I'd make a mental note of the hand for future reference, when facing this V.

I wouldn't simply note that he flatted pre with AKs, but more importantly, that he donked flop with the NFD + 2 overs, instead of check-calling or check-raising, barreled a brick turn, when most opponents would be checking a lot, decided to check TPTK on the river, and then decided to turn it into a bluff when faced with a somewhat chunky bet.

That is, I'm assuming he knew he was bluffing when he check-raised. Did you ask him if he thought he was raising for value, or bluffing? I'm guessing he put you on AK and was hoping to push you off a chop, or possibly get you to fold AA. It certainly didn't seem to me that he was putting you on 9x, when you flat flop and turn.

In earlier posts, I said your line looks like AA or AK, and he has missed draws that might block the nuts. I wasn't expecting him to turn up with AcKc, but I stand by the assessment that your line looks like you're thin value betting a hand that will fold to a raise, and he's likely to have some hand that blocks your strongest combos.

I also said his most likely hands are those that were strong on flop and turn, but got downgraded on the river. Turns out I had that backwards - he was drawing on flop and turn, but ran into weak value on the river, and decided to play it as a check-raise when you bet thin / small. That's definitely worth noting for future reference.

But either way - his line is schizophrenic, and doesn't make a lot of sense for thick value.

He had a hand that blocks AA, KK, and AK, and it certainly seems like he put you on a hand that would fold to a raise. I don't think it's ever the right fold with trips here, when we play it as passively as we did on the flop and turn. It would be better to just check-back, or bet huge (over pot, not 2/3 pot).

Not expecting you to agree with any of that now, but maybe some day you'll come back and look at this hand in a different light, from a new perspective.

i don't think he's bluffing but i also think you guys are both ascribing your thought process to the villain. that can be fine if everyone is a thinking player, watching solves and similar poker strategy content etc, but if its a random rec they probably dont approach the game or decisions in the same way that you do. doubt he even really knew if he was bluffing or value betting or whatever on the river beyond "i don't think he has it" or "i think i have the best hand". recs have much less concretely designed strategies and ranges and subsequently reasons for doing things because they play the game casually.

i think betting way too big with your hand doesn't make a ton of sense without very specific reads (he never checks with better) as it ends up extremely exploitable (oop would have no incentive to ever bet with a value hand). fwiw i think he never takes this line with better so it doesn't get punished here but choosing too big of a size for your hand because you're don't know what to do if you get raised is faulty logic

think its a lost cause to expect OP to admit error

AcKc is an absolute butchering, and its a massive read on a huge leak of his (his bluffs are most likely too value heavy. Like theres absolutely no incentive to bluffcatch a flop bet if hes “bluffing” with a hand as strong as AcKc)

I agree but youre the last person on here id expect to say this haha. I mean i dont agree or disagree with the conclusion, but i agree with the way to get to the conclusion. I didnt give my own opinion as to what to do here because I really dont know.

What do you think his range of value/bluffs are on this river after the action goes donk/bet/check-raise?

I think it's pretty clear that my hand beats practically nothing that plays this way. I have a bluff-catcher in an under-bluffed spot.

V is a complete fish who is randomly clicking buttons.

Stop. WTF is this "understandable".
He calls sometimes pre. so he can have hands in range that aren't normally there and then he donks them?
Is he value betting QJ or bluffing JJ? Which "non-value" hands does he x/r or x/c.

Even if flop was fine, we don't continue with 100% of FD on turn and the 6 isn't a brick choose hands that have an 8 or at least a T in them. AKs is just random button clicking.

River can only realistically be called a huge punt, he just found the one hand you'd bet for value and fold (and that's because you are giving him way too much respect).


At this point I'd assume he can't even spell range, and while it's kind of annoying to agree with submersible in this thread when he's mostly giving tiny replies that look like things a troll AI would say ... but, "drawing a cartoon on a tic tac toe board" is about the best summary of WTF V was doing/thinking. I'm sure he thinks he's a genius, but you don't have to (and shouldn't).

I don't lecture anyone at the poker table.

What are you expecting to beat when you make this call?

I thought the conclusion was the solver said it's a call. Why is it now suddenly a fold? Although I couldnt be bothered to read all of the thread so whatever

Sent from my Mi 9T using Tapatalk

Sure, I will certainly take some notes about this villain from this hand.

He was value-betting this river with the check-raise, not bluffing. He said as much to me when we talked about the hand this weekend.

If you read back through the thread I think it's pretty clear from an MDF perspective, adjusting for the general low stakes pool (i.e. that the river is underbluffed when check-raised), and considering the average hand strength that he gets to this river with and check-raises (the vast majority of which is a straight or better) I can certainly fold the weakest combos of trips that I have here, despite having played passively and under-repped my hand on earlier streets.

I cannot bet huge with this hand on the river without becoming imbalanced because I do not have enough bluffs in my range to balance an overbet+.

He was value-betting with the check-raise.

I think you're right that he rarely checks with better than my hand on this river, with the exception of some super-nutted hands that block hands I can call with (like KK and K9).

The size I used on the river is simply an approximate expression of the ratio of value hands and bluffs that I have in my range at that moment. Don't you think T9 is a clear value bet once he checks to me on the river? Yes it's a tricky spot to get check-raised, but that's simply because - at least in my opinion - I'm at the bottom of my value range.

i told you before i don't think he has a range of hands to do this. he has a hand he looked down at each decision point and does what he wants to do. literally all we know is he plays ackc at some frequency in this manner. i told you why i would call multiple times in this thread (including 10 minutes after you posted it) and how using complicated solver outputs of balancing 0% nodes vs a person clicking buttons is lol

you don't need theory or balance to play vs this particular villain, save that stuff for regs and thinking players. worrying about what his frequency of value bets to bluffs, or what he should do with his hand is irrelevant. spending time talking about how villain should construct a balanced range in a bad strategy is a waste of time. idk man the whole thread is just such an inefficient use of study time both on your end if your conclusion is "i should have folded anyways bc solver (which doesn't actually say to fold)". legitimately nothing is learned bc you're unwilling to accept that your play wasn't right. its the same as the prior post about aqhh where u go through all these complicated mental gymanstics to justify plays instead of trying to get better.

fish in once off spots, don't have ranges. i said this earlier in the thread, its going to be very polar / binary and you will get immediate feedback when you see their hand. at best you can try to estimate what the %age is the person you're playing vs is going to be value or bluff comprised, and how things like sizing / timing / live tells / game flow incluence which of those it will be, but like you're still adamant about figuring out what his "range" for taking this line is

Yes it seems that his range on the flop may be bluff-heavy. But of course I will need many more such hands to get a reliable read.

which part?

It's understandable that he might choose to donk with the NFD and overs, is simply what I meant.

The solver was folding this hand when looking at the range in terms of MDF.

i wrote literal essays in this thread that got completely discarded. is simply not worth the time to not expand on everything when people are unwilling to listen to the other side (this / the 99 hand recently is good evidence)

he's clicking buttons. if he doesn't have a logical process for making decisions in game, it stands to reason he is just going to say whatever out of game too.

i told u in the thread it looked to me like he was spazzing out (re what am i expecting to beat when i call)

obviously t9 is a clear valuebet

i think putting villain on KK is a huge failure of hand reading (at that point the hand is just i got raised so i am going to fold everything but the nuts)

come on man. pre anime style WHAT WILL HAPPEN next week reveal you said u think he has a STR+ 95% of the time. despite that you still wanted to call a9 > t9, and even now you're still explaining why this was actually a call. is ok to be wrong, it happens to literally everyone every single session.

What I'm asking is what do you believe the range of hands a player like villain might play this way? He doesn't need to know the ranges himself. I'm asking what you estimate them to be. "A hand that he looked down at each decision point and decides what he wants to do" is the same thing as a range.

There is very little complicated solver output in this thread. Most of it is simply me estimating ranges. Of course "using complicated solver outputs of balancing 0% nodes vs a person clicking buttons is lol" - that is not what is happening here. I'm interested in seeing what the ranges look like if this hand is played in a somewhat balanced way (that's why I did the range work). I'm not saying that those ranges apply to villain, they are simply interesting in their own right and indeed shed a lot of light on what is going on in this hand.

The solver did fold this combo a lot of the time. But my decision in this hand is not based on solver output. On the contrary I'm well aware that solvers call down wide because they assume villain is bluffing a lot (which rarely translates well to live play as I'm sure you are aware).

Can you actually prove that my play wasn't right? You keep claiming that but that far you are merely giving an opinion without backing it up with any meaningful analysis. This is why I'm asking you what you believe to be villain's approximate range on the river (despite the fact that villain may not think in ranges. A hypothetical 'range' for this player type of course still exists, and if you are certain I should call with my hand then you presumably have some conception of what that range looks like).

You say "at best you can try to estimate what the %age is the person you're playing vs is going to be value or bluff comprised" - can you please estimate that on this river, given the prior action of the hand?

i dont understand. i've told you the entire thread you should have called. i explained why in paragraph form. i don't want to keep talking in circles around the hand. you want scientific levels of certainty vs a person making irrational decisions in game.

you continue to keep asking me what his range is. i keep telling u there is no range i love you. idk what more u want from me.

truly my last post here FRFR this time

I stated pretty clearly what I believe his check-raising range to be, assuming he is playing in a balanced manner, on the river:

2 combos of boats (K9)
3 combos of straights
1 combo of A9
J8, Ah8h and JT as bluffs

Adjusting for the general player pool, I would say that he is more value-heavy than this range.

My reasoning for calling with A9 and not T9 is because folding all combos of trips would clearly be over-folding, but calling with all combos of trips is over-calling. So I'm going to call with the best ones and fold with the worst ones. And of course this is an approximation but in general it's not a bad way of approaching it (similarly to folding the worst top pairs on a river to a triple barrel, and calling with the best ones, which is how Doug Polk advises to play).

Okay, so you're unable/unwilling to explain in terms of ranges, got it.

Thanks for your input and have a nice day

I understand you want something to put into a solver that says your hand is a call.
What we're saying is "the V has no idea what his range is here", there's just no way he's thinking like that and taking this line. So it's going to be pretty hard for submersible (or anyone) to work it out as there's little logical thought to have AcKc here, so if someone says his range is "Ac8c+/Kc8c+/Qc8c+/Jc8c+/T8/86 that's just as likely to be correct (bluff all draws), but maybe he doesn't bluff 86 or missed flushes but value punts all Kc*c but also has QQ/JJ/TT for value punts on the flop.


Played in a game recently where a guy who thinks he is good decided to overbet the flop with Q8 on 998 ... why? Who knows.

Wait.

Wait wait wait wait wait...he said he was check-raising for VALUE? Seriously? And...you believe him? Or at least, you believe that HE thought he was check-raising for value?

Bruh. Seriously. Of all the insane button-mashing silliness I've ever seen or heard of at low stakes, that has to win the grand-prize for all-time looniest of loony-tunes explanations for why someone chose the line they did.

If the guy told you he jammed because he didn't know where he was at and didn't know what else to do and thought you would fold if he jammed, I'd be more likely to believe him. That actually makes more sense than him thinking he was check-raising for value.

I mean...even if he's somehow putting you on QQ or JJ precisely, why would he be certain enough you'd bet that he would go for a check-raise?

Instead of learning something, I feel like we're all dumber for having bothered to participate in this farce.

What I want to see is the range of hands that you guys believe a villain like this might donk/bet/check-raise river with - despite the fact that such a villain may not even think in terms of ranges. Surely you can still estimate what you think those hands might be, including all spazz outs etc? From the point of view of an unorthodox player who doesn't think in ranges, I think AcKc absolutely makes sense as a hand he would donk, for example. There is going to be at least some kind of logic and thinking behind the range of any player. He may have some hands at lower frequencies than others etc as you suggested.

The only reason I am asking is because I am interested in seeing how my exact hand T9 performs on the river vs that hypothetical range that donks/bets/check-raises - because in my opinion it's unlikely to do very well.

I assume that he thought I may have a worse king, given how the hand played out (my under-repping the 9x and not raising earlier in the hand).

He obviously didn't want a fold. When he goes for the check-raise it's with a range of value and bluffs; I guess this is the bottom of his value range.

From looking at range approximations, I believe that if he arrives on the river with this hand then it should be a check-call.