Greetings,

I'm playing pretty recreationally right now, so some common spots to y'all are not so common for me. This situation comes up often where H is OOP, there's a front door FD, H db, gets called and the river bricks. Do we triple barrel to get V to fold his missed draws when we ourselves have 0 sdv?

V (500) sat down about 30 minutes ago, saw him play 2 hands but didn't go to show down. Seems recreational so far.

H (covers) has been at the table for an hour, but V hasn't seen H do anything so image is clean to V.

H opens JT from MP to 20, V calls from LP and we're HU.


F(40): Q68
H cbet 30, V insta called.

T(100): 2
Neutral card for both of our ranges, H db 60, V insta calls again.

Hi range is likely capped at a Qx, FD and maybe some 97, 75, 8X

R(220): 6
All draws missed, I doubt we can get V to fold a Q here if he called 2 streets already. However, we have J high. x give up? or bet small? bet big?

Shove

Why shove?

Shove is godawful.

If you're going to bet this turn you have to bet this river, I like 185.

I check back give up turn this doesn’t scare anything and you only have a gutter. I would continue on overcards and maybe flush completing cards if I thought he was weighted toward qx.

I think it’s shove or give up on river you want max fold equity vs q. Lean towards x give up because I don’t give unknown recs credit for folding top pair

Edit: actuallly didn’t realize shove is 2x pot I do like a big sizing here though maybe 200

On this particular board I don't think V is necessarily weighted towards a Qx (just assuming at this point since I don't know V yet). The board has multiple draws and when the turn is a neutral card, why not stick with our initiative and DB and rep Qx+ ourselves.

I guess ilike23bet likes shoving to applying max pressure on Qx, but that's such a fishy bet imo unless I am trying to level V to call off with a Qx when i'm holding AQ or better... but w/o knowing V I cannot advocate for a shove. I like 185 as a sizing. Would you go even slightly smaller?

It's the optimal sizing for our range. Our value hands should size all-in since it's a perfect runout for those hands. Villain is capped unless he slowplays sets sometimes, and even those are only 4 combos, unless he flats QQ sometimes pre.

If we think villain doesn't fold Qx ever, then bluff small to get whiffed draws to fold and shove with value only. If we think villain is the type to never bluff-catch with just top pair, then shove as a bluff always and value bet smaller to get the crying call. If we think villain is reasonably balanced or we don't have a clue how he might react with top pair to a shove, then shove a balanced range of bluffs and AQ+.

JTcc is good bluff selection since it doesn't block any missed draws.

This is a nice post but dont you think that same argument could apply with a pot sizing? The overbet seems a little big.

What about using a smaller sizing with kq and qj or are you playing it as a check call?

The bigger the better when we're betting a polarized range, unless we're consciously making an exploitative decision. Less than AQ I'd probably just x, yes. I'd probably check {QQ, KQ-QT, whiffed draws with poor blockers}, QQ because it double-blocks villain's bluff-catchers, and KQ-QT because it blocks bluff-catchers, it's not good enough to value-jam and villain may still bluff at the pot if he has a missed draw himself, and stuff like AsJs because it blocks a lot of hands we want to fold out. Maybe AQ no spade could be a reasonable x/c as well. I'd bet all-in with {AA, KK, 88, 66, AsQ, whiffed draws without poor blockers}.

Overbetting only seems big because we're conditioned to think about our bets in relation to the pot. In theory we should bet larger the more our range polarizes, and our range is pretty polarized when we raise/bet/bet and the board completely bricks out for the caller's range. There are exploitative reasons to bet less with either value or bluff, but not both, unless villain is a chronic slow-player and still has all 66/88/QQ+ in his range.

These type posts full of theoretical crap are just that...crap. "IF" villain will do this, then we do that. "IF" villain will fold to this size bet..then we bet X amount.

We dont have 500 hours with the guy. This isnt online poker where we have a database of how often he calls 3 bets or how often he folds rivers. Thats one of the reasons I personally think live poker is so much purer and a better game that online poker which is nothing but stat analysis for nerds.

We have no idea if he will never fold Qx or if villain is the type to never bluff catch with just top pair. The friggin guy just sat down 30 min ago and has played 2 hands and neither went to showdown. The entire post is a cop out.

Its like saying..."When getting robbed at gun point, you should fight back IF the robber is the type to never really shoot someone". Great! maybe you should ask him if he would really shoot before you decide to fight back or not.

Huge +1 to everything.

Sorry, Mike, but I think it’s more valuable to teach a man how to fish than catch him one. People can learn far more by examining the factors someone uses to reach a conclusion than they can by only seeing the conclusion. Stating the action I would take actually has very little value. I am not sure why you think my post was a “cop out?”

The player usually has more information than us on the forum. 30 minutes is often enough to lean one way or the other. Regardless I did say what I would do if we have no clue about villain.

What my post really boils down to is that if you are neither shoving for value, NOR as a bluff, then you’re playing this spot wrong.

this

Turn id just give up

Ap gotta go for 3-barrel, about 70% pot

Thanks for all the responses.

Some really good discussion points came out of this post from bet sizing to giving up turn/rivers. During the hand my thinking was along the lines of what @SwolyswoND mentioned "If we bet the turn we have to bet the river on most bricks"

I was planning on bluffing a Kx/Ax, most non rivered , check Jx/Tx. I bet 150 and V folded.

The main thing I wanted to confirm was my decision to double barrel the turn card which is a neutral card for both of our ranges. When a card like that falls, should be we no lean towards the side of keeping our initiative given the draws that are on the board and our ability to rep Qx or better ourselves. Granted these are all assumptions vs this villain in this spot, but these spots comes up too often so really asking for future situations.

On a board as draw heavy as this flop was, and given that we are near the bottom of our range, I like double barrelling this neutral turn.

You know there are Anonymous Hudless tables online right?

As far as the hand it’s an easy flop x/f. It’s good you don’t block spades OTR and you block QJcc/QTcc so I like a smaller bet OTR to fold spade draws and 8x. But cbetting this flop is a big leak

Also betting big on this river makes no sense. You want to get value from Qx/8x I f you have AQ+ you would want to bet smaller to make sure he calls. People betting big are just clicking buttons and lol@ live poker being more pure than online.

Flop cant be a c/f when we are $500 effective and we have a gut/shot....

Since we are holding J hi, the flop is definitely a spot to c-bet and fold out Ax, Kx, and small pocket pairs. The additional implied odds from our gut-shot makes it a mandatory bet.

What? Effective stack size means nothing, it’s SPR that matters and it’s 12. But that is irrelevant.

If you want to go for some exploitative cbet because players are calling too wide preflop that’s okay but you need to know why you are doing it.

Theoretically you should be checking most of the time. With the occasional mixed strat of barreling 3 streets on good runouts for your range.

assuming we x flop close to 100%
theoretically c/c flop with JTs/T9s because we have so many AXs and AK/AJ/KJs/KTs/77/66 to fold

Yeah x/c flop is probably better in retrospect. Villain will x back OTF a lot and we can just probe turn to take it down a lot too.

Ehh yeah these spots are tricky. It’s good we don’t have spades in our hand so there is a case for betting since he is more likely to have two spades that missed.

We are also near the bottom and will not win the hand when we check. We block QJ and Q10.

He could also he have 79 some of the time.

Generally I don’t loke bluffing On paired boards.

I think we have shove here for him to fold anything but a queen

In real time I think I go for it

This is great!