I raise on the button with A7o, small blind folds, big blind calls.

J45r

Big blind checks, I bet, big blind check raises, and I?

How profitable do you think calling is?

Let’s assume I call.

Turn 4o

Big blind bets.

How profitable do you think calling is?

Let’s assume I call.

River Ko

Big blind bets.

How profitable do you think calling is?

I ask because I’ve been thinking about how to play bluffcatchers on future streets when faced with a close decision. Seems to me that the profitability of the bluffcatcher isn’t neutral as some may believe. I think the profitability of the bluffcatcher will decrease as this hand progresses. Does this imply that any hand that can profitably call the turn, and can beat a bluff on the river, should be a call on the river?

Do you call with KQo on the turn here?

I mean, what do you mean, Bob? You are talking about exploitive poker or theory one? We must know something about the opponent or at least default strategy at the level (people copy one another... i call it monkey equilibrium). If the latter you read MoP from top to bottom.
What happened? you sick and tired of calling down with Ax just to watch J10?

I would personally call turn with KQo.

*Flop*
Calling flop in my opinion is at worst neatural EV. I suspect +EV considering straight redraw to the nuts.

*Turn*
Calling turn is still neatural EV here since MOST flip c/r by villain should bet a blank turn.

If anything, I suspect our EV went up on turn in what is essentially a blank turn especially if villain c/r flop with pair and straight draw type hand sans 4x

*River*
Our EV theoretically got worse but would Kx really have c/r flop and bet down as default majority of the time as BB villain?

My general read is they wont so I think based on size of the pot, Ahi in which kicker plays is a must call on river.

NOTE: I'm bad at poker math and too lazy to Stove or Equilab this although it seems fun

Let's pretend that the big blind is a strong limit holdem player.

I agree, naturally, which is why I chose this hand for the example.
What if the big blind correctly drops the weaker pairs and draws from the turn betting range?
The King is pretty much a blank here, which is why I chose that river card. It causes the river betting range to be polarized to (monsters) and (busted draws).

That's fine. I'm doing this in an attempt to get better at estimating bluffcatching ev without tools.

https://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/5...+fold+the+turn

some good bluffcatching discussion here with DeathDonkey imo. Been mulling this topic over and over in my head ever since this talk.

The main theme I'm trying to present is this:

If I think I have a close decision on the flop, and the turn does not help me in any way, then I think this makes the turn a clear fold.

This theme also extends to the turn: if I think I have a close decision on the turn, and the river does not help me in any way, then I think this makes the river a clear fold.

This is contrary to the (imo overused) statement that gets thrown around "if you call the x you have to call the y."

What is your button opening range? That matters.

I suspect having the 7 in our hand is good for calling the flop raise but not so great for calling down.

22+, A2s+, A2o+, K2s+, K8o+, Q2s+, Q9o+, J7s+, J8o+, T7s+, T8o+, 96s+, 97o+, 86s+, 87o, 75s+, 76o, 64s+, 54s, 43s.

In that case you had a big problem as soon as the BB called. I'd check back the flop.

I like 'monkey equilibrium', btw, that's a nice one.

Howard, what kind of range do you give the big blind here preflop?

The kind that beats the huge range that you posted. I don't think that I'm being nitty when I say to check back the flop v. that type of player and if you always bet the flop you're exploitable. As for having a bluff-catcher, well, BB's not bluffing most of the time esp at small stakes.

Ok if that's true then I agree check flop. However I think that correct big blind calling ranges should be wider than the opening raise range.

As long as it's not ridiculous. One of the problems is that a strong player will c/r any non-Ace flop w/ a single over card on the board and then we are wondering if we have a bluff-catcher. It's worse in it's way v. a player who will call w/ trash and then we have zero idea what's going on.

There's no shame in giving the hand up when we should. We take our swing and we miss. It's going to happen again in a few minutes and if we keep on swinging at them all the manager's going to have a talk w/ us.

I haven’t played live in years.

I think this discussion is headed in the wrong direction, in the sense that it's starting with preflop and moving to the river, the way we'd analyze a typical hand - but the question posed is the multistreet considerations of a flop call.

To answer that question, analysis should start on the river. What hands does Villain 3-barrel? Which river cards do we call? What hands would Villain have checked? Which river cards would we bluff if checked to?

Then, it moves backwards - given the answers on the river, and what hand Villain 2-barrels, which turn cards do we call? What hands would Villain have checked? Which turn cards would we bluff if checked to?

Then you can take those and answer for the flop call.

I agree but how do you know what bands you could have on the river, or what hands villain could have on the river, without knowing what you open and what villain defends. Not trying to be argumentative but game tree starts preflight imo. I do agree flop decision is interesting.

Do you ever check back good hands here? Do you bluff any hands here?

Since giving free cards is a horror I rarely check back if I've hit. And ofc I c-bet w/e the flop is very often but it's certainly not automatic.

I think that’s a fine exploit for live poker Howard.

Thanks for this but am I wrong to think WTSD% > W$@SD?

Very general thought process but my biggest leak 3nax as a prop on Cereus was my low WTSD%.

My conclusion was that my WTSD% was too low but this was about 10+ years ago and my ability to self analyze myself via PokerTracker, Stove, HUD, or game theory never got anywhere near DonJuan, Unguarded, OnTheRail15, Ninawilliams, etc where I can comfortably beat LHE 4+ tabling including HUHU.

Quoting expert DonJuan in completely different scenario via "Tough spor vs. super wide range on river" thread in Mid-High Stakes Limit.

Even if not remotely applicable, shouldn't the best mix strategy call the TURN high probability over folding?

I had a longer answer, but I've decided to just give a short answer. It seems to me that "does not help me in any way" is doing all of the heavy lifting for you.

Put very simply, on both the flop and the turn, it's possible to classify the next street as being either "good" cards and "bad" cards. The "good" cards are the cards that will allow you to continue with your hand and the "bad" cards are the ones that will lead you to fold.

When you make your decision, you're weighing the balance of EVs for all those possible situations. On the next street, you're looking at the EV of the specific situation that you are in. So it seems it would be uncontroversial that if your first decision is close, that if one of the "bad" cards falls on the next street (that is, a card that "does not help [you] in any way") then you should fold. Not only is it a "bad" card, but based on the wording you've provided (not a help in *any* way), it seems to suggest that it is among the worst of the "bad" cards.

I don't know what you think this statement means or how you think it's used, so an example to provide context would be helpful.