I have a question for maximizing value on winning hands.
I think one of my strengths is taking stacks when I have a monster.
But, last night I tried a new strategy after having read tuns of threads on this forum, where users where put in ****ty situations by all-ins that seemingly came out of nowhere and were bigger than the pot.

Table is 1-2, 5 fish, 3 decent fish - decent.

I was in 3 spots where I knew I had the best hand, and was getting action (all in the same orbit, talk about a heater!!!! waited all night for that).
All three hands included my target fish (Calling station, leads every street, never folds, bets all streets, was on a heater and racked up 550+ chips)

First hand: Flop and turn were bet with some raises. I'm OOP, and I go all in on the river, everyone folds.

Second hand: All streets are bet, flop thinned it to heads up. He leads turn, I raise, he calls. River he leads again... I go all in. He folds.

Third hand: He leads every street (Giving me direct odds on my hand BTW), I hit my nut straight on the river and go all in. (He calls)

Each time, I had the best hand and I knew it. The all-ins were less of a value play than they were a set up for later to entice a bad call. I figured with each all in, there was a medium chance he (or someone else) would actually call. My all-ins were usually $100-200 bigger than the pot.

By doing this, I was trying to create a situation that diminishes the usually theory with which I play (Only called by better hands, worse hands fold).

So the question is, what have you guys seen over time. Is it better to value bet with the nuts, or is this type of set up very profitable.

The final all in was into a pot of $100, and the call he made was for his remaining $250.

Unfortunately, it depends. It really depends on your image and how fishy your opponents are. I can't get away with this because they always think I have it. (Being a 47-year-old woman helps.) Of course, I can use the opposite and bluff all-in and they will fold unless they have the nuts.

In general, if someone goes all-in on the river, I assume they have the nuts (or close) unless they've proved otherwise.

If I'm reading this all right, you're basically asking if it's a good idea to overbomb the river with nuttish hands?

The answer, in general, is yes, imo.

The line I quoted above is a perfect example. Villain would obviously call a $50 (1/2 PSB) bet a large percentage of the time (let's even say 100%), for an EV of $50. In order for the $250 huge overbet to be just as profitable, he only has to call it 20% of the time, which obviously a fish is probably going to do. Heck, if the fish calls the huge overbet just 30% of the time (only 3 times out of 10), our EV here is $75 (a whopping 1/2 as much more than the EV of our $50 bet). Of course, the 7 times out of 10 he folds will sting and will make you question your decision, but long term it is *way* more profitable.

Of course, we should normally be doing our best on earlier streets to setup a reasonable river shove (if possible). Plus it *might* depend on our opponent / our image.

Gbutoverall,shovingwiththenutsisprobablythemostpro fitableplaylongtermG

I like the math... I'm too good at it to not have done it myself. Thanks
Unfortunately, I did it twice while OOP, so I wasn't even re-raising, it was just an out of nowhere bomb. But I like it. It's a tool for sure I'll keep in my game, just to keep people guessing. I think it also will help with pot control in later hands... players will be less likely to throw money in the pot when I've shown Ill shove while covering everyone in the hand.

Grunch.

No exactly sure what you are asking, but if it is whether of not you should raise on earlier streets in order to set up and 1/3-3/4 PSB shove OTR versus slow playing to the river and then jamming 2.5x the pot, the answer is without a doubt to raise on previous streets.

I prefer to be in a situation where raising previous streets is less obvious. These players are usually very passive, and raising typically says "you should probably leave." (At least to them). All in shove on the river out of no where pisses people off and eventually they call. You're right tho, certainly there was one hand I should have raised earlier with the nuts. Ill work on that.

It depends greatly on the range and tendencies of your opponent.

It is possible that you shoved in twice when his holdings were marginal and the third when his hand was much stronger, which means that your strategy actually cost you as he may have called smaller raises in hands 1 and 2 and still paid off 3. Trying to determine whether your play was +EV on a sample size of 3 is very, very bad.

Overbetting can be good, it depends. See the "How to bet the Max" thread from the best of stickies.

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/17...t-max-1281665/

There's your answer.

I like it! Thanks for the link.