Me too.

This is excellent advice.

Your analysis of the hand is great. But, without a clear scare card on the river, it’s unlikely your River bet will get your opponent to fold. If he calls the turn thinking he’s good, nothing changes on the river. The problem you have with the Tripple barrel here is card run out.

What’s a good card for your range to bluff on? What’s a bad card for your opponents range? Even an offsuit King or Ace could improve your opponents range if he’s calling with an Ace or King high Flush draw. And, you are C-betting in to multiple opponents on a draw heavy flop. I think checking the flop with the intent to fold to action would have been best.

In retrospect I think I have changed my mind on the line. The bold is the crux for me. Do you really size exactly the same with QQ+, AQ and KQ? Also, if you really only shove the river with nuts or air, then V can pretty much eliminate a lot of your range OTR as if that is true, you either have QQ or a bluff. Unless he knows you to be a thin value better (meaning you would bet KQ/QT/Q9ss for value OTR as a third barrel), then I don't think your range is de-polarized enough to make this a profitable shove. Finally, once the turn card pairs the board and V calls 3/4 pot, it is extremely unlikely that he folds what is essentially a total blank on the river.

We rarely play with anyone enough and play enough huge pots with the same people for any villain to know any of this info....IMO of course.

I actually really like your play here, but I suspect you check overpairs way too much on the turn and river in these spots.

I agree. But the context from OP was that he had played a lot with this V and therefore was able to range him well and gauge his response to Hero's line. My broader point was that I don't think that Hero generally bets this way with true value hands and therefore his river shove was too polarized and that was probably why he got looked up light.

if you only listen to the ones who agree with you are you ever looking to improve your game or find new ways to play a hand?

in a vacuum its spew
if you took these lines playing the player based on your reads then great ;
I often do the same , your read on V may be ok it could just be he was tired of being bullied and took a stand or as others stated do you 3 barrel value bet AQ the same way here ? or only bluffs

Grunch: You can have 65s, 89ss-JTss as bluffs in a value heavy strategy, so why play 33 like this it's a clear give up hand. I would bet smaller otf, with all my bluffs, middling PP, and strong hands, not 22-44, 55-66. Checking 7x.

Also, all this hand reading in the OP is sort of weird. The balanced play for V is to call most Qx and all 7x, and chances are he'll go further. The 7 pairing is really bad.

Unless you misplay barrels all the time jamming is probably the correct play. If you accidentally barrel a flop give up hand to the river, all of the hands that function well as bluffs throughout the hand are basically the same as 33 on the river, and you're jamming those, right?

I think the hand is played just fine, as long as you would truly bet overpairs on the turn once the 7 pairs, which you probably should. Betting anything worse than AQ ott is spew imo and AQ itself would be a questionable bet, but is probably a good bet.

Anyways, while this particular low equity hand doesn't make super profitable flop and turn bets, we want to bet it on the flop and turn because it's a very profitable hand to bluff with on the river. We don't block any draws. So while Axcc makes a great flop and turn bet, we probably want to give up on the river. With 33 we can go 3 streets.

The nut hand to bluff 3 streets with is A4 (no clubs), but thats not enough so this is still a fine candidate to slot into our 3 street bluffs on blank runouts.

My guess is that villain thought you would slow down somewhat with an overpair when 2nd pair paired on the turn, as a lot of people would. I wouldnt worry about it.

you're making a play on opponent's playstyle, being TAG and in theory knowing when to fold, which is fine - but I think you are under-crediting him playing back at what he perceives of you. sure you may have had nitty hand history with him but it's not like he perceives you as some OMC or tight passive! If you were an OMC type and took this line, you'd be printing money with bluffs. just because you've shown him the nuts over the past couple sessions doesn't change his overall opinion of you.

additionally, this board is not great for us and the range of hands we do this with is very narrow (AQ,KK+) compared to hands we bluff w/. A board like AAJ8T is way better to triple on compared to ours, where the flush and straights bricked. And do you really play AQ/KK like this? If you do, that's to your credit, but you should realize that he probably doesn't think so. Usually those hands will check one street.

albeit some real hindsight analysis going on, but makes sense to me why a mildly observant reg would call you down light here. To your credit, looks like he almost folded so it's not like your play was w/o any credit

Why A4 no clubs?

Cause we don't block any draws villain can have, and we block 44, AQ, A7, all hands that would call.

7x is a very good turn. Less 7x, sets avail, and Vs Qx hands lose 4 outs to much of hero's perceived value range.

He probably calls down JJc with the same frequency you barrel off with 33. Then you wanna jump off a bridge because he's just always dead here except this time. It's all just timing - Nicely done.

Outlier hand. Just take note he can hero down in bad spots for piles.

I don't think you have to make any exploitative adjustments at all, rather, just reign in the exploits so that you don't effectively punt by having too many hands here.

Regfish and nitfish generally don't want to tangle with bet small-bet big, so it's still an effective bluff line to take even if your sizing telegraphs air. Having said that, I would likely choose a zero fold equity turn sizing because most of my actual and perceived range is going to want to do that on this board. If I happen to have 33, then I can take it to the river with more play behind which usually benefits the more aggressive player facing non-rec players/non-call stations.

I don't agree with the bolded at all. Every person who posts has a contribution to make whether you agree with it or not. I constantly challenge my own lines based on what others say. Now, I may still end up coming to the same conclusion as before I re-evaluated. But that doesn't mean that reviewing your line based on another's divergent opinion isn't worthwhile. On the contrary, at a minimum it gives you an indication of how other players you may face think about certain spots which IMHO is just as valuable as getting what we think is "good advice".

+1

when we stop learning and become complacent we will soon be passed by and left wondering why

I didn't say I haven't learned things from people I initially disagreed with. Thats a big problem people who post here have. They disagree with a line taken because its something they wouldnt do and they assume its terrible when it could actually be something they should add to their game.

What I meant was that if someone who you know is a breakeven player or a loser in the game gives you advice that you disagree with, there's a pretty good chance that their advice is bad. The forum would be a lot better off if there was a concrete way to know poster's actual win rates so we would know which advice to give more credence to.

I know who wins big in my room and when they take lines I would never take, I watch them closely to figure out why they did it. Ive added quite a few plays to my game over the past 3 years based on that and my results have increased quite a bit.

If I see a player I know sucks take some weird line that I disagree with, odds are low that Im going to add that to my game.

Lot of stuff to reply to, don't think I can address everyone without breaking the post limit

I think I can get deep stacks in with a set when villains are sufficiently strong. On this flop V1 and V2 didn't seem that interested and by the turn V3 seemed pretty weak, so it's clearly dependent on reads and board runout. I agree with Amanaplan that I got a pretty much nut runout to rep AQ+ here. I would not expect someone with JJ to call me down when I have 44 here, but I would have been wrong I suppose.

But take another random flop like QJ3, I expect to get paid off with a set here pretty often 4 ways due to the number of good TP, 2p, and KT being in all players' ranges.

That's not remotely me. I've posted one hand on here in the last several months, and yes, in this hand I look like a maniac, but poker players should know better than to generalize my play based on a sample size of 1. Honestly of all the hand histories I have recorded, which is a few hundred at this point, this is the only one where I look really nuts.

And I agree pure brute force doesn't work often enough to be profitable. It's just something I pulled out here based on my reads of opponents on this specific board and felt I had a good chance of folding out villain both OTT and OTR. He did tank extensively, not like I got snapped off, so hard to say how close I was to succeeding, but low equity (even zero equity) bluffs can and do work against the right opponents under the right circumstances.

He faces another 650 bet OTR...that's enough to give people serious pause. And my understanding from reading Janda is that these hyperblank turns/rivers can make excellent bluffs when we know villain is weak (or in this case, strongly strongly suspect, which is about as good as we can do in poker).

He may have some NFDs or K-high FDs but I'm certainly shoving an A or K river since he has enough other hands that miss an A or especially a K. And if he thinks I'm barreling air he's going to be putting me on mostly NFDs or AK, not 33, so I think both cards have a lot of fold equity when he doesn't spike an out. But...I'm shipping just about any river but a 7 (he's not folding 7s full IMO). A Q of course means he's never folding QX but makes it more likely he was calling with something else. I can usually gauge people's reactions to the river card. I got nothing meaningful on the 6 river, so I figured it was a blank, which for me means his hand is still weak and I can still rep AQ+.

I think you misunderstood my post. Why would I have either QQ or a bluff? I was asked if I played KQ AQ KK+ like this, and my answer is, up to the turn yes on this runout. When villain tanks turn and I can get a blank river I'm absolutely shoving AQ+ KK+ and I think I would KQ too as I just don't see this guy tanking 2 minutes with AQ+, so worst case scenario I shove KQ I'm chopping. I'm not sure what I do with worse QX here. These particular hands I might check the turn then bet river if it checks through. But OTR I'm still left with KQ AQ KK AA QQ 44 77 A7s 87s 76s and maybe 66 if I decided to go maniacal with it. It's a lot more than QQ and air.

But...villain may not know this and may well assume I would check back a hand like KK or AQ OTT, therefore convincing himself I'm more polarized than I am and he should just bluff catch.

Not slowing down OTT just because the 7 paired. Once he tank calls turn he has no 7x and I'm happily shipping river with overpairs.

I listen to all points of view, and obviously I have some doubt about how I played the hand given I posted it here, so who is agreeing with me and who isn't? I was looking for detailed analysis of why specific actions are good or bad. I am very pleased with Amanaplan's response and agree I should have checked the flop. 6Bet Me also had some insightful comments, as have others.

What I don't find useful is comments from people who I have no idea whether they're winning players or not, where their comments are limited to unsupported or poorly supported opinions, particularly when it contradicts responses from players I know to be excellent. If I just gave everyone's opinion equal weight I would be even more clueless now about how I played the hand than when I posted it.

I agree in a vacuum it's spew. I thought I had a good chance of getting away with this line against this particular lineup, which was based on my reads of the players involved who were all regs with whom I have minimum 10 hrs of recent play with, more with V3. Maybe next time I see V3 I'll ask him why he looked me up. It's often useful to hear other people's reasoning. It might be some nonsense reason like "I put you on AK based on your preflop raise size" or it could be a legitimate leveling reason like "I know you're aware I'm a tight player and that my hand is not that strong OTT so I expect you to bluff unusually often on the river."

I would play AQ exactly the same on this runout. The SPR is just 5 and I got a pretty nice runout for TPTK.

Yes with an SPR barely over 5 I actually do play TPTK+ like this on a non-threatening runout. And yes there are theoretically more hands I can bluff with, but there's one critical difference: I am ALWAYS playing AQ KK+ 7x boats/quads like this, but bluffs I am only occasionally triple barreling. NFDs? I'm often checking the flop, possibly x/r it. I might x/c turn also. I might play it as a triple barrel but in particular with me firing the river, I am usually not pulling the trigger. The NFD when it bricks actually doesn't make a great third barrel as we remove many club draws from villain's range therefore strengthening it. 65s? I don't think I ISO this but again same thing, am I triple barreling it 100% of the time? Not even close. AK? I triple barrel this some but even less than the others. AJ/AT - almost never. 22/33 - almost never.

Good point about villain possibly assuming I would check AQ/KK/AA though. If he also assumes I don't ISO the 7x hands, or that I would overlimp 44, then I look extremely polarized OTR as all I can really have is QQ/77 or air.

I wasn't calling you a spew monkey maniac Shai. I just said, dont become that guy.

Yeah always feels like you just gave away your stack when a bluff fails. Too bad I'm not clairvoyant or I could make some genius plays with 32o and the like.

So you think I do get enough folds to shove this river in general with information given, and for whatever reason just got looked up here?

Note taken.

I expect I'll nit it up with this guy for a while. Maybe if I'm lucky he makes some ridiculous light calls when I'm nutted

So you would prefer a small turn bet then river overbet? I mean I can see that's going to get folds more often, but on the other hand he might snap call turn if I make it like 100 into 400, and I get very little information about his hand strength. More than that I'm then risking my stack on the river for 200 less in profit.

Not entirely sure what you mean by "If I happen to have 33, then I can take it to the river with more play behind." Play behind = more options?

Thanks for your consistently thoughtful responses.

Yeah but why would you think I become that guy based on one hand? I'm pretty sure I actually play tighter than you do lol.

Also it's not just you, there seem to be multiple posters ITT under the impression I'm a maniac constantly bluffing low pocket pairs because I did it once.

There you have it. After all the lashing out at people who are disagreeing with you (because you don't know if they are winning players lol) and defending yourself tooth and nail over and over again, this might be the first time you're actually conceding to one of those opinions, albeit begrudgingly, at the very end of yet another defensive rant.

Stop taking everything so personally. I don't think everyone is now suddenly thinking you're some spewmonkey, but what if they do? Who cares? It's neither here nor there. You post a hand, you get some advice, some bad, hopefully some good, a discussion unfolds, and in the end you decide what to do with that advice. And that's it. Stop reacting to everyone as if you're emotionally involved in this particular hand and stop caring so much about your image as a pokerplayer on some forum. Just be glad that a couple of players whose input you value commented on your hand and move on.

There was nothing begrudging about accepting the possibility villain puts me on a polarized range. It's actually the most logical explanation for a call without needing to reevaluate my perception of this player. You're reading hostility from me in spots where there isnt any.

I respond to people who quote me particularly if they've misinterpreted something. Is that unusual? I think you're greatly overestimating the effort it takes to type up responses if you characterize them as "defending myself tooth and nail over and over again."

You're quite the accomplished armchair psychoanalyst Homey Clown. I'm lashing out, ranting, taking everything personally, reactive, defensive, and emotional. I miss anything? It's amusing you make all these conclusions not knowing me at all. I could conclude you're a negative douche based on your frequent condescension, insulting writing style, and lack of meaningful analysis, but alas I'm not an expert in psychology like you, and I don't know you. I bet you're actually a nice guy in person.

Call pre fold flop

But it depends. Never fails to amaze me how many people spew ‘GTO’ advice then hate on the occasional glorious triple with air. Just be aware that different 2/5 rooms can range from tight as, to zero FE, and ofc don’t run huge bluffs into stations and get your value/bluff frequencies appropriate to the room.