It got a lot of really good discussion going, didn't it?

Actually Poker has a classic post about this very thing.

Exactly, this has been the best thread of the month.

Would have been much better if everyone just discussed their plans on various turns and rivers.

LOL this thread is a ****ing trainwreck

Flop sizing? It got 100 replies so obviously there's a good bit of disagreement here...

Man, I miss 2006

Agree with this line, I like the smaller re-raise here - $140 seems just right.

Wut? To figure out the best way to play the hand through discussion? This thread does that better than almost all of the threads here. If you don't like it there are plenty of other threads with super standard spots that just end up with the OP getting coolered.

This thread is why I have (and many others) shied away from making many strat threads or commenting too much in them. OP has the only real "read" on this villain and it is impossible to articulate that read in his post. For example, OP describes Villain as an spewy LAG initially. In reality this Villain is a stationey fish. That's fine; sometimes our reads are wrong.

A spewy LAG has a specific play style. Tries to outplay us, will make bluffs when he senses weaknesses, etc. Against these players we want to leave him room to bluff on this street or later street AND get value out of weaker made hands.

A station will just call when he feels like it. He will have a very inelastic calling range. He's either calling or he's not. Against these players we can blast away with little fear of losing our Villain. In fact, we want to size on the bigger side since we don't want a scare card to fall and lose our fish.

This distinction has a major bearing on the appropriate response to the Villain's flop donk. Sizing, etc, are all dependent on this read. In this thread, the actual Villain play was inconsistent with the read presented by OP.

well said, moneymaker.

you tell 'em Dickie

It's a shame that we don't know the hold cards of villain.
The villain can't have 77 or 88, does not make any sense.
He block bet otf and, IMO, he have a FD or OESD. OESDFD not because he make push on flop

If he have FD or OESD plus tilt or boredom, the call is easy.

Dude, sabr already tried to help you understand why raising small is better. Go back and reread. If villian was truly a bad lag, he would continue with the weak part of his range FAR more often by raising small.

And against the strong part of his range, well, we'll get stacks in anyways. .

Its funny that you, and so many others think that villians range is draw heavy..then, go on to say we need to get stacks in before a scare card comes. This 1/2 donk is rarely a draw.

And like slim said....V isn't Lag, he's a stationy fish. He wanted to put us on AK or a heart draw and hero call us.

Yeah I see the thought process. I wasn't focusing on the LAG read as much - it seemed tentative, at best. OP didn't say anything like, yeah, this dude is going nuts, trying to push everyone around, raising like crazy until people play back at him etc.

You're saying if he's a spewy LAG, so give him more rope, not less. Right?

Yeah, I dig that against a spewy LAG.

My entire problem with the 135 camp is that 135 isn't at the top end of the $ value where villain will think about folding to a raise and, imo, his continuation range to a raise inelastic to a higher value than 135.

right. If villian was truly a bad lag, we need to give him the illusion that he can do something sexy like flat then ch/jam the turn. Or b/c then lead the turn. Or even 3b the flop. When we raise so huge, we often just fold out everything in his donking range.

If he was a good lag, his donking range would include sets bc he would expect us to raise overpairs then he would 3b flop.

This guy however would ch/r them. Same with a NFD. So we can be fairly certain he has some junky gutter or middle pair sdv hand.

Also, this range discussion is exactly why we should have a bluffing range here. Which is also why we need to raise small. In order for those bluffs to be profitable. Raise small so they don't have to work as often.

I think $150 is the magic number. We have two more streets. He can still blow up ott or otr.

Stacks aren't deep.

Can easily go $135/$240/$440 and stack him, as well as giving him the illusion of fold equity.

It really doesn't matter that the read turned out to be wrong. All of the discussion revolved around the villain being a bad LAG. I, like SABR42 and others, like a small raise against a bad LAG; however, I think everyone would agree that a bigger raise would be better against a stationy fish. I don't understand why you wouldn't post strategy because of threads like this, there is still plenty to learn from discussing different lines even if the reads don't end up corresponding.

I have not played 2/5 with V before, so maybe he plays spewy at 1/2 with his friends while short-stacking and less LAG at 2/5. I'm about 99% sure he had no paint when I saw his cards go in the muck, looked like two cards between 6 and T, but could not have been T8 because that would have made a straight on the river.

This is good. I wasn't thinking about the OP read and that obviously affects how wide villain is likely to be pre-flop, how wide he's likely to be the flop, and what he's gonna do with that wide range.

Readless live, I like my line; with the OP read, I dig the smaller raise and three streets.

Threads like these (with two camps, both with a differing opinion of what the most +EV line is) are the most helpful non-sticky threads in LLSNL IMO. Back and forth discussion helps remind each side that there's another way of looking at the hand (and every hand) and they may have overlooked something the first go round. Well done by all involved.

Hey sabr, what is your plan for different turns?

I'm assuming you are bet/calling?

$135 gives him 4.3:1, requiring only 19% equity to correctly call (ignoring implied odds). He can correctly draw with almost his entire range here.

$240 (on the turn), assuming he checks and hero bets, gives him 2.7:1, and 27% equity to correctly call (ignoring implied odds). This one isn't as bad as the flop raise, but getting almost 3:1 and some implied odds, Villain can correctly call and see the river with at least half his range.

IMO, we're not charging him enough to continue. In fact, he could correctly continue with much of his range even if he knew hero's hand.

For your betting structure to be correct, IMO, we'd have to assume Villain has a PP only, and never has a draw. And even if this was the case, Villain still has enough PO+IO to continue correctly with QQ+.

Am I wrong here?