For better or worse, I think I may have been tempted to call flop with QKo in this spot, especially due to table dynamics. V had been ripping through the table -- he made 3 river overbets in the past hour, one of which was revealed to be a bluff. Everyone at the table was suspicious that he is FOS.

Oh, I just remembered that Uber nit was behind. So yeah, I probably wouldn't have called flop with KQo. Never mind. And yeah, I rarely show up with KK or QQ here -- those I 3bet pre almost 100% of the time, considering I am in MP and don't want a multiway pot.

I'm still curious about how much of a leak it would be to call a turn shove with KJo. I guess I should try to work through some ranges and check.

Not strat related, but can totally relate to you on this. There's this reg who's better than most of the pros I've played with and he always runs good and builds up stacks. He's a bit better than me, but it's not by leaps and bounds. But he runs completely stellar against me - always catching me at the tippy top of my range and then getting there. So fackkin frustrating. Hang in there OP.

Pre could go either way. Would rather 3b if offsuit

I would mini-tank, sigh, shrug and pay off on river just from an odds perspective, although as you mentioned he really shouldn't have any bluffs.

If you he's as good at exploiting as you say and I were to decide on a fold, I'd muck fairly quickly, so as to make my hand look like a draw trying to represent the turn A.

Are you accounting for the equity of V's bluffs when you calculate how often he needs to make you fold to make a break even?

No, I wasn't. Thanks!!
f=my fold percent.
f* 240 + (1-f)*940* (16% equity) + (1-f)(-350)*(84%) = 0
f*240 - (1-f)*160 = 0
f = 160/400= 40%.
(I derived this on my own, is there an easier formula I should be using?)

So he needs me to fold 40% of my range. Which he can accomplish as long as I'm folding all my jacks down to JTs.

Let me modify the range in my previous post by removing QK (folding this on Flop because of presence of Ubernit)
My call-off range is close to
{JTs,JQs,JKs,JKo,Ac4c-AcTc,AJ,AQo,99} (3+3+3+9+7+9 +9 + 3 =46 combos)
The rest of my range is something like
{8Ts,TQs, 6c7c-9cTc, 6c8c, 7c9c, TcKc, TT} (4+3+4+3 + 6 = 20 combos)
So, for this range, I am only folding 20/66 = 30% of the time. Not enough to make his turn shove profitable with QT. But if I change the 6 combos of JTs/JQs to a fold, then I have 26/66 = 40%. Barely profitable. If I'm folding KJ, then a turn shove is Super Profitable for V.

I guess I really am curious now about what I should be doing with KJ in this spot.

Edit: Maybe it is too loose to have 6c8c and 7c9c in my preflop range. This probably just amounts to a rounding error in the calculations, but doesn't affect my main question.

I ran through the ranges, and it works out to be something like this:

If V is always shoving QT on the turn, I should be calling with all my Jacks.
If V is shoving QT half the time on the turn, I should be calling only with KJ (but it's super marginal).
If V is never shoving QT on the turn, then I should be only calling his shoves with an ace or better.

I'm having a hard time figuring out what a good equilibrium strategy is. I think what has happened is, that V thinks I'm calling him down light if he shoves the turn (which is how I have played against him in the past), and so now he's adjusted to semibluffing less. Which probably means I should tighten up my ranges to compensate. But once I do that, then it becomes profitable for him to start shoving QT in this spot.

Thanks for the sympathy, Tilty. It's been pretty rough for me against this guy. Over the past 3 months, I'm +N dollars against the player pool at my card room (except V), and -N/2 dollars against V. This one guy has cut my profits in half! Anyway, I'm not so concerned with the money. I'm more concerned with using these experiences to improve my game.

If your +N vs -N/2 comments are to be taken at face value (honestly, I have a hard time believing you are accurately tracking results like this, but I imagine you are more anecdotally guesstimating which is fair enough), then the stop-don't-pass-go-and-this-isn't-remotely-close obvious solution is to just not get into hands with him at all (and mostly not even sit at the same table as him) which will lead to a 50% increase in your winrate (based on your numbers).

ETA: Actually, if you had of simply avoided this guy it would actually be a 200% increase / tripling of your winrate. Kinda makes every other adjustment you make in poker completely irrelevant.

Gknowwhereyourmoneycomesfrom,anditain'tthisguy,imo G

It's good to challenge yourself against the better players from time to gime, particularly when you are planning a shot at a game where you know there will be tougher regs. However, increasing your win rate in your current game is going to also be helpful not only do moving up but to have the bankroll available to "enjoy" these learning opportunities. So I'd take a break from playing this particular villain and spend more time thinking about how to totally crush some regs you can already beat.

Also I'd caution against overthinking what this guy us doing. Maybe he is really super amazing at poker and he's adjusting to you faster than you can figure out and....

...and maybe he's just running good, isn't thinking nearly as deeply about it as you are and in a few months time his luck will change and he'll be forced to "take a break" for a while. I don't know the guy, I'm just speculating and playing devil's advocate.

However I do see young smart players (much brainy and quicker witted than me) super overanalyzing hands, lines and players. They're assigning all this high level thinking to players and, when I look at them I see nothing of the sort. They're usually wildly over aggressive, incredibly loose and basically running good while button clicking.

The truth is if they were so ****-hot, wouldn't they be playing higher stakes where you can actually make some decent money?

And I'm not questioning your read of this guy - well I sort of am, what I mean is I've thought the same about certain players myself in the past then I see them just implode suddenly and never come back.

But like I said - don't know him and you do so I respect your read - just offering a different take in case it's any use to you. If not, no offence intended!

I mean, I don't think all of his winrate versus me is due to the fact that he's a better player (though he is). Most of it is due to coolers. My guesstimate is that I've lost like 5 BIs to this guy in 3 months. Most of that comes from a number of coolers (at least 3 mentioned in my OP, plus this hand), and 2 pretty bad decisions. I've spent a lot of time thinking about the bad decisions, and I'm pretty sure I wouldn't make them again. I don't really have a choice but to play hands against this guy, unless I drop down in stakes to 1/2. During the hours that I typically play, my card room usually only runs a single table of 2/3 (which is basically 2/5 given the 200/500 buyin structure) and he is always there.

Yeah, I mean ~200 hours is too small of a sample size to really draw much of a conclusion. Most of my judgement is based on my knowledge that this guy plays professionally (no day job), went to an elite college, and he lives in a very nice neighborhood in my city. Then again I think he played this hand poorly, and so I know he's not infallible.

I'd seat select to be the other end of the table as often as the chance arises in that case.

Also in one of Ed Miller's books he recommends long and methodical observation of particularly good players. Take lots of notes and start to build up a good enough picture of his strategy so that you can plan how to beat him. You don't need to be in hands against him to do this - in fact it's preferable that you're not because then you can more easily analyse what's going on without getting distracted by how to play your own hand.

If it were me I'd have to actually write notes at or near the table because my memory is so awful.

Semi-grunch

Pre seems totally fine, but I just shove the turn on this board with these stacks. Seems best by far actually.

+1

I'm constantly writing notes on my iPhone on players attempting to constantly improve my handle on how they play.

GcluelessNLnoobG

I dont think you can fold the river. However, i would have shoved the turn with your hand.

Surprised that he had QTo and played it as a raise. And I think you know that the one real mistake in the hand was not 3! pre.

Yeah, I spoke with another good local pro, and he told me the same thing. That I should be shoving this turn with my strong hands because this will allow me to maximize the number of bluffs which I include in my turn shoving range. Which makes total sense to me now that I think about it. I think one of the mistakes I've been making is that of playing my individual hand against his range, rather than playing my range versus his range. So I make these plays trying to maximize value with a pretty strong hand, without looking at the broader context of my actions. Also I think am not playing my semibluffs aggressively enough, and so my shoving range in this spot is probably too narrow (maybe just sets and my strongest
draws (pair of 9s+flush draw, gutter+flush draw). I think I just need to up the overall aggression level in my game.

Yeah range-vs-range thinking is key against competent players (and anyone who can actually fold really).

I find it very difficult to think quickly enough under pressure to consider my entire range. From what I've read/seen you've got to practice away from the tables so it becomes more automatic in game and you need to group hands together in categories rather than consider each hand individually.

Going to be a long time till I'm doing this regularly in-game for sure.

Also the best players in my game are the ones who are regularly moving-in or overbetting the turn. It's quite noticeable how much more difficult people find it to play against these guys.

Nothing wrong with this hand except the river. In the OP you said villain should never have worse. In fact, you only beat a bluff. The river is where you make your money in this hand. The math of the spot is if you had trusted your inwtinct you would have "won" the hand by only putting bets in when you were ahead.

Moral: trust your instincts