5/5

UTG ($400) - Rec player. Joined a few orbits ago. Limping a lot.

SB ($225) - Fish. He made clueless bets of 1/4 and 1/6 pot size with A7 on a JTxxx board with absolutely nothing. He’s also capable of bluffing with missed draws, but he seems disciplined, folding even when his stack is very shallow.

BB ($700 effective) - Reg. I’ve seen him make a similar overcall with QJo.

UTG limps, Hero raises with AQ to $25, SB calls, BB calls, UTG calls

Flop($100) Q T 8

x x x, Hero bets $25, SB calls

Turn($150) T

SB(~$175 left), Hero checks(?)

River($150) 2

SB bets $30, Hero - ?

He has 145 more I would go for it all.

I would keep betting turn vs such a small stack, the punishment for getting check raised by a ten isn’t that bad.

What Omaha said.

Why are you betting $25 on the flop. And don’t say because GTO recommends smaller sizing multiway.

Flop bet is fine. Just rip it in on river.

Turn check isn't terrible - he's going to click buttons on rivers based on his description. But I probably just bet, bet jam based on villain description.

It's a good way to play. It is harder to get called by worse multiway, and we can definitely get stacks in by the river whether there are one or two callers on the flop. In my experience, you are also going to get raised by a lot of drollers on the flop who have hands like QJ when you go 1/4 pot on the flop. Agro players can also raise you with draws.

This is nonsense. We are playing against three fish, two of whom are shortstacked, and the third and seemingly best of the bunch is the type to call raises OOP w QJo.

What part is nonsense? You can literally get all the money starting with a quarter pot bet on the flop vs the two short stickers. Quarter pot flop 2/3 turn, ~2/3 river gets in stacks by the river against the 400 effective guy, even smaller gets in stacks vs the shorter stack.

Vs the 700 effective guy we are probably behind when stacks go in by the river anyways, so we don't need to go a size that puts in all the money with him. 1/4, 2/3, 2/3 is likely going to be as big as a pot as we want to play vs him anyways, what is likely to get called by worse Qx. We might go a little bit bigger at some point, but is it really nonsense? No.

Agree to disagree. I’m not betting quarter pot on a flop this wet vs. Larry, Moe and Curly.

Bet more on the flop. Make them pay for their draws and worse Queens and anything else they're gonna call with. Turn, a check is fine but I don't mind a bet here. Raise the river. However much you think you can get out of him.

I'll bite...

I don't know what a solver would do here, with AdQc, on this flop. So, I don't know what the GTO play is.

Whether we're HU or multi-way, if we're the PFR and we're IP, we're going to be doing a lot of range-betting on the flop when action checks to us. Range bets should be smaller, especially when we're multi-way.

They should be even smaller still on monotone boards, and I would think that would likewise mean we should go smaller on very wet and connected boards like this one, where anyone could have flopped 2P+ or a high equity draw to a nutted hand.

Smaller c-bets are harder for our opponents to defend against than larger c-bets. When we c-bet large, we simplify things for our opponents. They can raise their nutted hands, call with their weaker value and draws, and fold the rest. A large c-bet makes it easy for opponents to play perfectly against us.

When we c-bet small, they feel pressure to raise for value and protection with their value, and check-raise bluff more with their draws. It forces them to defend down wider, with the weaker parts of their range, which would otherwise just fold to a larger bet.

We can certainly try to play a mixed strategy of checking, betting small, or betting big, but that's harder to balance. It costs us more when we c-bet big and end up losing to better hands, and also costs us value when we c-bet big and our opponents fold worse hands that would have called a smaller bet. We lose value when we check back nutted hands, or get out-drawn.

Betting big with AQ here, on this flop, leads to playing a pot that's bigger than our hand warrants. It's repping a bigger hand than we actually have, which is effectively turning a hand with lots of showdown value into a bluff.

If we bet big here, and get called, our opponents are mostly going to have better than AQ for value, or a draw to the nuts. If we bet small, we widen their continuing range to include worse hands, and keep our range wide, allowing us to rep a wider range on future streets.

The way to exploit weak opponents isn't to go for max value with 1P on this super-connected board. We exploit them by putting them into positions where they'll make the most mistakes. And they'll make the most mistakes against a smaller bet.

I think that's a valid point, but it doesn't exactly relate to this hand. There is only one reckless fish; the other two players are just a nit and an unknown fish (who might also be a nitty fish). I'm not comfortable building a big pot against them.

I'm guessing you're responding to JohnnyBuz, not me.

I agree with your small flop bet, for the reasons I just gave in my previous post.

If we want to get even more in-depth, we could look at the positions of our opponents, and figure that the reg in the BB might over-call behind the fish in the SB, but he might not want to flat call next to act if the SB folds to our bet, unless he's got a pretty strong hand, when the UTG player will be getting a fantastic price to come along.

All the more reason to c-bet small. It would suck to bet big, have the SB call, and then see the reg in the BB put a chunky x/r in.

You described villains as:

UTG ($400) - Rec player. Joined a few orbits ago. Limping a lot. - this is a fish

SB ($225) - Fish. - this is a fish

BB ($700 effective) - Reg. I’ve seen him make a similar overcall with QJo. - this is a fish

No idea how one has magically transformed into a nit at this juncture.

I agree with you johnnyBuz. There's no reason to bet small here. These guys have zero idea what a solver would do probably less of an idea of what GTO is -- read the descriptions. They're calling $50 with the same hand they're calling $25 with. I would like to build a pot with what I believe is the best hand and make them pay for their draws. That's part of the beauty of having position, too. They didn't bet, so they don't have two pair or better. They're only check/raising with a set, and even that is unlikely. They probably would just lead out.

Players checking to the raiser are still uncapped.

I may have missed something in the OP. I see that BB "made a similar overcall" with QJo". But was that in the same configuration, facing the same action? How do we get to thinking he's calling $50 with the same range that calls $25?

Also - assuming the QJo hand was exactly the same configuration and action pre-flop, if SB and UTG are fish, and hero has a respectable table image when he opens, the reg in BB is incentivized to flat call, to get involved with the two fish, and keep them in the hand. He doesn't need or want to play raise-or-fold out of the BB in a spot like that.

Even if we think the BB isn't very good for calling pre with QJo, if he calls with QJo, it seems likely he calls with QTs and T8s, if not QTo and maybe even T8. He could also have 88, maybe occasionally TT. He could show up with KhJh or Jh9h.

AdQc isn't a strong enough hand to want to start bloating the pot on this super-connected board, facing three fairly wide and poorly defined ranges.

If we bet big, and get check-raised, we're almost certainly beat, or hoping to hold up against a draw with a ton of equity. I wouldn't expect random fish to just start donking out with their thick value.

Forget about what solvers say. Just think about what low-stakes players limp-calling ranges look like, and how those ranges interact with this board. When we bet big, our opponents are just folding out all their air and weak value. They're only continuing with stronger hands and better draws.

The bold is what I disagree with. Now, I play with some pretty bad players, but they are calling $50 with all their weak value / draws if they are calling $25 -- and they are folding air to $10, so that's moot. This is 5/5, and I am stuck at 1/2 (limited games in my area), so maybe these guys are different, but it doesn't read that way from the descriptions.

We don't always get a queen high flop when we raise with AQ pre. Why not get some value? You're getting called by worse queens (QJ, QK, QTs) plus a FD's calling for 25 or for 50 why give them such great odds to draw out on us?

I would bet more otf and as played the river is an example of why we should be betting more because it's easier to define his range. If we bet hp and he called, I wouldn't think there are as many tens in his range than if we bet 25 so I would just call the river as played, but that's just me.

If you want to bet to "see where you're at," just push on the flop. That will define his range pronto.

You've made it clear that you play against terrible opponents. What works in your games against terrible opponents is unlikely to work in tougher games against better opponents.

I think it's debatable to say with any certainty that what you do in those games actually works. It may be the case that you'd have a higher win rate if you played differently, and you're just not being punished for playing the way you do, because the rest of the player pool is so terrible.

It's possible you're the best player in your pool, but still bad. The only way to know would be to play against better opponents.

I tend to crush 1/3 and small single-day deep-stack tournaments (~100-150 entrants with 30 minute levels). I was barely break-even when I took my shot at 2/5, and then I wasn't even break-even.

The experience served to help me understand my actual skill level, and forced me to return to 1/3 while I develop my game some more.

Actually, a small bet is as useful for defining ranges, if not more useful than a big bet, and undoubtedly more economical.

When we bet small, our opponents are faced with a dilemma, whether or not to raise their strong hands. Opponents are more likely to raise their strong hands when we bet small, and more likely to slow-play those hands when we bet big.

To the extent a bigger bet better defines our opponents' ranges, it does so by strengthening those ranges, whereas a smaller bet keeps their calling ranges wider, and weaker overall, or gets our opponents to telegraph their hand strength when they raise.

As has been suggested, if a big bet is better at defining our opponents' ranges, then logically, the biggest bet, which is all-in, would be best. We'll define their range to 100% certainty.

I play mainly PLO when I am in Vegas or some other casino, so most of my hold 'em is at my local games. That said, I'm a winning player at 1/2 and 1/3 whether I'm in my normal games or at a casino. And I'm very comfortable sitting in a 2/5 game at the Aria (although it's usually reg-infested -- I always check with the brush to see if it's worth sitting) or any other casino while waiting for PLO. I will play 5/10, too, if the game looks good.

Nothing tells us these guys are better opponents or that this is a tougher game. Seems the opposite to me.

I'm not betting 50 to see where I'm at, I'm betting for value.

I've been comfortable in games where I ended up being a losing player. Comfort is not the yardstick we use to judge if the game is beatable or not based on our skill level.

At times, I've destroyed reg-infested Vegas 1/3 games, and fairly tough 2/5 games at Parx. Occasionally doing well in tougher games or at higher stakes isn't the same as being a long term and big winner.

I'm still humble enough to admit the limits of my own skill, and able to admit when I needed to drop down in stakes while developing my skills more.

OP told us more about his game in this thread, when I asked him why his threads are always 5/5, but often only $500 eff, suspecting they were hard-to-beat Cali games with low caps and high rake - https://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/1...d-out-1841408/

I've never played in Cali, but this game sounds tougher to beat than any of the higher-cap / lower rake 1/3 and 2/5 games I've played locally, at Parx, where the games can be a bit tougher than in many other card rooms around the country.

Gotta respect OP for being open to help, when he sounds pretty competent, and seems to be holding his own in a $5 blind game that sounds pretty hard to beat.

I would imagine that OP's better reg opponents would be licking their chops if he routinely tried to get max value from hands that aren't all that high up in his range.

Dude no offense but you are writing paragraphs upon paragraphs that have no relevance to anything. We are responding to a specific hand vs. specific defined fishy villains (one of whom performed a Houdini and turned into a nit on a subsequent post by OP). Nobody is going to consult OP’s appendix from some other thread to further fine tune their response.

So in the absence of better information, we go off population reads. That’s kind of the whole point of poker - to maximally exploit our opponents based on our current understanding of their play. Fishy players call too wide and are bad at calculating pot odds. So if I bet $50 on the flop and SB calls then I’d shove turn and get on with my life win or lose because it’s a mundane spot vs. a 45 BB stack I’ve seen a thousand times before.