PokerStars - $14.69+$0.31|15/30 NL (2 max) - Holdem - 2 players
Hand converted by PokerTracker 4

Hero (BB): 19.33 BB
SB: 14 BB (VPIP: 70.37, PFR: 36.00, 3Bet Preflop: 25.00, Hands: 27)

SB posts SB 0.5 BB, Hero posts BB 1 BB

Pre Flop: (pot: 1.5 BB) Hero has Q J

SB raises to 2 BB, Hero calls 1 BB

Flop: (4 BB, 2 players) 7 3 J
Hero checks, SB bets 2 BB, Hero calls 2 BB

Turn: (8 BB, 2 players) 3
Hero checks, SB bets 8 BB, Hero raises to 15.33 BB and is all-in, SB calls 2 BB and is all-in

is it ok or do we raise flop?..or donk turn?

I think I just x/shove the flop. As played, lead turn around half pot.

I would c/s as well, you have like 12bb behind. Yup, ez shove. And FDs are not folding.

Obbudsman: why leading? It is kinda meh spot and we do not have a spade.

With a spade I wouldn't lead, as we need less protection. Villain won't barrel this pairing turn often, so imo we should lead to get value / protection against spades that would often check the turn behind. Assuming we play a rec...

I wouldn't lead too big btw, to not value own ourselves.

Actually, if you lead small, you are giving him great odds.

And we do not have much behind.

I agree with c/r otf. But strongly disagree with lead ott.

Anyone else who thinks leading turn 1/2 pot is a mistake?

lead is fine. @Axif regarding "giving great odds"--aren't you advocating checking (which is giving infinite pot odds )?

Adam, so you would lead all in?

Minimising odds is a completely different thing than maximising value.

Ok, tell me more about it. Cause I do not know what it is.

And you obviously do not like when someone has different opinion than you.

We have a saying here in my country: who wanna beat the the dog, he will find the reason to do so

Just not true. Maybe that goes for you I'm here to learn and discuss, not to prove I'm right. I'm actually glad if I'm proven wrong by better players, cause that's how I improve. But expect for Coffee I don't just take others posters' opinions without a discussion.

Man, I was being serious when I stated my first sentence.

Either answer, or lets stop this discussion right now. Cause it goes nowhere

Btw, Coffee is a good coach, but I do not think he is a good player.

Good players do not post here, man. Cause they have too much going on.

That is the fact. Accept it, lol.

Peace.

No I would not lead all-in because then we cut our value. We want to lead a size that gets called by worse approximately more often then gets called by better. Giving odds to a flush-draw is just not relevant to examining the EV difference between betting and checking. What's relevant is examining how much value you get betting compared to checking. If villain intends to check back all their draws but always calls them to a min-bet lead you still do better vs his draws min-bet leading then checking even though they clearly have odds to call (obviously this isn't actually the situation since villain's range contains much more than draws, but I think it might help clarify why your thought process on why we don't care about villain having odds to call).

Also I'm a good player :P I just like helping others, this is where I got my start so I enjoy giving back. I believe it helps keep me sharp to analyze hands and reading thoughts of weak players helps me understand better how to exploit different thought processes. We all have our distractions, I happen to like 2p2--no reason to read into it so much :P

You really must have a really huge confidence, man.

Cause lot of guys would get angry after such message.

And you know what? I am neither. Cause I am not a good player, nor a good coach, haha.

Absolutely love your approach to life! Keep it up.

Leading TP isn't GTO in this spot, so what exactly is it aiming to exploit?

People calling leads wide and not barreling almost at all when checked to ofc

As I said, it's "fine". Personally I just x/r flop.

Just did a min exploit calc using GTO ranges from preflop. I made opponent check back all worse top pairs, seconds pairs, and flush draws, and versus a lead, I made him call with all Jx, 7x, and flush draws 9 and higher. QJ does not lead at all. In fact, Jx nearly never lead, only 3x and flushes (and bluffs). So might wanna revise intuition there

Yea cause we want to play GTO versus Recs at 15s.

Too many low stakes guys concern themselves with GTO when you should be looking to play exploitatively against population tendencies

Checking back flushdraws is still allowing him to bluff other hands though right? Also, folding FDs lower than 9x shouldn't be assumed, and there are other hands that sometimes call (A high, straight draws).

Apart from that, the "min exploit" calc still leads to a lot of possibly poor assumptions vs a random recreational. His starting range on turn is likely very different from the one that GTO shows up with after playing GTO pre and on flop. Also assuming GTO play on river is likely a poor assumption as well. So it's definitely not so clear cut--your model is better then complete guessing (GTO assumptions are best in the case of complete ignorance) but aren't actually optimal since population tendencies are quite different from GTO play (both pre and especially on the flop on this texture).

Lastly, check the EV difference between the two actions--doesn't really matter how often they occur, what matters is the EV difference between leading and checking which is what determines whether its "fine" or not. I looked at an analogous spot out of curiosity (Js9s6s6d), using full GTO play (ie no min exploit node locking) and leading 45% of pot with QJo (only allowed this size and shoving) was .175 BBs worse then checking (shoving was way worse)--so not a big mistake given the size of the pot even vs a GTO player hence "fine" especially given other assumptions on starting ranges and later street play

True, I didn't make opponent's play as fishy as possible, but I mean the way I forced him to play is pretty bad. I think the fact that QJ didn't even begin to bet at all despite that says something. To me it says that leading TP isn't the way to exploit that type of leak. Rather, you lead with trips and flushes more.

I mean, assuming that the opponent plays as exploitable as I'm making him could also be a poor assumption, so it goes both ways. You're right it depends a lot on ranges, but I don't see how the action up to this point makes fish ranges significantly different from GTO ranges. You're right that it's not so clear cut, but I mean the evidence is in favor of not leading. What would you say that the opponent has much more of and much less of in his range?

But it's not EV alone that matters, either, but what hands to lead with. And there was only a miniscule indication that Jx wanted to begin to lead. For reference, in my calc leading was 0.1 BBs worse than checking. You wouldn't say 17.5BB/100 isn't a big mistake?

That's interesting in that other spot. Guess it's because we have more 6x compared to 3x and board is drawier?

EV is the only thing that matters.

It means that this difference it neglectable in a 4BB pot compared to your accuracy. (calculation accurate, potential model issues, range issues, etc.. )

Calculation accuracy is definitely not a problem, model/range issues, like I said before, can go either way - opponent could be playing fishier or could be playing better, we don't know. I don't think that hole in information is enough to invalidate a 17.5BB/100 mistake. Especially if EV is the only thing that matters

The pot on turn is 8bb, so .175bb is 2% of the pot so not huge (though yes not great). Thinking about it as 17.5bb/100 is silly since bb/100 is a unit of win-rate (ie per 100 hands) but we're not playing this situation every hand--in fact it's very rare, so its contribution to our win-rate is very small. It also indicates that it is close enough that it can easily be changed due to reads.

Also out of curiosity I ran the actual hand (using near-GTO pre-flop, and near-GTO flop play and the correct board) and GTO donk leads flop ~25% of the time. It just uses small bet sizes (I allowed 15% and 25% of pot--it uses 25% bit less then 20% of time and 15% bit more than 5% of the time, never leads my bigger sizing). QJo in particular leads 4.2% of the time (though that's likely convergence error), other Jx lead more often. The EV difference between leading t40 and checking is only .025bb (ie 0.6% of the pot so a bit above the convergence error which was 0.24% of the pot). With villains likely raising less often (and with the wrong hands) and playing rivers worse then GTO, it shows leading small is definitely fine and often might be best with this hand. Just need to make it really small

Kind of funny how the discussion comes full circle back to correcting Axif's comment on giving villain pot odds to call with draws being bad

there is a reason QJo doesnt lead as often as other Jx. it probably one of the worst donks amongst the jürgens.