2/5, 9 handed, $800 effective.

Hero has an aggressive image, probably TAG. The table has been going for about two hours, and hero has played almost every hand as a raise pre, 3 bet twice, has 3 bet every board except one, and has only gotten AQo and KJs to showdown (both were raised pre; AQ had TPTK on dry board and run out, three streets oop, KJs flopped Broadway and got three streets ip.)

Both villains have been playing loose passive. This is the first time I've played with either, but HJ has raised pre twice and had JJ and AA. BTN has raised once with QQ, and 3 bet once with KK. Other than that, both have been exclusively calling pre, and I'd say both are very similar, 33%ish VPIP - not concerned if it's $5 to them or a raise.

OTTH

Hero opens LJ $20 A A and only the two villains call.

Flop ($67): Q J 8. Hero bets $40 and both villains call. Vs better players, I feel like this is a slam dunk check, but vs two loose passive fish, I think we can get value from so much worse, and it seems like we should be value betting here. I'm folding to a raise (though I think that's obvious.) Thoughts?

Turn ($187): 4. Hero bets $125 and only HJ calls. Same idea from the flop, nothing has changed.

River ($437): 2. Hero bets $150. This is a spot where I would check in the past, but after watching Bart Hanson, I feel like this is a bet. We can't call if we x and villain bets, almost certainly getting paid by KQ+, maybe even QT/Q9? We're also never getting bluff raised. What do you think of the overall line?

Looks fine to me. I generally don't like the small sizing OTR, but against an LP I think it's good thin value.

On this board (which is not immediately threatening apart from the BDFD), your uncomfortable situation on the river sounds like a good reason to check the turn, doesn’t it? There’s a tension between wanting to bet (to avoid getting bluffed because we won’t be able to call) while not being sure whether we can get a third street of value from worse hands. Checking the turn allows us to confidently bet/fold river and probably more likely get looked up by any top pair, and perhaps worse if they don’t believe us.

Thanks Garick. I mean, vs a good player, I'm checking the flop, so there's not really a comparable for river sizing. However, I will say that I will exploitatively change vs bad players, and be consistent vs good!

Sdfsgf - I don't want to give up initiative ott, and it also puts us in a weird spot if he starts betting.

I like the turn bet against two Vs because I want to charge anyone that turned a FD.

River is a tricky thin spot. I can see maybe 4 combo/FDs V can get to the river with here but only one that will pay us off (KsQs) consistently. Maybe he could hero QsTs. Everything else beats us - his range is seriously condensed after calling two big streets.

Accepting the logic that it’s better to B/f than x in an underbluffed spot, why make a river blocker that might encourage aggression? I’d rather make a value bet at a bigger size. Otherwise we should check and bluff catch.

I'm not sure why ppl think river is so thin. 3-way pot. Neither V is slowplaying straight/two pair/sets on both flop and turn. What hand beats AA that is not raising flop and/or turn?

Spanish - if we x and he bets, it's doubtful that we're good often enough to call

Fatmanonguitar - loose passives will do weird stuff like call with straights and 2ps otf and turn to trap

Sure ppl do weird stuff all the time. Less likely in multiway pot. Especially when a second flush card falls on the turn. Folks dread the thought of getting drawn out on even if unlikely.

Just keep betting

I like it and I like your reasoning for just betting the flop. I would probably go a bit smaller on the turn and definitely bigger on the river as played. It doesn’t have to be huge, but I really think 150 or 200 doesn’t make any difference.

It’s fine I would bet this flop vs anyone. A good player should Not make that many moves on a flop like this because everyone has a lot of hands. So it’s pretty dangerous

+1 to all who advocate betting across all streets. Maybe a little smaller OTT. where a raise usually springs to life.

Agreed. But I’m advocating a larger sizing in the river. I felt that your blocker sizing might invite aggression and jamming. I prefer a normal value sizing.

There's almost a 0% probability that a raise on the river is a bluff.

Looks fine, logic for smaller rive bet is sound as we block AQ and AJ.

Would go bigger on flop, however.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

With respect, you've made a circular argument based on your read of V.

We can:

1) check to induce and call V incorrectly or correctly when V bets
2) check and have him check behind and either OHIG or he beats us at SD
3) Bet and he folds
4) Bet and he calls correctly or incorrectly
5) Bet and he raises and we fold correctly or incorrectly

Each of these branches has an EV. You're truncating this decision tree by lopping off the branch whereupon we can fold incorrectly to his raise.

We lose the most $$ on the branch whereupon we fold incorrectly to a river raise. My argument is that our river sizing has increased the likelihood V will jam over our blocker bet. Your argument is that his subsequent river actions are highly inelastic with respect to our river sizing.

This is base on your read of your V. That's fine. But it's a circular, N=1 sample-based argument.

Against the general population, what's the best line? Because I'm arguing that against aggressive 2/5 V's, your line here often invites aggression and you're going to end up folding incorrectly often against better players. If you lose two or three big pots a year like this, you'll feel it.

I thank you for sharing this because it's a common spot where we all struggle to optimize. I'm trying to use your example to find an optimal line against the population versus finding an exploitative line against your V.

TL;DR - if V's range has condensed to the point where we can fold confidently to any raise, we have to ask ourselves what's the point of betting on the river.

Because of the value to be had when he calls incorrectly, which for LLSNL Vs is their most common leak.

The thing is, loose passive villains are almost never, and in a lot of cases genuinely never raising the river as a bluff. We are up against a loose passive. If we x, I don't think we're getting enough value, and if he bets we probably have to fold. Conversely, if we bet, we can get value from all of his Qx, maybe an AJ/KJ. If he raises our river bet, we have a trivial fold.

Vs even a somewhat competent LAG(s) I am not betting this flop, at least that's not my go to, so the hand wouldn't have even played out like this. If we were playing a decent player, then I'll be more balanced as well.

Fair enough brother. Thanks for sharing!

More otr for sure, 225