An important point ott, is that draws are 0%, so any size bet gives them incorrect odds to draw. You need to bet because when the draw misses, the turn is you final street of value. But you really need to avoid betting so big that a draw folds. Bet the most a draw is guaranteed to call, and if you're unsure if that number is guaranteed, back it down a little, because you have the IO when it comes in.

I'd check/shove otr. A check doesn't actually risk anything. Anything that can call a half-PSB otr is strong enough to bet itself when checked to. There are no medium-strength-SD-value hands he'll show up with. Name a hand he'll check back if you check but would call a $300 bet, there isn't one. So checking let's you c/r and get max value against flushes and also gives him an opportunity to bluff however slim that is.

as played bet $85 on turn. we can still win a big pot from Ax on river. we want to bet small to kep in FDs

Yeah I think c/r river is the best here. He would've raised AK earlier. 3x is a very small portion of his range but it also would've likely raised the turn. Flushes are never checking behind the river.

I suppose the only consideration is whether opponent can b/f a river, and if he does, is he likely to bet smaller than the size he would call if we lead river.

I think all his Ax hands and his 3x hands are actually checking back river. We just bet into 2 opponents twice. It's obvious that we are strong but villan isn't sure just how strong. If we would of just bet at 300 ourselves we likely get looked up by all villans flush draws and a handful of combos that he checks back. Once villan only bets 150 and we check raise shove he folds most of his range except full houses and we lose out on 150$.

I prefer to control the bet size on the river not the villan. Results oriented perhaps because the sizing OTR is very small related to the pot size.

Results


So all in all I left about $300 on the table from V2. Honestly, I am surprised he didn't raise at any point though. If I had known he was that strong I would have bet $200+ on turn and shipped river.

So from a value perspective, should we just always be targeting the stronger portion of V's ranges because that is where the money is made? Ie: picking up an extra $20-50 here and there is not worth it compared to the extra $300-500 you get periodically when they have a strong hand?

I think I am going to work on betting my strong made hands bigger on wet boards. I can kind of see it being a leak right now.

There are no 3x hands he gets to the turn with, maybe A3, and A3 is b/c-ai otr. And Ax, there's one Ace left in the deck, it's a tiny portion of his range you're being concerned with, and it's a small dollar amount you're concerned with not missing out on. There are way more flushes and those flushes aren't calling down the whole way to hit and fold.

I honestly think it's more amazing stacks didn't go in earlier. The fact that he bet so small and called a Xraise with a flush surprises me. Even the nut flush is just a bluff catcher on the river. I don't feel like you missed that much value since he was willing to pay off more than a click back river Xraise. although the bet sizing should of been larger on the flop and turn IMO.

You know that AQss is the exact same here as A2ss right?

What do you mean 'that strong'? Just wondering.

*with the tiny 6% chance that AQ can make a better two pair on the river, but whatever.

I under stand that by the turn AQs is he same as A2s but on the flop I'm surprised that villan didn't raise. Top pair and the nut flush draw is something I'm usually prepared to go to war with. Granted on AKx flop we AQ we don't always expect to have a ton of fold equity.

I'm just curious how people would of critiqued villans line in this hand. I feel when we have a big draw most push to play it aggressively. However the more I put myself on villans shoes I can see why Flatting the flop is the best line. We allow the PFR to c bet his air and even if we are beat we have outs to the nuts. The one street would criticize is the river bet sizing by villan. I would bet/fold larger. Maybe something like 250-275.

On the check river debate I think I could of gotten behind checking if we had reads villan will bluff. The plan to check raise just seemed too strong but I suppose I over estimated villans ability to get away from a flush. Even though it was a river Xraise on a paired board.

I am fascinated by how much different sizing I would have played this, for different reasons. Just because we have top set doesn't mean we need to bet bigger to set up ourselves for a river shove if we block a lot of the top pairs. If he has a big hand, like a set or two pair or a flush, he will likely let us know and then we can build a big pot.

*Betting critique*

Flop: I'd bet $35, I want to make a blocker sized bet, not only to induce raises from strongish hands, but also to get calls from hands drawing dead.
A) vs Ax, it puts pressure on him to raise to protect his hand, "wow what a weak bet, he must be trying to get a cheap flush draw to hit"
B) vs AK/A3/33, it puts pressure on him to raise to protect his hand, and not feel that he can trap/smooth call, it's a disaster when we both slow down when a spade hits the turn
C) vs Kx/3x, it sets a great perceived price for "wow this is starting to turn into a decent pot, I can win big if just hit trips or two pair" ... I think this is the most important part range that we are targeting with our bet sizing here, since it is essentially drawing dead
D) vs QJ/JT/42, "wow I just need to hit my 4 outter, I'll call"
E) vs a FD "Wow, what a weak bet, he must not have much, let me make a big raise to take this one down"

As it turns out, your $55 bet got 2 callers which is great.
Turn: I'd bet about $80 to $100 here, targeting these ranges, which are all effectively drawing DEAD
A) Ax "how can I fold, he's blocker betting me with his flush draw, maybe I should raise"
B) 3x "OMG I HIT, time to protect my hand from his flush draws and value from an Ace" *note- less likely to have hit villains' range as played with the bigger flop bet, but not 0%
c) Flush draw "wow, what an idiot giving me such a good price to hit my flush draw, I'm gonna hit it and bust this guy"

Well, we hit our GIN card on river, we are in a great spot, we've built the pot and shown strength throughout the hand, so our range is super polarized. Our bet size will more or less show the villain what kind of hand we want to represent

If we weren't at the point of having raised pre, and now 3 barreling I think even villain thinks its unlikely we have a flush, but could gorilla logic himself into thinking we are running some elaborate bluff.

River:
Now it's about bet sizing and the stories they tell
1) All in $750, about a 1.5x bet, and very polarizing, and very high variance because it requires such strong hands or weak emotional states to get called which are more or less rare. Can get called by all types of hands, likely at lower rates than other sizes, but very player dependent as to what their strategy is. Some players will NEVER call a 150bb bet without the nuts EVER. Others are looking for a reason to call a 150bb bet because "I MADE MY FLUSH"
2) Bet $300-$500ish, kind of in the middle of variance, requires strong made hands to get called, but disaster when they call with strong hands that would have called a bigger bet
4) Bet $150-$250, low variance value bet, gets called by a lot of made hands, but also lets the really strong made hands just call when they would have called much bigger
3) Check, probably JUST as high variance as shoving. I'd only even consider checking if the flush had missed the river, so that a good chunk of his range KNOWS that he has to bet to win. The only value in checking is to force his missed draws to bet, but the only major draw has hit. We don't want a weak flush to check back because "I can't bet it's a paired board omg, I am so scared"


Reasons for villain calling with different hands
A) Get called 3x "didn't think you had it/How can I fold trips"
B) Get called by a nitty/spooked A3 "Omg, I would have checked behind I am so scared without THE NUTS"
C) maybe get called by a flush "I didn't just call 3 streets to hit my flush and fold, let's see if its good, I don't care how likely it is I am beat"
D) Ax "Wow I know he is bluffing, why would he bet so much, I know I can't make a logical case for it in my emotional state of mind while playing such a big pot, I'll make up some crazy scenario where I might be ahead, I'll call"
E) get called by a frustrated player or one excited at the chance of winning a gigantic pot. All manners of made hands can call here for emotional reasons and not logical ones. ("he's bullying me", "I'm stuck, I can be ahead if I win", "My wife's bugging me to leave soon anyways, let's just gamble and see what happens")

As played on the river
I think just shoving or betting the $400ish yourself are the better bet sizes here.
With the results, he gets to the river with essentially the best hand we could have hoped for, and you still only got $450 out of him, and it was a risky way to get it because he could have folded just because of the check raise line.


I think the check is super risky for several reasons
A) if villain is competent, and has a made hand and makes a bet/fold type bet, knowing you are super polarized and likely never bluffing in this spot. You let him set the bet size, so if he had bet $150 and folded to any bet, its a puke disaster.
B) Villain either has a flush or a other mediocre hand, and just checks behind

Are we sure villain wouldn't have just shoved river if we lead?

Which is why I said just do the old "same bet". It makes us look we're trying to block any completed FD from betting too big OTR.

Grunch: I am betting $65 on the flop.

Grunch: OTT: I'm betting $275

No offense - but I find "same bet" to be one of the fishiest moves in poker and doubt I will ever employ it.

He may raise it, which is good, but I think leading PSB is probably best.

FWIW, I just saw a guy shove $800 into a $350 pot on the river last night with KJ on a 68KJ4 board and it completely blew my mind. I really need to consider the merits of over betting the river for value because I have never really considered it before.

And that is exactly the point on the river! It's supposed to look fishy, weak and terrible. Every time we see it, it's usually a terrible bet because it shows a complete lack of knowledge of what is happening in the hand

I'm not advocating it should be something we use bet often, it's just this hand we have the 2nd nuts and the nuts are basically so outlandishly difficult to have that we essentially have the nuts... And the front door FD just came in... And the only A that isn't accounted for by our hand and the board is the NF A. It's basically a perfect storm for a bet to induce a raise.

And you know as well as I do that we should never say we'll "never/always" wrt actions in hands


Either way, no offense taken...
Fwiw, if you look at my original post where I said "same bet", I did also say open shove was the other option and I would base it on V reads

Have read up to river post. I think with this great of a river we should either overbet or check jam. V is likely incapable of folding a flush to one bet so figure out which way gets the money in better. Exploit exploit exploit!

Jumping in as late as possible....
Sizing was analyzed in several posts,
My 2c
Bet flop, bet turn, c/shove on blanks if he's capable to vbet thin or bluff, pot+ when flush gets there.