So. Much. Fail.

Seeing a flop multi-way with AA/KK is not "brutal", it is ****ing ORGASMICALLY AWESOME. If you have not figured out why, you shouldn't even be playing 1/2. No, really.

I understand you have many posts. I know you made some videos for StoxPoker when you were aa coach there. Do you feel that somehow entitles you to just criticize others without offering constructive suggestions?

Would appreciate it if you could offer constructive advice on how you would play the hhand and why. If you are not interested in doing that, then please gtfo of the thread and go troll in another forum. Thank you.

Here's the math from the Villian's perspective:

There's 47 cards outstanding and the Villain sees five of them. 9/47 is 19.15%. He'll have .1915 * $255 equity if he calls: $48.84.

The Villian needs 30% equity to call. 30% of 255 is $76.50.

The Villain lost 76.50 - 48.84 or $27.66 by calling.

If you put $27.66 more in this pot he made money by calling.

Try the math with larger pre-flop and flop bets and see how it turns out.

I think it's just common-sense to base your continuation bets on how wet the board is.

I don't think he only has flushes in his range, but I think his continuing range to a turn bet is mostly hands that beat us, aside from a few hands like A5 or something that still call a turn bet, but even these hands that do call a turn bet that we have beat don't have a ton of equity to beat us just because they have a . By checking, I'm not only doing it for pot-control, but for value since I think we can make some more $ OTR against hands that fold the turn. Perhaps we can get villain to bet wider than he would call as well.

I think it's a tough spot in general, and I do agree your assumptions are valid, but are outweighed by the alternate line. I feel like bet/folding is just lighting money on fire... I would rather call $175 OTT than b/fold $100 in your example, but I'm not decided if c/fold for $175 is vastly better. Oh and a quick FWIW: If we think he does slowplay clubs sometime OTT, we're still in a tough decision OTR since we're shoving anyways unless we're c/folding, which makes it kind of a moot point...

I don't think it is better because we're against a good opponent with top set, you know, coolers are coolers for a reason. I think if we check, he's going to bet wider than he calls a bet, but even if he never bets a single worse hand to a turn check, we're still allowing him to keep his worse hands in. I think we're overly scared of a coming OTR and screwing us over, but in reality, if he has a , he only has 17.5% to hit or whatever it is, and that's assuming he always has a in his hand anyways! Call it a slowplay almost, but I think we can actually check here for value because if he checks back the turn, we can bet the river for value and look FOS.

I do feel a huge component of his range is flushes given that we have so many blockers to top pair, he didn't raise the flop like he would've with lower sets, he can't have two-pair given he's not a spewtard, etc. I just feel like his continuing range OTT has way too many hands that beat us. I mean, if we bet, what hands are we expecting to get looked up by that we beat? There aren't that many that have taken this line, IMO. I just don't think we can bet this turn to fold, I can't really explain it too well, but it just seems sooo dirty to me.

I haven't done the math on this, but if he shows us his hand and has say Q10 and we can only choose between b/folding $100 and c/calling $150, c/calling $150 is probably better than b/folding $100 because of the added pot-odds for boating up>the extra $50, and our IO's for hitting a boat (again, I haven't done the math on this to substantiate it, but you get the general theory behind this example). And since I feel his continuing range to a bet is weighted heavily to flushes in general, this is why I feel the lesser of two evils is to c/call rather than bet/fold.

Math has never been my strong point, so I kinda got lost in your numbers. But the easy way to think about it is this. The flush card comes on the turn about 18% of the time. Less than 1 in 5. That's why we're often disappointed OTT when we semibluff our FDs OTF.

Given that villain gets there less than 1 in 5 OTT, betting 3/4 pot OTF is more than adequate to deny direct odds to draw to the turn. Even 1/2 pot is more than enough, but then it allows villain to more easily make it up in implied odds.

You say villain needs 30% equity in order to call. I think what you're thinking about however is when the player holding the FD is facing an all-in and getting 2:1 to call. In that case, if the FD can call all-in for 2:1 with TWO cards to come, then yes, the call with 30% equity is correct.

In this case however, villain is only paying to see the next card and is in jeopardy of seeing a bigger bet OTT if it's a brick, which it will be more often than not. So a 3/4 pot flop bet is a fine bet size IMO.

Otherwise, what bet size would you recommend? Always potting it?

How frequently do you assume a flush continues by raising vs. calling if we bet $100, and why given typical tendencies?

Your math should say that we'd have to call $290 to win a pot of $745 -- you can't count the $290 you're going to call in the odds. It's what is in the pot currently vs. what we have to call. So $745 to $290 = 2.56:1. Not enough if we really believe that he has clubs here (which is an argument for either bet/fold, or better...check/calling [though check/calling seems really weak here and opens up the possibility of giving a free card to a junk hand w/one club that will beat us on a gross fourth club river that would have folded {incorrectly} to our turn bet of $100ish]).

You're right. Thanks for the correction.

BTW, what junk hand do you think villain could have that would call OTF? It would have to be some weird float with like the A 6, but that seems rather strange to me.

One could argue for a hand like the KT, but that seems like a BN iso-raise pre to me, but even if not, I think it's a fold to the raise. And that's one very specific hand (I think KJ raises pre and K9o folds).

So I feel like it's easier to put villain on a FD OTF rather than a weird float with a big club that was also a bad call of my raise pre.

"Junk Hand" would be any KcXy hand.

As well, he could have been calling the flop with a pocket pair <Ts but >5s to see if you really hit the K: a semi-float play where he's not putting any more money in the pot w/o hitting a 2-outer, thinking that he may have the best hand right now (or could take the pot away from you on the turn if you check your QQ/JJ/TT hand to him).

True, the 2nd hand is a really low %, but I think the 1st "junk hand" is about as likely as a flopped FD, so I still advocate betting the turn to protect against giving the pot away when he checks behind and the 4th club shows up. As well, I think it's easier to play as a b/f than a c/c turn and ??? river (unimproved).