1/2, 9 handed, fourty five minutes into session. Villain has played a lot of hands, including limp calling a $15 raise in a HU pot vs hero with 53o, but villain has raised once pre flop all night and everyone folded. $200 effective.

OTTH

Villain opens UTG $15 and it's folded to hero OTB who calls with T T, and loose player calls in SB.

Flop ($47): J T 6. It's checked to hero who bets $35 and only villain calls.

Turn ($117): 4. X-x.

River ($117): 6. Villain checks. What size are you going here?

Also, thoughts on overall line?

Bet turn all day, AP bet half pot, he seems to have a bluff catcher with his line

Def bet turn, as another club OTR will kill your hand or your action. V was opener in EP, he doesn't have a lot of FDs in his range OTF, so I wouldn't be so worried about the club OTT.

Now that we've rivered the effective nuts, we hope he does have a flush, of course, but that's pretty unlikely. Half pot looking to get calls from AJ sounds good. He has a lot of hands that won't call even that, though. meh.

I would either

A) bet $35 again and hope villain hero calls or gets frisky and check raises thinking our bet looks scared of the flush
B) Fire an overbet....maybe $125

I cant imagine what this guy has.

bet turn.

ap $100 otr. your range is very polar here and all straight draws bricking + 6 pairing the board gives him a lot of incentive to try to hero

AP for sure just bet on the smaller side, you’re not polarized at all when you ck turn and you’d like to get called by Jx or a pair. Possible he played it that way.

Travesty not betting turn. Wtf are you doing? Genuinely asking in a rude way bc middle sets are the most profitable hands in LL.

I just go all in

always bomb the river with very strong hands against a loose opponent. $95.

Turn is a huge problem. Loose dude raises EP, he’s never just check calling AcKc/AcQc/KcQc on this board. He’s betting or check raising or something.

When he DOES check call, he has a lot of single club high gutters IMO. Those will call a pretty large bet on the turn. I’d be sizing up on turn and checking or betting small on river.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I agree, checking the turn is pretty awful here and the big problem in the hand.

I don't haaaaaate the turn actually. This is kind of an awkward stack size if we bet the turn and get shoved on. I likely still bet, but don't think checking is a disaster.

As played just shove the river.

Hero shoved and villain tanked for about two minutes before folding

Horrendous.

You have to hate it. Whether our villain is relatively savvy or a drooler, he has so so so many hands that ckc turn now and so few that ckr. Some of those ckr are hands worse than middle set too. The shallowness/awkwardness of the remaining stacks after we bet is not enough of a consideration to start checking - and if checking TT we cannot just suddenly shove river, it makes very little sense from a money making perspective from a player that has likely played his range extremely well so far. Villain likely had QQ+ too with all the line/timing tells shared. Gross.

When picking a sizing our rivering range doesn't really matter, just our betting range.

Shoving isn't at all unreasonable if we're choosing to bet a polarized range and villain doesn't have any check-raises. We can bet smaller with specifically JT/AJ type hands if we think they're worth a bet. It doesn't matter if our sizing leaks information when villain won't x/r bluff us.

From an exploitative perspective maybe shoving is bad and won't get action often enough, but it's really hard to say. From a theory perspective we probably want to shove full-houses and bet smaller with JT/AJ.

To me the theory side seems to support a smaller size no? In order to bet polarized shouldn’t we have a polarized range? Does this line have enough value hands/bluffing hands once we check turn?? I mean I care more about making money, but how often/how many sets and flushes ck turn to begin with? That doesn’t leave us many river value shoves particularly on a nut changing river. Back on earth, V checked thrice and on a paired 3flush board on a double nut-changing runout... I want to make money from pairs/OPs now since I made nothing from them ott along with all his bway hands/bway+fd hands, god, I mean, I just hate everything about this line.

Yeah, except just go all in with b i think.

Our hand looks pretty weird. I'm not quite sure "polarized" fully covers it.

Our most likely set, not 3bettig pre was 66.

We checked the turn with a set. All of this makes the FH/quads less likely. And, again, it sort of feels like our most likely big hand is 66 thinking, "well, I lose to TT, JJ, clubs... let's just take a river."

Needless to say, it would be really weird to turn a flush, check it, then stuff it when the board pairs.

If we just stuff it it looks like we are saying, "I know you can't call with anything here."

Against mr. 53 off this might be a good way to get a hero call.

But if V is unlikely to do that, the small bet will get looked up a lot just out of curiosity/frustration because that's also kind of odd. You're saying that you have... a passive JT? Maybe AJ? A six?

You will sometimes get him to try something creative. It's not really a bad play if he does, imo.

+1

opponents calling too much is the #1 source of profit from LLSNL so it's hard to fault a river shove either.

The real question is how often should we be attacking this kind of board IP. We have a range advantage on every street and villain is capped. This is part of what's behind everyone saying that you have to bet turn.

if people are concerned about chasing off AJ/QQ, then isn't that just an argument that we should be shoving this river as the standard? if villain isn't calling AJ/QQ here, then is he really calling the 35% of the time he needs to in order for his fold to make sense? Also is expecting him to have (and fold) AJ/QQ here consistent with the PF read of him being loose/passive?

our river range shouldn't actually be polarized; it should be pretty wide and built to accomplish the key objective on this runout: take down the 58.5BBs sitting in the middle that have almost 100% FE attached to them. from that perspective, TT has to be a shove.

The reason you shove here is because it looks kinda FOS after the turn check, and depending on the opponent you might get looked up by any pair, if villain doesn't think you're a nit.

There is merit to betting very small here, but in general people just don't have it in them to bluff shove here and usually call too much rather than bluff raise too much.

Medium sized bets here tend to be dominated by shoving if you assume the shove gets called almost as often (let's say 75% as often).

It is extremely unlikely to have any check/raises here, which eliminates most of the incentive for nutted hands to bet small at equilibrium. If you eliminate x/r from villain's strategy (node-locking can do this I think? I don't have Pio), then the equilibrium strategy is going to call for us to bet each combo of our range based on it's own equity. We only have to balance each sizing with the appropriate number of bluffs and it's actually okay to bet a different size with each hand in our range.

For a toy example, let's say villain's range is {JJ, AA, AcKc, AJ, KJs, QJs, ATs}. For this example, it doesn't even matter very much what our range is, as long as we have enough combos worse than AT to force villain to defend at MDF. There will be some mixing to prevent both players from exploiting blocking effects, but mostly we should just bet anything that has at least 50% equity, and use a larger sizing the more equity we have up to all-in with a strong enough hand, and bluffs will balance all sizings. AJ is going to bet extremely small, AcJ small, QQ a bit bigger, and probably anything that can beat AA would bet large or just shove. Page 343 of Applications has a formula for bet sizing as a function of our equity.

If we do allow villain to have x/r and slowplays, then it becomes much more complicated, but I believe we would still mostly choose larger sizings with better hands. If we force ourselves to use a single bet-size, it's going to depend on the range of hands we get to the river with that want to bet.

I'm not sue how much of this is actually applicable, but I find it interesting.