I think you're getting lost because you don't have the betting lead. If we check, we're planning to bluff catch. LAGs by their nature bet when checked to.

If we can't profitably check, you're betting? That's as a bluff? In order to bluff, you need something better than your TT to fold, which is basically impossible.

I'm going to say right here that you have won today the poker forums -- you've clearly identified a problem in your game. It took a long time for BBB to try to beat this idea out of my head. You shouldn't turn your bluff catchers into bluffs. (this is meant in a happy, non-sarcastic, non-ironic way -- sometimes tone fails on the internet).

You should also do the actual math on this. It is clearly wrong.

This is essentially what I'm trying to adapt to as I move up into MSLHE games. As a forum collective, I think that we've been generally so used to just c-betting and crushing 3/6, 4/8, 6/12, and 8/16 games that we can't adapt when there may be situations where not having the betting lead at some point is OK and may be profitable (regardless of whether this situation fits that description).

To show that this may be a close spot, let's try these scenarios:

Scenario #1:

Flop: QJ5

Hero (TT) bets the flop, CO calls, SB calls, BB folds.

Turn (5.5 BB): 8 (this is the actual turn card, btw)

Do we continue barreling? Or check?

If we check, we're at 5.5 BB in the pot while awaiting CO's turn action.

Scenario #2 (what actually happened):

Flop: QJ5

Checks around

Turn (4 BB): 8

SB bets, Hero calls (I think this is a relatively straightforward call, given SB's description)

Now we're at 6 BB awaiting CO's turn action.

Of course, it would've been very possible that neither SB or BB bets the turn, so the expected pot size at that point is going to be less than 6 BB. Which, again, brings us back to the flop decision being a close spot.

(Note: I have a clearer idea of CO's action in this hand based on the actual results, so that's why I had him call my hypothetical flop bet in Scenario #1. Results-oriented, I know....)

Unless your ladder is radically different from mine, it should be the other way around - at lower stakes, where people are more passive and less likely to bluff on the turn, you should cbet less and hope to pick up a draw. At higher stakes against LAGs, their tendencies are to float the flop with much weaker hands (like underpairs) and bluff at the turn more, so you should cbet the flop more.

The two scenarios you presented only factor in the pot size. You're not factoring in ranges. When a LAG check-calls the flop and then donks the turn, what's his range? When a LAG leads the turn after the flop checks through, what's his range? When a tight-passive coldcalls and then calls the flop, what's his range? When a tight-passive coldcalls and then checks the flop through, what's his range?

The value of a call is determined by the ratio of the pot odds (or pot and implied odds) to your equity. You should be happier to call 5.5:1 with 30% equity and sadder to call 6:1 with 20% equity.

I don't see the connection between poker and exploitive RPS. Here's a thread about the differences, most of which was over my head, but interesting nonetheless:

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/15...poker-1472265/

You're right. I didn't mean to imply that I would've c-bet more at lower levels, but rather that I know the vast majority of players will play loose-passive and thus I have a clearer idea of their ranges based on their actions and can bet or check or call appropriately.

What's the best way to exploit their likelihood to "bluff at the turn more"? Isn't feigning weakness on the flop one way to do so? I would say that Ax, Kx, Qx and Jx are a reasonable chunk of their range. Assuming they'll bet on the turn with Ax and Kx (as a bluff) as well as Qx and Jx (for value), does this not maximize EV when I'm ahead and minimize losses when I'm behind? Or am I just changing the variance, but not maximizing EV?

If you "feign weakness" on the flop, you have to call turn and call river to a double barrel bluffer. And bluffing is usually less likely when multiway.

You can also bet flop check turn call river, for instance.

Keep in mind they may not be necessarily bluffing. LAGs may call flop with 22 just cuz, then put you on AK/AT when you check turn HU, and bet river expecting to pwn your ace high.

Also keep in mind there's a tight passive to act behind you. If he calls the flop, his range is strong.

Like I said, work out the ranges for different scenarios.

There is no direct connection. RPS is a game that everyone knows and is simple enough to illustrate the concepts of game theory.

The reason that thinking about GTO RPS is helpful is that it highlights a billion common misconceptions about GTO poker, the most egregious of which is:

If your opponent is not playing to the Nash Equilibrium, you shouldn't either. The whole concept that "I'm playing GTO even if my opponent isn't" is fundamentally flawed.

B evr

This is true. However, it is theoretically possible to calculate the opponent's best response and calculate our own best response to that considering the ev of our strategy as a whole. Since nobody will ever solve poker as we play it, then this is the best we can do against good players.

If everyone checks to me, that means I do have the betting lead, unless I am missing something again?
I am not saying that betting is a must here, or even a good play. All I am saying is that check/calling all the way is a bad play. Either we take a stab at the pot or we give up by checking. You think c/c a 3rd pair vs 3 players all the way to the showdown is profitable? My play would be c/f here, but I would rather b/f the flop than c/c all the way.

4 BB in the pot.... ah, thats where I made a mistake... its 5 if we c/c the turn with a 9 on the board and 8 outs.

This is the definition of "exploitative poker."

I'm not disagreeing with the substance, I'm just pointing out that a lot of people are like "I'm going to GTO because GTO is unexploitable and GTO the GTO if GTO and my opponents GTO then GTO GTO GTO GTO GTO GTO GTO so GTO," which boils down to, "I look to see what my opponents are doing wrong and exploit that."

Call it what it is.

Actually, it's the only way for us as humans to approach gto against the nemesis because gto is the strategy that maximally exploits gto. So the whole "gto doesn't exploit" argument is flawed because without knowing how to exploit, we cannot approach gto.

Getting back to how this conversation started regarding mixed strategies in poker:

If we successfully calculate our opponent's best response, and if we then calculate our best response to that, then each player will be maximally exploiting the other and we will have found gto. The best response will always be making the most +ev play considering our strategy as a whole with the exception being that mixed strategies will be used exclusively on the margins where two plays have equal ev.

Mixed strategy in a live poker sense means ordering a margarita or long island iced tea, as opposed to a shot or a straight whiskey. We can apply a minimally mixed strategy by ordering a martini. Our successful response calculations are changed by the quality of the hockey game on the TV, the social graces of our drink server, and the overall "fun factor" at the table. All of this winding up with "betting seems a bit better than checking here" rather than

"best response will always be making the most +ev play considering our strategy as a whole with the exception being that mixed strategies will be used exclusively on the margins where two plays have equal ev"

which all sounds great but is impossible in reality and if possible would interfere with the construction of my chip castle.

leo doc might claim a Cape Cod would be a GTO mixed strategy. The man knows his spirits, so I would accept that claim as true. Anyone claiming to have range vs. range poker solved in a 5 way live hand? They need to bring a hell of a bottle of wine to back up that claim.

In my mind the problem is that these discussions pick nits at math terms and ignore the situation that our OP was playing poker in. I poked fun at you guys above, but it really kills the poker part of the forum if we all refuse to talk about the hands.

I think the flop check is kinda sexy, and I'd be pretty sticky unless the locals decide to go to war.

My apologies for not saying that I'd check this flop 100% against this lineup. I thought that others, whose opinions trump mine, had very clearly shown why checking is best.

You're right though about mixed strategies and the fact that we'll never solve poker enough to know that two plays have the same ev in a game of poker as we play it. Therefore, we should make our best guess as to which play has the highest ev and we should make that play 100% of the time.

Well someone has to talk about it someplace.

Let's say I just started using the term "perfect" to describe my rationale for making choices: "I like to play perfect by default," or, "Perfect play dictates we check here." Then someone comes along as says, "Well, why is that perfect?" to which I respond, "Well, maybe it's not 'perfect' in a strict mathematical sense, stop nitpicking semantics."

Now replace "perfect" with "GTO" and that's basically what is rampant. It's clear from past discussions that the vast majority of people who throw the term around have no idea what it means, lack the mathematical will or skill to solve it, or simply use it as an excuse to play randomly.

If you'd prefer general discussion about "GTO" to be confined to one thread, that's fine. But to say that it doesn't matter ignores the fact that it's popularly used and sows a lot of confusion every time it is.

If you'd like, I'd even volunteer to be the lightning rod for such a discussion by making a milestone post about Nash Equilibria. I started one a while back (like for 7k or something) but never finished it.

I'm cool with all that, and I'm totally with you that people throw sloppy "I'll go GTO here" comments in every thread. I just don't want every strategy thread I read to be full of technical game theory arguments that actually ignore the hand being played. Maybe everyone has evolved to where they play their range rather than their actual hand in every spot, and if so I guess every hand will discussion will be "since I open 27% in this spot, the villain should have a 7% to 46% range, so I need to bet this texture" so be it. At least we'd have a discussion about ranges. We could then stove range vs. range equity and talk about turn textures. That's cool.

Yeah, this is my issue every time some impossible to figure spot comes up and invariably someone claims they'll default to perfect strategy. Man, if I knew perfect strategy I'd just do that. You'd never see me on a poker forum, I'd just be more money, more problems guy.

Sounds good.

I posted my opinion on he actual hand above. We're up against two LAGs who are exploitably and a tight passive who's playing exploitably. We can argue about how to exploit them but IMR GTO LOL.

I think the crux of the matter is how people think LAGs act. And if this is the psycho raise-anything LAG, yeah, maybe we shouldn't bet-fold third pair to what could be 43o. But I don't think most LAGs act like that. They float a lot of flops like this because TAGfish bet AK an awful lot here and they want to spike the underset and raise turn or semibluff turn or bet river after turn checks through. Betting gives tight-passive a chance to fold AJ or otherwise define his range (he never raises worse obv).

Is this a great reason to bet? I don't think he's folding AJ to a bet here.

I've read many opinions over the years that "betting for information" isn't a good reason to bet (or "checking for information," for that matter). Does "define his range" mean something similar, or are you referring to something different?

I have pretty thick skin and have been around here for a while, so the mocking doesn't really bother me, but you're also mocking a guy with 14 posts. I think that's poor form.

Fair enough, but anyone who's picked up the acronym has probably lurked enough to understand I'm not *trying* to be a dick.

FWIW, I don't think I'm being mocked here. I misused the G-word, admitted to it, and want to move on to learn more strategery, starting with a situation like this.