Q9 on Q88x board

He was said to be "very aggressive with big hands", so if he bets big otr, it's probably not a bluff (and most players in general don't bluff rivers too often).

I'd argue that aggressive players over-bluff the river OOP after the turn has checked through, I know I do LOL. But I accept that there's a clear difference between that and "being aggressive with big hands".

That said, I'm having a very hard time here folding the river if it's not an A,K or heart, and the betsize is less than pot. I don't protect my checking range on the turn with middling top pairs to fold to river aggression.

I think it's an easy fold if he bets huge, even allowing that he MIGHT have some bluffs.

This isn't a board where V is likely to bet huge on the river if we check back turn. If he bets huge, it's more than likely a nutted hand, not a bluff.

You seem to be obsessed with the idea of balancing value vs bluffs, without acknowledging that many low stakes players have sizing tells, and there are valid reasons to alter bet sizes based on what opponents have.

When we check back turn, I'm mostly putting V's range into three buckets:

Hands that bet huge - mostly 8x looking to make up for lost value on early streets. Occasionally some better Qx de-polarizing. Maybe rarely worse Qx or worse showdown value being over-played, and maybe occasionally some overly optimistic bluffs.

Hands that bet small - mostly bricked-draws and air-ball bluffs and some better QX going thin for value. Maybe occasionally, some worse QX. Also maybe occasionally some weak 8x leveling themselves into betting small, because MUBS. Sometimes some worse showdown value going too thin or being turned into a bluff.

Hands that check - mostly worse QX and worse showdown value just hoping we check back, but likely to make a sigh-call if we bet on the smaller side, some bricked draws that are going to fold, and occasionally some super-thick value hoping to check-raise.

We're just not going to have very many thick value hands when we check back the turn, so there's no reason why V should think he needs to go huge with his bluffs. We'll occasionally be slow-playing something to induce him to bluff, and we'll occasionally river a hidden monster, so there again, he just doesn't need to go huge, to get us to fold out our weak showdown value, because we're just going to snap him off when we're sandbagging or ran into something strong.

That's why this line of raising pre, range-betting flop, and checking back turn with showdown value to bluff catch the river is such a profitable line. Most V's are going to struggle to balance when they bet river. They're going to mostly bet huge with their big hands, and check or bet small with the rest of their range.

Even if one in 20 V's is capable of balancing here, and betting huge as a bluff, it's okay, because we will sometimes improve on the river, so that we can have some stronger hands that can call, and our weak top pair isn't losing a ton of value folding the river to a huge bet, when we checked back turn, rather than barreling.

A "huge" bet when the pot is $120 might be, what? $80? $180? Big deal. We put $50 into the pot. We can let Q9 go. But if we bet $60 on turn and the pot is $240, a huge bet is going to be bigger, and much more likely to be thick value, much less likely to be a bluff. We're going to hate seeing V push $300 out.

I don't see how a $5 donk into a $60 pot on the flop, and checking to us on the turn, looks like thick value, from a player who is very aggressive with his big hands.

If we expect him to be aggressive with big hands, all the more reason to check back turn. Generally, opponents are going to make more mistakes when we check back here than when we barrel.

i think vs fish if you have a hand that can't go for multiple / all streets you do better off checking (i think they will bluff / bet depolar way too often vs x). asides from making the hand easier to play, idk what betting really does. i guess it gives you some hands in bet flop check turn call river probe. but i think betting flop and turn to check river is sacrificing some ev, and your range in other areas of the game tree simply because uncomfortable playing w/o iniative and at the heart of it, this forum's aversion to making a "bad" call.

I believe you're giving low stakes live players too much credit, and over-thinking things, but they're the wrong things. You're trying to play GTO against guys who don't understand equilibrium.

You're ascribing balance to someone we know isn't. It's in the read we were given: "very aggressive with strong hands, raising and 3-betting large." He's not balanced.

Ordinarily, when we're the PFR and IP, V's are checking in flow to us on the flop. If V calls our range bet, we can check back turn, and bluff-catch river, as described above.

But this hand is off the rails from the jump, because we raised pre with a marginal hand, flopped a weak top pair, V donks 1/12th pot, we raise 6x (but still only 1/2 pot) with thin value, he calls, and then the board pairs on the turn, adding a second flush draw to the FDFD / FDSD already on board, V checks, and then calls a 1/2 pot bet.

Like, this isn't a situation we're going to be in often enough to warrant study or a lot of debate. It's like that other hand where you made trips with T9o. There just isn't a sim or game tree for this one. Throw balance out the window.

There's just no good reason for us to get out of line here. We have a weak top pair. Like, just try to think of a worse Qx V could have here, or any worse 1P hand that bets huge on the river for value.

I can't think of any hand that's worse than ours that makes sense as a big value bet. I seriously doubt he's going to blast off with Q7 or worse QX, when we could have AA, KK, AQ, KQ, QJ, QT, not to mention QQ, and occasionally some 8x.

Now switch it around, and look at this from V's perspective. Say he has 8x, or 44, or Q8, 84, or AQo, and checks turn, with a plan to check-raise if we bet, but we check back. He's going to want to bet huge, to make up for the value he missed on the turn.

But say he does have worse Qx, like Q7, or something weird like 99 (hard for him to have, when we have Q9), or TT, or JJ that didn't 3B pre, or 77 - what would get into him, to make him bet huge with those hands, rather than just check, hoping we check back, or that we bet small, so he can call?

What would his "natural" bluffs be, that want to donk bet flop, call a raise, check turn, and then bluff big on the river (assuming it's just a brick), just because we checked back turn?

His natural bluffs would be missed hearts, and maybe something weird, like A4, or an inside straight draw, like JT, T9, 65, 76, or 75. I can't see too many low-stakes players who will donk flop with those hands, AND call a raise, and then suddenly decide they're going to risk $80-$180 to try to win a $120 pot by pushing us off of AA, KK, AQ, or KQ, when we could have been slow-playing QQ when we checked back turn.

Bluff-catching is only profitable when an opponent has lots of bluffs, AND he's capable of actually bluffing. In theory, he's supposed to have lots of bluffs when he bets big, because "balance", but that's not how low stakes live players actually play.

He can have lots of bluffs when we check back turn and he bets small, but I can't credit low-stakes live players for finding lots of bluffs that want to bet big here, when the river bricks, and every draw missed. Like, his most natural bluffs are missed hearts, and those are the combos he's NOT supposed to bluff, when his draw bricks.

Every other bluff is going to be some sort of showdown value, or something bonkers, like a missed inside straight draw. Most low stakes players are too bashful to attempt a huge bluff with their missed draws, especially in a spot where it's just not necessary, like here, where the pot is small. Most players are just going to check, say, "I missed", and muck if we check back.

No one wants to go to war over a $120 pot when they have air, and we're starting $1k deep. Imagine being V, trying to bluff for $200, and getting raised. How stupid is he going to look if we snap him off with AQ or KQ? No one wants to look stupid, when they can just check-muck on a bad run-out, and move onto the next hand.

Just go back and work through the action, and try to figure out what this guy's range looks like after the turn, and how he's likely to play that range, given the specific read on him, and population tendencies. He's not bluffing huge on the river with air. He's a nut-peddler, who over-bets for value, not with his bluffs.

I like to try and approximate what balance looks like before I start deviating in order to exploit, and I don't think it's advisable to try and do the latter without understanding the former first of all. I totally get that most live low stakes players are not thinking this way, but I enjoy looking at these things all the same - it's often educational and it's good practice for how to think about hands etc.

Balance exists in all hands.

I'd say villain is going to bet all 8x and most Qx on the river after the turn checks through. (Although I don't think he has Q7s in his range after BTN opens and SB calls). His natural bluffs that play the hand this way are going to be missed flush draws (an error, as you pointed out) and also other weak hands that might be included to mindonk flop and call a raise (for example, gutshots). I agree it's certainly a bit of a stretch that he gets to the river with much junk that isn't a missed flush draw - but this is evidently an unorthodox villain, so gutshots don't seem out of the question. I'd argue that he certainly would be inclined to turn these hands into bluffs once the turn checks through. A lot of players play emotionally in these situations. They observe the weakness shown on the turn and see it as an opportunity. They know they can't win if they check the river; and that their opponent will either check back with showdown value that beats them, or may bet and put them into a situation where they have to either fold or make an uncomfortable and suspicious check-raise - therefore probing the river is the only viable option.

I honestly don't think most heroes have KQ+, KK or AA that often here on the river.

I certainly do want to go to war over a $120 pot when I have air and my opponent has shown weakness. If I blast for $200 and get snapped with Qx, I'm happy to show it to the table. You gotta keep those doubts in their minds at all times.

How do you conclude this guy is a nut-peddler who overbets for value and not as a bluff?

Here's a very approximate range of what the villain gets to a blank river with in this hand after calling preflop, min donking flop and calling a raise, and the turn checking through:

Note that I'm assuming he donks some combos of 8x on the turn (as he's shown a propensity for donking, and for fast-playing big hands) but some are included here because he may well intend to check-raise some of those combos too. Presumably he is raising off sets and two pairs on the flop, so they're not included either. He has 102 combos in his range:

8 combos of 8x
36 combos of Qx
15 combos of 4x
2 combos of 2x for a rivered pair
41 combos of ace high or worse

Once the turn checks through he can value bet pretty thin; I'd say about all combos of Qx except perhaps the 12 combos of QT - so 24 combos, plus the 8 combos of 8x, is 32 value hands.

In addition to the QT combos, 4x is presumably check-calling this river, assuming the betsize isn't too large - in which case it would obviously fold. The 2x pairs are probably just check-folding.

How he balances with bluffs is an interesting question, because what potential bluffs other than flush draws are min-donking flop and calling a raise? In order to have his bluffing range not be completely flush draws (which would be an error on his part, although many low stakes villains will over-bluff with these missed flush draws) it's necessary for him to have min-donked with some gutshots too.

For example:

JTs, J9s, T9s, 76s, 75s, 65s (3 combos of each, as the heart combos are not included).

This balances pretty well with his value range and enables him to probe the river for about 75% pot. If he wants to use a bigger size then he needs to either cut back on combs of Qx that he bets for value, or start including some 2x and missed flush draws as bluffs - whether or not either of these options is a good idea is debatable. And if he wants to play exploitatively then by all means he can start including many more missed flush draws, and overbet with the entire bluffing range (imbalanced, but probably effective at low stakes live poker).

I don't think he needs a check-raising range here and that it's fine to split his hands between bets and check/calls - but I'm interested in what other people think about having some check-raises here. It seems that hero is capped with the turn check back, and on this blank river likely to check back a lot. When hero bets it's going to be for a smaller size and with a mostly condensed range (not much big value at all) that's balanced with a small amount of bluffs. So perhaps villain can attack that condensed range with some gigantic check-raises with perhaps two combos of 8x and one airball combo - 76 of diamonds/clubs come to mind.

What happens when the front door flush comes in on the river? Then villain's range changes drastically. He has the same 102 combos but their hand strength breakdown is now as follows:

28 combos of flushes
8 combos of 8x
36 combos of Qx
10 combos of 4x
18 combos of air (the gutshots that donked the flop)

How wide can/should villain value bet here? Hero has capped his range on the turn, so suddenly villain finds himself in a situation where he has huge value vs a (mostly) weak range. I would again go with about 75% pot here, but the way to balance the range is different. Villain should simply value bet all flushes and 8x (36 combos), and balance that range with the 18 combos of missed gutshots. Qx is perhaps now too thin to go for value, but can instead comfortably check-call. Everything else can just check-fold. Again the question arises as to whether or not villain needs a check-raising range, and what purpose would such a range serve here? The only answer is to protect the check-calling range, so perhaps a couple of nut flushes and one of the missed gutshots can create that range.

Always Fondling's brain got full halfway through reading again, so he reverted to his standard childish, zero-value input.

You might want to check out Tiktok dude, it sounds like it might be more on your intellectual alley.

You're on ignore now, enjoy your life young man.

Hulk sad.

I took a look with Pio for the hell of it. These are the parameters I used:

Amusingly enough, it actually availed of the mindonk about 23% of the time with its entire range:

Naturally it's doing this in a perfectly balanced and unexploitable way. Don't ask me why though LOL. I'm guessing that the wide ranges are something to do with it and that it would be less inclined to do so if it was UTG vs BB (but I could be wrong).

So to get to the part of the hand that we were discussing above (a blank river, after the turn checks through), here is the range that Pio has for villain:

Note that Pio is floating a lot wider than we would expect villain to float to the flop raise, including with hands like AT, AJ and small pocket pairs. It's probing with about 60% of its range, including most 8x and Qx, as expected. It's check-calling 4x and 2x, and bluffing with the missed gutshots J9, T9, 76 and 65, in addition to the weakest missed flush draws, and pocket sevens and sixes. When it checks and faces a 66% pot bet, it raises with some slow-played 8x, boats and even some KQ:

What about when the river completes a flush? Then Pio likes to play as follows:

It generally prefers betting the middle/lower flushes (and of course all boats) and plays 8x a little more passively than I expected. It uses the same bluffs as in the previous example - the missed gutshots, as well as some J7/T7/97 and KT with the Kh (and not any combos with the Ah blocker, which I'm a little surprised to see). Naturally it needs to bluff with some extra combos due to the huge increase in the number of values hands it has on the river when the flush completes. The 4x and 2x hands now mostly become check-folds. After checking and facing a bet, it likes to check-raise the fraction of nutted hands - boats and the nut flush - that it checked on the river, again using the same bluffing hands for balance:

I.e., a nut-peddler.

Maybe not a typical nitty nut peddler, but nonetheless likely to bet huge with thick value, and unlikely to suddenly blast off with air just because we checked back turn.

I imagine "3betting" applies mostly to preflop, and I think most players in general bet huge postflop with nutted hands. But sure, something clearly made an impression with OP that this was an aggressive player.

I'd argue that bluffing the river OOP after the turn checks through is almost automatic for many low stakes players; even nittier players recognize instinctually that this is an excellent spot to bluff vs a range that is capped 95% of the time. Most low stakes players aren't checking back top pair on the turn most of the time; this means that if the river's a blank it's a green light to get aggressive. A 2x pot bet for example is taking the pot down almost always.

You should stick to doing what computers tell you to do. Using logic to figure out what humans are doing isn't your strong suit.

The solver played fairly similarly to what I suggested in this hand.

It's very intellectually weak to respond to the points I made with ad hominem comments; that's how children "debate".

I've been crushing low stakes poker for years and I've got nothing to prove. I'm just here to discuss ideas, look at some hands and pick up some tips from advanced theoreticians.

Math(computer) never lies. But if you input the wrong numbers, you'll get the wrong results. That's why math and logic need to work together.