KT was definitely a hand I worried about, and the main hand that made me not want to make my play... But does a reggish guy who throws in a stop raise on the turn with AJ (to $150) on an AQxx board, when hero overbet pot (to $70)... Does he really only 3x my 1/5 pot sized river bet with a boat - and in the case of KT, the virtual nuts? I doubt it.

There are just as many sixes left in the deck as kings...

The problem isn't really that it's -EV in terms of equities and ranges on the flop alone. I agree that if we only looked at that street and associated equities, that it would definitely be +EV to bet here... The problem is the turn and river. If I continue to bet with my hand, I will be value-owning myself. If I bet flop (or bet flop and bet turn), then start checking, even the fishiest of villains will become auto-balanced and play their range perfectly against us... Plus, by checking flop, I can sometimes even check-fold to significant action, and feel good about it - having escaped without investing another dollar.

Who knows, but I think you're leveling yourself a bit. You don't have a lot of history with V, and the two scenarios are very different (sizing with a marginal hand v. sizing with a monster). If I had KT here, I'd just jam and hope you had Tx, that you call hoping to chop and I can win all the monies, but who knows what V does here. Without more history on V (and your history on him isn't that compelling) I go back to default and assuming that river raises are usually nutted, which in this case means at least 6x, that it's hard to get someone to fold a boat, and that if he has a flush that he chased hit on the river that it's hard to get someone to fold a hand after their draw comes in.

There's been a bunch of times in the past few weeks where I've 3bet post (with nuts or virtual nuts) and gotten folds to an obviously strong hand from some reg player. Plus as I mentioned in a previous post, I'm seeing more villains raise more thinly than they ever used to. It's been making me want to add more 3bet bluffs post-flop to my game.

That K9o hand in my Op that I 3bet pre otb... the villain in that hand had JQs... He flopped the nuts with an open-ended straight flush draw on a KT9ss board. Then he bet smallish on a K turn (which boated me up, and I only flatted), and again bet smallish on a 7s river when his flush came in. I raised the river, and he tanked and nearly folded that (but luckily did call).

So yeah I'm seeing more 2/5 regs bet/fold and raise/fold - especially turns and and rivers - than I ever used to.

Is that a result of the same people changing their game plan or an influx in new people? Its a mistake to assume that since person A raises light, person B raises light as well. They likely have different play styles.

OTT it is very plausible that V2 would call with a T. You appear to be aggro, are the PFR and checked the flop. Why would he assume you have a K? or that V1 has a K? I could put V1 on a K more times than hero in this scenario based on pre-flop, flop and turn play.

I could also see how V1 would call with chasing the flush draw at this point as well. Maybe AQ or so. V1 has a good range of hands that he could be playing. In V2 shoes, I am probably calling smallish bets OTT even with more players behind. Depending on the play styles of everyone behind, they are not likely to have a good K after checking through on the flop.

Game dynamics among regs definitely tend to follow patterns, kinda a group-think thing... There are 5 casinos where I've played a good amount of 2/5 1K Max BI games (plus some 5/10). At each different one there are different "feels" to the game, driven by the regs. Of course a whale or crazy drunk guy can drop in and change everything on the drop of a dime; or if it's all tight regs, the whole game can become a huge nitfest. But in general, regs just tend to copy and emulate other regs. Some might be looser or tighter than others, but regardless, 95% of them will never do anything creative or very different from the rest.

I played poker full-time for a year and a half, stopping and returning to normal work like 4 years ago (though I have always played occasionally). Now I've been playing a ton for the past month or so and am working to figure out the ways the game has changed, and how to maximally exploit the reg-culture in these games, not just the really bad fish and whales... Stuff that used to be the "rule" - like they'll never raise river without the nuts - is definitely not true anymore, not in the games I play.

Whole line is horrible, so horrible it might look like a weirdly played KK or 66. Whether or not villain is willing to fold is another story entirely obviously l.

One other thing to think about - Does our line look at all like a full house? I say no. How much Tx do we have in our UTG raising range? Probably not much. If we have Tx do we even bet turn? Maybe but that's a somewhat strange bet, we're WA/WB. Finally, and most importantly, if we have Tx do we ever bet $50 into a $240 pot on river? Again probably not, and for the same reason you may not put him on Tx given his small raise size, he may not put you on it given your small initial sizing.

Interested in results here. My general view is that if V is a thinking player, our story doesn't really look like Tx. If V isn't a thinking player, I don't think he ever raises with a hand he's folding on the river.

Small bets to induce aren't really so uncommon... I think most regs have seen this kind of thing from strong hands plenty of times... But a tiny bet on the river almost always has a bottom and isn't air (well I do regularly underbluff in good spots, but that's another story; I definitely wouldn't try that here) - it's at least got SDV in the form of top pair, maybe something like JJ-QQ at worst (though I wouldn't actually bet JJ-QQ here). Not many regs think a hand like that is ever going to 3bet bluff.

Villain can be pretty wide here. 6x,Tx,Kx,Ax, straight draws, flush draws, and pocket pairs over 6. The blocking bet looks weak. I think it needs to be $80-$100. If Villain will pay us off with Ax, Kx, and pocket pairs, I think raising has value. If not I don't mind calling and showing this hand down.

You have some solid, constructive reasons for making this play... unconventional as it is. And I think it's always a really good idea to adapt to the circumstances and not be afraid to try something like this. I think a lot of experienced players fall into an auto-pilot, "do what the book says," mindset too quickly and too often.

Very creative way of playing a ha nd. With your line you're only repping a weirdly played 66 or KK. The only hand that you would have in your range that makes sense is AT. So you are repping a very small range while your opponent can have all the 6s and all the Ts and all the flushes. If you think he's capable of laying down a hand as big as a 6 here than the play might work but you need to make it bigger.
I personally don't like the play to be honest. It looks to me like your opponents will find a lot of calls here , even with flushes, because of the weird line you took so you're only folding out worse hands and hands that you probably already beat.

Sent from my ONEPLUS A3003 using Tapatalk

Results:

I suspect you bluffed with the best hand.