Villain shows a 36/21 stat over 50 hands, not that much on him.

I thought , when reviewing this , i just ran in his top range but im not sure..
Also, if possible , could someone explain this with ICM in consideration, as i don't understand **** about the ICM Eval results in Pokertracker

You feel like you ran into the top of his range, if he showed Aq would you still post the hand?

I am not sure what u are looking for but , I don't think I would post it.
That's what I'm asking , can this be considered as a bad beat , shouldn't I have called ?

So many people post hands, that you KNOW they would not have posted if they won, or got it in good. Nobody wins every hand, or gets it in good every hand.

Do YOU think he does this with AQ?
Because if you do, then his gii range consists of some combo's you dominate, a few that dominate you and a few you flip with, this time you flipped.
If you don't think he does this with AQ, you have to start thinking if you like your line, because if you make is range so strong that you are always behind, doesn't seem like getting all in is very good.
What do you think his GII range v your line is here?

When looking at it that way it actually is pretty clear.
I find it hard to analyse my own hands as I do a lot of useless 'overthinking'.

Its important to take emotion out of it as well mate.

The reason I asked if you post it if he shows AQ, is that you only reviewed this hand because you had a good hand and you lost.
That's not a criticism, just a statement.

In the session you played this hand, I could probably find 10 really big mistakes you made, each of which is likely systematic ie, you will make it over and over, and will likely have a significant impact on your long term profitability.

What happens often though, is the real interesting spots, or real mistakes are dismissed as unlucky or whatever so we end up with a lot of "coolers" framed as strategy questions if you see what I mean?

Some of the hardest mistakes to spot and correct are actually in hands you win.
Think about it, you play a hand, the way you always do, you win a small pot, and never give it another thought.
The fact a top player wins an extra 5 bb's in that spot by using a different line/sizing will never pop, unless you really spend time doing some cold hard analysis.
It took me soooo long to learn this.

Right now , I filter my tournaments on a specific date. After that I filter the pots I won and lost between 10BB and 100BB (in order to filter out the small pots).

Then sometimes (maybe more than sometimes haha) I find myself being too aggressive. Like 3bettings spots I should've called , or betting where I should've checked.
Sometimes I try to put villain on a range and check if I'm ahead or behind. This is something I forget for about 80% of the time while playing.

Any tips to find those leaks and not label these unlucky ones bad. (The moment I win a large pot and it's due to luck , i mostly mark those hands as "bad/lucky")

The thing u are talking about with the extraction of max value is something I find very hard to apply. Most of the times villain is rather unknown.

Big pots are an obvious thing to focus on, small pots are much more common, which means even small mistakes in small pots add up quickly.

Being aggressive shouldn't be an issue, just make sure you understand why you are being aggressive, and what it achieves for your hand.
When you win a pot you didn't play well, you can mark it whatever you like, just so long as you spend as much time figuring out how to play it better as you would on spots you lost.
Most players spend so much more time on spots they lost. Like at least 95% on spots they lost. No way 95% of a poker players mistakes come in hands they lost.
The typical player on hand they lose:
You make a pre flop 3b jam you think is good.
You get called by AA.
You mark it for review.

The reality: your 3b was amzingly profitable, he just had AA this time, player wastes time reviewing it.

Typical player on a hand they win:
You have AJ facing an open from a 40/8 player.
You 3b jam all in he call TT, you win the run out.
Hand is not reviewed.

The reality:
Yes he's loose 40 vpip, but does not raise much, so his raising range is likely very strong.
TT looks like a flip v AJ, but actually TT is a significantly higher rank of hand than AJ, and this may be towards the bottom of his calling range, in which case 3b AJ was a very bad mistake.
Player won a flip, so the hand never gets looked at again.

Aaah sounds legit.
But if I'm reading this correctly, I have to mark my hands while playing. This was something I didn't bother doing , I just went in my database and checked every hand.

One thing, a little bit offtopic but not entirely.
I see myself winning a lot of pots I drew on. Can't upload hand right now , but I'll give u an example.

I raise KT clubs on the button, BB calls.

Flop:
9h8c2c

Great, I can start drawing. He checks, I check -> epic, a free card.

Turn:
A of spades

Missed it. He checks -> he could have an Ace , in that case im behind. I check back.

River:
7 of clubs. FLUSH, woohoo. What now? Bet min, bet pot ? something in between?

It seems , I often don't know what I should do and I bet a small amount of the pot in order to trap him in 3betting. But it seems a trend they fold even my min bet. How on earth can I extract more money? It seems something goes wrong on flop or turn??
When reviewing my winning pots , indeed, a big problem is not extracting enough money as I am way to 'scared' of him to fold..

Well, if that ends up being a big pot, I will review it and come to an conclusion it was just luck I won that one.
But u take it one step further and ask urself why it's bad. This actually opens my eyes a bit

Yes indeed. As a general rule of thumb you should be looking to play your draws aggressively most of the time. When you do check back flop (I check here maybe 20% of the time) you are absolutely obligated to bluffrep the Ace on the turn. You played this hand way too passively which seems to be your main problem overall. Remember, aggressiv poker is winning poker... Of course there is also very profitable players that have a very strong gameplan based on checking a lot as PFR. However from what I have seen your gameplan seems to be non-existent at all

Hmm , interesting..
So what should my bet sizing be? The chance of hitting my flush at the turn would be around 18%. Makes the odds 1 to 4.5 against. So betting everything 1 to 4.5+ should be fine. But what if I bet , he calls and I don't hit on turn. How should I bet the turn as there's more money in the pot that (used to be) 'mine'??

Doesn't matter why you won it if when you play bad you don't do anything to play it better next time right?

Obviously, I can't fix all my leaks in a blink of an eye. But I try to find the ones to be fixed the easiest and try to keep that in mind.
But when u're right. the moment u loose money u often think it went all wrong and when u win money it's easier to say u did it right, which mostly is not the case.

Ok, so GOOD NEWS!!
This post exposes a glaring hole in your poker thinking.
Why is that good news?
If you don't find errors, how are you going to improve?

The topic will be betting with equity.

Lets imagine this hand but we're ott.
Let's think of two different spots.
In one hand we have 33, and in one we have our original KTcc

Say we decide to bluff the turn with both hands. and lets say for ease the pot is 100 ott.

If we bet 50 chips how often do we need our bluff to work?

I'm not sure I understand the question.
We decide to bluff, how often does it need to work in order to do reach what goal?

If I take the outs of the KTcc in consideration. It seems we need our bluff to work in about 4 times. (4 times we will miss the river, and 1 time we will hit it).

To take the 33 in consideration. We are obviously behind right now , and we need another 3 to show up on the river. Means: 2 outs in 46 cards (roughly 4%). We need the bluf to work 24 times (96 times we miss, 4 times we hit -> 1 time hit, 24 miss)

Am I right?

The simple math for how often a pure bluff needs to work is:

Risk (our bet) / Risk + reward (reward being the pot).
50/(50+100)=.33 or 33%.

Thats our starting point.
In the KT case, lets say only our flush are good outs, so 9x2 18% (closer 19 but w/e).

So our risk of 50 turns into 50 - 18% of (our bet 50 + his call 50 + the flop pot 100).

so 18% of 200 is 36, so our real risk is only 14 chips.

You wanna risk 14 chips to win 100? He only has to fold a little over 12% now. HELL YEAH

On top of that, when he calls, it's not like the pot ends there.
When you make your flush you get to bet again, but you get to bet at a 200 pot, rather than a 100 pot. Even a half pot bet goes from 50 chips to 100.
If you compare this to betting the 33 where we hardly ever improve, you can see why betting with equity is so good.

On the flip side, if you don't bet, you ony win the pot when you make a flush, as I assume you aren't gonna bluff river.
I can assume this because you are surprised at how often villain folds, which means you aren't reading his hand stength well in relation to the lines he takes.

I have a mate who plays a bit live, no poker logic at all. He makes me smile.

Him: Can't beat this fish in the saturday game, he never folds.
Me: Just value bet him
Him: Don't get enough hands.
Me: If he never folds you only need 1 hand.
Him: but even if I go 60%/60%/60% I'm not all in.
Me: if he never folds make your value bets 150%.
Him: Then he'll never call
Me: So bluff 150% lol.

He can't BOTH never call and never fold. Situations like this tell us our logic is out of whack.
In your case with your draws, they are taking lines so weak then always folding to a bet, why on earth would you try to make your hand when it is so obviously profitable to just win the pot with a bet.

I lost you at the 18% of the total pot (Our bet + his call + pot already there). Why take the chance of making your flush and the total pot?
And why do we have to subtract it from 50 (Maybe I get it but I ain't sure, for example:
If he has the nuts and we bluff , our 18% would be 0% as we dont have a chance to win. Meaning the 50 always will turn into a 50 loss. Even if we get the outs.

And secondly , to just confirm : This "just over 12%" is just in order to make profit? If it was 14% we would be breaking even right?

would this mean I have to bet 50% when drawing a flush?

Reading ur last line my question is what we want to achieve here? Don't we want to achieve to hit the flush and get value instead of getting him to fold on the flop ? (if you get him to fold on the flop you achieve the same as the initial problem: check until u hit -> bet and he folds)

Sidenote:
To be honest I had pretty good marks at school with math. But unfortunately this was mostly algebra and calculations of probability was not included. That's the reason I have to read ur posts for about 4² times (here it comes, the algebra).
And as second difficulty I have to translate it. As im dutch.

Lol, well I have 0 math education which is why I'm doing such abad job at explaining lol.

SO basically, when " bluffing" with a hand that has equity, the risk reward relationship, ie how often your bluff needs to work in order to be profitable, changes.

Because we are in fact risking 14 chips effectively when making a 50 chip bet, (because we win 18% of the 200 chip river pot).


We bet 50 and 18% of the time we get 200 back.
200 *.18 = 36.
So even if the villain always called we'd only lose 14 chips, not 50.

Risk/(risk+reward)
goes from 50/(50+100) =0.33 as it would be with no pot equity, ie a stone cold bluff.
to 14/(14+100)=0.123
As we have decent equity in the pot, our "bluff" doesn't beed to work nearly as often.
With me?
By betting, we give ourselves 2 ways to win the hand. he can fold, and even when he doesn't we'll make our flush, in what now is a larger pot, and very likely be able to win more money because, a lot of his weak crap folded to our turn bet. So his river range is now stronger, and fairly often he will call our river bet when we make the flush, thus winning us more chips.

Aaaahh nice!!, I get it now

I can't find much literature which explains me step by step how to calculate these things haha.

So to make it round :
How to make use of this while playing. I am above average at mental arithmetic,but not that good to apply this while playing?

Another way of looking at it:
If he folds 66% time in this spot, doesn't matter the cards you have a profitable bet. You have. So, if it only needs to work 33% of time, the few times he does call u might make your flush(18%), so actually only needs to work 0.15. (.33-.18). This assumes he never raises u off your equity on turn, but you can roughly discount that with the extra value u might make on river with your flush... These assumptions are not an exact science!
Just think about those figures a minute... If you bet this turn and it doesn't work 4 times out of 5, you should STILL keep doing it! Kind of hard to rewire your brain because it tells you if something doesn't work often, stop doing it!

Yeah ofcourse, if he folds 66% of the time he calls 33% of the time (not assuming reraises).
But with 18% of the time he will call you u make ur flush (assume no blockers and not excluding outs where he makes a possible full house)
so only 15% u're lost, statistically seen.
But u're saying if it goes wrong 4/5 times (it goes wrong 80%) Should we assume the 'going wrong' is him calling the bet ?
If so , we will only win 18% of the 80% he calls. Which will be -EV right ?

Trying to wrap my head around this one but I have a feeling I ain't doing it right haha, and it's highly possible im just overthinking this too much

You got me thinking now! I'll try and explain myself but can't seem to word it! It's the difference between how often he folds and the equity you have that's important. So if he calls 80%, but you need him to call less than 66% then this is unprofitable with no equity. You have 18%, gives u 4% overall. These percentages all come from the risk reward ratio of the pot u stand to win.

I wonder how you come up with the assumption it wont work 4/5 times... Its not that easy to make a hand in holdem he is probably gonna fold 50% of the time in that spot if not more