BTW, LOL that you think I think he folds.

This thread has followed the classic BBV pattern so far. OP posts a beat, his play gets criticized, and OP proceeds to defend himself with long strategy posts. This is fine, but if you're genuinely interested in discussing the hand and getting better, I suggest you post the hand here (without results, of course).

FWIW, I think raising flop is a mistake.

Knowing what we now know about OP, if you read his original post again, you will see the villian is actually a genius and doesnt tap the tank against OP the fish.

Brilliant

''I have a really good hand, but we are deepstacked and it is reasonable to think he can have a better hand. ''
these oldschool live-player thought processes are hilarious to me.

everything about this is kind of amazing. It's like a wormhole has opened into the 90s or something - it's just so... oldschool, i guess. Do a lot of players think like this?

Looking at the hand it seems like you let your hopes overcome your brain. Versus a straight ABC player your hand does poorly vs his 3-bet range and your call is based on a I think he is doing something stupid not playing ABC. Your raise on the flop however is based on believing he is playing ABC in that you feel certain you can decide what you should do based on his response; no worries about overplays or bluffs here. On the big raise yes you are +ev to call IF the game ends now but how much -ev is there in going down to a starting stack vs a weak table. The fundamental mistake is you forgot wolves eat sheep not other wolves, if you believe he plays 97% correct a raise against your UTG raise should be a huge red flag.

When you read OP's posts you think this was a thread bumped from 2008, but then you see it was posted in 2024 and your head explodes. OP I would think deeper on why you or anyone else does things at the poker table - you're probably a small 2/5 winner but if you want to move to higher stakes/make more money you need to improve your thought process.

Interesting that you think old school thought processes do not apply here. Fundamentals of poker are the same as they were 20 years ago. Pot odds, implied odds, and player tendencies still matter.

It should also be noted that no one at this table is playing anything closely resembling GTO so anyone doing so themselves is costing themselves money.

Poker theory is still the same.

Where is the thinking wrong?

Once this player re-raises preflop I 100% know I am behind and possibly/probably dominated. I would have no real argument with anyone who folds preflop. My call is based on the simple fact that we are both ridiculously deepstacked and he is flaking.

I was literally hoping to hit a miracle and stack him or use position and possibly outplay him, but I was not planning on investing a whole lot of money on this hand postflop unless that miracle came.

I hit the best/worst flop possible. Top 2. Even given that, I was fully prepared to fold and not put another dime into the pot until he showed that it was EV to call. I was fully prepared to fold to a postflop reraise even knowing nut flush draws were are large part of his range.

Basically my call preflop was with the attitude of hitting a lottery ticket or getting out. I did sort of hit, and would have gotten off extremely cheap except he stupidly showed.

As for the -EV of calling and dropping to a starting stack against other players, it should be noted that the EV you are giving up after he shows is a huge chunk of a starting stack. It would be the equivalent to an unheard of hourly rate. Once he shows, anyone would have to call. It is basic math. The only way to fold is if you are Phil Ivey playing against a table of 10 year old millionaires. Folding gives up far too much EV for secondary reasons to matter.

I am not going back and looking at the numbers but it is at least +$200 to call. How do you turn that down?

TDLR, played a speculative hand preflop, got an unfortunate flop, played it well (cheaply) until opponent stupidly shows his hand thinking it would help you fold despite it being at the very bottom of his range, so profitably flipped for stacks and lost.

That is literally the definition of poker variance.

Where was the thinking process wrong?

I read his hand perfectly but was willing to fold cheaply (knowing that relying on my read of him being at the bottom of his range is tough to play for this much money) until he literally showed he was on the bottom of his range.

What part of my process was wrong? Educate me. What is to improve on?

The more I think about this hand the more I am fascinated.

When I originally posted it I didn't think much about it as a strategy thread. It was more of a "look at this fool showing his hand forcing me to flip for stacks" type of thread.

But the strategy of playing the hand has dominated the thread.

There are those who think a preflop fold when three bet is smart. I don't disagree with this take. I think it gives up a lot of speculative EV, but I understand it. Speculative EV is a very grey area that is totally based on reads which do not translate well to a written forum.

Then there seem to be many whose only criticism is that it is old school thinking, yet cannot say what is wrong with the thinking.

They don't have a problem playing KQ preflop for a 3 bet, but have a problem with my postflop thought process that would result in losing less money. They cannot say why it is wrong other than it is "old school".

While I greatly respect "new school " thinking. I really do. However, I think that the fundamental aspect of poker (playing your opponent and putting him on a weighted range) is lost.

Don't get me wrong, I have taken much of the criticism to heart. I have really thought a lot about this hand from a strategy aspect after the feedback. I have tried to think how i could have played it better. Given the vague, crappy level of the feedback, it is really hard to see where any mistake was made.

The best answer I have seen is folding preflop, which is vastly different than most are suggesting. Basically I think Mason's implied suggestion of folding preflop is better than anything else here.

Please show me where I am wrong?

It is strange, I can think of a couple of situations where I think the way I played it was wrong, but I don't think thise situations have been mentioned.

I also wonder if people do not realize that modern theory (basically GTO) is based off of the fundamentals of poker theory. Understanding GTO without understanding those fundamentals is a totally missing g the point.

You are at the early stages of a Dunning-kruger graph

All your reasoning about your flop raise proves it. "Put him to the test" very ****ing funny, so I actually thank you for the laugh

If this thread is a troll then...

OP's trolling game 100% better than his educating fish game which is in turn 100% better than his poker game.

If this thread is serious then...

OP's trolling game 100% worse than his poker game which is in turn 100% worse than his educating fish game.

More nonsense feedback that provides absolutely nothing. Laughable feedback. Dunning - Krueger is so 2000's (and is faulty research to boot). Do better and privide real feedback or get laughed at as a weak internet warrior.

I provide a path forward that plays a strong but vulnerable hand in a way that will lose the least amount of money. Period. It is only until villan shows his hand and he is literally at the very bottom of his range that makes a call wildly profitable that I lose a lot of money.

I have played around a lot with this hand in pio-solver using very different ranges (for both myself and the villain) and playing different branches of the decision tree different ways both pre-flop and post flop.

There is literally no way through the action that loses less money than my plan unless it involves either folding pre-flop (which I can understand, but not necessarily completely respect) or giving up 100% guaranteed EV by folding after he shows his hand. Otherwise a flop raise saves money. This

One thing I have discovered in this thread is that there are many posters who think they know enough to talk down to others but don't have a clue why. They throw out dated references like Dunning-kruger without understanding anything.

Here is a question specifically for you. WHY is a flop raise bad? I understand it bloats the pot, but you are also in position, so if he just calls, you have an easy check back on most turns to undo the bloat and get to the river cheaply. Furthermore, if he just calls you might get a better read on him, or if he reraises you get information. Basically, a flop raise makes him react on a very wet crazy flop where he can be uncomfortable (out of position) as well. There are hands in his range where he isn't comfortable (AA, AK, KJ or a weaker draw). He probably doesn't fold these hands, but it allows you to invest less on the turn. He is forced to provide more information about how comfortable he is about his hand. Just saying it bloats the pot misses a bunch of nuance.

some basic logic errors, at least going off what was written. pm for more info.

Please elaborate.

Saying you think there are some basic logic errors without saying what they are is useless.

Lots of "you are wrong but I cannot publically say why" on this thread. That is terrible.

This is BBV. Post the hand in LNLHC if you want to discuss strategy.

It's more about your thought process which continually contradicts itself. If you can't figure that out after reading your initial post back a few times I'm not sure there's any helping you.....

Former top dog? What in the 1960s you could say that about having KK vs AA... Surely your trolling

Calling the shove is printing, what’s the problem?

Flop raise is horrible this deep. You want to pay 300 for a free card but you can just pay 100 then 200 and get to the river without exposing yourself to this.