1) any 2

2) any 2

3) any 2

4) never raising ott with any 2. but if you must, 2p+

5) any 2

6) the sizing is good enough to play any 2 in position in order to overshove otr

7) if you're trying to get to showdown than have 2p+ duh

That's a good question. Were you asking for my range OTT? Or what a perceived range for player X would look like? In this case you. I had originally typed out half a response to this, but deleted it due to lack of time and ability to finish my thought.

What I was going to say was that my range OTT is heavily skewed towards made hands and contains very few draws. Considering that we are in position, I tend to just call with my draws, unless they are absolute monsters. In the case that I did have a monster draw, I would have probably raised OTF.

As has been mentioned before, Villains bet size on the flop is rather large. I would have interpreted this as strong, so I would be much less likely to raise without a made hand since I doubt I have much fold equity against Tx+. I would also have probably raised sets OTF.

This is also been mentioned, but Villains bet size drops proportionally OTT. In some cases, I may use this info to try to move Villain off his hand if I had some of the weaker part of my range. But yeah, the idea of raising Ah7h isn't to get Villain to fold air, it's to get him to fold one pair between AA and Tx IMO and price out semi-bluffs.

Absolutely disagree with this right here. A LAG barrels too frequently, you must exploit this by allowing him to do this, not by raising and allowing him to play perfectly against you. This doesn't mean we have to stop 3 betting him, or even pare back our 3 bet frequency, but we are gonna have to add more value hands to our check/call range. I could definitely get to the turn here with KK or AA as played. Of course, it goes without saying that I would not raise the turn with either of those hands.

1) With what range do you think it makes sense to call the raise preflop? What range would you be 3betting?

Does he play back in response to 3bets? Does he just flat a lot even from OOP? If he doesn't respond well to 3bets, I'm adding a bunch of the slightly-too-weak-to-call hands to my 3bet range, like K9s or QTo or w/e. Standard 3bets for value might be 88+/AT+/KJ+ (ish), with a preference for suited cards. I flat any suited Ace, lots of 1-gappers, some suited 2-gappers, etc. I'm also 3betting some of my smaller pocket pairs.

2) With what range do you think it makes sense to call the flop? What kinds of hands would you prefer to raise with instead?

Coming up with a flatting range involves coming up with a raising range too, and eliminating those hands. I'm never flatting a set or two-pair on this flop, I don't think, because this doesn't seem to be a guy that I'll need to balance against by keeping sets in my flatting range, etc. It should be noted, by the turn, I never have TT/99 in my range because I 3bet those preflop, but this guy doesn't know that.

I will raise some combo draws/NFDs, but it's not 100% (so some of those go into my flatting range); I'm not really sure how to decide which ones to flat with, other than I guess it's generally better to flat NFDs and raise combo draws.

I also probably want some floats in my calling range, and I would heavily prefer to have good backdoor draws with my floats (so like, QhJh/Jh8h/Ahxh for obvious examples).

Of my non-combo draws, I will lean towards raising more often than flatting, because this guy probably has a lot of random Tx/7x in his opening range that cbets this flop, and raising my medium/weaker draws is better than flatting (since his hands are often weak too and flatting to hit my draw won't pay off for very big very often). It also pressures his actual TPGK or better one-pair hands.

3) With what range do you think it makes to call the turn instead of raise?

Of my flatting range on the turn, I think I flat the turn with a lot of Tx hands, and some of my backdoor-draw floats that have improved (but also raising a lot of these, maybe a 50-50 split?).

You don't mention his double-barreling tendencies, which heavily influences exactly how I break the turn down. Will he double-barrel, say... KQo? JT? Acxc? QQ? And how does he respond to raises? Is he very sticky (meaning I should lean towards value-raising rather than flatting to induce, with say, T9 or 86)? Is he a decent hand-reader and will fold one-pair hands to a raise on this wet-ass board (meaning I should be inclined to bluff more than usual)?

I think your question breaks down on the turn, without more information. Every possible combination of answers creates a different decision tree for me.

4) What is your value raising range on the turn? What hands are you trying to get value from when you raise?

See (3) above. Not value-raising one-pair, because I can't have any good one-pairs, because I 3bet 99+ preflop and I don't think it's right to go crazy thin trying to get a value-raise in with KT/AT. Don't have many two-pairs (just T9/T7), and probably am raising all of those for value. Don't have sets in my flop flatting range, so I can't raise turn with those. Obviously raising straights.

5) What is your bluffing range on the turn? What hands are you trying to fold out if you are bluffing?

See (3). Mostly backdoor draws that have improved, and some fairly high % of my left-over draws that flatted flop (remember that I said I'm highly inclined to raise my weaker draws on the flop, stuff like J9 or bare club flush draws or w/e). I'm looking to fold his one-pair hands, and bad club draws.

6) What do you think about the sizing? (Obviously that might depend on whether this is for value or a bluff, and also on the previous two questions.)

There is no room or reason for a smaller sizing. I think 300+ is the only choice. As for what a maximum size might be... 500? Not really sure without info on how he deals with overbets.

7) What range of hands do you think I should be showing up with here after taking this line?

Loaded question, because you don't have the same answers to 1-3 as I do. For me, it's straights, T9/T7, backdoor draws (hearts/QJ), and some % of club draws/random straight draws. For others, I can see having a wider value range and very different bluffing range.

If we assume that what I said I showed up with here is also what I think you should be showing up with here (not an automatic assumption, but let's go with it), then what I said above.

Can you please elaborate on why we can't raise to less than 300 for value or for a bluff? Also, what kind of hands are you getting value from with a raise to $500 in a <$200 pot?
And if you raise so large with your weaker strong hands (if that makes sense) like 97, what do you do if you get re-raised ott? Plans for river?

I put the $500 number out as my theoretical max, remember? Not advocating it as a default size.

As a general rule, it's correct to bet small and raise small on very dry boards, vice versa bigger on wetter boards. Why? Because wet boards give everyone's ranges more equity, and smaller raises either aren't going to give incorrect odds to draw, or are going to be missing out on value (e.g. we have a straight and villain has QJcc... a $200 bet is strictly less optimal than a $300 bet; there is room for debate about whether $300 is better/worse than $400 though). On dry boards, people's continuation ranges are generally inelastic to our bet/raise sizes... if you're a normal $2/$5 villain and you have AK on A62r, you're just not folding, so we can keep our bluffs cheap and extract value over multiple streets if we actually have it, since on dry boards, future streets are also unlikely to drastically affect relative hand values.

Getting reraised on the turn is showing incredible strength from villain, and without a read that he's a good thinking player who is capable of ranging us, or that he's some special kind of postflop spewtard, it's an easy fold with the vast majority of our turn bluffs. Depending on his specific sizing, it could be correct to continue with something like a NFD or a QJcc/QJhh hand, but otherwise snap fold (can tank for future credibility reasons).

If he flats our turn raise, it's almost just as scary tbh. Now it really depends on what kind of player he is and why he might choose to flat a big turn raise. My gut instinct is that his range would be pretty draw heavy, but also can include sets and two pairs. Against such a player, we first have to figure out if he's even capable of a river fold with his good-non-nut hands that flatted turn. Assuming bluffing the river isn't just pure suicidal spew, I would prefer bombing bricks vs hearts/clubs/straight cards (unless it hits our draw obv). I'm also very likely to be completely exploitable and bluff big (roughly 100% +/- 20% PSB) while valuebetting small (roughly 60% +/- 10% pot) on the river, because from what we know it doesn't sound like villain is very sophisticated and I don't believe he will pick up on it.

This question is actually the basis of Miller's new book.

What did you think of the book? I tried to use his method to analyze this hand upthread. Not sure how well I did, but the results are interesting.

I have been actively implementing it, but I don't think I have fully grasped the idea quite yet. It's a working progress.

Interesting set of posts here by the guy in this thread who's most likely to have actually played with me before (CRAIerrday, based on his post in my well), and the response, which almost exactly sums up my thinking here too.

I'm sure Villain did not know this at the time of the hand, but this sizing is the smallest I would use in this spot, not the biggest. Calling instead of raising would put $260 in the pot, so putting $255 on top is basically a pot-sized raise. With stack sizes being what they are, 1.5-times-pot overbets on the turn and river would leave the river bet being an all-in. So my biggest sizing here would be something like $485. Yeah, it would frequently blast Villain out of the pot, but so would $320 according to most people here.

Why would I never use a smaller sizing? Because of how wet the board is. There are 3 open-enders, one of them only a 1-card draw, and 2 flush draws. Possible combo draws run rampant. If I size the bet too small, not only am I giving Villain direct pot odds to draw, but I'm also inviting bluffs on scare cards that don't hit him. And if I had a big hand like a set or straight I'd be tempted to call a big bet on the river, since not all scare cards can actually make his hand. So I have to limit Villain's implied odds (if he is in fact drawing) with big bet sizing.

To me, the way to adjust for the fact that Villain is often folding to a raise sized like this is to mix in a lot of semi-bluffs, not to size it smaller.

One thing about the turn raise is that I don't expect Villain to be creative enough to 3bet this raise as a bluff on the turn. (I do expect him to be capable of doing this on the flop, though.) So for example if I have 97 and I get 3bet, honestly, I'm going to fold. It might be different if I had a read that this guy could 3bet a big turn raise with worse, but how often do you see that, really?

One of the things that interested me the most about this hand, though, in addition to the debate about the sizing, is what semi-bluffs belong in our range. At the time, I figured that this raise had a lot of fold equity. (It seems like at least some people here agree with me.) So if we expect a lot of folds, why are people picking their draws with the most value to use as semi-bluffs? I still don't understand the logic behind raising the backdoor heart draws.

At this point in the hand getting V to give up his equity share is at least as valuable as getting our equity share of the bigger pot at showdown.

Without know the "effective" depth of this hand and what type of hand would the villain be willing to go with to get there, there are no real answers to this. Just because the stacks are 400BB deep, doesn't mean that the villain is going to play that deep. We can say for sure that the villain is going to stack off with the absolute nuts. If he has AA on a AAKr flop, we know he'll be happy to put in all 400BB. After that, what is his pain point where he folds? Does he need the near nuts? Or will he bluff catch to 400BB?

This deep, the cards barely matter. Knowing the villain matters far more. And we don't know **** about him.

FWIW, I have no 3bet range pf in this scenario. I'm calling about 70-80% of all hands with the button. As played on the flop, I'm calling any piece of the flop including back door flush and straight draws. I hate the turn raise. You represent really nothing here other than 99. If he has a piece of the flop (and he probably does), he shouldn't be folding.

Putting aside the rest of your post, why can't I have T9/97/J8, or especially 86 (double gutter on the flop, turns the 2nd nuts)?

If you have any of those hands, your bet is very fishy.

If you think he will call this as a value bet, then you misrepresented V in the OP. Otherwise, you are overbetting to "protect" your hand, and the bet sizing has moved into the "fish not wanting to be drawn out on" category.

All of which I said on the first page, although I don't mind the turn raise to add to the chance that we realize our equity on flush or straight draws.

Most weak players aren't thinking double gutshots. I agree with Buster overall, I'm not thinking the raise is legitimate.

In that case, what is "correct" value sizing? (I strongly disagree that value raises should be sized smaller than this.) And since half the deck is scare cards on the river, what am I supposed to do if, let's say, I have 2 pair and he bombs into me on one? Always fold?

GRUNCH (means I haven't read any responses)


....1) With what range do you think it makes sense to call the raise preflop? What range would you be 3betting?


Since we are 2k deep this means implied odds are pretty important so I don't mind set mining as high as TT though 3-betting with TT isn't bad by any stretch.

I'd call with Axs and Kxs hoping to overflush V, SCs and S1Gs (suited one gapers) because of post flop playability as well as back door and nut straight possibilities

I'd 3-bet with JJ+, KQ+, AJ+ but I would also inlcude 97s+ in 5% to 10% of my 3-betting range since when I'm deep I hate having an easily defined 3-betting range. My 3-betting is also a function of my image. Stronger my image, more I will increase my 3-betting range and frequency. Obviously looking for sizing tells on V for when I know he is raising wide...


...2) With what range do you think it makes sense to call the flop? What kinds of hands would you prefer to raise with instead?

I want to call flop with virtually all of my draws since implied odds are high. I want to pot control TPGK type hands. I'd be looking to raise 2p+ on turn. I'd be looking to pot control with TPGK and overpairs. Basically, I'm not a fan of stacking off 400bb with "just" an overpair...


...3) With what range do you think it makes to call the turn instead of raise?


TPGK and overpairs and bottom 2p type hands


....
4) What is your value raising range on the turn? What hands are you trying to get value from when you raise?


I'm raising 2p+ and trying to get value from TPGK and overpairs and draws


....5) What is your bluffing range on the turn? What hands are you trying to fold out if you are bluffing?
.

My bluffs in this spot are definitely image dependent. When deep, I don't like bluffing with complete air at the 2/5nl level and so all my bluffs on the turn would be semibluffs. Pair + SD, Pair + FD, FD + SD semi bluffs and I would need a decent image as well.

I would be aiming to fold out TPGK type hands. I would not try to fold out overpairs since villains at 2/5nl are notoriously sticky with overpairs and are often unable to fold them unless the board gets super super scary...


6) What do you think about the sizing? (Obviously that might depend on whether this is for value or a bluff, and also on the previous two questions.)

Sizing is pretty big as far as 2/5nl goes. Depends on villain tendencies. As played, sizing feels like a semi-bluff. Happy if it gets a fold but if called, we have outs and pot will be perfectly sized for nice river bet if we bink and we can possibly jam river if we whiff and get a fold X% of the time...
Depending on objectives sizing is actually pretty good on the turn raise...


...7) What range of hands do you think I should be showing up with here after taking this line?

I think we should have sets, straights, and FD+SD combos here as well as pair + SD + FD combos. The best FD+SD combo here is QJ since there is a chance if we bink a Q or J we can win as well... The bottom of our value range on the turn raise should be two pair.

Ideally, I like to have sets and straights and two pairs make up 2/3rds of my turn raise range and the semibluffs (FD+SD, Pair + FD, etc) make up the remaining 1/3rd of my turn raise range.

so basically, 2/3rds of the time I have two pair or better and 1/3rd of the time I'm on a strong semi-bluff.

Given your read, yes.

That same part of the read tells me that your raise was too big for "value". You paint a picture of a guy who will only call/reraise you here when you are beat, and then defend this raise as a value raise? Uh unh, don't work that way. It's ok if part of you wanted to end this hand with 2 pair (and felt you were ahead), it happens. Just realize that with 2 pair+ vs the described V, that's a mistake.

I'm gonna put aside the other stuff you wrote after this and come back to this. When you say "realize our equity", what are you talking about? If we have a big draw, we realize our equity by calling and seeing a river. What do you think this expression means?

OK, nice callout, you got me there. I did use this expression incorrectly. What I meant was that I don't mind adding FE to our equity in order to increase the chance of winning this particular pot right here. My goal would be to add enough FE with drawing hands that our actual equity in hands vs this V is fairly static, that is, that our drawing hands equity plus FE roughly equals our equity with our value hands if we can (remember, unlike Venice, I actually don't mind raising with air here, either). I also don't think your implieds are all that great here if you just call the turn with a drawing hand. Will you get another bet? Probably, but it ain't in the bank yet.

I'm not at all saying that there is no reason to overbet the turn here. He's a LAG (at least part-time), LAGs ain't looking to play huge pots without the goods, His bet OTT screams weakness, he bet, when most LAGs (not necessarily good ones, but then again the good ones would have beat you to the overbet) would check a monster here, etc. I just don't mind adding my drawing hands (of course, not monster draws, I'm talking the 25-30 equity hands) to my air for an overbet here, especially since I am moving most (not all!) of my value hands to check/call status.

I just read 3 pages bro... Can you reveal the hand now? Fwiw I think villain has 109 and you have 77 or 99.

From this and from earlier posts, I think you are way too excited about this TAG vs. LAG distinction.

There's one thing I heard on the forum a long time ago, and I wish I could remember where it was, because I can't remember exactly how they said it, but it went something like this. When the betting is small, your play is tight or loose; but when the betting is big, your play is correct or incorrect.

As far as I'm concerned, once I make this big bet, there is no such thing as TAG or LAG anymore. There is only good or bad.

(Also, I'm a little confused at you implying I'm a fish for taking an action you don't even know if I've taken! I have not yet said, for example, whether I am value betting or bluffing here. I also have not said whether this bet got the result I wanted in either case...)

several things:
1. the first part isnt really saying anything other than that our draws will not win at showdown unimproved, so we need to bluff at some point

2. the first and second statements about FE and implieds are somewhat contradictory, considering there are so many draws we can have. why is it that we need to bluff now if we don't think he will call a bet on the river on very many runouts (this is the implication of no implied odds)? if you do think he will call a large bet, then the implied odds are good.

3. i don't understand why someone you categorize as loose and aggressive would be unwilling to play big pots without strong hands. that style would be more accurately characterized as tight aggressive/passive.

4. i think your betsize assumptions are fairly inaccurate. it is extremely unlikely that a good lag would check a monster here, since hero's range has a lot of weak showdown (1p) and moderate draw type hands which would rather check back. also it is a very wet board, which he will want to barrel a lot, necessitating that he bets it with his strong hands as well. the same (hero) range makeup issue with checking exists with overbetting, because then hero will only continue (correctly) with all his strong hands/draws, of which he has many as well, and is in position while deep. also consider that if V had decided to make his bet $65 range only {J8, 68}, he has OP (who he was actually playing against), and you, advising an overbet raise, so it seems like this would be a very good size to choose with a monster.

as to hero raise sizing:
it certainly depends on what range you are raising here, and the more 2p hands you have the more i would want to choose a more moderate sizing (~3/4 pot). this speaks more to the hands you are "targeting" to call you. the larger size you choose, the smaller (and stronger) his continuing range will be. it is important to note that he is probably uncapped on this board, and has a lot of strong hands to continue with (sets+, combo draws), so it might be better to choose a size which allows him to also continue with many 1p hands/weaker draws. i think dgi did a good job of summing up turn play, and i particularly like the idea of flatting some 2p (specifically bottom 2) on the turn, which will allow us to have some better bluffcatchers, and also to possibly bet for thin value on the river if checked to since we will have many draws that want to bluff (and he may bet all his >1p hands himself otr). my main difference would be type of draw to raise and size.