Villain is way better than avg 100nl reg. It would be very reasonable for him to play 67, 78, 79, T7, J7 this way, but I hold the 7.

Think this is a spot where your whole range plays better with a small bet, its really hard for u to have air and the times you do have air betting this size on this board is way overkill.

think villain has a really easy fold with almost any hand, considering the odds he is getting and its really hard for u to come up with bluff combos he can comfortably fold almost everything.

in this spot i think a small bet(under half pot) puts his range in a tougher spot, you give him a good price and your bluffs get a good price, plus it enables you to go wider for value against a capped range without fear of getting chk raised bluffed much too.

Fairly confident that I should have a shoving-range here. I'm however interested in if it should include 87 with 7, since I pretty much blocks his entire check/shoving value range, and he will have no hands that holds 7 that is not a flush (i.e. if he check/shoves I know he is bluffing). It is definitely a tradeoff here, since shoving 8x7s here will allow you to bluffshove more, but it would also work insanely well as a bluffcatcher vs his check/shoves, if you put it in your non-all-in betting range.

In practice, it may work out well to never shove, and in practice he is probably never check/shoving this river as a bluff. He is probably not trusting that some 100nl player is capped at a straight when making a non-all-in bet here. But I'm mostly interested in the theory aspect of this hand.

Fold pre, bet ~$25 on the river. Don't think overbetting here is best, though I understand the argument in favor of it.

Do you think there exists even better arguments for another play than shoving, or are you just betting 25$ here as an exploit of the player pool? Or do you understand the argument, but think it's something wrong with it? Or do you think villain should play in such a way to make the argument no longer applicable to this spesific situation?

I think villain should be capable of showing up with flushes in this spot, but even if he isn't and you hold the effective nuts, over-bet shoving with the nuts is only sensible if the only hands you want to value-bet are the effective nuts. If you would like to be able to bet weaker hands for value, you must choose a smaller sizing.

You just use >1 betsizes?

If you're jamming this, what hands would you choose the smaller sizing with, and why?

3x and non-7 8x.

Thereby capping your range with the smaller sizing and potentially creating the same situation for yourself that you believe villain finds himself in now?

It would create a situation where both players are quite capped. It might be true that I should add some hands to uncap me (or hands that are good bluffcatchers if he shoves). I touched on this slightly in post #3.

Why?

I think there are better hands to bluff with in this spot. /nitrant

Lets say that there exists a gto optimal shoving range in this spot. I would guess its most likely tiny. Why? Because a gto shove would make villain indifferent to folding or calling and there's just not many hands that hit that threshold when you're overbetting this big.

As an aside, I don't get why you are so focused on the 7 in this hand. It blocks part of his flush range but certainly not all of it, right? Can't he have Ax of spades? Or 89 to QJ?

Easily. OTT he can have A3 for double gutter+FD+Overcard, A2, A4, 98, maybe 43 and few other flushes are possible somewhat.

[ ] 100nl river spot vs capped range

So, it makes it a suboptimal shove IMO. I'd lean towards liking this shove if stacks were shorter in theory OTR, thus allowing us to 1.5x-2x river-shove.

P.S. If he could have a wide 3betting range, which includes all pocket pairs with a high frequency (you were not being nitty with 4bets for example) I'd like your line more, but 3x is overkill.

I think either betting smalker w entire betting range is best here but using > 1 bet size would likely be ok, if you could keep it straight.

If we use small sizing here ever, then this ought to ge small sized bet.

I think villain has weak range and our range doesnt seem so strong either.

Id bet small hoping he either spazzed out with air because our range looks capped and ge has no showdown value, or get called by some weak bluff catcher that would've folded to larger sizing.

I believe we ought to save the big bets for situations where our range is polarized and villain reps some sort of bluff catcher.

what are your bluffs for this sizing
what worse hands are supposed to call here
[ ] capped range

these questions are not sarcastic btw

People who use checkboxes don't deserve civil responses.

[ ] People who use checkboxes deserve civil responses.

A+

Lol..??! You post a hand (that almost everyone thinks was misplayed) asking for advice and I try contribute (clarifying my response was genuine and not sarcasm etc too to be extra clear. Harden up if check boxes offend you

Checkboxes aren't offensive, but they are obnoxious and belong in BBV. PD's was a lot worse, but he's ****ing hopeless.

More to the point, the thread was bumped during the rampage of an attention-seeking monkey. The hand was posted in April 2014, and it's now March 2015. In general, when you respond to somewhat old threads, you shouldn't do so as if they were posted yesterday. The OP might have improved (he certainly has in this case) and he might not have the same leaks and weaknesses he had then, so your criticism might be out-of-date (leaving aside whether it's correct or not).

Ah ya I missed the post date or maybe I saw it and was used to 2014, also check boxes can be funny imo (not that the one I used was)

awful