Did I nitroll/slowroll this guy with top set on a 3-straight flop?

Definitely a nitroll. I understand his frustration.

you had a legitimate decision whether to call or push. Folding was not an option.

In retrospect, if I'd been in a better frame of mind, I probably could have deduced that the OMC wouldn't donk out into two opponents with a made straight on a rb board, and would more likely be on a draw. But with three 10's accounted for, there's only a few combos of JT that the OMC might play this way, and only one suited combo. I wouldn't have thought he'd be getting out of line with a worse hand than JT.

Maybe I also would have figured that I had a 40% chance to improve to a boat, and I should want the OMC to come along, and so I should have called more quickly.

In the moment, I was playing a little more stack-defensive, because I'd had so many good starting hands get crushed in the previous two hours, and figured I had to be up against a made hand. My read wasn't entirely wrong. V2 did have a very good hand.

I would have shoved. Don't want OMC to draw cheap. I think you had a legitimate decision between call and shove.

Yeah, nothing wrong with taking your time to decide between call or shove. But it became a nitroll when you started to consider folding. 😀

You have a player behind you. Even if it was preflop and you had aces it wouldn’t be a slow roll as you’re allowed to try to influence the player behind you without making your hand obvious.

This is not a slam dunk, I would expect one of them to have us beat somewhat often. That said, even if they both have a straight it’s a fine spot to gii.

This result was your dream spot of course.

Does an OMC really limp and cold call a 3bet OOP with QJs? I would think his range is likely to be QQ - 88 plus AK and AQs. Against this range you have the nuts. If he happens to show up with one of the 4 combos of QJs, you still have plenty of equity.

V2 can definitely have a straight (4 combos of QJs and maaaaybe 4 of 76s) but it’s an SPR of 2 and you have top set. V2 has way more combos of worse value than better. Folding to this player would be a big mistake.

V2 is not even a question, you beat his range.

Let's talk about OMC.

You beat T9s (1), 98s (2), 88 (3), 99 (3), and even JJ (6) = 15 combos.

You lose to QJ (4) and 76s (4) = 8 combos.

If you call and OMC peels, what is the pot size on the turn? $1200, and he has $350 left, so nobody is really going anywhere for that price.

I think we need to call here and try not to push off JJ, 98, or JTs-type hands that OMC might fold if you shove now.

how many times can we post the am i commited with 3 of a kind at spr 4 vs randoms? thread is gonna be the same as all the others. everyone tells u yes u should be thrilled to get the money in, you say BUT WAIT THIS IS WHY I WANTED TO HERO FOLD, everyone tells you nah man you can't do that here, results confirm you can't do that here, you end the thread without changing your mind and post basically the same thring with hole cards slightly changed in 5 days. is irritating because all the hands could be interesting with different parts of your range but the hands you have are all very clear decisions.

there's just no way if you're not trolling and trying to improve that these situations (hands > AA in 3b pots with spr 4, particularly trips/sets) are where you're going to make any kind of real winrate improvement. the answer is almost always going to be you're commited and given the ev of getting in your hand in an equilibrium situation, you need to literally see your opponent's hole cards to fold in them

it's alot better of a heuristic to just figure out if you're committed with your hand as opposed to trying to find ranges for your opponents where you just give them the nuts

this is important because you're going to occasionally talk yourself into really large blunders if you approach this the way you would like an spr 20 srp scenario. for whatever reason, most of these threads you don't want to acknlowedge or appreciate that aspect of the game. but you really cannot soul read in bloated pots because the ev of get it in with nutted hands is so high. (probably you're making something like idk 100-150bb here getting it in? maybe more. if you incorrectly fold in that situation its just such a catastrophe.) and instead you do this word salad long narrative thing instead of just looking at the objective facts

It is.

If we close the action here that would certainly be a nitroll. But we don't and have a legitimate decision between call and shove.

I can't help but notice you've never posted a single thread to the forum, so no one's ever had an opportunity to see how you actually play. We just get to enjoy you popping in to drop impenetrable walls of poorly formatted text filled with the most thinly-veiled derision.

For everyone's sake, you might consider attempting proper capitalization, punctuation, and throwing in a few more line breaks. It would make your posts easier to read, and might come across as less bombastic. As it is, they come across as just a barrage of angry text.

Do you even play live, or is all your experience online? You give off a "hunkered down over my keyboard in mom's basement" sort of vibe.

Ordinarily, no, I wouldn't expect an OMC to limp-call a 3B OOP with QJs. However, in this OMC's case, I noticed he was making light calls pre and on flop, then he'd bet turn when checked to. Usually when he donked out on a flop, it was with value.

Interested to know why you wouldn't give V2 any straights here? He raised-flatted pre. I'd think he could have some QJs or 76s.

Part of the reason why I tanked was that the OMC didn't think too long before donking out, and V2 insta-jammed. Both seemed pretty strong.

It's all pretty much irrelevant in my opinion. You have top set in a 3bet pot on a flop where their valuerange alone consists of more than just straights, so folding is just not an option. I don't understand why this is even a discussion, because it shouldn't be. You don't like submersible telling you like it is, so you've dedicated an entire post to try and insult him, but I for one can't help but agree with him.

i'm not sure what me posting a hand history would do for you.

as for this hand and my analysis, you keep posting some version of the same hand 3 times a week. in all of them you have an incredibly strong hand both absolute and rangewise in a bloated pot where its a really really obvious helmuthian level get in and you pontificate about how you should be able to fold because you have the third nuts or whatever and the other guy wants to put in all of his money. pretty much everyone keeps telling you no man you are committed, if you talk yourself into folding incorrectly here its a huge ev error (ok im the only one that says this), you keep going on about these weird hypotheticals of how the other guy could have the nuts, everyone tells you its ok if he has the nuts sometimes you dominate even just their value combos, you get defensive, eventually the hands that actually go to showdown have the other players spazzing off randomly, then we wait a few days and change the hh slightly and do it again. even more absurd is you seemingly go out of your way to play more and more of these bloated pots via cold calling 3bs so that you can give yourself more opportunities to do the same.

like i even tell you what i think the commonality in error between the thought process in all the hands is (not understanding spr / commitment), and instead you take the feedback personally (as you are want to do in all of these threads).

Just to clarify - it wasn't like I was leaning towards a fold, and looking for a reason to call or raise. I was trying to figure out if I should call or raise, but also wondering if the action in front of me should make me consider an super-exploitative fold.

But I agree - all that is irrelevant, because I wasn't asking what my play should have been. I was asking if V2 was rightfully upset that I took 30 seconds to consider my options before making a decision.

The point I was making to Submersible is that he's like a broken record. All his posts are about GTO this and equilibrium that, often without bothering to address the question asked, much less make any attempt to format his posts to make them even slightly more readable, or heaven forbid, sound slightly less condescending.

I think my question to him was relevant. This is a LIVE game strategy forum. Does he play LIVE? The point of the forum would seem to be making reasonable deviations from equilibrium to exploit our live opponents' leaks. Constantly regurgitating what some solver says really isn't adding anything. If we're all going to play GTO, there would be no point to any discussion here.

He doesn't appear to have any interest in being helpful. His only interest appears to be in berating people for having the audacity to seek others' opinions, rather than consulting with the computer overlords.

Confirming that he's never posted a single hand for discussion is easy enough. Just click on his user name to see how many threads he's started (none).

Sorry you found the hand boring. You may have missed the point, which wasn't to ask what my action should be, but rather to ask if my opponent was justified in acting like I was slow-rolling him or nit-rolling him, by taking 30 seconds to consider my options, while another player was left to act.

If people want to discuss how to extract max value, I'm down. I did admit I wasn't sure if I should call or re-jam. I also admitted I was wondering if I should make a super-nitty fold, but that wasn't an option I was leaning towards, just one that was available, which I thought might be worth thinking about, if only to rule it out.

I don't know how often we'll be in a spot where we flop a set with a three-straight on board in a multi-way pot, much less how often we'll face a donk bet and a jam before action even gets to us. But however frequently it may happen, it seems worth considering if our best action is to call or raise, and perhaps understand if or why we would ever fold, or why we would never fold.

Even if our action should be considered automatic, that doesn't necessarily mean it should also be instant. I'm pretty courteous when I'm at the table. It's unusual for someone to get angry at me for anything, much less tanking, which I don't often do, and very rarely for very long. I was surprised when V2 refused to even hear me out about why I took a little time before I called. I wasn't fake-tanking, or trying to put him on tilt.

I understand why it may seem like we're talking past each other. It's because we are.

You want me to take your criticism as constructive, and in stride. Okay, I will. Will you do likewise?

First - your posts are borderline unreadable. If you're half as smart as you portray yourself to be, you should be able to figure out how to hold down the shift key to capitalize the letter at the start of a sentence, hit the space bar after a period, and hit enter twice to add a line break here and there (like this one I'm about to demonstrate...).

Bonus points for throwing in some other punctuation, like quotation marks, and correcting your typos before hitting submit.

Second - you don't even try to hide your condescension. It's not just me. I've seen it in all your posts, in every thread, started by anyone. You act like you're God's gift to the game, and we should all be coming to you and you alone for your advice.

Third - you rarely try to understand the salient questions being asked, which prevents you from offering a salient response. Instead, your sole contribution is to launch into ad hoc lectures about what we should be doing at equilibrium, which is only helpful to the extent people are completely unaware of theory (unlikely), and simultaneously ambivalent about making adjustments to exploit live opponents (which would seem to be the entire point of this sub-forum).

As I've said to you before, if all we wanted was the GTO answer, we wouldn't need this forum. There would be no point to it.

Fourth - the fact is you've never contributed a single hand history for discussion. I might be the absolute worst player here, but at least I'm willing to allow others to not only see my mistakes, but point them out to me. It's easy to act like an expert when no one has any idea if you actually play the game, live, much less how you play.

You can try to deny that I'm sincere about trying to improve my game. But you can't deny that you don't seem to care about trying to improve as a human.

Strongly disagree, I think he's one of the best posters here. Precisely because I'm not much of a solver guy myself, I appreciate and value the advice from people who are, because they provide me with a baseline that I know is scientifically sound.

i am literally a live pro lol

idk man. it seems like you're taking this personally and maybe my tone is partially to blame. if you want i can stop responding to your posts and we can go our separate ways.

Let me simplify it for you.

No one goes out of their way to be helpful, while also going out of their way to be a dick.

So, either you're not trying to be helpful, just pretending, while you're actually just being a dick, or you actually are trying to be helpful, but you're simply incapable of not being a dick.

Which is it?

I didn't miss the point. This is a strategy forum. You posted about your strategy in the hand and replied to people who responded to that part.

Well, how often have you been in that same spot over the last year? How often have you been raised on the flop as the preflop raiser and didn't know how to respond?

Pretty sure one situation is much more common than the other.

In this specific situation with action pending, nobody in here said your action should have been instant. If you're closing the action in this situation and don't act instantly, a lot of people will think you nitrolled once you table your hand. Most of them wouldn't say anything (I wouldn't) but they'll think it. It's up to you if that bothers you or not.