Take it in fast or slow OOP w NIT?

Since I was one who suggested raising flop, I'll attempt an explanation. But allow me to preface it with a few points:

1. Not wanting to be dismissive of OP's reads, they're often at odds with the reveals, leading me to suspect his ranging of opponents is off, and noticed that the reads he gives often support his actions, making the reveal a "surprise". In this thread, I've chosen to ignore the VPIP % he's given for V.

2. Additionally, it's impossible to accurately track someone's VPIP % in a live game. The best we can do is observe that someone is VPIP'ing a lot or not much, but that could be because they're getting dealt good cards or not.

3. Notwithstanding the above, it is easy enough to recall if an opponent has gotten to showdown or not, and what sort of hands they've had. If our V hasn't showed down a lot of hands, I'm unconvinced she's all that nitty. It may just be the case that her opponents haven't had good enough hands to call when she's bet, or she hasn't been strong enough to call, which in turn leads me to wonder if she's not in fact VPIP'ing too wide.

4. Adding to the above, when OP says V keeps running into the top of people's ranges, it adds to my suspicion she's actually playing wider than it appears. Sure, she may be getting repeatedly coolered, playing tight, and somehow running big hands into bigger hands, but more likely she's running marginal hands into strong hands. Again, this suspicion is in part due to my belief that OP tends to overlook or simplify a good bit of what's happening at the table.

So, with all that said...

I think opening a suited wheel ace in MP is fine. But as I've told OP many times, he should be opening larger at 1/3. With one limp, he could open to $20 here. His $15 open is going to get called by wider ranges. I already suspected V was calling wider than OP suggests.

On the flop, I like the Hungry Horse Poker strat of over-betting or checking ace-high boards. Although we have top pair and a flush draw, our kicker is crap, so I'd just check.

Where things get interesting is V's large stab. As the pre-flop raiser, this board absolutely smashes our range, and yet she's stabbing at it, for a large size.

I suppose in theory this is a polarizing bet, and while it's possible V has 2P+, I just don't see low stakes players taking this sort of line with very strong hands. This looks more like a protection bet with a weak ace.

Flat calling is of course an option. We have top pair and a draw to the nuts, but the flush draw is so obvious that if we make it, we're unlikely to get paid. Likewise, if another Broadway cards rolls off, it'll either kill the action, or we'll be forced to fold to further aggression, unless we decide to turn our hand into a bluff at that point, and try to rep Broadway.

But if we check-raise, V is unlikely to put us on a flush draw. With the range and nut advantage on this board, we can potentially take the pot down now without needing to improve. If V calls, and the flush comes in, maybe she pays us off. Maybe she doesn't, and folds to a bet, but we'll have gotten more value than we would have gotten had we just flat called her flop stab.

If we check-raise flop and she 3B's, it's a trivial fold. But I don't think she's going to be 3B'ing very often, when she's otherwise been playing passively. Just the opposite - if she's playing tight-passive, she's likely to over-fold or over-call, less likely to 3B. This type of V doesn't like to play big pots without nutted hands, and the only nutted hand she can have here is KJcc.

Also, if we flat call flop, what's our plan for future streets? Are we check-calling a big bet on a turn brick? Check-calling or check-raising a club? Donking the river on a brick if the turn checks through? Donking river if the turn doesn't check through? Donking or check-raising if we make our hand on the river?

In which of those scenarios are we likely to win a big pot? It seems most likely we'll either win a small pot or lose a big one.

Flatting the flop is basically giving up on getting max value for our hand if we do make it, or setting up an unlikely-to-get-through bluff on a future street if we don't make our hand. If we're going to get paid when we make our hand, or get a bluff through if we don't, our best shot in either scenario is starting our bluff now, by raising the flop.

Usually I'd be more likely to x/r when an opponent stabs for a small size. This situation is one of the few exceptions, where a small size on this board looks stronger than a large size.

We were basically bluffing when we raised this hand pre. We could be turning our hand into a bluff on a future street if another Broadway card come. With the nut flush draw, I like starting our bluff now, rather than waiting for the pot to be bigger.

As for the rest of the hand - when I check-raise flops with a flush draw, and then make the flush on the turn, I don't bet. Instead I check, to feign weakness, as if I was raising flop to charge the draws. I'd have checked turn, and looked to put in a chunky bet on the river, when it'll be hard for her to fold TP+ when the turn checked through.

Hope that all makes sense.

docvail, can you please start adding a summary at the end of your post. Maybe a tl;dr section? I'm sorry, but I do not take the time to read your posts.

I'm not sure i understand the purpose of this request given the fact that anything substantial in terms of a discussion is better off when supported by explanation, this way your reader doesnt have to make assumptions about the intricacy of the argument.

Maybe the low content thread is more ideal than strat threads?

definitely gonna get through this but first read I do really like a lot of the points youre making here. i may still put up some arguments but thats how we get places 😉 I, at least, really appreciate the well thought out response with clear support for conclusive statements

The inane amount of drivel you just posted to justify a pretty obvious bad play is honestly impressive, congrats

ah ****, I meant what combos comprised that 5% range to achieve those equity calc results, largely because my calculations were quite different but also the assumptions made therein are extremely important as they would determine whether or not the analysis is supported by evidence provided.

If they are a nitty tight player their VPIP is gonna be somewhere between 8-12% full ring and maybe even less.

That VPIP contracts with preflop actions like Raises or 3bet or call 3bet etc.

That range of hands then contracts again once the flop comes since its doubtful they play from a "range of hands" standpoint and so what was at one point 8% of total combos is now a % of that.

So the 5% is highly applicable because it is determined by what combos are a part of that range given that our opponent is likely not merging the same line for whiffs or underpairs (which would make up a 5-10% PF range) and would actually be much smaller but it would also contract non-linearly and be focused more around interacting with the flop.

If you guys can't figure out how to use fewer words, well, not much I can do to help. It's a shame, though.

FWIW, ChatGPT shortened the post from 983 (!!!) words (LOL!) to 470. Maybe you guys should look into it. You'd probably get a lot more interaction from other posters.

To be clear, my prior comment was about leading, not x/r. I hate x/r a little less, but my gut says it isn't optimal.

As to the read, I'm just rolling with it. It might be wrong, but if the read is wrong, then you're going to be making bad decisions. That's an issue of improving your ability to observe and drawing accurate conclusions from what you observe. So I'm assuming V does VPIP 5-10%.

To docs points, I agree:
1: We are unlikely to get paid significantly if we hit our flush.
2: Flat calling means that we are rarely going to win a big pot.
3: Yes, we are giving up our shot at max value in this hand.

On the flip side, we aren't going to lose a big pot either. We're calling $25, and we are probably going to give up to further aggression unless it is small or we hit. So we aren't losing a big pot, we are losing $40.

So the question we need to answer is whether it is worth the risk to build a big pot with this hand and have a chance at winning a big pot (and also a chance of losing more) or if we want to limit our losses to $40 but perhaps lose more frequently.

When we 3-bet to $75, we now have $210 behind in a $180 pot. So if she jams, is that an easy fold getting 1.9:1? If she is only shoving with AA, QQ, TT, and KJ, we have 32.5% equity. Using an equity calculator, it is barely a fold. In game without a calculator, are we folding? Note that using the $95 3! size H did, we are mathematically being laid the right price to call. So even assuming she only jams with a set or better, we are really on the borderline of pricing ourselves in. So maybe that's an argument to just jam ourselves and maximize fold equity against AJ or AK. I'd rather be in a situation where it is very clear that we don't have equity to call the jam or that we have to call the jam than at a point where we need a calculator to know. But IRL, if I 3! and then she james, and its only 116% pot, I'm not folding the NFD. I'm hoping my read is wrong, and she got sick of my BS and jammed KK here. Because I've seen nits randomly blow up like that. And even if I'm right, I'm not losing that much EV to QQ or KJ.

Obviously in this case she didn't shove. But then what do we do on brick turns? Do we keep barreling and risk running into 2-pair or she just can't fold AK? V has shown a willingness to call a hand into the top of others ranges - we aren't at top of range. I think even a nit is going to call down with AK if the flush doesn't come.

If the turn checks through, are we going to bluff a brick river?

Trying to push this bluff feels like we are going to run into a brick wall too frequently. I think we need to hit our hand to get her to fold. I believe that once she bets, there is no hand that V has that we beat without improving. We are behind, and every dollar we put in before we hit is getting bad odds unless we believe V will sometimes fold. I have a really hard time coming up with hands V folds if our nitty read is right and we are assuming that she has a reasonable made hand to decide to bet the flop. My assumption is AJ or better. Can we get AJ to fold to any amount of pressure if a flush draw doesn't come in? I'm not sure.

Perfect I think this has resolved itself just fine then. I wasn’t aware that I required your assistance so I’m glad to relieve you of that burden

Ok so I think there's some good points made in the rest of the post but I'm isolating this as the over-arching thesis statement as the same idea was presented in your prior posts as well.

While I do want to win bigger pots, I dont think every hand is capable of delivering said goal from a playability standpoint or from a relative hand strength pov.

Effectively: at present our hand prefers a smaller pot with maneuverability and not a reduction in SPR as much. I dont think its a travesty to check raise but I dont think inflating pot size is good for our hand in particular nor do I think following your own statements that we'll get the FE needed. Even if Villain has an A with a weak kicker, the likelihood we go to showdown increases the smaller the SPR gets vs weaker to mediocre opponents. Especially so if we take into account your early points that OPs reads seem to justify their action and so you discount them/ignore them. If this is true, then we should also be ignoring the idea that the nitty description / likelihood to roll over to pressure lest we commit the same violation you stated OP might be doing at the outset.

At present we have at best a middling strength hand with unrealized equity to the nuts. Maybe I'm being too conservative in my estimation of Fold Equity and on that point I'm willing to uhh... fold (pun not intended, just ****in unavoidable) but even so - we arent a favorite to hit a flush, and our value in hitting the flush stems more from when villain has a stronger hand they just arent capable of letting go or even a lower flush.

If they have this stronger hand and its our potential flush we want to hit, ch/raising is more likely to get us blown off our hand unless we're committing to stacking off (not a fictional idea but obviously we dont have to manufacture the opportunity with our edge) And villains stack off range at the very least isnt going to be as undefined and weak as where it is currently.

If they have the weaker hand, not necessarily one we're ahead of but also of the middling strength kind, we are at a positional disadvantage and would benefit more from keeping pot smaller and making a move on a later street, specifically the river - especialyl if they have an A weak kicker, i'd rather gain more info in order to better define the range/likely holding than hope its something like that with which to lead rivers that perceive to benefit us more than opponent say with an overbet/psb. That said, I also dont like to be in the habit of making mediocre opponents fold an A no matter the kicker and considering we are only ahead of A2 at present, avoiding a showdown is going to be ideal so if I'm going to pressure with FE, i want to keep pot small so the threat of the remainder of my stack persists.

Furthermore:
A3 on an A high board vs an opponent who is at least somewhat passive would probably check back some % of the weaker hands that would be part of this potential folding portion of the range that target with a ch/raise, which means their bet is probably more value than merged of semibluff/weak holdings and value. And given as you mentioned in support of your statement they would be unlikely to repop our ch/raise, it would make more sense from a probability perspective that the betting range when checked to on the flop would not include as many foldable hands as the range that checks behind our flop check - it's basically a non-linear line of thinking that populates their betting range sufficiently enough where they fold enough of it when we ch/raise to make that profitable but the range that they would check back flop with to be comprised of some other overall distribution of potential holdings. In which case, just as we can assign a range to them that bets the flop, I guess I'd be curious to see what their check back flop range looks like to the range that bets the flop and ultimately faces the ch/raise?

In other words: If we assume we dont get paid on our flush unless villain has something substantial, and ideally we win the most when they hit a smaller flush, but potentially can still stack them when they hold less than a flush, it doesnt make sense for us to inflate the pot just yet potentially opening up scenario where we dont realize our equity the times they have a substantial hand right now vs also drawing to a stronger relative holding.

If big pot is the goal, we do not have a big pot hand. And we only get a big pot when they also have a big pot hand. And we cant both be seeking a big pot scenario while also saying we want to fold out/deny them equity with the ch/raise either, as those two intentions are in opposition.

Dude, I think you're over-thinking it.

We raised pre, and checked flop from OOP. V bet. She doesn't need the nuts to bet. We don't need the nuts to raise. We're semi-bluffing when we check-raise. We can have plenty of nutted hands here, and she should be over-folding, because this spot is under-bluffed.

But if she calls our x/r, that's fine. We can fold if she 3B's, and we have plenty of cards we can barrel on the turn, or we can shut it down and check again on a brick. Odds are good she'll check back and we'll see the river without having to put more money into the pot.

As it happens, OP did raise, she did call, and he did make his hand on the turn.

I wouldn't have jammed at that point, I'd have checked, or bet really small. But the reality is it probably doesn't matter, because V wasn't calling turn no matter how small we bet. We got our value on the flop, with our x/r.

I like OP's line on the flop.

ok you predominantly play 2/5 at parx yeah? i think in a 2/5 lineup at parx i'd be more inclined to run the line youre suggesting moreso because of the differences in how people approach the 2/5 vs the 1/3.

i do feel strongly the strat differences at any given 1/3 vs any random 2/5 leads me to take what might at first look like lines that frequency wise tend towards passive largely because I tend to handicap FE vs the field in most spots where my sizing to do so wouldnt necessarily benefit from an increase in size in attempt to achieve necessary FE.

i thnk ch/shove we get all the folds if i were to place this in a 1/3 game, in a 2/5 i'd argue we can choose a more "normal" sized ch/raise in the 3.5-4.5x range.

and that said, i dont liek ch/shoving into that range as i think the graph of FE doesnt increase linearly with every added dollar of bet size.

I mostly play 1/3 and tournaments, but I'll sometimes play 2/5. Last night I played in a 1/2 home game that was more like a 2/5/10 - lots of $5 straddles, $10 double straddles, and a $10 double board PLO bomb pot every orbit.

I never said check-shove. I said check-raise. We're too deep to shove flop. I'd just make it $75 as a default.

In my observation, this line works better against 1/3 randos than it does against 2/5 regs. A 1/3 rando is going to see monsters under the bed, whereas a 2/5 reg is going to be more sticky with top pair.

ahh yeah this is 100% true absolutely, my misconception was the ch/raise has outs to stronger hand but fold equity against a decent portion of their range ... which for some reason i kept thinking meant a reduction of top pair good kicker

so if not the general assessment definitely ignore my statements haha

in practice so i can better understand:
we ch/raise expecting some weaker FD's or other higher equity unmade hands still call, and maybe they release some small % of top mid kicker holdings and then the rest of the iffy bullshit

if ch/raising - is it slightly smaller sizing on ch/raise cuz of stack sizes so we can still shove and achieve some FE on future street times we're called?

or do folks think sizing up here satisfies more qualifications to achieve net positive result?

partially why i wasnt all about a ch/raise revolves around my estimation of 1) less FE than i think we may need 2) stack sizes makes for awakard situations where when we whiff turn, i felt more likely we'd have to just check and not gii since the hands left that call the checkraise are a mix of stuff we may be ahead of and the top pair that didnt wanna release, so taking A high to the river as cheap as possible would be ideal (Our A high being ahead of most of their combo draw hands that call the x/raise IP)