Should I call this river probe raise?

Okay, thanks for the tip. The way I usually look at it is that if I'm betting pot on the river it needs to be 66% with value and 33% with bluffs, right? So if I have ten value combos then I need to balance with five bluff combos, etc. Can you clarify what you mean with mapping river sizes to value bets?

choose your sizing scheme based on your valuebets, not your bluffs

you definitely want to have xr's otr and the flop as well

Okay so what happens with regard to bet sizing when hero has many hands to value bet vs not having many hands to value bet?

Sure, I would have some check-raises on the flop and river here, just not 66 on the flop. Some of the boat combos would go into the river check-raising range too (although admittedly not many, as I'm expecting villain to check back the river a lot with their capped range from the turn).

your bet size is really just based on the equity of your hand(s) vs their range. then you add bluffs to compensate. you can generally almost always find hands to bluff w barring some particularly odd runout assuming range composition is not done poorly. in practice it doesn't matter, just bet the size your hand wants to and let them find reasons to call. either way this hand isn't an example of that

fwiw have read more of the thread and i see solver beginning to mix / be indifferent w non nut flushes vs larger river raise sizing. dont really care much what solve says, would call linearly especially when you choose dumb size otr (non 0 though not high chance he raises flushes vs it because he thinks u have str / trips or something bc u bet too small)

Okay interesting, thanks.

didn't read all the comments here, but if villain is a reg I would just c/r the flop heads up vs his utg range.

Average reg in bb has 100% 33,66,A3s and with low percentage even K3s,63s,53s,43s whereas 9max utg open raise range from solid reg shouldn't have 33, and seldom 66/A3s, wouldn't be surprised if his range on flop is only overpairs and broadway flushdraws, he will have a very hard time to continue vs c/r and big bet on turn which sets up a river shove, and you have tons of equity too.

As played I probably call mostly because of your line and betsizing he could be convinced that his Khigh flush is still good enough to value raise, and imo his value range should be mostly TT.

But that's just an assumption of me, I wouldn't blame anyone who wants to fold without any more reads on villain.

Thanks yes I agree with you that hero has a nut advantage on this board (but not a range advantage). I certainly have all the hands you mentioned - 33,66,A3s, K3s,63s,53s,43s - whereas villain can only really have 66 and may decide to slow play it and not cbet. Certainly the majority of the UTG cbetting range is overpairs and flush draws, and to be honest I think many players cbet too much as the preflop raiser in multiway pots (I see it recommended in many places to check with overpairs in these situations, for example). From a theoretical point of view villain would be obliged to call with overpairs facing a check raise in order to remain "unexploitable" if they decide to cbet them and face a raise (and overpairs have a plus EV call in those situations at equilibrium in any case). I'm blocking a large portion of the UTG flush draws that might decide to cbet into three players (AK, AQ, AJ, AT, A9, A5) which makes it somewhat more likely UTG has an overpair when they cbet. That said, I don't think it's a good idea to get too out of line with check raises in BB vs UTG after UTG has cbet into three players. They are repping a very narrow and strong range, most of which is prepared to withstand pressure from raises etc. On the board 6♠3♠3♦ I would prefer check-raising with combo draws that have less showdown value, like 5♠4♠ or 7♠5♠. If the BB wants to check-raise a lot of 3x (which I don't necessarily think is a good idea) then they are going to need to start balancing with more draws and some nut flush draws will make it in there, but again I would prefer lower ones that can turn additional equity, like A♠2♠, A♠4♠, A♠5♠.

Yes I agree that this is a spot where BB can put a lot of pressure on UTG's overpairs - they just can't get carried away, and if UTG is a solid player and understands that the BB is gonna have many draws here and that UTG will need to call down with overpairs - it can end up getting very expensive for the BB, all for the sake of "putting UTG in a difficult spot" - which they don't even achieve if villain is a capable player and not concerned about calling down with overpairs. Another issue is that UTG can choose to 3bet the flop (even jamming, depending on the BB check-raise size) and put BB into a situation where they have piled in money with a draw and are subsequently priced out of calling and therefore must either fold their equity or make a minus EV call.

Yeah I certainly made an error with the betsizing on the river in this hand, and it's possible that the two combos of K-high flushes are raising for value. But the fact remains that there are a lot more boat combos than there are flush combos that raise the river, and at least with a cursory glance it's difficult to find natural bluffs for UTG after the turn checks through, as so much of their range is showdown-bound - for example overpairs that pot-controlled and are simply going to pick off the BB river probe; even pocket 9s and 8s have a fairly straightforward call on the T♠ river, assuming the bet size is not too large.

i think you're still just starting from a conclusion of "river raises are never bluffs" and working backwards as opposed to analyzing the hand

the only boats i plausibly see are 77 and TT and i think both are discounted

Honestly, I'm not. I'm starting at the beginning of the hand and concluding that by the river there are not many natural bluffs that UTG can have in their range. I haven't looked at it in-depth, but at least on the surface it appears that UTG has very few non-showdown hands once they cbet into three players and check back the turn, with the flush draw completing on the river. Of course, if they are going to raise some hands on the river for value, then they are going to have to balance with bluffs - pretty much the only ones that come to mind here are 99 and 88 with a spade, which I think are pretty much bottom of range. I believe this means that they have very few bluff combos available and that they can't raise too wide as a result. That said, I certainly do contend that river raises are bluffs significantly more rarely than they should be, particularly when villain has capped their range with the check back on the turn. And I believe MDA supports this?

77 and TT could be discounted some of the time, sure. Some villains have a tendency to keep firing with overpairs, while others tend to pot control and check them back on the turn. But I don't think either can be completely discounted in this hand, and I believe a solver would mix with these hands too and arrive with them at the river some of the time, but please do correct me if I'm wrong.

dunno. river raise vs small bet is over bluffed. its a really weird hand for sure and id feel better about folding if you bet bigger otr (though perhaps this hand is good evidence of why we go for block / 3bet with good hands in similar spots). like you prob lose if you call but i'd just give him the money.

where do u see mda for x back turn raise river on paired fd boards when utg pots 4 ways on?

its just too much soul reading with no evidence beyond solid winning regular who's made at least 1 probably 2 poor sizing choices so far in the hand

Okay interesting, thanks.

Yes the botched river sizing definitely affected things.

I meant MDA in general about river raises (and I realize there are many variables). Also, in this hand, I assume UTG's range is even tighter than usual after cbetting into three players (compared to what it would be after cbetting heads up vs the BB, for example).

Sure I concede there was some soul-reading going on in this hand. As I've mentioned before, this simply comes from what I've experienced playing many years of poker around the world, and how I believe one should adjust when playing live low-stakes poker, in comparison to what theory suggests.

yeah but i do think people are getting better at poker by and large, so previous years samples won't really be as relevant, as both much more information is widely circulating and the bad have to keep moving down or move on

Sure, that's definitely true, although I honestly can't say I've seen much difference in play in low stakes games over the years. All this theory floating about actually appears to confuse a lot of players too (for example, making nonsensical plays with "blockers" because they've seen someone do something similar on HCL). There's also always new players coming into the games who have hardly played before and certainly know nothing of theory. The vast majority of those are loose, passive and most definitely value-heavy with river raises in my experience. I think it ultimately boils down to the average human psychology being risk-averse, cautious, uncreative, embarrassed to get caught bluffing and lose a large sum of money, etc. Bet sizes are largest on the river too, so of course it involves the most risk.

maybe but i think by 2/5, particularly the regs, i do think you get people who are trying to win. what that means is sort of up in the air but i think around here is where people can either go pro or make real money from a side hustle so theres a good amount of incentive to trying to get better. but think it depends on location, the person involved, what higher games go, if they play online, etc.

fwiw i feel less strongly that u should call this one than the prev thread, am mostly doing it from game plan standpoint.

I'm not sure what you mean, there was no 125% pot bet on the flop. Did you mean the river?

"If OOP uses a small size you are printing calling with similar hands" - do you mean if OOP users a smaller size on the river, then they should be calling with the nut flush vs the raise? I'm also not sure what you mean with "close to ev" - close to zero EV?

So you're saying if I bet 130% on the river then UTG is meant to raise with NF+ for value?

Sorry but I can't understand what you wrote very well.

Yes I probably do constrict myself with my perception/understanding of theory somewhat, that's true. I do bend the rules a fair bit too, but most of those hands don't make it onto this forum.

Sure, people certainly take the game more seriously at 2/5, and many players are playing for profit or as a side hustle, etc. The game I play at is predominantly recreational players, and it's the only legal table in the city. They run 2/5 from Thursday to Sunday and only have one table, which means a lot of recreational players end up in the game. Some players certainly study and try and improve, whilst others (the vast majority) are just playing for fun or to pass the time. Some but not all play online or have in the past, and in general I would say it's a slightly older demographic than the average game.

use gtow to follow along. nl500 150bb i used 2.5x sizing pre and gto3bing size.

i put in 130% psb otf bc utg bet big so mdf gets split 3 ways in theory, and thats the biggest size i can look at without doing something custom. tbh you can be tighter than whats shown in the sim bc again defense is split 3 ways so u can fold all the fringe / low ev defends bc u have other people in the hand to protect you.

i see oop using 2 sizes otr, a 60% sizing and a 130% sizing. your issue in the game is you're combining the 2 (most likely not betting a good amount of the hands "worth" 60% at all) and not getting enough value out of your really good hands. it's conceivable thin bets arent a thin either bc ppl are nitty or he bet huge 4 ways, but you're still going to want to bet straights / trips / low fluhses, while mostly going larger with NF+ (esp when we dont think hes ever raising river even vs small except w a FH). a huge part of deep stack nl is making as much money as u can when u cooler someone, granted u are not going to stack him otr but its still a big deal here. that should generally be your focus, not worrying about balancing your range or if u have enough air to bet big. esp when you're playing in a game with what sounds like recs and weak regs.

alot of your considerations really aren't a thing until you're playing statistically relevant sample sizes vs really good players. like yeah you might get accidentally exploited by someones approach to the game in some spots, but you should not knowingly sacrifice ev with your nut hands vs weak opponents for the sake of balance or "playing good poker".

most of what we do for balance is so they can't just fold when we have a good hand. you dont want to forget that.

Nobody is snap checking back a turned boat, and i also think its weird to bet flop check back turn with boat. I think its an easy call.

Ah okay, I get it now, thanks.

Yes in this situation with villain ostensibly capped on the turn, I would use a smaller bet size when probing river (usually around 66% pot) so that I can get called wider. I think this makes sense because they have clearly indicated their range is capped and therefore can't call a much larger bet than that. There are situations where I use more than one size on the river (for example when I triple off and the river bricks all draws vs completes some draws) and I think it's fine to do that in those cases because both I and any smart villain know exactly where I am in my range. For example, if I'm betting the NFD and it completes on the river, I will use a massive size in the knowledge that villain is never folding any flush, and is a lot more likely to fold weaker hands etc when the draws complete compared to when they don't (in other words, I don't lose value against those weaker hands when I use a larger size, because they will probably fold to a smaller size given that the draw completed). What I have an issue with doing is varying my bet size according to my hand strength when I'm meant to be fully polarized or, for example, betting smaller on a brick river after tripling off with a hand like top pair middle kicker, because these actions give clear information to observant villains and good players can use that to their advantage.

In the hand in this thread, I would bet 66% pot with all my value hands on the river from quads to weak trips (again, purely because villain's range is capped from the turn). I just don't think villain has enough to call me with if I use a significantly larger size with the nut flush. For example, in a hand I played again villain the previous day, we had a very similar situation where I was out of position on the river with a flush that came in on a turn that was also checked through. In that hand I bet about 66% pot and villain tank-called with TPTK. So if this hand can even consider folding for 66% pot I just don't see how I can get much more value than that on the river in the hand from this thread. Sure, villain may well be pot-controlling turn with overpairs some of the time, and prepared to snap off any river probe up to perhaps a pot size bet. But I just don't see enough villains protecting their turn check back ranges to believe that happens often enough to warrant a larger sizing on the river when the obvious draw completes.

Yes you're right that going for shameless value and not being overly concerned with balance is a fine modus operandi for low stakes poker in general. But I like to at least try and be balanced in game, and certainly when studying.

"most of what we do for balance is so they can't just fold when we have a good hand" - yes, absolutely. And when you play in the same club regularly people get to know your playing style and tendencies, so being balanced and for example bluffing a significant portion of the time is certainly mandatory or you will get labelled as a nit and have trouble getting paid when you do hit something big.

I've seen people do this on several occasions, which is why I included the snap turn check back when I posted the hand.

I dunno about easy call dude. What value hands is villain raising river expecting to get called by worse?

is a very human bias to under value what u can bet otr w ur hands. the large size is geared towards flushes and overpairs with a spade blocker. those are the hands you can get value from. you have to believe he can have overpairs if you think he can have TT here, and people arent going to fold a flush to one bet unless its multiples of the pot. the issue is you want to pick and choose what balance you're following. either follow the sim (and try to be balanced) or don't but it's telling you that (some of) your value hands are worth more here than you think they are

realistically, before he raises the river what would you estimate your equity against his river range with a9ss to be? the sim says its 98. granted its probably less than that as he cbets less air multiway but you're way under valuing the strength of your hand here, like it would take a very very special set of assumptions for you to have less than 90

i just dont see how u can realistically put him on TT but then say he has no hands that can call the river if you pot

I agree it's a very human bias and I could be wrong in my assessment. I will experiment with this and get back to you. So just to be clear, ~130% pot is the size to go for in spots like this?

Yes I believe some villains can have TT in their range some of the time on the river here (I know I can, for one thing).

I would estimate my equity vs villain's river range to be massive; 90% at the bare minimum.

i think (other) humans are prone to getting scared when overbets go in. if that's the case and you dont regularly spew / do this stuff, i think you can pot the river and probably see a similar calling range to 2/3. id start there and see what happens. i would think 130+ might actually dramatically alter what they do. depending which blind configuration u look at it sometimes 3x pots the river with some of the nf just bc ip so dead. i would not do that here for relatively obvious reasons but i do think your hand is just really really strong and we want to put a good amount in with it

Definitely people at low stakes are intimidated by overbets.

Okay I'll start with potting it in these spots and take it from there.

Off to play some 1/3 shortly so might have a hand for you tomorrow lol.

So what is my approximate equity vs villain's range on the river in the hand from this thread?