1/3 NL. Was a new game only running for about 40 minutes, so limited info. Villain is a competent younger player that I've seen once or twice before. Does not like to fold pre, but hasn't made any strong stabs at pots post-flop.

Hero is also younger player. I had been pretty active, raising maybe once or twice an orbit pre. Had taken down some small to medium pots with c-betting. Only hand I showed down was pocket 10's to take down about a $100 pot.

Hero: $400, Villain $450

Hero dealt J10 in the CO. Folds around to CO, Hero raises to $15. SB calls, Villain calls in the BB.

Flop: Q95

SB checks, Villain leads for $25. Hero thinks for about 7-8 seconds, and raises to $70. SB folds, Villain calls pretty promptly.

Turn 6

Villain thinks for about 5 seconds and bets $180. Hero ???

I don't really know what the question is here. Folding is patently ridiculous. You have significantly less than 2x his bet so just shove. If he coolered you with a bigger flush then your read on him being competent might be off since that huge of a donk-bet with a bigger flush seems insane unless his read on you is that you're bad

edit: Really I'm struggling to see a world where you decided to post this and didn't get coolered by a bigger flush. You're never folding the hand, and flatting makes no sense. The shove is automatic so don't worry about it

Call the flop. Raising serves no purpose.

I doubt villain folds one hand that he's donking. Not with that sizing, in this dynamic, or on this texture. It seems intuitive to raise since we have a monster draw, but raising is a mistake here. Your raise doesn't generate any fold equity against better, and if anything, if and when you end up all in on the flop with your "monster draw," you too often realize how little hand equity you can have (say vs. Kxhh, Axhh, etc). You also have the best position in the hand... so plan to use it and call. In addition, a call can get an overall from SB, which is a fine outcome.

As played, don't fold.

Yeah, I probably GII here vs the described V. Against your average LLSNLer, I might just call and hope to fade a heart OTR, but I have my doubts that this V calls a river bet if he checks river, so GII.

If you cannot raise with OESD/flush draw, what can you raise with?

Are you suggesting to never raise with big draw if someone donks?

You know this, how? What's so special about the sizing?

What about the dynamic? What is the dynamic that tells you that V is always donk/calling?

Like I said, if you cannot raise with a big draw, what can you raise with?

Again, you're just going back to your unsubstantiated claim against something you acknowledged as intuitive.

Why not?

You should at least establish V's donking range and then argue why most of that range isn't folding. At the bare minimum, take one hand out of that range and argue it.

So don't raise big draw unless that draw is nutted? Come on...stop with these non-sense.

So call down until you hit and fold if you don't?

Is that really the best advice you can come up with?

So let me get this straight...you are advising against raising because V could have higher flush, and when V represents a higher flush, you should call?

Do you actually read what you post or are you trolling?

Shoving >> calling >>>>> folding. It's best just to get it in here in case he has the Ah or Kh or a smaller flush that will get scared if another heart peels. Also, if he's competent that means that he's savvy enough to rep the flush with the bare Ah here. Sometimes you'll end up losing, but that doesn't make this an unprofitable spot to gii.

Also, I have to agree that it's absurd to not raise on the flop in this hand. People in the llsnl forum are way too bold in their assertions that we have always have 0 fold equity whenever someone takes an aggressive action. Like I get saying we have no fold equity when a nit 3 bets the turn, but here a competent player who doesn't like to fold pre led out for a little over half pot on the flop. Do you really think he's calling with Q8, QT, A9 type hands if we put in a big raise on the flop?

all in and pray

to summarize, in your opinion raising flop is correct and you have to be an arse about it now?

We have a bunch of equity against Axhh though:

PokerCruncher-Advanced-iPhone V.8.2.1

(Equity, Win, Tie)
Player 1: 45.2% 45.2% 0% [JhTh]
Player 2: 54.8% 54.8% 0% [Ah6h]

Board: [Qh 9h 5c ? ?]
Deal To: River
Dead Cards: {}

Complete Enumeration: 990 of 990 cases

I like the flop raise.
Now just shove

I think all of these hands are calling for $45 more in a $140 pot. Sizing would need to be bigger to fold out these hands OTF. I'd maybe go to $100. That size is giving a good price to Kxhh and Axhh too, which is not great.

Slow down, breathe and think.

When hero raises the flop, after being the pre-flop raiser, this represents greater strength than a big draw. To villain, hero's range looks like AA, KK, QQ, AQ, 99, AhKh, AhJh, KhJh, JhTh. That is 4 combos of flush draws and 30 combos of made hands (less any that V can eliminate due to blockers in his own hand). Now plenty of the AA and KK combos will have picked up flush draws OTT.

So now the question is whether V is trying to get paid with the nuts (or 2nd nuts), or trying to blow hero off the pot with something like AhQx. If he's really competent, V puts hero on a strong range and realizes how often low stakes players just won't fold an over pair or 2-pair+, regardless of how ugly the board gets.

In-game, I probably ship it. But looking at it more objectively, V's line is perfect for a nut flush against raise-happy hero, this deep.

You read it wrong. I never said raising flop is correct. I said his reasons for not raising flop is unclear and asked him to clarify.

I did say in the very end that his logic that V could have bigger flush draw and then to "don't fold" when V does represent bigger flush is trollish.

Don't see how I am being an arse when I took the effort to point out how he has holes in his argument.

Even though it doesn't matter in this hand, I would probably consider a seat change; this guy is a bit too close to our left for our liking, imo.

I'm cool with preflop.

I'm either/or on the flop. One of the main benefits of raising a strong draw is that our opponent folds now, but I think we overestimate how often that is going to happen, and it really just ain't going to happen here against this guy (who doesn't like to fold). The dead money in the pot isn't bad, but there are still significant stacks behind, and to be honest, if we face a reraise here we should feel pretty sick (as we'll be getting in big stacks as a likely a 2:1 dog). A raise does perhaps give us a free river card, and we obviously have ok equity against TP type hands, but for me there just has to be more reward vs risk, so I'd lean towards a call.

On the turn I think we have to lie in the bed we've made. We've made a huge pot and have the 3rd nuts, and if ahead can still get sucked out on. I shove and have a backup plan of hitting my 1/2 outer if required.

GcluelessNLnoobG

Seriously RP?

GlameG

Please stop trolling me. I don't know why you keep referring to me as RP.

What I quoted was clearly very conflicting, so I wasn't sure if he was purposely posting bad advice, trolling, or just doesn't read what he posted earlier.

Clearly he thinks that bigger flush draw is possible and I concur.

Now he's recommending Hero to not fold when V's overbet is representing bigger flush.

To accuse Willy (one of the most solid contributors to 1/3 NL threads here) of trolling is lol laughable.

You're free to disagree with him (I actually just disagreed with him, which is rare for me, on an AK thread earlier today) but maybe try it with less attitude next time?

Gstillthinksyou'reRP,amIwrong?G

Why is that?

Another established poster recently called a poster who has been posting for ages on 2+2 the same thing.

By the same argument, why do people accuse me of trolling when I am "the most solid" contributor in LLSNL?

What attitude?

What about your attitude towards me?

You seem to be fond of quotes, so I'll quote the above from you.

On a 'tude scale of 1 to 10, what would you give this?

Gnotgoingtoplayinyourreindeergamesanymore,goodluck toyouG

Sorry, let me rephrase for some of you.

"Do you see the contradiction in your own post, or are you purposely ignoring the contradiction?"

Is that all?

the big and now somehow semi-controversial post by sneaky pete has 2 major problems:

1. It suggests that there is 1 and only 1 correct way to play this particular hand, and it implies that we can actually know the max EV play based on 40 minutes of observation of an unknown opponent. the reality is that we should be varying and even randomizing our play some, so the question isn't whether we should be 100% raising or 100% calling, but more about how often and for what reasons we should be doing either. to the extent that villain is viewed as liking to call, we can already start down the road of reconsidering our fold equity on the flop for example.

2. it focuses entirely on the impact of a raise on flop action and fails to consider future streets. for example, Sneaky Pete might consider that a raise likely folds out A9 on the flop is an argument for raising; however that fails to consider the very high likelihood that A9 will fold on the turn or river whether or not JTs improves. or what about situations where we flat flop and shove turn ... might that even be a more profitable alternative, especially if we think villain is donking light or likely to be calling too narrow of his turn betting range?

while I agree w Sneaky Pete's post that blindly asserting that villain is 100% donk/calling here is wrong, I also think the post fails to ask the questions that are actually pertinent to the spot.

in my view what matters more than our flop FE or equity v. range is how villain will play the turn. in general I favor raising flop, but I think there's a good argument for just calling as well, which suggests that the answer is to do both with some regularity.

Certainly not suggesting what is max EV in this situation.

I was merely pointing out that Willyoman's assertions are not absolute and asked for further evidences as to why he thinks they are.

That's for you to determine based on your own observation and game condition.

My objective is to isolate different ideas within a post and to further understand them.

FWIW, V is labeled as not like to fold pre flop, meaning he likes to see a lot of hands. That simply means that his pre-flop limping and calling range is very wide, and therefore weak. It is not enough to deduce that V doesn't like to fold with any part of flop.

Actually, I just never got that far.

I couldn't make such assumption anymore than you could. There are too many variables for me to consider whether A9 has high likelihood of folding if Hero simply calls the flop.

I do know that if we call the flop on a wet board like this one, most V would consider a cap to our range.

Most of V's range that might fold to a flop raise will now be considered bluff catchers and our fold equity reduces even more.

What kind of turn card would such play make sense? Like I said above, could V actually think we would call flop with a strong hand such as TPTK?

When we get there, I'll ask.

What is important is painting a picture of what we are holding.

We raised pre - strong hand.

We raise wet flop - strong hand.

We call wet flop - bluff catcher and draws???

Shove. I think sets, two pair, QxXh hands dominate his range. A river fourth heart might cause him to c/f. Maybe he has strangely played KK/AA with one heart. I doubt villain played A8- or K8- of hearts so aggressively. You just don't see people hammer naked flush draws like that. The only other possible holding is AKhh. You're obviously not folding out of fear of 1 combo.

Fine pre. I don't love the flop raise, but don't hate it. You don't really have much FE on the flop. If you raise, I'd make it $125 and plan to shove any turn. I think calling and evaluating the turn with the intention of semi-bluffing is probably better.

I think my big problem with the raise is the sizing. Raising to $70 sets up awkward sizes on the turn when called. Eff. stacks will be $315 and the pot will be about $180. I don't think we can maximize FE against Qx and better when the turn blanks. Our bets can easily be c/r and we have to commit with ~30% equity on the turn. Obviously the hand plays itself when we hit, but we should plan for the 2/3 of the time the turn doesn't help. A larger raise on the flop to setup a pot-sized turn shove maximizes FE on the flop and turn.

When stacks can't go in on the flop, sometimes it's worth looking at calling. 2.8:1 direct odds to call the flop, plus IO, and in position is a pretty good spot. The pot will be about $100 with stacks of $350. Hero can semibluff shove any reasonable turn bet, or call smaller bets to hit with the bet is small.

There are many reasons calling the flop is the best play.

1. Villains rarely donk/fold this board with this sizing.

There's not much else to add as this is experience-based and intuitive. I would raise more often facing a bet of 10.

2. That said, you need to ask if you actually want fold equity at all. Hint: Generally not.

You're an equity favorite against almost every hand including almost every made hand. So to expand further on point 1... I'm confident villain *literally* never folds a "better hand" to our raise, not just because he is going to donk/call often, but also because we currently beat every single hand that might actually fold. We have 56% equity against TPTK. A hero raise is not a semi-bluff it's a weird value raise that doesn't achieve much except to undermine your enormous positional advantage by shrinking stacks and re-opening betting.

One reason in particular that you don't want him to fold is that many of his hands have massive RIO against our hand, which we can play very well in position. Using the example above, let's take the times villain does have KQ. If we call and play in position, and a K falls on the turn or river to give him top two pair and gives hero the nut straight, we can very often win villain's stack. This holds true for so many different possible hands. We could be free rolling QJ. Random Ax can turn or river a top pair that gives us a flush. Just a few examples, but villain's range is rife with RIO.

Raising the flop for "fold equity" says you want villain to a) fold *worse* hands, and b) to let him off the hook re: major RIO (i.e. excellent post-flop equity for hero) on later streets. By the way, yes, nrook good post - we do have OK equity against the better flush draws... but so what? It's bad to build a large pot against those hands, even if they are rare, because there's really no benefit for raising against his other hands, either.

3. Calling can get SB to come along oop with weak hands that we're destroying and that can also have extreme RIO issues against our holding. Picture a high card or gut shot hand or other weak holding where a card that improves SB also gives us a flush, etc. SB continuing in the hand is a great outcome, and it's a disaster to make him to fold a hand that at some non-zero frequency - probably quite a bit more often than many of us would intuitively assume - has the potential to call more bets or even stack off to us on a later street.

4. In position, we can control action, the size of the pot, and do all sorts of great things. I'd like to go to the turn with a smaller pot and a deeper stack and preserve so many different options (bet when checked to; raise vs. some bets; call sometimes, etc).

Making villain act first on the turn with deeper stacks and a smaller pot is a great thing.

And by the way, once we raise this flop, we're committing so many chips that we're generally committing to stacking off anytime we improve. That's why we're certainly not folding now after committing such a large % of our stack. Why would we ever fold to this one turn bet after we make the flush and when villain could have worse flushes or maybe sets? And once we call this turn bet, how can we possibly get away from the hand ever?

I'm not saying we might fold if we had just called the flop... but if we had, the pot would now be smaller, and I would often call a pot sized turn bet and make another decision on the river in position. In that case, on rivers, I think we're often just calling the last bet, which is unlikely to be all-in, and that keeping the pot smaller is the optimal play. Sometimes, rarely, we might even fold. But I would never, ever shove. Contrast that to the hand as played, when we raised the flop - we're always just getting all-in. But it's not a great spot. We can account for the Qh, Jh, Th and 9h, so we have to wonder if villain is going to bet + shove a low flush. A hand like 87hh is his worst possible flush. Once I call a flop and a turn bet, on various run-outs and against certain villains, I would consider making a very tight - and often correct - fold on the river.

We lose every one of those options and considerations and the power of position once we raise the flop and totally commit to going all-in and making the pot as big as possible.

Finally, I'll add.. is a raise +EV? Obviously.

Is a flat better? Yes. By quite a bit imo.

You are overthinking this so hard that it's actually a problem. We've seen villain "once or twice" before, our read that he's competent is relevant but still gonna be based off of a relatively small sample. If you're really suggesting the correct play with our info might be to fold this (because I don't know what else your final paragraph conclusion could be?) then you're giving insanely too much credit. Also, this isn't really that deep.