I rarely post strategy anymore on this board, but when I do...

Seat 6 had 8s 8c in the hole
We are evaluating his play.

Poker Stars $100/$200 Limit Stud Hi/Lo $20 Ante - 5 players
DeucesCracked Poker Videos Hand History Converter

3rd Street: (1 SB)
Seat 1: xx xx 7____Seat 1 folds
Seat 2: xx xx 3____Seat 2 brings in for $35____Seat 2 folds
Seat 5: xx xx 4____Seat 5 completes____Seat 5 calls
Seat 6: xx xx 5____Seat 6 raises
Seat 8: xx xx K____Seat 8 folds

4th Street: (5.35 SB) (2 players)
Seat 5: xx xx 4 7____Seat 5 bets
Seat 6: xx xx 5 T____Seat 6 checks____Seat 6 calls

5th Street: (3.675 BB) (2 players)
Seat 5: xx xx 4 7 7____Seat 5 bets
Seat 6: xx xx 5 T 9____Seat 6 calls

6th Street: (5.675 BB) (2 players)
Seat 5: xx xx 4 7 7 2____Seat 5 bets____
Seat 6: xx xx 5 T 9 Q____Seat 6 raises


ProPokerTools Odds Oracle Results (2.25 Professional)
Stud Hi/Lo, Generic syntax
PLAYER_1 4*, *c*c, $L$L, 22-AA / 4c 7s 7c 2s
PLAYER_2 8s 8c / 5c Ts 9c Qc
600000 trials (randomized)


All-in Equity

	Equity %	Wins Hi %	Ties Hi %	Wins Lo %	Ties Lo %	Scoops %	Wins Hi Count	Ties Hi Count	Wins Lo Count	Ties Lo Count	Scoops Count
4*, *c*c, $L$L, 22-A...	63.5742%	48.6655%	0.0000%	43.9080%	0.0000%	48.6655%	291993	0	263448	0	291993
8s 8c / 5c Ts 9c Qc	36.4258%	51.3345%	0.0000%	0.0000%	0.0000%	21.5172%	308007	0	0	0	129103

How often do(es)
PLAYER_1 5-card hand type is two pair by seventh street
56.7845% (340707)


How often do(es)
PLAYER_1 scoop
48.6655% (291993)


How often do(es)
PLAYER_1 5-card hand type is a full house by seventh street
11.8153% (70892)


Theory: Should Seat 6 have a semi-bluff range on 6th street here?
Is this one of the better hands to do it with even though 88 scoops 22% of the time? I much rather see seat 6 show up with a pair under the 7s if we're trying to fold out a high hand.

How often does this have to work to show a profit?

In before play bad get there!

So you lose $400 when you're wrong half the time and win like $2k when it works. Really awesome play when you suck out sometimes anyway. He'd end up with a naked two pair more than 10% of the time. I'm impressed.

Seems pretty bad given that any low is freerolling him and if opponent has 2 pair and not a low, opponent is still ahead...

Also, even if Villian doesn't have a low, he's likely calling Sixth and will lead into Seventh with any low.

Rebuy equity?

i don't like it. it may be a closer play if hero didn't have a flush draw, but it's probably still bad. It may even be a good play if hero had air, but getting into this spot with air is just unjustifiably bad.

I don't think its even close to perform math on such a fancy play. I don't see what's wrong with stationing, re-evaluate 7th, and lose/chop most of the time as opposed to maybe getting 2p with no draws or 3p to muck. We also have to take RIO into consideration the time villain has/or binks a low.

Also, what is hero's line on the river if villain just calls 6th? It just seems disastrous since we know villain is most likely to have 2p with most likely a low draw. Villain will either bink a low, bink a boat, or completely brick... We pretty much lose when we brick and check and gain nothing.

Also, it doesn't even make sense for us to bet the river, not even with a flush, unless we have some info on villain.

I think hero should also be aware that villain bets into hero's 2 bricks...

On it's face the play looks horrid, but taking into consideration the fact that OP is CG I'll assuming I'm wrong.

Also I can't imagine this ever working/showing profit, unless seat 5 can fold 2 pair here like 30% of the time, which I think is unlikely.

Also assuming seat 5 thinks and sees a showdown here I'd argue they would be less likely to fold to seat 6 ever in the future, or at least until it's clear seat 6 has adjusted their play to only do this with made hands more often than not.

disclaimer: not my game

But I do play poker, and in poker a semibluff is usually more profitable if there is more semi and less bluff. If the flush draw gets there, hero will get at least his own chips back (assuming villain doesn't bink a boat, which is even less likely with the 7 dead). Sometimes he will scoop and then weeeeeeeeee bigger pot to drag!

Not saying I like the play tho cuz I don't see hero having any FE on 6th, and once most players get to 7th they'll call way too wide getting over 10:1. If villain had a legitimate starter he either has 2 pr/low draw/str8 draw or a made low. Even if he figures hero has a flush 80% of the time in order to make that move, he'll call with the low draw and have odds to call 7th when he bricks. If he has a made low he three rolls hero and calls him a donk in the chat box.

I don't think hero should have a semibluff range. If they do, it should probably be one with very little equity. I'm not sure what to consider 88 w/ no flush draw. I guess it can be a semi-bluff for a 2pair binker. I guess i can consider it to be the top of hero's bluffing range or kinda the bottom of hero's semi-bluffing range. I consider 88 to be more of a bluff than a semi-bluff since we're either freerolled by a pair of 7s or behind at least 7s up with maybe a low draw.

I'm no game theorist, so maybe I'm way off, but I think a lot of high only strategy differs from hi-lo. The equilibrium points (or whatever term is used) differs since I think the tell and low aspect of the game changes a lot of the decisions. I don't really even know how to prove what I said. It's pretty much just intuition after a lot of hands... Maybe my intuition is wrong and I have a leak there. This area of play for this particular game hasn't really ever been covered on any tutorial site or books.

The sickest thing about this play is hero's pretty much bluffing into a board that has either a locked low or at least 2 pairs with maybe a low draw. I think this play is kinda sick that when villain does have 2 pair with no draw, it's pretty much a muck. I guess one can argue that since villain has some FE, we should have some sorta bluffing frequency with xx% of our hands. I don't honestly know how to answer that since I think just stationing is somehow superior. We should never reach 6th street with a bluffing hand in the first place (maybe we should?) Long story short, I don't think villain mucking in that spot is exploitable since I think hero made a bad (suboptimal) play.

I also think hero also has to take into account that villain notices hero bricking 3 times (while calling with a brick on 5th street) and still bets. When that 3rd flush hits, I think villain should be checking a lot of unmade/unlocked hands. I don't know really though... Maybe there is a clear concise way to play this and it is very similar to other variations of poker.

You could have a semibluff range, but a small pair going high is too weak to be part of it when you could be drawing to half. If the hand were structured differently so you had more outs to a pat hand, additional low equity or even if your concealed pair were Aces then I'd like it better.

With this precise hand you aren't going to get there often enough for the extra bet to work in your favor, you aren't saving money to get to showdown and you'll get the two bets on the river if you improve to a pat hand anyhow because villain will only be betting complete lows and weaker pat hands.

Improving to a weak two-pair is not necessarily going to be enough, and that's a lot of this hand's "outs."

Should have said this but it isn't really a semi-bluff when getting there isn't worth much. If you intend to barrel villain off exactly two pair then you have to raise Six and barrel. Any other intention isn't served by raising Six.

let's say there is one. how do you solve it? I would love to try and solve it myself if someone provide me some resources they have...

come to think of it, a better theory would be whether or not hero should have a complete air floating range upto 6th street (especially against a bet-foldish villain)

The thing is, even if there is such a theory, I think it's pretty hard to calculate and perfect or near-perfect it in play. I think what one thinks of as GTO play may actually just be a sloppy unclear mess. It'd be like playing perfect in a chess game.

I think this is a side of stud 8 that has never been explored and if someone can accurately pinpoint the equilibrium plays, then they are way ahead of their time in this game and would crush the highest stakes.

that's the plan.

As this is 100/200, I assume this is no easy game and people are thinking.

Im pretty sure, that I know from the 10/20-30/60 games, who this player is. Either a regular from Mexico, or one of three Chinese with similar names.

IMO this has to work WAY less than anybody in this thread thinks, to be a reasonable move. The circumstances and reads have to be very precise and correct, and when our hand goes to the showdown, villians reaction/possible adaption to this has to be part of the intention behind doing this on six.

To be very meta here: Some people tend to get way too passive and make themselves board-readable like a book on all streets in stud games, when they experience what appears to them like not like "random aggressiveness", but like a "well thought pro move".

If hand goes to SD and Hero checks behind twopair and wins with twopair vs twopair, Villian might guess Hero would have bluffed him (successfully?) out of the pot if he didnt improve 7th. => For overthinking players/first level thinkers this leaves space for false/bad adapting


Yeah, that's kind of the plan, and what makes it that expensive. As I pointed out above, there are indeed other intentions served by raising six.

If Hero has the precise read, that Villian is capping 6th with any 7made low AND is betting 7th when his twopair improves to a 7low+2pair AND check/raises a full on 7th, than Hero's 7th street decision is made ridic easy.

And let that be said, much more players play this lines/style than they should (apparently).


If we compare the EV of

1) Call 6th, Call 7th
2) Raise/Call 6th, UI: Bet/Fold 7th (Call if got raised 6th), I: Check behind/Call

with the assumptions above and we take the "futureEV" (how our action influences the ongoing dynamics/his adaptions/his stationing) into account, not a bad play at all.

If a player mixes his play up enough on late streets, plays like this which depend on precise reads, are not possible at all and can be costy.

What will villain take away from a hand like this that shows down as one pair vs low? Is there anything about the raise on Six that will change how villain will conduct himself in future possible boardlock scenarios, or will it have a worse effect on the guy who will raise Six once in a while with no shot at the low half?

Especially if you're considering future hands, I think it's more likely to make villains correctly punish us with a more complete value range when we do things like this than it will make them passive. That's what I've seen in the games I play when players put in excessive action in spots like this.

They do it thinking they will win the pot sometimes, steal it sometimes and enjoy the show the rest of the time. I have never seen these burn-em-up plays pacify the rest of the table. On the contrary, it makes people tenacious with their bluff catchers and more willing to put in action with their value ranges.

And regardless what hand we make, bet/fold OTR would be unfathomable.

I kind of agree with that. But you pointed it out yourself, there is room for Villian to punish our questionable play very easily, longterm wise.

It's more likely against teh average player or a random player, but that's why reads need to be PRECISE to not make Heros move AS EXPENSIVE as i looks.

If Hero does this and similar plays frequently, Villian should raise 6th with a twopair and the boardlock 7 100% of time. If he doesnt, its a mistake that can be punished by Hero. Not with a that thin/most likely unreasonable play like in OP, but with other thin semibluffs.

If Villian never raises low only, indeed.

Can you show me some math? My intuitive sense isn't bright enough to figure this out. I don't know if my wording or thought process is clear, but I'll give it a shot...

a) Villain is freerolling xx% of the time and will 3b on 6th xx% (close to 100%) of the time and also mix it up by flatting xx% (to rep at least 2 pairs) and screwplay the river. Do you agree?
b) Villain notices hero's 3 bricks, yet still bets. How thin should this range be? I'm not even sure if 7's up with a low draw is a value. Should villain be betting close to 100% of their range or choose to check a bunch of 2 pairs, sets, etc... (and maybe even k/r some made hands?)?
c) How do you calculate the right play when you take villain's river k/r vs. donk ratio into consideration when he either fills up or hits a freeroll?
d) It does seem like we should bluff some percent of the time on 6th street to balance out our value bets on 7th street. Long-term/dynamically/meta-speaking-wise, this leads to more of an equilibrium for us to value bet the river. If we only raise with made hands on 6th, then would it even make sense for us to bet the river? It seems like that value bet should be 0%.
e) What is the bottom of our range by 6th street? There's a lot of hands that should be there close to 0% of the time.

I guess all in all to sum it up, let's say you were to program a stud 8 bot. How will it play 6th street here. What is the default % to bluff/semi-bluff?

fwiw, I think ceegee gave villain way too wide of a range on 6th street. Will villain really bet 3p or 7s up w/ low draw?

The hi and lo aspect really confuses me in a game theory sense. I'm more of an exploitative fish than a GTO genius, so excuse me if I really botch this up:

If villain's range is indeed as wide as ceegee prescribed, then we probably should have a raising range. If we have a raising range, then some of it needs to be bluffs for us not to be exploited. I feel both 88 w/ or w/o a flush draw has too much equity of the high that we're better off just stationing. It's not really a value hand when we raise (we have bad overall equity), nor is it bluff (we have a decent shot at the high). It's a little bit of everything. It is a semi-something. I think the hi-lo aspect creates a whole new variable to be introduced.

So what should be our bluffing range? It has to be something. I do see a logical flaw with what I said earlier though as pointed out by SGspecial. 88 with a FD is a better raising candidate than 88 w/o a FD. I only suggested 88 since it seems really to be the very bottom possible range for hero. However, come to think of it, 88 is not really a bluff since it has some decent equity for the high.

I only suggested having 0 semi-bluffing range since I guess I naturally went into my own world and prescribed villain with my own perceived narrow ranges. Maybe it's better if hero has some airballs with some equity (e.g. continuing 5th with 6c6h or 5c5h). If not, then perhaps 88 with a FD is the best possible candidate to raise with, being both the bottom of hero's range, while also being a drawing hand to half the pot.

lol, I actually agree with this play now since it seems like the best possible candidate (even against a narrow range), to raise with. Even if it's wrong in a sense that we should never raise or bluff, it seems to be the least wrong, unless we were to continue with say 55 or 66 on 5th street.

Hopefully I'm wrong about this, but I suspect a lot of the problem you're having with working out a bluffing range comes from confusing this game with HE. The accepted theory in HE for creating a GTO bluffing range is that in order to be unexploitable (i.e. by villain folding whenever you v-bet) you need to have a certain % of your range be bluffs. And it's best to take this % from the bottom of your range because the middle of your range has too much equity to bluff with. We have to ask, however, why is betting with a hand with more equity a bad thing?

It's because it puts us in a gross spot when we get raised. If we only bluff with air (or semi-air), then it's an easy fold but we have to call a large % of the time with our middle range hands to keep from being exploited by bluff raises. We could choose to fold the middle range hands to a raise, but then we're pissing away the equity we could have realized with them when we see a showdown for either 1 or 0 bets.

The major difference in stud8 (or more specifically in this kind of stud8 spot) is that many times villain will have a lock low and can freeroll you. At this limit the rake will even be maxed out so there is no downside to him raising the roof with a low on 6th and/or 7th. Now in order to play a GTO strat you have to call over 90% on the river even UI b/c 88 has enough equity to support that frequency. If you truly had air and couldn't beat villain's board, your GTO calling frequency on 7th goes to 0%. Again, you could save a bet and call 0% with 88 as well, but then you piss away that 22% equity you had with it.

Yeah, I can do that. It's not appropriate though, because I'd base my calculations on very precise assumptions, and those are not 100% realistic. The result may be flawed, but only because the assumptions are, and most likely NOT the math. If so, pls correct (and teach) me.

The supposed betting range on 6th "4*, *c*c, $L$L, 22-AA / 4c 7s 7c 2s" is a bit wide. I'd take a few naked 4's and 224, 334, 554 without BDFD out of the range. Some bare FDs without a low draw on 6th, as well. [(T9c),...]. They might fold 3rd, might limp/call 3rd and often rather check/call or c/f 6th.

Widest Range 41%

Without 4's and 22-55 39%

Without *c*c is not much changed 38%


I'll go with 40% Equity for the whole pot.

EV for call 6th and call 7th (assuming he bets 7th as well):

We get 0,4*9.675BB-0,6*2=2,67BB longterm.

EV(Fold)=-5,675, EV(Call, Call)=2,67BB

At this point it gets a little fuzzy, because 7th will not 100% go check/check

a) he may check bare two pairs, missed FDs and some check/raises
b) we might improve to a flush/straight/trips/good 2pair and might value bet
c) we might get check/called by a better hand or check/raised by a much better hand

Are you okay with agreeing its almost always bet - call on both streets and the scenarios a)-c) does not really matter because we play them close to optimal and reevaluating will never make us fold 7th?

As
a) we have position (!!)
b) might bet/fold some thin value bets on 7th
c) check behind with SDValue almost always
d) if we do not raise 6th he will rather go for bet/raise with a boat then a check/raise
e) we do not loose much EV by not raising a flush on 7th (??)

+ calculated with a call on 7th already

we can add a little to the EV, so roughly we have an EV of 3BB.

Now to the more complex calculaitions with a few different „cases“

Assumptions about Villians Lines

I) Caps 6th with a boardlocked Low Hand
II) Bets 7th when he improves 7th to a low+ twopair
III) Check/Raises 7th with a boat
IV) Folds twopair when he faced a raise 6th and a bet 7th
V) BTW, probably never folds 6th

Hero’s line is raise/call 6th + either

A) Bet/Fold 7th unimproved (8s only) b/c of II)+III)+IV) to bluff out his twopair (Villian bet/calls 6th)
B) Call any 7th when got raised 6th, even the flush/straight/trip hands
C) If we get checked to 7th we can bet/fold almost any high hand for value that improved b/c of I)+ II)

At this stage we see again, our reads have to be precise and if they arent we are really screwed for so much EV, e.g. raising a semish Hand 6th, if get checked to 7th bet/fold good value hands against a lowboard. This kind of sucks, but we take these ideas for granted now and calculate as if they were 100% true, to show the EV the 6th raise might have in the best case. The mentioned reads and Heros 7th lines are the best case we can hope for.

Im still not pledging his 6th-move is genius, but I stated that under certain circumstances the EV might be not as bad as we think, and as I am scientifically ..shaped… there is a proof missing for my statement.

We need the probabilties of happening [P(A), P(B), P(C)] and the EV in that case.

A) He checks 7th, we bluff

We improve with every Xc, J, 5, T, 9, Q, 8. That are 7+3+3+2+3+3=16 cards. 13 cards known, make the probability of improving 41%.

In the case Villian bet/calls 6th, Hero bluffs 7th roughly 60%. The bluff works 100% of the time, unless he check/raises the boat (he is donking a made low 7th, remember II) )

If Villian bet/calls 7th he holds pair+LD only very very rarely. I mean he never bet/folds those b/c of the low potential, but as I clarified above, only crappy FDs have no twopair or no Low Hand made on 6th. With A24772 and such he has 3 Outs to the boat, with 754772 and such he has three 2, three 4s and two (5s, 3s, 8s) or three (4s, As, 6s). We assume he has [5, 3, 8] equally in is $L $L range as [4, A, 6].

Totalls up to either 10% to improve his twopair (Roughly samenumber of outs when holding A24772 as with (55-66,88-AA)4772, 21% to improve his trips.

We are assuming a lot, but trips are not much more likely than a twopair. Its realistic that he improves his high hand to boat 15%.

60% of all 7th street will be bluffed, <15% will be bet/folded.

Facts so far

1) We bluff 60% of all 7th street cards
2) 85% of our bluffs work, totally 51% of all runouts
3) We lose 1BB bluffing 9% of all 7th scenios
4) 40% of all 7th street cards we check behind

When we check behind all cards, we beat him with every improvement (41%) when he has the 2 paired and 10 cards (25%) when he has trips already/higher twopair. Sums up to around 33%, but reduces due to his check/raising boat range to 27,3%. This number would be much higher is we take teh crappy FD+LD hands in his range.

EV(A):

Pot is 9.675BB after 6th we compare the EV to a line that combines 6th and 7th.

60% of the time we bluff and win 9.675BB
85% it works = +9,675
15% it fails and we lose 3BB = -3BB
40% of the time we check behind
Win 27,3% of runouts =+2,64BB
Lose 72,7% of runouts =-7,03BB

=> EV(A)= 0,6*(0,85*9,675+0,15*-3)+0,4*(0,273*9,675+0,727*-7,03)=4,66BB-2,07BB=2,59BB


B) We get reraised 6th, and call 7th regardless of our down card

Villian raises high hands we are drawing dead against, and Low hands he is freerolling us with. Good point for not ever semibluffing 6th here.

Vs his Made Low Range we perform Without 4's and 22-55 40%
Vs his Made High hands we are drawing dead.

Question here is, how his ranges are distributed. Hos often does he have a made high, when a made low when he raises? I have no was to determine this, but my experience tells me he has somewhere around 70-90% a made LOW rather than a made HIGH.

Pot would be 5,675+6BB+2BB=13,675BB

Our EQ on the total pot is 0,4*0,8+0*0,2=32%

=> EV(B)= 0,32*13,675BB-0,68*13,675=-4,92BB

C) We bet/fold all improvements for value and fold b/c only the best highhands are check/raising us

Thus bet/folding looks very fishy and we do this move on 6th also to influence his future play and to maybe to misaply this semishstyle in even worse scnearios, we want him to see our hand when we improved and we need to get thin value with our over represented hand, because underrepping is a way to be able to get thin value w/o fearing thin value raises/bluff raises much.

To simplify it and not go the easy route by saying we can ALWAYS fold to a raise, lets say we can mix up bet/folding and bet/calling dependign on our improvement and „feeling“ 50/50.

This calculation could be broken down to every improvement and could also be divided into cases, but if we improve with 40%, bet all improvements for value and bet/fold 50% of the time to his 15% boat improvement we would be getting

85% he calls UI
we win 2p>2p
we win flush/straight >2p,trips
we lose 2p<2p
we lose 2p<trips
15% he check/raises
we fold randomly/improv dep. 50%
we call randomly/improv dep. 50%

With some thoughts and combinatorics we will find E(C).

————————————————————————————————————————————— —

Next step would be to fill the gaps in this equation, which sums up the question.

Is P(A)*2,59BB+P(B)*(-4,92)+P(C)*E(C)>2,67BB given?

If you agree that’s what we are looking for and you want to see the proof that its more close than we might thought, I will elaborate.

The Nash/GTO thing would be the next step I’d take when I got formulars depending on his line-mixups and I try to perfectly balance this and think about it more outside the box, not vacuum-wise and based on 100% must-be assumptions.

EDIT: The "%-trees" are supposed to be visualized by indention, apparently boards dont copy them from my text editing.

I'm still unsure on ranges. Before I proceed to 6th and 7th, I need to figure out all the possible ranges, which goes back to 3rd street. It's pretty much dependent on hero's style.

I think in order to come up with the correct range for villain on 6th street, we need to come up with one for hero first. What is it that hero should have by 6th street? We can exclude sets and big two pairs since those would be hero's reraise-heavy range on 5th street. What should hero's flatting range be on 5th street??

I feel hero should only be showing up with

1) flush draws, flush draws + pair of tens (36 combos)
2) 1 pair (88, JJ-AA) (27 combos)

I think it's also fair to take broadway flush draws out of the equation so we can subtract 6 combos of flush draws (KQ,KJ,KT,QJ,QT,JT) from hero's range, giving hero a total of 29 combos of flush draws (51.79%) and 27 combos of a pair (48.21%). I think this range may be wider than it should be, but I'm merely just estimating through monkey math.

total hero combos: 56

During the game, I think it's very important info for hero to know how wide villain perceives hero's whole range to be on 5th street. If hero folds big pairs on 5th, then villain is behind hero's whole range on 6th street once that flush hits. If hero peels all big pairs, then how does villain's range compete against hero's? I know players who fold 1 pair (88+) there on 5th and I know players who peel all 1 pairs (88+). I've also seen players peel as low as 22 there. I guess this is more of an exploitative concept...

I can try and break down villain's possible range and categorize them. Villain either has (this is very wide for simplicity):

1) 2 pair + low draw (108 combos) 18.62%
2) 2 pairs w/o low draw (294 combos) 50.69%
3) set + low draw (18 combos) 3.10%
4) set w/o low draw (19 combos) 3.28%
5) made low + pair (129 combos) 22.24%
6) boat (12 combos) 2.07%

total villain combos: 580

There's probably a few more flush draw possibilities, but I'll just bunch them into the above since I'm just estimating.

Now I'll try to compare ranges on 6th street. I've done even more monkey math here, and most of it is just rounded.

A) When hero has only 1 pair (88+):
Hero (2) vs. Villain (1): 57/43
Hero (2) vs. Villain (2): 56/44
Hero (2) vs. Villain (3): 80/20
Hero (2) vs. Villain (4): 75/25
Hero (2) vs. Villain (5): 61/39
Hero (2) vs. villain (6): 97/3
* Villain's range equity is 60/40, 48% of the time.

B) When hero has a made flush (*c *c for simplicity) :
Hero (1) vs. Villain (1): 26/74
Hero (1) vs. Villain (2): 21/29
Hero (1) vs. Villain (3): 40/60
Hero (1) vs. Villain (4): 21/79
Hero (1) vs. Villain (5): 50.5/49.5
Hero (1) vs. Villain (6): 99.4/0.6
* Villain's range equity is 31/70, 52% of the time.

(A+B)/2 Take the average of those two scenarios and villain's overall range equity on 6th is 45/55.

I don't really know what to make of this, I think the bet villain makes here is suboptimal. And for this reason, I'd like to take the pessimistic view that villain's range is more weighed towards a made low, set+LD, or boat. I could be wrong though and villain is a complete donk, doesn't handread/think about ranges, and just blindly bet 2 pairs into hero's narrow range.

edit: hero actually has 30 combos of flush draws, but I'm not going to edit my whole post just for 1 miscount... In any case, it increases hero's range equity.

^^ok my math is waaay off (especially for 2p w/o low draw. I bunched in waaay too many combos). Clearly I'm really bad with syntaxes and probability so maybe my posts are garbage. There's probably a few more mistakes. I'm not going to attempt any more math right now since I can't do arithmetic.

Villain actually has

1) 132 combos of low draw + 2 pairs (36.87%)
2) 48 combos of 2 pairs w/ no low draw (13.41%)
3) set + low draw (18 combos) (5.03%)
4) set w/o low draw (19 combos) (5.31%)
5) made low + pair (129 combos) (36.03%)
6) boat (12 combos) (3.35%)

total: 358

Villain's range equity against made flush is 37.05%, 53% (30/57) of the time
Villain's range equity against 88+ is 62%, 47% (27/57) of the time
Villain's overall range equity against hero is 48.77%

I know my count for 3-6 is also slightly off since I forgot to include Ts and 9c into the dead cards, but it's not going to change much... If anyone wants to solve this, please go for it.

re-edit: wow i cant get my maff right. my number is still off for #2... It's a little higher since I forgot to include 9s up and Ts up...

I'll read your post 2m bansky. I'm too braindead to read or process any arithmetic right now.

yeah well, okay. but.. dont you agree the range entered in my simulation is very accurate?

All hands that could be in Villians range are covered in the ProPokerTools simulation I did.

I agree with the ranges given. What I don't agree with is the villain's range stays just as wide once villain bets 6th street. If he checks 6th street, then I'll put him on something else. If he bets, I'd put him only on the top of his range (hero peels 2 consecutive bricks if that means anything to villain...).

I don't seem to be able to comprehend this. Maybe I'm dead wrong and have a huge leak since everyone seems to be so confident that villain is going to cbet a bunch of 2 pairs.