I think the discussion overall has been good.

Any discussion is dependent on the reads given. When I see a player is is raising most hands pf 30-50 all of a sudden only raises 25, alarm bells go off in my head. That's a big hand and KJ sucks against a big hand, especially oop. I happily dump this hand.

If you're going to play it, then it is a raise to isolate. Calling is the worst option by far.

On the flop, a raise is awful. The flop is dry as a bone (only T9 for a draw). All a raise does is say to the the gambler, "Yo, if you don't have a big hand you should fold now." You have to decide whether you're in or out. Even if there is a 1/2 psb on the turn and river, you're committing most if not all of your stack. If you aren't committed to stacking off with TPGK, then fold now and save some money. Personally, stacking off with TPGK isn't winning poker in a 3 way hand. V2 has a hand, and if he is any good, he's calling with a draw at worst or better than TP.

Again, all I have all the OP reads. If they are wrong, then the answers could change.

Maybe this is a remedial question, but why did we not donkbet the flop?

Do we seriously think V2 calls our bet, or our bet + V1's call, on a float?

V1 is not going to call our bet with as wide a range as he will bet himself. We want him to c-bet his missed hands.

Nonetheless V2 is never folding better than KJ even if we donk bet, so donk betting just to get him out of the hand is meritless - if we have a choice of getting v2 to call a bet with a worse hand or to fold those worse hands, we would of course want him to continue with them, no matter how good a player he may be. The board is dry enough that few turn spots are going to be difficult for us to play even OOP + it is rather unlikely that v2 is trying to get fancy and float a spewtard who he has little FE against and despite what others say it is supremely improbable that V2 is going to get fancy and call v1 with some kind of marginal hand then decide to turn it into a bluff because he soulread us for KJ and knows we are going to fold.

I didn't say it, but wanted to, and Venice sorta' did so: fold PF.

That's how you avoid difficult hands, oop, against opponents with tendencies difficult to analyze effectively. You just fold, for many reasons, but mostly in case you hit a part of the flop, that you don't really want, and feel compelled to keep playing.

IMO, of course.

If we expect him to bet with missed hands, wtf is v2 expecting, OTB?

If we're planning on playing this hand, oop, versus v2 as described (forgetting v1 for the moment), we're losing $ all day.

We want to play vs v1. V2 is, until declared, freerolling on our hand and needs to gtfo of our pot, given our image.

I think it's right to get it in w/V1 in this pot, and that's kinda' what what we're hoping for. V2 is the fly in the ointment, and the only way to figure it out is to bet on the flop when we catch the J. Sucks, but isolating V1, as described, is going to be difficult w/V2 on your right. Look for a better spot, as played.

V2 is playing a wide range pre flop because he has implied odds against the fish V1 and is in position vs him. This board is so dry that before V2 acts we should pretty much rule him out as a nonentity in this hand. V1 is the weak player, V1 is the PFR, V1 is who we expect to c-bet a wide range and therefore it is V1 we want to be playing this hand against.

We don't make money in poker by nut peddling against good players, we make money by exploiting those worse than us.

Put yourself in V2's shoes: When V1 opens PF we call IP with most suited connectors and one gappers, several PP's, broadway cards, etc because he is a fish and we want to play IP vs a fish with anything playable.

Flop comes J84r, V1 c bets which we know he is prone to doing with most of his PFR range so we call with any 8, J, set or 99/TT because we know he is likely to barrel and we're happy to call him down. We FOLD anything that is a PP <8 or complete air because it is too weak to call V1 down with and we likely dont have FE vs him later to float.

After that Hero calls behind (despite us indicating we have a strong enough hand to call V1) we pretty much give up with all but our best holdings. Hero's range here is primarily strong and could easily include 88/44 (on such a dry board vs an aggrotard raising those would be terrible).

That's all there is to it. V2 does not know that we are currently at the bottom of our range and he most certainly isn't going to think this is a good spot to launch an elaborate bluff even if he did. Very few people at LLSNL are capable of folding strong hands and even less good players are going to try and make them do so without a ton of equity when called. So V2 is just going to play his cards straightforwardly.

I could simulate leading out in CREV but I think it would fare terribly as it mostly forces villains to play better. We lose all of spewy V1's light cbets, and all of V2's light floats -- all of which is dead money we collect with a checkraise line a large percentage of the time.

Regarding flatting causing V2 to play straightforward -- yes, that's probably mostly true, but it doesn't matter much (in my simulation we were mostly folding to him on later streets, and mostly correctly).

The bigger problem is that flatting leaves two opponents in the hand. Our KJ fares great against ONE weaker range, but not so great against TWO weaker ranges, particularly when OOP we are mostly forced to let both those ranges see the river cheap or free, and put money in on their terms, not ours.

So, I've become convinced that on this flop...

Checkraise > flatting > leading out

... and absent some new insight I'm done experimenting with any of those three lines.


I'd (still) be willing to simulate a preflop 3-bet line if someone is interested and wants to give me their their preflop sizing and flop plan for HU and 3-handed (maybe assume CO always folds so it's Hero vs V1 and/or V2). At a minimum we could at least see how the EV of that compares to just folding preflop.

Make it +pot pre to $130.

Fold to 4-bet pre.

If we are called by V1.
C-bet a lot of dry boards, value bet if hit. Bet sizing dependent on board structure.

If we are called by V2.
Veru unlikely, can't see a hand he will continue playing here with flatting, with pot being almost 1/2 ESS otf, he must be slowplaying a monster here if he calls. Fit or fold against him.

If called by both. V1 range is the same. V2 range with what he flats to create $420 pot(Stacks $570/$470)? I can't imagine. Trappinmg Aces?
Anyways if V2 is still in a hand we fit or fold.

Check-raising this flop is horrible.

There is only one hand we beat that might call a check-raise: T9s. If we check-raise and get called, we are way behind.

Maniacs are usually pretty good players. Just because someone splashes around preflop doesn't mean that he stacks off light. 90% of the "spewtards" turn into ABC players when the pot gets big. That's how maniacs make money - by tilting weaker players into stacking off light. Just because OP refers to one of the villains as a "spewtard" does not mean we get to throw everything we know about poker out the window and start shoveling money into the pot with a mediocre hand.

If we check-raise this flop, we are BLUFFING. If you think we're getting value here, you're dreaming. QJ ain't calling a raise.

And yeah, maybe villains' ranges are so weak that we show a profit by bluffing with any two cards here, from fold equity alone. It wouldn't surprise me. Players at this limit almost never check-raise, which makes check-raising look very strong, which makes people fold to check-raises a lot.

So, fine, let's assume that in a vacuum, it's +EV to check-raise with any two cards here.

Does that mean we should check-raise with any two cards here? Should we check-raise with 55? With J2? No? Why not? Our fold equity is exactly the same. Why should we check-raise bluff with KJ, but not J2 or 55?

Answer: If you check-raised in the spot all the time, people would notice, and they would adjust. It would no longer be a +EV bluff.

So you can only check-raise-bluff here SOME of the time. And what are the best hands to bluff with? Drawing hands, which have the most equity when called. And on this board, that means open-enders, gutshots, overcards, middle pair and bottom pair. NOT top pair. If we check-raise and get called, our jack outs are likely dead (against AJ/JJ/J8/J4), and our king outs might be dead as well (against KK). A hand like T9 or 98 is much more likely to be drawing live against a strong range (which is what we put ourselves up against as soon as we check-raise and get called).

KJ has plenty of check-calling equity. If we're ahead, villains usually give up and we win at showdown. Maybe we make more money by bluffing, but that doesn't matter - we can only turn a small percent of our range into a bluff before people start to notice. So we pick the part of our range with the least amount of showdown equity, and the biggest chance of improving, and bluff with that. NOT TPGK.

This thread is surreal. Stop bluffing with the best hand.

How about stop giving odds to two villains while you have the best hand?


Could you please address that point? How does c/c fair vs 17 cards run twice vs two villains???

Similarly, when should you turn the best hand into a bluff?

Is it your opinion that you shoud "never" turn the best hand into a bluff?

Cause I have to tell you, when the pot is 1/2 the effective stacks involved, and we are OOP with 2 cards to come, 17 of which we don't want to see, and also have two villains behind, and have also shown weakness (by just calling) and the next bet is going to lead to a pot bigger than the effective stacks involved....

this to me screams like a great time to just take the pot down. (And given OP descriptions, no way V folds QJ or JT. Am I the ony one who read OP villain descriptions?)

Or to reverse it, given the size of the pot, we would have to run into a monster 55% of the time for a c/r to NOT be profitable.

Is it your argument that villains in this case have us beat (QQ-AA, AJ, or a set) 55% of the time here?

If you add everything up, for the life of me I just can't see how a c/c is better than a c/r here.

dgiharris
I think everyone who read the whole thread is convinced with raising the flop, but what do you think about raising pre?

I absolutely love isolating LP raisers in situations like this when there is lots of potential dead money and I likely have the best hand (or can fold out better hands like 22-TT, A2s-AQ, KQ doubt AK or JJ folds).

A 3bet from the blinds comes across as ubber strong and will likely take down that dead money a large percentage of the time. Similarly, if you get called by the spewtard, good chance your range still crushes his. Seriously doubt the other players that just called are calling any respectable 3bet.

I'd probable raise to $125 pre and would expect that to take it down 80% of the time, the remaining 20% of the time we are only up against the spewtard and should be able to take it down post flop with a strong c-bet or value town him if we hit

this pretty much sums it up. don't turn KJ into a bluff.

dgiharris and chalupa are owning this thread

Re-raising is not for bluffing purposes (eg making V fold better hands) but for protection (charging V to outdraw out hand).

so you're stacking off with tpmk in a live poker game? those are exactly the types of players you want to have in your game, at least I do. i'm calling the flop to keep in hands I beat.

ANd since there are 17 cards that they would like to see, and two streets upon which to see them, your villains are going to appreciate your check call.

incidentally, it's TPGK not TPMK and for shtts and giggles, read the villain descriptions. There is no way the spewtard is folding JT, QT, or T9 type hands but our c/r will definitely shake loose the other villain who would have called the flop bet with a ubber wide range or even be floating with overs...

and lastly, we aren't stacking off for cheeseburger money here. The pot is 1/2 effective stacks already and the next bet will easily lead to the pot being greater than effective stacks. So we've easily reached the threshold for stacking off and should be comfortable doing so. Or in other words, its worth it.

There's no point in restating the checkraising math and logic if you haven't already found it convincing, so I won't, but I will address this specific point:

The bolded statement is false. If we are check-raising because we believe villains will fold widely, then checkraising with J2 as a bluff is much better than 55, because J2 blocks many more of the hands that could call or reshove.

The same logic would apply to a lesser extent if we had any of the other flop cards in our hand to block those sets, and probably still has some statistically significant effect if we had a T or 9 in our hand to block T9s.

You could probably take it further and say a Qhi or Khi airball is better than 55 because there are a few less overpairs, though that may get into the realm of insignificant... would have to simulate it to see.

As a concrete example I already did, see the math in post #170 where I compared the EV of checkraising KJs vs 72o.

hmm, very interesting. I will keep this all in mind next time I visit fantasy candy land happy place, where the maniacs all stack off with gutshots and bottom pair, like they do in your excellently crafted simulation.

So are we folding if we ch/r and one of the villains shoves?

onf we are stacking with a spewtard and folding to a good one
pre we are folding to any 4bet

I'd suggest you look at the second sim (post #155) where V1 stacks off far more narrowly, and Hero is still a whopping +$127 EV to checkraise and call V1 (and fold to V2).

I also just modified that sim to have Hero checkraise and never fold, no matter which villain(s) push, and Hero is still +$98 EV!

Reread that last line paragraph -- if we simply checkraise and are then a total station, stacking off when we can't be ahead (and in fact make some -EV stackoffs) we are STILL +$98 EV to checkraise!


Again, compare this to the simulated EV of flatting which is only +$71 (post #167, CREV file available upon request), and is much harder to play correctly.


I think it comes down to this: on the flop the pot has been bloated to the point that given the relative strength of our hand and our blockers that it is virtually impossible for us to make a mistake by checkraising.

We gain so much by denying the (much more common) weaker hands a chance to suck out on us in this big pot that we can even knowingly stack off with the worst of it if our checkraise fails, and still come out very +EV overall.

Have a lollipop.

What about pre raise, chalupa?

I saw your post #183 that started making a plan... I'll simulate it (tomorrow) if you want to give me specific preflop villain raise/call and 4-bet ranges and more exact postflop play, i.e. what is a "dry" board, what is our flop bluff sizing, do we give up if called or shove turn, what is our "value" sizing, what is "fit or fold" bet sizing, etc.

Also the more you can simplify and end it as quickly postflop the better. I don't want to simulate 3 streets of value betting depending on board structure.

Everyone already answered you very very well, but just to sum up: we are raising in order to collect dead money, or what is colloquially known as "protecting our hand". Villains' hands still have a bunch of outs. We want to take their part of the equity, and in order to do this, we need to make them fold. Calling does not make them fold. Calling and then checking the turn lets them see two free cards, and lets them realize all of their (considerable) equity against us. Worse yet, calling is a RIO situation, since by the time that one of them catches up on the river when a 9 or any of the other straight-making cards show up, we're even going to pay the bastards off since "we've shown weakness, so they could be betting with anything". Our supposed check-calling equity puts us in a RIO situation on a wet board with a bunch of overcards to our pair. If we were sitting in a dry Ace-high flop with TPGK, I'd be all about check-calling, since this would be a nice non-vulnerable made hand with plenty of check-calling equity. With a pair of jacks on a wet board that hits our opponents' straight-draw ranges, check-calling amounts to inviting villains to valueown us.

The reason this discussion, and BoredAtheist's and rakeme's posts, are so important, is that they show one of the biggest misconceptions in poker, IMO: that if you are betting or raising with a hand that will only get called by better hands, then you are turning your hand into a bluff. This is only true in a case where villains have no outs, and the current discussion (as well as the math above) give a great example of this. It's funny, because the same people who say "don't turn your hand into a bluff" would advocate charging villains for drawing. They just assume that villains have statistically-improbable strong ranges.They are seeing monsters under the bed.

One of BoredAtheist's statements is particularly troubling. He says: "If we're ahead, villains usually give up and we win at showdown". However, one of the best arguments ITT against check-raising is that V1 is such a spewtard that he'll keep firing on the turn, while if we raise we're getting him to fold and to stop giving us free money. This was a great argument, that would probably lead to check-calling being a better line if we know that e.g. V1 is firing another barrel with his entire range. However, contrary to this argument, BoredAtheist thinks when we call and we're ahead, V1 would just give up; this should make us want even more to check-raise, since now the main argument for check-calling does not hold anymore.

I have a question to BoredAtheist and rakeme: did you guys actually read the thread (in particular the statistical analysis of chalupa and of me), or are you making decisions based on your gut? Because I have to tell you, the gut doesn't have a particularly sophisticated statistical ability. In fact, I'm not even sure the gut can even use the rule of 2 and 4. You remind me of Steven Colbert's immortal words:
You guys are thinking from the gut. We showed you concrete statistical arguments for why check-raising is +EV. If you want to claim that check-calling is more +EV, you're free to argue that, but you'll have to show it with facts, rather than expecting us to trust your gut instincts and broadly-applied poker common maxims ("turning a hand into a bluff is bad"). IIRC chalupa even offered to run simulations on a check-call if you'll give suitable assumptions. If you truly think you can show that check-calling is better, the ball is in your court.


Check out my calculations. I assumed villains play optimally vs our check-raise. Still +EV. If you want to claim that check-calling is +EV you'll have to show it. I suspect it's -EV, actually.

FYP.

By the way, the "if you think differently than me then I want you in my game" cliche is getting old.