Yeah definitely don't show. Look at my last post to see how villain showing the 3 gave us information that we can later use against him.

Showing the 8-X gives him the information that our 5-betting bluff range is not nothing.

I like this kind of shove with an Axs type bluff rather Kx

Issue is A2s does pretty OK vs the KK/QQ type hands, it also blocks villain from having AA

I'm not against this bluff, just prefer having the card removal to help out

Let's not be results oriented, just because the shove worked doesn't make it a good play. If you could somehow get in this same exact spot a million times I think it would be wrong to shove 900,000 times with K8.

^^^could not be more wrong buddy. After re-reading description of villain again (young, white, known T-25nl reg), it's apparent the reads needed to be confident which is the clear correct play are present. I think in this exact scenario, it's EXTREMELY conservative to say hero gets villain to fold 90%+ of the time. This isn't some decent 2-5 or 5-T reg playing in his regular game where you can't be as confident that he wouldn't limp a monster in this ******ed spot. If description of villain truly is spot on and confident, he will pretty much NEVER have a monster here.

OP, the problem with putting a hand like this in the low stakes forum is getting responses like you did from guys like Discipline and Gilmour. If you had put this in Med High Full Ring it would have been such a better discussion with posters who have infinite more experience with spots and stakes like this.

Like I said in my original response, nice job actually pulling the trigger. In the moment with a hand like K8s specifically, once in a while I would prob talk myself into a fold (even though everything in me would be saying jam) b/c I'd level myself into thinking there is no way a good T-25nl pro would make such a ******ed limp/4b bluff vs a good player like me, it's the bottom of my 3b range in this spot, I still have way better hands like A5s to do jam with, ect. I'd guess he really doesn't know or respect your game much, and/or just can't play solid when playing lower stakes.

Not necessarily. The catalyst for this hand wasnt the 4bet, it was the limp/rr. That changed everything. He may in fact never 4bet bluff when he hasnt limped first, as limp/rr from LP almost never happens. His true 4bet range is probably strong and plays out logically in all other circumstances. I wouldnt hold this one hand against him unless he routinely tries this nonsense exactly as played.

The bolded matters **** all.

It's still a bad play. All we have here is post-facto justification and rationalization.

If the results were that V snapped off with AA/KK, you'd be posting here saying what a ******ed move that was.

Correct. The resultoriented posts stroking OPs ego after they got results is kind of phatetic. It may well be somebody gets impressed with moves like this, ive met countless of those playrrs through the years.Confirmation bias all the way in this thread to defend their own FPS thinking.

Let me clarify i dont know OP personally. However my experience with players that habiatually spews/spazz 400 BB like this with garbage is that they are broke. They are not in the games anymore,they have put themself on the sideline.



Sent from my LG-H815 using 2+2 Forums

no, not correct. this criticism is intellectually lazy, and also happens to be wrong (as is yours), although that is less important. suggesting that the only way someone could believe that OP's play was good is through results oriented thinking and/or cognitive biases demonstrates a very shallow level of analysis and is generally harmful to these discussions, even though it is more or less par for the course in this subforum.

You are grasping at strawman arguments, wich is a classic. My arguments ITT doesent limit itself to mention the resultsoriented thinking/and or confirmation bias going on from OPs results. Even though those parts are a big part of the whole case now. I have asked several questions earlier (long before OP posted results and everybodys replies is skewed cause of that), wich nobody has even tried to answer in a proper way. For example what platform or observation sample OP (or the posters on board with this 5 bet shove) base their range assumptions on.

Not surprisingly not one single poster have even tried to come up with an adequate answer: simply because it doesent excist. OP simply doesent have enough reads on this villain to assign him an accurate limp/4 betting range, and that is one of the main reasons this is pure spew. Everyone is just guessing this and that, villain "should" be holding this and that, and projecting their own experiences onto villain an onto this spot- wich is really bad debate teqhniqe and unvalid arguments.



Everyone looks like a genius when you spazz like this and it works,that doesent mean its a good play, good poker or even +EV in the long run. For sure, new players at 18 of age visiting a casino pokerrom for the first time always gets impressed when they see a guy 3 bets pre with 3-4 offsuit or piles in 400 BB with K8 like OP is doing. This guy is a beast right, wow he for sure knows how to put the pressure on they say. When reality is that it is pure spew and buttonclicking without very accurate reads builded up over time. Its not rocket science. Ive seen countless players make this sort of spazzy spewy moves over the years, and it have never impressed me at all. Because i know very well what will happen over time- as mentioned in my last post the most of them have one thing in common these days: they are all broke or big losers in the games. Go figure why.

Oh really? Yawn...

And if villain description is accurate (which hero should be pretty confident if he's played with the guy multiple times, and is part of a relatively small player pool) then villain NEVER has AA/KK here. But taking a conservative approach, he still is bluffing and folds way over the ~65% needed for this to be a plus ev jam

It's good to know poker continues to be profitable.

preflop 3-bet seems really big, doesn't $170 accomplish the same thing?


After that, based purely on the action, Vs line is FOS, so I like the play, even though it is maniacal.

However, I'd be worried that button gave off a tell that he would be raising, which our villain picked up on. For that reason, I would probably fold.

+1 for sure.


All i have to do is to limp QQ+ or AK on the button and limp/reraise then OP is gonna ship over 400 BB to me with K8.

Tell me,where is this game?

Sent from my LG-H815 using 2+2 Forums

lol, no. my comment was directed specifically at the criticism contained in those posts, not your "argument" as a whole (which, ironically, makes your post a strawman). my assertion that you are being intellectually lazy (this is a nice way of putting it) is for the most part unrelated to anything you could have said earlier. to be perfectly clear, though, i am now saying that your earlier arguments were poor and were made up mostly of conclusory statements and name calling.


this is actually a relevant question, so well done. however, some posters did address this and the OP taken alone is probably enough to loosely answer this question.

you dont need "enough reads on this villain to assign him an accurate limp/4 betting range." there are these cool things called population reads that exist; requiring in depth villain specific information is not a good way to approach this spot (and many others). if you think no one tried to incorporate population reads into their answer, then you seem to have misread some posts itt. you basically seem to be focusing on posts you can find flaws in rather than looking for strong arguments that oppose you.

i am aware that something can work and be -EV. again, you are wrong that you need "very accurate reads builded up over time." there are plenty of spots in poker where you are forced to make assumptions based on limited information (like this one): folding in this spot is also making a decision based on limited info - it is no better in that regard.

this post is the closest thing to "analysis" you have posted so i will briefly address it:

this is a population read! so instead, you could have asked whether other people had different experiences with limp/4b ranges in order to pinpoint the disagreement and build a better picture of what population reads are reasonable in different places. the second point about the fog and the iceberg is worthless.


doesnt matter what you "invested," dont pass up on +ev spots, etc etc. ive covered the fog iceberg debacle above.


again, population reads, which you actually base your argument on.


whether to 3b or not is a different discussion and you certainly havent made arguments itt showing why it would be bad. i think we can leave it aside for now.


this is a meaningless conclusory statement, not support for any argument.

if you take anything from this, let it be that before you throw accusations of being results oriented about, try to understand what the best arguments that oppose you are (whether they have been made or not). communication is a two way street and it is just as much your fault for not trying to find what these arguments are and what the specific points of contention truly are.

jvds: i dont have anything more to add, other than we have to agree on disagreeing. Mainly about your statements regarding population reads- i am not on board at all that you dont need spesific villain reads/observations of hands shown down before executing a 5 bet bluff like this. If any spot recommends a really solid well developed read at all: its a spot like this where you put 400 BB on the line preflop as a pure bluff into an unknown limp/4 bet range you dont know what it contains or not. If you dont have those sorts of accurate villain spesific reads pointed down before doing something like this its the pure definition of buttonclicking.


We have to disagree on this case, but i really would like to reserve myself from being called out for being "intellectually lazy". I think that is a pretty harsh personal tag, and not some characteristic i deserve.

i think its pretty lazy to just auto assume folding is > shoving here. gilmour and hardball never addressed the math i worked out, showing that villian only needs a few combos that fold for this jam to be profitable. Instead, you guys simply base your decision on intuition and that 5! jamming is spew

we can agree to disagree on the hand, and that is perfectly fine, which was part of my point. if we believe different things about what his likely limp/4b range looks like it will lead to different conclusions, and these sort of beliefs are often based on observation/experience so sometimes there isnt really much to say other than: in my experience, he has range X and not range Y.

to restate what i said earlier about not needing villain specific reads: when you are faced with this 4b, you are forced to make some assumptions one way or the other. abstractly, you have to sit there and say my population reads say fold>4b (or whatever). deciding to fold doesnt mean you get to opt out of having to make some assumptions, it just means you default to assuming that folding is best based on your limited information. button clicking is making decisions that are not grounded in reason. this is not button clicking, it is making a reasoned decision with imperfect information (either way).

you may feel that it's harsh, but you have routinely accused people of having a number of cognitive biases and belittled them (in large part because they dont agree with you), going so far as to refer to some posts as pathetic. i dont really care either way what you call people on the internet, but i do think that is intellectually lazy behavior. this is probably enough bickering for one thread though, so i agree that we should just agree to disagree.

I disagree that because the 4-bet was a limp/rereraise rather than the more typical raise/reraise/rereraise means we can't apply anything we learn against him later in a typical 4-bet pot.

We showed normal strength with our 3-bet from the blind, and would have made the same move every single time we held a big pair, and villain still 4-bet bluffs. I could understand your argument a bit more if we had limp/raised rather than him, since in this situation villain might make an uncharacteristic bluff based on his reasoning that we'd never limp a strong hand in late position.

Also, if his true 4-bet range is "strong" as in always KK+, then that is illogical (except against players who only 3-bet super strong hands and/or never fold their medium strength hands after 3-betting), since he'll have a higher EV move by mixing in the correct amount of light 4-bets.

I agree that we can't have alot of confidence in our read on him based on this one hand, but it's probably safer to make 5-bet all in bluffs against him more frequently rather than less frequently, until our sample size of his 4-betting range grows.

Nice post, well put Ben. We dont agree very often, so i will for sure point it out when it do happen.


Especially bolded part- now we have something certain,something well proven to work with next time we face similar spots against this villain. The fact that this hand gave us is that villain is capable of limp/4 betting 30 percent of his stack as a pure bluff and with a skywide range, wich i believe is truly golden relevant information when we shall map out our strategy to try take this guys money.

You need to focus on the math more Gilmour, and you still seem to be thinking in terms of single hand against single hand...

It seems you don't believe it matters whether villain folds 40% or 60% of the time, or whether our hand has 15% vs 25% equity against AA and how that changes EV, but these should all be the main things determining out decision.

If we have a 5-bet bluff shove here roughly 40% of the time against an opponent who players correctly (which results from this hand indicate that he does), it's not a "spazz spewy move", it's the highest EV line we can take.

The problem in this thread is everyone seems to think villain is either balanced or merged. He's not, he tilt 4bet which wipes out his range entirely (further exemplified by the fact he showed, which he should not have done. He did this as a sort of "in your face" to hero to let him know that he's on to him. Only a fish shows a failed bluff). He was not planning on bluffing with a 3. His decision was impulsive and likely personal. If he was going to try and target hero he would be doing it in other ways, not like this. But you know, aside from citing 3 examples of this exact thing happening, out of what might occur 10 times per year, and being spot on with the read, we are just being results oriented. Lot of redliners in here trying to convince themselves they routinely make good folds.

You really think we believe that only " once in a while you talk yourself into a fold" as opposed to shipping 2k+

Villain turned an over limping hand into a bluff because it looks like hero is 3! To take down a bunch of dead money from a weak button raiser. If read in op is right villain likely thinks Hero will fold all his 3! Bluffs and much of his value range and that he is incapable of 5! Bluff shoving.

Nothing I saw in op indicates tilt or some vendetta on the part of villain.

If hero reasoned the hand this way and concluded it was a profitable bluff I see nothing wrong at all. (Save bankroll and tilt considerations). I felt it was close but that's based on what I see in the 1/3 and 2/5 deep games I have experience in where the 4! Bluffs are somewhat rare and villains do occasionally l/rr mid to late position.

If op was just spazzing and got lucky he knows that and will have to come to terms with it but he provided some math and reasoning.

There is also a temptation of players at the lower stake to assume the higher stake player is "pushing them around". They take a stand and get snapped off by the nuts. But otherwise Interesting spot. Glad it worked out.

One other consideration I didn't post here is that if i had folded villian could just start exploiting me by limpraising me often, because i cant defend my 3! bluffs.

To those who say this is an autofold, are you also folding QQ to the 4b? It has similar equity against KK+ and there are not enough odds to setmine. If your instinct is to continue with QQ then that says a lot about his range and definitely provides some support for a 5b bluffing range.