Your logic isn't consistent.

You said you didn't think he'd check Qx to you on river, expecting you to bet. Logically, then, he'd have bet Qx, so if he checks, he doesn't have Qx, and if he doesn't have Qx, he can't make a crying call with Qx.

By that same logic, if he thought Kx was strong enough to call off an all-in jam, he more than likely would have just bet river. When he checks, he's not calling a jam with Kx.

Your hand wasn't the nuts. It was just the best Qx that isn't a boat. If I was V, and I donk-led flop for almost a pot-sized bet with bottom or middle set, and you called, then I barreled over 2/3 pot on turn, and you called, I would probably just check the river, planning to call if you bet any size.

My reasoning is that I'm only losing to KK, QQ and KQ on the river. I'm not getting away from a boat, but if I triple-barrel, there aren't many hands I beat that you can call with. It's mostly just AA and AK, if you call with those hands, and AQ. I lose to everything else in your range. So I would check to induce you to bet for value with AQ, AA, and AK, assuming that I was on a bluff and giving up.

I agree with you. In game, I did consider raising but miscalculated to strategy in game but got lucky to have the deck bail me out.

Uhm...you gotta stop and think about this before you post another reply.

If he's shutting down his bluffs on the river, why are you jamming river? He's not calling with his bluffs.

What draws does he have here? It's mostly just 54, or some inside draws, or pure air-balls, most of which aren't likely to continue barreling the turn. His turn barrel range is mostly just 54s, which isn't often calling your pre-flop 3B from OOP, and then donking out for almost full pot on this rainbow, Q-high flop, and barreling over 2/3 pot on the K turn.

Raising flop is the correct play, not raising turn. You wouldn't be maximizing your value against 2P, because you only had 1P. If you raised, you would have been maximizing his value. If I'm V with KQ and you raise flop here, show tunes would be going off in my head as I fake-tank.

Raise flop. Check-back / flat-call turn. Check back river.

That's the correct line here.

That’s my mistake for speaking in absolutes and saying words like “never”. But your point remains that I am likely being called by better when I jam here so it is better to just check back.

Sorry I made the mistake of bringing in multiple hand histories in this single thread. I was speaking specifically about the 44 hand where I flipped middle set and rivered boat.

Regarding the AQ hand I agree with you the correct line was Raise flop. Check-back / flat-call turn. Check back river.

Before responding, just pause a moment and consider...

1. At low stakes, very, very, very few players will be check-raising the flop as a bluff. The vast majority of flop check-raises are value, almost always 2P or a set, especially on draw-heavy boards.

2. At low stakes, very, very, very few players have a check-raise-fold button when they're check-raising for value.

3. The odds of being in a set-over-set situation are around 1%. When we flop middle set, you're only losing to top set. The way to play sets is to play them as if our opponent does NOT have a set. In other words, we should try to get stacks in. We're not worried about opponents folding their bluffs.

4. V's bluffs have equity to improve. Raising for value builds the pot (which we expect to win), and denies equity. V won't ALWAYS be folding his bluffs, especially not his higher equity combo-draws. If V is a good player, good enough to be x/r'ing flop with some semi-bluffs, he definitely won't always be folding when we 3B, because a good player would only be x/r'ing with really good, high-equity draws, some of which can call (or even 4B) when we 3B over his x/r. See point 3 above, about trying to get stacks in.

5. Do you think this V ever 3B's pre with 88+? If so, it becomes less likely we're losing to 88, and more likely he's x/r'ing with 99-TT, 33, or he's bluffing. See point 4 above, about how his bluffs have equity to improve, so we should be raising, not slow-playing.

I'm not trying to beat you up or make you look or feel stupid. You're WAY over-thinking everything here, to the point where it sounds like you're getting defensive about your play, because this V is "special" or you were getting hit with the deck.

V might be special. He probably isn't. You won't always be playing against this V. You won't always be hit with the deck. He probably isn't special enough and you won't get hit with the deck enough for you to take all these passive lines with your strong-but-vulnerable hands against an aggro V.

Hahaha I mean feel stupid but it’s good motivation to one day eventually get your approval on one of my HH.


In all seriousness, I appreciate the help and education. I think I deviated way too much against this specific villain. In “normal” circumstances I am raising middle set and TPTK and fast playing my value hands. I became too focused on keeping his range wide I likely look the lower EV lines.

Instead of fist pumping that I won last night I figured it’d be better to analyze my strategy to see if I was making the “right” plays or just got bailed out by the deck. I’d rather get shamed on here and actively try to improve my game as opposed to think I am awesome because it worked out last night until I eventually realize my true win rate of -10bb/100hands.

I don't post any "standard" hands here, because there isn't much point to post a hand I folded when I should have folded or a hand I called when I should have called. It seems like most hands posted here are ones where the correct action is debatable, or obvious to everyone except the person who posted it.

Most of the hands I've posted have gotten mostly hate from the crowd. I feel no shame. Nor should you. We're either here to improve or here to be d1cks to people trying to improve. You're in one camp or the other.

You shouldn't strive for my approval. I'm pretty sure I'm not the best player here. I put zero time in with GTO solvers and charts. But to the extent I'm any good at all, my skill advantage comes from being good at reading people, understanding psychology, thinking logically, having almost photographic recall, and being just barely good enough at math to do basic algebra in my head. If that makes me sound genius, trust me, I'm not.

I'm WAY better logically analyzing hands after the fact then I am in-game. Most of the disagreements I have with folks here arise from the disconnect between memory/experience and logic. What I mean is people tend to remember experiences in ways that fit a recognizable pattern which conforms to their world view ("3B's at low stakes are always strong!"). It's basically confirmation bias, which is a logical fallacy.

If it makes you feel better, I've had a few sessions in which I won big because I just absolutely trounced one bad opponent at the table. But I've had more sessions where I lost big because I let one bad opponent put me on tilt.

I'm thinking of this one guy - drunk off his a$$, spewy as hell. Made him my b!tch for about three hours, until the momentum shifted, he started catching cards, I failed to adjust, and he ended up stacking me. I will never forgive myself.

Don't let the urge to exploit one bad opponent lead you to repeatedly making fundamentally unsound plays against that one opponent.

Well I appreciate the advice from you who I imagine has a lot more experience playing poker than me. The poker community as a whole is filled with multiple cognitive biases.

you have 100% equity on the river vs literally every single player type in the entire world. no one is leading a better hand in a 3b pot on a rainbow flop and that turn to then check to you on the river. (probably just no one is ever leading a better hand in a 3b pot, the board is q63r lol) especially with less than a pot sized bet behind why would they do that? you can't have air and you most likely have a one pair type bluff catcher hand. i think jam is the most standard sizing but you could also bet anywhere between a minbet to all in depending on how likely he is to call / freak out vs the sizing. the guy posting essays about how you will never get called by a better hand so you should check the river vs a whale probably means well but should be ignored

also, 3b bigger vs this V

Do you think I should have raised flop?

no. it might be a mix in theory but vs this opponent you're going to do better just calling - look at his hand and look what he did on the turn. if you want to find flop raises with value, i guess i'd look for hands that dont have a Q in them but i dont think its really necessary given the board is so dry and he's probably very air heavy when he takes this line, and the spr doesn't require you to do anything to get all in

Maybe you should try reading one of the essays, because I actually said the exact opposite.

I didn't say he wouldn't get called by a better hand. I said a worse hand would never check-call a jam, and a jam can ONLY be called by better.

I wasn't trying to explain the logic to you. I was explaining the logic to the OP, who seemed to be struggling with the reasoning, given the contradicting thoughts about his river decision that he expressed over multiple posts.

Sometimes explaining complex logic takes a few more words.

i mean its obviously a typo lol. idk what to tell you if you think checking the river is the standard play

What "standard"? V open-flatted a 3B pre, donked full pot on flop, barreled >2/3 pot on turn, and then checked river. What hands do we beat that get played that way, AND will call a big river bet?

V's holdings would seem to be:

A. flopped sets that are now boats (66 and 33)
B. flopped worse Qx that either improved to 2P (KQ) and then a boat, or are otherwise so weak they couldn't be bet again (QJ and worse QX)
C. a missed straight draw (54, 75)
D. some random KX with no Q that decided to flat call pre but donk flop (bluff) and barrel turn (value?) but is now apparently giving up because KX is probably no good here
E. total air.

What hands in that range could we possible target for value when V checks to us? We're either getting called and losing to a boat, or folding worse hands/bluffs.

Even if you want to argue V could have worse QX here - how many worse QX combos could there really be, with only 1 Q unaccounted for, versus all the combos of 66, 33, and KQo/s we lose to, and all the Kx or air-ball / missed draws that just insta-fold?

Nothing standard about this hand. But as played, yeah, I'd check back river, because I can use logic effectively, and see that V doesn't have very many, if any worse hands that are going to call a big bet. We're either way ahead or way behind, so there's no value in betting. The only value is in checking, and seeing what V played this way, for future considerations.

look. you have 100% equity vs anyone in the world's range when they take this line until proven otherwise. worrying about ranging him here is pointless given how strong your hand is, how many hands you cooler, and a bizarre 0% line that indicates he probably doesn't know what hes doing (unlikely he has defined / thought out ranges). passing up 120bb of thick value on the river because you want to see what he has is absurd. way ahead way behind isn't a concept on the river when everything either has 0 or 100% equity and there aren't future betting rounds left to play. your hand is more than strong enough to value bet (i think it would be a bet with AA / potentially AK if we got here this way just because you're literally never beat given how people play but those are much thinner than this) and its just a question of if betting less than all in will induce him to do something silly with either air or some kind of weird depolarized hand he took this line with earlier often enough to outweigh him calling a jam.

am not going to go back and forth on the merits of betting trips top kicker when checked to otr with less than a potsized bet vs a whale on q63r Ko Qo in a 3b pot so this is for sure the last time i post here.