I mean from A7 all the way down to K2 or even Q9 there are a lot of tiny differences that eventually add up. The card removal jump from A3 to KJ is probably the biggest of those.

if you call with a7 you should call with qj

-10% equity for us wanting to always call

equity win tie pots won pots tied
Hand 0: 70.408% 67.35% 03.06% 66 3.00 { AA, JJ, 66, 22, A5s+, A2s, 95s-93s, 75s, A6o+, A2o, 97o }
Hand 1: 29.592% 26.53% 03.06% 26 3.00 { Ah7s }

equity win tie pots won pots tied
Hand 0: 78.626% 78.63% 00.00% 1236 0.00 { AA, JJ, 66, 22, A5s+, A2s, 95s-93s, 75s, A6o+, A2o, 97o }
Hand 1: 21.374% 21.37% 00.00% 336 0.00 { QJs, QJo }

Pretty massive difference.

You don't get to the river with those hands though, usually. I muck the K2 on the turn facing a double barrel.

You can get to the river with QJ because it's still possibly ahead of villain's value range on the turn. That value range shrinks considerably on the river though, expanding our hero call range even though we don't get to the river with very many of those hands that become calls on the river.

Makes sense? ;o

@ the PokerStove calcs, I think CutchaLosses agrees with me that villain's range is incorrect with regards to which Aces he's value betting OTR. If villain's value betting A5s, A6o+, then he's not polarized at all.

To assume villain's range isn't polarized requires reads IMO.

cutcha is saying he has A7 beat or has nothing, which is kinda the case on the turn, so if you c/c turn then you should c/c river

That's fine, I was making a different point about the logic in general, not suggesting anything about turn play.

There is a significant difference between KJ and A3. I think people say "oh yeah card removal" a lot without having any sense of how significant the effects are. Just like people say "oh yeah blockers" or "oh yeah backdoor flush draw" and then back some bad arguments as a result.

Including A5s, A7o, and A8o is meant to convey the idea of "he value bets A3s-A5s, A2o-A5o, A7o-A8o around this size somewhere between 30-40% of the time or so". That might be a little high, but I think setting those numbers to 0 is a bit ambitious for your argument.

I missed some J6 stuff the first time around too. Given the assumption villain is absolutely never doing this with A3, A4, A5, A7, or A8, the card removal difference in equity between KJ and A3 is still around 3-4%.

Fold.

What are you beating? His range for me is pretty tight with the line he has taken. AK is probably a bit too obvious but A10+ is very likely.

The villain likes his hand and the 3/4 bet on the river is asking for a call.

The bet on every street signifies strength.

Going through HH this is an easy fold BUT during a game a fold in this spot is really difficult.

I have to disagree with you. He's not good enough to value bet anything that loses to A7 the way you described him. You can word it however you want and justify a hand really well obviously for your article. Also, in a 50 regs mind a "2" isn't a good card to barrel a King would be.

and I don't even know how to read that thing you typed out

Again, even against A9+ (and I think that's stretching your position), the effects are significant at 3-4% difference or so. 3% is really the least that you can say card removal matters here and 6% is a very reasonable position.

A little confused about the last sentence. Yes, the duece isn't a good barrel card. What does that have to do with KJ v A3? Or were you making a different point?

Basically he could be bluffing more often with middle pairs that beat your K2. I was just referring to what I read when you said the article was on this being a good board to triple barrel and just wanted to point out a two isn't typically a card that makes people want to fold what they called the flop with. A two might be a good card for you to barrel vs me or in your stakes but you are asking us for opinions based on Villain be a meh 50 reg and you having no reads. I feel like your article was more so written thinkin this was a fold proving why 3 barreling on this board is so profitable since we get A7 to fold? I could be wrong

I really want to discount a9 because I don't think the games at the 50's are generally aggressive enough for this guy to get 3 streets of value. I don't even know if he gets three streets of value with AK/AQ more often than not.

This doesn't look like a good spot to bluff but people do terrible things. I think its more likely for him to be nutted/ bluffing on a board like this than getting sick value with hands that barely beat A7.

Right, this is an example of a small difference and why we don't go all the way down to A7 = K2.

This is why it's a bad board to double barrel

You are

Snap call all 3 streets. $50 regs I play dont recognize turn is a bad card to barrel with air.

.

Well then it looks like we are agreeing on some things. Pretty sure you are calling here because of what I said about nutted hands and hands that barely beat a7 and we only need to be right so often.

Depends how my fingers be feeling. I might decide to look him up with q6 and expect to be wrong a decent amount knowing it can still be a correct call. I'd gain info from the showdown and I wouldn't want someone to just be able to steal the chips in the pot!

Lol looks like I did the combos without taking into account the board.

So if you take A3o-A5o and A3s-A5s out, and his value betting range is AA,JJ,66,22,AKo-A6o,A2o,J6o,AKs-A6s,A2s, he needs to be bluffing about 34% of the time for us to profitably call. Is that right? I think I much prefer folding now and definitely fold A3.

Edit: actually A3 should be about exactly the same vs his range right?

Im getting there with exactly this, hopefully inducing on turn by snapping flop. I think we represent Jx/weaker pairs/unconnected broadways often enough to then bluffcatch river.

he bets smaller vs Jx you think??

fwiw this is a perfect description of me at the time of BF

I don't know how reflective my tendencies are of the rest of the reg population but pretending I'm the villain:

1. I could vbet the river somewhat thinly (something like QQ or KJ), depending on the timing of the flats, if I've sensed any sort of FPS-stationyness / tendency to level themselves / love of bluffcatching from villain

2. I'd pretty much never triple barrel bluff here early on, although it might actually be pretty good to do so, I'm a nit and nothing special

Not really, villain can vbet A3 on the turn but check back the river.
IMO, turn and river ranges are v. different. You can be ahead of his value range with QJ on the turn but never on the river.

sc2 is eroding my mind, your poiint is pretty valid fwiw.

It's a fold imo. The amount of $50 regs capable of 3barreling air here if they're not tilting is small as far as I know. The board is sick dry and most regs don't bluff readless without equity anyway if no scare cards come.

I also believe that 3barreling air here is -EV vs most regs, although I like 2 barrels to get villain to fold broadways. I'd bet the turn bigger though.