I don't like this line. When a nittier TAG calls a PFR, check/calls the flop, check/calls the turn, and then (if he) check/shoves the river I think we're good a very small fraction of the time. We have one HH that we bluffed on, but that doesn't mean V has now abandoned all of his standards for calling us.

We've pushed a modest TPTK hand pretty hard. Against a nittier TAG, I don't see getting any more value here. If V was on a draw that missed, he's folding. If he has TT+, we're probably not pushing him off the hand now.

If we're sure V won't c/r without the goods, we could put in a small bet, aiming to get looked up by hands that were pair + draw hands. If V can x/r as a bluff, we should check this back.

Overall, I check back expecting to either win against a hand that would fold to a bet or to lose to a hand that was aiming to x/r me on the river. Either way, I'm happy.

I like a small bet around $75 to target his 9x crying call range. I'm not as fist-pumpy about calling it off if he raises without any history suggesting he's capable of a c/r river bluff, but I think we're missing out on value by checking it back.

"Nittier TAG" is a meaningless misnomer. We have a range provided by OP. We have a strong hand relatively speaking. River is a clear value bet.

Lol, this whole time I keep wondering why nobody is using the range I provided and/or disputing my range when offering analysis.

No mention of SPR? Am a bit shocked. However, you did grab your little nookie blanket and checked back turn.

Don't agree with amount of bluffs, you have in your analysis. It is to high.

But you also are missing times he check/calls our value bet on river (my guess is you are checking back to much there also).

Your plan is to have 1 more bet go into pot before showdown. You feel our hand is ahead of his range (I assume this because your plan is to call 100% rivers).

You believe he will bluff with enough of his missed draws, to make up for times he hits his draw. (It is likely, but not the most EV)

In this scenario, almost all his draws have showdown value. He is very weighted to pair +gutter draw. Highly doubt he has 2 naked overs to often. (QJ).

So he is less likely to bluff with showdown value.

There are a ton of scary river cards. That likely change our value bet (on turn). Into a check on river.

Furthermore, 3 of our outs "A". Is likely an action killer. We are not getting full value from all those 1 pair hands if an "A" comes on river. Even, a King or Queen hits our 3 barrel range.

A "9" is a little better but it counterfeits any 2 pair hands he has. So we are not getting stacks in vs his 2 pair combos.

So unless your plan is to value bet almost every river card. Turn bet is most certainly a higher EV play.

If you want to pot control a street. Pot control river. Yes, you may have to fold to a raise on turn.

So just put nookie down for 1 hand, you will survive. (And get that hourly up)

If you trust your range. Then you have to bet.

Size it however you would size a bluff.

I would stick it all in. As I would with sets, or any of my bluffs.

I did use your range in my thinking. However, I consider your range to be an estimate. I don't think 22 - 99 means mathematical 100% certainty that he always flats 99 and similar certainty that he always raises TT. I interpret it is your belief that V is likely to flat 99 and unlikely to flat TT. Similarly, I don't think we can be 100% certain he calls with T8s and 100% certain he folds 97s.

I believe that the description of V as a nittier TAG contains information vital to selecting the best course of action throughout the hand -- not because of information about V's starting range (which is obviously redundant with information specifically provided by the range estimate) but because it contains information about how he plays that range and therefore what's left in it by the river.

When I said TT+ above, I should have said all hands better than ours. I think TT is unlikely to be in that group, but not impossible. My apologies if that made it seem like I was ignoring the initial range estimate provided.

Initial range estimate is:
22-99
65s - QJs
KJs - T9s (sic) I'm assuming this is actually meant to be T8s

runout is: 963 7 3

V folds at least some of his range on the flop (I'm pretty comfortable that at very least 22, 44, and 55 are folding). If V will continue with middle pair or better, OESDs, gutshots and overcards, that's just over 75% of his range. I think that's probably an overestimate, but not ridiculously so. Almost every hand in this range has some added value -- backdoor flush or straight draws, pairs, gutshots, overcards, etc.

The turn card improves many of his continuing hands, making 2P or adding OESDs. If we assume he'll continue only with TP or better or an OESD (all of which also include a pair), that's just over 70% of his flop hands.

The river is a blank that counterfeits his 2P hands. He now has 38% straights and sets, 24% TP, and 38% nothing. Best case, a bet get folds from all the zips, and calls or raises from all the TP and better hands. When we're called, we're behind 38 / (38 + 24) = 61% of the time. Assuming V raises pretty much only straights and sets, we have to fold to a raise. If V adds any bluffs to that, it makes the bet worse.

I think that's a clear check behind on the river and that further betting is just spew.

Note that if V continues more tightly than I've posited above, his river range becomes stronger. I think it very unlikely that he continues more loosely than I've posited. Nitty TAGs don't call bets OOP with nothing very often.

I haven't done the detailed analysis, but I think adding more hands just outside of your range isn't helping. Adding TT obviously hurts, as do 97s (better 2P than ours) and 54s (another straight).

How you coming up with 38?

Using range given.
99- 1 combo
77- 3 combos
66-3 combos
67- 2 combos
33-1 combo

That is 10 combos, add in 10-8, (which he folds alot on flop), then he has additional 4 combos.

Rest of hands fold flop, or turn.

Majority of these combos would raise turn, or flop.

Your numbers look like they where pulled from thin air to me.


Hands he is calling river bet with is still unkown. But assuming he raises almost 100% of his range that is ahead. Before river.

This is clear value bet using range listed.

I used Flopzilla.

I think we have different assumptions about what he'll call the flop and turn with (mine are included in my post). We also have different assumptions about whether he'll always raise with his strongest hands. I agree it's probably the best line to raise with these, but I think there are some V's that won't and so I'm not willing to rule them out completely. I think it's also possible V has folded some of his hands that have a 9 in them, perhaps fearing an overpair.

Based on the difference in those assumptions, you arrive at a clear value bet and I arrive at a clear check behind. Assumptions about V's behavior are everything here.

lol at V folding 9x

Even if he flats half his combo's of set and straights. It is still value bet.

You must also be checking back JJ, and 10,10..

Using range OP is using. AA is equivalent to A9 in this spot.

I'll agree, if V has raised most of the hands that beat us and is left with a range that's almost entirely TPmehK then a value bet is mandatory.

Yep, A9 - AA are all the same (as are Q9 and K9), although that fact is irrelevant to whether or not a value bet makes sense.

If V never folds TPmehK here I don't think he's a TAG (at least postflop). He's done nothing aggressive and he ain't tight. Nittier is right out.

We have some history with V, but it's pretty weak. It happened a while ago. Bet sizing was bad (I'm assuming too small) so V probably didn't have to risk much of his stack to look us up. Our line didn't make sense.

Here, our line is entirely consistent with an overpair and V will have to put in significant money to look us up.

I think the decision hinges entirely on opinions of V's behavior. I'm not suggesting your opinions are lol-worthy; it's just that mine are different.

The read is lol, so how about lol at the confident answers?

We are given a preflop range, a label inconsistent with that range, some experience at 1 level up and one long ago hand history from which OP says we may assume that villain can hand read, Villain is capable of calling off light and Hero image might be bluffy.

Is Villain aggressive? Trappy? Stationy? Bets his draws? Black? Young? Winner?

The range given just barely leaves off TT, 97s, and 54s, all of which beat hero.

For this to be a clear triple barrel for value we need: Villain to have a lol bad SB complete range as given. Villain to not be a nittish TAG. Villain has to be good enough to recognize that trap mode should end on the turn with the hands that beat us. Villain has to be bad enough to passively play 9x and 8x.

Very skeptical that a slightly nitty, "taggish," player has a big enough three-street x/c component of his range to make betting here great

And I'm skeptical that a TAG is checking three streets with a hand that beats us.

I still don't think it's as clearcut as you are making it out to be either.

Just a couple of random points (in response to some of your thoughts):

- regarding SPR, it's not a slam dunk one to stack off for in a 3way pot having given 21+ implied odds preflop to a nittish type player

- it's possible my guesstimate of bluffing percentage of 50% with QJs (just one example hand I addressed) is too high, but I also don't think it's unreasonable either (but, to be honest, we're really grabbing numbers out of our ass here when guesstimating at these percentages)

- I didn't include him check/calling in the QJs when he whiffs because I doubt he calls with Q high; however, yes, there are definitely other hands in his range (ex. small pairs, pair + draw) that will call a river bet when we check the turn; again, I'm pretty sure if you do a similar math example as I did above with QJs that you'll find that checking back the turn against a hand like 22 is probably more EV than betting it (but again, this really depends on guesstimate percentages we pull out of our ass depending on how often he bluff/raises the turn with these, calls a river bet / bluffs the river when we check the turn, and calls a river bet when we bet the turn); is betting the turn against hands like a pair + draw better? probably, but those hands are at the very top of his losing hands range

- if he does bluff a high percentage of the time when he whiffs the part of his range that is only draws when we check back the turn, then checking back is more EV (the math is very similar to the QJs example); but yes, if he is more weighted to a pair + draw, then it probably is better to bet the turn against this particular part of his range (especially since these hands will also pay off a river bet a decent amount of the time and will be less likely to bluff the river)

- agreed that there are a bunch of scare/counterfiet (for us and him) cards on the river which might prevent us from putting in that second value bet / prevent one from being paid off; not a good result for the check back camp

- it's hard to pot control river if Villain donks it (by which time we've built a big pot and thus will be facing a big bet)

To actually solve this case, you'd probably need an exact handle on his tendencies (i.e. a very good estimate of his bluffing / betting / calling percentages with various hands, when we all know these will just be bum pooping numbers), and then do an EV calc for each particular hand we think show up in his range, and probably even furthermore weight the likelihood of those hands given action so far. I pity anyone who actually attempts to do that, good luck!

Git'sprobablycloseeitherwayG

-to get called by worse more often than we get called by better

End of story

Villain is a winner in this game, as I mentioned he had moved up stakes the last time i recall but happens to be playing this game.


Additional info if it helps
- Poker isn't his main income, he has a career
- He's in his late 20s to early 30s (he's Asian so i can't tell)
- I *think* he's willing to make the correct play as oppose to be scared money in certain spots others might not

If he's seen us 3barrel air (the whole argument for trying to get 3 streets of value against him with a fairly weakish hand), then that's probably his best route, no?

GcluelessNLnoobG

Then he is just as likely to be check/calling 3 streets with a hand we beat if all he needs to beat is air. DUCY?

If he has sets, straights, and 2 pair. He is very likely wanting to play for stacks. Easiest way to get stacks in is to raise turn

If Villain is up against a calling station who'll stack off with those, then that is a pretty good plan.

If Villain is up against a bet/folder who's capable of thinly value betting 3 streets, it's a pretty bad plan.

GVillainisdescribedasawinningplayer,he'sprobablygo tadecentplanG

Indeed.

Villain knows me as a b/f

He is absolutely not check/calling monsters down for 3 streets with the same frequency as a hand that beats air; he's simply *capable* of calling down 3 streets with a hand that beats air.

Git'snotthesamethingG