1/3 what does it mean when station overbets river?

PRE - I hope your 98 is suited. Seems fine if so.

I'd want to be unbalanced against such an opponent, raising a little larger with strong hands, and c-betting/barreling with thin value more, bluffing a lot less.

FLOP - c-betting 1/3 pot seems fine, but I think we can also check back against a calling station, to see what he does on the turn. Our hand isn't all that strong, really just a marginal bluff catcher.

TURN - if we're going to c-bet flop, I think we should barrel turn, but for a small size, like 1/2 pot, to cap V's range. Fold to a raise. Checking back is likely to induce the river bet with a wide range, and we know he likes to over-bet rivers.

RIVER - I don't think we should fold, as played. I don't love it, but I'd call when we river the straight. V can be over-playing worse hands or bluffing.

I'm whatever preflop (think overlimping and attempting to isolate are both fine).

I'm cool with the flop cbet.

Against a station (who looks like he got to the river in HH1 with no pear / no draw?) I'm probably betting the turn.

My guess (at least from HHs we have) is he's just trying to bink and when he does he attempts to get paid off. For this horrible price I think I'm folding my straight. KQ is prolly a call against anyone who can overvalue.

GcluelessNLnoobG

**** me i had a reply here on my phone i was writing last night and then the phone died and i lost the whole thing and now I'm having trouble remembering the main points i was hopin to get across.

math wise, youre gettin 1.7:1 so you only need about 36% equity vs a range estimate to break even. if you give villain a handful of Jx combos that dont fill up along side all potential FH jx combos and you're practically at a coin flip. add in a combo or two of spew and you're in pretty good shape even if we then go back and handicap those estimates a bit to hedge against any overly optimistic view points.

Ok so now i remember the first point i wanted to make:
Those hand history examples suggest a stronger conclusion is villain overvalues hands a little and goes to showdown too often which means they're getting there with too wide a range / their value range is thin and wide.

I see why you say station given the lines they took but do you remember their exact hand in HH2 at least? is the X card absolutely irrelevent/disconnected or could you form an argument for over valuing potential BD equity type situations or somethin?

But especially in HH1 provided, I see a villain who just overvalues their hand. Given preflop action, 8x isnt exactly the nuts and maybe warrants a thin value bet but would be a bet fold predominantly. That aspect I think is something i can weight a little stronger as a classification of player type.

So given the math and the above take away, im definitely calling KQ here and I think vs this villain i'm calling with your hand too as they are definitely likely to be taking this line with just trip jacks even.

If you had some other solidifying reads that might conflict with my above assessment then we can alter the bottom of our calling range here.

Outside this specific opponent - say its just an unknown opponent - i'd probably be more inclined to call with KQ here some % of the time greater than 50% due to the fact that average low stakes opponent just doesnt bluff here often enough especially with an overbet.

I think you can call all day. V could easily be trapping with a non boated J.

Villain's hand in HH2 was never shown. We assume he's not bluffing when Hero's range is filled with flushes that got there on river.
HH1 indicates villain was floating with random cards for 2 streets out of position on the dryest board then donk/call shove when hit.

V's range has no random Jx that overbets this river.
His range is either st8s/boats and air.
We have a bluff catcher.

Why are you convinced he doesn't have trip J's, and only straights or boats for value? From what little history you've given, it seems at least somewhat likely he's calling pre and post too wide, such that he'd have a lot of worse value and a ton of air that gets to the river, when you take this line of betting 1/3 pot on the flop and checking back turn.

Whenever we check back turn, we're inducing a ton of river bluffs and thin value bets from our opponents. We're supposed to call down more with our bluff catchers. The population is mostly going to bet smaller rather than over-bet, but you've seen this V chase and over-value non-nut hands before.

Getting back to HH2 - even without a reveal, we can infer that he either slow-played a monster by check-calling turn, or he drew to a monster on the river, and either way, donk-jammed. But in both of the hand histories, he check-called a turn bet, then donked river.

In the first hand, we know he didn't have the nuts when he bet-called, so it's possible he didn't have the nuts in the second hand, and isn't nutted in this hand, especially because you did NOT bet the turn. If he's not willing to risk opponents checking back when he has thin value, even after they bet the previous street, he's probably even less willing to risk an opponent checking back when they check the prior street.

what leads you to conclude this with such certainty?

also why post the question if he has no jx?

are you just saying "do we bluff catch with KQ here?"

thats a math problem more or less, not so much strat if you have the above conditions known. maybe add those to the post next time too?

because if the above is true its like asking "villain only has fullhouses, and the nut straight, do we call with a weaker hand?"

clearly no.

im with this and its gonna take quite the argument to get me off this line of thinking that isnt just an unsupported claim "he doesnt have naked Jack"

we gotta have a come to god moment about the description of villain and then the explanation/rationalization behind plays.

the guy isnt "floating for 2 streets and binking" on a board thats trip 4s? so he plans to shove with air when whiffing?

or is he just clicking buttons?

and if he's just clicking buttons, its waaay more likely he has more than jsut the range insinuated in the latter half of the quoted post.

Does this make sense why? I'm happy to try to elucidate this point further if its not providing enough evidence of argument

Assuming OP responds, my guess is the response will be one of the following:

1. Hero folds. V doesn't show. We'll never know, but good fold, because V never takes this line with any hand we can beat.

2. V shows KQ, Q8, or a boat. Good fold (or bad call).

3. Hero calls. V mucks without showing, or shows some hand he shouldn't have. Don't know how you guys find the call here, because V shouldn't have the hand he had when he takes this line.

The result doesn't really matter when the thought process leading up to it is inherently flawed.

Fold 98o preflop.

look, if your read on vilalin was "seems at the very least competent enough" i'd be more inclined to shrug off the overbet and let it go. if he bluffed me, its a tough spot and the board favors his range.

but given description/HH, i dont think its enough data points to conclude with certainty every overbet is that nutted even on that runout. but yes, overbets from mediocre calibre players general would be more value heavy. but its not fantasy to assume they think trip jacks is far from value though given what's been provided. perhaps its just a communication of your sense of the situation influenced by being there that isnt being conveyed to its fullest.

im not denying your observations of general pop tendencies but I am saying that its live cards and i need more data points to feel that certain. there are definitely a lot of spots where this same viallin would overbet and i'd advocate releasing, but KQ especially is still a call imo and i dont think its hard to justify from the math without being absurd in our estimate of villain's range willing to value bet, as supported by one of the HH's presented, that its not just FH's say.

that said, if you've gettin run over in this spot, its highly unlikely villain's are identifying and exploiting you in this fashion so i dont think folding is some absurdly bad choice either. i just think this spot boils down to: equity needed given pot odds on the river and i dont think its hard to justify a range that eclipses break even and still be far from an overly optimistic construction of said range.

The problem is that your reads are incomplete, or possibly just wrong or misleading, and your lines inconsistent with those reads, or just lacking in consistent logic.

If V is a station, we shouldn't be raising with as wide a range pre. We should actively avoid raising hands like 98 that are going to lead to trouble post-flop. When we get to the flop, we shouldn't be too eager to start betting with a hand that has minimal showdown.

When we bet flop and check turn, we're going to induce a lot of bluffs and thin value bets on the river. We could fold more easily if our hand doesn't improve, but not as easily when we significantly improve.

We can't say we're going to fold a rivered straight because V might have made a bigger straight or flopped or rivered a boat, when those combos were in V's range on earlier streets. If he flopped or rivered a boat, he had us crushed on the flop, and we shouldn't be betting. If he rivered a bigger straight, we had him crushed on the flop and turn, and we should keep betting (and betting big on the turn).

In order for him to river a boat, he'd have to have flopped trips with JT. If he has JT, he's got J9, which is the flopped boat, but he also has AJ, KJ, and QJ, which are just trips. If he's over-betting the river with a bigger straight, which is very far from the nuts, then he could be over-betting with just trips.

If he's a "station", we'd expect him to call flop and turn with a wide range, including many hands that need to bluff the river. If he's always raising whenever he makes a strong hand, we'd expect him to raise before the river. If he's only over-betting with nutted hands, we wouldn't expect him to over-bet the river with a straight.

It doesn't make sense for you to be so dead certain he has a bigger straight or a boat when the logic you're using to reach that conclusion isn't consistent and doesn't align with your own prior observations and assessments.

You didn't "get owned". You owned yourself by getting OOL pre, and getting lost post.

Possible flushes matter, also makes it easier if we can see the entire board.

Also don't see any HH where V bets big as a bluff, or overvaluing. Just calling what you think is too wide. So basically no reads.

So on:

JJ9 7 T

What hands can he call flop and need to bluff river? AQ? QT? Don't see many people turning QT into a bluff when it makes second pair.
If flop was two tone and he can bluff like this with a missed flush after turn checks through, it's a very different spot.
If he can call flop with 55 and then blast river like this, it's also different.

What good hands can he have that are worse? AJ? KJ? QJ?
Don't often see people blasting AT here.

When people have a limping range, they don't often limp AQ/AJ IMO.

Also generally don't see people blasting over pot with good hands that can't beat a one card hand, but might well blast any 8 or better.

I probably sigh call KQ/Q8 (or better) and J8 specifically for the chop with blockers. Probably only raising JJ/JT.