4D chess or go home banana you're drunk?

this is a spot where we are (only) supposed to overbet as oop

usually when one guy is capped and other guy isn't, the uncapped guy plays nuts / air and uses really bigsizings. if you think about it, this isn't much different of a spot than someone betting the flop and just getting called. the caller mostly has sdv / mid stregnth hands and the guy who bet has the best hands and balances with bluffs (a polar range). same concept here just slightly different hand ranges. the best way to leverage that is to essentially threaten stack / play for all of it. overbetting is definitely correct / optimal / preferred here.

if you play well, you are going to get stacked pretty often lol. sometimes bad things happen to good people :(

only first sentence was reply to you, then i kind of rambled. if i ever figure out how to post ss then all these long winded submersible rants will be redundant

And it's more profitable to move folds the other way (from turn to river), which is the other reason to bet smaller on the turn.

Is there a standard scoring system of which I am unaware? 😀

That and nobody ever starts folding more if you just bet mostly value.

i would like to point out no one has suggested open jamming the turn yet as a viable strategy but ive managed to get solver to do it almost all of the time with air if i nodelock ip to only call w aa / 66 / a7

clearly i should be giving lectures on efficient use of study time

obviously this is a troll strategy but i think its ok exercise to think about where is the inflection point in terms of sizing where villain starts folding all of his mixes etc on the turn. its less relevant here because of stacks but alot of times in similar situatiosn in srp, you're going to be at like spr 15+ or something where u can really put in very large bets relative to the pot if you wanted to

Why can't he have AX? I flopped top set with AA on AQ8 last night, c-bet less than 1/3 pot against a calling station, and he snap mucked. My first thought was, "next time check it back "

If we want to over-bet turn, a 1.25x-1.5x PSB likely accomplishes as much as a 2xP bet.

The turn changes the nuts. If we wanted to bet, we could actually bet small, dragging him to the river with a wide range, and then over-bet to make him fold everything but the nuts.

Still, if we're going to run this line, we should probably do it on a board where V doesn't have any strong hands.

I mean, as much as I’d like to act like results validate my warnings about how people play on this board, I wouldn’t read too much into it. So villain’s capable of checking back top set, who isn’t. That’s 3 combos out of the (let’s say) 75 he checks back. Even if they’re not discounted at all, he’s still gonna have to find almost 4 times that to call down with for this to be -EV.

It’s the times you run into AJ/87 that show why this isn’t the runout for this play. (On top of the fact that people are most likely to slowplay top set on this particular flop.)

Definitely hard disagree that solvers don’t overbet bluff a lot. In theory, half the point of overbetting is that it allows for a higher concentration of bluffs. If anything, I’d recommend overbet bluffing less—and certainly for smaller sizes—than solvers recommend, particularly in live games given the prevalence of protected MW pots and <20% range widths.

At least when we’re talking about spots where overbet bluffs are used. The combo control solvers employ can diverge quite a bit from the “they’re capped, therefore I overbet range” style lags get themselves in trouble with.

I think you should be concerned when he checks a board he is supposed to be cbetting close to 100% and then acts upset when you bet twice pot on the turn and calls. It isn't an issue of range. It is just suspicious. Plus villain may be aware of your aggressive style and may check big hands to you and let you blast off. It is playing live poker, not so much a hand range issue.

However, I agree saying he never has top pair, and using that as a reason to overbet turn and river is a misuse of solver concepts.

why do you think he's supposed to cbet this board close to 100%?

Fairly strong opinion about a player that you "don't really know him or his game", no?

FWIW, I would be checking back Ax about 101% of the time at this SPR on this dry a board against banana image you.

Gnothatin',justsayin'G

I feel like I'd reached my limit of disagreeing with deuce on principle even though I agree with them in spirit in this thread, so I didn't bother responding, but since you ask, here's my thoughts:

While this isn't really a favorable range betting board at equilibrium, I agree with the suggestion that this is the type of board where a lot of PFRs' check back ranges are almost as strong as their betting range.

Not looking to seem as if I'm disagreeing with the solver / GTO experts here. I'm really not. What I am is curious if they or we are just going by whatever the solver suggests doing at equilibrium, or if we're making some / any adjustments for live play, with or without any reads (and if it's with reads, what adjustments are we making against this V, based on OP's read)?

I don't understand why anyone would assume V never checks back AX on A-rag-rag-rainbow flops, especially if our read is that he's on the tighter side pre and on the more FOF said post. Why can't he be trappy with AA or cautious with AJ/87 (stealing Raise Announced's two specific combo examples)?

To respond to Deuce's point - we don't know that V's display of weakness on the turn was fake. If I checked back the flop with any combo that was thick but vulnerable value, I'd hate it if my opponent led out with a 2x over-bet on a straight-completing turn, especially if our opponent was defending the BB or straddle.

This line may be solver-approved at some frequency, on some boards. My point was that this probably isn't the board / this isn't the combo we want when we take this line, especially against a mostly unknown V, in a SRP. There are better boards, better combos, and more transparent V's.

Instead, I think a check-raise over a small turn bet seems more credible for value, and thus gets more folds. It allows us to realize when the turn checks through, and we can over-bet the river as a bluff.

Alternatively, I suppose we could stab turn for a small size, though I'd think we're not folding out enough of V's range to make it profitable if we're not following through with a big river bet on any brick run-out.

i dont think hes supposed to range bet and axx is one of the most obvious boards ip is going to check back quite a bit as protection isn't a thing. i think its unintuitive how bad the 75 interaction is for mp but ive mostly been looking at the hand 100/200 bb deep as i don't really ever play shallow (i have spent an embarrasing amount of time looking at this hand on my own - prob like 30-45 mins lol). i somewhat disagree with the checking range being as strong as the betting range as i dont really expect ip to ever check back a5 / a7 / 55 / 77 / ak / 98. i do think people check back aa and i guess the ace high boards are kind of tricky in the sense he can always turn 2pair but the non offsuit possible ones (ie he never has a6o) just dont seem that threatening to me. dunno i think your takes in the thread have been the most correct and am not really disagreeing with you or anything, am mostly just laying out my thoughts

i think its easy to say this but i also think its worth thinking about what are the hands it makes sense to do this because this is a line that oop is supposed to take here. theres no blocking or anything ott, oop is supposed to go geometric sizing (getting stack in over 2 streets) when ip checks back this kind of board, so overbet is really the only sizing solver will use if you let it. this hand is very close to similar combos it will use ott - k8 and k4 both make it in but the gutter just isnt enough equity when we have a king (we want to fold out kk / k hi hands) but it will use j9, t9, q9 as bluffs. solver thinks ip is calling turn w a8, a9, 88, 99, some k8, t9 combos and those are the folds are we are looking for on the river so we don't follow through with these types of combos at all, esp on a river that reduces our nut combos a bit and instead it will use 65, 64, 69 type combos where it really wants the 6 to block his calls and not interact with his folds as much. the king is mostly a dead card on the river although he has some ak combos (i think people wont have these irl basically ever). i also think this is a turn you rarely do well enough betting once small (if you b60 or something the bet is probably losing slightly but probably feels like you're accomplishing something you aren't because you win the pot some amount of the time)

fwiw i think this is a line you get a ton of folds / overfolds to as an aggregate on most boards as people don't "slowplay" enough and also just bet all of their strongest mixes on the flop in most spots (hands like AJ+ are supposed to check back quite often along with a7 but realistically people dont do that as a default almost ever, for relatively good reason as their check backs dont get attacked like this).

truly enough ranting about this hand though as again ive gotten tricked into going down the rabbit hole in a spot op does not care at all (just about every thread on the forum tbh)

believe the only way turn x/r really has much merit is if you think ip is betting like TT-KK type hands which seems unlikely to me but i guess should be relatively clear from sizing (if you see like b33-50 im open to thinking those hands are showing up at some frequency). it still doesn't make that much sense for oop to really go for a x/r here with value as we shouldn't expect ip to open up the betting that often.

Yeah, he might have been genuinely shocked trapping with top set and facing 2x pot on the straight board.

I was wrong with it being anything like a range bet. I agree you don't need much protection on a static dry board.

Don't think checking back mean he doesn't have anything. Don't think this is a good board to bluff or overbetting is the best bluff approach. OP's line should get QQ/KK/Axs to fold though.

yah is ok. dont mean to go after you personally or anything, i just usually try to point out if people say things i think are wrong on here (which has won me so many lasting friendships!). solution im looking at is b40 around 55% of the time for ip. the only way i can get it to range bet at equilibrium is if i do something like b10 and make oop x/r option really really tiny (since then it won't really ever x/r) or eliminate x/r entirely for oop. in practice i think you can range bet IF bb is not x/ring aggressively enough (probably everybody you will play against). its questionable what being able to cbet something like a4 actually does for you here though as ip. you deny equity and you maybe have a hand that wants like 1-1.5 small streets of value / protection and im not sure you actually do all that well front loading that street.

am officially announcing my retirement from this thread

I agree I was wrong. I also hope I didn't offend Banana, who is an excellent poster.

Without knowing exactly what a solver would do while sitting at the table, I'd intuitively prefer to have a hand with more equity if I were to take this line. So, any OESD or pair plus a draw would be preferable.

It is interesting and informative to understand the solver only has over-bets as a donk lead, but it makes sense. Against human opponents who are likely deviating from equilibrium on flop and turn, I'd think an argument could be made for a small size or check raise as alternative lines.

Personally I'd prefer the check raise over the small donk lead, but I think Raise Announced said something about opponents over-folding even against a small size, and I think I understand why that may be.

I suppose we might say humans are going to have more difficulty finding the optimal response in any line. My hunch is that in terms of fold equity, check raise > over-bet > small donk, but the higher fold equity would also come with higher variance, and even bad opponents will be able to play perfectly with the top and bottom of their range when we over-bet or check raise, whereas the small donk forces them to a more difficult choice with more of their range.

As a degenerate, I would place a modest bet on this being untrue