You're trying to balance your range by folding the nut straight. I think this is taking the concept of balancing a little too far.

If you insist...there should be worse hands that you 3bet the turn with. Fold a couple of those and call it a day.

I mean if we really want to make a big laydown to the 4 bet, the 3 combos of 54 that are not a flush should be more than enough, given our 3 betting range. And even that may be too many combos.

I've been trying to figure out how to make my point without getting too deep into brute force mathematical computations, and I think the best way to think about this is to think about what you're doing with your next weakest hand and your next strongest hand.

What are you doing with those hands? Why are you doing what you're doing?

The type of situation you want to avoid is having a weird cusp in your hand range such as:

* You're 100% showing down 95s (non-flush) by calling the turn raise and a river bet
* You're not 100% showing down T9o because you're 3-bet/folding the turn
* You're 100% showing down 32 hearts because you're 3-bet/calling down

There's not a lot of logic that supports this type of play. There are cusps like this on the lower range, such as the break at the top of your bluffing range and the bottom of your just-fold-it range. (These are created for strategic considerations on how to extract value with weak hands.) But you really ought not have a cusp like this on the higher end of your range (value range) solely because you think you need to be "balanced" somehow. If you've really only got one or two hands in a range like this, it's probably better to smooth things out.

It *might* be true that there exist plays like this in multi-street GTO strategies. I don't know of any, but that doesn't mean they don't exist. (Someone may have to look through the Mathematics of Poker to see if any of the analyses lead to such cusps. It's been a while since I've read it.) But even if it were true that GTO strategies have such cusps, forcing the creation of them does not necessarily lead to better poker. Those plays should only really exist to avoid high level counter-strategies that push right on the boundaries of your decisions. Very few players (no players?) actually do that in a GTO way, so you shouldn't need to worry about it.

i think one should balance common actions or spots. Сheck-raise and 4bet the turn is not standard at all.
as to me i dont think it's a big mistake to fold

It's a big mistake to fold imo. Hero has the best hand way more than y'all think.

Folding sizeable equity in a big pot is one of the biggest individual mistakes a player can make.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Could you give me example of worst hands villain played like that (giving a free card when the board is 3 flush-str8 one)?
and why he played like that if they dont know well each other

Assuming villain isn't a solid reg... I give 5% of his range to spazz. 1/20 times villain will turn over something that can't be explained logically. It's just my personal experience with sh play.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I agree.

I probably more than most value analyzing a spot from a GTO perspective but I made it clear from the beginning that I knew a fold in this spot would indeed be an exploitable one. I had reasons to believe my opponent was a reg, so even though it was early in the session (meaning there weren't any particular tendency reads on either side), I was operating on the belief that my opponent was solid. So analyze the hand from that perspective. I'm never folding this spot if I think my opponent isn't solid.

Solid players bluff sometimes. I would argue that if calling down is unprofitable, then your opponent isn't solid.

The more you post about it, the more I believe that you were the one who got exploited.

Edit: The reason is that your justification makes less and less sense the more you say about it. This is starting to sound a lot like post-hoc reasoning to justify what you did, rather than a thoughtful analysis of what you should do.

Edit x2: If I've got a set of aces with A, I'm capping 100%. And I might cap two pair. Maybe. In both cases, if I don't have the best hand, I've got a pretty good redraw to either a nut flush or a boat. A turn raise on a scary board isn't so scary to those hands.

as to me i see the very same sense. He just trying to put his ideas during the hand in words. I got the idea. The villain is the guy who plays the strategy that people call "grinding" (the same everyday without creativity and non-adjusting to anybody)

and you check-raise turns like that with two pair from time to time instead of conbetting, dont you

I wouldn't call it routine, but sometimes yes. There are players out there that can't help themselves but stab at the pot when you check, especially when scare cards come (and that's the perfect scare card). And if I held a big hand with A I'm not afraid if a free card gets through.

You need to check *sometimes* in that spot with big hands so that your opponent can't always automatically bet into you when you check the turn.

Of course if I made a consciously exploitable fold than it's possible that I got exploited. And as it tends to do with 2p2 hand review threads, the more time we spend discussing, the farther away from the actual hand we get. I spent about 10 seconds formulating a plan before 3betting turn and another 30 or so before folding to the 4bet. I've since spent half an hour or more thinking about it and posting on 2p2.

I didn't post this hand on 2p2 just so I could justify my line. I wanted help so I can improve at LHE. I appreciate everyone's opinions. I've just been trying to paint the full picture of the scenario, my thoughts at the time, and my thoughts currently.

Aaron, I appreciate how much time you've spent commenting on this thread. I'm not going to say I'm 100% convinced that my line was wrong, but you've sufficiently convinced me that if I get into a similar spot tomorrow, I promise you I won't fold.

so you induced a (semi-)bluff, happily raise to punish him, see a 3bet and instantly put him on two pair, right?
the river can be even more scary than the turn

However, the most important thing I’ve been good at is trying to understand my opponent and the way he/she is thinking…trying to figure out what he/she is trying to accomplish with his/her actions.
https://www.raiseyourgame.com/2017/0...jens-kyllonen/
just for curiosity: How long did it take the villain to 4bet?

Nope. It's more like "I've done something kind of silly, so none of this may actually make sense anymore. Where does my hand sit in my range? Do I have redraws if I'm behind? That's good enough."

At this point, it's kind of a leveling war. Here's the thing: The turn check-raise after 3-betting preflop and c-betting the flop is weird. What does it communicate? It communicates confusing nonsense. What hands should I do this with? Well... basically none of them. Am I pulling a silly bluff with nothing? Do I have the straight flush and is this the way to get bets into the pot without villain realizing it?

This works when you and your opponent are thinking on approximately the same level. When you do something strange, a lot of this goes out the window. Nobody really knows what anyone is thinking anymore.

Here's the thing: Suppose you're hero and I'm villain and I've check-raised the turn on you. What range do you put me on? You really have no idea what I have. And because of that, I have no idea what you think I have. So you have no idea what I'm thinking and I have no idea what you're thinking.

It comunicates that you caught a safe coconut in HU and decided ... decided to do what you all like on this page... to BALANCE
(after 3bet there's no sense to slowplay - he would never folds, so nobody folds)

What happened? people became smarter? Ok, they read a couple of "concepts" and memorized them but it doesnt change much actually.

it depends on the history much. What happened between you and me for the last 30 hands? How emotionally stable is the opp. Does he thinks he's a future high stakes pro. Bet timing (many players so excited that they cant count even till 5). Lots of factors.
If everything is in the norm... very strong hand or semi-bluff with ~50% equity at worst (in sake of "creativity")

The issue at hand is that "balanced" doesn't actually indicate a specific hand range. You can have a balanced wide range or a balanced narrow range. I could still have a lot of hands that I'm going bonkers with, or I could be setting up with a "nuts or nothing" type of balance. It doesn't actually help you a lot in terms of making decisions.

All of this is mostly meaningless in terms of an analysis for this forum. In theory, you can put all that information together into your decision. But if you're doing that, there's very little that we can do functionally in a hand analysis on this forum. We don't have access to any of that information. (I will also say that it's very possible and likely probable that reading into that will give you false information. You would really have to know your opponent well to determine whether such reads are trustworthy.)

In both cases, get to showdown. I think that's my main point in this thread. If you have a strong hand and you don't know what's happening, folding is a huge error.

No way folding this is correct. And I don't think the answer is to simply call down the turn raise to avoid the spot. Its about your perceived range once you 3-bet. It's not that crazy for him to 4 bet a set, a smaller straight, or same hand, esp like Th9x. Then there's misclicks/brainfarts/spaz.

Oops just realized the action had him donk check the turn, then cr and 4 bet which might push it more toward just calling the turn to raise the river.

call me old fashioned but i dont want 3 bets going in on the turn.