I dont know that he will barrel off on the turn. Clearly he doesnt do it every time since he didnt do it when a K hit the turn which is one of the best cards to double barrel.

You'll have to indulge me on how his BTN raising range is exclusively AA-QQ.

I don't expect him to fold those, nor do we need him to fold those. But if you cannot see how this board is great for our limp/call pre -> x/r flop range then I don't know what to tell you.

According to who, you?

No, I did not. When we raise to $150 and he decides to jam TT down our throat (uhh okay but whatever), then we need [225 / (125+50+150+325+225)] = [225/875] = 25.7% equity to break even. And guess what 44 has vs. TT+? You guessed it, 26%!

It's not, based on the original read in the OP (which Mike has since changed). Do you want to continue speaking anecdotally and blabbering about people not folding AA-QQ or do you want to bring some math and combo analysis to the table as I have done?

This isn't a "I have TPTK on a soaking wet board with straight draws and flush draws and an SPR of 3" auto stack-off situation. If you are stuck in 2006 and believe you need to stack off on dry boards with every over pair in your range having committed less than 20% of your stack then you are doing something wrong.

He does, and if he has those combos in his BTN raising range then he is also more likely the type to c-bet bluff at this pot with stuff like 87s and two overs + BDFD (as the results have since shown). And if Mike isn't willing to hero call down on bad run outs then c/c is a bad play (ignoring the fact we give free equity, which is not insignificant). It's inexplicable that villain who is a "pretty good player" would not bluff the nut bluffing card on the turn when Mike's range is so clearly capped.

Under the absolute tightest possible stack-off range villain can have here, we have 27.3% equity needing only 26% (if we raise to $150 -> call).



If you give him any kind of spazz factor whatsoever (since we are now factoring in Mike needlessly showing his cards in HH1 and ill advised spewy bluff that makes no sense in HH2) then our equity is 34.5%. And the only spazz hands I am giving him is AKs and A3s with BDFD.



And if you are adamant that villain jams the strong pairs on us (I'll concede JJ+) and calls with the weak ones (77-TT) when we x/r the flop, then we can take advantage of the exact situation that happened on the turn by jamming on the K and folding out 24 combos of PP's.

If you want to argue that we have no FE vs. his entire range and get hero called by every single made hand he has >44 and folds everything worse then ok that is your prerogative but not indicative of life in the real world.

My bluff in HH2 was not ill advised or spewy. The guy led $75 into a $130 pot into me on the turn on a ATxT board. I raised him knowing he didnt have an ace or a T. 95% of people are folding QQ there. My turn raise is massively +EV in that spot. Not to mention the bluff got me paid off big time in some later hands.

Im sure a lot of players would limp behind 77-88 OTB when 4 players limped before him. So according to you, 100% of the LLSNL snap raises 77-88 here. Lol.

I didn't say I stack off with every overpair, but it's pretty reasonable for a lot of live opponents to.

Im too lazy to do the math, but even if that wall of text is 100% accurate (which I'm pretty sure it isn't), this is only +EV a few bbs. I dont understand why you would want to get into a +- 3bb spot for your whole stack when you're near the bottom of your range 5-way to the flop. LLSNL is a goldmine with a ton of fish.

I still dont know what my best play here was. Ive check raised in the past in spots like this and been blasted here at 2+2 for it. Im actually surprised Johnny is defending it now.

Having said that, sure LLSNL has lots of fish, but sitting back and set mining and nut peddling isnt the yellow brick road to crusherville.

No, but a good solid player (as described in OP) is.

Okay I guess I'll take your word for it

/sarc

Wow a lazy poker player that doesn't understand math. I'm shocked

/sarc

1. When the action gets back to us it is HU. The fact that it was 5-way to start the hand is completely irrelevant.

2. We are not near the bottom of our range. We have 6 nut outs twice on a board that smashes our overlimp/call range.

3. Poker is a game of small edges, but you don't understand math so I'll leave it at that.

4. Because x/c the flop and x/f the turn with the best hand when a villain bluffs the K is an objectively worse outcome. The reason you think it is okay vs. occasionally getting felted here vs. the top of villain's range when we take an aggressive x/r line and end up stacking off in a +EV spot is because losing $50 at a time doesn't really feel like losing at all and you tell yourself "I run so bad he got lucky hitting the K on the turn."

+1 minator why getting whole stack in for 3BB EV

OP, poker is not a game of small edge - we often pick up spots where we are 65/35 over turn+river and easy 80+/20 when we bet with one card to come. with the deadmoney in the middle, each bet we make further make us expect to win the double in HU.

if u find out poker is small edge at ur games then u should change table or games

Well, doesn't look like Villain was that solid betting with air into a 5-way pot using 40% PSB lmfao. Given dynamics, this is a standard check with a whiff.

You don't really know anything about me. I know your wall of text isn't accurate, and even if I prove it you wouldn't take my advice anyway. I've been around here for a pretty long time and you're one of those stubborn regs who always thinks he's 100% right and is almost always unwilling to take advice from other posters.

I do understand math. How else would I be a winner at 100z/200NL online? Those games are way harder than live games, even 10/20. Lmfao you went on your 30+ BI downswing because of spewy mentality like these. The variance is so low in live poker compared to online that anything above a 20BI downswing means you're just spewing chips left and right.

If you seriously need to make moves like these for your whole stack to add 0.05bb to your winrate, you just need to get better at poker. I'm sure it's not even +EV, but I'm done trying to explain to you why c/ring this hand is aids.

LOL at hand being 5-way to the flop is completely irrelevant. Just reading that statement and logic alone is laughable. You think his c-bet range and check-back range are the exact same HU and when half the table (mostly fish) are in the pot? That's insane. If it's HU, it's a standard defend by c/c or c/r. 5-way this is just a instafold.

And since it is 5-way, GTO-wise we are not obligated to defend as much of our range since there are so many other people on the pot. 44 is pretty much near the bottom of our range here, and it's okay to fold it. I mean, if you want to add spew to your game, then whatever.

If you think someone is bluffing with overcards and will aggressively barrel turns, this is a standard c/c. C/r'ing just isolates ourselves vs his nuttish hands and folds out his bluffs (hint: we make less money if we stop him fron bluffing).

Yeah the K is a good card for his range and we should fold to a turn barrel, but saying that c/f'ing a K turn is bad is being results orientated. If he barrels at Q/J/10/9 and we thought he was bluffing with overcards, we call down. But once we call this flop, I don't expect him to ever bluff the turn unless he's an idiot since he's repping an overpair and we called anyway. We can easily have a straight or set here.

I still wouldn't do it unless I was prepared to fire OTR. That oughta take care of the 5% that call the turn.....

i probably just fold flop, pretty surprised villain cbet flop and then gave up ott

Mike people give you a hard time because you say stuff like this. You didn't really provide any background info on this hand, but you can't say "I know this guy never has an A or T" and then say "see I was right" when he shows QQ. That's not how range analysis works. Either way, what are you representing with your raise? You play in pretty shallow games so if you had the one combo of ATs or the 3 combos of AA you would call in position and get stacks in on the river. You wouldn't raise AK/AQ here because you would be overplaying your hand. All that leaves is a bluff which is exactly what you had. So instead of calling your raise "massively +EV" and claiming 95% of people would fold in that spot, perhaps give your opponent credit for hand reading you as FOS.

I think you are talking about this hand in question, PAHWM : Suited ace for a raise, where I was very against a flop x/r.

In that hand you flopped top pair with A5s on an A84r flop. You are near the top of your range here, so x/r the BTN who was likely taking a stab at the pot after the PFR checked accomplishes little because you are way ahead of his bluffs and way behind his value hands. However, his bluffs significantly outnumber his hands that are >A5 so you are effectively turning a hand with value that can get additional value on later streets into a bluff and allowing villain to play perfectly and fold worse and call with better. The 1/1000 occurrence where he folds A6 does not justify the play. You weren't comfortable bluff catching for three streets with top pair, so my suggestion was don't play weak hands like A5s OOP.

This hand is completely different. When he bets the flop we are likely behind, but we have 25% equity plus a board that is very good for our limp/call range. My previous analysis was assuming he only bets made hands on this flop and we still had a +EV expectation. When we add in his most likely hands like Broadway's our equity shoots up to to 55% making for a slam dunk flop raise.



The reason we raise the flop here and not in the A5s hand is twofold.

When we x/c the flop, we allow villain to realize his unpaired over card equity against us IP while he denies us from realizing our own equity. What ends up happening is a good opponent will be betting the turn on Broadways (like betting the K holding AQ) forcing you to x/f the best hand. He will also be betting the turn for value with his 77-TT hands on non-Broadway turns and you will be x/c with the worst hand. By taking a passive x/c line on the flop you are allowing villain to crush you and he forces you to make mistakes.

Folding the flop is 0EV. Check/calling is most likely -EV. But we have a minimum of 25% equity on this flop and as much as 55-60% depending on how wide he raises the BTN. So what option does that leave us? Raising.

Everything I just said in the paragraph before that villain uses against you when you x/c we can now use against him when we x/r. We deny him from realizing his overcard equity (or charge him handsomely) which has 23% against us. We also force him to make tough decisions which ultimately leads to folding mistakes. Sometimes he'll fold the best hand on the flop when we raise to $150. Other times he will fold the best hand on the turn when we jam our last $225 onto a K turn like happened in this hand and he's sitting there with 88 or 99 or TT wondering what the hell you have that you can be playing that strongly. He'll conclude you have too many sets and straights in your range (9 combos of sets, 4 combos of straights with 43s) and you'll scoop a nice pot. Other times he will be stubborn and call it off with AA or QQ or AK that got there on the turn and that is fine, because we still have 26% equity on the flop and 14% on the turn (which we get to fully realize!).

If you want to improve as a player you need to start thinking more about villain's range, your perceived range and how they interact with each other. When you start playing your range vs. his range it leads to interesting hands like this where to an outside observer you look like a maniac or an idiot when you raise the flop and shove the turn and he calls with AA and you lose the hand, but that is but one permutation of the hundreds of combos he has in this spot and the results of one hand doesn't change the +EV vs. his range.

You are correct in your skepticism of the people that talk about 65/35 and 80/20 opportunities just growing on trees. If poker was that easy then 80% of players wouldn't be losing players with another 10% breaking even. Poker is a game of small edges and if you want to continue improving you need to explore every opportunity to find additional value.

I appreciate the time it took you to think about all of that and post it. I forgot about that A5s hand. I re-read that hand and I actually wasnt talking about a hand like that (and wasnt referring to you when I said people didnt like my check raise in a certain spot). Its been 3-4 months since that A5s hand that I posted so Ive had plenty of time to think about it and been in plenty of similar situations. I stand by my check raising line in that hand. Only because my check raise would be based on a bet sizing tell. I guess a lot of people here dont use them but they really work for me.

I didnt check raise in that A5s hand, against my better judgement, because I had started to adjust my game more and more as I read more and more here at 2+2. The adjustments I made just werent working for me. My win rate slowly but surely dropped over a 3 month period as I tried to implement more of the advice I got here. Now, maybe I misapplied some of the advice or whatever, but facts are facts. When I went back to my style of play which is very read based and feel based, my win rate exploded again.

Back to this hand....

I fully agree with you and all of your reasons why a check raise here is good. Again, its obvious that most people here disagree with me...and you this time...but I believe the check raise is best. I couldn't decide on a check raise amount so I played it more passively and just called.