Temporarily 5 handed.

A bad, loose reg open limps in the CO, Good Lag/Tag raises on the button, I call in BB with T8o, Co calls.

Jd9cJs...It's checked to the Button who bets, I raise, CO folds, button calls

Jd9cJsKs...I bet, button calls.

Jd9cJsKs4h....I check.

Is the CR on the flop correct?

Is giving up on the river correct?

In my opinion, if the flop raise is a mistake, it's a small mistake at worst - you're not going to be happy if you get 3! but even if you do you have equity.

Also, if you raise the flop, IMHO you have to do so with the full intention of bet/calling the turn unimproved, and if you don't get raised on the turn, bet/folding the river unimproved. There are a lot of worse non-pair hands that might fold the river, and if you're lucky you just might get him to fold 22, 33, 55, 66, 77, 88 et al.

Do what I SAY - not what I DO - when you're heads up, plan ahead a few permutations so that you're not in a "oh crap I'm out of position on the river with a busted draw, NOW what do I do??" situation .

You can't just barrel off every draw, especially 3-way. Your opponents won't collectively fold enough.

When the king hits, AK/AQ/AT aren't folding.

Well, it is heads up on the turn. Also, I think no pair (AT, AQ) is folding the river a lot - meaning, if you c/r the flop, you are pretty much required to bet this turn.

How do you play 87 on the flop?

Do you think that you need to bluff the river to get action on your strong hands?

I brought this hand up because I feel like I don't get folds like I used to. Lag/Tag's especially are just not folding the hands I'm targeting. Maybe I should limit my bluffs to just the bottom of my range. Maybe it would be better to delay my bluffs to the turn.

I don't do anything intentionally to create action or to construct a balanced range. I think balance in live mid limit to lower limit games is overrated and over emphasized. Players are just not paying attention or not properly using the information.

I feel that people, especially tougher players, call down way more than they used to. Not just against me. I'm starting to play more straightforward and I think I am saving a lot of bets but still getting called down with my legit hands. I'll continue to attack those who fold too much.

Well out of position river bluffs are 0ev in equilibrium and are used to increase the value of strong hands. If you get action on strong hands anyways then river check is fine.

i think your line is fine if you continue and bet the river.

I would not c/r flop, but if I did, I would not give up on this river.

Yes, it is hard to win with Ten high and he folds river enough (like 1 in 7) that river is worth betting. Hard for him to call with ace high here.

I understand the desire to play logical poker(following through with the river bet is the logical line), but seems like maybe you guys are more concerned with winning the pot than winning money.

If this is true (actually 1 in 8 but who's counting?) then betting the river has exactly the same ev as checking, zero.

If there's no benefit to the value range, which mongidig confirms here:

Then betting the river is unnecessary and checking may actually save a fraction of a bet on the river(which would be true if they call more than 1/8).

If betting makes your opponent fold a better hand, then how is it exactly the same EV as checking? Is there a hidden assumption somewhere?

If the guy calls 7/8 times, then the bluff is 0ev(edit: more specifically if he folds 1/8 times). Checking is always greater than or equal to 0ev. We need the opponent to fold greater than 1/8 times to show a profit. At game speed mongidig decided that this was not going to happen and I think that's fine.

So the hidden assumption is that your opponent is going to call with perfect frequency?

No, the point is that IF he folds less than 1/8 times, the bluff is unprofitable.

This is where "GTO" and Nash Equilibria come into play.

The way to do this analysis is not to start with what people do do, but what they should do. For this river, calculate what percentage of hands should be value bet, what percentage should be bluffed, what percentage should be called, and what percentage should be folded. Then, repeat for every possible river and take a weighted average of all outcomes to calculate what should be done on the turn. And then the flop. And then preflop. This is what the bots do.

In reality, people don't play what they should. And the direction of their change dictates the direction of your adjustment - e.g., if they call too much, then you value bet more and bluff less. But the magnitude of the change is super hard to figure out, because it's not in equilibrium.

Now flip it around. In an exploitative environment neither player is at equilibrium. You can say that a non-equilibrium value bet with no bluffs is worth E{VB}, and that by adding a certain level of bluffs it is now worth E{VB+B} = E'{VB} + E{B} - and calculate the difference between E{VB} and E{VB+B}. But the more apt comparison is E{Nash Equilibrium} and E{VB+B}, because it includes a baseline level of bluffs (otherwise you're comparing to a fictional universe where you never bluff, and even the worst poker player knows that's not true).

I would agree 100% if this was a flop or turn discussion. However, on the river the correct adjustment vs a player that calls too much is to never bluff; if they call too much, then bluffing will have a negative long term expectation no matter if better hands fold or not.

If they call too much on the river, the former will have a higher expectation, while the latter will include negative expectation bluffs.

This is what I was getting at earlier. Out of position bluffs are 0ev on the river in equilibrium. Vs a non adjusting equilibrium opponent, we could literally never bluff the river in mongidig's shoes and we wouldn't lose one bit of expectation.

However, it is true that vs adjusting opponents, we may lose some expectation if they start folding more, but that's not the state of affairs that mongidig has presented to us.

+1

If you are the villain here don't you think my river betting range is polarized? What am I betting for value that isn't at minimum a K? I realize that I don't have a ton of missed bluffs on this river, but I think there is enough reason for the button to call if he made it to the river with AQ or AT.

I think just check/calling this flop might be the best play. Tough players are tough because they are stubborn and because they are capable of rebluffing. They also don't miss an opportunity to pound with their value hands. There is also a third player still in the hand. It's tougher to bluff two players. why not keep the extra customer in for when I hit my hand. I may also have the opportunity to bluff later in the hand.

Acknowledging the pot size error as incidental, the point is to reaffirm the ideas that were already stated? I'm not really following your line of reasoning.

It's simple pot odds stuff that I don't really feel like explaining.

I suggest you reread this over and over until you get it. It's not some revolutionary shiny new concept that I'm presenting. It's really basic ****.

Sorry for killing the thread. The ideas I have presented are in no way proof that checking is correct here. That’s for you guys to decide based on the facts. For the situation as described by mongidig we have two options to choose from:

Bluff the river: this ev is undefined yet.

Check fold the river: this has ev of zero.

I choose the guaranteed zero ev line because of mongidigs reads. However without those reads I would bluff the river.

If you guys want to bluff the river because you don’t think the read is good enough, that’s fine with me.

If you guys want to bluff the river because you think it’s profitable, I think you have some studying to do.

If you guys want to bluff the river because it’s the only way to win the hand, I think there’s a problem with the thought process.

folding has an ev of zero. check folding isn't the same thing and might not have an EV of zero.

I would check this turn broadly and consider raising if button bets.