We would want to check those river cards anyway. I don’t think it’s too disastrous if it goes check check on a river 4 liner.

Really, the reason why just calling seems good is a few things. For one, we know he’s probably not bluffing, because it’s 1/3 and people don’t bluff raise often enough. So his range will consist mostly of marginal value (two pair), strong value (sets), and nuts (straights). More likely than not, he puts the money in on most rivers with the last two anyway, so we don’t gain a ton on those by jamming. And the marginal value hands, we give him a chance to value bet those incorrectly on the river when he’d have folded to a jam.

Basically, on a board changing turn card like this, we shouldn’t be looking to pile our entire stack in too often. We probably should’ve checked and raised the turn, but given we’ve bet, we’re against someone responding to strength with strength and our play should reflect that.

Gotcha, thanks for explaining your thought process in more detail.

About the bolded: There are definitely a lot of players in my pool who don’t value bet thinly AT ALL. I am actually struggling to think of a single player in my 1/2 or 1/3 pool who would put the rest of his stack in with a set on a 4-liner. 25% of all rivers bring a 4-liner, so that’s one concern for me. Missing $420 of value from over half the players range (assuming he only has 86s/77/44) on over 25% of rivers works out to over $55 of lost EV, which seems considerable to me.

Then there’s lost EV added on if he decides to check back sets on a flush completing river (another 15% of the deck). I’ll see that from time to time as well, though some players would bet a set on a 3-flush board — and it sounds from the OP description that our TAG would probably bet those rivers.

I agree if this is a player who is capable to raise/fold 75s/54s then that’s a downside of raising. I don’t know how capable LLSNL players are to raise/fold two-pair. YMMV I guess…

Oops. I guess I neglected to consider that we gain EV in the call-turn-line if we decide to check-fold on the 25% of rivers that bring a 4-liner because we know villain has 86s when he bets those cards.

It seems that the EV gain from losing less to 86s on a 3/6/8 river probably about compensates for the EV loss from not stacking 55/77 on a 3/6/8 river. (Assume roughly equal combos of 86s and 77/55 in range.)

So it all comes down to the question of what villain would do with 2-pair if we raise? If he always stacks off with two pair then jamming would be best I suppose. If he more often folds two pair to a turn jam (but would bet it on the river if we check turn) then taking a more passive line would be better, to allow Villain the opportunity to “value own” himself.

im on the same boat

What two pairs does V realistically have here?

Keep in mind he is a tight player that called an ep open and a flop bet...2 combos of 75s is a big stretch. To me his hand looks like A8ss/A6ss/98ss/77/44/86ss and perhaps the other 3 combos of 86s. So that is 9 combos we gain from when we shove and maybe 6 combos we dont gain from when we shove. Ill take all the value I can get now for the times a scary river kills our action from this tight profile.

1. We have the second nuts (and what is likely the nuts against a tight player)

2. Villain is rarely folding vs a jam

3. The hands that we occasionally fold out are likely to have a bunch of outs against us

As long as these 3 points are true, jamming is going to be the best play by far. I’m not too worried about villain raise folding 2p because it might not even be in his range (and people usually talk themselves into calling in these spots anyway).

This is also where I'm at.

And the other thing that I don't think has been discussed in the last few posts is what villain does with semi-bluffs. Most villains don't have it in them to double barrel semi-bluff; they'll often take their one shot and then give up. So we have to punish these hands on the turn, imo.

Also don't think we lose as many two pears as perhaps we might think as he'll convince himself we have an overpair enough of the time.

In much bigger SPR pots and perhaps even with much smaller sets, I could get behind a more cautious play. But at this SPR with toppest of sets and with this many stoopid river cards, I'm piling it in ASAP.

GcluelesspilingititnoobG

Answered above, but the whole thing is we'll have options. Mostly leading good rivers w a smaller sizing, check-deciding bad ones. Overall we are just too deep to be allowed to bet-shove this turn anyway because we never/near-never have a straight, high low low low board, getting action, just gross.

So basically let V set the price for his own draw and then get value when he misses?

This is 1/3 and villains are bad and will call off with a lot worse. That's why low stakes are so exploitable.

Even if we have a similar situation with the same cards where we have to call all-in getting 2:1, we still need to be good 33% of the time. If we jam then we have fold equity on top of that so we need to be good even less.

I'm still jamming. We are 200 BBs deep in a game where 5x BB is the standard open.

Jam all day. I'm reasonably sure it's not a mistake, but even if it is, I'm absolutely sure it's not a big one.

He wants to make the pot bigger ott that's fine, they're also significantly less frequent facing raise, bet and bet again IP.

It's also funny to say things like 'set the price' when they are already making a mistake with the action in the first place. Top set just isnt a bet bet/shove anyway on this board/action.

That's a misconception because it doesn't apply to all situations.

When a 'low stakes' guy overcalls then calls PFR then RAISES PFR BET BET... it's no longer a 'bad call off with a lot worse' situation.

Anyway, I just don't think hero is even allowed to bet any hand without a straight card here, maybe JJ MAYBE but once raised it's just not a shove for 4-500 more in a small game.

I hear, for sure going around shoving all in in a 1/3 or 2/5 holdem game without a nut hand will be suicide. You could fold here if you have history with the player and you know he is an absolute nut player. But in this case it sounds like villain is either going for a bluff (because he has many available) or he is value betting himself.


I agree with you at these stakes you should for sure fold to extreme aggression because people at least in the games I play way way under bluff. If this was PLO 4 or 5 card hi 100% I would snap fold here or I guess call if we are deep etc. Against 1-2,1/3,2/5 guys I can think of 2 maybe 3 that I would find a fold. In other cases there are just way too many hands we are crushing that villain thinks he is ahead with. I understand "only getting called by a better hand" but villain has a lot of worse hands he thinks are better and he has a lot of semi bluffs he thinks have a ton of equity against tp and over pairs. I should add the only thing that would make me think of a fold is the flop c bet was too small, I would be betting 80% here.

Didn’t read anything except the hand history.

Could you consider potting the turn?

A lot of pairs plus straight draws would call.

The 5 could increase his chances of two pair.

Once he raises and with you being OOP just jam.

So let him make a bigger one. I'm not saying every set is a fist pump chair spin all in. But if you decide your opponent is likely on a draw then you must give him poor odds to chase it. Him taking the initiative to put in money is irrelevant because once the money goes in the decision is no longer his, the pot odds are now zero. It is up to us to force him to make a poor decision with poor odds.

I know you know what ‘misconception’ means but what I don’t know is why you would type such an absurd statement.