Maximizing OOP and overbet theory
1/3 NLHE 8 handed
Table is a bunch of loose passives and one or two nits, V is the only remotely competent player.
V - Young guy that's learning the game and has a foundation. Probably break even player. He understands position, textures, etc but is still too loose pre and still makes one of the biggest mistakes in our room - the "look at all the callers out there! I have to call!" (with KJo from BB type deal). He's a little mubsy sometimes, afraid to raise or 4-bet when the situation demands it. He's also waaaay too "THE SOLVER TOLD ME SOOOO" and doesn't play the player enough (which I think is a massive leak). Example - earlier in the session he was heads up IP with a kid that barely knew what poker was. The kid would look at his cards, back at the board, trying to figure out what his hand was, painfully straightforward. The board was super drawy like A♠ J♠ 9♣ 8♣ 7♠ and V paid off the kid's 2x pot vomit river all-in. The kid showed a naked T for a straight and V mucked tell me 2-pair has to be in his MDF there. He's also afraid of my game (moved to my left when I sat down) and sees me as very capable of bluffing. HJ. 435$.
H - has been winning and is up big, over 2500$. LJ.
----
BTN loose passive straddles 6, SB loose passive calls 6, folds to Hero in LJ who sees 8♦ 8♥ and opens to 25, V raises HJ to 65** off a stack of 435$ eff stack, BTN and SB fold. HU OOP.
**Aside** V has some lock on an idea from a "pro" he met that EP vs EP 3-bets should be 2-3x (ie. smaller) while LP vs LP 3-bets should be 4-5x with the 3x IP aphorism being only an average - I'm not sure if this is true but the logic makes sense to me and I plan to implement it more.
Flop 135 - Q♠ 8♠ 3♥
H checks, V bets 70, H calls
Turn 275 - 7♦
H jams for V's 300...
Thoughts?
Okay another question I have here then as people seem to not like the stop and go OTT.
Solver says if I check turn and it goes check-check and river bricks, THEN overbet shoving is good. Why is it good now but not OTT?
If the turn goes check-check, it caps V's range going to the river, and we'll have lots of potential bluffs, so V will have to do a fair bit of bluff-catching, and our over-bet on the river is polarized to a very strong hand or a bluff.
The main thing that's wrong with your check-call-flop-donk-jam-turn line is that it effectively gives your opponent a free look at the turn. Think about it - you could have jammed for $370 on the flop over his $70 bet. Instead, you flat called the $70, let him see the turn, then donk-jammed for $300 after the turn was dealt.
It's also sort of announcing, "I flopped huge and am making a nonsensical delayed check-raise by donking", or "I turned the world". It's like some weird OMC move.
The donk is non-sensical because the 7d on the turn is mostly a brick in this 3B pot. Like, what additional equity does V pick up on this card, that would make us want to jam rather than risk him checking back? If we were worried about V being on a draw, why not check-raise the flop?
If we happened to turn a set with 77 or 2P with Q7 or 87, wouldn't we want to check-raise the turn, to get another street of value, rather than donk-over-bet-jam, and fold out all his bluffs?
It was lucky V happened to flop TPTK, and couldn't let it go. I doubt most opponents would call the jam without at least TPTK here, but many would continue to bluff or bet worse for value on this very wet and dynamic board.
