Cepheus checks JT here between 24% and 87% depending on suits, so I think the burden is on you to explain why it wouldn't be a good candidate. Obviously this is a somewhat different situation (pot is 0.5 sb bigger, ranges are somewhat different), but I think an argument could be made that we should check even more than HU GTO since we have less 3x, 4x, Tx, 65, 76, 75 in our range. The flip side is we have less Qc4c trash as well.

Or are you making an exploitative argument that we should bet this hand 100% because our opponent will play more incorrectly against that frequency than lesser frequencies?

I think JT is too high in the value portion of our range to be used as a check back hand. I'd rather check back a weaker Tx hand.

No. I'm not making an argument for betting 100% because I think betting 100% is exploitable by a good opponent.

+1 Raise calling sux and raise folding sux even more. Raising for value is pretty thin IMO. We also open ourselves up to an exploitable b3b, unless of course villian takes spazzy lines often, in which case raise calling to induce the b3b bluff makes sense. Call > RC > RF.

huh, i'm pretty much never raising these kind of flops and peeling tons. and i just don't think i have all that many 3's or 4's. most likely wrong strategy b/c of the 2 spades, so will look back at it. fwiw, i think if the board's rainbow, i def think that never raising the flop is best.

i guess i could c/r any ace hi though, so feel like i can still have a lot of value hands. possibly a big leak i've had by always flatting. seems like all bluffs are gonna have to 3 barrel if turn's a spade and can shut down on a lot of hi card- board pairing rivers if not.

Are you suggesting that in villain's position you x/c the flop with your entire continuing range?

yeah i was, but see how it's not as good. rainbow though, yeah still never raising

makes playing the turn pretty easy for your opponents if they're good.

i'd expect them to play it the same way anyone else would play it by 2barreling 100%. (the rainbow one)

good players aren't going to 2barrel 100%.

if you x/c 100% of the time HU on dry flops you're going to be super easy for me to play against.

1. i can bet the flop with impunity (i never have to worry about you x/r'ing).

2. i'll just polarize my range on the turn and only bet the top and very bottom of my range which mitigates the extra value you're trying to get with the top of your range by delaying until the turn.

3. i'll b/3b the turn with a balanced range of the top of my range and occasionally some bluffs.

4. you'll miss all kinds of value from the middle of my range, which would normally bet vs. an opponent that has a flop x/r'ing range, because i'll just check these hands. i'll widen this range of hands to exploit your tendency to delay until the turn.

5. i get to realize the equity of a decent portion of my range that now checks the turn that would've b/f'ed the flop vs. an opponent that has a flop x/r'ing range.

yes, just calling the flop with 100% of the hands you continue with keeps your range wide, but it doesn't make you tough to play against.

i'd never c/ back this flop anyway, so betting with impunity is irrelevant
you c/ turn, i can realize my equity
you b/f flop? then, yes, against you, i would be c/r'ing flop

and it's not like you can't ever raise/bluff the turn or be calling me down with q hi when i'm constantly c/r'ing these flops.
either way, the only one that's ever going to be giving up information in these spots is you for the most part. even if it's very little. this should at least let me play rivers fairly decent.
just think in -ev spots like this, when most of my range doesn't have anything nor sdv, the best line to take is whatever allows my to realize my range's equity

How are you both ch/c'ing your whole range and constantly c/r'ing them?

shouldn't've said "constantly", but "reasonable amount". for me, yes, i've been c/c'ing my whole range and still c/c'ing whole range if rainbow.

Fwiw I did raise fold both. In retrospect I think the second hand a call would have been better. He claimed four queens but I didn't see his hand. No clue what the first guy had.

I don't see how raising hand 1 can ever be good vs. villain as described.

I don't see how calling hand 2 can ever be best vs. villain as described.

Weird.

I see both oppositely, per my post.

Good players will have a wide range of hands that we now beat on the river, playing 3 handed. We'll obviously lose some to monsters, but we'll get called down when good too.

Hand 2 - villain plays weirdly, kinda unknown....why not call with this holding?

When your opponent has a much stronger range than yours then you shouldn't be raising even the top of your range.

I wouldn't raise either river with those particular hands. However I do have a raising range in the second hand.

I have an aversion to raise folding value hands though. Perhaps vs players that never 3 bet bluff the river it can be a good exploit. However I don't have that read.

Wouldn't it be pretty safe to assume that someone never 3-bet bluffs a river until you actually see him do it? That seems awfully rare to me.

if you're raise folding the best hand in your range then you'll never know.

Hand 1 I just call the river. If he's the type to delay with his overpair/Tx hands then I think raise fold is fine.

Hand 2. Sounds like the ideal candidate to raise/snap call

grunch.

hand1: been over these looootttttttttsssssssss dd. if you can fold to the 3b, then r/f is by far the best. while both of your ranges are uncapped, i think you look stronger w/ the delay, then river raise and if he 3b there, he isn't expecting you to fold. so i'd r/f that one (and make a clear note to not do that again for a long time)

hand2: this is different, hand 1 is less likely that villain is bluffing. he almost surely has value and thus a solid chance of just calling the raise and seemingly can only 3bet w/ a good flush. here, this guy has "fits of lunacy" and can potentially 3b w/ worse so you can't nearly as easily fold to the raise. so i'd be much happier calling this river. while "fits of lunacy" could indicate an ability to 3b w/ whatever whenever, it seems those aren't standard. you've shown clear interest here and he'd have to go NUTSO to k/r a flush draw on the turn and then b/3b the river. that's straight bonkers and i think is unlikely. if you raise here you lose all bluffs from him (given flush draw on turn that could be quite a few which would drastically change the maths unless you're sure he would follow through a LOT w/ turning those into pure crazy bluffs) and there's not too much he can call with (counterfeited Ax two pair, though even maniacs might check that counterfeited hand. or maybe a low pair that had a flush draw and he calls some tiny % of the time w/ those outta curiosity alone). if he has you beat w/ a weak queen or the 'ol 32 from the bb then you're losing that extra bet every time.

so w/ hand 2 it comes down to how often unpredictable guy 3b bluffs. if it's tons then happily b/c. otherwise, i'd just call that bet down and keep all bluffs in his range and prevent getting taken advantage of.

seems like some good discussion going on, but wanted to see what you did first .

agree fully w/ r/f in hand 1. definitely disagree w/ r/f in hand 2 unless you can clarify how likely you think it is that he'd be tight enough to not 3b bluff. going off of your description as i did in my post, i immediately eliminated r/f b/c of how you noted that he can be straight bonkers. that means you can't nearly as confidently r/f as you could in hand 1. so can you clarify a bit more your logic behind the 2nd r/f?

i completely disagree and explain why in my post lol. i don't think i've 100% disagreed with you before? maybe, but not sure. this is 100% disagreement though

Just to clarify about hand 2, I mean just calling the river seems overly nitty to me. We just have more hands that we're ahead than in hand 1.

It's ok if we disagree. Just means you can think for yourself.