if the stacks were slightly larger I agree to flatting the flop to shove most turns because that gives us a chance to get her to make a bigger mistake by putting more money in the pot and then getting (semi) bluffed on the turn and having to fold. I'm not sure we have enough fold equity left in the stacks after we flat the flop and she fires $200 on the turn. At that point she has put in half her stack and would call us down lighter than we probably want in this spot with just one card to come.

Frequently? I told you I think the vast majority of her range is single pair hands, be they medium PP, TT, JJ, or 7x combos. If we are cbetting here with pretty much all our aces and overpairs, which we are, I expect villain will raise with those hands and fold them to 3 bets. I would actually bluff 3bet here some of the time, the fact that we have nut outs to smaller 4bets or calls is just gravy.

Are you flatting here with AA-QQ?

I prob 3! The flop to 225 and ship any non pairing turn...ime people will fold mid over pairs to the 3! as they were raising to see where they were at...on turn I think you can fold out her over pairs and get her to call with combo draws, which you have dominated.

you might want to reevaluate what "a better hand" is...

we are ahead of all 1 pair hands that are not AA/KK or A7/A5/A2/K7/K5/K2...

why are we trying to get worse hands to fold?

Agreed.

I'm assuming there's no controversy on the sets. I'd be interested on your thoughts regarding which other parts of the range are wrong. Are there combos I've listed that she's very unlikely to have? Or other combos that I'm missing that she should have?

I'd appreciate any thoughts you (or any of you) have on an improved range estimate.

I think his point is that if most of her range is draws/air, you don't have to fold the turn just because she bets. You can call or jam.

I think the biggest reason for a call is that while we are ahead of 50% of her range,we are far behind her actual value hands and way ahead of her air.I like a flat so she can keep bluffing,if a spade comes off she will rep that as well.

I assume you aren't trolling, but yeah I am trying to get worse hands like 88 to fold here. Assuming he has no spades, we are a monster 55 percenter to win!

Lets talk about what happens when we 3bet that hand. Forget about when that hand turns a small pp into a weirdo bluff and 4 bets/shoves, lets just consider the more likely call/fold scenario.

First, she folds. Awesome, we just won a 200 dollar pot when we were basically flipping a coin.

Second, she calls. Awesome, she put more money in and we are the favorite! She is likely to check OOP, we can bluff certain scary over cards, we can bet again when the board pairs like we have an overpair, we can turn the nuts, we can improve with an A or a K.

Assuming she has one of those hands I described as the majority of her range (we can argue whether that is or isn't true separately) isn't my play massively +EV compared to calling?

Ohhhh. Light comes on.

Ha, yes. Thanks for saying it more clearly, bobman.

Excellent points. I agree calling and then shoving the turn is better.

Thanks!

Tiltbox, if we could 3-bet flops facing check/raises and get people to fold hands as strong as over pairs, then we should be bluffing like crazy because it's very hard to make more than a pair in this game. Thing is, she's isn't folding. A strategy focused on getting villains to fold top pairs and over pairs is not a winning strategy.

In this hand, we do have very good hand equity if called... but what if you just had total air? Are you still 3-betting? Think about it, because if this is true

then your answer is "yes" - c-bet/3-bet bluff with ATC. After all, you think top pairs, pairs and over pairs are the vast majority of her range and that she will fold those hands to 3-bets.

Think about it. Obviously it really doesn't work that way.

I have asked in the past if "blind aggression to use fold equity" is ever justified.

Along the lines of "what do you think our average minimum fold equity is", entirely disregarding the prior action, the hand history, and what our cards actually are?"

And have taken flak from other 2+2 posters for my simplistic approach.

(That the QUESTION itself is too simplistic!)

But Willyoman puts it quite succinctly.

If it really DOES "work that way" then c-bet/3 bet bluff should always be +EV.

(Although high variance to say the least).

I would like to see some discussion of Willyoman's Post #37, by others more experienced than me!!

We shouldn't be in the business of making TP or overpairs fold in LLSNL. It's not a sound business strategy.

And all the air that she folds in your example... That's the one part of her range we want to play against because we can bluff catch it and it's where we make a ****load of money

Anything but calling the raise and calling blank turns is no bueno.

Why do you think she's check-raise bluffing with an overpair?

I think we can all agree that situation would make life difficult for Hero. But there are a lot of other scenarios that are easier to handle and villain won't always fire ~$200 OTT (see the history where she bets $75 into $210 to set up the river bluff). If she bets small, we have a semi-bluffing opportunity. If the flush comes in, nice. If we spike a pair, also a nice value extraction opportunity.

If the board pairs, which it's less than 4:1 to do, it's even less likely villain has a set, and her range becomes more weighted to those one pair and drawing hands. Given the variety and width of her range, the sets would probably comprise < 10% of her range.

So < 20% of the time, we're drawing dead to < 10% of her range.

Is that something you worry about so much you want to the build entire line around it?

I'm probably still shoving over a 200 turn bet on a paired board.

Grunch:

Flat flop and keep her range as wide as possible. 3 betting should only get you action from hands that have you in kinda bad shape. By just calling, you keep in all of her weaker flush draws, straight draws, gutshots+overs, bluffs, and weak pairs that are stabbing and will give up when called. I doubt she thinks you hit that flop often, if ever, so give her a reason to believe you are just being sticky.

Also, any 10-A on the turn strengthens your perceived range, so when a 10-Q peels and she checks, you can fire a large bet as a semibluff and fold out a ton of hands that would then be favorites against you (5x, 7x, 88). If you get called, you should def jam the river when she checks and you brick (also when you make your hand. Yes, even on A or K rivers, for balance). I'd add that your turn sizing should be big enough that if she shoves, you guarantee yourself the correct price to call.

I realize you're only asking about the flop, but your flop decision should be greatly influenced by your plan for the turn/river.

The concept Willy brings up about c-bet/3-betting with ATC because most of V's range will fold to that line reminded me of one of jcarver's first video challenges where he tries to win EVERY SINGLE HAND for 20 minutes playing 1/2 online by implementing whichever line he though would maximize fold equity. Obviously it's quite different being online where it's easier to get ppl to fold but I found it rather thought provoking and a different way to look at the game (one could argue it's a different game altogether ).

Here's that video if anyone is interested: Video Challenge: Win Every Hand at $1/$2 NL

As we all know it's quite difficult to make a strong hand so more often than not you can get people to fold if the stacks are deep enough to allow the right bet sizing. But just because you CAN most of the time doesn't mean you SHOULD every time IMO. It's easy for ppl to advocate this kind of aggression and justify it as +EV when analyzing one hand in a vacuum but it's the type of play that loses EV the more you run it (not to mention shoots your variance up through the roof).

In the interest of NOT derailing the thread, I'll say that against this V I'd flat the flop here and re-evaluate OTT. Given stack sizes I'd hate getting 4! here. Not going to help much for the forum discussion but here's what would go into my turn decision:

• How she reacted when I called the flop raise
• How she reacts to the turn card texture (spade, ace, etc)
• What she decides to do on the turn (and how she does it)

I love the idea of the delayed turn semibluff shove on a blank turn given stack sizes and V's history but would need to evaluate the above info to finalize my decision.

No, just curious as to people's thoughts.

I don't really think it is a bluff, I think she thinks she is ahead of our A or K high range, but we have two overs and she is protecting her hand. So she is thinking we are c-betting two overs, she has a hand that is better but doesn't necessary play well on future streets, so she c/r'ed us.

Lets say she is 78dd. She is ahead of all of our broadway preflop raises (that aren't suited spades, obv) but she doesn't want to have to call, check call, check call because all cards over an 8 (or maybe a 9) are bad for her.

Didn't want to spoil the good discussion with my action. I see both sides of the argument here but I think I may have ended up spazzing a bit.

Hero re-raises to $300
Villain shoves for $670 ($340 more to hero)
Hero calls $340 getting 2.9:1

I hate being person that has to *CALL* the final bet rather than making the final bet, which is why I guess a lot of you guys advocated not 3! because we don't want to get 4!, though by making the 3! I am already committing myself to the pot because I don't think her range is particularly strong here, meaning I think she can shove wider than sets.

Assuming her range is as wide as big overpairs, two pairs, sets and a few combos of draws, I think we have more than enough equity to call it off unless I am thinking about this incorrectly?

High variance play for sure but is 3! really a mistake if you are never folding and believe she will 4! shove sufficiently wide? Also, as Tilt mentioned, 3! can/should carry decent FE to get her off her weaker pairs like 87s, 97s, 76s and possibly 99-66 type hands.

Regarding the delayed c-bet advocates, shouldn't we always be c-betting the flop with a nut draw when sufficiently deep so that we are able to get stacks in? It's going to be very difficult to get stacks in missing a street of betting and then overbetting when the obvious flush hits.

I'm not all that interested in the runout, but what did villain end up having, or did you not see because you won?

I can't image we're getting 4! by anything that we're thrilled to get it in against.