Apparently I need to open a room. The room I deal in takes a $4 rake plus $1 for bbj. Players complain about the rake being too high.

I like betting half pot in this unique scenario.

Mild value bet and maybe inducing a c/r from villain if he assumes YOU have pocket pair (which you also represent).

There's a really minimal chance you get C/R here. So the question really becomes whether he calls enough wider when you bet small compared to when you jam. I don't think so (I'm not going to replicate the math people did above). I think his calling range doesn't change all that much once you cross some threshold of a "large" (in absolute BB terms, not relative terms) bet.

Disagree. If he's a moron he's calling the shove the same as a 1/2 pot. If he's half-thinking player, a shove looks more like a bluff and is more likely to call.

Results here were that I bet 175, he made some sort of weird giggly noise, threw in two black chips, said something I couldn't understand and then yelled "Quads!" while pointing at the board and tabling 88.

So I left about 250 on the table. Could have bought some cool stuff with that.

wow....surprised he called...lol.

$50 is the max rake. 10% of the pot up to $50 max.

Which is why we jam. Because his calling range is inelastic.

An average player's elastic calling range probably stops at $20 here. After that he is either going to level himself (or not understand the rules or w/e the case) and always call or always fold.

In fact I would argue that $10 would be more optimal than $175. But as I said yes I would just always shove here vs described villain.

Vs. thinking villains who take a line that I know they just never have a king, I probably bet $20, maybe $25 if I think I can get away with it.

Also not sure why the rake topic was brought up but if you are playing in a game where you have betting decisions to make soley because of the rake impact on the hypothetical bet, um, yea.

This is super nitpicky (so I'm not sure why I'm saying it) but I think this is slightly wrong. I'm fairly certain the EV of a $175 bet here is greater than a $10 bet. So it is "more optimal."

I think what you're getting at is that the $10 bet has a chance of being optimal in some scenarios (because it is in the elastic part of a calling range, $10 may be better than $9 or $11 against the right opponent) but $175 never can be optimal ($175 is never better than $174 because (we are assuming-- I think correctly) there is no marginal change in our opponents calling frequency after some $ threshold which $175 is clearly above).

The only reason I'm being a pain about this is, at least for me, it helped really get to the heart of why we should be shoving, which I think you put really nicely. Once we get above a certain point, we should be making the largest bet we can make because there will be no real change in calling frequencies as the size increases. I think this breaks down at some point but I think its a much larger number than the shove in this spot.

OP, I agree you left the money on the table. But I wouldn't feel too bad about it. This type of rare situation is one that you probably wouldn't think about ahead of time. And its hard to come up with as precise an analysis as people have on the spot. I guess that's the value of the forums. Our collective experience is greater than our individual ones.

This is basically moot. You have a player who didn't know the rules and got had. Most times you have nothing to lose when You have A hi on this board...basically free rolling hoping that an non observant or inexperienced poker player calls you off with less.

Nice hand you got paid off from a inexperienced player.