Anybody bet this river?

I like the sizing pre-flop.

I would always cbet this flop at about 2400. It smashes our range and I would be cbetting regardless of what I had.

The turn I would have made it 2400.

As played the river is a tough spot. Because of the way we played so far a bet of like 1500 could get called by a worse two pair (like Q9/T9) but otherwise I don't think we get paid off as AJ got there. I would fold to a jam but would hate the way the hand went. Checking and calling is probably what I would do even if it was a jam which would be a less than pot sized bet. There are some missed draws that could be A high that might take a shot. My guess is it would be a jam and if we bounce so be it.

don't think so but xc a ton if not always due tl unblocking all bluffs to the max

You should never be checking a flop that hits your range this hard, let alone when you actually have this big a hand after raising. You want to be setting up bet/bet/shove here or even just bet/shove. What's the point of your check?

I checked flop because I cover it so hard and villain can't have much of anything to continue. I suppose I could have gone very small but I was hoping to give him a chance to pick up something on the turn that would allow me to get my stack in by the river.

What worse hands do you think call a bet on the river? Maybe a few 2P combos but I have to balance the value from that against the Jx in his range.

A good way to make money in poker is to bet your good hands and get more money in the pot. Let your opponents worry about what they can call with.

An interesting spot! I agree we definately should bet the flop. We can probably get a call even from hands like AJ (at least if it also has a backdoor flush) or 88.

As played OTF I believe we should bet at least 1/2 pot OTT.

As played OTT I agree we should at least bet small. Maybe we can go a bit bigger? It's not unlikely villain might have KT/QT or even Q9s if he's one of those limp fish still around that grossly overvalues suited hands. But even because if he indeed have us beaten with a hand like KJ or TT I believe he will just call, because he will fear Hero has AJ.

Basically all the non-straight Broadway-type hands could call. Stuff like KT, K9, T9... If you bet very small maybe even non-two-pair stuff might call like AT,K8.

Really though if you're betting river small it's less about getting value. I make these types of tiny bets with a balanced range to keep my range uncapped and decrease my opponent's incentive to bluff. There's actually solid theoretical reasoning behind making these small bets OOP in spots where the bet might not even be good 50% of the time when called.

Sometimes it can still be higher EV betting small compared to checking. Checking basically caps your range and allows your opponent to play perfectly.

If you check all the worse 2 pairs will always check back, so you will get no value when you're ahead. Jx will value bet whereas sometimes they might just call your small bet, scared that you could have AJ (this point might be a stretch, but I'm always surprised how often an opponent just calls my tiny bet with Jx in a spot like this).

More importantly though some hands like underpairs likely bluff if you check, whereas if you bet small they just fold.

So it's a combination of getting a sliver of value when you're ahead, minimizing your losses when you're behind and disincentivising your opponent from bluffing you off of the best hand when you're way ahead.

I'm not doing the best job explaining this concept but strong theoretical guys like Janda have proven that sometimes a slightly -EV river bet OOP can be overall higher EV than checking. The main idea is that when you check your opponent can bet with a polarized range and capture a larger percentage of the existing pot.

I tried doing a quick Google search and didn't find a perfect explanation, but the following links might help explain the concept:

https://blog.gtowizard.com/river-refinements-when-your-opponent-wont-check-raise/

GTO Wizard

River Refinements: When Your Opponent Won't Check-Raise

https://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/15/po...

The solver likes a lot of 10-15% block bets in spots like this.

Think it’s a bet fold on the river. We have AJ more than he does and his only raises should always be AJ.
On the other hand we can get calls from a bunch of worse hands.

Thanks I'll have a look

no such thing as a block bet

theory of betsize choice is fundamental GTO stuff and its not rocket science

Youre just assigning different tiers of value to a betting range

the reason flop and turn strats tend to be less mixed is the fundamental force of protection demands is maximized pre-river. So you conceal most vulnerable combos amongst the strongest to parry raises and generate "you cant do nuffin- 'bout it" folds from stuff that can eventually win the pot.

But flop and turn theres more valuable mutual, integrated benefit across your range due to this being an optimization problem with give and take: pre-river, with drawing equities still nonzero, the most vulnerable bets or air also tease out needed calls from more worse-vs-top-of-range than in the absence of the worst bets. Its an equilibrium.

It should also be obvious that roughly the same idea exists on the river. Drawing equity=0 importance cant be understated. These are corner solutions. But on the river the incentives are different and the implementation changes.

In fact, minimal mixing pre-river may lead to maximal mixing on the river. In that respect, flop and turn strategies are prospective to the river and on average I think are designed to maximize river mixing and thus maximize defense complexity--this is a general rule under Nash equilbrium, a more complex strategy will never fail vs a less complex one

For the same reason (protection demands, or minimal amounts thereof) river strats tend to look on a grid like they've been diffracted through a prism then passed through. kaleidoscope--maximal mixing.

If there is no value to protection, then merging is likely exploitable. Mixing and merging are inverse solutions. The amount of permissable, unexploitable mixing is a measurement of how much protection needs have eroded across the aggressor's range

On the river, oop can cap the number of bets and raises (yours and IPs) at two and so theres no real concept of equity realization or denial anymore. Just blocker-based trapping.

you are supposed to bet-mix or bet-call with huge swaths of your primary value segments for any given sizing. How else could you value unexploitably if not?

So you either got something that can be intelligently allocated to the sizings within the strategy profile on the basis of getting called by worse sufficiently often AND being capable of then picking off bluff raises at least sometimes (a bet candidate)...

...or you dont

the whole "I dont wanna bet what if I get raised" is pussy BS nonsense.

relative widths of each value segment determines the overall extent of unexploitable mixing. If the weakest value segment englufs the strongest, thrn mixing will be limited. That is the river analog of a protection bet--trap concealment of strongest combos into sizings designed mainly for the less-than-strongest.

as an extreme example, try to think of a spot where:

• weakest value tier is substantially the widest
  
• strongest value combos have the worst blockers
  
• try to find a spot where OOP ever uses non-small/smallest sizing (will be very tough or impossible)
  
• in other words, this spot is where any notion of "protection" on the river is maximized. You just have to understand what youre really protecting. Maximal protection needs means minimal unexploitable mixing.
  

You are provably exploitable of thats your approach--I wont bet, what if Im raised?

Ulimate sizing choice is obviously a function of how far down in IPs range you need to dig to get calls from worse

that what the tiny sizing for example means:

• lowest tier of value
  
• worst blockers--fat value or bluffs
  

the better the assessment for magnitude and direction of those forces (to say nothing of ICM) the larger the sizing.

This is why I think 7 sizings is ideal to train on (18%, 3/8th, 55%, 80%, 110%, 150%). The divisioms can get so fine pn the river. Its like learning to dunk om a 11' hoop.

thinking about this hand more, I would not be surprised at all if it mixes roughly 50/50 tiny bet or check

tiny bet:

• value from worse (some Kings but mostly worse 2 pair)
  
• blocks (highest?) frequency straights--KJ, QJ (would AJ raise more pre and thus should be discounted)
  

check:

• blocks checkbacks (AQ, some Ks, QT, Q9) and thus teases out a more polar IP floating range and with higher floating frequency--the blocker forces incentivizing trapping are very strong, perhaps maximized for your particular combo