25nl Probable fish sizing tell?

yeah good. you can raise less OTR since they are inelastic.

I think AK and 77 when you have it usually bet the turn, so you look like a flush here. If he believes you that you're trapping I think you chose the right raise size 6x should work.

nice bluff.

V having TT here would be wild.

This a fish we're talking about?

It doesn't seem like a spot to attack a bluff heavy range for small amounts of fold equity when we do need calls to make them indifferent to bluffing?

We have our entire range in this spot so I don't understand what is gained from the lesser amount of times they are blocking with thin foldable value vs them testing our calling range with air in true fish bluff style. Which seems more likely imo if they think we're capped as we appear, and the river looks bluffy. As it does. But maybe I have the wrong composition for villain.

I think you added a lot of thought in a direction I'm not sure I need to go. I don't care about making a fish indifferent to bluffing. I'm looking at a pure exploit line vs a bet size that does not rep strength to me. I agree that sometimes I'm bluffing with the best hand vs fish, but that's not really relevant because I perceive us as having a ton of fold equity vs that size and that's really what I'm testing here.

If you don't think we have much fold equity, I'd love to know why.

Sent from my SM-S906U using Tapatalk

I think we have fold equity against a very minimal part of his range, Ax and QQ. But they won't get to this node with those hands (block/fold would = reg to me), and expecting them to fold all AQ (esp w Q♥) + below is another assumption on top of that one.

If he doesn't rep strength there isn't much reason to bluff with SDV, because we're exploiting their imbalancing by calling down lighter, not trying to get them to fold the upper parts of their range. They're exploiting themselves. Plus when they even slightly overcall the EV of our bluffs evaporates fast.

As anything it boils down to how they play those ranges, but that's my FEAR.

I agree block is more reg which doesn't fit the profile. I also don't think fish bluff for this size, which is why I'm hesitant to call.

Sent from my SM-S906U using Tapatalk

Also not impossible they have value in this line of course. Fish love to bait. I think their range hierarchy is air > value > bet/fold

edit: fish will def bluff non aggressive spots in 3b pots. Ranging to exclusively thin value seems like overkill

fwiw villain had AsJs.

Vs a fish, I think it's fine. You can probably go ~ 50bbs on the river to get the same folding range and frequency.

Fair enough. Thing is, even if we know he has a range of AQ/AJ/AT for this sizing the solver adapts by extending its value range for the larger sizing while reducing bluffs and folding more BCs. So the bluff just seems to make no sense in theory vs either a bluffy leading range nor a thin value leading range. And i think he needs to bet/fold all/most AQ for us to start seeing EV flow to our outlier bluffs. Blocking A♦J♦ not helpful too.

All ears to any counter explanation by those advocating for why bluffing so much > calling. Is it really just sick soul read? Are you expecting to fold out all AQ? And how do we justify using 0ev BCs that beat punts in an overbluffed line?

Paired, 3 flush board. If he has trips+ he will size up because fish tend to size based on strength/how they feel about their hand. If that assumption is true, I'm raising close to 100% because he is going to bet/fold way too much. I'll never know if he folds AQ, but he snapped folded AJ so we can't be too far off. He might not even choose that size with AQ.

I'm really just asking if my assumption that this is a weak/capped range is consistent with what others are seeing.

Sent from my SM-S906U using Tapatalk

A fish could easily and would very likely have every Ax here.

I just don't think he does is the issue. Every model I've run makes him indifferent to calling AQ so he's not actually playing that badly by playing like this and will probably defend close to perfectly. I did run a nodelock for HJ to almost exclusively lead Ax for this sizing. On the left is CO's GTO response to that range and on the right is the exploit. Note how it redistributes EV in the way I described earlier (reducing bluffs and BCs).

All the EV flows to hands that own weaker Ax. HJ's imbalance is a boon to the thin value portion of our range but if anything a detriment to bluffs.

I think we'd have to node HJ to fold all their AQ for JJ (or range) to make a mathematically good punt. They kind of automatically meet MDF with this strategy. So I can't see the +EV calculation people are making to justify playing otherwise.

TLDR; even if this lead is a massive bet/fold tell, going lam with bluffs doesn't seem slam dunk or even supported by exploitative GTO given the most realistic ranges I can throw at it.

Do they though, for 3.5x?

This was my best guess last night at what that 3.5/call range looks like. Heavy on value and pretty SCs. I'll check my DB though

I don't think it's fair to take any suited Ax out of his range. You can add Ajo and ato too.

Sent from my SM-S906U using Tapatalk

This might be right actually. If he does bet/call these hands I concede and everything makes sense .

may as well post for completion: from my DB, a 3.4-3.6x OOP open/call range for 5nl+

Offsuit Ax feeling the love