Put me in the c/c down camp.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It's not a bluff if we have the best hand. So why would we lead PP's to prevent him from realizing his equity for free but not our moderate strength flush which has roughly the same equity vs. his combo value/draw range? If we don't have any bluffs then let's just lead everything and let villain make a costly shoving mistake thinking he has FE. GII and let the chips fall where they may on the river.

99 vs. unmade hands with good equity:



T9c vs. combo range of made hands/nut draws:

i dont understand the point of the different ranges

Really don't like the pre-flop call. We will be playing out of position against a strong player with a hand that if it wins will be an obvious holding.
I don't like calling the turn to an obvious draw that is going to be far from the nuts without getting the correct direct odds.
We are here though and have made our hand and even have a 1 outer to the absolute nuts. I think this is the spot to shove. We didn't call pre-flop or flop to fold a flush on a 3 club board. We are way over representing our hand so it has some bluff type elements to it. (I'd play AXcc the same way.) We are reaffirming that villain cannot come to this table and push us around. It denies his draws the odds to call but looks bluffy so he make call light. If he folds great we won a pot we had no business playing.

Because our PP's are crushed by his value range so I am showing an apples-to-apples comparison of our hands that have 70-75% equity vs. various ranges villain can have.

Yeah our flushes kinda protects our PPs from being bluffed if we lead turn. And our PPs incentevize his PPs to call when we actually have a flush... btw, I don't think I ever said that we shouldn't lead turn... I think x/r is ok too, but leading with flush is good IMO.

None of that makes any difference at all unless we are going to play a lot of hands against each other which is highly unlikely.

Ive never played 10/25 so I dont know how it plays, but you think it makes me a fish to complete the BB in that spot and trap him when I know he will raise probably 75% of the time and I can back raise him?

If he doesn't raise I play a smaller pot with hand that's pretty easy to play.

Put less harshly, I just meant that his comment doesn't mean that he was impressed with the play. It's important in the sense that it's not really important (like you suggested) and he'll likely treat you as he would have otherwise with the expectation that you might have some trappy tendencies - assuming the guy is trying to win.

True... I guess I just meant it seems kinda strangely good here to act with our real range exactly how villain might perceive our range...

It's generally more useful/educational/discussion worthy to discuss how we should play our range vs. villain's range rather than his actual hand which we do not know.

I don't think I've seen anyone attempt to range villain here other than general vagueness regarding his potential air/spazz. I am ranging him more linearly given what we know and thus my action is attempting to get value from hands that will call a turn bet (which he absolutely has in his range). Others are trying to get value from an air range that may be a) nonexistent and b) requires him double barreling in a 3bet pot where people play more straightforward.

I prefer not to leave the heavy lifting to unknown villains with unknown ranges when I have a vulnerable value hand. Working through the hand has made it more obvious to me that we should be leading with our PP's and flushes alike here for value and equity protection.

^^^ Good thing we only have $600 to piss away doing this.
I also sincerely doubt you're ever taking this line irl, with a pair, staring at a paired bwy board w a completed flush, in a 3b pot, against a perceived good player, against an unknown range.

Your line is eventually going to get ripped apart whether shallow or deep by a good player. You also have to overcome the negative blocking effects most of your pairs would have in this spot and there are many.

KQo+ AJs+ TT+

I've already given my range estimates for a linear value range and blocker bluffs. But thank goodness we have high level analysis like:

Seriously?? Umm wrong. PP's are an easy bet/fold. Flushes are an easy bet/gii. Explain how that gets ripped apart?? And we take this line specifically because stack sizes/spr (stack leverage).

lol at just random lead/fold on the turn with crappy pairs. wtf are you people saying?

^^^
Hahahaha

Can we get a river please?????

Oh so we always play passive? Or we only lead with the nuts?? Wtf is up with all the advocating of ultra weak passive play on these forums?

Well I guess it's a good way to help keep the fish fishy.

If the other option is click buttons and make up ranges to fit the narrative, then sure I'll choose passive.

Seems like a super obvious turn check, especially against a tough player

Which side is making up ranges again?

75% of this thread thinks villain is going to 3!/c-bet/double barrel an unknown light after 20 minutes observation to justify a weak passive line that allow villain to realize his equity for free.

It's hard to find multiple streets of value against real players and very very hard to do so when oop w/o initiative in 3/4b+ pots on bway paired boards w a completed draw. There are also built-in confines to what you can do with your range to achieve max EV in many spots like because your opponent will play his range equally well in position. Labeling a check in such spots as "weak passive" with a backstop argument of "betting to deny equity" is neither accurate nor good poker in the sense that stop and go lines narrow ranges down to slivers ... and exactly how do pps (you guys are nuts) and middling flushes fare against slivers of continuing ranges...?

Hero is already faring quite well against Vs turn betting and checking range compared to his calling range when we choose to bet. It isn't some sort of EV apocalypse either when he checks back turn as we have a good chance at another street of value on many rivers.

and btw, no I'm not folding my flush this shallow, but I added the Ck-c Ck-c ck-f (probably Ck-decide) to illustrate that deeper, against a very good player, a T high flush isnt doing well when the third barrel is fired.

I would suggest that you stop fighting against strawmen.


1) I havent wrote i think villain necessarily will multistreet bluff on autopilot here or whatever: what i have made an argument for is giving him the spot where he possibly can do so is the best chance of getting significant money out of a skilled player wich i regarding to the OP believe knows what he is doing. Maybe it doesent happen that often, but when it does the reward is big manifesting itself by winning a big pot. Alongside this i have argued that neither option is amazing or anything for us in this spot: but we have to work with what we do have as played by OP. Personally i think flop was the time if we wanted to take an aggressive line in this hand- putting huge pressure on the majority of villains range where our check-raising range is totally uncapped, forcing him to fold his equity with hands like AK and maybe even 1010-JJ.

2) Lol, its not a weak passive line. Its a calculated planned +EV line to check in order to disguise our range the best way- making it harder for villain to play against us, instead of donking in a spot where i sincerely believe OP and vast majority of the LLSNL population have zero bluffingrange when they take this exact line. We just have value ever single time this line is taken OOP in a 3 bet pot against a skilled villain with an uncapped unknown 3 bet range=making it so easy for villain to fold big parts of his range and lose the absolute minimum thanks to ourself. I mean it looks like we have a flush or possibly a boat already hoping villain has a flush when we take this line: and guess what, we do have exactly what it looks like we have.

Im fine with check/call turn, but not in a million years am I check / folding the river unless the river double pairs the board.

I don't know where you get these numbers from. How would you know he raises 75% of his straddles if you've never played with him before?

I wouldn't consider king high a trapping hand.