Hero ($600) is a young 20s Tag. a reg at this casino but Mostly plays $2/$3 and a few of the regs at the table also know this.

Only notable hand that somewhat defines my image was:

UTG straddles to $10. UTG+1 opens to $30 (very tight/nitty abc player) 2 callers, hero then 3! To $110 OTB all fold back to the last caller who back raise shoves for $220 more I snap. At showdown he shows AK (for Ace high) hero mucks and a few regs mumble AQ...

Villain ($500) mid 20s tag is a winning reg at this casino but after playing my first session with him I see a lot of leaks.

OTTH:

I'm in the BB with J9dd. 1 limper in MP (villian) Fish calls in the SB, I check.

Flop ($15)
9h 6s 2s

Fish leads for $15 I flat, V flats.

Turn ($60)
4d

Fish checks, I check, V bets $25,fish calls. I c/r to $105, V calls (kinda quickish) fish folds.

River ($295)
Kd

I lead for $125 V tanks.

When we get to the river with this hand in this spot, is it always best to lead? if so how frequently do we expect to be called worse. Is a ch/c or a ch/f line more optimal or is it totally villian/read dependable?

I prefer leading turn to c/r. There's no guarantee that MP will bet his draws, and it sucks for us when he checks behind. When he bet/calls the turn, I'd weight him pretty heavily to draws (Kxss-Txss, maybe a few Axss, 78, 45s) and 9x/mid pairs that don't believe you (since you don't rep much).

Given his flop check and bet/call on the turn, I don't think villain has strong hands on the river much, if ever. So I'd prefer a check to induce from his bricked draws. I don't think 110 on the river gets called by worse enough of the time (Kxss got there and he has a ton of air). Sizing smaller to target weak pairs might work vs a passive station, but against this guy I'd c/c.

Villain flats flop IP not checks.

I'm a little bemused by villain's bet on the turn. He's just been checked to so he could take a free card if he is drawing yet he bets slightly under half pot which is a bit small if he has a hand he wants to protect against draws. Confusing.

Maybe he miscounted the pot and intended his bet to be 1/2 to 2/3 pot? If that were the case maybe he has a pair plus FD like A9 K9 Q9 J9 T9 98 97 in spades.

I'd x/c or x/f river depending on sizing/physical reads but I am confused by V's play.

I know it's not the hand you're posting, but in that example hand, what DID you have that lost to AK? Why did you put in the 3-bet and call the small 4-bet shove? 3-betting light vs. the tight player raising essentially from UTG seems meh, regardless of dead money. As for the call of the 4-bet, I guess it's could be a snap getting 3.5:1... but it's going to be pretty close since the back raise can be strong. AK is best case.

Sounds like a super weird hand, worthy of its own thread for sure.

On to the actual hand...

Hmmmm based on the two hands here, we definitely play differently haha.

Why did you c/r the turn? I mean, it could be a bluff vs. better 9x or I suppose a value bet vs. draws like 87 or spades. Seems pretty strange. What was your thinking there? I mean, you have two villains who seem to like their hands and be putting money in the pot, so multi-way I'm entirely sure whether you think this is a bluff or a value bet.

By the river, thanks to the c/r, you have now built a massive pot.

Do you want to play for a massive pot here oop with top pair no kicker? I'm not sure I understand the plan. I would avoid building a massive pot with your hand.

So your river bet is a merged value bet? Err I dunno man. What are you getting value from? 98, 88, 77? Man, that is so thin. I just don't think you can call the flop, check/raise the turn, and then bet the river, building a > 100BB pot if called, and expect to have the best hand or to have your river bet be an effective value bet. I kind of feel we got a free look BB, wound up with weak pair, and took some wrong steps to build this huge pot.

Flop is fine.

Turn, you can either lead yourself or c/c. I don't understand c/r. I can dig a turn lead because you can get value from a number of flush draws and straight draws.

The c/r build a huge river pot. On the river, I'm going to check/decide. It's just so hard for villain to have a worse made hand and to call. Or to call with whiffed Ax flush draws. I think the "merge" is way too ambitious and thin to the point of being -EV.

The river is better as a c/decide because villain can bluff with 43s, 54s, 87, spades, etc.

Depending on how deep the fishy SB is, I'd raise to iso and win position.

What is the reason for the check raise? I mean, range merge at $2/5? Lol. I don't hate a x/r here but it's not for the reasons you're getting at.

You've already identified both players as middling to poor. They're more focused on how to not breathe in from their mouths than your range. Exploit exploit exploit.

Let's focus on constructing accurate ranges and go from there. SB leads a moist flop. What does it rep? How does he play strong made hands vs weaker hands vs draws?

Given the action, I put SB on a range of 9x plus draws. Given it is a limped pot we can raise and get better to fold while getting worse to call.

When MP calls I'll put him more on draws or weak pair + draw/backdoor draw type hands. Since he's closing the action he can be pretty wide.

Villain's turn bet is weak so I'm fine with flatting here or check/raising smaller to keep his semi bluffs in. Your sizing folds all worse and only gets called by better.

Why are we betting river? Are we bluffing? Is it for value? Maybe I'm missing something but it seems like you're clicking buttons.

Thread.

Sounds like a box full of spew which is ironic sense you commented about the villans leaks.

This isn't a range merge. You'll almost never get value in the traditional sense.

The c/r turned your hand into a bluff, so barrel again.

Can someone post a hypothetical hand to demonstrate range merge used correctly, including what reads we'd need on villain?

I had AQhh that hand. I figured I block the top of UTG+1's opening range but it was definitely a 3bet/fold spot. Once he folds as does everyone else expect for MP he began to tank for some time and I constructed a 88-JJ +AQss + AK. Given the direct odds plus our equity I'm never folding...

In regards to the hand in question. I've found I often get into these weird turn spots, multiway, with significant action in front me and never know what do. The c/r was aimed to get value from weaker pairs and or draws. Once we get to the river I feel the K is a brick for the most part and betting puts pressure on Vs entire range vs c/c maybe we face a pot sized/over bet from the bottom of his range and get put into a mind f***k...

Playing heads up, tons of history vs. opponent.

Flop comes something like AAK. I have J8s. Flop checks. Turn K. Checks. River is like an offsuit 2. So river board is AAKK2. I value bet pot on the river with J-high. Opponent tank calls with T-high. I'm confident he also calls with 9-high, likely 8-high as well.

Often times, one's range for betting that river is nuts or air. By value betting, I "merged" my value range, depolarizing it and extending it to be quite a bit wider to include the second-best high card hand after Qx. My opponent tanked and called, seeing my river betting range as incredibly polarized and believing he beats quite a bit (this is heads up cash, and we're very deep, so I could have a wide bluff range that Tx beats). I think it's a good value bet and a fine call.

I really don't use the term "merged range" anymore. It's just confusing. It's just a value bet. You should value bet when it's +EV. Sometimes for various reasons that means value betting a fairly weak absolute and relative value hand for the board.

Thanks Wilyoman. So, whatever we call this extended value range, are you saying you primarily using it when villain thinks your range is polarised so he calls with an extended range of bluff catchers?

That's exactly right.

"Bluff catcher" is generally correct. It could also just be that you're playing against a calling station, and despite the fact that the board has, say, 4 to a straight, you can depolarize your range by betting a one pair hand. I did that the other week and won an extra value bet against someone who calls way too often. In that case, it wasn't that he had a "bluff catcher," it's just that he calls so wide I can value bet a hand that I wouldn't normally value bet against most opponents and that I might actually even bet as a bluff against others.

But yes, I don't think about it that way. I just think about my range, the board, villain's range, and possible bet sizing, and decide whether a value bet is +EV. And sometimes it's +EV with what seems like a very weak hand. I'm never actually thinking about "merging" when I play, I'm just thinking about value. I don't know for sure, but I think the general concept of a "merge" came about many years ago around the same time that people began to understand range polarization pretty well. At that time, it may have been innovative; now, I think it's pretty basic. And again, I just think of it as a normal if slightly creative value bet, and I think that's by far the best way to think about it.

It's not necessarily the same thing as a "thin" value bet. It doesn't have to be thin. In my example with J8, I think my opponent would call with a ton of worse Tx, 9x, 8x, etc. So I think it was actually pretty fat value with a merged range. Qx would have been the effective nuts and super fat value.

I think probably the easiest example to get one's head around would be an ace-high dry flop, and then dry runout.

Willy has a great example, but note the assumptions of "heads up" and "tons of history." Most villains in a full ring live low stakes NL game are never believing that their villain is going to bet out with 8 high on the river. Therefore, you're not going to get a loose call from a T.

OP, one of the toughest things to do is to see yourself as others perceive you. You described yourself as having an "tight" image. However once you lost to AK all in pf, no one is seeing you as tight. For the hand in question, you're never getting called by worse. You're hoping that you can fold some overpairs to the 9. Since you are offering over 3:1, you have to hope that the villain isn't convinced yet you are a maniac and decides he isn't paying off a suck bet.

Not a fan of river c/r, prob would lead turn...as played it really depends on the dynamic...my standard would be to check call...if you are viewed as aggro spewtard I can see valueing the river to get called by 89, 9T, 88 etc.

Also as discussed earlier in the thread mergeing originated in bets that blurred the line between value and bluff...it was sort of a disputed topic from which the whole joke about triple range merging emerged

the way I view it, you're turning you're TPMK into a bluff
If you had A9/K9 you could make an argument for range merge, but you are don't beat a lot of the villain bluff catching range.

Betting pot on the river with A9 is more of a range merge, because you should have a monster or nothing, whilst actually having something in between that can actually beat his 9x bluff catchers and 77/88

As played, you are hoping he folds his 9Q+

Thanks for the examples and explanations wilyoman, badlybeaten, venice10 and kimoser22.

Wilyoman - I think I need to simplify my poker thinking like you say. I learned a lot of stuff a while ago the old fashioned way where every thing has a name and there are to many things. Board, my range, opponent's range and bet size - I'm going to try restricting my thoughts to just that from now on.

If you want to get called by worse,the lead river smaller something like 90

I would be a lot happier with this if you had 89s instead. Doing this with J9s just seems like a lot of spew for no good reason. That being said, doing stuff like this gives you an unpredictable aggro image and maybe you can use that to your advantage. At this point, OTR I'm really not thinking that V bluffs when checked to. I don't really see us getting any value from worse hands. It's close, but I prefer to keep playing this as a bluff and make a sizable bet to get V off of Q9, A9, TT.

I prefer just betting the turn myself. Turn and river play reeks of FPS. Are you betting the river as a bluff or for value? I really can't tell - I rarely expect you to get called by worse (you are literally targeting T9, 98 and maybe 97s hands) and the majority of his range is draws. Just check/call river.

After the turn spaz, how often does he bet something we beat? He's bluffing after the c/r?

Agreed.

The river is a check/fold AINEC

This V should be calling rivers with his turn continuing range once hero sizes riv this way - your title suggests you found the very bottom of his range and this fell into merge territory in your mind, but IMO it's just needlessly spewy since their are much sounder alternate lines depending on V.

Limped pot!, OOP vs winning reg, high spr, middling hand w mild SDV. Your line very much will be V dependent/frequency based.

AP - you can either ck-give up riv and still win occassionally when it cks down or pot+ the river to be sure you can fold out 64/bluff catch type hands that want to call smaller riv sizes.

I agree with your analysis.

SPOILER: V tank calls, hero shows J9 and is good. V says he had T9...

Given SB led the flop and then checked the turn, it doesn't make much sense that you would check/raise any value hand on a wet-ish board unless you had a strong read that V would bet. So I guess from V's perspective your play on the turn looks like a squeeze with some kind of draw to back it up, or *could* be a strangely slowplayed monster (I guess? who knows how V will react).

If you think V has a lot of marginal hands worse than J9 AND that V thinks you have a polarized range and may call down on a lot of rivers, this would definitely be a high EV way to play the hand.

But somewhat contradictory to that, the confusing nature of your turn play means we have a poor estimate of V's range once we get to the river and what they would call/fold with depending on river cards since we really have no clue what V really thinks you have. So without knowing more about V, I can't see how "overplaying" our hand like this would be +EV... and besides that, this line is almost certainty higher variance than a traditional one.

I think a better way to get creative here would be to lead the turn and then bet unusually large on the river when it bricks out (say, pot). Then we can reliably say that V considers your range polarized. I've tried that myself and have had mixed results (including some epic moments where I get insane value from something like 2nd pair), but maybe someone else here can say more about that.