Because: ldo

With which I very much agree, and not just because I know the V. There are just a ton more AX combos, esp after calling two streets.

If that's the case, do the range breakdown, ldo...

Something I wrote before OP nitpicked the response:

I would usually bet flop check back turn and bet river vs most, once improved; but based on your "profile" of villain of you think you can get 3 streets then I like you line, I might bet a bit bigger OTR since he might call with worse top pair.
Other wise NH.

I agree with mtagliaf.

Also, I don't disagree with the 2-street camp against most villains.

However, against this villain, IMO, b/f pot OTF, b/f 1/2 pot OTT, and b/f 1/2 pot OTR.

Grunching ... will read others L8R.

Think you played it fine given the V descript. Many AX hands in his range which we get value from. Vs. a tighter player, I'd normally check 1 street (usually turn, sometimes flop), but his tendency is to call down small bets.

That said, I'd size ~1/2 pot OTT and OTR, B/F in each case.

Yes, this is right

LOL, this is so wrong, and goes to tell you that nobody really cares about math in this forum, and those that do, will likely never actually respond.

If your bet sizing will induce him to call with all his PP, then you're getting called 100% of the times by his PP/Ax range.

So that's exactly what you're getting as played, $74.

If he's willing to call $40 more with Ax, but obviously folding everything else.

Then you are getting slightly more value, $77.52, because he has roughly 68% of Ax vs 32% of PP.

Anyway, you kind of have to just play around with the numbers, and obviously don't forget hands in his range that beat you.

He dumps 22/33/44.. Possibly hero calls 55/66... If he goes this far with 88/99, which he has done before, then he will call a smaller bet. He has JJ/QQ in his range OTR too. (Just speaking on hands we beat)


Oh and lol math. Obviously just clicking buttons.

Then do your own math...and come on man, you're a mod in this forum, at least try to encourage positive approach to this game.

What's with these jokes?

If we go for 3 streets here, I think we value own ourselves too often relative to the times we get called down by worse Ax.

I don't think he's ever C/R bluffing the river, even if we check back the turn.

So I guess Im in the 2/3 flop, check turn, 2/3 river (fold to a raise) camp...expecting to get value from worse than Ax sometimes too.

3 streeters: Him having lots of 7x in his flop calling range, and another 7 falling OTT doesn't really change anything for you?

I totally think its a cool to bet both the flop and turn. I just bet a tad bigger on the flop and turn though (because 3/4 pot is fold, and 1/2 pot gives him a lot of odds, and 2/3 pot should be better with value and 1/2 pot with bluff)

and definitely hate the small bet on the river (I would check back unimproved), but when betting for value vs Ax and being ahead of AK, AQ etc. this is terrible sizing. Why are you inducing your villian instead of happy bet fold like 1/2-2/3 pot on the river?

There is no way you can call a raise though unless you have different reads about his river raise from earlier history. Perhaps you can give us some live tells / feelings you had if he shoves over / raises

No... not until he shows some aggression. If he's going to just x/c me down with his trips, I'm fine with that. He can win the minimum.

if you bet 3 times, how does he win the minimum? also he is probably going to c/r the river rather than c/c (theoretically allowing him to having a bluffing range as well, although this will prob never happen with this guy)

well, it makes the turn valuebet less profitable, but not so much less that checking becomes better. his flop c/c range is pretty wide here, so 7x shouldnt have as large of an impact as i think you are suggesting.

in the actual hand river bet should be bigger and id prob size turn a bit bigger but other than that looks fine.

I like leading river here for about 70 in these games you're getting called by the range you described and it's pretty inelastic to bet size. Over 70 the calling range for most players in this pool seems to shrink up really fast unless action is currently hot and heavy at the table in which case pucker up buttercup and pile it in on most streets.

This is just terribad logic. Lets just say he check calls 3-streets with all his Ax and 7x and with 7x he raises the river and we fold and ofc this guy is stupid enough to not turn a made hand into a bluff.

#1 with us having an A and there being two A's out and two 7's out, he has way more combos of Ax than 7x (for example 72o 73o 74o 7Jo are mostly like folds while similar Ax combos are not)

#2 on the flop and turn he has a gazzillion more hands than 7x and Ax that call

Also i am a little confused by your discussion @jvds. While your arguments seems to prefer being a two streeter your conclusions seems to be a 3-streeter :-?

If he has 7x in his calling range, then he also has 3x and PP (at least OTF).

After the turn pairs the 7, there are now much fewer combos of 7x he can have (e.g. 7xs, A7s).

Now, even if he still has a 7x hand after all that, he's very likely to put in a lead or a raise OTT, and very likely to lead OTR.

Since he does not, I discount 7x hands from his range (yes, even with his trappy image as described by the OP).

Much more likely he's being trappy with a 88+ or A-big.

IMO, this is a pretty standard 3-street-value hand against a villain who'll call down light.

For every 10 spots like this:
-- 5 times I get 2 streets and V folds,
-- 3 times I get 3 streets and win at showdown
-- 2 times I value own myself and either lose at showdown or have to fold to a river raise.

not entirely sure what you think is 'terribad', but i will try to clarify. i was responding to Troyble, who asked if the advocates for betting 3 streets felt like the turn being a 7 was essentially meaningless. my response simply said that the turn being a 7 did change the strength of his range, and, as a consequence, the profitability of our bet on the turn, but that this change was not so drastic as to make betting less profitable than checking. the reasoning underlying this claim assumes that he will either a)c/c 7x a non-zero portion of the time (this obviously makes betting less profitable, because now we lose to more of his calling range and have ~4% equity) or b)fold hands that he otherwise would not have because they have become relatively less strong (this is probably a less likely consequence of the turn 7, and might be a greater concern if the turn was a K). the point is that either way, the range with which he is calling the turn is stronger and includes some combination of more strong hands and less weak ones.

i think it is actually quite reasonable for him to c/c 7x ott, and with a read that he likes to trap it makes it likely that he does this at least some portion of the time.

im also unsure what your last statements are intending to show. i am well aware of the fact that he has much more Ax in the range he arrives at the flop with than 7x (i actually alluded to this in my post).

your follow up post seems to be confused as to whether i think betting 3 streets is correct. my response to Troyble was simply to highlight the fact that while the turn being a 7 was not inconsequential (the turn 7 is probably the worst turn for us), betting the turn was still better than checking. i may have been unclear, i hope this clears it up. as a final comment, i would also suggest that you not lead with calling an argument 'terribad', when it is clear that you simply did not understand what i was trying to say (which may have been my fault for communicating poorly).

while this is not necessarily true, i agree with it in this instance.

yes, there are fewer combos of 7x available.

this is certainly not necessarily true, and i think we have a read that suggests otherwise, but my main issue with this statement is that it addresses a different point than the one i took issue with before. you previously indicated that if he was going to c/c down with 7x, that was fine with you because he would "win the minimum". my question to you (which goes more to the merits of check calling 7x in general), was why you believed he would win the minimum if you would bet 3 times when checked to. fwiw i dont think it makes much sense to do anything but c/c 7x ott.

discounting is fine, but i would be cautious as to how much you are willing to discount them.

i agree that betting 3 streets is best here, i never argued otherwise.

i think this suggests that river is closer than you were saying beforehand.

If we bet half pot or bigger on this particular turn card, I think he's dumping non-heart 45s, 56s, 64s, 24s, 25s, 3x, 22, 44-66, and maybe even a few higher PPs.

None of these hands have more than 4 outs. Some of them are going to bluff into us OTR. Others can talk themselves into a C/C, really not wanting to give a super active player credit for an ace after he checks back a turn card that brought a FD.

Basically, he's going to make a ton of mistakes with this portion of his range OTR. Considering we're now drawing super thin against 7x, and we were trailing 1/3 of his Ax to begin with, keeping these hands around seems pretty important. Never getting check/raised is nice too.

The ten is actually one of the trickier river cards to play if we check back, since he could conceivably B/C with a decent chunk of hands that we beat. On virtually any other river card though, we have a pretty clear call against any reasonable bet, and a bet/fold if he checks to us.

Also, I put "half pot or bigger" in the first sentence because If I did bet the turn, I don't think I would use OP's sizing. I would be looking to set up a river shove if I had I had trips+, or get him to fold PPs if I had a draw/bluff, and I have have a nagging habit of attempting to balance in spots like these.

i dont think hes going to bluff the river very often based on description, even with hands like 6hi, so i dont think there is as much value in being able to bluff catch the river. i would certainly never expect him to turn a small pp into a bluff.

without debating the merits of balancing, i really dont think you should be weighing the strong portions of your range so heavily when choosing a bet size here. you really should have very little 7x and few boats (imo), and far more Ax that want to valuebet, so i think it makes little sense to choose a large size where the majority of your river valuebetting range is going to have to be very strong hands, of which you have very few. my off the top of my head estimate is that ott i would have ~6 boat+ combos and ~6 7x combos, while i would have ~40 combos of AT-AK (and i would vb a little thinner than AT here).

Fwiw... He is not bluffing this river (on purpose) and if he c/r's the river it's a fold like 99.9% of the time.

Grunch

Stop being such a nancy paddy

Bet larger on the river based on descriptions

And obvious b/f spot but larger so you don't accidentally induce.