MUBS.

If you seriously believe most of his range is 5x hands and he has the straight, then it is c/c turn and c/f river.

You bet when you were behind his range and check when ahead IMO. That isn't winning poker.

I was looking at his raising range to determine our equity if we chose to go bet/3bet ai ott

Mmmmmno. He's a weak player who's apparently eager to gamble.

The reason I waste time on this semantic point is because I really think it's a serious leak to view our weak opponents as idiots. (Some better players than me share this view.) It helps our winrate to understand our opponents and reflect on why they play poker the way they do.

It's even more serious in the soft skills that add to our live poker win. If our mindset is based around the premise that our opponent is stupid, then why not berate him? He's too dumb to react. OTOH, if we think our opponent is having fun making bad bets just like the people out at the roulette table, then we'll act more like the roulette dealers and make sure he has a good time. Even if we don't consciously set out to berate bad play, the fact that we've been calling bad players idiots on 2+2 will make us more prone to act unprofessionally in times of crisis.


This is my thinking. With four possible overcards out against us, and with our RIO once an overcard hits the board, betting to isolate the obvious AQ/AK or at least get value from the other hand is good.

Just from my experience b/f seems like a better line to take then c/c OTR with this type of hand

mainly because unless he is a real drooler he knows there is 4 to a straight out there he is never going to RR bluff and he is going to bet the nuts or the near nuts, and may check back hands that would call our bet

I think leading this flop after the PFR checks is pretty standard. We have a blocker to straight draws and a gut shot draw ourselves. If we're raised by the button, and the fish calls, easy call in that spot too.

If the button decides to raise our flop bet and the fish instead folds, that's where it gets a bit more interesting. I think I'm folding to his raise by default nonetheless.

Building the pot now for a river shove. Bet turn $65

In general, I share your view. But he was an idiot.

I wasn't behind V2's range when I bet the flop, AINEC.

As for the turn, do you really think he's calling a turn barrel with 88-JJ? I don't think I can get value from those hands by betting the turn. I think I might get a tiny bit of value by letting him bluff them 5 or 10% of the time.

It depends on the flop action, of course, but we are offering essentially zero reverse implied odds on an overcard on the turn.

If UTG calls and an A, K or Q falls, we pretty much have to give up.

If button calls and UTG folds, we're not worried about overcards, because he's not randomly floating us with AT or KQ.

When the button calls us, kings, queens, jacks tens and nines all become bricks, mostly. 9s Ts and Js DO reduce the number of combos of those pairs he can have, and that makes it slightly more likely that he's drawing.

Also, nobody has mentioned A5s, which is definitely in his pre flop and flop calling ranges, IMO.

Villain reached for chips immediately after I checked. He grabbed a stack, and counted it. It was $60. He went back for 2 more chips, put them on top of the $60, then went back for 1 more, then pushed them across in a single stack.

That's exactly why my intuition is B(F our possibly C) turn, BF river. Scary boards cause Villains to get straightforward, but they also get curious.

I don't think standard Villains are usually folding an underset on any street because they correctly reason that 5s are a tiny part of our preflop range, and because they might fill up, and because calling to the river then folding a set feels weak-tight. My thoughts could be out of sync with contemporary SS games, and the reasoning ITT suggests that might be the case.

Standard Villains aren't betting sets on both turn and river. Some, not even once. Too scary. Our read is that V2 is competent, not way above average.

Overpairs are a little harder to get a call from, but i still think we're getting at least one street on the turn. Top two pair, probably both turn and river. 87, A7, K7 call at least the turn but are rare. None of these bets.

I don't think we're worried about a bluff raise from a standard Villain ever.

Really? I don't see him turning 88 into a bluff here ever. Heck, I'd want to see a cheap showdown here with 88. (Is not bluffing 88 in Villain's shoes a leak?)

Good points, but i was discussing IO relative to the alternative of checking. If the flop checks through, we have no idea what overcards beat us. Sounds like we agree that IO argue in favor of a flop bet.

88 is close when the 7 falls on the turn. I wouldn't think 88 was good against anything I bet on the flop except air, and there's no good reason for him to put much air in my range to bet the flop. I wouldn't hate him turning 88 into a bluff on the turn.

JJ, I would hate him betting.

Perhaps A6, A7, 86, and 87, depending on how he views your preflop cold calling and flop betting ranges. Still not much of your [perceived] range here, and you probably don't really play any of those hands except very arguably 87s here.

Anyway, I don't think unknown Villains are doing this much hand reading. We certainly should be, and the second part of my question was about how we should play 88 here against Hero, so you've convinced me bluffing with it could be good. If we bluff the turn with 88 we're obviously planning to bluff the river, because I don't think Hero folds 99-JJ here for one more bet, right?