There are lots of people down here who buy in for whatever the max is since the rule changed. I can't tell if you're being serious or leveling.

@kidd there is nothing fancy about floating. But most of the players here will not respect this play. Everything is all about value and you need a back up plan.

I still stand by my word on this post though.

This HH should have a WARNING SIGN: DON'T TRY THIS AT HOME.

AHaaaaaaaaaaaaa

Ah, I see, if it's 7-handed that widens his range a bit.

I think he'd be checking his pp's usually on the turn, making his turn betting range aces, big hands, and air (and his air would be a very small range if his preflop range is tight).

I liked the river due to the 1- doesn't bet top pair of aces often on the end, coupled with 2- bet sizing decreasing odds he has a big hand, finalized with 3- you have a monster or a made hand turned into a bluff (or air), and the latter should be viewed as seldom from his perspective.

I think vs most players he is checking his pp's on the turn, but feels like if he checks them against me I will blow him off the hand. Plus he can bet them for value because I will be calling the turn with any pair.

i think i might have missed a good point. Does this villain know you? Or since you just sat down, do you know him from before?

I mean he can check to call; it doesn't have to be to check to fold. If he's not the type to value bet thin (like a pair of aces on the river), it seems inconsistent that he'd bet pp's on the turn. Though, it could just be a very specific read that you have that he value bets thin on the turn but not river ... though this is a highly specific read, as aintnolimit says: any history?

Yes, I said in the OP that we have played once before.

Certainly he can check to call but if he wants to get to a cheap showdown betting it probably his best option. This is also a good board to bet/fold on with pps and Ax. He can value bet thin, I just said I seem him play pot control more often.

Very little history. My only read is that he is a good player with the ability to cbet and barrel good cards with air. Like I said in the post where I revealed my hand, I was pretty confused by his river bet. The only solid read I had at that point was that he didn't have a very strong hand by his bet sizing. Also, with being a good player I assumed he was good enough to find a fold in a A or at least realize it's just a bluff catcher.

The overwhelming majority of villains, even ones with profiles you gave, are not betting the turn here with pp's imo, even if that is the best play (I'm not really sure if it's best; I think it's close). With regards to betting to get to a cheap showdown, betting this turn with pp's should turn villain's hand into a bluff, while checking the turn will induce bluffs some % of the time. Though, there is no reason for villain to think that hero will bluff this Ace, as hero floating the flop typically implies that hero has showdown value; perhaps you specifically bet this turn often, but most hero's even with your profile won't imo. Another point is that a pair of aces will get another bet in on the river, whether villain bets the turn or not, making showdown not any cheaper. The main merit of betting pp's is making the hand easier to play by discouraging bluffs (which again shouldn't be often due to the flop call).

Quick question: if you could somehow see that villain had Ax here, would you still call the turn? (I'm imagining no, and that our main disagreement is on how frequently villain is betting pp's on this ace turn.)

A lot of good players would barrel this turn card imo. Agree to disagree there, but as for this specific villain - lets just say I know he will barrel an A or K turn card with close his entire range with the exclusions being the very bottom of his showdown range 55, 66, 77 and such.

Betting this turn card with pp's is not turning villains hand into a bluff. I will be calling with any pair here so betting with a decent pp here is simply betting for value. Just because there is an over card on the board now does not mean villain has turned his hand into a bluff.

The problem with checking to induce a bluff is if I decide to bluff here, I am never bluffing one street and giving up on this board texture. I'm always firing two streets. So checking to induce a bluff will likely cause stacks to go in with two PSBs. More often than not I will be value towning him with an 8 so when I do get called with JT it isn't terrible as long as my value hands are getting paid (of course if this situation occurred and he folded I'd be adjusting and bluffing him with a higher frequency).

I don't understand what you are trying to say here, but I think the very clear merit in betting pp's is value (assuming it's a decent pp)

Of course I'm not calling if I know villain has an A and never has a bluff (although it might still be profitable). With my read on villain - that he wants to get to showdown and doesn't make many thin value bets - I feel like I can make a good decision on the river. My line looks very strong and I could very well steal the pot. He makes a weak looking value bet on the river. This is a nut hand <1% of the time, and a bluff five+ times his normal river bluff frequency. The rest of the time it's a hand with some value that is likely bet/folding.

If you didn't know my hand how would you play AJ+ on this board? If you're getting all the money in it certainly isn't +EV, in fact, it would be flat out bad.

I think a concept that some of you aren't grasping is that villain is a good player. He isn't some average donk who turbo calls TP with any kicker like it's the nuts.

I just read your Edit now. If he's double barreling then why would you want him to stop bluffing if your plan is to take the pot away? Not only does flatting make us look stronger, but it lets him to continue to put money in the pot. If you had quad 8s on this flop would you raise knowing that he is never 3betting you as a bluff but will often bet turns as a bluff?
Raising the flop is losing value.

ive jumped thru here and now am kind of lost as to what the real question here is. Whether this villain will fire the turn with his underpairs on ace turn isnt conclusive of anything much IMO. Most will fire the ace turn, except if they have QQ or KK they sometimes check. If they have 88 99 type hands they tend to barrel more (just some sort of mental thing i guess). Its what i see.

Having said all that, at the end of the day his betsize on river yells out that he has <AJ - AQ> as maybe 75-80% of range with other randoms the other 20-25%.

So i think hero here could almost give villain AQ only, and make a valuesize raise with AK+ (or shove if villain will call but i dont think so), and shove with all air and value hands below AQ.

Raising is like the only play i see here. I would even turn AJ into a bluff here since to me its ALWAYS better to turn the close hands into a bluff if we think its close and feel we win a huge % of time. I think we win the pot damn near 90%+ the time if we shove. And since i think that, im shoving everything that i cannot raise for value. Conversely i would raise AK to 300 on river. Now that i think about it, i change my own mind on my original vote to shove K8+ etc. I dont think villain is calling shoves much so i wont when its for value UNLESS the history is such that villain cannot count on the shove not being a bluff.

ha, thats a very weird hand i might add.

+1 to merging with AJ here.

Sitting in villain's shoes the turn call is stronger than a turn raise. It is in fact terrifying to a competent player.

Given your read on him I think the betting fits a pp. The bet on the river smells more like KK-QQ-JJ-TT than Ax. He knows he can more easily fold a pp than he can fold an A, so he is bet folding that hand...of course hollywooding to make it look like a difficult fold. With an A he might be more likely to check hoping for a free showdown or that you bet small enough he can look you up?

Thoughts?

Kidd - as an aside my only concern with your plan is what do you plan on doing on river if villain checks behind (a likely play as you described him since he likes to get to showdown etc.). You can't love a J or T, and the pot size limits your ability to get him off any TPGK++; therefore are you floating the turn hoping that he a) is bluffing and b) continues that bluff by betting the river? If so, I don't see that situation coming up enough to call the turn profitably, although I do like your bet in this particular spot.


Regarding your questions:
It would be strange to see one pair bet both turn and river for a villain who is typically looking for pot control (a lot of villains will check one of those streets with either TT-KK, or AX). Its probable that his actual 3 barrel value range is 8X+, 88, 44, 99, AA.

Bluff frequency is really tough - seems to be high based on above and bet sizing is so weird (its like he hasn't given a lot of consideration to hero's hand, which is typically a sign of bluff) but the bet itself could be a blocker bet some portion of the time I suppose (KK-TT, some 9), especially given his read of you. I just come back to you call on a dry flop, then call as an ace peels (rather than raise, which is what a float would do on this turn). Your range should be Ace+ in his mind. His bet is suicidal with air imo, what player calls two streets and folds here? If he has a big hand, he should be betting 200+ on this river and making you pay with your bluff catcher, because you almost never get to the river and fold right? He pots the flop and by the river he's betting smallish. Weird line. Sometimes you get players, particularly at 2/5 and 5/10 with heart that just look at a pot, know they can't win if they check, and fire anyway. I think I believe he had K high.

I'm probably calling with most of my range: AX, 8X. Probably even TT-KK if I decided to call the turn. Jamming only FH, because his only b/c hands are monsters imo.

I do think you can bluff profitably in this specific spot, but again I don't think it comes often enough to float the turn

Kidd dont you think turn might be a better spot to launch a bluff here?

If you think he is going to barrel the turn alot esp with the A seems like his range is wider and folding more often because certainly this type of player is not firing three shells as often as two. So when he bets the river he prob has more value hands than bluffs.

I agree than his range is somewhat capped though, if you feel you can fold out hands as strong as AQ AK I like it better.

There are a few things wrong with the reasons for line taken in this hand, and in the post hand analysis, IMHO.

Please don't take offensive, we might just have different games.

First, let's say OP's line is an extreme line, needing substantial justification. Hero is calling three streets with air, and along the way, assuming that after the 3rd barrel, that he will have enough behind to get villain to fold.

What reads are this expectation based on?

What HHs is this based on?

First, OP's reads are not substantiated by enough HHs to be conclusive. Second, they are not relevant. Nothing in the reads indicates that OP has seen villain 3-barrel, then fold to a river shove. And that is the exact tendency hero needs to justify this play.

Even the tendencies given, do not imply hero likely gets to the river with enough behind to bluff-shove. The tendencies given are:

That is not what has happened in this hand.

Okay, so villain likely c-bets even when he misses. Where is the part about him 3-barreling when he misses? And where is the part about him folding TP?

While this read is very relevant for this hand, and implies villain might be on a bluff line, where is the HH to back this up? In fact, where are the HHs to back this up?

And this brings up another point: Having an established read.

An example of having an established read:

Playing online, suppose a villain opens in MP to 3BB. I have Q9s. Normally this hand isn't strong enough to call with in rush-FR.

So I look at villain's stats to see if there are exploitable tendencies. I see he is playing: 12/10/3 with a fold to 3-bet of 50%. Since villain's fold to 3-bet is not high enough, 3-betting wouldn't be good.

I look further. I see villain c-bets OTF 90%, but only double barrels 20%. I also see that villain folds to a turn float-bet 80%.

This is an exploitable tendency. But is it substantiated?

Most important, I look to see the sample size. If I have only 100 hands on this villain, these stats aren't exactly substantiated. On the other hand, if I have 3k hands on villain, the stats are substantiated.

How exactly is OP's read substantiated? When pressed for HHs OP gave one complete hand, that didn't include a 3-barrel bluff.

With 3k hands, I can call with the expectation that villain will c-bet OTF, but fold to my turn bet when he likely checks to me.

AND, I have a legit hand to do this with. It is just below the bottom of my calling range. This is important b/c what if the SB calls? If SB calls my plan is shot to chit, and I have to play SF fit/fold 3-handed.

Furthermore, I have to make sure this is a good spot by looking at BU's 3-bet%, ect.

Before calling, I make sure I have a decent hand, and that the players left to act likely act in such a way that helps my plan.

This brings up another flaw in OP's line. Waiting for a good spot.

Like I said in another post. I would rather OP take this line with 22 b/c in this case he has SDV and ~11% of the time he will suckout OTT/OTR.

In my above online example, I am taking a line with Q9s for the reasons given. I'm not calling his PFR with 64o just b/c villain has this exploitable tendencies. I need hand equity to go along with this to make it +EV.

And one last point, which I brought up earlier. In the post hand analysis, it was stated that villain potentially folding AK supports the river bluff.

This I agree with. As played, if villain is capable of folding TP, then shoving OTR is correct. But again, where is the HH to back up hero being able to fold TP?

But, at the table, villain was not put on an ace OTR anyway:

Well thought at and accurate no doubt. I will have to say that for myself, I will at times go ahead and extrapolate the assumptions based on a few hands played and the general "aura" that the villain displays and go ahead say and shove this river. I will also say that it may be highly indicative of how well a player "guesses" this extrapolation accurately. Also, it matters quite a bit live how well the hero can appear totally sincere and confident with the raise. (Some players are so obvious when they attempt a spew shove steal that its a joke. So how good of an actor the hero is i think plays a huge part in this.)

Mainly its a fine line IMO how the hero goes about this since so much of the time we do not have but so much info. to go on ever at live poker since the action is so slow and players come and go all the time. We rarely get the reads that we actually want except from the guys we run across daily. Assessing these tendencies from minimal amounts of information i would guess is what Scotty Lundgren always stressed to me as the added factor of "seat of the pants" ability or "feel" based on such little information.

Looking back on this hand, i would feel very comfortable methodically raising allin at river vs a decent to strong appearing villain, who stacks his chips very neatly and seems very thought intensive during hands (trying to get reads etc as hard as possible on each betting street). But then again, that is just a feel, even though i do feel it pretty strong.



note: The hell of it is that at live poker, say 2 years worth of 40 hours a week, i may have maybe 75 to 125 trials of this very item in my inventory. And the results (good as i may think they are) could be mired up in a cloud of grey, not really knowing the true overall EV of it due to sample size. But all we ca do is the best we can do i guess. I would be pretty surprised if this villain just looked at the shove, looked at his AQ, and didnt go into any deeper thought and just called.

(dealer could you get me a chip runner please?)

This is why It is so hard to post a hand online. Online you have all this nerd stuff. Where you can pre determine your line based on HUD stats. They can easily post stats of there opponents.

But live, the feel of the game. Looking how your opponents acts, what he looks like while making his actions. How confident he sounds when he talks. I mean the list goes on and on.

I think azula is either a online player and trying to compare the two situations.

All I can say is a true live player may not know how and why his game works. But it works without all those for sure reads. That is what makes live so beatiful. You have to come up with your own reason of why this or that worked. Not pt3 or poker edge data mining software.

If he checks the river I have a PSB and I'm jamming. If he bets a committing amount then obviously I have to fold the hand and feel stupid for getting this far with nothing, but all my reads in the hand thus far have lead to him not having a big hand and not betting/betting small on the river.

Sure, those things matter. But none of that was brought up as part of the original read.

Two things. I mean first, I'm obviously not posting the HH to every hand that has lead me to this decision. I'm describing villains tenancies based on the one and a half sessions we've played and the information I've gathered from that. My reads are derived from many hands that I wasn't even involved in so it's hard to remember the exact HH. Secondly, I think you're underestimating the inference factor of live poker. That being of course - if you aren't making inferences about your opponents you are missing out on loads of value waiting to play an opponent for 3k hands. So while there is a ton of merit to what you are saying, and I would love to have 3k hands to fall back on, that just really isn't realistic in live poker. I've done well so far though, so I'm going to just say I trust my inferences, and they have some merit.

If villain fires a K turn without a K and you can't infer that he would fire an A turn without an A then live poker probably isn't for you. By your guidelines you would never play anything but ABC poker because we are never having a huge HH with villains unless we've been playing for years.

As far as having a real hand... I think I said earlier that the buy-in rule for this table is you may buy in up to the biggest stack and I bought in for 500BBs. Everyone at the table excluding villain and one other guy on my right who folded have around 300BBs with the fish having 2.5k so I'll be calling the BTN with 70% of hands probably. Ideally if I was floating here I'd like to have a small pair or a gutshot, but I don't and a good spot came up and I wasn't going to pass on it.

Ya, I already stated that I picked up no physical tells from this villain.

No, I can infer that a villain c-betting a king-high flop w/o a king, would also c-bet an ace-high flop w/o an ace. How does that apply here? Do you really think your one HH and your line are that simply connected?

If I see a villain take a bet/check/bet line with an ace OTR, will I then infer that his 3-barrel range includes enough air to bluff-shove OTR, thus allowing me to float two streets with air? And that he will bet size in such a way that I have enough behind to have >0% FE? Nope.

And live poker is for me, and I have the results to back it up.

How is your post anything other than a straw-man argument given that my critique of your read doesn't have anything to do with a conclusion as simple as what you give here?

Given the one HH you have given, where villain takes a bet/check/bet line, there is more than a leap of faith required to believe villain will 3-barrel bluff three streets, bet-sizing in such a way that you will have just enough left behind to bluff-shove OTF, and that he might fold TP.

This is also strawman in that you imply that it is my position that unless a player has ~3k hands, that all reads are unsubstantial.

No.

My example was intended to show the difference between your read, and a substantiated read.

Your read would have been substantiated if you have seen villain to both of the following:

1. Three-barrel then fold to a river shove;
2. Fold TP.

You didn't see villain to either of these things. You have no reason to believe his is good enough to fold TP, and you have no information regarding his 3-barrel range.

I could have given any number of examples of a substantiated read that didn't include a 3k hand sample. All that is necessary really is a few HHs/notes where villain's tendencies are established. Hero doesn't need ~3k hands for his.

Even just a few HHs are sometimes sufficient.

Either way you have no reason to believe he is good enough to fold TP, and you have no information regarding his 3-barrel range. Yet, you floated two streets with air, and knew that if villain bet it would be small enough to bluff-shove, and that if he checked he was also folding to a bet.

I'm open to hearing more about how you knew this, but thus far you have not justified this expectation.

I said I played a session with him before and stated he is capable of folding TP, yet you're assuming this means I have never seen him fold TP? I don't get that logic. I'm not posting a myriad of HHs in my OP, just basic reads that I have accumulated through playing with him. I think it's obvious that I get these reads from HHs I played or watched, but in case you think I'm getting them from his outward appearance, I'll clarify now that is not the case.
If that isn't enough for you then state your piece and move on imo. If you want to see a bunch of HHs before you analyze a hand and can't go off of the OPs reads then you should move on to another thread as I obviously didn't post any HHs and I don't have the care to do so to please one poster.