LOL...Nice Try Sir

What semi bluffs can he have here?

Hero called a 5x 3bet pre and a 2/3 pot bet post flop. Even a bad player is going to notice that hero is showing a lot of strength.

Hero then bets $500 with $580 behind. I'm having a hard time coming up with hands that will be semi bluffing here.

Edit:
I also don't think it's a giving that villain stacks off with AQ here. Maybe 30-40% of the time he doesn't.

Villain also has to realize hero has AK, 99, 1010 in his range as well. Maybe even A10s and A9s.

This.

As this thread is going into page number 5 and possibly towards its end, i will repeat what Mike have touched uppon earlier,because i think its really puts some pieces of the puzzle together and really is some food for thought.

I can almost guarantee you, that its a correlation between the people who goes broke in this hand (and on autopilot preaches that folding pre is horribad), and the people that claims "everybody goes on 20-25 buyin downswings" or that variance is so sick that we "can never really knows anybodys winrate". Poker is all about patterns, recognizing patterns and find correlations: this is crystal clear to me, no exception regarding this particular pattern- and so easy to spot really. If you normally just shalk these types of hands up as a cooler/setup or "standard stackoff" spots with top pair for 300 blinds, maybe that have something to do with you maybe going on huge downswings? Its also possible your ranging is way off, both when it comes to how wide a villain like this 3 bets deep OOP, and more importantly with what kind of a range he sticks 300 blinds in the middle. I think many people is in for a surprise to be honest.

Very often i find on this forum that hands/spots/stackoffs that several posters quickly stamps as "totally standard" or " clear X action of some kind", is probably correlated to the insane downswings that is discussed regurarly in winrates thread, many people going flat broke and just dissapears in silence from the forum- or goes on 400-500 hour breakeven stretches+++.

But... you're saying it's a clear fold preflop.

Nice attempt to cherrypick a small part of my post in order to try and score a cheap point.

Surprise though: i have never stated anywhere actually its a clear fold preflop. I have provided arguments though that folding preflop should seriously be considered/debated in this kind of spots (very deep and being up against a very likely narrow 3 bet range as the main components), and that the tool of possibly folding AK pre playing deep (and be aware of the reasons why) should be standard in a longterm winning players toolbox.

OP as played got in 300 blinds drawing stone dead with top pair in this hand, wich is what really happen pretty frequently with a reverse implied odds hand such as AK off playing deep. When you make these kind of calls, not only do you whiff a huge majority of the time and have to fold to a C-bet from villain leading out- but even worse and more serious is all the kind of flops where you get in 300 blinds drawing dead or close to dead. You can start a train of thought of
what kind of impact even very few of those kind of deep stackoffs will how on your winrate, bankroll and possible downswings.

I’m operating on hero’s assumption that the guy doesn’t 3 bet light. If he has pairs or AK/AQ we are way ahead or way behind, I guess I’ll add “or chopping”

Villain 3bet range is the source of most of the debate itt

Again, I agree we get into touchy territory ignoring reads, but questioning/asking for clarification of reads is fine. This is supposed to be a discussion after all, with the ostensible goal of making everyone better.

The small handful of example HHs OP gives (and the results of this very hand) already contradict the read, so we can't NOT question it here. Villain is 3!ing light enough for value that AKo is not a fold preflop. He's already 3! wider than QQ+/AK, and he just 5xed a UTG+1 5bb open w TT. If nothing else, we have to question the semantics of the read, and I think it's more than fair to ask "How do you know he's not 3!ing light," which I did 100 posts ago and never got an answer.

I am willing to agree to disagree that villain has potential bluffs in his 3!ing range. If you don't want to go that far with me questioning the reads, then fine, I don't care, it's just a hypothetical situation, interpret it as you wish. If we agree villain is a linear (though not necessarily tight) 3!er, then I like a small 4! preflop, and I would not stackoff OTT. Maybe that's even the minimax approach to this spot.

If you want to take a dogmatic, technically-not-wrong approach of sticking to the idea that villain always has QQ+/AK preflop and stick your head in the sand in the face of any contrary information and arguments just to save face on the internet, then maybe these arguments are more about your ego than having a worthwhile discussion. Hence, why you're bringing up your 2/5 winrate to a couple of MHFR players who could not possibly give less of a ****.

TL;DR: My, what a mighty large penis you have there MikeStarr, I am simply swooning in its presence.

Again, if we are going to question hero's read that the guy doesnt 3 bet lite, then he shouldnt even have posted that read in the first place but if he didnt people would be saying "any reads?"

Besides, even if we knew for a fact that villain has TT+, AK/AQ...and nothing lower, Im still folding preflop....or 4 betting. Im never calling. Ive tried it enough times to know its -EV.

You can get in stone dead playing correctly, that's poker. Also you will see I advocated a turn check.

Also wtf is this bs about opponent doesn't 3bet light. Opponent clearly does since he showed up with TT. I don't know what world you live in where that's so tight a range we have to fold AK vs. Even if opponent has no "bluff" hands and only has AK+ TT+ we have very good equity, and that's a huge if. If the opponent has AQ... ho boy.

I can't even tell if you're arguing that AK is a fold vs a range that has TT, or that we should be folding, and that we shouldn't expect the opponent to have TT and saying so is results oriented. Both lines of argument are ludicrous of course, though in different ways.

This will be my last post on this thread.....Its your money. Do whatever you want with it.

And before you say anything about TT not being a light 3bet, TT is a lower frequency 3b SB vs EP than A5s, and that's only because solvers run a no flat range. If you run a flat range at all in the SB, then TT is much more of a flat. So villain clearly has an at least somewhat wide/light 3bet frequency.

You're running your mouth talking about people losing money by playing loose preflop never considering folding AK, when in reality reraising TT OOP is a much bigger overplay than having AK IP, and yet you act like it's completely standard, or is part of a "non light 3bet range".

If your perception of what is a light 3bet range or not is based on "is it a pair or not" or based on pure hot or cold equity, then you just don't understand poker (note AK has better hot/cold than TT, vs 5%~ range AK has 58% vs TT's 53% equity, so actually your understanding would be even more rudimentary than simple hot/cold; if you factor in position, then it's even more drastic).

You are spewing meaningless theory knowledge in both your lasts posts that have zero relevance to the arguments i have provided ITT. I could also do that kind of spewing if i wanted, but i i dont need to. This isnt 6 max online regfests where everything is based on technical poker, small percentage ranges and numbers all aroundt: this is very predictable slow live LLSNL with deep stacks.

I have never said anything close to a denial statement that AK dont have decent (even good) equity pure numbers wise (stop grasping at strawmen): what i am trying to get across is the question of how the **** we will be be able to realize that equity in a bloated 3 bet pot, deep and without iniative where villain is gonna fire a big C-bet into us almost always?

Again: this isnt turbo sitn go where all that matters is pure equity numbers range vs range where we are allin preflop and guaranteed to see all 5 cards realizing our full equity everytime. Hiding leaks and bad plays behind theoretical numbers in this way is a classic exercise on this forum btw, and i can see you are no exception to that rule.

We're in position.

If we have 55% equity, we only need an R of .6 for our hand to be +EV to call. You're telling me that the realisation disadvantage of being the aggressor, AFTER factoring in position, is more than -40%? Do you actually think this?

Online poker isn't some kind of magically different game than live poker. All it means is that everyone's tendencies are different, the maths are still the exact same.

Right here it has nothing to do with online or live tendencies. Here we are presented some assumptions of preflop ranges. The maths after that is exactly the same. The only reason why you would not be able to call AK profitably here is for some reason aggression has a +40% R AFTER factoring positional disadvantage, which can only be true, pretty much, if the hero is atrocious at postflop.

You can throw all this bs big talk about us being players who think we play postflop better than we can, but there are significant data, both player database and simulations, showing that IP defending 3b can realise way more than you're suggesting, and you pretty much have no argument aside from your anecdotal experience.

Mike Starr and his scorched earth policy crack me up.Hand is played fine with the exception of betting smaller on the river and folding to a raise.People seem to forget that NLH is a game of frequencies and I would 4! Around 60-65% and flat the rest,although I’d flat suited combos as they flop/continue better.

Yeah I’m not folding AK pre 300bbs deep against an obvious spot.

On the turn, I’d go $250 and $300 on the river since KK-JJ aren’t stacking off and since our range has way more value with Ax and sets than bluffs with flush draws.