H - CO 250bb
V1 - BTN ~90bb- limp/called a raise with AKs early on against another person (eventually won at showdown, but made note). I also won a nice pot calling this player's turn bet and river bluff on something like 7s7d9s5x2x with 6's, they showed As2s.
V2 - SB ~35-40bb - Dead money. Calling gutshots with a short stack, basically playing hand face up.

Open to 10, BTN and SB both flat.

Flop 478r (32)

V2 check
H bet 25 (too big? usually go closer to 1/3, but V2 was super spewy with draws).
V1 call
V2 call

Turn 2r (105)
V2 check
H bet 45
V1 shove (I believe it was ~90 more to call, ~135-140 total)
V2 fold

Hero?

Knowing what cards you have would probably be helpful, useful info maybe.

Jesus, 99, dunno how I messed that up.

I like the flop sizing, personally. We're OOP on a dynamic flop with a small overpair.

We have to be right >28.5% of the time against a passive opponent's shove into 2 players. Button doesn't seem to like to 3!, so they can have overpairs 1010-JJ(maaaybe QQ), all sets, 56, and 78. They've shown they can bluff, but not necessarily into 2 people.

With no flush draw, the semi bluffs are 910s, 96s, and maybe 35s, J9s, J10s(these are optimistic given flop action). That's only 20 combos if we limit to suited hands. This gets better if we think they're playing the unsuited hands. But that seems somewhat unlikely given how they played AKs.

I'm probably making an arguably nitty fold against a somewhat passive 1/2 villain shoving into 2 players and a limited number of semi bluffs.

Is triple barreling a paired board with the nut flush draw typical of your player pool? It seems indicative of him either having decent hand reading abilities or being overly aggressive. Perhaps that line is standard at all levels but given that he limp calls AKs it seems that he wants to outplay people postflop. I'm not sure what range he gives you for double barreling into two people on this flop/turn combo but I'd put you on something with good SDV as V2 is likely GII on this particular turn card. V knows you like to bluff catch light so this shove just reeks of value to me. Fold imo

I probably call and lose most of the time.

Was only turn/river, flop checked around. In that hand, I opened 66, flop checks around, he bets 1/3 pot turn and 1/3 pot river. That's kinda why I included that bit in his info, felt like a very relevant hand to draw on, both for his tendencies, but also his perception of me as well. I think it makes this spot in the OP even more interesting in my mind.

I would say that's not super typical of this player pool. Some players certainly have bluffs with missed draws, but as with most 1/2 NL pools, I find most people generally underbluff.

Theory says we should c-bet smaller here, when we're multi-way, if we're making a higher frequency c-bet.

At a lower frequency, I wouldn't mind a pot sized bet when we have thick value that's vulnerable to opponents' draws, especially if we we were OOP to both or IP.

Here, I'd just check when we're multi-way with opponents in front and behind. Let's see what our opponents want to do before we c-bet. Maybe one will bet worse value or bluff. If the flop checks through, we can make a delayed c-bet on turn, or bluff-catch.

AP, I'd fold turn, especially given the history with this V, who may be good enough to recognize you're calling his bets wide. He may also think you don't have a fold button here, the way you've played it.

Your line is pretty face up. It looks like you have an over-pair to the board, or at least two over-cards. Doubtful V is making this play with too many worse value hands, and the off suit 2 isn't a scary card that would lead opponents to want to bluff, especially not with a short stack. His line looks like thick value.

I'd be more likely to call with a hand like T9, with at least 8 outs to improve, or 66/55, double blocking the flopped straight, with outs to improve to a straight. Our hand is just a bluff catcher here, and not nearly the best one.

Sent from my SM-G781U using Tapatalk

Im gonna call it off. Its not a huge amount more to call and I just see way too much weird stuff at 1/2 to fold an overpair on a rainbow board getting this price.

BTN can have all kinds of 8x, 7x, straight draws, random stuff that shouldnt even be represented bc "i put him on AK".

Don't think I'm cbetting range here, and this sizing is probably low frequency. IG I think I went with this sizing to exploit V2 a bit, ideally ISOing him going to the turn.

In retrospect I kind of wonder if I really get turn bets here, or if I should either check flop bet turn like you said, or bet flop and check turn.

As played, I did end up folding. No indication of what they had. I think I snap it off with JJ+ since they'll probably have 9's and 10's, but 99 feels like it's only really beating pure bluffs here, and he's just not gonna have enough of them with a turn shove (beluga theorem etc). It felt really nitty, but was a somewhat interesting spot in my mind. I feel like in these live low limit NL games, I'm so rarely good vs. turn shoves unless I have a monster.

You also block a lot of likely semi-bluffs.

Blocking J9/T9/98/97/96 so heavily I wouldn't bet so big, probably 15 on flop, and would at least consider a turn check after everyone calls (and if bet, would be 25-33%).

HU I like a flop check, at least sometimes, but even 3 ways I probably still bet flop.


As played just fold, and I doubt JJ is doing better enough of the time to call either.

Just to clarify -

I didn't suggest you were c-betting range. If we're c-betting at a higher frequency, even if it's not 100%, we should bet smaller. Multi-way, we should c-bet smaller. If we're multi-way and betting at a high frequency, our c-bet should be REALLY small, IF we c-bet at all, instead of just checking, which is often the best option.

If we're betting at a lower frequency, we should bet bigger, especially when we have thick but vulnerable value, and especially when we're either first or last to act, not in the middle.

Here, when we're multi-way, and have opponents in front and behind, I prefer to just start out with a check more often than not. I want to see what my opponents do before I act, and pot control a bit.

I think starting out with a check on the flop, and making a delayed c-bet on turn is better than c-betting flop, and checking turn on a "scare" card. When we check flop and bet turn, it could be that the scare card was good for us. When we bet flop and check turn, we'll often have no idea where we're at on the river.

You're literally at the bottom of your range here, guess you can fold

Sent from my Mi 9T using Tapatalk

When you bet flop big and get two callers I would check the turn. Now your smaller bet looks weak. With one caller I think you can bet the turn.

Now it's close, I would lean fold but calling probably isn't much worse

So what happened?

Snap call online/snap fold live.

You should size up preflop too with the fish in SB so you can jam ~50% of the flops if you get heads up. You want to play 1-2 SPR flop spots with vulnerable hands.

Your preflop raise sizing shouldn't be static, it should be based on what your hand wants to accomplish. Almost nobody at these stakes will pick up on this.

I understand you can probably get away with different sizes more often live, and esp. if the table is full of drunk randoms on a Friday night ... but even some of the worst regs. will notice if you raise bigger with AA/KK and less with JTs, and a bunch of them will make assumptions the first time you do it as well.
Pretty much all regs. will be aware of it to some degree just because of the giant number of players who will be limping range X and open raising range Y. Also super common "tells" like people raising huge with JJ, or old guy who raises huge with AA/KK and nothing else.

It's not much of a concern because of sample size/hand has to go to SD. We should be limping/over limping most of our hands so these RFI spots won't happen very often.

So you almost never raise limpers?

No you shouldn't because of how EV works. Preflop EV is very small when compared to winrates (we learn this concept from solvers). Versus fish/very weak regs you need to play more postflop because they have huge leaks we want to exploit.

RFIing too much is the wrong approach because you are pushing small edges. You want to push big edges which incentivizes the players to play postflop.

This is 1/2. It's hard enough to beat the rake when we're raising the right ranges pre. I don't get how we'll be better off limping / over-limping most of our range rather than RFI'ing. I'd think we'd want to win as many pots pre-flop as possible, or build a pot so that it'll be bigger if we take it down post-flop.

There's no such thing as "right ranges." Even the concept of ranges is going to be misapplied since that only exists inside a GTO framework. We are playing against highly exploitable players, we don't care about our range.

So we're just over-limping behind multiple opponents with 99+ / AXs from the CO? Do we have a limp-3B range from LP?

What's our post flop strategy? Just calling with over-pairs+ and good draws, and folding everything else?

Seems like the passive line pre flop is going to make it harder for us to navigate a lot of multi-way pots post flop.

Sent from my SM-G781U using Tapatalk

So first off, your have a _lot_ of posts and it says verified coach next to your name. Also gobbledygeek is approaching god status and kind of plays this way.

Both of which make me want to at least listen to what you have to say, but...

This is not helpful and it leaves me guessing at what you might be trying to say ... or if you are just bad (maybe just at communicating, isildur was apparently terrible at it).

I'm going to assume you aren't limping 60% UTG, and you aren't secretly rolling a random number to decide if you should limp or not ... so you are starting with a range.

You might be saying you split ranges, and limp a HJ open range - UTG open range ... because you think everyone at 1-2 is terrible and won't notice. Or maybe even that you go full gobbledygeek and open limp only UTG but it's a lot closer to a normal HJ open range. But you didn't actually say either of those things.