GG Poker - $0.05 NL FAST (6 max) - Holdem - 6 players
Hand converted by PokerTracker 4: http://www.pokertracker.com

BTN: 99.8 BB
SB: 110.4 BB
BB: 100 BB
Hero (UTG): 254.8 BB
MP: 113.6 BB
CO: 244.4 BB

SB posts SB 0.4 BB, BB posts BB 1 BB

Pre Flop: (pot: 1.4 BB) Hero has 4h 4s
Hero raises to 2.4 BB, MP calls 2.4 BB, fold, fold, fold, fold

Flop : (6.2 BB, 2 players) 5s 3d 7s
Hero checks, MP bets 3.4 BB, Hero calls 3.4 BB

Turn : (13 BB, 2 players) 8s
Hero checks, MP bets 15 BB, Hero calls 15 BB

River : (43 BB, 2 players) 8d
Hero checks, MP bets 92.8 BB and is all-in, fold

MP wins 39.6 BB

OTR I decided to fold a combo which I though probably just had to call in theory. Like I just don't have so many better hands here. I will range check the flop but am probably xr OP's too often. One thing I noticed is that the solver's xr strategy UTG vs BTN is to xr 7s AA/KK/QQ and call most other OP's. Im probably doing quite close to the opposite. (calling 77 AA and 3-betting others 50% in game). This isn't really a spot I've studied and no sims for UTG vs HJ on wizard. OTT I thought I would have to float AK/AQ/AJ with a spade ( not AJ with J of spades). OTR I think I have very few houses dew to 78,33 and 55 being low frequency opens, some flushes no 8x and basically no board pairing which made me think 44 was probably a call given that I unblock all of his A10/AJ/AQo with the As but I figured it very close and just figured his sizings would be underbluffed. Winning about 3.5 BBs UTG vs BTN but I don't know about UTG vs HJ

I am far from a theory expert but I am fairly certain there is never a spot where a PP below 3rd pair on a 3-flush paired board is a mandatory call vs a bet/pot/2x pot shove line. Folding the turn here is fine given how bad your outs are.

Also 44 can just be a fold pre UTG, although I think GTO will mix it in at some small % for board coverage.

Agreed.

I mean it's very close. Solver gives it as winning 3.5BBs UTG vs BTN as said. Overpairs and 4s are basically the same hand here and 4s has better blockers. I think if I want to maintain MDF I have to call. Villain's sizings just aren't really a thing in theory so I was quite confident he was going to be value heavy here. I am worried that I'm folding 100% of my range here though by that logic. Honestly the main reason I folded was that it was like 12.58 and I was ending the session at 1. Used whole timebank and didn't end up mixing. (Maybe I should mix like 40% calls here to remain unexploitable but my decision to fold was basically read based so maybe overfolding fine although I have no idea what confidence I would gain based off of the sizing tells). Some mental game things going on with me after taking a month break from playing to study poker and maybe my fear of losing overruled making the correct theoretical decision although I'm certainly not convinced it's a mistake either. Still the reason for it not being a mistake must be exploitatively based because I would be quite confident it at least mixes calls in theory

No 5NL player is going to be paying attention enough, or having a big enough sample to know if you're folding 20% of your range, 40% or any freaking amount in that spot. Just make the highest EV play.

That's not how I play poker. I want to play theoretically sound unless I have a concrete read that a deviation is bother more profitable and justifiable based on risk-reward metrics. I also don't think it's obvious what the highest EV line is in this spot. I think his sizing's should be the main topic of discussion not whether overfolding is a good thing which is not at all specific to my situation.

It's going to be difficult to build a roll this way. I get wanting to play theoretically correct if you were playing high stakes pros, but is that your goal? Few people actually get to this level.

Yes, there's a very clear highest EV play on the turn, it's fold.

That's definitely my goal. Turn fold seems fine for sure but i can basically never be dead. He can't have a spade and a pair so I can't imagine calling is a mistake although folding likely to be a slightly higher EV play. Would still like to mix a small amount of calls with 4s with a spade.

You're just speculating random possibilities

What am I meant to do? Speculate non-random possibilities? Speculate random certainties?

And if the river comes a 4th spade and he shoves or bets pot, you were calling? Did you decide what sizing you were OK w/ calling? Because this is where theory breaks down. If your opponent doesn't bet an indifferent bet sizing on the river when the 4th spade hits, do you understand your indifferent calling/folding range? In theory if your opponent doesn't make the right bet sizing, you should be able to exploit them.

If 4th spade comes villain will need to turn 2pair+ into a bluff IP, so I'm perfectly fine folding to any size on a spade river. I am actually very well protected on spade so I don't have to worry about overfolding either

As far as my understanding of theory goes my indifference isn't depending on his sizing but rather his range construction. He could build a range around any sizing which I am technically "indifferent against" Rather him choosing the incorrect sizing will simply increase my EV naturally by allowing me to seize a greater percentage of the pot when I have the nutted region of my range and when he checks back. I won't need to alter my strategy dependingly. As long as I meet MDF and play a balanced jamming range I will maximise my EV against him.

He can turn one pair hands, like 7x/5x into a bluff, or if he has any random hands he decided to use the board and position to bluff with. So if you aren't concerned w/ spade bluffs, what card were you hoping for, because a 4 isn't even ideal for you, and 6 isn't amazing either.

His sizing, will directly relate to YOUR calling range.

I would be reasonably confident that he doesn't OB turn with 5x or 7x. I wouldn't say that there are any good rivers for me. But the EV of calling isn't centred around hitting my outs. I expect to win when villain checks back river and can bluffcatch on certain rivers too. If I hit a 4/6 I can profitably call any reasonable river bet. We would never call with marginal hands based on the logic that we need to be nutted on the river to generate EV. His sizing is a function of the SPR and the amount of nutted hands in my range. Not dependent on the specifics of my range at all really.

7x, not too often, but 5x, yes. You're OOP, so getting to SD is greatly diminished for you. So you were calling the turn, hoping that after your opponent bet two streets and OB turn, they were checking back the river. Ok.

I think flop is basically going to be bet with range. His sizing is definitely suspicious and definitely a solid reason to fold 4s OTT and it was basically the reason I folded in game. OTT again sizing is strange. It's not so much of a thing to OB on flush completing turns as far as I know. One possible read is that his 15BB was likely manually selected which IMO would be a subconscious method to deter suspicion however don't know if this is more likely a sign of strength or weakness, given that he's big bet a board which he's not meant to it's probably strength which is why I agree that this is a turn fold but not because I'm "hoping they were checking back river". I don't like the term "hoping" in poker. Seems like it would be a very unhealthy mindset to adopt when trying to accurately calculate EV's

On average players who don't know how to bet size properly size their bets relative to their hand strength while using middling sizes like 1/2 pot with bluffs, which is even more reason to just chuck this hand in the trash.

Don't think that's an automatic range bet, UTG vs MP. If you flipped this hand and you were IP, you'd have a better argument for calling the turn, as the EV gap greatly narrows in that case.

I don't think it's meant to be a range bet but it's at the very least overstabbed in practise. OOP tends to over-cbet these boards at these stakes so somebody who plays flatting as part of their strategy is likely going to notice that c-betting will overperform and hence will favour it either consciously or subconsciously. I agree 4s is more of a call if roles were reversed but I don't think itsnclearly not here ( at least not if we assume villain is playing well)

Unfortunately this whole thought process is incorrect. You are trying to play GTO against a very likely fish. Players that cold call in the HJ/CO have a high likelihood of being recreationals.

Watch this video.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ukb4jIFk0cE

Yeah I've seen it but I dont think the line is particularly recy. I would say he's more likely to be a weak reg based on flop and turn sizings. But he could also be a very strong exploitative player IMO. Are fish OB jamming turn and river? Maybe?

Why not speculate why you are the only one defending your line here?

I'm not really defending the line. I'm defending my logic of being rigorous and not just folding because it looks scary. I do believe we can exploitatively deviate based on numerous tells but that wasn't the reasoning people were given. People were just saying overfold full stop because nobody is going to exploit you anyway which is not a mindset i plan on endorsing anytime soon