That's very helpful. Thank you.

You provided no read on SB and I should just assume players are only calling with flush draws in this spot?

And obviously I don’t. So my answer can only be as specific as your read on SB.

Seems to me kimchipanda1's read of SB is that he could easily have a flush draw or some other draw, which absolutely makes sense based on the way he's playing the hand. Why are you arguing with the OP's read and then asking for a read?

And SB is playing this exactly like a draw.

Donking A high board is super suspicous. As preflop raiser the guy obviously has the range advantage there, so usually BB would be careful there with most of his medium hands that the opener has beat. If u donk there its signaling either complete nonsense or nutted hand.

Let me better understand what you're suggesting.

OMC in UTG raises to $11 and SB, without any description or tendencies, calls $11 with $600 stack.

What do you think his calling range is? Any Ax, broadway, pp, all suited cards down to Kx, Q9, J8, and T8, and all 2-gap connectors?

Assuming above is the case:
-There are 135 combinations of Ax remaining.

Turn call would probably eliminate most of Tx, so we are looking at:
-135 combos of Ax
-5 combos of Tx with flush draw
-2 combos of 3x with flush draw
-12 combos of naked flush draw
-8 combos of combo draw

I am obviously ignoring straight draw and adding them would only strengthen my argument.

So you got 27 combos of flush draws and 135 combos of Ax, or 16.67% vs 83.33%.

Even if you put Ax in OMC's range, there are still 90 combos of Ax in SB's range, or 76.92% of his range.

If the argument is that unknown V's in LLSNL is only calling with flush draw when there is a 2-tone board, then I suppose that ends the argument.

Even though I disagree and it makes little sense, having a polarized range as you have suggested is a great thing.

Also to keep in mind, more flush draws you add to SB's range would also represent that SB is calling with whatever crap+, meaning if you add T3ss in V's range, you would have to essentially add T4, T5, T6, T7 and in all 4 suits.

If SB indeed has all that junk in his range, then it simply strengthens my argument that pricing him in even with his flush draws doesn't really matter.

But if OP has some sort of BR restraint or whatever reason to want to play less optimal, then shoving is fine, but then you shouldn't play 22 - 77 preflop against any aggression.

So, instead of shoving, we raise an amount that enables the other players to chase draws and basically commits us and then shove every river? Have I got that right?

Combinatorics is clearly not your thing.

But what I said was:

Actually, what you first wrote was:

If they know they are committed for $200, why wouldn't they call a shove? Why would they feel committed to call river if they are on a draw that whiffs? Or if they have a naked A?

I'm still looking at the flop. Is a c/r suboptimal? V will call big bets without the nuts. SB sandwiched.

I already explained that:

Draws are obviously not calling, but...sigh...you don't seem to understand at all what I said. We are targeting 75% of his range, which is Ax and other random hands that are bluff catchers.

And why raising to $200 is explained here:

I think CR on the flop narrows the perceived range too much, down to only 2p+ and maybe some flush draw, and turn would eliminate most of the flush draw in our perceived range with a big bet or shove.

Sizing is tricky as well.

I am not saying it's suboptimal, just feel that it's a tougher line to extract in LLSNL.

I would add that if we assume SB can have all combos of Ax (all Ace-junk), then he should also have all combos of suited 4sXs and 3sXs and ALL spade combos.

But, I do not see Ace-junk calling the Turn bet (which is quite a bit larger). I DO see most flush and combo draws continuing.

This means, maybe give SB only the strong Ax combos, such as AQ, AJ, A9/A8 (maybe - give this half the combos), A5, A4.

I am also fairly certain that by this point, OMC has minimum Ax here (sometimes it'll be TT), so that removes 1 Ace.

This would optimistically leave SB with 12 combos of each, or 60 combos of Ax (4 full combos of AQ/AJ/A5/A4 and half of A9/A8).

Therefore, I would posit SB's range is 27 combos of flush draws vs. approx. 60 combos of Ax on the Turn.

Btw @Tanqueray, I think your comments are actually all valid and a good way of looking at this hand, but IMO, your tone comes across as a little aggressive/condescending.

I did include them, unless you're including any 3sXs...

So SB is calling with J3ss but not Ax?

Perhaps you can shed some light into how that makes sense.

Ok, so 69% vs 75%? Last I check, 69% is still 2/3.

I disagree with how you're eliminating hands, but as hard as you try, it is still clearly showing there is a lot more weaker hands than draws.

Being straight forward can often carry such tone.

For SB, Js3s > Ax here IMO since he should be drawing live. He's only drawing dead if I have a higher flush draw. But he has no way of knowing for sure on the Turn because I checked and I have action behind him.

If I were SB, I would fold most Ax to the OMC Turn bet, but call with good draws. I'd also have BB (Hero) to worry about acting behind me.

I'm not saying that there are more draws than weak hands. It just goes back to my comment about giving a good price for draws. For this specific example, the larger percentage chance there is that SB is drawing, the more important it would be for me to price him out of drawing, regardless of whether absolute drawing hand combos > or < than weak hands.

If the guy can call preflop with J3s, he's basically calling with just about anything.

Someone who's willing to call with just about anything is going to fold Ax?

Would you call J3s preflop? If not, I am not sure how your logic is representative of SB's.

In other words, you rather price out of 31% of draws and fold out 69% of range drawing almost dead than the other way around?

I understand.

That's what I'm thinking, given the action. I think he would actually.

Not heads-up. I'm not sure in this case, which is why I posted the hand to begin with. If I knew the answer, I wouldn't have posted it.

And if you were 100% correct (you seem extremely confident), others would be replying with the exact same answers as you have.

On another note, this hand is making me think how brilliant OMC's Turn bet sizing is. If he has the nuts, he's forcing me to make a decision for effectively all my chips. If he has a foldable hand, he can get away from it easily if I commit. I'm sure it wasn't intentional, but if I were OMC here I could see a player sizing larger or even just checking back Turn and botching the hand.

Rather than make a very long post, I performed offline the "decision tree" of H turn PSB versus jam using the 70% range, assuming MHIG on river 75% against both Vs and assuming Ax V would pay off our 110 final bet on all non-flush rivers (and assuming MHIG on all non-flush rivers).

Making reasonable assumptions about folding frequencies to our turn jam, the turn PSB (200) is the clearly superior EV strategy if you can handle the added variance.

So Mr. Tanqueray is correct from an EV perspective and I don't think it's close (+60 to +110 bucks depending on folding frequency assumptions versus our turn jam).

Hopefully Mr. Tanqueray will add more tonic and lime for sweeter comments going forward, but he is a smart dude. I thank him and everyone for this great thread as this situation comes up frequently and developing heuristics for situations like this that are difficult to manage "live" is super helpful and educational. Cheers!

It’s nice to see so many comments here! We are all probably used to different kinds of live sessions, play style and that’s why the suggestions here differ.

A bit different/new approach: I think the biggest factors here are your image and reads on villains (to me this is the beauty of live games). How weak/tight have you appeared, have you made bigger raises before, showed only strong hands or gotten called when bluffing? Would they more likely call your probable bluff-jam or have they decided to keep calling you no matter what happens?

If making it to $130-200, I think it’s usually the same as turning your cards face up. You can’t have TT or AA and with big draws or AT this would be crazy. Even against medium or weak-tight players, it’s just very exploitable: You have minimum 22, more like 45, even 4s5s and never a bluff or Ax.

OMC could be folding A rags, maybe even AJ, depending on how ******ed these guys are or how rookie you look like. If it’s very obvious that he never folds, then it shouldn’t matter how much you raise. Btw, I’d add KQs to his range, even though it seems more unlikely after the turn bet.

SB would call with two pair or draws, because of implied odds (OMC has a bigger stack than we do). Any draw completed without paired board for sure feels like the nuts here. Probably could get rid of Ax that has no 4 or 5. If OMC calls, he has a very easy call and fairly easy check-fold on the river if not improved to straight, flush or boat.

Anyway, our river move has already been decided and our hand is pretty much face up no matter what. That’s not where I would want to be, even though we are only left something like $175 behind.

I’m not saying that raising small is the worst play, but my strength is not in finding the best mathematical scenario anyways. This kind of play just does not work in the games I usually play in the long run. Of course, we want to get most chips out of this hand, but the session continues after this hand too and I want everyone to keep guessing what I have or what I do next. If they are weak, you’ll get their chips anyway in the future, but if there are good players on the table, they are gonna make notes, focus reading you and you might have to get artistic with your future strong holdings. If you win

FWIW, self image is probably the least reliable factor in these HH's, given that everyone is a wizard who post in these threads.

It's fine to play your hand faced up in LLSNL. If average players actually consider relative hand strength, there would be no game.

LLSNL players are stuck with their own hands and nothing more.

Yes, life would be easier if all of our opponents are never folding with worse, but then there wouldn't be need for discussions.

$1 behind is implied odds, but that doesn't answer the relevant question of whether there is sufficient implied odds.

But before we head down that path, it has already been established and agreed that flush draw is only a small portion of SB's range.

Perhaps you think OMC has 4 cards? I mean...you're assigning him a range of straight draw, flush draw, and 2 pair+?

And you want Ax without 4 or 5 to fold? Why?

You're just implying that it is because like you said, you are not good with math.

You should work on math, because...

Math works in long run.

You have a misguided goal in poker.

You know why whales play any two cards? Because they want everyone to keep guessing what they have.

Interesting view.

Tanqu I love your comments!

If I raised to $200 and had to show my hand when losing the pot somehow, I’d take the nearest exit asap …If I jammed the turn and lost/won, it would be a lot easier to stay on the table or return later, but there are people too who don’t care about these things. The fact is that it is a lot harder to win big pots OOP and slow playing makes it even harder.

I'm good at math actually, but I just wanted to offer a different view.
I would love to play against players who I know most likely end up doing something else than shove on the turn with this hand multi-way.

Like I said, you have some interesting views in poker.

Ya, like actual winning poker players.

This might surprise you, but the answer is actually it depends.

Against a tight passive player, slow playing it would never work, but against a loose aggressive player, there are incentives to slow play.

Yes, but be careful running out of exit when you lose.

Can you provide more details? I'm interested in understanding this in more detail.

Going back to what I started with:

"It’s nice to see so many comments here! We are all probably used to different kinds of live sessions, play style and that’s why the suggestions here differ."

When people think they are right in every case, it usually means they are done with developing.

Still lovin' it!