How to get max value oop against these two different villain types?

If you're aggressive, it should be easier to get value hands paid, not harder.

OMC's tend not to bet very thin for value, but they will bluff catch with thin value. So in hand 1 I'd donk flop for 1/3 pot, and just barrel turn for around 1/2 pot. I'd go small on the river, like 2/3 pot. He won't call off big bets with marginal hands, but he might get frisky and raise as a bluff, or decide to take a stand with AQ, KK, or AA.

Hand 2, I'd 3B pre. As played, I might x/r flop. After flatting the flop I probably donk 1/2 pot on turn and decide what size to bet on the river based on the runout. If V was the OMC, I'm not doing much different.

Donk bets tend to have less fold equity than check raises, and sometimes opponents will spaz raise as a response.

OMC you exploit by playing the suited connectors, small pockets, and suited Ax which do well against his range and then over fold post flop when you miss. The exploit is to go for 3 streets max value when you have the effective nuts and there is an A on the board. If he's betting he "has it" i.e. Top pair, over pair, etc. so that is a nice check raise spot, over bet turn, jam river. When you exploit player types preflop sizing and hand selection is more important than post flop play with specific holdings so probably can also consider folding 55 specifically from SB but call from cutoff and button.

Hand 1 depends on how sticky your OMC is. The default line with a value hand OOP should usually be call flop, call turn, check/raise river. You generally want to let them take the lead as long as possible. If they check turn then lead river but expect a lot of folds, usually the turn check means they whiffed and have already given up. The problem with donking turn or check/raising turn is that they will get cautious on river, not that they fold turn. If you are aggresive on turn then lead river a lot but that is when you might get some folds.
If your OMC is sticky and hates to give up TPTK+ then go ahead and check/raise turn.
If your OMC is weak and will give up too much then a lot of value comes from bluffs. Donk or check/raise turn as a bluff a lot, with a hand this good you want to keep them in so check/call.

Hand 2 fold preflop or on flop most of the time. Pre you should not be looking to play a weak ace OOP. On the flop you have nothing but a weak draw on a bad board. Part of the reason to fold this is because its hard to get paid when you do make a hand. Villian will have air a lot and it will be very rare that they have better then an over pair. Your best bet is a mix of small donk bets, large bets and checks. Hero wants to represent a mix of probing bets, bluffs and value with the bets. The checks could be anything and should be mostly check/call and some check/raise. The river should be a mix also.
With an OMC check more for the reasons noted above. The board is better for a check/raise then hand 1 because villain will think draw more often.

so folding A5s pre in bb vs a wide button range is now considered the standard play?

QuadJ whats your bb call range and 3b range in this spot?

Range from the BB depends on stacks and open size. At $300 with a $12 open A5s isn't getting good enough odds to play all the time. I would fold most of the time. Call occasionally and raise occasionally, ratio depending on how often villain folds and who else is in.
Villain is described as stabby and not afraid to play big pots. I don't want to get into playing weak one pair hands OOP against that type.

Thanks for the summary. When I played the hand, I worried if OMC would not barrel OTT when the board paired.

Yeah V2 is much wider than OMC when he bets, so he may not even have a pair.

Hand 2 and Hand 1 both show two FDs by the turn. One key difference is that the board paired on H1, and V1 & V2 may play very differently on a paired board.

OMC youre just happy to be OOP to him, and you just blindsteal and cbet wide/maybe double barrel wide. Hqnd 1, i think you wanna raise flop before a flush or straight gets there, or the board pairs, hes gonna fold his Q ott thinking youve got a 6. You mostly just wont get paid, but thats fine, you should be check raising him on the flop if you hit any piece of it (gutshots, flush draws, even really marginal hands like KJ KT for bdsd or , Axhh BDFD)

V2 sounds like hes a good player, he would not be a player id be targeting to exploit, which isnt to say that id nit up against him, i just wouldnt widen my range against him.

Based just on that hand i wouldnt say youre playing aggressive enough (this is true for 99% of solid players btw), id 3 bet him from the BB, and if i had called, i wouldve check raised that flop.

Negreneau once mentioned that all the biggest winning woman players are the most hyper mega aggressive high stakes players in the game, and I dont think thats a coincidence, i think your table image (not getting paid off for value) can be viewed as an advantage if you start bluffing more often. Kristen Foxen got knocked out of the wsop by turning 2nd pair + gutshot into a huge bluff, her opponent had a monster so it got called, but it may well be that shes getting overfolded against due to being a woman.

To Tomark's point, I'll add that if I'm playing against a woman who seems fairly competent, I tend to over-fold to aggression.

Male rec-fish often compensate for being bad players by being overly aggressive. I suppose the psychology at play is that they don't want to appear weak or afraid. So they'll over-play marginal hands and bluff too much. Even among good players, men don't like being shown up.

But women obviously aren't dealing with the same set of unspoken yet still understood expectations, and frankly, you're probably thinking more clearly in-game. I'm struggling to think of a single instance of seeing any competent female player getting too far out of line at low stakes.

So, returning to the OP, I wonder if the better male players in the game are able to figure out that you're no push-over, and are over-folding to you, but if that isn't in some way balanced by the bad male players trying to bully you, or giving you action when they're way behind.

Regarding donking vs check-raising - donking does generally create less fold equity than check-raising. But I wonder if your male opponents would be more likely to think you're donking with thick value, and over-folding to your donks, for the same reason I've been over-folding to my female opponents' aggression.

If you are able to do some experimenting, to see if that's true, then I'd reverse things, donking with your bluffs, and check-raising with thick value.

Sometimes I do see some face-up folds. One I can remember is that the PF aggressor (white man 50ish, not reg) folded AJ faced up to my flop 2.5x CR on an ace high dry static board. A lot of the time I told myself to keep it slow, not playing too fast, because sometimes we want to keep them in the hand.

Afterall I am not simplifying my strategy based on just 'male vs. female' aspect, it's more like adjusting my own play to 100 different player types.

Not sure I have a strong opinion about H2, but in H1 you need to be leading or raising flop. If Villain is bluffing, that flop c-bet is the last bluff you’re getting out of him. So it’s time to start building the pot now. Make sure you get money in before an action-freezing card comes. And your hand looks weaker when you raise one flop bet than if you start piling it in later.

The keyword here is 'high stakes' 😀
On low stakes lots of recs are not here to practice fold discipline, so I have to tread very carefully to find bluffing spots. Having many hard lessons learned, I would say bluffing the right opponents is more important than considering the board texture and the suit of my cards.

On the other hand, on the value side, I am trying to learn how to balance 'build the pot' and 'not scare the villain away'.There was a time I was running pretty bad, and after seeing the flop with 35 pocket pairs, we finally flop one set! I was over the moon inside when I turned a boat on the turn, and just gently raise the turn after V donks two streets on a juicy board, but he snap folded! I was crying inside after his fold. That's why I say 'a bit too aggressive', perhaps.

I've watched Doug Polk analysing that hand actually. I have not seen how her opponent plays in other hands, but in that particular hand, his body language seems to me it's suicidal for anyone to bluff into his hand.

It make sense in theory, in practice there are two questions:
1. Does OMC bluff the flop (three-way pot, second to act)?
2. Let's say OMC had top pair good kicker, and called our flop 3x CR. Do we expect him to call a 50% bet on the turn when the board paired?

I disagree completely. I think this is something where your intuition leads you astray. The thing about bluffing is when it works, your intuition tells you “well of course they folded!”, and when it doesnt you feel like an idiot clown who knows nothing. A half pot bluff only has to work 1 in 3 times to be profitable, but if you showdown complete air and give away money half the time youll feel like an idiot who should stop bluffing.

I usually play higher but i play plenty of 1/3, and going back down I cant believe I wasnt bluffing more and for more money. Pot sized and overpot bets get like 75%+ folds in a lot of spots, especially the turn. If i were a woman, id probably be getting even more folds which would probably have me bluffing nonstop.

You cant think that every bet you make scares them away AND that every bluff you make gets called. Thats cognitive dissonance. Either they are overcalling your bets, or overfolding to your bets. I would recommend sitting down and thinking of specific spots (like lets say 973 two tone flop bet. Turn Q and you double barrel. Or a 2 turn double barrel? , check raise on that flop, whatsver), and look at what a solver does and think about “is my opponent going to call MORE here or LESS here than a solver?” You can only choose one, and if its more, its ridiculous to think “i shouldnt scare them asay”. And if its less, its ridiculous to think “i cant bluff them”. (For the most part id say its the latter, especially because not only do they call less than the solver, they also play more hands than the solver)

Maybe. Either way I think it was a decent play, and I think its crazy for people to think that a play made by a player whose income is from poker wasnt at least within the realm of reasonableness.

h1 should always xr the flop, if you honestly dont think you can get 200$ in on this board you should fold pre or bluff literally every single hand otherwise. i think in practice trying to bluff someone off of tp+ here esp if they are tight and sit around waiting for aces is a huge huge torch, so accordingly i would just fast play your value hands

h2 3b pre always vs this player type, dont mind xring flop w a bdfd sometimes, as played x and if he x the turn xjam the river

When someone is making an error, you should exploit that error, not try and force them to adjust and play more properly. If someone is folding AJ face up on a static dry board to a raise, he is absolutely free money. I think ego plays a big part in people’s poker game, and if you genuinely want to profit at poker, feed their ego. Compliment their absolute worst moves. Id be saying “ugh, i keep hitting and cant get calls.”

It's interesting as Tomark also pointed out that ego seems to be quite a big part of (the fun of) your game. I can't represent Venessa Selbst, but maybe lots of the female players including myself have not much ego involved in the game. We already attracted more attention than what's ideal.

I am not saying you should ditch the ego part, particularly if that makes you enjoy the game.

A lot of the time I find poker just a mental game battling against myself.

Maybe more male players think in your way than my way.

H1:
Turn：to avoid OMC checks back coz the board paired, I led a 40% bet, trying to keep all his Qx, JJ, TT, front door FDs in; also hoping him to raise with AQ/KK/AA if he put in me a draw. OMC tank called.

River: 9d. Both FDs broke, all combos of 78 got there. This should be a card to polarise what I represent. I led a 1.1xpot overbet. OMC thought for a longish 3 minutes, before sigh fold with a Q faced up.

Tbh I was slightly shocked why he showed the Q (proudly maybe?) . When I overbet with this river card, I thought I was representing straight +, or a missed FD. So his Qx is just a bluff catcher - what's there to be proud of? Facing my river bet, his Qx is the literally the same as TT, KK and perhaps trips.

This also makes me realize I've probably never fully understood the thought process of OMCs. Are they just thinking 'what hands have me beat, is my kicker good enough', instead of actually counting the combos my line on the three streets can represent?

H2:
Turn:
Hero checked,
V bet 65 into a pot of 87,
Hero raised to 150 with 120 behind. I was targeting Ax front door FDs, some combo draws and sets to call or jam. V snap folded.

How do you perceive your image from the mind of V1? I would check raise 55 here to apply pressure on his OMC range because if he's got a hand like AA or KK he's going to have trouble folding a flop raise and turn bet. The last thing we would want is for the hand to go bet/call, bet/call only for V1 to check back river given his OMC tendencies. Facing a turn raise I think they find the fold with top pair and might even check back turn because they will perceive the 6 to be a scare card. If we're going off our table image I think it always wants to play aggressively vs. his.

With this approach we can feel satisfied with our play from a theoretical perspective as well as a exploitative one.

Hand 2 just play as you would normally, can consider flat calling turn or going for a large check raise with the spade draw now present. If he calls a turn raise I most players shy away from another massive bet so something like 75% OTR seems appropriate.

Hand 1, against a string range, you need to start building a pot right away. He's just going to keep clicking call with AA, KK, AQ etc etc and you arent going to get much money from AK or 99 or whatever in any event

Showing my cards isn't to stroke my own ego. It's to put my opponents on tilt and get looser action on future hands.

It goes back to player psychology. When I make an opponent look silly, he goes into revenge mode, and starts playing an even wider range, yet he'll play in a more polarized way, playing all his draws passively, and over-playing his thick value.

Generally, I want to be in a game with lots of loose action, not in a game where my opponents are folding if I breathe on the pot.

Thanks everyone for the feedback!

Reveals has been posted earlier.

H1, I think you can donk larger on the turn. If he's calling a 40% pot bet, he's calling a 50% pot bet, and probably a 60% pot bet.

H2, I think if you donk turn for 1/2 pot this V will call pretty wide, and raise fairly often. But when you x/r, he's folding all his air and a lot of his value.

Like I said, as a general rule, donk bets tend to generate less folds than check-raises.

Getting back to showing my bluffs or worse value, and tying it to these two types of V's - the population is generally playing too wide. I don't want to discourage that by letting them think I just always have it when I bet and they fold. I want to encourage them to play even wider against me, weakening their calling range, and strengthening their raising range.

But against a tighter V (OMC), or more loose-aggressive V, we want to exploit their usual tendencies. OMC's don't like folding every hand pre-flop, and then folding post-flop when they finally decide to enter a pot. They tend to be very sticky post flop, with all their TP+ holdings. LAG's will over-fold to aggression, but will pounce on what they perceive as weakness.