Old school player, trying to work on thinking more in terms of ranges.

Hand example. $500 effective

Fit or fold fish opens to $10
Loose reg calls $10
I 3bet to $40 otb w Ad9d, w plan being to iso the fish


Fish folds
Loose reg calls

9c7s2h ($90)

Reg checks
I cbet $30
Reg calls.

Turn Kd

Reg checks
Hero ???

So my understanding from a theory perspective, the K favors my range. So is this a bet most of the time?

Or, since we flopped a 9 are we just trying to get to a cheap showdown?

seems like the sort of spot where we have a fair bit of showdown value, there are no obvious draws outside of T8 or 86, idk. there are a lot of things a "loose reg", whatever one of those is, could have that we could value bet (although that term is seemingly not in your vocabulary given the flop bet sizing). Would probably go $30 again to block and get to showdown moderately cheaply, as it's the same sizing as your weak flop bet it doesn't look overly weird

1) I would probably bet bigger OTF with a loose Reg involved since they are going to call 'any' size bet if they are going to continue. You will know exactly where you stand with the FFF no matter what you bet, so I'm targeting the Player I'm going to get more value from .. and charge them a little extra to hit an over-card.

2) AP .. I assume you are a Reg also, with history with LR? If so, then we have to take a look at how often you've been caught c-betting with air against this guy (if he's even someone who considers such things). Based on those thoughts I would move forward with a decently sized 'value' bet, maybe $90-110 (pot is 150).

Due to your flop bet looking so weak IMO (like AK/KQ - NOT an over-pair) I'm going to bet strong here and tell the story that I hit the King against a Player that 'should' be able to see this. We have the strongest 9x hand and want to max value against any other 9x holding that he will most certainly continue with here on the Turn.

I assume this is live, not online? I tend to believe that online betting is more conservative than live betting .. and it should be. But in a live setting I'm going to story tell this King after a weak c-bet and see what the River brings us or take it down. A weak Turn bet is going to get called 100% of the time and all that does is allow a Player with a wide range to draw to 'everything' too cheaply.

Take advantage of Players willing to put in chips 'all the time' by betting larger and getting more value from them. Sure you going to lose some pots.

There are two stories to tell here ... 1) Bet Flop larger to 'protect' your over-pair. You can then 'safely' bet small or check Turn when an over-card comes out and try to get to Showdown. Or 2) Bet Flop small (like you missed) and then attack the King 'for value'.

I'm just not offering a loose Player 6 to 1 here when they should respect us betting the King, but yet still have them dominated by having the strongest 9x hand at Showdown.

This really isn't a 3-street value holding, so I'm getting my River value in on the Turn by betting larger and then I can safely evaluate what to do if I get called. A loose Reg is going to c/c the River if they only have a Kx, so you should only hear from them if they have you beat with two pair. If you bet the Turn weak, they are going to blast you on the River and it puts you in a tougher spot IMO.

I guess that opens up a third option of betting weaker on the Turn .. but, IMO, you have to be more willing to call River bets if you do so and that may cost you more chips than by betting larger on the Turn. Yes, you do get to Showdown more often that way but I think you lose more often as well. GL

I cbet bigger like 50-60% as my hand needs protection against overcards
Turn is a barrel as it hity our range much stronger

So, you think you are behind on the turn?

people, plz don't give advice if you don't know what you're talking about

flop sizing is good, betting bigger would be pretty bad here

turn could be a valuebet in a loose environment, but check is probably standard (and easier), with the intention to at least call every single river. Im assuming this is 1/2 live, in which case this line prints, since at live low stakes people overfold cards they perceive as "scary", but love to turn completely random hands into a bluff

lol @ the idea of turning flopped tptk into a bluff

3bet pot on a somehow wet board and I have a TPTK.
Why shouldnt we bet bigger?

this is pretty much the driest unpaired board imaginable, 3bettor has a massive range advantage here (assuming reasonable caller's ranges)

e: ok, maybe not the driest, due to overcards vulnerability you mentioned for many hands - still, it should qualify for your smallest cbet sizing

Few people know what they're talking about. Poker is a hard game.

Lots of hands in our range benefit from protection, including this one. Betting larger is definitely not "very bad." Small sizes are common and good especially in 3+ bet pots where SPR is small, but it's not as simple as "we have range advantage so we bet small." There are a lot of turns where it's difficult to continue betting for value when you use a small sizing because overcards float more often. This hand is actually a clearer turn bet IMO if we had bet flop larger.

We never really get put in a tough spot by betting again. If we get raised we have a pretty easy fold, and if they call we almost always see a showdown and probably mostly have the best hand. Checking with the idea of calling most rivers isn't bad but your river calls are going to be very low EV since worse hands aren't likely value betting.

9 and 7 are two of the worst cards for the 3bettor - so IMO this is not a dry board.
We go small on K82, A94, 552 and similar boards.
For me this board and having the specific hand is either a check or a bigger bet as 1/3. We want to protect against overcards and we also dont like 8's-5's on the turn. So a lot of bad cards for us on the turn....

ok, so, if you're not using your smallest betsizing on this flop, on what flop would you use it? (we are operating under the assumption of 1 betsizing/board, since this is beginner's forum and Im not THAT good at poker )

edit: @up: lol, we posted at the same time. This of course depends on villian's range, but I would assume that call/call range from someone at least a bit reg-ish would have a lot of hands like suited aces and suited broadways, plus some small pairs. Vs such range, 972r works similiarly to high-card dry boards you mentioned, with only difference being protection from high cards - but I'd argue this is not enough to increase the sizing

plus, there is plenty of people who just use 1/3 sizing with full range, it's a bit oldschool, but can be a part of a reasonable strategy

sorry if that came off a little harsh, I meant one specific person who seems to be spouting complete nonsense in every BQ thread

Since the thread title has the word “theory” in it and we don’t have much information about villain that would suggest a specific exploitive approach, there’s one pretty obvious correct answer to flop sizing. The one Tutejszy gave.

I think preflop needs some discussion. Without wanting to argue if 3betting is good or bad, the reasoning behind it sounds off. Our odds of isolating the first player are marginal at best. Once he calls, we have a loose reg getting 3.2:1 on a call. That means if fish calls, reg will almost always call unless you have a super nitty image.

I would think that checking and betting aren’t that far off from each other on the turn. If that’s the case I go for the check because it makes the hand easier to play.

Not obvious to me.

If you're single sizing then maybe 1/3rd is better because it's easier to bet more hands, not sure. I don't really like these simplifying strategies though. More complex strategies are more complex for your opponents too. I'm not worried about being exploited for poorly balancing multiple sizes.

As for what types of flops we should use 1/3rd on I agree with what Kendoo said, although I typically would bet 1/5 or 1/4 on those textures. I also think the point that there are more bad cards than just overs is important. A turn 8/6 are among worst cards for our range and not great for our hand either.

I don't get the point of the question. We have a loose opponent and TPTK. We are taking him to valuetown. If you want to play don't lose poker, be my guest.

While I agree with the 'in theory' portion here .. and the resulting conclusion, we do know all we need to know about the V. That being Loose Reg. And in my book Loose Reg = 'Extra' Value Opportunity.

I think there's been some good balance in this thread so far on both sides.

But I'm going to define 'theory' as Playing Cards, not Poker.

Wouldn't it be great if we all gave the same answers in every thread? Zero debate, Zero variance? However Live 'Poker' rarely has red light-green light decisions. While I will defer to the online approach when online, I'm never going to ignore the variables presented to me at a real table.

In this spot a NIT/OMC/FF will fold whether we bet 5 or 100, so we have an opportunity to extract 'extra' value should our other opponent choose to continue.

If we 'always' bet 1/3 on this Board, then we are just ignoring THE FACT that certain Player types play different ranges and THE FACT that they value those ranges differently. Player types, not just 'a' Player sitting in 'a' position relative to ours PF.

POKER is about story telling and scripting the best story for our desired result. Sometimes the characters don't follow the story, sometimes they try to rewrite it for their own ending.

CARDS is about playing the same way every time not matter the audience.

IMO they both can be effective, it's up to the individual Player to decide what they are most comfortable with. If you have trouble labeling opponents, then you are forced to play cards, a sound and reasonable strategy. If you have studied and respect theories, but also understand that all data sets have outliers and you feel comfortable spotting potential outliers .. you just may be able to take advantage of them. GL

a very fishy line

We have theory in the thread title and we have some information to apply theory. My initial take on problems like this is to try to do an EV analysis. I can then adjust to account for factors not explicitly considered, such as stack size, position, etc. I am going to focus on the main question: What should hero do on the turn and not discuss details about the preflop and flop actions?

The one critical unknown, as in most all cases, is villain’s exact holding. But we are told he is loose. Let’s assume he has a hand in the top 50% ranking. I think this is reasonable based on villain’s actions so far.

Now for the math part. Plugging in the hero’s hand, villain’s range and dealt board, hero has 68% equity according to Equilab; clearly a good position. The pot is $150. What bet size yields a result to give hero a desired profit?

I know if hero turn bets and villain folds, he wins the pot of $150.

How much should he bet with 68% equity to provide that profit if villain calls?

The math here is pretty simple. Let B = hero’s bet.

EV =0.68*(150 +2B)-B = 150

B = (150-0.68*150)/(2*0.68-1) = 133

Bet $133 or about 89% of the pot and the expected profit is $150 if villain calls.

Equating EV to the pot makes villain indifferent to folding or calling, a GTO-like characteristic. Of course, you can also explore check EV, which will involve predicting the river action. The above will at least give you a first cut look at the math aspects of this situation.

I should add that in no way am I suggesting that this can be done while playing.

This approach leads to using larger sizes with less equity, which obviously very wrong. The biggest problem is that villain continues less often vs. larger sizes.