Yeah, A or K is a chop if she has it also. Duh!

Why calling preflop?
Now after the flop any raise or c/r on your part is a clear as crystal a bluff. There is no value raise as you would like to call it. It's a bad desperate bluff.

As usual, you are wrong. I was not bluffing when I check raised her. Based on her previous preflop raise sizes in different situations, raising after limpers or making an opening raise I was confidant that she has no pair in her hand. I was correct. She had no pair and she called my check raise anyway. She had 6 outs to pair up on the turn. 8:1 odds against her.

grunch. If your read that she's overly aggro for 3 streets, it makes sense to bluffcatch when you have the nut unpaired hand on the driest board ever. Obviously high variance, but that's how you can exploit somebody who massively overbluffs.

I don't like raising because I don't see any reason for it - you'll narrow V's range and she'll never fold better. Raising is a scared "I want to end the hand" play.

Flatting pre is definitely a mistake here, vs this opponent I 3b / GII for value.

Re: blockers.

Blockers matter because it reduces the probability of villain having certain holdings, depending on their range. We're not saying they *can't* have those holdings, but blockers change the probability significantly.

If someone's range contains {AA-QQ,AK-AQ,KQs}, the combos look like:

AA-QQ: 6 combos each
AK-AQ: 4 suited, 12 offsuit combos
KQs: 4 combos

Total: 54 combos. AK makes up 29.6% of this range, AA-KK 22%, QQ 11%.

If we hold AKo, these numbers change dramatically:

AA-KK: 3 each
QQ: 6
AK: 2 suited (we block two suits), 6 offsuit
AQ: 3 suited, 9 off
KQs: 3 suited

Total: 35 combos

AK now makes up 23%. AA-KK are 17%. QQ is 17%, and AQ is now a whopping 34%!

Obviously, it matters which hands villain can hold - if they never have QQ, then blockers don't matter as much. But we shouldn't ignore the very real differences in ranges blockers cause.

[did these numbers by hand - apologies for any arithmetic errors]

I'll assume all your numbers are correct. My point about blockers is that the more action there is, the less blockers means at all. Sure if I raise with AA and get called, the odds of the other guy having an ace is smaller than if I had KK. But once we get into the meat of the hand everything changes.

Someone just posted a hand where he had 76 and there is significant action on the turn and a large all in on the river on a 97663 board. Blockers go out the window. It doesnt matter how small the odds were that the other guy had a 6 preflop or on the flop, the odds are VERY high he has the case 6 now. You can just say "I block him from having a 6"....and put him on something else.

Anyone who has played a lot of poker has seen hand after hand with 2 of a card on the board and 2 players that both have trips. If there is significant action, you can bet they both have it, no matter what the odds were of that preflop. We've all had AJ vs JJ on a Jxx board...ect. Sure blockers matter when you initially try to put someone on a hand, but more action means chances they have the hand that you thought you blocked (and the one that beats you) go thru the roof.

Your conclusion is correct, but your logic is less precise than it could be. If villain's total range is 100% value we lose to, then blockers don't mean **** as we have 0% equity.

In the example you posted, blockers aren't important if we range villain on {99, 77, A6} - it doesn't matter that we block some value hands because the range is 100% value. We're using the same basic range construction -> combo counting -> equity vs range process we should use to make all our decisions.

Why aren't you 3 betting preflop. No need for tricky play with bad players.

Preflop is whatever... I'm almost always 3bing this small so we can get it headsup and play a bit post flop. Though I do flat AK sometimes, just not really this spot.

If you are 90% sure she doesn't have a pair and 100% sure she barrels 3 streets with all hands, pair+ or not, easy x/c x/c x/c (Even if we are less sure she barrels, still the same as long as it's very probable). Don't forget about the 6 outs we can hit a pair as well even if we are behind. So we actually do have some good implieds by flatting vs. her pairs. By flatting, the other players in the hand think we have a pair or 2x so will likely fold everything except their own pairs. If they flat, we just give up on non AK considering they are unknown and we don't know how sticky they are. Even if they peel with 2 overs, that means we are going into the turn having to dodge around 16 cards if we are not already behind.

Edit: Just read a bit more of the thread... You aren't sure how bluffy she is. In your two hand examples, she had a value hand. Overvalued, but it's a value. So we have no idea if she bluffs without further information. In fact, in my experience I'd expect players like her to actually not fire a second street bluff for fear of getting x/r and will try to hit their showdown. From your description, she sounds like a station who just overvalues hands. Not agro. If that's the case, we can expect a lot of cbets from people who will over value hands here so I think it's a safe x/c on the flop and x/f turn if she bets again. Btw... sounds like Lilly, is it her? If so, def x/c flop, x/f turn without direct+implieds.

Not sure who Lilly is, although I heard her name today from someone else which is very strange.

The biggest problem I have with the hand is that I have no idea if she will bluff the turn and/or river. That's why I think a check raise all in works well. Shes never calling and I take down a decent pot right there. The only reason I didnt do it was because there are 2 other people in the hand and I have no idea what they have.

I think a smaller check raise was better. If one of the other players calls or raises, Im giving up if I dont improve. If they both fold, Im shoving any turn and if happen to hit her, so be it.

I understand your read here that she just doesn't have it, but I have 2 problems with this hand.
1. Our raise size. If we had one if the likely value hands we are repping (mediumish pairs) I think we would almost for sure make it more. This was almost a min raise and our hand is not strong enough, I'd have made it 220-260 and shove every turn vs her.

2. My problem with calling this bet with the plan of calling it down is we are OOP and we have no idea if she will slow down with air or not.

I think a shove is totally unnecessary tho, she's probably never folding a pair anyways but you might run into a slow playing other v and those times you do you just threw away 500 rather than 200-250.

That's the problem. Im very confidant Im ahead of the maniac preflop raiser. I dont know if she will continue to bet with nothing. I want to make a big raise (more than the one I actually made). Its possible one of the other players has a small to medium pair and wont fold it.

Its a tough spot. I could fold of course, but that feels very weak when Im pretty confidant Im ahead in whats already a decent sized pot.

I would say the opposite is true. Blockers have a much greater effect after significant action because action narrows ranges and blockers have the most effect when ranges are narrow.

This is fold for me with 2 players behind.

What are you calling with if you fold this?

If you're read of her is accurate, I think yes, that's exactly what we do. Also the two unknowns left to act, by just calling we're preserving her bluffs (which seems our most profitable line) but we're also not hanging ourselves bt C/R, R if one of unknowns has PP or a 2.

Then you fold with two left behind, if she's not bluffy. If she's ultra-agro regardless you can call. If she's ultra-agro when she thinks she has the best / a good hand you prob fold.

In almost all situations I don't see how folding is better than just calling and re-evaluate.

x/c

You don't CR, or C/Shove because you're GII against what beats you and denying the blufftard to bluff.

How many times have I said in this thread that shes not a chronic bluffer. She just overplays hands that she thinks she should be value betting. If she has something like T7s here, I doubt shes going to bet every street with T high once I call the flop. She may bet once more and she may not. Nobody knows how a maniac like this plays and we dont get into situations like this often enough against the same player to be sure.

My guess is that she can have any 2 cards within a gap or two of each other that are over 5 or 6. If I just call the flop I have no idea when she pairs up and when she doesnt. If I check raise the flop all in, I win a fairly decent pot and the hand is over. No muss no fuss (other than the other 2 guys who could be sitting there with a mid pocket pair and call me).

I at the time didn't see your follow up posts about how she's not necessarily bluffy.