Lost On The River

Ouch. Your turn bet could be bigger. I'd go $450. $250 let's them draw too easily, but it's not a horrible size. Sucks that they both called. River is, indeed, horrible, considering they both called turn. I check/decide. They don't seem the types to bluff w/ worse. Pay close attention to attitude / bet size if they do bet.

FWIW, I probably just fold pre, but I realize how pretty JTs appears to be 😉

Also, a little confused on positions?

Yeah, that's why I put the !? on the x/r. I like the x/r, and it felt large in game, but that is mostly because of LJ's insanely small turn bet. It's 5x his bet, but I guess I was on autopilot. I wanted the LJ's Ax to call or jam on me, I felt that $250 was good for that, and I remember thinking that the stacks were too big to jam. I didn't think LJ would be betting out with FD too often, so in my dream world, Straddle would fold and LJ would call/jam because I thought he was likely drawing almost dead.

Straddle has to worry about LJ jamming and me coming over the top for his whole stack. I can't bet over $350, because I want the action reopened if straddle calls and LJ jams, so I can overshove. I should have taken the time to count LJs chips and think about it, and I think I would have found $350. Then the river is still gross, but I think it makes my decision easier with the SPR a bit lower. Or maybe LJ feels more pot committed and just jams making life a bunch easier letting me get everything in with the current nuts.

"Also, a little confused on positions?"
Hero in the BB both players to my left. Probably should have labeled Straddle as V1 since he is first to act after me.

Oh, UTG straddle. OK. FWIW, I fold pre from BB. (Was that info in original post? How did I miss it?)

Also, for some reason, I thought you had JhTh? Weird. Definitely checking river.

I could have sworn he had JhTh, so I understood the call. Now I don't, but I would have folded pre anyway.

^-----
I corrected it because I mistyped, sorry about that. I was trying to set the format up nice and had hearts on my mind. I did not have the FD, hence why the river is so awkward. If I hit the flush OTR, I'm betting all day long and if pipped I'm pipped.

It's 1/3rd pot with a draw to the nuts when we're playing with another 240+ bb behind after the call. That's a call all day long.

I'd much rather have JT than AJ or T9 here. If I fold JT, what part of my range am I calling with? I have no big pocket pairs.

So in my range, I have suited connectors 56-KQ, I have 22-JJ, suited gappers I have 68-KJ, I have K9+, Q9+, A2-AJs, AJ-AQo.

22-66 fold. 77 & 99 x/r flop. So maybe 88, TT & JJ calls sometimes? SC 56-9T and suited gappers 68-8T are all x/r at least sometimes. Many of them I probably mix. The higher end KQ, KJ, QJ, KT, QT all fold. A lot of my Ax calls, A9 is probably the only raise.

So my calling range is primarily 88, TT, JJ, Ax. The only nuts I can make from those are FDs, and everything else in that calling range is a weak hand that is probably going to stay weak. I need something in that bucket that will improve with a straightening turn. JT fits the bill as something that can hit the nuts but is a pretty terrible x/r candidate as I block AJ/AT which are aces I can get to fold by the river or JJ, TT that might play this way and autofold against resistance. I'd rather x/r the lower straight draws like 68.

Even continuing 77+, 56-JT, 68-8T, J9, Q9, K9, and all Ax, I'm continuing with 134 out of my of my 243 combos. 55% of my original range against a 1/3rd pot bet. I should be continuing with 65% of my range, but I'm human and I can't find or property navigate that wide OTT. So V is printing with this bet. Folding too wide just lets him print more easily and removes his opportunity to mess up later.

I'm not worried about the straddle. If straddle 3!, I can reassess but straddle has a super wide and weak range. He has to fold a lot here and has to fold even more once I'm in. Once I call, even some of his low FDs are pretty scary, he doesn't want to be dominated by a flush/flush and as noted, Ax FD makes up a huge portion of my range. If he was the kind of player to x/r with some of the straight draws, or low FD maybe I have to be more cautious, but I think he x/r exactly 99 and 77. Maybe sometimes A9. If he is x/r maybe 10 combos out of the 300+ he would see the flop with, I'm not going to adjust my play worrying about getting x/r 3% of the time. I'll just fold and lose a small pot. 97% of the time he calls or folds and I get to see the turn for $50.

Folding when there is one player behind who has shown no sign of aggression the whole hand and has a crazy wide range doesn't make sense to me. I treat the position as HU until the Straddle does something to indicate a hand.

In general, I agree, but JTs is way too light to squeeze OOP. I'm going to get called, probably by everyone. I'd have to go at least $200. And when called I'm in a really bad spot on most boards. If I was on the button and there was only one caller, then maybe I squeeze. But I think JT is much nicer in an SRP. 3! is going to be called by hands that crush us, and will fold out the hands we crush. So to 3! JTs, I have to be very confident that there will be folds all around. In this configuration, I don't think I'm getting folds, I think I'm probably going 3-way minimum. So the real choice is call or fold.

The short stack is 250 bb deep, most are 300+ bb deep. That deep, I think JTs is a straightforward call, if we believe that the straddle is going to have a very condensed squeezing range and if we believe opponents will not be overly aggressive post flop. If straddle was squeezing more frequently, I might think twice. If folks were blasting away with air frequently I would think twice. But as noted, this game was quite splashy pre, but fairly ABC post. That gives me confidence that I can exert significant control over whether the pot gets large or stays small and get out of the way if someone starts blasting without too much fear that I'm folding to air.

I have tightened up my play from this spot. Hands like K5s now hit the muck. But suited and connected, yeah I can't embrace the nitty side of the force that much. Most GTO preflop programs will embrace a call 200bb+ deep in this configuration. But as stated, I know I play a bit wider than GTO and that's because of the dynamics of the game let me be more exploitative.

If you want to win, stop with the excuses and just fold pre in this spot.

I would flip the question and ask "if you're not folding Jack-high and a gutshot on the flop, what are you folding?" but as you've said that you're overcalling from the BB (in a straddled pot) with 86, Q9 and 22, it seems to me that preflop is an even bigger leak

If you do some study with deep preflop situations with a straddle, you will see that 22 is 100% call, Q9 is call or raise 30%, 86 is calling about 15%. The solver will also call as light as K6s, and offsuit broadways as weak as QJo in this situation. JT is a 100% continue in some form, and about 50/50 raising/calling+- depending on which solver library you rely on.

I'm all for deviating from the solver, but when I do I try to have a reason. Something like 86 is definitely borderline, but I've already described my ingame logic for playing slightly wider, which means that a lot of those borderline hands that are call/fold become pure calls. I offset that by removing various hands the solver might play sometimes like K6s going to the muck 100% for me. QJo, KJo, KQo going to the muck 100%. So my base range is absolutely supported by the math.

The question is whether or not I can play my base range and the factors to consider are:

1: The raise size is larger than GTO solvers ever assume. That suggests I should play tighter.
2: My opponents are playing passively post-flop and are going to miss a ton of bluffs that the computer would find. That suggests I can play wider.
3: My opponents are going to overfold to my aggression in various spots. That suggests I can play wider.
4: The game in unraked while GTO solvers assume the games are raked. This means I should call wider and 3! tighter.
5: My read on the specific opponent in the straddle is that he doesn't 3! enough. That means I can call wider.

So my conclusion is that I can play a bit wider than base because there are more factors suggesting I can play wider than suggest I should play tighter. For me that means moving those suited gappers that in solver world are sometimes calls and make them pure calls. How is that conclusion incorrect if we assume that my reads in game are reasonably accurate?

Now if my opponents were playing aggressively and finding bluffs post-flop, were not overfolding to aggression, the game was raked and/or the straddle was the type of player who would frequently squeeze to $250 preflop, then I have to tighten up more than base. The suited gappers go first, then maybe I keep just one suit of low SCs, the 9x gets cut, etc. JTs probably should still be in there with some frequency because with JTs you can stack strong ranges when you get broadway frequently. But I would at least consider throwing it in the muck in that type of game.

TLDR: In theory, JTs is a continue 100%. In game there were no relevant factors that made me believe I should be tighter than theory. I believed in this specific game, I could play looser than theory. Everyone is telling me I should play tighter than theory, but not providing any explanation as to why.

What would your preflop range look like in this position?

TLDR: Fold pre (especially from OOP!). Fold flop.

My main question is what to do OTTR. That's where I'm lost. Everything before the river is math easily verified through a solver and the only question is whether or not I'm in a situation where I should play tighter than the solver.

AP, do I bet the river or ck?

Why?

Because you are usually dominated pre and are playing OOP. On the flop, you have a gut shot. You have four outs -- possibly three. Do the math.

As I already stated, if I got here this way (I wouldn't), I'd check/evaluate the river.

I mean, ask your solver -- why ask us when you don't believe anything we write?

I'm not sure how calling preflop is solver approved, since when I have GTO-W set for x5 raise (with no straddle), no rake, after an LJ RFI and calls by the BTN and SB, the solver always folds JTs.

I did. The solver mixed small bet/check.

In game, I checked fearing the flush. I think that was a mistake because:

1: If either V has a flush they are going to bet for value, and it's really hard for me to fold to a small/modest bet. Someone value bets $400-$500, I probably have to call.
2: If straddle doesn't have a flush, he has an opportunity to steal the pot with a hefty raise that would be very uncomfortable for me to call. If straddle takes a $800+ sizing, do I really want to call? No.
3: If I have the best hand, is either V going to try to bluff small? I don't think so. I think anything below $500 is probably a value bet most of the time, over $800 could be bluffs, but my hand is just a pretty bluffcatcher.
4: If my hand is best, Vs will frequently have hands that can call small bets.

So after the hand, I started thinking that a blocker bet might be the best strategy. Something like $250. I don't think either V would come over the top with a bluff so I can fold to any raise with near certainty that they have the nut flush. If either V has a weak flush, I lose, but probably less than if they bet $300-$500 which I would at least seriously consider calling. If either V has a strong non-flush hand, they might pay me off.

I was a bit irritated with myself for not thinking of this option in game.

Results:

Did your solver really say to call pre and flop?

Yes. I laid out my range above and my reasons for playing base+ despite the oversized raise (which was a "normal" raise for this game). When you're 500bb deep, you get to play more hands than in a typical casino game where you're 100-200bb deep and some Vs with less.

The math on the flop is straightforward. You're calling $50/$150 with $700+ behind. Against his exact hand, I have 14% raw equity because he has one of my outs. If he had A9, I'd have 18% equity. Most of his made hands fall in that range. At worst, I have 10.5% raw equity against a hand like Ah8h.

If he turns Ah8h face up, the hand I have the least equity against, it is still a call. Why? Because to justify calling $50 into $150, I need to be able to extract approximately $300 when I hit. When I improve, it's almost always going to be through an 8. Can I extract $300 when an 8 hits? Yes. So mathematically, I'm getting the right implied odds to call. And on turns where he doesn't improve, I can expect him to check back with a high frequency giving me the second draw.

If he turns over AA, I have 14% equity. The problem being that he probably doesn't let me get past the turn. So in reality, I have about 8% realizable equity because I have to hit the turn or I'm going to be forced out. Well at 8%, I need to win about $450 more dollars. If he has three aces, am I getting paid $450+ on the turn? Yes, I'm getting $700 more. I can do this with every value hand in his range, and the implied odds are right for me to call. If I'm getting good implied odds for all of his value hands, and he probably has at least a few bluffs and a few value hands I might be able to bluff myself later if I miss, it's a slam dunk call. In game, I assumed I had 15% equity. I need 20% direct equity to call the flop bet (I'm getting 4:1). The implied odds more than make up the extra 5%.

The question is, what happens if I hit a J or T. Am I going to put a lot more money into the pot without hitting? And the answer is easily no. If I turn a J and he pots it, I'm gone. If he bets $50 again, well now I'm getting very close to the correct direct odds. The straddle is obviously a complication that could force me to burn $50 with a raise but I explained why I wasn't overly concerned about that. As it is, the straddle had a hand he should have pushed me out with, but failed to do so. And instead, gave me much better direct and implied odds for my draw.

This is why you can play looser against players who aren't aggressive enough post flop. If I had played this hand against a group of good LAGs, I'd have lost on the flop. As it is, I believed I was being laid favorable odds to hit my hand, and it was the type of hand that either I hit and play a big pot or miss and I'm not losing much more. As it turns out, with the exact hands I had huge implied odds. Unfortunately, I was unable to get max value. That's where I question both my x/r and my river check. But obviously, I didn't realize exactly how strong Vs were, I was targeting Ax, not 2-pair+ on the turn. Their nittyness saved them money on the turn, but cost them on the flop, because I never should have been allowed to see the turn.

You weren't 500bb deep with the straddle on. Against the Villain, you were less than 150bb deep.

I thought about that, too, but didn't bother posting 😉

A straddle isn't a BB and the two other callers to my right had me covered, so I am 250 straddles effective against two villains who are in the hand, and almost that against a third that will probably join. That leaves a ton of room for maneuvering post-flop. OTF I have a 10x SPR against three Vs and 5x SPR against the fourth.

Suppose I were posting this hand and the LJ limped in and called the $6 straddle with a $150 stack, and I called from the BB with a 100bb stack. Would you say that is a "bad call"? I doubt it. I suspect every one of you would flick in the call without even thinking about it.

OTF, the situation is identical. $6 * 5 = $30, H stack is $300 effective against most Vs or 10x SPR and 5x SPR vs LJ. Changing the multiplier on the numbers doesn't change the math. It might change the emotions, but the math of post flop play is identical in a game where I limp to a $6 straddle with $300 behind, or call $30 with $1500 behind. It's 2% of my stack to see a flop with JTs with a 5-10x SPR around the table.

I'm really curious what range you all would call with in this position.

Are you only playing raise or fold or do you have a call range?

If you're not playing JTs, I assume you also aren't playing QTs, KTs.

QJ or KJ?

I assume 99+?