I’m talking about the turn when Garrick bets. It’s a mandatory raise from the 2nd nuts given the uncapped PFR’s turn betting range is exactly [AA/KK/AK] and the Q is still out there.

Flop calling ranges are wider than flush draws exclusively. There are enough permutations of V1 calling with Ax and V2 with QdJx etc. type hands where betting turn makes sense. And given our turn bet range is uncapped and extremely strong then x/r the 2nd nuts is mandatory.

Obviously not mandatory since he didn’t do it, but maybe mandatory for someone not breathing out of a tube.

It seems in this minor derail that people are either talking past each other and/or causing confusion by misusing terminology.

We usually don't talk about "equity" or "pot odds" on the river, since these terms relate to the likelihood we will have the best hand after all of the cards have come out.

On the river, I assume that talking about "pot odds" means "the percentage of time I think I have the best hand."

Obviously, if the specific Villain never bets the river without a strong hand, then we should fold unless we have an objectively very strong hand. However, many player are capable of making a river bluff bet. And it's against these opponents that we need to call with a chunk of our range, even if we are losing a significant percentage of the time.

Around 55% of the pot is standard here but it's not useful to look at this hand in a vacuum because we probably want to c-bet this flop with hands that have zero showdown value

probably not useful advice at these stakes, after all, we did have one player calling 3 streets with A4o but we can normally just shut down when called in two spots and keep firing when called by one when the flush draw whiffs out

our hand kind of doesn't matter on the flop coz i think we should cbet a huge % of the time, limp callers usually have underpairs and suited cards, not Ax. they usually have Kx more often than Ax and Kx can be blown off with 2 bets usually

good fold on the river, i think it's mostly a toss up between folding and calling, i tend to get sticky on the river because i'm a bit of a station but folding is definitely fine on the river

but I absolutely hate betting the turn, they just about always have a flush draw when called in 2 spots, so betting with 4 outs is just burning money

What are you talking about dude?

Pot odds: ratio of money in the pot to bet size. Directly applicable to any river bet.

Equity: percentage of the time my hand is good. Also directly applicable to any river decision.

This is not my experience at all. A6o-ATo and A2s-ATs are all 100% standard limp/calls for the average LP LLSNL V, ime. For the off-suit ones, some Vs go both higher and lower in their L/C range.

G, from what I can tell of your posts when you venture into the 1/3 NL strat threads, most of the time our viewpoints aren't that far off and we typically see eye to eye on quite a lot of stuff (with our slightly disagreements here and there, that's only natural).

But we *really* disagree on this. Like night and day / black and white. Dude limped in with J3soooted, called a raise with it, and then flopped his flush draw. I would actually wager decent money that you could shove the flop (for realz) and that most opponents would call like ~50% of the time. But as for calling a PSB+ bet? 100.000000% of the time on a non-paired board. For real, and I'm not exaggerating.

I'm the best player at my table (not bragging, it's not hard to be). Yesterday I overlimp in with A4cc, the Button ~minraises to $10 and we see a 4way flop. Q83cc. Checks to the preflop raiser on the Button who $30 into $40 (I haven't accounted for rake yet so it's worse than that). A fold. I still have a guy left behind me. Raiser has over $200. I contemplate check/jamming (especially since I also have an overcard to go with my flush draw) but I'm a little worried he's continued into 3 opponents. I just call, kinda hoping the guy behind me calls too. I'm the best player at my table and even I'm making up excuses to call 3/4 PSBs on the flop OOP with my flush draw. And you think some guy who's limp/calling J3sooooted is folding to any size flop bet?

GwereallydisagreeonthisoneG

I'm with GG on this one. Fish come to the casino to gamble, not to fold. A guy who limps in and then calls a raise with j-3 suited sure as hell isn't going anywhere when he flops a flush draw. He's calling PSBs all day long and never folding.

OK, so reading over the discussion, 2 things stick out to me:

1) A minor math nitpick about Garick's point concerning the probability that he is beat. Garick is assuming that the probabilities are independent. In fact, however, they are not. It's actually more bleak than that. The real probability that we are good here is not P(we beat V1)*P(we beat V2). Instead, it is

P(we beat V1)*P(we beat V2, given that we also beat V1)

That second probability is lower than the probability in a vacuum that we beat V2 (or whichever Villain you want to put at the end of the chain). The reason is that the times we have V1 beat, he will be blocking some of V2's range that we could have beaten. In the actual hand, for example, one guy had aces up; that blocks some of the 2 pair combos in the other Villain's range, making hands that beat us more likely.

So if we think V1's and V2's ranges are such that we are good let's say 30% of the time against either Villain's range, the probability we are good here is not 9%, it's less than that. That swings things even more towards a fold than Garick's original argument for folding.

2) I don't understand the argument that V1 made a mistake by not raising the turn. Here's why. First of all, V1 extracted an extra $200 from V2 by keeping him in. "But maybe V2 would have stayed in anyway!" The fact that he tanked for so long on the river suggests probably not. Second of all, V1 was probably thinking (correctly) that a raise turns his hand face-up as a flush. He got one of his opponents to make a river mistake by slowplaying the turn. And had V2 folded the river, Hero might have called.

It looks to me like V1 took a line on the turn and river that probably extracted the maximum, or close to it, from his hand. Now we might turn around and say, the fact that this is as good as V1 can do means he made a mistake earlier in the hand by even getting that far. And that's probably true. But it doesn't necessarily mean he made a mistake on the later streets.

In my defense...

Bolded for emphasis. I was trying to talk about math we can do at the table here. Of course, you're correct, but it's hard enough to estimate the chances and multiply.

Heh, OK, I did miss that. But my point was also that the non-independence isn't "random"; it always skews our decision more towards a fold than a call.

EDIT: A contrasting example would be running it twice, where the non-independence of the two runs actually has zero bearing on our EV.

I know probability math. I think that Garick overestimates how often we are beaten. I am concerned about V1, but not concerned about V2 who I think hardly ever has a flush. He has no reason to tank with a flush. The bet sizing chosen by V1 not only offers us great pot odds, it widens the range that is reasonable to assign to him to bet with. I wouldn't be at all surprised to see something like V1: AQ, V2: K8.

He does if he

1) Has a small flush and is weak tight scared money
2) Has a larger flush and is deciding if he can get OP to overcall if he flats or if he should raise.
3) Is just Hollywooding

4) Forgot where he was

This seems results oriented. He does not only have flush draws in his range and OP does not know how loose he is playing with suited cards.