Ok, i'm on board.

i might have slightly different default assumptions than you (And i certainly do at highstakes) so i am more inclined to call. but im doing the exact same calc and i think the decision is close so in principle we are in complete agreement

part b) and part d) of Sauce's post is going to apply heavily to Villain's turn action here and maybe partially part a). Not to mention the fact that he can have worse for value like possibly KJ/KT (yes retarded regs do 3bet hands like this) or just being retarded with JJ-QQ. We easily have over 50% here.

he has something or he doesnt

We need some more information to say for sure, but long story short it's pretty unlikely he's bluffing here, especially on a turn card where most of your range is fairly OK with calling again and making a river decision.

Villain would only check-raise (assuming he's logical, which doesn't always work!) if he believes you're bet/folding Kx, which he likely does not, or that you're calling flop with and now betting a lot of weaker made hands and ace highs. All of that seems far fetched from me, but I would likely make the decision on the turn to check back or to bet/call. There are definitely spots and players in NLHE where a player's check-call range when you're value betting warrants that you value bet this type of hand and his check-raising range warrants you fold. That said, those situations are fairly rare and against generally weaker players.

On euro sites which this appears to be I see people taking this line with turned flush draws maybe even more often than they just barrel off, at least at 200nl, so I think I disagree that we never have close to the correct equity

lol @ this thread.

snap-shrug-call.

It has been debated what sort of bluffs he could c/r turn with but not much mention has been given to how likely villain is to c/r his value hands.

In my experience most players are just bet/bet/betting their value hands in this spot as opposed to c/r with them on the turn. We need to assume he's c/r the majority of his value hands here (or almost no bluffs) if we think we have less than 40% equity.

look dude it's f'ing simple - if you call a 3bet w/ KQo w/ no history/meta (mistake, imo), then from a pure line standpoint it makes absolutely zero sense to b/f TPGK here. Forget math and everything, if you call the 3bet and bet the turn, you are not folding. If you don't think you can profitably call a raise ott, then you shoulda thought about that before betting and instead have checked back.

and no, Jason, the post angeles made is 100% accurate, think about why.

you = not just JOS but anyone thinking about playing this hand in the way JOS has suggested.

assuming the bb actually has $1 how come a single person hasn't commented on the fact that both our perceived range and sbs range is surely going to be tighter?

Rant to follow!


No, no, no. If he CR value hands with any freq over zero, then we may or may not have 40% equity here. Say he C/R a set 1/1000th of the time and CR a FD 1/10000th of the time. Do we call because he "doesn't checkraise the majority of his value hands"?

No. Play each hand for its highest EV. If that is bet/folding, then bet/fold.

As a matter of optimal play, it's frequently correct to bet/fold the very bottom of a value betting range even if that range is polarized as it would be in this case. So, if the worst hand we vbet turn with is KQ, it might very well be at least near-optimal to bet/fold it.

No. Say I decide to change my strategy by subtracting 1$ from all my bets. Now you play drastically different against me. I win.

I'm probably missing something but if the BB has $1 (I guess that's a lot different to if he had $12 since we can still try make the SB fold and win $1 and get good pot odds ($1 to win $3) for the rest of the pot in this case) don't ranges change a little?

Or just so I can confirm my sanity, if the BB has $20 then SB would 3b a significantly tighter (or at least less hands like SCs that don't have good equity vs a super wide range - i.e. the BBs likely all-in range) range? Maybe a wider merged range though idk.

if villain changes his betsizing by .25%, you probably don't have to make a very large adjustment .

Lol I'm probably just misunderstanding an analogy but how is this about bet sizing?

Looks like ak/aa see it all the to e at 400nl if he picked up equity think he just barrels again tbh. I don't like folding though so in game I flick it In but its alOt closer than its being made out Itt

eh nobody itt say they've just won the jackpot. They are never folding though