SDV + significant equity?

This is kind of a similar spot. With so much playability, are we supposed to x/b turn?

I know potting was a big mistake, I should have b50 or checked?

As played, just call river considering all draws bricked?

This is the high variance route which seems fine

Hand 1 yeah always barrel this turn. You don't just have the draw, you have a blocker to the nuts. He's short and you're well ahead of his range to get it in.

Hand 2 pot is fine. Again, you're crushing. Maybe call this river.

I have crushing equity vs range, however, how much equity do I have vs his defending range on the turn?

I only have 47% equity vs J3; 35% equity vs 33. That's why I think b50 is better because it puts more pressure on Jx and FDs that I dominate?

Hand 2 I like betting a bit smaller, 2/3 pot should give the illusion that we have a hand that can b/f turn. When we pot here we basically tell him we aren't folding if he jams which means a few things for how this hand will/did play out

1) We have good equity vs his FD/lower straight draw type hands but we are making it very hard for them to continue vs pot unless we know this guy is a huge station that hates folding
2) We give him no real chance to semi bluff jam those hands which he might choose to do with a FD that turned a gutter
3) Our hand is actually kinda over repped in terms of absolute strength where it looks like we are weighted towards set/J9 when we pot, thus him pot donking river looks incredibly strong. Given the fact he's in the BB as well he is much more likely to have 54xx hands than if you were against the UTG limper instead

All that said the worse he is the more I like pot if he's just gonna refuse to fold a 7 high FD or bottom wrap wo a FD regardless of size

Check turn in hand one. There’s no point to bet. We can’t get value from worse and we don’t have a hand that counts as a bluff. Remember why we bet. For value or to deny equity/bluff. This hand serves neither purpose. Also remember what we bet IP. A polar range. The best hands and our worst hands. This is squarely in the middle.

Hand 2 is the same. This turn hits a hand that calls flop and that has a J. Hands like J with a wrap around and other top pair J hands. We can’t really get worse to call unless we are specifically targeting one pair J hands with a FD/SD such as KJTx or JT78, etc. We are also against a BB calling range so he should have some middle SDs like A45x, 456x, 765x all with a FD so there’s value to get there, but it’s thin. I’d rather bet with a much more polar range as we should.

It's interesting that your advice is different from the others. The more I think about it, the more I think I need to bet turn on both hands.

On the first board, I have an overpair, pair blocker, OESD, and NFD. I was shocked that I have 90% equity vs 2 pair (which is currently ahead).

I think b100 is a little overkill, but b75 is fine to build the pot when it's possible I'm crushing, and worst case scenario I'm flipping.

However, the second board is a little different. I just have an overpair and NFD. I just have 53% equity vs J3 and 61% equity vs Jx. I have a super strong incentive to pot and deny equity.

Yet, the only problem is SPR is 3 on the turn. It creates the disaster where river SPR is only 0.6. I think I should have just called river.

The heuristic that we should bet a polar range IP is true when SPR is high (and OOP has a healthy x/r range). But by the time we get to the turn, SPR is low and it's more about denying equity when we have robust equity but non-nuts?

Value and denying equity are exact same thing. Betting with high equity hands that block our opponent having a high equity hands means we’re betting for value. If we realize our value or get them to fold their equity/value or even better(for us) get them to call with a hand that doesn’t have enough equity/value, then we win in both scenarios

If you mix up the fact equity and value are interchangeable you’re going to miss a lot of opportunities to bet hands you have more equity than your opponents range and thus you will miss out on value”

Don’t try to make so many terms to understand the same situations differently, poker is very simple at its core. The best hand wins and if you have the best equity you want to put the most $$ in to win the biggest pot

Uhhhhhhh

I’m gonna try and do this nicely cuz I’m told I can come off as a jerk a lot.

This makes absolutely 0 sense and is fundamentally wrong in all aspects.

The prior post isn’t much better. Just seems like mental gymnastics to justify betting.

We bet for value or we bet to deny equity/bluff.

That’s it. No mental gymnastics. Value does not equal equity denial. If we have more equity but a worse hand for showdown we aren’t betting for value when we bet. Equity and value aren’t interchangeable.

You are right about one thing, poker is already difficult enough, let’s not complicate things more.

Bet for value

Bet to deny equity

IP we bet polar with strong hands and weak hands

OOP we bet more merged

That’s the heuristic. Learn this and you will print.

If we have >50% equity vs defending range, we have an interest to increase the size of the pot, regardless of whether we currently have the best hand. Whether we can find a "worse hand to call" doesn't matter if a made hand has less overall equity.

There is no reason to bet polar if OOP doesn't have a x/r range. For example, at 1 SPR, we jam if we have >50% equity. There is no reason to check back merged hands.