Or maybe it's because, as usual, you provide very little useful input in your thread and expect other people to spoonfeed you answers.

Do we know yet whether we have Kd? You know suits kinda matter, please include them in the future. Olaff telling someone else his post is vague lol

I include suits in 99% of my hands and I'm sorry I forgot this time. I had AcKc. Now that you know the suits, what line are you taking OTR and why?

Ahh crickets... No lack of takers to talk **** here but when it's actually a somewhat difficult spot. Crickets. Figures.

OP i have to say with all respect that it seems like you dont want to put in the work when writing a post or any replies, but rather expect everyone to feed you with all the magic solutions, thats not how it works and thats not how good strat threads developes.

I personally find it difficult and little motivational to post good thoughtful replies in your threads- because i feel i dont get any feedback or connection back from you when i have done it several times before.

I figured I'd post results so the usual suspects can talk more **** (yeah same guys who wouldn't give a line before the results are posted :P

Told you to c/f

Ok, a small opinion from a 1/2 rec player:

Whenever a TAG or thinking type of player asks what someone has behind I immediately give more credence to the range of speculative hands like suited connectors/gappers and small PP. Most people who are playing higher PP or big roadway cards don't need to do quick math for implied odds. So with being said I tend to lean towards villians range having several fives (56,57,45ss) and low to mid pocket pairs. So after the flop thinking he spiked a five, small diamonds or maybe floating with 66-99. Him not raising the turn disguised his diamonds well, but there is little he should be continuing with here that we can get value from.the mid pp will fold to a bet or maybe bluff, the fives might go for some thin value and a flush presumably as well, so a c/c reasonable bet as a bluff catcher would be my line.

I give those speculative hands even more weight knowing he smooth called a known nit from the button (he isn't likely doing that with any tens or AQ/AJ type hands and the Ad turn probably makes him more secure in his flush since you don't have AdKd

Thing is this isn't actually that difficult of a spot. You simply refuse to listen to those of us that thought this was actually a fairly trivial c/f

If river is a c/f, why don't we check the turn and b/f the river? Keeps more of villain's range in the hand that will call 1 final bet on the river but won't call the turn with worse because of the threat of another bet on the river ("leverage").

I don't play 5/10, but I have a hard time believing 5/10 is a game where you can get 3 streets of value with TPTK.

Oh I like this one

Results-oriented much? The only valuable information you get from results is that villain will call your 3b IP with 86s. This is the kind of thing you should pay attention to (even if you're not in the hand) and will allow you to develop better reads than "TAG grinder".

He also should consider how calling ranges change for villains on boards like this one. Some players ranges will remain rather static. Others will change. He provides no reads as to what he thinks about this villain at any point after the flop because "he's not a mind reader"

This must be a fantastic game with the "TAG grinders" and friends who'll call 3b's with S1C.

I wonder if V stacks off with his flush when another A drops OTR?

C/c turn and b/fing river is an interesting suggestion. It disguises our TPTK and may possible induce a bluff on a great bluff card from an extra-aggro player (this one is not though). Yet.. there are disadvantages, by betting ourselves we can set the price, in this case bet small enough not to bloat the pot too much. If we check, he controls the sizing and he may bet 2/3 or pot which we don't really want in terms of pot control. Also, b/fing turn allows us to safely fold to a raise and avoiding losing more OTR while simply c/cing sets us up to lose more OTR. If we check turn, he's not checking back with his flush. I mean very rarely. In general whenever I can b/f instead of c/c I prefer that. I feel it gives me more control in the hand. Whenever I know that I would check/call - I just bet myself. It also allows me to win with the worse hand sometimes while c/c does not.

You won't get 3 streets of "fat" (big bets) value from good players. But you can sometimes get let's say 2 streets of fat value and 1 street of thin value. The point of thin value to me is as much being able to easily fold to a raise than actually getting that small size value. If we check river and he bets reasonably big - it's a bad spot. B/fing avoids it. I probably should've bet river even smaller than $400, maybe $300.

As to what we can get value OTT - AQ, AJ, JTs, T9s. And yes, AQ and AJ are in his 3b flat range for sure.

OTR... we're basically losing to TT, 5x and flushes. I think not many 5s in his range (but I was wrong apparently) and 5x is hard to flop, TT even harder. Ad reduces flush probability. Yes, we're not beating much but the stuff that beats us is unlikely. On the other hand he's not floating 2 streets to take it away OTR, especially in a 3-bet pot.

So.... I think AQ/AJ still may call a small river bet. But... given the action there's more stuff that beats us even though it's unlikely. So c/f OTR may be better than small b/f OTR. Not an easy fold OTR by any means though imo. I still like my b/f OTT and the sizing I used. I may have cost myself $400 by not c/fing river but besides that I like how I played the hand.

Just because he did it now doesn't mean he always does it or it's in his general character. Also, yes, he would likely stack off with his flush with another A OTR and probably so would I. Lastly, no one's stopping you from playing $5/$10

I don't really like the way you played this hand at all. Why are we 3-betting a nits open with a hand that gets destroyed by his calling range?

A standard tag's 3 bet calling range is going to have a ton of middle pocket pairs 77-qq that are never folding this flop.

I don't like betting the turn. The only draw got there, and if he was floating the flop with a medium pocket pair the ace is an obvious scare card. So basically we're value towning ourself, and giving him a very good card to bluff raise us. I doubt we're 3betting a nit with KdQd/QdJd so our only real value hands are AA and sometimes, although seldom, 1010. If he can hand read at all he can make our life hell on the turn if we bet. Give him a chance to bet a worse hand on the turn and keep the pot small.

As played, what do we expect him to call a river bet with that we beat?

Bet smaller OTF. B/f 1/3 pot river is fine. AJs/AQ are mainly what you are trying to get value from.

X/c river is pointless because he isn't double floating with anything besides KdQx which I'm not sure if he flats pre with since you 3b a nit. So he has no bluffs and he isn't vbetting worse.

Turn can go either way I think but this is a card we should bet with our entire range. Even though we have almost the bottom of our value range on this turn we can still get value from his range while at the same time balancing ours.

This is the kind of info that is vital in the original HH and totally absent. Instead you give us this: You must supply better reads in your OPs. Starting today, any OP that has no other reads than "TAG grinder" will be insta locked. That said, all of the rest of your threads on the front page have at least a little bit more, so we're getting somewhere.

Now please start IDing your image more accurately too. For example, most LP Rec players aren't viewing you as "young TAG grinder." They are viewing you based on how you have been doing the last orbit or two. Even if you only bluffed once, if it got exposed, they view you as "bluffy" for at least half an hour, more if you've taken down some other pots without showing (even if you had the goods). If you've successfully drawn (even if you were offered a great price for it), they view you as "lucky" or as a "chaser." etc., etc.