5/10 NL, effective stack sizes are $2k

9-handed, UTG+1 (villain) limps, three players limp behind, SB completes, I make it $80 from the BB w/ XX, villain calls, button calls, and we take the flop 3-handed.

T T 7

I bet $180, villain calls, button folds.

J

I check, villain bets $200, I call.

2

I check, villain bets $600.

Are there any hands with which it makes sense to take this line up to the river? If so, what are they, and how might you play this range facing a river bet?

I'd probably draw the line between calling and folding somewhere around T9. Main argument for making the call with that is that his bet sizing feels like his hand was already made on the turn so we can give less weight to flushes and we can see one of the tens in our hand so there's more of a chance of him showing up with something in the stupid end of his range like overpairs.

Overpairs seem unlikely given that he likely re-raises PF or on the flop with AA or KK. And QQ seems unlikely given his line. I wouldn't be surprised to see JJ, 77 or perhaps JTs... or this would be sick but TT (and maybe very outside chance of 89). Agree with soah that flush seems unlikely given odd turn bet. And I'd think that if he held a hand like T9, he'd probably bet the turn harder fearing you could be holding AKs/AQs. It looks like he's holding one of the four hands I mentioned above, but crap, who knows. If I'm holding AA-QQ I'm not loving it.

So your question was what hands make sense given this line. I guess the four I mentioned do and obviously folding is the proper way to play that range. :-P Do we have any specific reads on villain?

OK, I'm intrigued, throw us a bone.

Never played with villain before, but some other players at the table had. One of them made a crack about how tight he played with a big stack, and commented that he liked villain better as a short stack, because apparently he played looser and "gambled" more. That's all I had to go on at the time.

Also, while pondering a call, villain offered to show his cards if I folded. Don't play much live though so have no idea what this means.

I'm guessing he has an overpair beat.

His comment about showing if you folded can go either way. Face value he's saying that he doesn't want a call and that if you laydown he'll show you his hand that you likely had beat. What he's likely doing though is hoping that's what you're likely to think and will call him down. That's just my interpretation though.

"Are there any hands with which it makes sense to take this line up to the river? If so, what are they, and how might you play this range facing a river bet?"

I don't think its a matter of what but rather why...

Yeah, I really had no idea what level he was on, so I basically just ignored his comments during the hand and tried to focus on the action. The way it played out, the only hand an overpair could beat on the river that called the flop was a pure float or a pair turned into a bluff, and his bet sizing on the turn/river made those holdings seem pretty unlikely. So in practice, even aces are probably an easy fold here.

However, after the hand I started thinking - what if my opponent didn't suck? Given the range of hands that I'm going to have based on the pre-flop and flop action, how often am I going to see a showdown, even assuming I check my entire range on the turn/river? (so villain cannot indiscriminately call the flop to bluff the turn/river b/c sometimes I will have quad tens, turn/river a boat/flush, etc) It seems like this is a spot where folding all my one-pair hands is highly exploitable (because they make up such a large percentage of my range), and therefore theoretically incorrect. I'm unsure of the best way to prevent this, however. Thoughts?

As a side note, what's the worst hand you would crai here for value? Would you ever do it as a bluff?

I don't understand what you mean. Replacing "what" in that sentence with "why" results in

"Are there any hands with which it makes sense to take this line up to the river? If so, why are they, and how might you play this range facing a river bet?"

which doesn't make any sense. Are you trying to ask why I might play a hand in this fashion?

I'm trying to say that I don't have such strict hard fast guidelines that constitute my ranges in certain spots. The important thing to know when making these borderline/thin decisions is to question whether your reasoning for making the play with that hand is good based on the variables in play that you can account for. Versus one player I may not c/r with less than a house while vs another player a flush may suffice and yet again vs another player I may only need trips to justify my raise. Your post gives zero reads and zero external variables. You only supply a raw hand. I don't view poker in that sense nor can I make a claim as to what is the best/worst hand I would show up with in this spot. To me, these are the wrong questions to ask and the wrong way to approach the game.

I am sorry if this does not make sense.

Then you're not as good of a player as you could be.

Solving problems where you know how the other guy plays are very simple. Therefore I do not agree that this is "the most important thing" or even close.

Yes, this was done intentionally because in practice the hand is easy and people play bad. By now though everyone knows (or should know) that there exists some game theoretically perfect way to play in every single possible poker situation. Obviously I do not expect anyone to have even come close to solving for this, particularly in such a complex game as 9-handed deep stack NL hold 'em, but if you are not even making an effort to think about the game in this way, then you are doing yourself a disservice.

What I've done is identify a situation where a competent opponent could exploit my default strategy. Even if I choose not to try and play in an unexploitable fashion against most people, I still believe it is worthwhile to develop an understanding of what unexploitable play might look like in many situations, because that is how I try to play against them what don't suck.

That is because you are more interested in maximally exploiting weak players than in developing a solid foundational strategy against tough ones. Not that there's anything wrong with that.

You are mistaken.

It does make sense now actually, and I thank you for the clarification.

Spladle,

I do not use a GTO format when I approach the game. If you think that that is wrong and GTO is the only way to play then so be it. We will have to agree to disagree on that front. You bring up a live scenario at a 5/10 blind game and think that ignoring the infinite variables that exist within the game are secondary or even useless. I know I play an exploitive style. I am more than comfortable with that. Poker is about adjustments. How can one adjust if one is playing a style of unexploitability?

Your question is fine if this is the first and only hand you plan on playing. After that (especially playing live) I think it fruitless to worry about protecting yourself from being unexploitable when looking to maximally exploit is a far better service to yourself. Ofcourse to be able to do this you already need to have a solid foundation and understanding of the game, hand reading, limitations of yourself, etc...

I think the impasse we have surrounds this statement. "Solving problems where you know how the other guy plays are very simple. Therefore I do not agree that this is "the most important thing" or even close." Where you view the hand from a mathematical and GTO approach (and if you play online I think this is not only recommended but most likely the correct way to approach a scenario), I play mostly live with other factors playing a large/r role and as such, no hand is just simple. The reason is, is because you can't just take the play at face value. There are countless other variables that need to be factored in to ones decision. Factors that just aren't present in the online game. This does not make playing live more difficult, just different (and typically easier actually). You need different skills to succeed at both. I have spoken about this and expounded on it many times before so I will not delve to deep into it again but online and live play are drastically different and what may be optimal skills for online play may differ from live play.

I will exit this thread now since you wish to discuss theoretical perfect ways of play and I wish to discuss being able to recognize the external variables that are present, identifying them, and then breaking them down to their core in order to understand how they play a role. From there I can make my next decision in what now is a simple hand. The difficulty lies in deciphering the matrix so to speak.

I highly recommend speaking with VanVeen, Kotkis, MDMA, Galen, and Bobbofitos if you are interested in getting very valued perspectives on this discussion. In my opinion they are the best posters on this approach.

if you post a live hand with no reads, no one is ever going to assume that your opponent is competent, much less a perfect GTO player.

Pardon my ignorance. What is GTO? Is it Get the F out without the F?

As for this hand with no read, it is pointless. I don't even know if this live donk is on level zero or not. He could be drunk. Oh wait, we have zero read. Are you sure he can read his hand on this board?