40/80.

Decent TAG who sometimes plays unconventionally posts between button and blinds. I open utg 7-handed w KsQs. He calls, both blinds call.

flop (8sb): Js 5d 3c
checked to me, I bet, he x/r, folds to me, I call

A note about his range: I believe he can have any pair here. he probably won't have 66-AA cause those would have 3! pre flop.

turn (6 BB): Ah

he checks, I bet, he calls

river (8BB): 9c

he checks, I bet

I wouldn't have bet the turn.

If it were you v BB in a non-posting hand, the pot size is 4 BB after the flop c/r. Bluffing the turn (or betting turn to set up a river bluff) makes more sense because he's probably got one pair and very few draws, and could easily fold a small pair on the turn or river.

But here, with a 6 BB pot on the turn, he's going to call turn with all small pairs even if you expose an ace, and probably any non-KQT river too. You have probably on average 7-8 outs, I check turn and re-evaluate river, you're only losing value from like 64s.

As played ... eep. I think you may need to follow through just in case he does fold a small pair (like 43), but depending on wheher he thinks you raise QTo/KTo pre and bluff those, he may just mash call any pair. Keep in mind he may have hands as strong as A4 - ye olde "ace high whee c/r flop oh **** i made a hand, call down" line.

Agree with your post to the extent that 2 streets will likely be needed for this to work. I do think we have more than 8 outs on average. This guy donk checks a lot but I think he would still be betting KJ. A4 is a possibility, didnt think of that, but again he bets that too sometimes. A significant part of his range is 5's and 3's, 22, 44 (check the note on the flop) which I think we can take a shot at profitably with a discount from our outs.

I think it's a reasonable bluff, given your estimation of his range. NH, OP.

You think he can have any pair because that's how you would play... or some specific reason?

I think betting the turn is debatable, but following through on the river is at least consistent.

It's a read on him that I am moderately confident about.

Once you bet the turn, you're correct to keep telling the story on the river.

Don't you worry that he's donk checking turn with the intention of showing down his pair cheaply? He's afraid you have an A. He still wants to get to showdown. He decides he'd rather pay off when you bet twice, rather than having to face a raise and make a tough decision.

It also seems like the 9 is a total blank, so if he were showing down a safe card this would be one. Oddly, the exact cards that beat him are the ones he's afraid of, so your phantom outs are exactly your real ones.

Nice hand. Your range is way too strong not to try to bluff him here. If he has Jx he should always call but he can't call down all pairs profitably.

UTG is BTN-4 so OP has let's say 100 aces and jacks. If OP bluffs KQ KTs QTs (24), that's 4:1 to call down, ehich is what they're getting.

Plus hands like 54 snap call the turn because they picked up a straight draw, and they get 9:1 to pick off the river.

I think the extra 2 BB that BB and SB put in makes a difference.

i 3bet the flop and check the turn. =D BDSFD + 2 overs FTW

as played i would bet the turn very rarely.
as played i would not bet the river.

Im with the donkey. In other news, id plan to raise a lot of turns here.

our range is strong, but there are a few other combos of hands i would choose before KQs to bluff with. i prefer a check.

With respect... Like what? Q 10 suited? Our range is so strong on turn and we have one of the few combos that cannot beat bottom or middle pair. The question is if he will fold often enough, not if there are better hands in our range to do this with to make things perfectly GTO (and there are v few better hands in our range to do this with). This isn't high stakes with phil ivey where we are going to play a billion hands against him, its a live setting. I don't understand this misguided infatuation people seem to have with being perfectly balanced.

once he checks the turn, hell yeah. nh by betting both streets.

Anyone else just check the flop?

I think those who believe that QTs is a better bluff than KQ are wrong, K hi vs Qhi doesnt make much difference since we have almost zero sd value, but the extra equity when called does.

But the relevant question isn't GTO, it's whether we can convince a decent hand reader that our range is too strong for him to call. I agree with DD and others that it's +EV to take a shot and if he calls down thin make a note and adjust later.

I like the way you're thinking about this. Once you decided that he'd fold enough to make betting profitable, the only question should be "could calling down earn more than bluffing?" Because of your read, the answer is almost surely "no" so yeah go ahead and bluff.

I don't want to sound like a broken record but I don't think the note is going to be worth much because of the non-standard pot size.

I did a little calculation. On the river he has 78 combos of J+ and 66 that always call, and 72 combos of worse pairs that have a tough decision. We need 23% of those 72 combos to fold to have a +EV bluff. I think we'll have just about have that even in an inflated pot. The combos he should start folding are K5s,K3s,Q5s,Q3 which already make 16% of that.

it's plausible that i have a wider range of hands i open with that make it to the turn than you do. of those hands, i prefer to bluff with the very bottom of my range in this spot. this includes the following hands: T9, T9, T9, 66, Q9, Q9, Q9, K9, K9, K9. these hands would bet initially as a bluff and fold if k/r'ed.

i agree with you that the question is whether or not our opponent will fold often enough to make betting with KQs profitable. i think the answer to that is, "no." i'm almost certain villain never folds right away often enough to make betting immediately profitable. that puts us in a spot where, if we our hand doesn't improve, we're forced to bet the river 100% of the time in order to win the pot.

i like to put hands in my checking range that can't immediately bet for value, but can improve to a value bet or raise on the river. there are hands in our range still that rarely improve enough to safely bet the river for value. since these hands cannot be expected to improve to a value bet, they benefit more by getting our villain to fold. the bottom of our range doesn't benefit by checking since we have very little, if any, equity to realize, while the middle part of our range often benefits most by realizing it's equity. also, it's beneficial to have hands in our turn checking range that can raise the river for value when they improve, (in this case, i'd only be raising the river after improving to the nut straight).

i agree with you that there are many spots playing poker against humans where focusing solely on being perfectly balanced is unnecessary. this very well may be one of those spots, but how are we exploiting this villain by bluffing with this hand? OP hasn't posted a read of this villain that says something like, "turn donk checks are weak. villain is foldy after donk checking" or something similar. his read for the flop k/r is this, "I believe he can have any pair here. he probably won't have 66-AA cause those would have 3! pre flop." if this villain can't have AA or JJ in his range, then his turn donk check is never a screwplay. since we can eliminate AA and JJ, we can now be fairly certain he has a pair that intends to show down. as dougl pointed out, we don't have any phantom outs to bluff with on the river. all of the river cards that villain may fold his pair against are all of our actual outs. because of this, i feel like a two street bluff isn't going to work often enough and that makes me want to check back the turn.

You need 23% of 78+72 to fold, not 23% of 72.

I meant for the river bet alone...

what would your reasoning be for this?

We don't have anything, the J is the card most likely to have hit the other guys. I don't see a bet here as being standard, but then I don't play this big or in games where people post inbetween so there can be 3 blinds.

where ITT did anyone who's advocating a check on the turn suggest QTs is a better bluff than KQ? i would check QTs as well.