What hands do you think a tight V will bet if we check when the board pairs? You think he’s going to bet his flushes here? One of the biggest leaks I see in LLSNL is people not value betting enough, and I’m not convinced a tight V is going to go for thin value here with a flush. I honestly don’t know how the majority opinion is that our two options are x/r or shove, but imply that leading looks too strong and will fold out all of Vs flushes.

Maybe I just have different population reads, but IME nits will seldom bet a flush here, but will call with one more often than not... although probably not for stacks.

Dude there’s 21 combos of AK/AQ vs. 6 combos of AA/QQ. Not betting a flush on the river would be ******ed.

There’s a long way to go from “seems decently tight” to “won’t value bet a flush on a paired board.” Tight does not mean passive. I am a tight player and I value bet thinly bluff quite a bit.

There's no way in hell a flush is checking behind here. Our hand looks nothing like a boat. But he might only call flushes on river, and anyone who can hand read with any sort of decency will fold small flushes to your river lead.

Seriously, name me one hand Hero takes this line with as a bluff, or with less than a flush for value.

I agree that not betting a flush here would be insane, but I’ve seen so many people check monsters when some counterfeiting scare card comes out that I could easily see pretty tight Vs doing so with any flush J high or lower. I’d rather bet and make an extra 500 now than risk river going x/x.

I agree that it’s hard for us to have bluffs in this spot, it would have to be like AK or something we decided to turn into a bluff, but this is exactly the kind of river I’d consider doing it on and I would do it by donking because of the risk of it checking behind.

But anyway, clearly we disagree and how often V bets when checked to and also on what V would call a river donk bet with. It was interesting to think about nonetheless.

I also agree here.
This is a far bigger bet, or a c/r spot imo.

I dunno why, but I think I like going something like 750-950 here OTR. Instead of all-in. I can’t even explain why.

Maybe because 150-200 to some people is a consolation prize for making the wrong choice?

This is where I'm at. Could easily see a nitty check in a 160 BB pot by a tight V. Doesn't feel like I want to take that chance personally.

Seriously the thought of a V ever checking behind a flush here when Hero’s hand looks nothing like a boat when he checks river and none of the flop cards paired is beyond lol-tastic.

Anyone saying otherwise, is, quite frankly, probably not qualified to give advice yet and needs to spend more time reading threads first.

Haven't read the replies yet.

I like preflop, flop, and the turn check. He's probably folding all the hands you beat if you bet on the turn ie JT/KJ/QJ etc but by checking you give him a chance to bluff those hands, and obviously he'll bet with his flushes and so on.

By the river your hand looks like a strong AX hand, so I would expect a thinking tight player to bet with two pair and better if checked to, and he might continue with bluffs some small % of the time as well.

IMO leading the river is a super nutted line and takes away our chance to get the most value, since most tight players would probably just call with a KXcc flush. And if he has a weak AX he's probably checking back and won't call a river lead anyway. So in terms of getting value in this spot, I think this is a great opportunity to go for a river checkraise.

+1, looks like we actually agree on something

Sure, but I see **** like this all the time. Just last week at MDL: mains Vs are two older bad regs, effective stacks 350ish. Four limps pre, flop comes QQ8r, x/x, To turn x/x, 5 river. V1 bets $10, 2 folds, V2 min clicks it to 20, V1 raises to $50... V2 lol flats. V1 had Q8, V2 had 88. That's just the most recent data point off the top of my head.

LOL, ok big man. Ad hominem much? Just because my population read is different from yours doesn't disqualify me from the discussion. What an obtuse thing to say.

Even if your premise correct, that V is 100% betting here with all of his flushes, for x/r-ing to be superior to betting, V would have to either bet as large as we would or be calling our CRAI at a high enough frequency to equal the expected value. For example, let's say that we would bet 600 into 800 here. If V calls here 100%, then EV is +600. Given that effective stacks are about 900, for CRAI to be superior, V would have to bet close to the same as we would have led for or call our shove at a frequency high enough to make up for differential between our potential lead and the smaller value bet. So if V bets 300 when checked to, he would need to call our shove 50% of the time. If he bets 200, then 66% etc. If our hand looks weak, V probably won't value bet huge... and the gig will be up obviously as soon as we CRAI. I don't know how people think that leading looks crazy strong but CRAI doesn't.

Obviously, how you interpret both of those lines depends on rather subjective population reads. My understanding of jonny's characterization of V is derived from my population read of LLSNL Vs, which is subjective and different from yours and that's ok. This leads to productive and engaging discussions which I thought was the point of this forum, rather than for you to assert your monopoly on poker reality.

Just saw that it’s only three clubs on the final board and not 4.
So I don’t actually love the overbet I recommended before.
AP the obvious main question here is how to get as much stack as possible.

I think it’s between going 500-600 or c/rai, but I don’t see the check-raise shove being called. So then, it becomes about how much you suspect V will bet here if you check vs. how much you suspect he’s willing to call.

I don’t really see many/any bluffs in V’s range so there’s reduced incentive to check and let him continue bluffs. But as CRAIerday is saying leading is super nutted.

I still think if you decide to lead it should be sized up big time here.
I dunno, I think I agree that c/r is probably best, but I doubt this V calls the reraise.
These spots are super rare opportunities. Like once every several sessions type rare.
And I usually play long sessions. You need to go for the max here OTR.
A smallish river bet feels like doing him a favour.

That hand is not remotely similar to the one in this thread.


It's not ad hominem, I didn't attempt to discount what you said by attacking who you are.

Also, it's not just me. Every respected poster who has contributed to the thread has said the same thing. I'm far from the most known poster ITT but all the ones who have been around long and give insight have concurred.


Now you're on the right track, but your premises are off. V won't call flushes 100% when we donk river big, especially his small flushes, because as noted upthread, Hero has no bluffs when he takes this line, and he never has value < a flush.

Also, your math is off. When comparing donking 600 (at 100% call rate which is not true) to c/r 900 over 300, V has to call the c/r less than 33% of the time for it to be better.

EV of donking = 600
EV of c/r = .33(300) + .66(900) = 100 + 600 = 700

Flop seems too big. I'd bet much smaller, and then bet like half pot again on the turn, obviously calling a raise.

As played it should be a check on the river. I really don't get this lead. You're only leading when you get there and never with anything else than a boat, right? So you're face-up.

Basically anything Amana said itt. As usual.

What I also don't get at all, but read quite a lot is betting (certain sizes) on the river to induce a shove. Is that even a thing? Are people (standard LLSNL villains) actually bluff shoving rivers in big pots because they sense weakness? Like ever?

275 is such a **** sizing. Check or stick it in his eye

That wasn’t the point. It’s not supposed to be precisely analogous. Rather, my point was that my baseline population read is based upon the incidents that I see, and I constantly see Vs neglect to get value. I understand that this is a bit different, but I’m somewhat skeptical of lines which rely on tight Vs going for value when I believe those Vs will generally call our value bets.

An ad hominem doesn’t have to be a personal attack. It was an ad hominem based upon an ad populum, and it’s pretty ****ty and unproductive. I’m usually pretty close to the consensus opinion here, but when I disagree I don’t generally say the people that I disagree with are unqualified to post.

Hey we basically agree. I may have gotten the equation wrong. I simplified frequencies to make the point, but my larger point is that the frequencies which V does one or another are largely subjective rather than empirically falsifiable, and the basis of where our disagreement lies in our application of these frequencies to the V in question. That doesn’t make either of us terrible at the pokerz, or unqualified to post.

I have begun to implement small sizing in my game, though not necessarily on rivers, and it has created mistakes and some spaz from opponents.

In this specific hand, let's say Hero had AQ (9 combos). In total, there are 9 combos of flopped sets. Can the smaller sizing be interpreted as a blocker (AQ) by the Villain, who might raise KcQc, or even a smaller flush?

Getting 3b otr when you have the 3rd or 4th nuts (depending on turn) is wayyy different than lol checking a flush behind in this hand.

Obviously. My point wasn't that they were analogous, but rather that Vs at these stakes consistently fail to get value in the most obvious situations... like waiting til the river to bet your FH and then flatting it to a 3b.