Bruh, you're not listening, to anyone.

Submersible told you this guy doesn't have "a" range here. Like, I think he said this guy fell from the game tree on the first or second node.

I gave you a bunch of different hands V could have that he might play this way - 98s, 95s, K7, busted club draws, some 1P + a busted straight draw, etc. You rejected all of them out of hand, denying even the most remote possibility that V might take this line with any of them, only to find out he took this line with a hand that makes LESS sense than any of those, not MORE sense.

I wasn't expecting this guy to turn up with AK (and we're taking him at his word that's what he had), but if he plays AK this way, then he's capable of showing up with a lot of worse hands, including all those 1P + a busted draw hands I was mostly discounting as not all that likely - because AcKc isn't really all that likely. I'd have expected worse Kx of clubs more often than AcKc.

What amazes me about this is that after all the argle-bargle, you're giving this guy a pass by acting like his play makes sense, when it doesn't. He's out of his gourd, and you should just shrug and admit it, not make excuses for him. You're also giving yourself a pass, instead of listening to anyone else's logic.

Even after all the argle-bargle, and the preposterous reveal, you still can't accept that you made a bad fold, and would rather torture a solver to support a bad decision, instead of admitting you failed to use logic well enough to come to a correct decision, or even a logically supportable yet ultimately wrong decision (what Submersible said - he's either bluffing or not, but he doesn't have a "range" here, so it's either a call or a fold, but not because a solver says so).

All the charts in the world can't obscure the fact that your hand can't be in the value part of a polarized range and also threshold. He can't be both polarized and capped on the river. You can't be polarized and also betting thin for value. You can't bet smaller to get called by his capped range and then say you're betting big because you're polarized. You can't bet 2/3 pot because you know his range is weak, and then fold to a raise because you know his range is strong.

look man. the ego does some crazy things to protect itself. this thread is pretty good evidence of that.

the whole thing (particularly the end) seems to be in bad faith designed to prove that you made a great play and get us to agree with you. you didn't. it's ok, like i said everyone makes mistakes and if you play vs people doing crazy stuff, you are inevitably going to get "owned" at some point. u can post all the sims in the world and demand i give u a range or else u know that your play is right but, like i previously said, there is no range here, he just has AcKc. if you want to know how you're doing equity wise vs that otr, you have 100%. idk what more u are looking for. you've probably wasted 10 hours going over how to play a 0% node and learned nothing. even still we're wasting time going back and forth because you can't accept that you messed up.

we're supposed to take it seriously that villain is a good player with logical ideas guiding decisions and balanced ranges in all nodes because that's the only way u can get to an explanation where you possibly didn't brick the river decision. is worth asking yourself if you want to make money or be right.

I'm not stating that villain has a range that he's thinking about etc. I'm stating a hypothetical range of this player type exists, and that we can estimate it.

I didn't reject all the hands you mentioned, some of them make sense and others don't.

If you were expecting worse Kx of clubs hands then you can add those to his hypothetical range.

I didn't say his play makes sense. I said that he might assume I have a worse king when I decide to bet the river after he checks to me.

You can't prove that it's a bad fold. For one thing, you would need to estimate his range first, and you are apparently unable to do that.

I have used a solver for very little of my analysis. Mostly I am just using the range explorer of the solver to estimate ranges.

It's actually very simple to use logic to support my decision to fold the river. I have a bluff-catcher in an under-bluffed spot. That means one is meant to fold 100% of the time.

You really don't seem to grasp that hand classifications are not static. So I'm going to explain this one more time. His range is very (but not completely; it contains some nutted slowplays) capped when he checks the river. When he checks, faces a bet, and then raises - his range becomes polarized. What kind of range do you think he is doing this with if not polarized? Pure value? Pure bluff? Please elaborate, because thus far your claims do not make sense. Similarly, when he checks to me on the river, my hand is a clear value bet (vs the very capped range). When it bets and gets check-raised, it becomes a bluff catcher that, for the most part, is losing to value but beating bluffs. As you can see very very clearly from the range analysis I did earlier in the thread, the exact combo T9 is very much a threshold hand. In your opinion, what hands worse than T9 that hero arrives at on the river with, and faces the check raise, should he call with?

The size that I use on the river is dictated by by ratio of value to bluffs. I can't use a larger or smaller size without becoming imbalanced.

OMG this is exhausting. I may need to FRFR check out, like Submersible.

Why would he think you have a worse Kx, rather than some other PP lower than Kx, or possibly AK, or AA? For what reason would he think you have EXACTLY a worse K here?

What worse Kx combos do you have, that play this way, when he has the Kc in his hand, making it impossible for you to have a worse K with a flush draw, or even a worse K with a straight draw, after the turn? Does he really think you're calling flop and turn with KQo, KJo, or KTo?

How is it obvious he didn't want a fold? Because he said so, a week later? He said he had 9x immediately after the hand, didn't he? Why do we believe him now, but not then?

If he said he had a 9 immediately after the hand, but he actually had AK, it seems likely he realized he was bluffing, or realized that he was massively over-playing his hand if he thought he was check-raising for value. Him playing worse 9x this way makes more sense than AcKc.

But, again, for the love of God, look at this logically - when he donked flop and barreled turn, if he had AcKc, he was CLEARLY bluffing. And yet, you called flop and turn. If he has the best draw in his hand, and you're folding all your busted straight draws and PP's lower than KK on the river, then what the hell is he targeting for value with a check-raise? You have more TT-QQ in your range than worse Kx. Hell, you have as much AA as you do worse Kx.

"I assume he thought I had a worse king"? Really? The way this was played? I doubt it. I also doubt he didn't want a fold when he check-raised. It's much more likely that he wanted you to check back, and decided to check-raise as a bluff, not for value.

He knows that I am going to float the flop wide. There are several Khxh hands that I can have here, for example. But he doesn't even need to be thinking in terms of what I have (and probably wasn't) to arrive at the river with TPTK and come to the conclusion (erroneous or otherwise) that he can get value from worse Kx.

He's a good friend and I believe what he said. That he was check-raising for value and wanted a call.

Yes, he was clearly semi-bluffing flop and turn.

What hands worse than T9 that hero arrives at on the river with, that bet after getting checked to, and face the check raise, do you think he should he call with?

You believe what he said after he had a week to think about it, but not what he said immediately after the hand, before he had time to think about it. Because you're "good friends"?

I dunno man. If you say so. You also said he's a good player, or otherwise suggested it. Friends or not, I tend to believe what people say before they've had time to process information more than what they say after time passes, and they've had the opportunity to re-think or second-guess themselves.

I don't know what worse hands you have on the river that bet for value and also call a check-raise. I don't know why it matters what worse hands bet-call, if we're betting our hand for value.

Maybe you bet-call with all your 9x. Maybe AA, and AK without the Ac. Maybe KT no clubs because it blocks T8 and unblocks missed club draws. Maybe K8 no clubs for the same reason. Maybe K7 no clubs that blocks KK and 77, and unblocks V's combos of Kx that were drawing to clubs but ran into top pair, and could have a better kicker, but might fold, because you're more likely to have a better kicker than he is.

The way you played this, I think all our 9x would bet the river for value, and if I were in your spot, I'd have bet bigger. Or if I took 2/3 pot sizing, I wouldn't fold when V raises, because I don't buy that he's donking flop and barreling turn, and then check-raising river with thick value.

I'm probably also betting all those other hands, and probably TT-QQ, and maybe our busted club draws, and maybe our 1P + busted straight draws. But unlike you, I don't think we need to be balanced when it comes to our sizing here, so I'm not using the same size for every hand I'm betting.

I don't care how many bluff combos I have and how many value combos I have, based on the size I take, because that's not the way to exploit opponents when playing live low stakes cash games. I'm going to have different sizes depending on whether or not I want V to fold, call, or raise.

Like Submersible tried to tell you, and I tried to tell you - you do NOT need to be balanced here. You simply don't. I get that you think you do, because you've repeated it endlessly. But you're just wrong.

With T9o, no clubs, when V donks flop and barrels turn, and then checks river, I'm either checking back, betting super-small, or I'm betting huge. I'm not betting between 1/2 pot and full pot just to fold if V check-raises.

To your last question, as I said earlier, anything that beats the busted draw bluffs of V's range over 31% of the time. I would have thought most of V's x-r shove range were bluffs. You didn't, and you were there. My shove calling range hinges on my belief that V should not be able to beat Kings-up enough of the time, hence the x-shove, and so:
All 9x and better, all Kx, AA for starters. H should fold all bricked draws that bluffed the river. 7x is my borderline.

I have to admit, AKcc was not an option I was giving V. It's difficult to see how V could have played the river worse. Just catch H's bluff with a superior Kings up kicker. Jeez.

I cut away most of my reply---there've been enough essays on this, by better posters than me---but this villain really isn't thinking anywhere near as deeply as you are on this. Like sub said, "Either he's bluffing or he's not." That's it.

Most poker players I know have an inclination to be dishonest rather than honest immediately after a hand.

Yes, me and this guy are good friends. He's an older Indian Canadian guy with Indian roots and we've played literally hundreds of sessions against each other. When I saw him in the casino on Saturday morning the first thing I did was sit down and talk to him at length. I asked him if he remembered this hand from last weekend; we discussed it and I mentioned this thread and the fact that a lot of people were discussing the hand, many with different views, and that a lot of people would like to know what he had. I said that I would buy him dinner if he told me (!) He said I didn't have to do that and told me the hand right away (I did later buy him a drink though). We discussed it further at length; what he was thinking on the flop, the river etc. As I said, we're good friends, we know each other well, he has no real reason to lie, he's a good sport.

The worse hands I have for value on the river and call a check raise are important in determining whether or not T9 is a threshold hand.

Okay so you think I bet-call the river with hands like "9x, maybe AA, and AK without the Ac, maybe KT no clubs, maybe K8 no clubs, maybe K7 no clubs that blocks KK and 77". Are you really calling with all these hands vs the donk bet on the flop?

If he's being balanced (and I'm not saying he is) then the river check-raise is about 73% value hands that beat our hand and 27% bluffs. So the hands that bet for value when he checks to us on the river are by no means snap calls once he jams.

What is your goal with betting QQ-TT on the river? As far as bluffs are concerned, there are pretty much only busted flush draws to use (7x and 6x are generally checking back and taking their showdown value, as are the weak Kx hands as it's hard for them to get called by worse hands). It's not a good idea to bluff with too many missed flush draws, because those are the hands that we want villain to have that donk/bet/check and fold to our river bet. In other words, most of them have the wrong blockers, and we have to be selective about the combos we choose (we want them to be blocking 8x and Tx mostly).

Sure it's fine to not be balanced when you bet and I'm sure you can make extra money by playing exploitatively like that. I sometimes do this too, but when we are talking about theory and balance in a thread I like to see what balanced ranges look like before deviating. Additionally, it's not a good idea to get into imbalanced ranges and subsequent bad habits if you intend to move up in stakes, where players will be much better and much more observant about the bet sizes you're using. If you're not used to attempting to balance ranges in game or in subsequent analysis then I can only imagine your frequencies are way out of line and you could improve your game by taking a look at that.

Can you explain why "with T9o, no clubs, when V donks flop and barrels turn, and then checks river, I'm either checking back, betting super-small, or I'm betting huge"? This honestly just sounds like you are not used to looking at ranges and are unable to determine where in your range you are with this hand. T9o is a clear value bet. You said in the same post that you are probably going to value bet AA - why would you value bet AA and not T9?

I estimate my value range on this river to be:

AA (6 combos), KK (3 combos), Kx (3 combos), 9x (28 combos), 99 (1 combo), 77 (3 combos), 66 (3 combos) - 47 total value combos.

How are you arriving at the betsize you use on the river? What metrics are you using to determine that?

Solver folds about 80%, so its a reads based decision even if V was a gto style crusher.

Nope. Thats not what i said. AKcc is too strong to bluff with and too weak to value bet with, both on the flop donk as well as the river check raise with. He should be bluff donking/check raising with reasonably air hands like gutshots and BDFD otf and 7x/K no kicker otr. The front door draws he would donk would be like Ac6c not AcKc.

When your semibluffs are too strong, they are in a terrible spot if they get raised, and you dont lose much eqiity if you fold your medium strength hands.


Submersible you asked what part i wouldnt expect from you. Its this part.

The thing i find frustrating about you is I think your poker instincts and knowledge are some of the best in the forums, and I had no clue whether V was bluffing or not here, but when I saw you thought it was a call, i pretty much instantly assumed you were right even after checking GTO and seeing it mostly folds. But I find your reasoning infuriating. You often times gesture vaguely at GTO, as if our opponent is approaching the game anywhere near GTO. You even do this in big river spots where V has deviated massively from GTO on every single street. GTO is an invaluable tool, but especially in spots like this where even a very GTO centric opponent probably doesnt know to donk bet 3.5% of the time on this flop, all the theory goes out the window. This paragraph above is basically the exact type of thing I say to you when you start to wax philosophical about how we dont have enough reads to deviate from the theory. Something you did in your reasoning here.

Now, you say its a call, and its a spaz (contrary to what gto says) and I dont really find your reasoning to be easy to follow, because you cant put V on any sort of range of types of hands you expect V to run this line with, instead just saying oh yeah T9 definitely beats it now. Like, if V had check raised when the flush came on the river would you have thought the flush was possible and we are beat? Would you have also called with QQ and lost? Because apparently flush draws are part of his range. Apparently the river raise was with TPTK.

Putting V on a range is the most baseline fundamental way to evaluate a hand, and youve got an excuse to not do it in almost every single thread. I honestly am not sure ive seen you try to venture a guess as to their range even once. Nobody expects the range to be perfect, but theres a huge difference between “i think hes donk bluffing the flop with XcYc, T8, JT, 87, J8, 86” and “i think hes donking the flop with JJ TT 88 66- 7x” and “i think hes donking the flop with total air junk.”

I think theres a good argument that a large % of their range is their spaz range, but im not even sure AcKc is a typical hand id view as “spaz” range (which is to say, its completely butchered, but usually “spaz” refers to total air, not bluffing with the wrong flush draw combo, and then overplaying tptk on the river.

Quoting mainly for your assessment of your value range, to point out that:

Yes if you had those hands in your range by the time you get to the river, they would be value hands. But I don't think you play flop and especially turn this way with some of them. Ranges shrink throughout the hand. They shouldn't grow.

Is 66 really floating a flop donk for 2/3 on 997cch? When it's BU v BB? 77 might raise at some point, ditto 9x. You can't expect that V's going to go nuts on the river like this, and you'd like to get paid for your trips. Are Kx combos calling a nearly pot sized turn bet? Etc.

You know your ranges better than I do, but the above reasons are why I think you don't/shouldn't have some of these. Then again, calling AKcc OOP isn't something that should be happening either and so...

This is the range of hands I bet the river with when villain checks to me:

Value: AA (6 combos), KK (3 combos), Kx (3 combos), 9x (28 combos), 99 (1 combo), 77 (3 combos), 66 (3 combos)
Bluffs: 8 combos of 6x of clubs, 6 combos of 8x of clubs, 54cc, J7cc, J6cc and J5cc of clubs.

This is the range that villain check-raises:

Value: 2 combo of boats (one combo of 96 and one combo of K9), 3 combos of straights, 2 combos of A9
Bluffs: Jc8c, Ac8x and QhTh.

After I bet the river, there is 315 in the pot, and villain jams for 400. Therefore the MDF is 315/715 = 0.44 or 44%. So I need to call with 44% of the range with which I bet the river, or 29 combos. All the bluffs are folding, which leaves the 11 worst value combos that also fold in order to arrive at the MDF. Those combos are Kx, AA, and the worst combos of 9x, which is 95s. Therefore the worst 9x hands I should call with, and weakest hands I call with overall - from a purely MDF point of view - are 98 and T9. This is if villain is being balanced. Once you adjust for the fact that river check-raises are under-bluffed, this range should adjust and call even tighter.

The reason I brought this up with docvail is that he doesn't seem to grasp that T9 is a threshold hand once it faces a check-raise on the river. I hope the above illustrates that that is clearly and unequivocally the case. It's at the absolute bottom of the range that can consider calling vs the river check-raise.

You mentioned that 7x is "your borderline" - first of all, what 7x hands are you betting on the river, and why are you betting them? Genuine question.

If you call with all Kx, 9x and AA then (at least according to the ranges I worked out, which of course may vary somewhat from player to player) you are calling down too wide and paying off his value range too often. If you have the time I'd suggest trying to estimate what your range looks like after opening button, calling a 66% pot donk bet on the flop, 85% pot bet on the turn, and then betting river when checked to. It would be interesting to compare notes on that.

Yes I agree that AK should most certainly be a check-call rather than a check-raise on the river

Yes, I agree that "AKcc is too strong to bluff with and too weak to value bet with, both on the flop donk as well as the river check-raise" - that's why my view is that he's semi-bluffing too wide on the flop if this hand is included. Certainly it's a high-equity hand, but compared to hands like OESDs, I'd say that this hand has enough equity to call if it gets raised.

Yes, I'm floating with many pocket pairs on this flop, as they go up in value on paired boards. Some of my 9x combos raise on earlier streets (generally the stronger kicker combos) and some of them call. Some Kx combos like Kx of hearts are calling the turn bet - but it's true that there are not many Kx combos for hero on the river when villain has the K in his hand.

This is my button RFI range:



When I'm faced with the flop donk, I'm raising with some 9x, combo draws and OESDs etc and calling with most pairs, some 9x and other super nutted hands, and most flush draws. These are the hands I call with:



The turn donk was for almost a pot size, which folds out a lot of my weaker pairs/flush draws and 7x, and I'm going to raise most of my straights, which leaves:



And this is the range I arrive with on the river when he checks to me. (N.b. this range should include the 7x flush draws and it does not, that's an error with the screenshot). As detailed above, I'm then going to bet:

Value: AA (6 combos), KK (3 combos), Kx (3 combos), 9x (28 combos), 99 (1 combo), 77 (3 combos), 66 (3 combos)
Bluffs: 8 combos of 6x of clubs, 6 combos of 8x of clubs, 54cc, J7cc, J6cc and J5cc of clubs.

All other hands are checking back river and taking their showdown value/not bluffing.

idk. the issue with this forum is there just isn't much reason to expand on things (as i said earlier in this thread). no one is posting to improve or for feedback, people simply seek validation or at best one word answers on their plays. this thread really is great evidence of that.

i tell people to look at gto when the lines dictate looking at gto. if co opens and you're otb that's a spot where you want to look at a solve. if you call a 3bet and face a cbet, thats a spot to look at a solve. is odd to me the dichotomy between this forum where everyone absolutely refuses to accept 2024 poker and look at software and generally the advice vs "good" players at 1/3 and 2/5 is to seat change, table change, never bluff, open limp range, and nit it up vs the online forum where you have people playing literally 1 cent 2 cent and looking at solver outputs. somewhat paradoxically, although also rather obviously from a psychology standpoint, the egos on this forum are something like 10x as high.

this is pretty clearly a line / node where gto isn't going to help you. fish is playing street poker and the way to deal with that is hand reading. you can either use experience and logic or mda data to do that, idc which. the fact you guys continually want me to give you a specific range for a villain i've never played with going down a node that he shouldn't go down is irritating but also just kind of shows you're too stuck in your ways to get it. that's fine, i dont care. the fact that this much study time and posting time has been legitimately wasted on this particular spot is insane to me. OP could have memorized preflop ranges and moved onto flop heuristics by now, but instead needs scientific data to show himself that he made a good fold here. i keep telling you that he didn't. to me, fish's line looks like he wants OP to fold on both the flop and turn so i find it difficult to believe there are many / any value hands in that "range". it's also just incredibly unlikely that if he did have value he finds the x/r otr instead of betting in the heat of the moment. i said that at the beginning of the thread but you guys keep wanting to have this gotcha moment with me where you want me to list out a logical set of candidates for him to take this line with - it doesn't exist, there's a reason this is a dominated strategy in solver.

even before the villain description got posted i said this was a fairly easy call and i gave reasoning. idk what more u want from me. then the villain description is lag rec trying to add aggression to his game and down heaps lately doing so. based on that, you probably don't even need to look at the hh. is v doing something weird? yes? probably spewing.

i've made an effort to try harder posting mostly bc i was irritated that stupidbanana said all of my posts are narcissitic blah blah (after triggering him by telling him that world class nl players dont play 1/3 regularly lol). but like. its a difficult forum. anything real that i post gets completely ignored by people. so far we've seen 50 posts out of 2 people trying to pretend like flatting with KK otr on 77397 vs 2% pot is the best play (despite being a small stakes plo? player and likely never playing vs anyone even mildly competent, they were willing to give us a complete breakdown of how nosebleed players exploitatively approach the game vs unknowns at 1% of their usual stakes) and then this thread where i'm forced to jump through hoops looking at how the river should be played vs a super computer forced to play perfectly balanced in a 0% node when in practice villain is tilting his brains out. neither poster willing to even possibly consider that maybe they don't know everything about poker (while stuck in small stakes hell) even after results indicate they are incorrect.

50 posts later and op tells me sorry man you're wrong villain has a straight+ 95% of the time. apparently this was the 5% and despite getting evidence that maybe just maybe what he's saying is incorrect he quadruples down and demands i make up a range for villain. i am telling you villain doesn't have a range here. this might actually be the only combo he takes this entire line with at this moment in time. instead the cognitive dissonance for our breakeven / losing 1/3 and 2/5 hero of potentially making an incorrect decision in a tricky situation ingame is too great and he needs to spend hours trying to convince himself and others that in fact he still made a great play.

there's 0 incentive for me to post, let alone post well. i dont get paid, i have no interest in ever selling any kind of services to people, the threads aren't even just not collaborative or insightful, people actively attack anyone that disagrees with their faith based poker reasoning.

even in this hand, op demands to know what combos i expect to beat otr, i go out of my way to explain how this situation plays vs recs and the resulting exploit and say he's probably spazzing and after we see results and see villain spazzed, you decide to unilaterally define spaz to tell me that no man i wasn't right.

meanwhile ive spent hours in this thread / others interacting with (essentially coaching) a guy struggling at low stakes that can't figure out after 5 years that villain in this hand is a fish (lol), and that instead of being remotely appreciative has continued to argue into the void he actually is entirely correct.

you wonder why i post the way i do, this and the 99 thread are most of the reason. unreasonable expectations on your end imo for anything more.

xoxo,
submersible

@submerisble - if it makes you feel better, I agree with you, on pretty much everything you said here.

Except anything you said that might have disagreed with anything I said.

But other than that, I think you nailed it.

I am looking to get feedback and improve.

I realise the line in this thread is rare/unusual and that studying it is unlikely to be useful for many hands in the future. I'm still interested in studying it in its own right.

You recommend "experience" as a way to hand read against villain in this spot. My experience is that river check-raises are value heavy.

I'm not convinced (or trying to convince anyone else) that I made a good fold. I'm not trying to claim I made a great play. I think it's a very close spot.

I'm not trying to have a "gotcha" moment. I don't care about who is right and who is wrong. I'm simply trying to uncover the truth. But I'm genuinely surprised that you can't approximate a range for villain. Of course such a range exists hypothetically, even if villain is unaware of it himself. I've estimated this range several times earlier in the thread, and I don't know how you can possibly claim T9o is a call if you don't have an approximation of what villain's range looks like.

The results of one hand do not indicate much and it would obviously be foolish to draw absolute conclusions about the whole low stakes player pool from the outcome of one hand. I don't think you'd be pontificating so hard if villain had instead turned up with a thick value hand.

Re "breakeven/losing 1/3 and 2/5 hero"- I beat these stakes for 41bbs/100 and 19bbs/100 respectively last year in an 1100-hour sample. You can also look up my screenname on various online stat sites if you want confirmation that I'm beating the online stakes I play (mostly NL50 and NL25) - which I would argue are comparable to live 2/5 and 1/3 (if not tougher):



I'm not struggling at low stakes. I'm doing well, but I recently had a downswing and decided to expand my online study etc a bit. I appreciate your responses and I've learned from them already - I thought I had made that clear.

Well, for what its worth, im appreciative you post here, even if you continue to post in a way that causes me to not be able to always fully follow your thought process, and when I do skim thru these threads i certainly take a look at what you say. I dont find them to be narcissistic, and have no intention of calling you names. I hope you dont take what i said harshly, because its only an effort to explain why some of us may find what you post to be difficult to follow, because youre understandably frustrated with giving absolutely correct advice and still having people asking for more.

Also my guess as to why you post here for free is the same reason we spend hours reading these threads instead of memorizing flop heuristics… this is more fun lol.

As far as putting them on a range, its not really about Vs logic, or at least not good logic, but like, imagine if you had the MDA data for this spot, 1000 fish who played this exact line on this exact board, that would be a pretty good approximation of what to play against in this spot. That doesnt mean its the range of THIS villain on THIS particular day. Thats not what a range represents, a range should represent our best guesses on their possible hands, which then would allow for us to see how to play. Like, as a toy game example, lets say a set of indistinguishable triplets play poker. One only 3 bet jams AA, another only 3 bet jams QQ and the third only 3 bet jams 55. If you just sat down at the table and dont know which triplet youre playing as, you can put the player on a range of AA QQ 55, and construct a calling range based on that range, even though the actual V only has a range of one of those 3 hands, and once they flip the hand over youd know which triplet youre facing.

BTW,

Check out this final table hand I had last night:

https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/ynjl3...=bn2wpyko&dl=0

Ring any bells?

LOL

I love the theory, submersible. I can't understand a lot of it, but that's on me, and I know what study (and expense) I need to do to become better. Thanks for sharing it.

Agreed with doc's first paragraph.

Looks like a bit of solver work to do. I will take @Telemakus 's word for it that an underpair by GTO is continuing on 997 2-suit, to a 2/3 pot donk, but I wouldn't facing this opponent with those reads. I thought his line was FOS with the x-raise. Tele thinks it's value heavy. Shrug. We're not going to agree.

Cliffs of this deadlock:

OP asks Sub for a range.
Sub replies there is no range.
Rinse and repeat.

Sub tells OP he doesn't need to be balanced at all on his river bet.
OP replies he can't bet bigger because he will be unbalanced.
Rinse and repeat.

Coulda used you on page 3, man.

Indeed.

Still waiting for those ranges

All three streets the range is: AcKc / AcQc ... perfectly balanced for bluff/value on the river.

LOL