Two hands against same V taking same insane line - what does this line mean?

i think stabbing the turn in hand 2 is an error, you have basically the quintessential mid stregnth hand with showdown value and a weak draw that you can realize all of your equity for free by seeing the river. id worry less about existential questions that people aren't going to be able to answer (i do think its less likely to be a bluff the second time he does this) and just play well fundamentally vs a guy clicking buttons and doing crazy ****. from a hand reading pov i have no idea what hes supposed to have, a7 or something slowplayed maybe and i think its a difficult spot now, but its only difficult because you bet a hand you should check and now the pot is inappropriately sized for your actual hand. from a pot odds point of view 98, t9, t8, 85, 52, 42, 5x, 4x, or some random pair turned into a bluff all seem reasonable so id call now but think the dominating line is to check the turn

All of this!

I completely agree that I shouldn't have stabbed the turn.

Does anyone have any thoughts about what V's line means, in either hand?

Since we know he didn't have the nuts in hand 1, I was trying to figure out if he was overplaying AK, or turning some combo with nut-blockers into a bluff, like AQ, AT, or QJ.

If we think he was over-playing top 2, then hand 2 is more of a fold. If we think he was bluffing with blockers to the nuts, then hand 2 is more of a call.

These actually strike me as pretty different plays. In the second hand, his turn raise is committing and it feels like his jam in the dark could just be an acknowledgement of the fact that he is committed. Obviously, he's not trying to get you to fold anything as virtually nothing that calls a turn check-raise is folding getting 5-to-1.

We know the turn bet is a mistake, so I would probably cut my losses and just fold to the check-raise. GG if he has a bluff. If we want to continue, we should probably treat it as a jam-or-fold spot. Was your plan to call the turn and fold the river unimproved?

I actually think the first line seems really strong, whereas I can get on board that there is some spew in the second line. Flat the flop and then donk huge, multiway, on a relative blank, is the ultimate nutted line from a fish. His bet in-the-dark seems like the kind of thing a fish would do trying to get called light. I actually think you should just raise/GII on turn because he probably just has 44 and is never folding.

Think I'm past reading hostility in your replies.

I wouldn't expect anyone to KNOW what V was doing, but I figure you and others with lots of experience may have some insight into lines like this, specifically the dark bet going to the river, following the turn aggression.

I've seen dark bets before, but not in a line like this, especially in a situation like hand 2, where there's almost no fold equity once I call the turn. That could be the nuts, or total air trying to look like the nuts.

I forgot to add - after betting $600 dark in hand 1, he said nothing. But after jamming dark in hand 2, as I was considering a call on the river, he's looking away from the board and emphatically saying, "I haven't even looked at the board, I bet dark!" It was the most he'd talked in the last three hours. That's usually a weakness tell, but from this guy, who knows?

I agree that in a vacuum, I shouldn't have stabbed the turn in hand 2. The table was over-folding to my late-street aggression, and it seemed like a spot to get some thin value and protect my hand from the draws, or fold out hands like 88-TT (one of the MP limpers said he folded TT after the hand).

If anyone called, my plan was to check back the river if I didn't improve. It seemed very unlikely that anyone would check-raise there.

His check-raise size was pretty gross. I was thinking back to hand 1. If I had the nuts in hand 2, I'd play it the same way, and just smooth-call, so I wasn't expecting him to bet dark again. I did kind of think he might check the river a lot if I just smooth-called.

Before I called the turn, I was thinking what his range looked like here, based on hand 1, and wondering if he was so tilted that he might be making "eff it" bets and raises, just hoping I don't have it, praying I fold, but shrugging and paying me off when I do have it.

If he was overplaying 2P+ in hand 1, I'm probably smoked in hand 2, but if he was bluffing with blockers to the nuts, then he could have something like 55 or 44 here, and I'm way ahead. Even if he has 2P, or just some random ace, I have 9 outs to improve to a better hand, and he's not holding any of my outs, unless he's got A4.

The other thing I was thinking about was that three-Broadway boards like hand 1 are massively under-bluffed, and yet he either pure bluffed or over-played thin value, neither of which makes a ton of sense. But his line in hand 1 made it seem at least possible, if not very likely, that he might bluff a board like hand 2 even more frequently.

My thinking was that if he over-played 2P+ on an under-bluffed board in hand 1, he might be more leery about check-raising 2P+ in hand 2, but this is a board where his bluffs that block the nuts might get through more often. His 2P combos in hand 1 don't block the nuts, but if he's bluffing with 55 or 44 in hand 2, he's double-blocking the nuts.

Plus, I was thinking about the earlier hands like that 64 hand, where he was happy letting opponents blast off, not taking aggressive action himself. It made me think his aggressive actions might just be more likely to be bluffs, and he might be more likely to slow-play his thick value.

I dunno. In game, it just seemed like he was mega-tilted, and might be employing some FPS. In most games, and against most opponents, I would turbo-muck if I got check-raised by someone who only had a 1/4 PSB behind. But after V played hand 1 the way he did, I didn't think I could fold 2nd pair with the ISSD.

Spoiler alert - he didn't have the straight.

I didn't even think to ask him what he had in the QT hand. He wasn't overly talkative, other than needling the maniac in that 64 hand, and going out of his way to make sure I knew he jammed dark here. He was bordering on a-hole territory by this hand, and I was getting ready to rack up and leave soon, so I wasn't thinking about much other than getting some sleep.

i mean the TT guy folded bc bb checkraised, i doubt he is folding the turn to your bet if this action doesn't occur.

i would call bc he dunno what hes doing and hes stuck so more likely to blast off and you bet small amount so u might have induced also if u look at the two earlier hands in conjunction, he probably overcalls this flop way too light (we see that in the 64 hand) so way more eligible bluff candidates, and he might do something else ott if he actually has it. and if the first hand was a bluff there's no way i would be looking to fold any sort of bluff catcher vs him in any spot i'm getting reasonable odds simply bc of how easy it would be for him to way overdo it. i try not to overdo the what does he think i think he think i think he has or whatever vs people that may not think. if you have more experience with them you'll be able to get an idea of how they're unbalanced from showdowns, but guessing when we don't know what he had in h1 (its unlikely to me he was value betting based on what i said earlier and him not having a STR) is going to be at best futile and at worst harmful.

Fair enough. I know what he had in hand 2, but that didn't stop me from trying to figure out what the hell he had in hand 1, and if there's some hidden logic behind this very unusual line.

So, for all the reasons given, I flicked in the call.

i don't think hes trying to rep a straight, hes pretty clearly value betting

still think your takeaways from this set of hands should be: raise otr when closing the action with the absolute nuts, probably fold pre to a 5x in high rake with 75ss otb, even more so when its going multiways, consider raising the flop, bet the turn with a very polar range.

imo youre way over thinking things trying to figure out why he did what he did in hand 1 when he takes a 0% node, especially when you don't know what he had.

Against tilted Asian gamblers who are betting stacks into the nuts in the dark you really don’t have to try to get fancy. If you’re playing 75s against this villain type your plan should be to stack them with flushes, straights, two pairs and low trips not put yourself in the blender with one weak pair. Just check the turn and as played just fold. You really don’t have to worry about losing some chips in this hand because he’s going to donate the whole stack within a couple orbits anyways, just maximize your opportunities to be the seat that gets the stack, move onto the next hand.

Hand 1 easy enough, call turn jam river.

Hand 2, 3 bet or fold pre (i lean 3b), really easy raise on the flop, and really easy check back ott, id fold to a raise.

also hand1, v check calls flop 3 ways and donks turn, blind pots river

Hand 2, v check calls flop five ways, check raises turn with 3 players left to act, and then blind jams 1/4th pot otr

Thats not the same line at all.

Hand 1 is wild. You would think he would need a queen or ten in his hand to overbet dark but that means he has 1 pair. Weird hand.

Hand 2 betting seems like a mistake. More so when we factor in V spazzing out sometimes.

Yeah, I definitely screwed up hand 1 by not jamming river. I told myself he wouldn't have called, but obviously I don't know that. It's just soothing my ego after making a mistake. And it doesn't matter if it's just a chop, I should still jam. If he would have called, I cost myself a few hundred dollars there, and possibly allowed him to stay in the game to play hand 2.

Also made a mistake betting turn in hand 2, despite what seemed like good reasons at the time.

3B'ing pre or raising flop never occurred to me. I'd like to know the reasoning why those actions would be better than smooth calling.

I appreciate everyone's thoughts on how i should have played hand 2. Part of the reason I have been stuck thinking about hand 1 is that it influenced hand 2. Had hand 1 not happened, I would have played hand 2 differently.

I also just wanted to get people's opinions about dark betting in general. I think it's meant to look strong, and slow us down, but I wonder how often opponents are doing it as a reverse tell with a hand that actually is strong, and wants to induce a spaz raise.

Got up to the spoiler, but didn't read it or past it yet ...

My first guess in hand 1 is that he has AJ and thinks two pair is the nuts, some chance he slow played 44 on the flop and also thinks that's the nuts. Board is now "getting scarey" and he's never folding and doesn't want it to check, so donk.
Blind bet river is similar reasoning, he doesn't want you to fold one pair if the river is a scarey card ... so more chance you call because he bet before the river hit.
Std. way too wide pre. but now I've got something "good" and want to put money in, without any thought of relative strength.

Hand two follows on from that, he's now not got many bbs and has a decent one pair or better than wants to put the money in. Would assume Ax or better. Can't see him bluffing but maybe he's on mega tilt. Wouldn't bet turn, or call if I did.
Also I think pre. is mostly a fold. Can call sometimes, with reads, or 3bet for the lolz maybe (also depends on how wide the open is).
Not raising flop, nothing good happens often enough IMO.

i misread hand 1. i thought he 3x potted river in the dark. is less wild of a line lol

Betting in the dark makes sense in pot limit games where you are committed but weren’t allowed to go all in. Doesn’t seem to particularly apply to NLHE though.

Check in the dark I use a lot, usually when I am the aggressor oop and it’s pretty clear they’re on a draw.

Low SCs play poorly multiway, its an EV- hand to have 5 ways, so smooth calling is just losing money. Maybe you can profit with a 3 bet, maybe not. Depends on v, table dynamics etc etc.

Flop, i mean 3 players have bet or called with 1 left to act, your top pair is kinda dead to all but 4 outs on the turn if it goes 4 ways, so its better to bet. You can call it a protection bet, or turning your hand into a bluff, whatever. Your equity denial when over cards fold is massive, so youre sorta happy whether they fold or call. I think a good amount of the time youll take it down (even hands like overpairs might fold), so it might be ev+ on its own, maybe go $110 and youll take down $150 when it gets thru is a pretty good outcome. a good amount of the time that you dont take it down youll be behind (like against overpairs or a set or whatever) , but you have position and outs, and maybe youll be good/ahead anyway if V got sticky. Depending on your read of the situation, like if you think they have a hand like 88-TT and an A comes on the turn, you could just keep barreling and fully turn the hand into a bluff.