No. Reread PNLHE a bit closer.

Very helpful, good posting, etc..

If that is a response to me, well I don't know what to tell you. The authors of PNLHE are pretty clear on the subject. SPR is figured and used OTF only. Beyond the flop it has no bearing.

SPR is defined as the effective stack sizes divided by the size of the pot on the flop. The equation used contains the words "on the flop". However, the section in PNLHE about SPR is some 70 pages long, and I am obviously not going to reprint it here. I did point you in the right direction. There is also a COTW here on 2+2 if you would like to find out more.

COTW using SPR

Edit: If PNLHE is confusing you, it stands for Professional No Limit Hold Em, a book by Miller et al.

OK, seems incredibly nitpicky to argue about the literal definition of SPR. The size of the pot in relation to our stack is absolutely relevant in this particular hand, on the turn. Call it something else if that makes you feel better I guess, but to disregard it because Ed Miller defined SPR as "on the flop" is stupid.

Since villain is described as a bad LAG and bluffy, I want to avoid making any exploitable folds to him, and possibly overdefend against aggression.

Villain is betting $60 to win $80. To meet MDF, we need to defend at least 80/(80+60) = 57% of our range. I am not sure what hands we are raising out of the SB and c-betting into two people, but I think this hand is pretty likely in the top half. We are getting pretty good odds with a hand that has a lot of ways to improve. I think I'd rather call with this hand than something like 88 if we c-bet that.

3-betting seems odd. Would we 3-bet an overpair? If villain folds to a 3-bet we probably got him to fold a worse hand. Maybe he is raise/folding Jx "for info" as some players do, though.

Call flop and x/f turns unimproved.

Edit: Also I'd like to say that I think SPR is an overrated concept, and I am not a fan of how it is applied in that COTW article. It is way oversimplistic as the strength of different hands is massively different in different spots.

For example, the article says if we open AA on the CO and get called by a tight player in the BB, the maximum SPR we can profitably stack-off with is 4. However, the article completely ignores the fact that there can be a pretty big variation in the strength of an overpair based on how each player's range hits certain board textures. For example, on a flop of 222, AA is almost the very top of our range and can be played essentially as if it's the nuts unless we are very deep. On a flop of 987ss we still likely have the best hand, but both players have many better hands and we need to proceed with more caution.

The reason SPR is only defined for the flop is because Miller et al felt that by the turn, too many other factors come into play that make stack to pot ratio less important, and I agree with them. This is what I was pointing out in your post, the last thing (if at all) I would care about OTT is the stack to pot ratio. For example, in this hand. we already have the added info that V likes his hand enough to raise OTF.

That's like a tournament player looking at his M OTR. Fine if you want to do it, but it's pretty meaningless for the hand you are currently involved in.

Edit: BTW, I pretty much agree with your assessment on page 1, I just don't think wiggle room OTT is of any importance at all. If we think he folds his equity, shove, if we think we are way behind, fold. Call if we think he will stack off if we bink TP and we think TP is enough.

Oh, and I only posted that definition stuff because you got unnecessarily snarky in the post above it. If you don't understand why I think SPR is unimportant OTT. ask me. Otherwise, make a snarky post, get a snarky post.....

Probably bigger pre. I'd call flop and reeval. Sizing and live tells should factor in here.

No it isn't. Words and usage changes, I've read PNL, I don't care what it says. It's a good book for its time but it's got a ton of errors, and poker has advanced since then. There are plenty of spots where saying "set up a good SPR on the turn/river" is completely fine.

That definition of SPR is only useful as a super beginner friendly way of looking at what hands are good enough to get in at what SPR. That's... ok as a training wheel, but an entirely stupid concept taken any farther than that. PNL actually advocates changing your preflops sizing based on what hand you have to achieve better SPR, and I'm all for exploitative sizings but there's way way more to it than just "avoiding 13 SPR if you've got a one pair hand".

We don't use SPR as some sort of guide to how good a hand is and whether it's enough to stack off. We use it to indicate matter of factly what the stack to pot ratio is, and this is useful for deciding lines to take, setting up check raises, or barrels, and so on. Not to "decide whether to go with our hand".

Like honestly SPR doesn't work, do you really think that you stack off with same range whether it's a 3b pot or a 7b pot, as long as it's the same SPR?

I think disregarding the SPR post flop bc Miller said so is just wrong.

How could you devoid yourself of such info? Think about it. Your sitting on flop deciding if you should call a bet. In universe A, SPR would be 8 if call, in universe B, SPR would be 1 given same exact hand. How is this not useful?

Results: