I actually think smaller sizes otf are good with whatever our betting range is, i.e 2p+ and complete air; please correct me if I'm wrong. I just think it's going to be really difficult for V to continue if we have the hand locked up otf.

Initially this hand was an auto check; DDP being the super crusher he is turning into had me thinking other wise. My initial thought otf was quite simply "small hand, small pot". Hand is producing some interesting discussion; glad I posted it.

FWIW, if I'm IP and I know the PFA is betting hands like A3s, I would certainly abuse him on bad turns and I don't necessarily need to have a club to do it.

@ bearer, these regs do attack checks quite frequently and IMO will bet a hand like JdTd or worse at least once.

Key quote is here and I largely agree:
If he's only continuing with Ax and clubs, with most of his club combos blocked by the board then what is there to mix? We definitely want to cbet 100% of air and collect from this print party and a checking range consisting of a small quantity of bluff-catchers is ripe for exploitation.

This is very very bad reasoning. 66 wiz clubs will not fold to 33% cbet and assuming that he will x it down once u x turn and river is kind of ludicrous too. Even the dumbest of regs will realise that their hand isnt good by the river...

We can get value from Qx on later streets.

There is just no real point bloating the pot vs a club heavy range (since his calling range is offsuit heavy).

So be it. It's like how in some spots players play cold 4b or fold. Having that narrow flat (check) range doesn't really add much value, and the best players will hyper-exploit.

solvers x range. Im assuming because our range is way more suited than ip

So you believe it's commonplace for a 25NL to turn pairs into bluffs in spots they could easily check behind? Who cares what they realise, they also have to have the discipline, gumption and balls to execute...then guess what, we can see he checked back turn and have top pair and are allowed to do some bluff-catching.

I'd rather get value from Qx now rather than praying about 50 action killing cards don't run off. He is also allowed to fold Qx on brick runs rather than putting his opponent on some world class triple delay air strat.

It's the exact opposite of a club heavy range.

I guess it depends on how wide Vs range is here and how he would play the worst part of it that has 2-15% equity when we x. If he is the type to stab, I'm perfectly okay with checking weak suited Ax hands. I get the most value from his entire range that would otherwise fold to a cbet, not just the part that has 33%+ equity. Like Chips said, I can get value from Qx on turns that don't suck.

Is that sound logic or am I completely off?

I mean there is no point narrowing down his range to a club heavy range. We do fine vs his call 3bet range but terrible vs his flop call range. He is in position too. Hell be able to stab turn and river and just **** print.

6c6x is definitely not gonna fold to a 25% bet. IP would have to massively over fold and I just cant see population leaning that way. I think your strategy makes sense if population over folds but I dont think that's the case vs small cbets.

Ok so this is the second time I've read that OOP has more suited hands than IP and I'm confused. BTN is more likely to have hands like K9s, J9s, T8s,etc than BB right? BB range is going to be fairly linear so we have fewer flushes on this flop.

solver will defend btn with hands like JTo/QTo/KTo/A9o

In practice thatll never happen which should impact the solutions quite a lot

River seems pretty simple. He'll check back likely all 2 pair or worse, us betting implies he'll fold two pair, and a bet from him means at least a straight, if not a flush. So check fold seems like the obvious answer to that range.

I doubt anyone defends that wide after a 3x open and 4x 3b.

I did xf river without much thought. I marked the hand for review since monotone flops are somewhat of an enigma. I agree V will react as you indicated otr.

FWIW I have seen the error in my ways and agree with Worldz/Chips here. I think checking range (or most of your range) is the best line here. That being said, my 76s can now be turned into a XR bluff or bet turn/river if flop goes X/X.

Im checking this flop and expecting to put no more money in and lose the hand

if you are going to bet flop betting like 1/4 pot seems fine against a weaker fish who isn't going to exploit your sizing and also your sure is going to fold with a hand like TT here.

Yes, when he calls with a non-made hand he is a favourite to win the pot.

He'll fold those hands 92-95%+ of the time and be left with a range of mostly made flushes and pair + 1 club. That's not a difficult range to play against given NL25 players won't be turning pairs into bluffs like that.

If the regs want to "exploit" that's okay...run into flushes, nut flush draws and sets.

Everything you are saying is how aggro-fish play, not regs who want to be as balanced as possible in every spot. The "best" players will absolutely NOT "hyper-exploit", they will be as balanced as possible in every given spot. Balanced play equals good play not vice-versa. You should be more than happy to take the L by the river by not making an unbalanced cbet if it improves your overall strategy.

I'm absolutely not trying to win every pot I'm involved in and thing that attempting to do so like DDP does is horrible, you should win the pots you are supposed to win and not a pot more. His style of play can only win in the short term, even if that "short term" is a relatively long 250k hands or something, it can't win over tens of millions of hands vs every possible playstyle which is THE definition of good play.

I'm in the check camp.

Like said before, this board is good for villain and definitely won't be over folded since most of his range connects in some way + pairs also have fd's which will be an excuse to call. I would expect a cbet to folded to about 20%? If even.

Anyway, river I'd consider either have a xc range or a leading range. Don't see any point check shoving anything unless you have exactly Kc and that's like 2-3 combos so no point balancing with bluffs.

Pros of lead is puts 2pair in a tough spot, you can rep Jx and flushes. Cons are that he has a lot of those too lol

Could lead some Jx, flushes, two pair and bluffs. Or just xc flushes and Jx since we do have a fair amount of those.

Actually let's make this explicit as possible: The objectively best play-style is the strategy that actualizes it's true EV as the number of hands played approaches +infinity, and any strategy that diverges from true EV or approaches it at a slower rate as a function of exponentially increasing hands across the set of all possible strategies is objectively worse.

Entertaining post.

So you get to the river in small stakes vs a 46/0 profile and your river triple with AK gets raised on A9826. The player who calls the raise with AK in an attempt to be balanced because Snowie does so is not smart enough to be one of the best players in his pool. It really is as simple as that.

I should win this pot. I 3b, he flatted, flop came Axx. Pot is mine until shown otherwise. lol at all this proudly check folding business.

Laughable. Do Equilabs.

Ok, what pfc range do you give villain?

I'm saying the opposite of this. It's players like OP that would try to play like Snowie or PIO. He's said so repeatedly and looks down on players who know that it's BS.

I'm saying that it's evidence that the input is flawed if you get as an output that you should call in that spot. That using software contextless in a vacuum is horrible.

I plugged a reasonable 3b range and flatting defense range for BTN and the equities on each street range vs range are a flip, slightly favoring the BB. I don't have many offsuit combos for either range, but, if BTN defends hands like KJo, QJo,JTo, KQo, BB range would start to be heavily favored.

This doesn't take into account betting since I don't have any type of solver. I think given that info, it makes sense why the opinions on how to proceed post flop are so conflicting.

raw equity is quite meaningless