[2-4]: How do you play this 2p on the Turn?

without nodelocking for llsnl tendencies to account for 75% vpip limping, floating any draw etc and just random spazzing any gto outputs are going to be worthless for our live 2-4 endeavors

the solver is going in with a lot of assumptions for how the villain got there in the first place that won't be true at all - even if you do shift his position

i'm not trying to dump on you, it just feels like you're abusing solvers in manners which are going to hurt you in the long run

thanks for clarifying because this certainly seems to read as if you think you two think it was played perfectly and everyone else is an idiot that doesn't understand gto - at least that was my autist read on it

i mean you can say we dunno what we're talking about but nearly everything you've written in the thread is incorrect. instead of saying GTO is wrong or that a computer is not applicable, its worth thinking about why solver takes this particular candidate and sometimes 3b / folds it ott and why it leads flop / turn in general instead of saying things like "if u call 63ss here do u even have a folding range pre" or "solvers are worthless for live poker because villains are limping 75% of hands". even if you're not trying to mimic the strategy exactly, it has to be better to try to learn what's correct than to just some random guy's intuition on the llsnl forums. like you haven't even looked at the sim and don't have any idea what's going on in it or why, but you are just saying that it and the underlying assumptions are wrong lol

and again, if you're not nodelocking for actual villain tendencies then any solver output is not going to be remotely useful

ie if you nodelock in zero blinds it'll tell you to shove AA and fold everything else and that is proper strat - if you aren't giving it the correct assumptions it's going to give you bizarro world results

If the solver likes leading this flop, what size does it typically use? Is it always the same size, or does it vary? What size does it like for OP's actual hand?

You said the solver barrels turn 80% of the time with 2 sizings. What are they? What's the small size that 63 wants to use? I'm wondering if OP's sizing scheme may have induced V to raise with a range that's wider than just straights.

I don't think barreling the turn is a mistake, but I think OP's 1/3 PSB might look weak, like just 6x, such that V wouldn't necessarily have to be "special" in order to flat the flop with his over-pairs and then raise the turn.

When he effectively min-clicks it, and then she min-clicks it back, it feels like there could be some frequency of V over-playing some worse value and / or turning worse value into a bluff, whether he realizes it or not.

Your comment that people will spew more if we b/c turn and block river is exactly what I was thinking, but it also opens the door to considering that V isn't playing anywhere near equilibrium, such that OP may have been better off taking a more in-flow line of c/c'ing or c/r'ing flop.

But, if we're going down that rabbit hole, I'd say we should just fold pre, which seems to be what you suggested when you gave V a 2.5x open from MP, whereas this is a 3x open from UTG2.

It just seems like we're torturing the solver to get hero and V to the river in this line, with hero's specific hand.

it's going to be easier if you just open the sim (you get one free sim per day on gtowizard!) but

re pre. i would not fold here. if you look at pre ranges these types of hands (bottom right of the hand chart) play well vs pf opening ranges. here, we have a combination of no / low rake, a chance to play a hu pot vs weaker opponent, and likely his range is closer to like co range or something.

anyways, these low boards favor the bb calling range as we have a lot of the 2pair / straights / straight completing runouts covered that the pf opener who mostly has big cards is going to struggle compete with. small size is generally 1/3 but doesnt matter much as long as u choose some size around there. turn you could conceivably just play as one size and block your range, but i think we have a large polarity advantage that we also want to take advantage of so you'd want some large bets (pot+) in there since ip just isn't going to have a straight often enough and you want to leverage that. regardless though, top and 2nd pair would belong in the smaller size as you're not necessarily trying to play a massive pot / funnel him into strong hands. v definitely can raise random hands and potentially some hands for value worse than ours with sizing. my theory for why we see 3bets with some of the 2 pairs is you have some equity vs 5x (he isn't really supposed to pure shove 5x vs a 3b so sometimes u realize), some amount of protection / i guess thin value, we don't have that much equity if we're behind that its a catastrophe to get blown off (~slightly more than a gutshot), and to prevent him from raising depolar facing this size ott. im aware the 3b kind of contradicts the reasoning for our hand being in the block sizing on the turn, but solver approaches situations strategically / looking at entire range, not trying to logic what to do with a particular combo (as humans tend to). fwiw 2pair seems to 3b the turn slightly more often than sets (though sets will sometimes use the larger size ott initially and 2 pair never will).

i mean v isnt playing at equilibrium but if u look at the solve i not sure that really matters. he supposed to continue almost everything on the flop and not do much raising (hands like overpairs really really suffer from reopening the betting here if oop starts 3betting), and then ott, vs smaller sizes, he raises some (but not all) straights, some thin value (mainly his lower overpairs more in need of protection), and some bluffs. while i doubt this guy gets the exact frequencies or combos right, i am sure he has bluffs and one pairs in his range both from villain description - clicker that bluffs in stupid spots, and because of turn sizing. i was surprised turn was a 3bet as its not really that intuitive but i think it makes some sense particularly when villain chooses a non polar size. big takeaway here is things are much less polar than you would expect when you're dealing with small bets

really though. if you've never used a solver before, make gtowizard account, go to study, and do zoom500 gto open gto 3b rake structure and look at like mp open vs bb defend. can look at co too if u prefer. is kind of the wild west in these spots

have been looking at co vs bb since reading v description but to put things in perspective we are an equity favorite ott after flop action (around 57%) and we also have a very large polarity advantage 16.5% str, 24% 2p+ (includes the straight combos), some amount of 75 that ip never has where as ip has a straight 6.5%, a set 2.5%, and 2p never. so that's going to make us play this particular turn extremely aggressively

xr flop is ok line too and i dont have a super strong opinion of where they are likely to make more mistakes, but this is a line you *can* take. is fun hand though and i doubt nearly anyone would find the line, whether thats a good thing or not is kind of up for debate

IMO, the salient point here is that it's kind of a disaster to get to the turn the way we did and end up having to fold before seeing the river.

I'm not saying it was a mistake to fold to the jam. It may or may not have been. I think it was a series of mistakes that led up to having to fold. We could have just folded pre, or taken another line post, leading to a different result.

If we're changing V's position and open size, in order to get OP to the flop, okay, fine, but if we're doing that as an adjustment based on the read, what other adjustments are we making, or should we be making?

Random Update: talked about this hand with my coach in our hand review session. He didn't have a big issue with either my Flop or Turn play (iirc he slightly preferred calling, but we didn't talk much about it). However he thought that I should have called the all-in, just because Villain has so few 5s in their range and he didn't think it was inconceivable that he could overvalue an overpair. Villain has a lot more combinations of overpairs than 5s, so if he jams his overpairs (and even if he just jams his overpairs half of the time), you should call.

Although that argument gets weaker if we think overpairs would already raise the Flop.

Kinda interesting how divisive the hand is actually, just about every decision seems not-obvious.

So I'm not a GTO expert by any means, which means my take on this is kind of whatever. But fwiw to me this sounds like it's much less obvious how Villain deviates from GTO than it is in most spots. If that's the case then GTO has a lot more value as an anchor point than it has most of the time. In general I tend to think that when playing against soft live players, the strategy of "start by figuring out what GTO does first, then figure out how to adjust from GTO" does not outperform "think about equity directly via ranges and common behavior" (and that's why I spend a lot of time with Equilab and Flopzilla (... or even code simulations) but not with GTOWizard). But yea this is plausibly one of the hands where the first strategy actually has a lot of merit.

If I do get into speculations about how Villain deviates, I'd guess (1) he raises more overpairs on the Flop (but they didn't here, so it's mostly whatever), and (2) he probably doesn't bluff enough on the River (I assume GTO probably has a healthy amount of big bluffs). So based on (2) (assuming I'm even correct about this), if he bluff-raised the Turn and we call, he probably isn't putting the money in nearly at GTO frequency. And the flipside is that if he does bomb the River, we can probably fold; even check-jamming an overpair seems more likely than a big River bet without the straight to me (turning made hands into bluffs is just something that people very rarely do, imE, it's so tempting to just check, end the hand, and collect your equity). But I think all that means for us is that it moderately incentivizes calling the Turn bet because we'll get to realize our equity more than the solver assumes.

There are probably more deviations other than (1) and (2) that I'm not thinking of. (If my coach is right, then "randomly overvalues overpairs" could be a third.)

I actually couldn't figure out how to do this; the settings I used have solver check everything on the Flop. But I didn't find the zoom500 option. Might be in the completely wrong menu branch (custom solutions rather than library? But there's no free daily flop for me for custom solutions).

custom solutions is not for you (its ai solve). so theres like a million different solves on gtowizard and it can be overwhelming. if you don't see an option for flop leading its probably because its simple as compared to general. when it says rake structure just pick 500nl (the lowest rake for postflop solutions iirc). try again tomorrow. alternatively, give them your money and never have to

would not call off the turn without a very strong read. from mdf standpoint u dont need to do that (you have enough 5x he is torching bluffing into this) and looks like it can be 20+bb error at equilibrium.

if you don't think he is bluffing the turn but is raising the turn depolar i think leading the river for some size, likely block, on most rivers is better than x/f

why do you think having to fold pre river is a disaster? if we are behind we have ~10% equity

pre ranges and what to do with them are kind of a fluid thing. its a hand that's very close to a defend (and a defend vs wider ranges), and probably those ranges should get expanded a bit on periphery because live is slow / boring and skill levels for v's are much lower (defends are likely more +ev than they appear on paper). what to do with that i have no idea, but this seems like a very clear call to me pre and even in a solver world its somewhere in the area of a 50cent mistake lol. the idea being this opponent is probably going to make large errors later in the hand to compensate for that

It's a disaster to make 2P and have to fold away our equity, even if it's only 10%, when we could have just called and seen the river. It's an even bigger disaster if we had the best hand. We can't be certain we were behind.

Late to the party, but I am intrigued that the solver is 3b the turn as I instinctively really don't like it versus either call-check or call-block. It feels like it immediately isolates against better and folds worse.

I don't have the solve, but I'm guessing it's something like the solver is (1) raising turn more polar and bluffing with hands that have a chance to improve on the river, and (2) fearlessly getting it in on the river with more bluffs than a realistic low-stakes villain will ever find?

https://qorfechi.com/

The better player one is post flop, the more hands one can defend BB with. But logically, if you're constantly posting low limit hands to a forum because you don't know how to play them, you're not good enough to defend with 63s against an EP raise.

That's not a bad thing, but if you know your limitations you can easily avoid these kinds of situations by folding.

63s is a top 50% hand deep stacked in general, and given it's one of the most favorable class of equity realization hands, it's going to be about a top ~30% hand for defending the BB against a 3bb open. (It's a fold here at equilibrium and I don't like OP's justification for dipping into their folding range, but it's not preposterous.)

Even putting that aside, saying "if you're playing this hand, then clearly you're playing worse hands" is just a weird thing to say.

I don't think folding to a turn 4b in any scenario can be considered "monsters under the bed", least of all in a spot where with 4 to a straight on the board where you don't have a straight.

Obviously whether 3bing without the straight is good in the first place is a valid question, and I wouldn't do it myself, but to the extent that you might go for thin value/protection, then folding to the jam isn't MUBsy.

1) Range advantage (as defined by which player has >50% equity with their entire range) isn't what determines whether it is favorable for you to have a betting range, but rather range composition, or the distribution of equities across each player's range. Here's a thread on the Poker Theory sub where I give an example of a spot where a player with 99% equity shouldn't have a betting range while a player with 1% equity shoves infinite stacks.

That thread is in regards to end-of-action spots, and in that case I think it's a relatively simple function of which player has more hands at both the top and bottom end of the distribution. (IE: is more polar.)

Ironically, OOP small donk strats on low straight flops at equilibrium might be for exactly opposite reasons: so little of your range is pure air that you block to get thin value/protection to take advantage of your advantage in the middle of the distribution. Or not, IDK TBH.

My hot-take is that very few people truly know what they're talking about when it comes to flop theoretical bet frequency and sizing strategies, and you'll be much better off implementing donks for practical reasons: bluffing because you think villain will overfold or betting nutted hands because you think it will induce a raise or betting marginal hands because you think villain will play very passively and you want to protect your hand, etc.

In that case, I like 63 as a lead both on flop and turn because I think you'll get the most value with the betting lead on turns that improve your hand, whereas villain would be more aggressive on runouts that are more favorable to 6x with an overcard.

2) And maybe more importantly: You don't have to have any advantage (range or otherwise) to form a donking range. In most spots where you have a donking range at equilibrium, both players have a betting range, and in fact, IP's betting frequency is still higher than OOP. For example, OOP will often have a 30% donk range and IP will bet 50% when checked to; or if OOP pure checks, then IP's betting range goes down to 20-30%.

Saying you shouldn't have a donking range means that you have such a huge disadvantage that you form no range at all, which is a higher bar to clear.