Simplifying decisions can make the game easier, but it's not always profitable. Taking a line where your opponent folds all worse hands and calls better ones, for example.

Are you familiar with the concepts of a linear range vs. a polarized range?

I mean, there's some value in folding out a hand with 20% equity against us, but when a raise gets folds from those hands and calls from hands that are 80% or better against us, raising is unlikely to be the right play.

With the pot odds and the possible 10 outs we have (if the 8 is also good), villain doesn't need to be bluffing all that often on the turn for this to be profitable. 2.2:1 means we need only 31.25% equity to break even. between the possible flush draw bluffs and our equity to improve, it's highly reasonable

(There's also the chances that if villain is bluffing with a flush draw, they might shove not only some bricks but also cards like 5, 10, 8. I also think a lot of the one-pair hands that beat us will check most rivers, so we may have to decide at that point on a river runout. But like GreatWhiteFish said, rivers are where the money is made.)

maybe, but we shouldn't go looking for rvr spots, esp here, to make money. this spot is nasty. also, we shouldn't discount small pots and NSD winnings. these are KEY in tournaments.

idk bro i think there's more to it than just folding out worse and getting called by better.
when you phrase it this way, it sounds bad. i feel that's too small a lens to look at this situation, specifically a tournament sit.

it's not just 20% equity hands are folding and 80% eqity hands are continuing. That's just a portion of the betting range. it's not just 2:1 and and 33% required. we also have to take into account whatever % of our unreplenishable, healthy stack at this stage of tourny.

simplifying is not always the goal, but here, the alternative, only bluffcatching to make money, does not seem correct in theory or practice.

there's more to the XR play than just winning outright. if that doesn't pan out we've gained info about villains holdings that you don't get with passive action like check call, xc. how can check call be the right play, when it costs the same or more, gains less info and does less to win the hand? XC gives all power to villain. we have to hope for a check back or to hit. XC does nothing to win the hand immediately, nothing to stop villain from reaching SD or realizing equity, and does not gain us any info.

there's a chunk of range being dismissed or not regarded at all, middle equity hands like draws and pair+draws, that we would be incentivized to deny equity to. the hands we beat now can not only outdraw us, but can bet us out of the pot and make rvrs tough to play. A XR may end the pot now, help us not get outdrawn, and not face tough decisions later. if called, we slow down, save chips, re-evaluate and most likely fold. after a flop xr, even if called, villain has to think twice about betting turn with some hands.

i understand we're less than strong value and that can put us in bluffcatcher mode. but this can cause problems. oop, calling down, not knowing where you are, is hands down one of the most losing propositions in poker.

again ty for engaging with me,

Few points:

1) It's nice to see this thread blow up because I was half expecting the usual "you're a nit, never fold here". Good to see I'm better calibrated now in determining tough vs. easy spots.

2) While a studied player, I do not think this guy was opening anywhere close to a solver range. Everyone is talking about his flop bet as the inflection point but if we give him closer to 20% pre, that leaves fewer bluff combos.

3) GWF, I love the money printing theory, but my plan against someone aggressive would obviously have been to xcall down. However, I got second thoughts after seeing the PSB as he was more of a stab-and-give-up type of aggro. I already caught him bluffing earlier in a smaller pot. But I did not see him triple in 4-5 hours of play. Of course it's possible that he did, or would have started here, but again, I think he's way more weighted toward big hands here than semibluffs.

I think all this points toward a spot that's still +cEV, but more marginal. There were still a lot of fish at the table, and the case for folding is that it avoids potentially going broke against another good player. That was my rationale, anyway - I could have gotten owned for sure.

Just to focus on this... if you check-raise the flop, you're not really denying middle-equity hands like pair + flush draw; they'll still continue. So your planning of probably check/folding afterward just gets you to fold to them anyway after putting even more of your chips in the pot.

And aside, on the flop, there aren't going to be many pair + flush draw hands. We have the 8c and the Ac and 6c are on the board, so what hands does villain have on the flop that are Xc7c? So you're talking about hands that don't even make sense to show up here. I need to repeat my earlier question to you here:

Which is relevant to the turn, since as the hand was played, villain is likely not betting those middle-equity hands twice, certainly at that size-- the two-barrel range is going to be polar, with the strongest value hands and the bluffs. So check-raising the turn would fold out the bluffs and keep in the value hands that beat us.

i know what polar and linear ranges are but i'm not sure i understand the question. are you asking me about concepts related to how they interact with each other or how they can change as a hand progresses? either way beyond definitions i probably wouldn't have much to say. I know when someone is polarized, etc, is this what you're getting at?

also i do not advocate xring turn but that would be interesting lol. my xr argument was strictly flop.

yes the sizing is polar but i feel directly correlating polar sizing to hand strength is not only a weak strategy but often a trap. (aside from this i do think we're still done ott and need to fold) as a bettor with the initiative i think its almost standard to pick up equity ott or just continue with flop semibluff and fire another cbet with sizing consistent with thick value.

I think I'd prefer the raise IP to take control and probably check back turn. OOP, I'm sure it's fine from a theory standpoint but doesn't seem very playable against a thinking player capable of applying pressure.

I'm asking about this concept because you're discussing check-raising the flop with a medium-strength hand. And the problem is that it's not really strong enough to comfortably stack off, but nor can we fold out draws with good equity by doing so. Which is why we don't take these lines with medium-strength hands, because generally we fold out all the hands worse than ours and get called by the hands better than ours. And in this particular situation, if we get called, we're probably behind all the value hands that continue, but the draws will continue as well. If we give up, then we're just setting ourselves up to get bluffed by the draws on the turn or river.

The reason we check-raise or bet big with a polar range is because the more money we're putting in the pot, the stronger a value hand we need to have to continue to be profitable, and then we try to balance that with bluffs that have some kind of out to win the pot or have good blockers.

I think if your opponent knows anything about what they're doing, then you have to give them credit for understanding how sizing works and accordingly assess what hands they're betting big with. And in my experience at lower-stakes live tournaments, even the bad players don't make big bets with marginal made hands.

So to come to the main point: I don't think check-raising the flop keeps the draws from continuing, and it puts us in a crap situation when he calls where we're only up against value hands that beat us or draws we beat now, but we don't know which it is and we could be tested for our entire stack to decide. Whereas, now, we get to that same situation without having to put everything on the line, and where we can bluff-catch the turn with outs to improve and without having to risk our entire stack.

well said. i agree xr doesn't keep the draws out.