PAHWM: 1/3 10 handed game

I mean...we have $455 left, and there's $409 in the pot? I think I might just get it in here, and pray V3 snaps with KQ or a draw. Don't think I want to screw around with betting small, giving V3 a good price to suck out.

Does that mean V3 over-folds? Probably. But so be it. We were bluffing when we 4B pre, and flopped TPTK. We got value. Let's not get greedy.

Alternatively, if we think V3 is going to over-stab, go ahead and check, but *ONLY* if the plan is to check-jam no matter what size he bets. and we're committed to NOT jamming any draw-completing turns.

Jesus.

I hate your bet sizing pre and on the flop. The payoff here better be that you're a genius and V just has KQ or something really stupid that couldn't find the fold button. I'll chuck my laptop across the room if V made a better hand out of something that shouldn't have gotten to the turn, and then you'll owe me a new laptop.

As played to this point, I don't think I'd keep betting. But given the way you've played it to this point, I'm expecting you to bet, if not jam now, and for V to call, because button-clicking, or whatever he's doing.

Your description makes him sound like he's getting involved way too wide, but sun-running. Ordinarily, if some rando low-stakes wannabe-a-gangsta rec-fish double-flatted a 4B, I'd put him on AKo/AQs/KQs/JJ/TT and not much else, but *MAYYYYYBEEE* something like 77-99. But if we're supposed to put some weight on the read, I'd guess he could be wider than that. Especially when your 4B was so small from OOP.

Still, on this board, I think we're only worried about TT/77 on the flop, and now maybe AK/JJ and QJ, and JT, and 98, and whatever other hand he might have that beats yours.

If you tell us he rolled up with QT or some other pair of napkins that never should have seen the flop - and don't hate me for this - I will totally tell you that's what you get for 4B'ing to that dinky size pre.

ok so quick comments about V3's range - as much as they were clicking into profit, I would absolutely expect them to cold 4 QQ/AK pre flop. This could be a failure of my conveying proper reads in OP but if its possible to insert this into everyone's line of thinking without ruining or cheapening the conversation, i'd love to do so.

they had the hallmarks of plays often enough to have zero discomfort in 4! with top 5%. I dont want to add some layer of expertise and say "its mixed frequency" or **** like that. i think here, they exhibit a more inelestic overall tendency (eg. these hands get raised pre up until the 5bet type response)

This turn card is super interesting in a 4bet pot... gives you a lot of nutted hands (AK) but the opponent a lot of 2 pairs/sets. Is it enough of a game changer to turn our hand from a value hand on the flop to a bluff on the turn?

If you think that this player cold calls no preflop with QQ and AK then it might be a check-fold now. The all-in player might have overtaken you now as well.

Please clarify - in your estimation, V3 would likely cold 4B with QQ+/AK, or he'd cold call the 3B and then flat call the 4B?

I wasn't even considering that V3 would have those sorts of hands in his range. I can see him cold calling the 3B, rather than 4B'ing, when V2 is racked up, because that probably means V2 is 3B'ing a pretty tight range. But once you put in the small 4B and V2 folds, things change, and I'd think V3 would have to think about putting in a 5B with QQ+/AK.

So, if you're saying you don't think he's got QQ+/AK, neither did I. But if you think he might, that changes a lot here. I know I said above that he could have AK, but I was somewhat discounting it, figuring if he's going to be double-flatting wide, he might be more likely to cold 4B AK.

Either way, I'm struggling to imagine a scenario wherein our hand is still good, or one in which we get V to fold a worse hand by turning ours into a bluff. The hand is kind of off the rails from pre, with V3's actions and your small 4B size. It only goes further off the rails with your small c-bet.

But, we're here, discussing it, so I'm guessing there's a surprise ending. Maybe V shows up with AJhh or KJhh, and needs to see the river. I wasn't thinking about those sorts of hands in my earlier post, but I could see V3 getting here with some pair + draw combo. Maybe even A7hh, or J9/J8hh, or K9hh.

The description is throwing me off. On the one hand he sounds like someone who would have enough competency to not get here with all those hands. But if he's just button clicking, then I won't be too shocked to learn he has something that wasn't strong pre but flopped decent equity.

This hand is a textbook example for not cold calling 3B's, at least not when the original raiser is capable of 4B'ing. We have all the JJ+/AK/AQ here, and most of V's range is in the blender if we jam.

lookin fwd to choppin it up bout bunch of points being brought up cuz I definitely have some questions and I while I dont think any specific decision point i made was wildly wrong (check against a solver if you want)

I ABSOLUTELY question whether any specific decision point was maximally exploitive of opponent/situation. This part is definitely harder to objectively state so we're in the realm of one of those scaler 1 for never 2 somewhat 3 probably and 4 always and we're not capable of responding with a 1 or 4.

($409 Total - $359 Main Pot, $50 Side Pot)
Qh Th 7c

Hero leads 95, V3 takes less than 10 seconds and calls

($599 Total - $359 Main, $240 side pot)
Turn Jd
hero tanks 12 seconds checks
V3 checks with less thank than me but not instacehck

($599 Total - $359 Main, $240 side pot)
River Jc

H has 360 back, right? I expect V3, from your reads, to shove if the 2nd J helped. I don't see a point in betting, unless you tell me V3 has taken advantage of their chasing image, and bluff bombed river. I don't see V3 x'ing back AK on turn, if that's helpful.

Hearts bricked, and JT/QJ just boated. Yay. If V3 rips it, we need to be good what, 28-29% of the time? Are we? I have doubts, unless you tell me they can bluff here, and they still have to beat the other V

i am going to say that the all-in villain is borderline irrelevant for purposes of simplifying analysis of the situation. In other words: while non-zero, both myself and V3 are fully aware that V1's holdings are less likely to be some nutted combo, though not impossible.

implication here is: both myself and V3 _COULD_ be inclined to force each other out to swallow side pot after flop betting round hedging against the chances the main is locked up by v1 wherein its obvious V1 would be a dog by anyone's estimation having watched only a few minutes of V1's play.

i hope this doesnt detract too much from the PAHWM aspect but I do think it would help steer conversation to the more relevant areas of discussion while still including a layer of complication via the above assessment.

Mods if its too early for this feel free to edit/delete:

I wanna just touch on some preflop points from my POV/overall strategy

Preflop V2's 3bet and implied range based solely off frequency of action (eg. he cant be 3betting 100% of hands as its a 1/1 scenario as far as data points are concerned which means if we can make any relevant conclusion about this 3bet range it would fall closer to our estimation of that range being predominantly value though potentially still merged (eg, not just AA/KK/AK with A5s as a bluff 3bet, but potentially having a lower boundary of something like KQs or QJs - this line is not exactly clear to me expressly but my image at the table was active enough that if villain is capable of recognizing as much might start to adjust their 3bet range vs my strategy.

background info:
Earlier i did show a losing hand where I 3bet vs some other villain in EP and I was in the EP/MP cusp with Axs. partially by intent where I am happy to show what I would say may be construed as "too loose" by some but i'd argue given what i would say is significant post flop edge in any random 1/3 setup i sit, an absolutely comfortable decision within my overall strat; i await with baited breath those who feel inclined to display some mental gymnastics demonstrating some falsity of assessment of my own game in response, so anticipating as much; just fold pre fellas, leave strat discussion for people who actually want to contribute beyond 'pre flop charts are gospel and ignoring them is heresy punishable by excommunication from the church'

So given above, I dont expect necessarily a light 3bet from v2 but from an observational standpoint assessing their look, comfortability handling chips, posture, demeanor, table talk etc etc etc, they certainly arent a nut hugging nit. this is clearly low level reliability but a determination im willing to make given hours of live cards experience which i obviously would refine as new info presents. didnt mention this at start because it was less relevant to later streets but for this foray, offers some insight.

When V3 flats and V1 flats for 1/2 their stack, my best guess at how action might unfold from here is the times i 4bet, depending on V2's response, is that it would carry some extra FE independent of sizing and the estimation that V1 coming along no matter what (poker unfolds like roulette to this guy, he either runs hot when all cards come out or he loses)

At teh juncture of my action prior to 4betting, I expect higher liklihood V2 would call or 5! and my estimation that V3 cold call again was easily (and perhaps incorrectly?) under estimated.

So that said the question of sizing becomes: is it necessary for me to go huge here or can I achieve the same amount of FE or predictable response from Villains in hand with a smaller sizing? Its not that I was automatically assuming my hand is now a bluff, however as Venice already pointed out, AQs does potentially hit RIO situations with higher frequency than many other hands might given V2's 3bet.

If we wanna game it out here are the salient points I'm holding in my head as to how i make my decision:
A) Shoving is overplaying my hand even with dead money in pot, and I dont think AQs needs to shove here to realize its best equity situation
B) AQs isnt ****ed if we go MW to the flop with both V2 and V3, but clearly prefers at least 1 of them to opt-out
C) This is probably the first 4bet the table has seen since i've been there (and i would argue even prior) that wasnt simply a shove from a short(er) stack, but is not the first 3bet situation - hence teh additional FE I estimated it might carry independent of sizing
D) Given the weakness of conclusion I am drawing about V2 from the sort of 'overall analysis' level, I still have to assume a meaningful chance I'm underestimating and may very well face a 5bet / 5bet shove some % of the time where I can easily fold without committing too much*
E) The game itself was action, average pot sizes were larger - often times due to teh collision of folks getting 2nd best'ed by V3 sun run but that momentum of action does carry over to other hands to some degree - this is a very specific LIVE poker exclusive situation - anyone who has sat long enough has seen the pre and post action ebb and flow to some degree and sometimes completely collapse to hands ending right after flop with more frequency when moods shift or whatever the **** dumb principles/operating mechanisms affect incorrect strategies employed by live players; ideologically its in the same boat as "ride the wave/run/streak" live players will do where the implication of running above expectation allows more of their bets to win uncontested by mediocre opponents who simply roll over assuming its always locked up value or some equivalent
F) If i size down, it is definitely possible V2 just flat and thus encourages V3 to flat again, and that the likelihood of inelasticity increases for V3 in that cold call 3bet range ='s or differs from cold call 4b by an insignificant %. Given that situation the pot would be bloated and AQs when not flopping strong hits RIO status MUCH quicker - basically holdings subject to RIO situations similar to suited connectors benefit more from higher SPRs
F-prime) given inelasticity comment, i DONT want weak hands folding out especially because of vulnerability OOP with the 2nd biggest Ace (but im suited so get off my back)

That was a lot to wade through. Is the takeaway that you wanted to size down with your 4B size so you wouldn't fold out V3's weaker range, and could still fold if V2 5B? That's what I took from it. If that's right, then I suppose the small c-bet also keeps the weaker parts of his range from folding flop.

I get it, but at some point we need to know, or at least decide if we're betting for value or bluffing. Un-paired strong AX combos may blur the line, especially pre-flop, but when we take this line, we're all over the map, pre and post.

Our hand went from speculative pre to thick value on the flop, then got downgraded to a bluff catcher. But as played, I could see how our range looks really strong, perhaps too strong to play our hand as a bluff catcher, if that means checking to induce, if we think V gets here with a lot of hands that might call a bet but won't bet themselves.

So, the range we give V matters, a lot. If we think his range has a lot of Jx, or he's getting involved with a lot of random K9s and 98s, we should check-evaluate, but probably just check-fold. If we think he has a lot of 77-99 or KQ, we should bet for value. If he has a lot of busted flush draws, we should check to check-call.

I'm not sure I see how we should know what range to give him if our small bet sizing dragged him here with such a wide range that he could have all those combos in it. He could have 77-99, K9, KQ, 98, AXhh, JX, and maybe a lot more as played. But I suppose we can heavily discount straights when he checks back the turn.

Either bet for value, or check to induce. It seems like checking to check-fold isn't an option. With only $360 left, it seems like we should jam if we bet. It's just hard to see what worse hands call, other than KQ.

lol yeah, thats a solid tl;dr thank you heh

But legit i wanted to fully flesh out the details behind the decision - to offer the various **** Im takin into account to arrive there which varies from fundamental technical analysis to bayesian inference type **** (eg. V2 limited data set of info) but also offer a kind of in the trenches hand analysis.

I' would say none of my actions pre or any of the post flop action posted thus far has been as a pure bluff. But even this is tough to draw clear lines - against a villain's range who has position (strength) I may want to attempt to extract value from their range which is capable of being weaker even if that range still has hands as strong or nominally stronger than my own. (for example AKs sometimes flats pre flop aggression in certain spots, not because its a dog to the range but as a way to bolster a calling range's overall strength)

The issue is specific hand vs {range} where we are on the spot moment to moment refining our estimation of overall strength of that range. I THINK i have teh best hand at present but it non zero that i dont in other words, so am I bluffing or value betting when I raise? hard to say i guess?

That said my intention with AQs is DEFINITELY affected by the equity loss of multiple opponents seeing the flop, but I also have to hedge against the unknown potential I got 3bet by KK/AA/AK so min-max game employed where I prefer to mitigate the first half with 4bet and the 2nd issue with sizing.

And here's one other important thing - maybe not something you were directly engaging towards but anyone else reading:
This allows to retain the momentum of aggression and reduces post flop positional edges where we can check with the harrowing threat of a big check raise here since we arent capping our range.

I think AQ as Venice pointed out due to its RIO potential as well as the fact that flatting the 3bet MW puts me in a really **** spot where i'm check folding way too often now. Or even take the current runout, had I flatted, initial 3bettor V2 easily has a bunch of straights in their range as well and since i didnt have a BDFD, if V2 fires even as low as 1/2 pot on that turn (with V3 to act still and all-in showdown if we ignore the comment i made about the table perception of them) I'm pretty sure we actually should be folding Top top here a decent chunk without some serious evidence to sway us otherwise that i definitely didnt have.

I know you already agreed w/ the 4bet but the point im trying to make with the above is there's almost a little bit of a protection role being taken by 4~ AQ. And wildly amidst all this im starting to wonder if AQo should do the same or if its better to just call AQo to "strengthen" that range as it would only weaken the 4! overall range strength.

I think a really big turning point in the hand is what happens the second we bet flop and how that affects our turn decisions across a bunch of cards. Clearly turn card is really ****in important too, but as far as lines are concerned - the "theoretical optimal" is to lead small on flop and specifically check that J turn. It seconds bests us too often and so similar to how i was bi-furcating AQs and AQo taking the latter to strength the less aggressive calling range and keeping the AQs to support the 4! range, our overall 4! range benefits far less from that J on the turn so AQs being closer to the bottom or middling even depending needs to adjust accordingly.

Now the above here is how im interpreting the solver. And its also a big reason why i chose to PAHWM on this one because clearly we have a big divide between "theoretical optimal" and potentially exploitive poker that might diverge a TON, or might not - yet to see, but clearly PreFlop, and Flop yield some solid arguments that could almost be a polarized response as an adjustment from theoretical optimal to exploitive or somewhere in between.

Its precisely THIS realm where the conversations around strategy on this board can best benefit everyone - namely how do we construct our strategy that diverges from a computer solution to one that maximizes profit without making too many mistakes that could potentially flip the balance of our actions too far from fundamentally sound? [/b]

I dunno man. If you're saying your plan is to check-fold, then I hate the way you got here.

It's pretty thin, but I think we could make a mergey jam here, possibly getting called by worse or maybe occasionally getting better to fold.

But I think I'd be fine check-evaluating. Just don't think I could fold when we get here this way. If V checks back and we win, that's fine. Our hand isn't all that strong, and I think we already got about $200 above expected value for it.

oh on the flop i'm x/calling all day.

on the turn I think its questionable once i bet anything - in this specific case vs villain as described i think it warrants debate whether to continue or not.

GTO wants you to go to showdown now, and its obvious once you look at the equity shift that J does across our 4bet range namely: we nut advantage decreases & a chunk of value hands move down in hierarchy of value eg. 3 to straight on board + another potential set shifts AA and KK down here which means AQ started higher in potential nutted type holdings.

the difference between the J turn and a 5 turn is huge in other words when we compare the equity shift between our range and a range perhaps somewhat tighter than what I perceived villain's range to be here.

i definitely am not defending my line as gospel by any means in THIS specific encounter given what i've tried to depict about villain. and admittedly - i was a lil gun shy watching the mf'er just bink magic non-stop, which is more a product of me currently playing off bankroll that is insufficient for both how i play and so I chose a defensive line. if I were properly over rolled right now for 1/3 even (my business has been suffering some setbacks so while blowing up the roll i have is not detrimental to my lifestyle, it would be a situation of having to sit out until i can squirrel away another nut to try and catch some run hot in a short 3 or 4 session time frame to hit my RoR and feel a lil better bout myself)

historically my bb/100 exclusive to 1/3 was probably higher than expectation but my standard deviation that I had noted in a spreadsheet separate from that bankroll app (which ****ing isnt supported anymore so i lost a very large sample of live play hours) was higher which suggests a little more streak/variance swings which I've come to understand as representative more of deficiency in skill than estimation of "how good am i running?"

laughable small sample size that i've recorded but i finally started using another bankroll tracking app about 10 sessions ago my std deviation is down by a large chunk and i'd say I'm probably running just meh. my bb/100 is lower than ive achieved across a fairly large sample run but my std deviation has decreased dramatically so my RoR <5% is much smaller by comparison which suggests hopefully a trend of more consistent solid win rate confirming my prior suspicion i was running above expectation even if it didnt always feel like it prior to moving up and blowing up a huge chunk of that roll. so lesson here friends: when i quit for a while i just studied the game and i wanna say its helped a **** ton, but feel free to disagree with my thought process on strat threads - i dont think im right, but i will argue my point.

tangentially, i played 3 sessions back to back a month ago or so and GII with 2 pair w/ 60-80% equity across 5 different hands and lost each one. Its ****ing annoying when you really want that luck portion of the game to either **** off or run heavy in your favor. that said i think i've managed to mitigate those setbacks with improved post flop play employing some opportune bluff spots i dont think i wouldve been able to recognize or pull off 5 years ago (bluff raising river bets against the right opponents who got enough gambol in 'em to incorrectly fire just too often and too wide - I dont think i was seizing on those spots anywhere near as often as i should have been; or properly using my EP range perceived strength where I'm not auto piloting to showdown with 77 on a paint card run out that i should absolutely be using to my advantage simply with bets/check raises/sizing. I also started checking OOP a LOT more which took a bit to get used to where I am now feeling a little lost in 3bet pot scenarios and need to resolve some **** there regarding whether to cbet or not)

I was talking about your river action. The flop is a decision we can't re-litigate once we're past it.

aiight im just gonna cut to the chase cuz the river decision is far less interesting of conversation point than the prior inflection points as well as the fact that even to my own surprise, just how much some strategy advice diverges from a "gto line" *sad trombone* - NOT saying or insinuating that the divergence is WRONG or BAD at all. I fuckin hate when a mf'er pops in here like "thats not gto" and then disappears because the only response to that situation is: that's bad strat discussion.

River
$Bunch discs
J

Hero checks, Villain Jams.

LONG VERSION:

SHORT VERSION: