2/2 1k cap at Encore Boston. Please indulge the play along...

one limp to my button and I raise to 20 with AAK4.

Abe in the SB raises to 70. He's only just sat down in past hand or two has 1k effective in black and another 1k black racked on the rail. Mid-to-late 20s white guy business casual dress seems like he's headed to a bigger game.

Folds back to me and I 4bet to 220. Abe calls. Pot is 440 after rake.

FLOP: T95

Abe checks and I? Is this board too middling and connected to bet now? If betting what size? Thanks.

Hero started hand with 1k? If so think pot/call is probably best.

As Hero becomes deeper will check a lot more and possibly bet/fold something like half pot.

Yes 1k effective.

Is Abe some generic inside joke name or a known player?

It's player A, first to act postflop. If there were more people in the hand, Bob, Chuck, Dave. Hero is always Hero.

I think it's easier to keep track but whatever.

Can you explain how Abe's race plays into your decision-making, or how you imagine we would use that to modify our advice?

I don't think I can beyond acknowledging that we are all have perception biases. Race, gender, grooming, game, stakes, geography and money flashed are all things I perceived in this hand. If any of these are unhelpful to the reader, I'm willing to hear why and consider how I might better attempt to manage my own biases in light of the feedback.

I used to have racial play stereotypes, a bad habit that I picked up from the NL forums early on in my poker career, but I soon realized that what was more important was play style than anything else. Paying attention to showdowns and the like. There are tight/loose players of all races.

I'm not accusing you of bias, though, of course, you are human, and therefore you have some. I'm suggesting that this information is irrelevant to your decision, is at best a distraction, and at worst is racial profiling. If the stakes were saving democracy, and there was a chance it could help, meh, whatever, but it's just poker, and while some cultural information can be useful before you've seen their cards once, or the way they handle their chips and cards, etc, racial =/= cultural.

Im going to choose an exploitative line and bet/fold the flop. 150 is my sizing.

My reasoning is at this SPR Abe will have some pot donks with hands that want fold equity e.g. pair plus gutter, wrap, etc.

So when he checks i predict he checks a polar range

I think that age, attire and race are relevant. Allows us to distinguish between a kid in a hoodie, an asian lag, old man charlie, etc

Age, attire, how they hold themselves, certainly all relevant.

I think race is relevant but his big chips behind is far more important. At this spr I just pot call it off and reload. I think someone playing a game too small for them might show up here with double suited trash that gives us some fold equity. Could also be splashing around with KK or AKQ. Maybe I’m being optimistic.

Yeah, I mean, everyone knows, black people bluff a lot more than white people, right? It's just basic biology, everyone knows that!

Why is age/attire relevant but not their race? I don't know why you nitpicked white guy anyways - who cares that he said the guy was white. Either way race is just as important as attire/age/demeanor/etc - these are all traits that we make judgements against based on previous experiences. Either they are all relevant or they aren't - can't nitpick.

I'm not always sure what people's assumptions are when they add demographic/etc details. Maybe I haven't played enough live, but I'd wager that these categories are fuzzy at best.

I think a good strat discussion might be one where I also specify (explicit > implicit) where I'm leaning in my assumptions based on whatever details exist. Exposing more of what you were thinking helps people point out any mistakes in the pipeline.

Culture could be relevant. Race can be part of a package that indicates a culture. But on its own, race cannot be an indicator for any tendency. Unless you believe that a tendency to be aggressive, or deceitful, or weak, or tough, etc, is genetic i.e. connected to race somehow. The reason I nitpicked on race is that it's the only bit of the description as provided that is irrelevant. 'Mid-to-late 20s' I mean more info than is useful but still valuable. Business casual dress might play into my thought process. Seems like he's headed to the bigger game - another indicator of possibly being good and/or aggro.

Thanks for the discussion so far. I should have explicitly said Abe was a complete unknown to me. Don't recall seeing him in any game before so what I had was what I gave. I'll consider the feedback when posting hands in the future.

In any event, I reasoned that the flop hit many rundowns and stacks were awkwardly sized for gii immediately so that checking might be a better option. Overpairs are in there but I don't think Abe will give me much action with naked KK. I don't have great instincts in this spot because I haven't cranked through enough of the math of each action so here we are. All thoughts welcome.

One limp to my button and I raise to 20 with AAK4. Abe in the SB raises to 70. Folds back to me and I 4bet to 220. Abe calls. Pot is 440 after rake.

FLOP: T95

Abe checks and I check. Pot is 440 with 780 eff.

TURN: T95 9

Abe checks in tempo and I? Improvement is good so probably betting but how much? Thanks.

Just wanna say stereotyping has won me a lot of money over the years.

Occasionally the stereotype turns out to be wrong but then its just a quick adjustment

Bet 150 repping what we have. He can call with dominated hands and we can use protection. If you think he’s gonna cr too often we can check back.

Yeah I think stereotyping is an important tool in live poker when you haven't seen anyone play a hand yet, and even after a few showdowns it can still be useful information. I too have made thin calls based on little more than someone appearing well-dressed and talkative, and thin folds based on someone's age.

But the idea that stereotyping based purely on race could be useful is akin to making somewhat outdated claims about biological differences in race that manifest in behavioural differences.

There's more than enough information to go on. Unless perhaps you want to get the calipers out.

There is nothing in this hand ‘stereotyping based purely on race’. It was one factor of many.

Now the OP (or others) may omit certain information in the future

Anyways back to the hand. I would have bet flop small but as played, i am either betting small now (like 1/3 pot) or even checking again. I lean toward checking exploitative because u cover most rivers and i dont think much calls compared to what can bluff river

Oh, a semantic argument designed to have me trawl through my words and make them more accurate to suit you.

Take out 'purely' and it makes no functional difference to my argument. All the other bits of stereotype could be useful. Stereotype based on race is not.

When you check back the flop and bet the turn you can have a 9. And even when you have the hand you have, i.e. the obvious one, people sometimes get stubborn and call down vs a checkraise. So you can generally expect your opponents to play honestly facing a turn bet. The only rivers you fear are the two outers, though he may fold some of his paired hands preflop, and catching up to a straight, but having diamonds take those away is nice. Without a dynamic a bet is probably best, but a check is probably fine too. Probably bet 200 and only calling a jam if I pick up on a specific reason to think he's nervous.

It is

You seem to be concerned judging someone at the poker table by their race yet have no problem judging someone by their age or how they are dressed. There's no difference - you're making biased judgements based on past experiences. Whether they hold true today is one thing, but not sure why you're so concerned with mentioning race.