this guy was 85/34 called frm bb 80%, maybe min raises 3-4 times in whole match. I suspected spades, a set, overs, small 2 pair, and air, I think my raise on the turn made no sense, unless I can prove he has spades, not many drawing hands are calling besides the flush draw, so i think i should of flatted trn and river.

for got HH here it is..

call turn, call riv; as played, prolly have to call riv yeah

dont raise turn

Turn raise seems fine to me. Whole hand is wp imo.

you raising turn in practice or in theory spladle?

i'm assuming the answer to be both, so follow up: would you ever checkraise Tx here (or worse pairs)?

FIrst we need to know what kind of player we are playing post flop. If this guys is aggressive post flop I advocate 3 betting the flop and betting big on the turn. NOw if this guy never raises flops and is more passive I am just calling this flop and re evaluating the turn. Once he bets the turn you have to decide if this player is capable of raising and barreling with 10x here. If he is then I think its ok to raise the turn. If not and he more pot controls with top pair then id be more inclined calling the turn and reevaluating the river. It all depends how this player plays. You can't be result oriented and think you did something wrong just because he hit top pair on your over pair. You have to think about his hand ranges and if hes capable of raising with 10 here. Ya he had 2 5 and had you and the only way I would not reraise this flop or raise the turn is if this type of player didn't raise often and only did it with strong value hands. IF the guy has flush draw with overs its possible he could raise. I wouldn't even really worry about set of 10s here. So you have to worry about some weird 2 pair but a lot of pair with draws and in most situations id try to max my value if he is trying to draw by re raising.

Given description of opponent, I like a fold on every street a lot better than what you have done. Someone that limps nearly 80% isn't just gonna get out of line and bluff off a stack. When they raise, they have it, and this particular 2p is prolly in the absolute bottom of his range.

so fold pre, fold flop, fold turn and fold riv, that's what you're saying?

my guess is he had AT,A5,A2,45,A4 all thees in spades . gl

Absolutely, yes. Would never use villain's sizing, but I'd c/r Tx more often than not in addition to a few combos of 5x/2x.

And then just fold flop 50% of the time?

We can make a strong argument for folding on all of the first three streets (especially preflop--although in practice I'd just open to 20bb), but we can't fold anything on the river because we're committed.

I'm curious about how your strategy with top pair and middle/bottom pair would be different on Q52 and 832.

I don't understand why we are bloating the pot with such relatively weak hands. A lot of the time I hear you say stuff like "I don't want to get more than X% of my range all in by the river here, because the SPR is Y on the flop". When we are check/raising so frequently, aren't we going against that line of thought? I mean, we are building the pot greatly, and unless we plan to x/f a lot on later streets, we will indeed make X be big relative to Y.

If we're planning on raising the turn wouldn't it be better to just RR the flop?

haha fold happy I hope people use that strategy against me.

Yeah, folding 45-50% sounds about right facing a 2/3 pot bet on this flop.

The modifications are exactly what you'd expect - check-raise Q52 at a lower overall frequency with a range that has less top pair and more middle/bottom pair, check-raise 832 at a higher overall frequency with a range that has more top/middle pair and less bottom pair.

Why do you assume that raising necessarily "bloats" the pot? In fact, if our opponent folds immediately (as he often should), the pot will be smaller than if we had just called. And although you call them "relatively weak," they all have >50% equity against a reasonable continuing range. The sense in which they are actually "weak" is that they are quite vulnerable to a large number of semi-bluffs the SB can hold, which is an argument for raising and inducing folds from these hands rather than permitting them to either realize their equity or continue bluffing profitably.

No. Check-raising a hand does not commit you to stacking off with it. In fact, if we check-raise a 2.66bb flop bet (in a 4bb pot) to 7.5bb with 92.5bb stacks behind, it should be obvious that we ought not be stacking off with the vast majority of hands we're check-raising.

We shouldn't plan to x/f a lot on later streets (though we should plan to x/f some), but we should definitely be planning to x/c (and bet) a lot.

It's not clear to me what you mean by "make X be big relative to Y." As the SPR shrinks, the frequency with which we stack off should go up. In other words, as Y decreases, X should increase, and vice versa. There not be a fixed ratio between X and Y; the opposite is true.

Why does it sound about right? How do you come to the conclusion that it's ok for his very worst hand to win at least 0.35bb when betting flop? Do you think that is = the EV of checking back for say 93hh?

Animal spirits.

Well, I start by figuring out which hands I think the BB can profitably continue with when facing a bet. If after doing so it turns out that the SB wins at least .35bb when betting the flop, then that's how I came to the conclusion.

No, I would expect checking back to show a higher profit than that.

And how do you figure that out? (don't say animal spirits ^^)

*bangs head against wall*