33%? With that bet size, try 47% bluffs. But he could have more, because his value range is so tight.

This is a really tough spot. I thought I would check GTOWizard. Unfortunately, they don't have 200bb 6 max solved postflop yet, so this is 150bb.

Normally I only post solves from Hero's perspective, but I'll post the solve for both hero and villain, mainly because according to Wizard, Villain basically doesn't get to overbet turn at all, which at first shocked me, but I guess it must be because of the disparity of flushes.

The thing that surprised me was that GTO Wizard is only calling 2.5% of hero's combo OTT.

Anyway, interesting spot. Really not sure what I would do.














Here is the spot if you want to check yourself (usually a couple free solutions per day with just the free Wizard account):https://app.gtowizard.com/solutions?...ctions=X-R49.5

Thanks very interesting

My solve was very limited, 200bb, 150% turn and 150% river max which is actually a huge difference.

Yours paint a much better picture of the spot.

Anyways for those interested i called

Ran it at 200 (they are there at least under the NL500 rake structure) and it was similar, V actually does a lot of turn checking and while can over bet likes the smaller sizing on the turn both IP and OOP, against all turn over bet my solve had it like 50-50 call:fold and similar on river so just base it on player tendencies as BtCwinner said earlier ITT some 5-10 regs over bluff with the over bet and some only have value…I’d lean towards a call down based on your good reg comment but it really depends, feel like tighter regs just try and cooler ppl with boats here…

Villain is playing highly exploitative in this hand - I think we should exploit this by also playing exploitative and overfolding. The fact that he checked the flop and then overbets aggressively on two streets is not a balanced act - most semi bluffs/bluffs would bet the flop, so to check and then overbet twice makes no sense.

Hmm that’s a boat. I would fold

I’m surprised about the turn overbet with A9, I did not expect that. Hero has a lot of flushes calling a wide range out of the BB, and better Ax with AQ/AJ (os and su). Seems like an inefficient size for V to use. Curious what the solver thinks the EV of the overbet with A9 is.

Edit: I guess Hero doesn’t have that many flushes given the A and K of the suit are on board. So the overbet makes sense. Just a bit counterintuitive for me

Thanks for posting. Do you happen to know if Wizard gives EV for various actions with a given hand? I only see the frequencies in your post. For instance, with AhKh on the turn, Wizard uses all bet sizes at some frequency (though, it overbets with a very small frequency)…. That means Wizard considers all betting actions to be equal EV. But when Wizard chooses an action at 0% frequency, it means the EV of that action is less than that of the preferred actions, and the question is how much less.

IMO, hero has still plenty of flushes, in fact more flushes than villain, because he's calling from BB.

The turn overbet is turrible precisely for this reason, at least theoretically. Equities should be running close between the two ranges and Villain is OOL overbetting. Like I 've said however, Hero should be betting a great deal of his flushes OTT, the fact that he didn't caps his range.

Having said that Villain is also very capped on the turn, so hero can exploitatively reraise him to death.

Last but not least, while one can't be sure if villain is doing this with a ton of bluffs, it's highly likely he doesn't to the extent his bet size commands. I suspect what separates people at this level is better preflop ranges and ability to go for value.

Yes Wizard does show EV differences of actions with each combo. I just don't have it displayed like that in my screenshots.

Can you check how the EV of 250% turn bet vs the smaller bet size compares for A9s?

Eh... although I am sympathetic to the arguments like "population plays highly exploitatively here therefore we should counter-exploit", just asserting in a vacuum that villain plays highly exploitatively here doesn't make it true, and in fact runs counter to OPs premises.

The hero called a more than 2x over bet on a turn of AsKs2sAd ; his over bet after an off suite 9 ball otr was more than warranted.

Yeah the river bet makes perfect sense.

I just find the turn bet very strange with that particular hand of A no-kicker. What is he trying to accomplish on the turn?

From Villain’s perspective:

Hero has 10-20 (or more) combos of hands that are better than A9 with which to call on turn (exact number depends how many flushes we check on turn).

Meanwhile what worse combos does Hero have to call with? Just A3s-A8s (6 combos). Maybe KxQs (3 extra combos). What else?

It seems like Villain might have made a sizing error on turn with this hand, since it seems like he will get called by better more often than he is called by worse.

Which is why I am curious to see what the solver thinks the EV of this action is on turn.

Looks like it is a half BB EV mistake (4.76 vs 5.12) (but half a BB in a 5.5 bb pot (gto wiz pre- sizings)) to go 250 vs smaller, 250% makes almost all flushes indifferent…Ax still calls

Just given how UTGs range is much stronger im not surprised that the solver likes smaller but am surprised that it is still checking a bunch on the turn…anyone know why? Maybe protect against OOP river probes?

Yeh he did say the villain is a good online player but I still feel in spots like this he's playing exploitative under the guise that he can exploit hero's range more so than playing a balanced game. On the turn with hero checking it does make sense to bet large as either hero is auto folding or auto calling some kind of showdown hand, river blanks and it's the same thought process. I also think if villain had a single spade or worse he would of led the flop which really strengthens his range with the checkback. Could he be completely balanced here? Of course, but this line with the sizings seems highly suspect.