Getting him to fold the turn after giving you another 600 chips is better than getting him to fold the flop by making a massive overshove, right?

It basically comes down to this:

A = % time he's flatting/spaz-shoving a flop four-bet with worse
B = % time he's calling a flop shove with worse

If A>B, 4b/calling is the better play. And maybe A = B, but I can't see A < B ever.

Because you don't want to put in ~33% of your stack OTF and give up/be bluffed on a bad turn. + if he flats your 4b and is looking to improve he can perhaps fold the turn with only 1 card to come, so you lose value from his draws and Ax hands that he seems prepared to snap off with here.

It's still fairly early and this is an unraised pot. I like the fold here. I don't expect a lot of fold value from shoving here and Im not that far ahead of any big draws the villain is raising with. If you are going to continue with the hand and feel that you are good I like the call better and getting them in on a blank turn.

Honestly once there is a 3bet on the flop you are probably playing for stacks, I doubt he is ever folding and he's probably not going to call a large 4bet with the plan of folding on the turn. It sounds like you are trying to get him to call the flop and then fold the turn, which is kind of a backwards plan since you simply want him to get his money in when behind. If he is going to spaz-shove worse, he is going to call your shove with worse. I'm basically saying that A=B so it doesn't matter that much either way...I just think he is never going to call a large flop bet and then fold turn.

I dunno about that. Here's our equity against the following ranges:

{xx} -- 67.7 percent
{xx, QJo, QTo, JTo, T9o} -- 75.6 percent
{QJ, QT, J9, T9} -- 61.5 percent

What big draws are you thinking of?

shove it and love it

this sums it up nicely.

I misread the flop, was thinking the straight/flush draws were stronger than they are. However, I still prefer the fold here and waiting for a better opportunity.

I somehow missed JT when calculating our equity against the range of combo draws -- including that makes it 62.7 percent.

I'm probably re-minraising

yay...screw Sklansky's law...give them correct drawing odds and insure we make the larger of the potential mistakes

I'd raise to 1400 to give him one last chance to spazz

What do we gain by shoving? Either we're either slightly ahead or way behind. Wait for safe turn at least. I call this for sure.

In the world of poker science some of Sklansky's theories have graduated into laws like the law of gravity.

If I'm him I have a flush draw or a monster. If I have a monster thanks for doing that now I ship over the top so same as a shove. If I have a flush draw thanks now I can call and hope the turn goes check check which is unlikely but still thanks.

Really?

Shoving>Raising Smaller>Calling>Folding

Something else to consider: a quick three-bet minraise like this is gonna be either (1) a misclick or (2) a cheap bluff attempt some non-zero % of the time. In which case four-betting smallish (or flatting) could potentially induce further barrels, and a shove won't.

I guess I'm still stuck on how many more chips we're putting into the pot with a shove, given stacks.

I can't imagine folding here without a good read. You've got two pairs and blockers make having a set far less likely than spazzing out with something you're ahead of. Folders, wtf happened to never throwing away your hand whenever villain reps a narrow range?

4-betting all-in SHOULD also be strictly better than 4-betting small, but I doubt that it is. I pop it to 900.

wait so we want to give them odds to call if they are drawing?

what are you saying here...not sure I understand

Not positive but I think you got leveled.

I was just kidding only never heard it called a law before. I genuinely do like calling>>>>shoving>>>>raising>>>>minraising tho

Honestly never folding here... I think he shows up with AJ/AT or a combo draw a lot of the time . The only hand I would be worried about is A8. I raise to 900/ call a shove. If he flats then just value bet to the river

The fundamental theorem of poker is a principle first articulated by David Sklansky that he believes expresses the essential nature of poker as a game of decision-making in the face of incomplete information.
“ Every time you play a hand differently from the way you would have played it if you could see all your opponents' cards, they gain; and every time you play your hand the same way you would have played it if you could see all their cards, they lose. Conversely, every time opponents play their hands differently from the way they would have if they could see all your cards, you gain; and every time they play their hands the same way they would have played if they could see all your cards, you lose. ”

The fundamental theorem is stated in common language, but its formulation is based on mathematical reasoning. Each decision that is made in poker can be analyzed in terms of the expected value of the payoff of a decision. The correct decision to make in a given situation is the decision that has the largest expected value. If you could see all your opponents' cards, you would always be able to calculate the correct decision with mathematical certainty. (This is certainly true heads-up, but is not always true in multi-way pots.) The less you deviate from these correct decisions, the better your expected long-term results. This is the mathematical expression of the Fundamental Theorem.