1/3 - Feels like I might have gotten trapped, but could be getting bluffed by this river x/r...

dont understand how you can look at the board and think you have a 3 street value bet

i think pre is fine though large, flop i think is ok though large, i dont really think turn or river and particularly the combination of the two should be your standard vs anyone

i think considering a 2 on the turn a brick vs the straddle is a level of optimism in hand reading that i aspire to

less words needed. spend a buyin for a few months of gtowizard or buy pio and look at what you're supposed to do in hands and go from there. you don't need to reinvent the wheel and try to guess what your opponents are thinking and doing and feeling in every hand. otherwise you are going to keep doing spinning your wheels over and over

Sorry all, I've been busy the past few weeks and haven't had time to respond, but I have thought more about this hand since posting it.

Obviously it's the internet and we can make any sort of claims we want, truthful or not. If people don't believe I'm generally crushing low stakes. there's nothing I can do about it.

And whether it's apparent or not, I do read and consider all the responses to the threads I post, whether I agree with them or not. Disagreeing is not the same as ignoring or disregarding.

This is interesting analysis:

My usual process for ranging opponents is to logically remove hands based on their actions and population or specific reads, and then bucket what's left into various classes ranging from air to the nuts. That sort of process leads to V's range looking pretty capped here, if we believe that when the board is this wet and dynamic, most opponents aren't slow-playing enough strong hands.

If you don't think V is going to 3B the top of his range pre, maybe that changes things. I personally don't think V has big PP's in his range, but if we think he might slow-play big PP's pre, then maybe we might logically infer he'll slow-play 2P+ post-flop.

What strikes me as weird about that logic is if we think he slow-plays a lot of strong hands until the river, then he has a lot of combos that function well as donks for value or as bluff-catchers and don't need to check-jam river. If he can get to the river with straights, he doesn't need to check-jam bottom set.

I disagree that there's no fold equity on the river, even getting 3:1, and that he has no bluffs. He effectively turned his hand into a bluff, when he loses to better sets and straights, which I can and will have in this line. Obviously I'm folding all my busted draws, a lot of 1P hands, and even some 2P combos.

Why wouldn’t he c/jam a set if you’re going to bet/call a random weak pair?

Missed this first time round. Skimmed replies. Flop bet is fine to deny equity to a load of overcards although you accomplish the same with a smaller bet. V calling range can contain some overpairs to the board. Turn is a bit mergy but may be just about OK, however river value bet after this is way, way too optimistic. I wouldn't hate the line with a river check back.

Calling river feels tilted

V has put on the $6 straddle.

Check flop/ check turn/ check river

Your suppose to lose max 50$ in this hand not 500$

I even mentioned he would be defending his straddle too wide. Oops.

I do agree with others saying we should be checking going to showdown.

Part of my thinking is that he would be defending his straddle wide - lots of suited aces, suited BW combos, some suited connectors, and some low PP's. I thought it was at least somewhat likely he'd 3B pre with 77+, when I'm opening in the CO.

I think the low stakes population doesn't slow-play enough strong hands on this sort of wet and dynamic board texture, and so the population gets to this river with a pretty weak range, mostly made up of A2-A4s - 1P + an ISSD hands that don't like folding to a small river bet when the flush draws brick.

Yeah, we can take the conservative route and just check back. We'll usually win vs a worse 1P or busted draw, and when we lose, we'll lose less. But I don't think betting thin for value when we can target our opponent's weaker value range is a huge mistake against the low stakes population. I've made this sort of bet in similar spots, many times, and gotten called by opponent's looking to bluff-catch with weak 1P.

We can be results oriented and point out that V arrived on the river with a flopped set, but I don't think that's very useful in most scenarios, when most V's aren't going to slow-play enough strong hands on this sort of board.

The main problem is your turn sizing strengthens his range and removes a lot of the hands you’re targeting on the river.

That's fair.

Lol Doc, OmahaDonk reiterated my basic point which you didn't like originally.

I think of opponents' range as a "probability cone" or histogram which changes/shifts shape throughout the hand based on the action. I think the goal in general is to act based upon the center of gravity/mean/median or even mode (of a wide range) of the V's range here.

Can he have an "edge case" one pair or something he can call down light with on the river? Sure. But I think you got anchored on the premise that V can be so wide from the straddle that you assigned a probability to that case that is way disproportionate to the range compression that you induced through your betting line.

Your river bet targeted a relatively narrow range in the first place. Now we're in sort of "Bayesian" mode wherein we're trying to examine the "conditional" set of raises that he has after your river action. The crux of my argument is that we've already squeezed out anything we can beat.

It's interesting to ponder whether V's raise on river is a mistake. After all, you're x-ing back a huge proportion of your SDV. Your value bets are pretty nutted and your bluffs would be polar in sizing. On this runout, I'm not sure V should raise. That said, I don't think we have a call even at this price.

so many big words but in reality hero bet 40% otr (w spr 1) and probably isnt polarized. is also probably why v raised

this is a size we basically never use theoretically (if your hand is good enough to bet and risk reopening the action, it is worth more than 40% psb)

Nothing personal?

I understood his point to be the same. I'd already responded to it in my response to you, so I didn't see the point in repeating myself.

I do think it's a fair point, but as I said, if he gets to the river with a strong range, then his play makes even less sense, because he has a lot of strong hands that can block bet or bluff-catch, and he doesn't need to slow play a set that he then turns into a bluff or a too-thin value-raise (and I think his raise is too thin here).

I mean...I think my river bet is targeting a VERY narrow range, not just a relatively narrow range. I just thought his range on the river was heavily weighted towards those hands, based on the action to that point. I just don't see many low-stakes players slow-playing 2P+ when the board is so wet and dynamic.

I don't want to appear overly argumentative or defensive. I understand what you and others are saying. I think my logic as applied to the general population was and still is sound. Most of the population is defending their BB or straddle too wide, with a lot of low suited aces and other combos that seem playable but not strong enough to raise, but isn't slow-playing enough strong hands post flop to get to the river with a very strong range.

They're mostly arriving with A2-A4 and some 6x for bluff catchers, and missed draws / unpaired over-cards that are going to fold to any bet. Occasionally he shows up with 86 or A6, and I just value-own myself. I think folding out chops somewhat balances out the times I get looked up by A6.

I think A2-A4 are the sorts of hands that get turned into a check-raise bluff by players capable of finding those bluffs. They block my combos of A5, and don't have enough showdown value to block bet or call a bet if I barrel off. It's a good play when I have over-pairs that don't block the nuts, and can find a fold.

I definitely don't like his line on the river with his actual hand. He loses to all my higher sets and straights. He can really only take this line if he thinks my range is overly weighted towards over-pairs, and he thinks I'll barrel off with those hands, and he thinks I won't be able to fold those hands to a raise.

I'm not sure how he can come to that conclusion, having not seen me play very many hands since he sat down at the table. I think he'd be better off block betting or just check-calling. I really think he should have check-raised flop or turn.

It was somewhat obvious after I called that he wasn't sure his hand was good, and thought I might have a higher set, or maybe a low straight that was worried about him having 75, which would make sense as a straddle defend. I could have a lot of A5 here, and it would suck to bet it for value and get check-raised in this line.

Not looking to belabor this, but...just in my last few sessions, I've gotten hero-called many times in situations like this, by hands that were surprisingly weak relative to the range of hands I could have. I'm constantly getting looked up by 2nd or 3rd pair type hands when I go bet-bet-bet.

I think that my aggro style induces a lot of loose action from people who get fed up with my shenanigans and think I'm always bluffing. Because of that, I've started bluffing less and thin-value-betting more.

Is this hand too thin? The consensus seems to be it is. I'll take it under advisement. Perhaps in the future I'll apply the same logic, but err on the side of caution when my hand isn't top pair or better, especially if I think an opponent is capable of slow-playing even when the board is scary.

Fair enough, will be more concise.
Agree on H sizing; you made my point better than I did and more quickly.

Question: did V make a mistake by raising river in your opinion?

Thanks!

Thanks again for posting an interesting spot. Agree thin value is the key at low stakes. I didn't at all take you comment personally.

Question: you say you've been called down light relative to the range you think you're representing. But are they calling you with a weaker range than you are assigning to the V's in question? I'm just wondering if you're systematically underestimating Vs' ranges.

i think villain played the hand better than hero. i also think most of the post hand analysis is wildly off the mark and based around protecting hero's ego as opposed to improvement lol

No, I'm generally pretty good at ranging opponents (but maybe that's just my ego talking, LOL). When they hero-call, they don't always show, but when they do, it's usually with the sort of hand I was expecting.

I get hero'd by 2P when I have straights, by top pair when I have an over-pair, etc. Last night I went for thin value with 2nd pair, no kicker, and got hero'd by I don't even know what.

I think a lot of it is that I apparently create a wild image, so I get loose action. But I also pay attention to how my opponents play, so I know when they do or don't have a fold button.