i like checking the turn here because i would hate to fold the turn with more than 2 outs.
And i think we would have too much equity to fold vs so many players when we get c/r ( but not high enough to be happy to pay 2 bet on the turn).
I think we have a better equity than a lot of players and maybe we have the most but i think it is very thin tho.
About making folds if you bet (protection?)the turn, i do not think much players folds anyway.
HU i would gladly bet/call but not vs 3 or 4 players because even if you get c/r raise but no one folds, you still are in pretty bad shape vs a c/r if a lot of players are still in the hand.

So imo check > b/c > b/f

Seems unlikely we get raised on the turn here. If we do, I would give yourself about "4 outs" and look at the river card. Might even showdown vs 1 player on a river 9.

Actually, gto assumes that the opponent is playing the best possible counter strategy.

If I was checking the turn, it'd be to check raise. We don't have to worry about folding a winner on the turn because we have the equity to call against literally any turn raising range. There's times when difficult spot avoidance makes sense; this isn't one of them.

i get GTO applies to 2 player situations.
i dont get what GTO is in a 4 player situation.
i'm not even sure if it can be applied in a 3+ player situation.
i dont even know what GTO is tbh.

i think balance is a more concerning aspect.
I guess the question is whether balance is necessary in the first place in a spot where preflop is played passively. If it is necessary, is 88 really the hand to check back?? I have no clue, but I use to think so, but I don't think so anymore for several reasons.

i get GTO bots love to check back 1 pair 1 below the biggest flop card. i haven't ran it for spots where there's also a backdoor straight draw, but im guessing it'd still check in HU spots.

however when there's 4 players in this spot, i feel the need for protection in a big pot is more important than balance.

I want all the broadway type hands and bdfd type hands to toss.

if i were to balance if necessary, i feel that AA is a safer candidate to "balance" on the flop. however it seems like that's giving up too much. i guess 88 is a good candidate. but the need for protection vs. 3 other players feels like it's a bigger factor than balance.

Multiway equilibrium strategies can be beaten by collusion. Like in this hand if you were playing perfect gto poker, your opponents could raise and reraise causing you to fold winners. Fortunately this is unlikely to happen in reality.

I've given up on using the term balance and I think you should too. When an equilibrium strategy makes a particular play, it's not for balance. The equilibrium strategy makes the play that has the highest expectation vs other equilibrium strategies, which are the best counter strategies. So Avoidthe9to5 seems to think that checking 88 is the play with the highest expectation vs the best possible counter strategies. I don't really know either way but I can say for sure that balance isn't the primary objective.

Balance is a byproduct of playing good poker and maximizing ev vs the best possible counter strategies.

i thought GTO/equilibrium is maximizing EV vs. the best possible counter strategies and that GTO/equilibrium happens to be balanced in a lot of spots while unbalanced in other spots.

i thought balance is a byproduct of GTO in many spots (but not all).

as a human, im just aiming to play balanced to give players slightly weaker, around the same, and stronger than I am a harder time.

Like in this spot, if 3/3 players know my exact range after a cbet or after a check then I've failed my duty of playing balance. but sometimes idc if 3/3 players know my cbet range precisely to the dot. i want to win the big pot and i think this pot is big.

I understand the desire to give your opponents a hard time. Vs weak players it pays great to put em in tough spots on a consistent basis. However, vs strong players you're probably just gonna either miss value somewhere or end up being the one in the tough spot.

okay if there is a 'maximizing EV play against 3 strong opponents', I refuse to believe 88 falls under the check category.

i want all the QTo and 1 heart draws out of the pot.
There's too many dangerous turn cards.

it makes 0 sense to me that a 'maximizing EV play against 3 strong opponents' would bucket 88 into the xb category.

if anything, it feels like that the 'maximizing EV play against 3 strong opponents' would value protection over balance.

in a 2 player pot, balance appears to be a huge factor. in a 4 player pot, i think protection is likely to be a bigger factor than protection. it just naturally makes sense to me, but maybe my intuition is just way off.

If they're strong opponents that make nothing but +ev preflop calls, what kind of ranges do you put them on? I think 88 is in trouble vs those ranges much more often than it is with the reads given in the op.

QTo folds preflop if they're strong opponents with the exception of the big blind. So your bet is an attempt to fold out hands that they can't even hold, assuming they're strong players.

Think about the possibility of collusion though. Vs opponents that may form alliances against you, would you rather check or bet?

not sure. this is too complex for me.

also this seems like an unlikely situation. you need a player to raise (uncommon) and another player to 3b (rare).

(uncommon) x (rare) = (very low frequency).

if im facing 2 bets back, i'll be guessing anyways and not feel like im giving up too much.

Your claim being that players are more likely to 'collude' against a hero who is showing strength than one showing weakness?

Hey welcome back Zomg.

I haven't made any claims about what's more likely to happen but since you asked:

I think it's more likely that we get raised out if we check, however I think it's more expensive when we bet and we get raised out.

oh yeah? And just to be clear what does getting raised out mean in this hand? Looks to me like you probably have to call two either way, so it's almost impossible to get raised out. So when you say expensive you mean that occasionally you'll have to put in a third bet against hands that improved on the turn verses risking it checking around in a 4 way since there's no reason to think anyone will bet behind you

When we check which of these do we avoid? The missing value part or the not putting ourselves in a tough spot that gets you colluded against more?

This post by tiger is what I was referring to:

Since you asked though I'll try to answer.

I don't think you're gonna be colluded against much, or correctly. When we check we probably get to play near very well vs non colluding opponents as well as colluding opponents. Perhaps we miss a bit of value when we check. I don't really know.

In most games this probably true, but my c/r the turn range is going to be a lot wider if you check and I think I can raise someone who is more likely to full of ****. My c/3b range is going to pretty strong.

I know you were talking to tiger, but without doing any math your line seems like it is more likely to miss value and get you colluded against.

This is an extremely peel friendly flop and there are three opponents, two flush draws, and a million straight draws. There are basically no safe rivers except an offsuit seven and probably nine. You basically want people to fold anything, people are going to money in because there's a shot ton of things to draw at. If you're not missing value on the turn what rivers are you going to be able to get value from?

It's not my line. I only had issue with what tiger was saying about balance and gto regarding Avoidthe9to5's post.

Tiger said this:

So I gave him a post about the basics of what I know about it.

I'm still gonna blame you for it

Do you have any hand you would check with than?
btw do you really have a c/r range fir value here?
i doubt it.

Of course I do, because having a balanced c/r'ing range is suuuuper important in multiway pots where there is no reason to believe anyone behind you will bet, on wet boards

And it's at least doubly important to have a strong c/r range on boards where you only have like 20 combos of monsters to begin with

@bob

from my understanding, I think collusion is only likely if

a) 1 or more of the players is shortstacked,
b) 2 or more of the players are secretly signaling each other
c) 1 player really hates me and is irrational and wants all the equity to go to another player

I'm actually curious if you can give me a few examples of collusion play (or provide a definition since I'm not a game theory guy) in LHE in multiway pots that doesn't involve a, b, or c.

I'm not even sure if I'm using "collusion" correctly here.

Because of this:

If they all call with any two overcards or better, I think the ev of betting 88 will go down relative to the ev of playing vs opponents that would fold hands like KQ to the turn bet.

You're not. It doesn't mean with malicious intent here. If you raise for protection in a multiway pot you've essentially worked as a team to force out other players by making giving them worse odds in the hopes they fold. In this hand if op checks, HJ bets, and the bb c/r's with 67 because he 'knows' you'd have bet any hand that beat him and the btn would have raised on a 9 on the flop, if you fold then they have effectively colluded against you. One of the GTO can clear what exactly it mean from a strategy point, but basically multiple people can **** up your strategy by working together.

Or in the hand pretend BB is a drooling idiot. Op checks turn, Co bets, HJ raises, and BB 3 bets AJo because he thinks it's the nuts and Op folds 88