards, check/call allows him to play more easily vs your specific hand, as he can essentially default to a strategy of betting top pair + and a lot of bluffs on every street, and on many turns (such as this one, but even on a turn like the 5c) he can turn your hand into a 0ev hand with >50% of his range.

I understand what you are saying, but I disagree that I will have 95% or 0% equity on the vast majority of turn runouts. How did you compute that? So we fire on a K, A or 9 turn and then bomb the river on a brick in order for him to fold what vs his range on the flop calling a check raise. Basically after the check raise on the flop and lead on the turn, I would need to ship it all in on the river to continue the line. Given that the game has been swingy, its playing four handed and agro and hes been holding over me this session, im not convinced that's the best line. He would definitely be sticking around with any Ace- face card combination on the flop and would definitely be continuing on the turn at a minimum.

I said river runouts, obviously your hand will be 90% or 20% on turns, but that 20% is dynamic equity that is distributed primarily to nuts or air rivers (aside from when you pair up, but that's air for all intents and purposes).

I think you have some options after check/raising and getting called, but I think barreling off almost no matter what comes is a pretty safe bet with this combo. You're definitely far too deep for the river bet to be all in, it would most likely go something like 210 on flop, 650 on turn, 1750 on river, leaving a lot left. There might be some runouts that favor overbetting with your range, however.

I don't like the check-raise to 210 with any part of our range this deep, nor do I agree with any of the reasoning in these posts. A check-raise to 450 seems more viable at first glance, though there's still much to compute in terms of how that strategy fares over check-calling.

I assume that 'difficult' means 'low EV', since a counterstrategy to a purely polarized strategy that excludes 3-betting has only one range threshold per hand type and should hardly be described as complex. In that case, having a polarized check-raising range of JT+, 98+ (in any high frequency) will be a severe drain on the EV of one's check-calling range; Villain will be able to overbet turn and river at a high frequency on many runouts.

Now, you say, optimal play should preclude profitable deviation with any single part of our range. We all know that the lowest equity tier of bluffs has 0 EV, so no improvements there. As for the runouts for which 98 is 'value', we must weigh the value of a flop check-raise to a value of a future check-raise for which the runout is (partially) known. Well, as you noted, that value comes from folding out Villain's 5% equity on our value runouts, namely chops/K9 and some backdoor flush draws. The former is unlikely to fold to 210 (but might fold or 3-bet vs. 450), while the latter should be a very small part of Villain's continuation betting range to begin with when you think about it. Combined, I don't see these pieces of equity overpowering the value of knowing the runout.

I've no idea what this is about - your check-raise vs. check-call threshold should be the top end of your bluffs, not the bottom. Is there something specific to deep-stacked play that I'm missing?

I don't believe that this is easy at all. There are numerous sizing considerations, especially at these stack depths.