This is what I would call exploitative.

A randomized 33% rock, paper, scissors strategy is optimal.

I think maybe you just have it backwards?

Meh. I think it's confusion between the colloquial "optimal" and "(game theory) optimal".

Every player should strive to play optimally, meaning using all available information. The latter is mostly inapplicable in practice. I wanted to point out, to those who don't know, that bots can be used to develop optimized exploitive lines.

Re river. oTR: do you think villain vbetting a 9 is expert or bad?

I think it’s clearly good vs most posting in this thread.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

More thoughts :

My rock paper example was bad. My thinking is that GTO processes can be applied at various nodes. We can apply GTO starting pre flop and assign PF ranges. We can also apply GTO to the river and assign river ranges. To me, that's optimal and "GTO optimal" to this node/minigame. Semantics.


Ranges always matter. Period.


I strongly disagree that "because we want to bluff a lot we have to value bet this hand". That's dangerously flawed. Decide on how many value hands you have first before deciding how many hands you can bluff. That might mean zero bluffs and zero raises. Others have added on this too.

Ffs what are you quoting? I never said that.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

If you're talking about OTR, he never said, "because we want to bluff a lot we have to value bet this hand". And he certainly didn't say anything remotely close to "dangerously flawed". On the contrary, he nailed this river situation against the expert in his first post and concluded his range wasn't as polarized as many of us assumed.

Right. up2ng, SetofJacks, PaulValente, and others have some excellent posts ITT. After a thorough reading I don't find any of them to be in conflict with what OTR stated and there's a good reason for that. You should re-read this thread a couple of times. I'm struggling to learn the nuances of GTO play myself and it helped me.

I Reread thread.

"Ffs" Otrs first 4 posts focus on wanting to have bluffs, so we HAVE to raise this hand. Seemingly to balance bluffs -- Up2g also interpreted it that way. otr's 5th post is really good and clarifies his position. " Ffs" just quote your 5th post next time.

If his 5th post is really good and clarifies his position, why are you still misrepresenting that position in post #38 and continuing to argue thru post #47?

Also:

You are wrong. Learn what a conditional statement means. Mason would for sure ban you for this thread. (Free jonlocke).

jonlocke isn't banned anymore, he just posted a few days ago.

Yeah, but he vowed no more content posts, which is a huge loss.

He said that before he was banned. The banning has nothing to do with it, and he can free himself anytime he wants to.

I post all content on my phone (hence the typos). And was logged on my dead money account. It’s banned and I can’t even log out of it or access 2+2 on my phone so I wouldn’t even be free to post content if I wanted to...

Regardless, I won’t post any content because I would hate for my free advise to offend someone and get me banned. Sadly I need to keep my account so I’m free to buy and sell tourney action. Given the choices to change the tone in which I post advise or to not post advise at all I’ve chosen the latter.

And I only created a new account because i can only access my normal one one devise.

This is an interesting spot. Good luck

Seems very unusual that you couldn't log out of one account and sign into another from your phone, but you can start a totally new account from it. But whatever, you can post or not, whatever you like, at your determination tion. Just wanted to clarify that you are not banned as was mistakenly implied here, didn't mean to derail thread into old stuff.

This is overstated imo. Phunkphish clearly has given zero ****s about what any of us think and thus cannot be embarrassed. I admire that about him.

OTR wins this thread as per usual.

I like tackling the 'established pros' on this forum. Best way to learn. Don't mind the criticisms.

As always, thanks OTR for your amazing posts.

First instinct when I saw OP's description of villain earlier in week was to call river if expert LAGTAG delays often OOP.

Then I read thread again after thinking of when I used to play 3 handed more often and not raising this river is almost criminal based on how I play unless history/meta dictates it.

Tldr on some posts but Id raise river. Our river raise range on river becomes way too polarized if we don't with AT here in my opinion. Even vs expert LAGTAG, would rather not create that image of myself during the session unless intention was to create a disguised polarized range.

Ok I can't stand it any more I have to jump back into this thread!

I've seen a few comments like this and I really don't see what you guys are getting at here. To me, this doesn't matter in this spot AT ALL.

AT is either a raise for value on the river here or it's not. We determine that based on how AT is doing against our opponent's continuing range.

In my opinion it doesn't matter if our river raising range is polarized -- it only matters that it's balanced. In fact, it's usually correct to be polarized.

Yeah but what do the bots do?

Call. Hope he tables A7/A8/chop instead of A6 / A9 / A4/Ajqk which he would 3 bet prob on flop so....CALLLLL..what happened? you scoop it baby?

Ahhh,now i see. Villian 9-5.if you raise and he will fold,you never see that hand,imo, humbly, i say , Call and see him Tableing that cheese is worth more than him not seeing A-10s. I want to see his hand there.

GTO aside, even the most expertise live players are not thinking on an extremely high level on every single hand (That's not to say I don't thoroughly enjoy reading and discussing the deeper, theoretical levels too ). If BB is a semi-expert then I think there are few ways this hand can typically go down once flop goes check/check. This represents more of what I personally find in practice and what I think is the most likely outcome for the hand.

1) Preflop: Most players I encounter do not have a wide 3! range from BB v BTNo (a different discussion) and I think it can often be safe to assume that many BBs may never even have a 3! range in this spot.

2) Flop: On a 964 board, if I were Villain in BB, I would assume that Hero's check back frequency is not optimal. He is most likely overweight in Ace His, underweight in pairs, and underweight in 8 Hi-Khi as well.

3) Turn: As the BTN, I would assume that when BB checks he is repping no pairs as he should expect me to check back again since the 3 rarely hits our semi-unbalanced range. If BB is well-balanced in his turn xR frequency then I would check AT; however, I personally would try to exploit BBs turn check and bet the turn for value/prevent free river cards.

4) River: If I'm the BB here, I am almost never betting this river with any hand. If I have two pair or better I would usually go for a xR as most people would likely just call with a large majority of their Aces here as well as pay off to the xR but not a potential third bet. The A is a card the BTN will almost never fold and we should not be bluffing our Qhis or worse imo. Given that BB should rarely be bluffing on this river, when he does bet I think the best two options for hero are 1) to call and 2) raise and fold to a 3!. Personally, if we really narrow down ranges and put BB on Ax then we only beat A2,A5,A7,A8 (Also I think BB may bet A5 on turn). We lose to A4,A6,AJ,AQ,AK but I also think that BB may bet some AJ-AK for value on turn.

With all that said if Villain is capable of folding any Ace then I believe it is a call. If Villain is capable of 3! bluffing (which seems rare if it would even ever happen) then it is a call as well. If Villain isn't playing his A game, is SDB, and I could live with myself for folding to his three bet, I would raise. All in all, I lean toward calling.

I bet the flop