Villain (BTN): late 30s black man ($550)
Hero (CO): mid 20s asian reg ($350)

Hero opens $10 with T9 in the CO. Villain who is a loose and splashy semi-reg flats on the BTN and the blinds fold.

Flop: A98 ($23)

Hero checks. Villains bet $6 (lol). Hero calls.

Turn: 6 ($32)

Hero checks. Villain bets $12. At this point I figure villain's probably got a weak ace. Very likely to be capped with that sizing on that wet turn but my showdown value is kinda bad now. I have fold equity and will realize the equity of my hand almost always if called since I don't see him ever coming over the top. I also set up a big pot if I hit so I raise to $55. He thinks for a bit and calls.

River: Q ($140)

Not too worried about higher flushes. Hero has about 2x pot behind and shoves. Reasoning is if I bet a "normal" amount like $100 he's not necessarily calling me that often anyways. Lots of draws got there and he's very likely to have (asides from AQ) a weak one pair hand. But if I shove, the times I do get called (discounted a bit by the small handful of higher flushes he can have, really just KJ, K8, J8 and J7 if he even flats the latter three) I get paid off huge. And I'm thinking if he calls $100 1/2 of the time and a shove 1/3 of the time (let's just assume I have the nuts to keep the math simple, it's probably close), it's way more +EV to shove. Comes with the added bonus of making me look like a crazy guy.

Thoughts on logic and how I played the hand overall? This is something new I'm trying.

Also, would you bluff a blank river like say a 3?

I don't think V is the type to call an overbet, judging by his bet sizing on the first 2 streets.
I'm cool with the overbet sometimes, but not sure it should be against this player (although you may have more info about him that you're not sharing?).

If you think you can get paid off, do it, obviously. But I don't think you're getting a call as often as you'd like, and betting 100 might be more profitable in this spot.

Well one detail about villain I forgot to include is that he seems to be one of those big ego type players that hate getting pushed around, which although wasn't the main reason I shoved definitely made that decision easier.

The success of overbets is very villain dependant IMO. Its hard to give a general advice, and the only intelligent answer I can offer is to do it if you think its a profitable move (which is a bit of an obvious advice, granted)

That being said, I'd do it against someone who I think has a bigger hand than just top pair so that its easier for him to pay. Unless there was some sort of history and metagame in place, which doesnt seem to be the case here.

Good shove. V's range is fairly inelastic here.

No bluff on a blank, I think. V's range remains too elastic, it looks like exactly what it is, you have some SDV (not much), and you have very little FE (more because you bluff raised turn, but he did call. I just think you get a crying call too much on a blank).

V called a relatively big raise on the turn, so I like the shove and think there's a decent chance he pays you off. And also agree that your flush should be good enough of the time to make this profitable. Though, when he also has runner runner flush, this sucks! But there are not a lot of combos that make sense for him.
Given that he called a solid turn raise, bluffing river probably isn't the right play.
I don't know if I like the turn raise. You get a chance to see the river very cheaply. So much depends on how much FE you have with this semi bluff, and with player profile given, you don't have as much as you may have thought.
Turn gave you a lot of outs, but I'd probably flat his small turn bet, then try to extract on river. It's nice that pot is now bigger and you can go for more value on river. But so often we miss river, and then it's not a great spot to bluff.

I love the way you played the hand.

I love the check raise on the turn. I am surprised that it did not take down the pot on the spot.. His call indicated he is WAY stronger than his $6 and $12 bet represents. That sets us up for a big overbet when we hit gin on the river.

As far as bluffing goes, once he calls your super strong check raise on the turn, I don't see him folding to our bluffs nearly often enough to make it worthwhile.

Well played. I think you maximized the FE (even though it didn't work), and then are maximizing equity by bombing the river.

OK thanks guys. My original assumption was that villains don't really like calling all the way down when they are capped and that tripling/bombing rivers into capped ranges is very very +EV but I will re-evaluate that assumption now.

I'm always amazed by how many players bet small with weak 1-pair hands but then elect to call off their stacks with them. To be honest, I found this out trying to get folds from these idiots! Raising and over betting for value on the other hand seems like a really neat idea

How is V capped here? How is he inelastic? I cannot connect the dots on these assumptions when this guy has half the deck PF and stI'll most of that betting flop at that size. I also think that losing initiative is generally awful with your CO opens vs this guy. This flop in particular does so well as a bet for this street as well as opening up options on the turn. I know that cbetting here is likely your default line, and you're exploring alternatives, but IMHO there are too many 'less' +EV outcomes when you Ck twice.

AP, I would just Pot River to target more frequent calls with his Ax hands and nearly all calls from >86 and JT.

AP, when you miss your nutty rivers, you don't have to lol balance here and have some ok SDV against this FISHHHH. So you can mostly ck and maybe call a small bet - but he should Ck back a LOT. OR block bet super small since he just cannot ever raise a 3h when he get to the river this way... You're losing the bet a bunch, but it's going to always be better than a hero shove against a guy you think is calling weak aces on the board to begin with.

A backdoor flush is almost always a situation which makes the V's range inelastic especially when he calls the big raise OTT. He either thinks you have the flush or he doesn't, and size of the bet is unlikely to change his mind.

No. This is common misconception. Even if you are certain you are facing an inelastic range, calls will begin to approach zero pretty proportionately to your bet sizing once you pass a reasonable threshold. Im not going to go down the infinite stacks BS path given its not applicable in practice, but when you start 2x, 3x potting the calls begin to drop off dramatically.

Perhaps 2x can fall in that near 100% calling range here, but I've found even the biggest stations with dreamy inelastic ranges find more folds in practice when bombs start dropping.

Grunch

I lead this flop. We're HU with a board that matches our perceived range. If I did check the flop, I don't think I'd be able to resist a ch/raise on that bet size. That just screams weakness to me.

AP, I like the turn ch/raise. With the draws you don't hate a check back and you've got equity if called.

When you get there on the river, I don't like the overbet shove. The flush draw is in his capped range and that's calling you. All the other weak hands are folding unless V decides that "ch/raise turn, shove river" is a bluffing line. I don't think many LLSNL V's think that way. Obviously LLSNL V's sometimes stack off weak, but not usually for 2x overbets after a ch/raise IMO.

I think the overbet shove on a blank river is probably great. What could he possibly have that didn't raise the turn but can call the shove? In theory, to balance that you should overbet shove with some huge hands, but that's not vital at low limits and I'd rather do it with the nuts.

I like the shove here. biggest mistake I see from LLSNL vills is calling too much, and agree with OPs logic that he's more likely to call a fishy looking overbet shove than a 2/3 PSB.

also agree w previous that betting flop is standard here for a reason. if flop goes b/c then a turn c/r is probably even better than as played.

Interesting games you play in.

Also, they sound extremely profitable. You ARE shoving your whole range OTR every hand, right?

Ha, whoops, yeah that would be amazing. I just meant this...

...was a bit off. The 2x IS likely to change his mind and the optimal EV sizing likely lies somewhere well beneath a shove.

Care to support that claim with some math/personal experiences?

It's pretty straightforward assuming you are value betting always with the best hand, which is what elicited your thread (Adding the bluff piece in is another story) But when discussing the value only side, the EV is of course the prob of V calling times bet size. If V calls 35% when you bet 2x, but calls 100% when you bet 1x, then the second option is higher EV. If you insist that this Vs calling frequency is indifferent to sizing then, well, you just shove for max EV... But I contend his capped range, though perhaps inelastic is still going to have a lot more folds as you approach 2x+ pot which deteriorates the EV of your line. You can assign frequencies to your liking, but that's the variable that matters most (along with the assumption he doesn't have a higher flush)

I think if you don't have the nuts you really need a strong read V very rarely has you beat AND that V calls wide vs the overbet.

If you get your read wrong and V actually has an elastic calling range that contains hands that beat you then this move can be very -EV.

I'm just going to reread OP and see what I think now...

OK, the hands I'm afraid of here are K9ss/Q8ss type holdings. The small b, b/c line is as consistent with 2nd/3rd pair + FD as it is with weak AX. Also if V is playing AX for such small bets it is surely because he is not in love with his hand. He must have some fear of kicker trouble to play it that way in the first place.

If V is scared his AX may be no good why is he calling the raise with it? You say he is splashy, does he frequently bet small and call raises or are either/both rare for him?

Have you seen him leading draws small like this? Have you seen him lead top pair+ like this?

I think in game I would be too scared that his turn call indicated a draw for me to want to go for the overbet. Nut flush I think is a great overbet here but I'm probably betting T high flush more normally.

Sure that's true but right away I see a huge hole in that assumption.

You should probably reread it again cause I have 9 and the river is Q

Just threw those frequencies out to simplify the point. Obviously this is not the full EV calc since you lose some percentage of the time here. But simple stuff like this tends to help me in game when trying to determine the most exploitative sizing for a near nutted VB.

Yeah, reading it back i see i look pretty unobservant here!

What i meant is how you do this more generally speaking.

Put it another way: Are you looking to make these value overbets regularly and if so, how successful are you and how are you deciding which spots to do it in?

Like;

- do you need a read V doesn't play pair+FD or even bare FDs like this (bet-small/call)?

- would you do this without you/board blocking some of V's bigger flushes and especially his pair+FDs?

-would you do this with a hand further from the nuts (7-high flush/idiot end of a 3-straight/flush on paired board)?

- when you say "ego-player" what sort of things are you seeing V do that causes you to target them for this move?

I know you want help from us lot on this subject but it's something I don't do because I'm always too afraid (of blowing V off weaker hands/getting stacked). So basically, I was hoping to pick your brains on how you put the overbet for value into your game in order to, er, help me...

...in your thread...

...so you know, when you're ready...

Thanks

Sorry also - are you seeing a lot of players betting top pair no kicker or weaker (without draws) small like this but then calling raises?

I do see it myself but probably more online/in the past live, where I pull more moves and fail to get them to fold these obviously weak hands. I have no experience of doing it for value (I know, pretty dumb strat for micros/llsnl).