***** Hand History for Game 1111111111 ***** (Poker Stars)
Tourney Hand NL Texas Hold'em - Friday, July 05, 04:24:27 ET 2019
Table 2643208854 1 (Real Money)
Seat 2 is the button
Seat 1: Hero ( 370 )
Seat 2: Player2 ( 630 )
Player2 posts small blind [25].
Hero posts big blind [50].
** Dealing down cards **
Dealt to Hero [ Qd 7s ]
Player2 calls [25]
Hero raises [320]
Player2 calls [320]
** Dealing Flop ** [ Js, 6d, 3d ]
** Dealing Turn ** [ 4c ]
** Dealing River ** [ 3s ]


$3.50 hyper husng. V was aggresive all game, often 2x pot on flop, first time playing them, too aggresive and unbalanced id say. Was limping lots when it got shallow though. I'm just following nash here, is this correct to do vs a limp? What deviations from nash should we make based on limping frequencies?

You shouldn't play nash vs limp, nash pushing applies to open jamming only. If villain isn't limping 100%, they don't have the same pre range.

So best to check here? Would selecting which hands to check, shove or fold here correlate at all to the nash call/shove ranges. Q7o is call at 8bbs and shove at 10bbs so I'm well inside that, I felt actually then that shoving would be better than checking here because in addition to that we also have the extra half blind in pot.

just check, your hand is not value jam nor bluff jam, you are better jamming something like Q2o than this

Not really, you have to consider postflop playability as well.

But villain also doesn't have like bottom 30 or 40% of hands that will fold vs jam every time. Why are you jamming this one? You can take a flop for free which is pretty nice too.

While I agree with checking here for the reasons you mentioned, wouldn't the optimal play (of this hand all the similar ones that can't clearly be categorized as value or bluff at this effective stack) include both checking and jamming at some frequency?

No. Why do you think this would be the case?

And even if it were the case (which it's not), why would we be trying to apply balanced gto strategy in $3.50 hypers?