I respect your effort of writing a long response to me, and for that, I'll do the same.

Let me start off by saying that I did not mean to target you, or expected a response from you to my question. I may have been kind of short myself, and it may have come across as antagonizing, and for that, I apologize.

I am honestly not that interested in one dimensional discussions, because I feel that I am at the point of my game that I am well aware of what is probably the most optimal line in most scenarios. My intention of continuing this thread was to use the opportunity to discuss an aspect of a similar scenario, and to see if others, including you, have a theory in avoiding such exploitation.

With that said, I am still convinced that you are not really looking at my question with the correct perspective, and yes, I still feel that you do not have an answer.

First thing first, let's establish our target. Is the villain a typical level 0 playing donk, or is the villain a semi-donk that is capable of reading our hand range.

If villain is a typical level 0 donk, then how we construct our range in these spots is essentially moot, because we are representing hands to players that can't comprehend them.

On the flip side, let's assume that villain is capable of reading our range on a basic level. Please elaborate how you can avoid being exploited by constructing your range, if you're advocating that we bet even bigger on the turn with an overpair. The fact that you're advocating we bet even bigger on the top of our value range, we must also bet in similar size with our bluffing range. How can we avoid being exploited if you are suggesting to bet bigger than what is already nearly 50BB, half of the effective stack, by turn.

The only way that we can avoid being exploited in constructing our range is to actually check the turn with our strong range, something you believe to be very negative EV.

I had the same notion to begin this discussion, hence I asked the question. I am still not convinced that your response of constructing a wider range, given that you're advocating big bets on flop and turn with top of your value range, is a valid response to my question.

But I can see that in the end, you're conceding that there isn't a counter strategy, and we're back to square 1.

I think above quote is pretty obvious, but in this scenario, we are up against "unknown."

Again, you are focused on a very specific type of villain: Calling stations that overvalue their TP.

Against an unknown, I don't think it's +EV to focus on such narrow type of villain.

Ok...well...I can't really expand much more. If you are looking for strategies to minimize your loses when you have an over pair, then it's the equivalent to looking for strategies to minimize your winnings with over pairs.

I can't really argue with you if you want to assume that unknown players are more likely to be solid and not make too many turn calls.

In my local 1/2 game, not assuming people's calling ranges are too wide would be throwing away way too much money imo.

I really think that your EV when betting the turn here is much greater than my EV when I check, and call a river bet. I could be wrong. But, I think it's a terrible spot to double barrel air if you aren't triple barreling...so, that lends it self to typically being a great spot to value bet.

Off topic, but the very best part of this entire thread is the fact that 1/2 players are continually being referred to as horrendous, crappy, having no understanding of implied odds, calling $50 of $200 stacks with gutshots, calling $17 pre with J8s, being mouth breathing typical live fish, being awful losing players, and best of all, not understanding the game at all and thus being at 1/2, etc etc etc etc .......

.......... by people who are at the same table at the same venue at the same time.

Villain is unknown, it's his first hand. Why can't he have the same knowledge OP has? Would there be a problem if Villain went to randompokerforum.com and blasted off this hand history, working under the assumption that OP was a typical live fish?

Of course he can be good, but many, many 1/2 players are terrible and many posters here are way, way above average in the game, hence the reason they make money in the game. One thing that helps them to do this is the ability to use past experience of the player pool to weight the likelihood of different possible holding and actions by villains and how they correlate.

Is this even close to perfect? Of course not. However, the alternative is to include all 72o combos in a flop 5 bet shoving range because we haven't played a statistically significant number of hands with somebody.

Also, anybody how uses their eyes should see a clear correlation between how comfortable somebody appears at a poker table and their level of skill/experience.

Not making these assumptions is a huge leak, IMO.

I guess I shouldn't question your logic, but rather be envious of the fact that you have enough stationy players in your room that they're stacking off on dry boards with TP at 100BB.

This is my last post on this thread. I think everyone has valid reasoning, and I enjoyed discussing it.

I will continue to advocate that if we check the turn, and villain donk bombs the river, we should fold. Villains would not fire $80 on the river with AJ or a bluff IMO.

Given that, I think we're being a little results oriented. We know villain donk shoved, so we want to set up a spot to avoid calling it. But how often does this really happen? IMO not often. Villains will c/c turn and check river sooo often.

IMO villains show up with much worse than sets and T8 here. And when they do, we make money by bet/bet/betting.

Imagine OP posted this

PF raise with KK

Flop J97, v checks, hero bets, v calls
Turn 4, v checks, hero bets, v calls
River 5, v checks, hero?

IMO, almost everyone would say "just shove, you have a 1/2 PSB left with an overpair vs a villain who probably calls with worse." I just think that scenario happens way more than the c/c, c/c, donk shove with the nuts.

1/2 villains are too passive, call too much, and don't raise enough. I'm fine with getting stacked occasionally because many more times villains show up with AJ here, and we stack them.

Correct, but us as better players should always consider more than 1 option in every hand.

I actually believe that crappier the villain, less likely he/she is able to stack off on a dry board with hands < over-pair.

I think it is very important to consider the texture, that because the board is so dry, a level 0 donk isn't going to call off half of his stack with naked TP.

On the other hand, a bad player that tries to hand read will also not call off half of his stack on a dry board, because he can't put you on anything but over-pair or better.

Perhaps to a smaller bet. But the sizing of our bet is folding out a lot of hands on turn, and I can even argue that on a nittier table, the 33BB bet on the turn is folding out all drawing hands, except T9, and all TP, maybe even AJ.

Again, this all goes back to table dynamic and players' tendencies. But as a default in most LLSNL games, I believe the above to be true. 33BB bet on a relatively dry board isn't going to be called by much on the turn.

Absolutely, given the line, this is pretty much the only path we're heading down if the board runs out as described.

This is a pretty common scenario, and I have no problem with such, but then we should be very well aware that if we're putting in 45BB on flop and turn, we're pretty much going to be exploited by anyone that plays his/her hand passively.

Flop two pairs+ and check/call the flop, then check/raise the turn to guarantee at least 7x your initial investment.

Don't get me wrong, such aggression is something that I practice, but only against station players that I know would call down with any piece of the board.

Against typical tight passive and nitty players that seem to frequent LLSNL nowadays, above line is just asking to hand the money over to these horrible players one giant chunk at a time.

Am I losing value against tight passive? Probably some. But if I am checking behind on the turn, they will have to bet river if they don't want to lose value. After I call such bets a few times with the stronger part of my range, they will probably inaccurately adjust and never bet unless they have 2 pair+ on river.

From that point forward, I just have to make the adjustment to call less frequently to their river bet, or collect enough information in previous HHs to read sizing leak, and bet for value and bluff whenever they check.

Against an unknown, I much rather paint him as a tight passive or a nit, than as a stationy donk over-valuing TP.

In conclusion, I really don't think there are a lot of stationy donks that over-value TP left in LLSNL. Reasons are pretty simple, there isn't that much money being pumped into the game like it once did, and these stations have bled out or start to realize that TP is probably not good if opposition is pumping 50BB in the pot on turn.

If they play the turn perfectly against big bets, why don't they play the river perfectly when they bet? You don't want to bet the turn here vs tight passives, but you want to call river bets?

Also, how is this a dry board?

Also, why does everyone assume that if some one suggests betting the turn it means we have to shove river?

Ok I'm back in the thread lol. I really think we need to assign ranges, instead of saying "villain won't stack <overpairs." What range do you assign them when they call the flop? When they call the turn? Then we can see if we're being reasonable.

What I'm basically hearing is villain never calls our flop bet without AA, JJ, 99, 77, J9, J7, 97, or T8 and NOTHING else, and I think that's just absurd. I'm sorry.

Anything else that calls the flop I don't care if they call or fold the turn. If they have 98 and they fold for a turn bet I'm fine. What I'm not going to do is give them a free card to beat me, then pay them off (or let them instafold if they miss). That's exactly what we're doing if we check the t for pot control (pot control implies we're ok with calling reasonable river donks).

Finally, if we think villain only donk shoves river with >1 pair we just fold. Pot odds are irrelevant, if their range is >1 pair only. If their range is very wide, we have a clear value river call, and we make more $$ with a bet/bet line when they c/c AJ.

Maybe AC is different, but I don't understand where you guys play where villains instafold TP to a turn bet. I gave you an example of a hand I played last week where a tight player called off $175 on the turn and river with pair > 2nd pair on the turn and 3rd pair on the river.

Every session I see guys call 2 huge bets with naked flush draws, only to spike or instafold the river. I see people call 2 bets with like bottom pair + GS's.

I'm assuming we lost the hand. That sucks. By valuebetting the hell out of them we get them more then they get us.

You may think you're good at verbalizing your points, but you're certainly not that good at reading those of others.

Where did I suggest that they're playing turn perfectly against anything?

In case you don't already know, for a typical nit or tight passive against pre-aggressor OOP, its line is usually something like:

check/call flop, check/raise turn

or

check/call flop, check/call turn, donk bet river

There are some similarities between tight passive and loose passive calling station in LLSNL.

Both of them are likely to check/call the flop, but a tight passive is unlikely to call the turn without a hand that beats you, whereas loose passive calling station is calling you down with any bet he/she considers to be reasonable.

So against a tight passive, checking on the term is effective because he/she isn't calling with worse by folding most of his TP, and may either CR you or donk bet into you on the river, both cases are bad, because we aren't good against a tight passive's range.

However, if we check behind on the turn, tight passive may now consider his TP to be good and donk out, or he may simply check/call as bluff catcher. Either way, I am more comfortable with such line against a tight passive.

What about when tight passive has a hand like pair + straight draw? Yes, we will be losing value by checking the turn, so to cover the base, I tend to bet on the turn, but not with such a big bet that a tight passive is folding even his pair + straight draw hands.

It was a rainbow flop, low possibility of two pairs, doesn't connect well with broadway cards other than KT (but we have KK), and the draws are pretty obvious.

Why are we betting so big on the turn if we're not shoving on a safe river?

Unless you're inadvertently agreeing that our turn bet is so big that no worse hand than KK is calling.

That's the only reason I can think of that you wouldn't bet on a safe river.

Requires HHs.

Again, requires HHs.

But I bet there were several more hands where guys made tight folds on the turn to big bets. You're only aware of these few instances because they pop out to you as they should.

These guys are calling station monkeys, and you should always target them for 3 streets of values. If I learned that villain of this hand was such monkey from previous HHs, then I definitely would have bet bigger on every street for an easy shove on river.

I am not arguing against it in most cases, and I am not even really arguing against it in this case...

I was just wondering if anyone has any thought against tight passive players in these spots...but it turns out, I am the only one providing any.

I see now. You use tight passive to describe tight aggressive players that will c/r a lot, or shove/bet river. Your use of the word passive confused me.

It's interesting to me you would conclude that if I bet turn and don't shove river, that I think they only call turn with better than KK. Since I've been arguing the entire time that on a board like this there are so many pair+draw combos that there is a lot of equity in betting the turn. On the river there are zero draws, so if we shove/bet the river there are a lot of combos that have a much much more difficult river call than turn call.

Lol, vocabulary excuse.

Alright dude, if you think calling preflop, check/calling flop, then checking turn with strong hands are attributes of a TAG, then I guess it explains why everyone in this forum call themselves TAG.

I said few times already that your line and thought process focus on a very specific range and a very specific type of villain. Your latest response just further proves it.

Alright I think I am done. Bowing out for good.

Some one that folds, or c/r the turn a lot cannot be passive. A tight passive player folds or c/cs a lot. You are attempting to assign detailed street by street tendencies, to a very generic discription.

I'm not targeting just a portion of a range. I'm including the slow played monsters in the range. We definitely have the equity advantage against most reasonable ranges.

I am targeting a cartain player to some degree. The player that calls a bit too much with questionalbe equity. But, this player is plentiful. Also, getting T9 to fold in this size pot is not a bad result. There's nothing wrong with not letting them realize their equity.

I just think your equity putting 50 bbs in on the turn >> than 50bbs on the river.

6 pages and nobody has been able to explain this to him yet. It is only the most important part of the argument. God bless you all for trying but some people will just never get it.

I posted something, but I'm going to try to talk less and listen more. I have a few questions for you guys.

Villain is a total unknown, why are we defining him as TP?

What do you perceive his flop calling range is (actual range, i.e. any jack, good 9's, pair + gs, 2 pair, sets, T8) or whatever you assign.

What is the specific reason you want to "pot control" check the turn. Are you worried he'll CR the turn? Are you worried he'll call the turn and donk shove? Dob you think he folds draws on the turn, but bluffs if he misses? Is that good or bad? Or are you simply worried he'll fold weak tp?

That's what I'm not understanding. I'm hearing a lot of "well, he's TP so he'll fold QJ on the turn, but he'll bomb the river if we check back the turn." Those 2 statements (TP) and (lead river) just don't seem to add up.

I am on my phone so I'll keep it short and you can ponder on it.

If we bet big on the turn, villain could perceive his TP only as bluff catcher.

But if we check the turn, he could bomb the river as value.

I thought it's pretty straight forward.

So villain is no longer tight/passive correct?

Do you think typical 1/2 player is more likely to check/call a bet with TP or bomb with it?

Do you think a typical 1/2 player is more likely to have TPGK or a draw on a J975 board?

I think that's what it boils down to. I can only describe the 1/2 games I play in.

If your 1/2 game is this TP, you should be double barrelling literally ATC on this board, because villains just won't continue.