5-10--call turn shove?

If it matters, ten hands before this hand, another player got stacked for 200 BBs when all the money went in on a similar flop. The winner showed AA, and everyone at the table assumed the loser had KK or QQ. Neither I nor Villain were involved in the earlier hand.

I don't know if it matters. I suppose the action leading up to the point all the money went in might bear consideration. I also suppose there's some non-zero-percent chance he's doing something to play off the table memory of that prior hand, and is expecting you to just think he has AA when he actually has 72 or something stupid.

I have a bad habit of trying to predict the reveal in hand history threads, when I should be trying to figure out the highest EV play. There's a distinct possibility I'm filtering all this through a mix of Bart Hanson content*, small-sample personal experience, and wished-for psychic ability.

It won't shock me to hear V was nutted. It won't shock me to learn he flatted pre with JJ-AA and couldn't take his foot off the gas post. It won't shock me if Submersible comes into the thread with sim results that suggest calling but he still finds a way to suggest I'm an idiot for coming to that conclusion without a sim, just using muh brain.

Interesting hand. Thanks for posting. Looking forward to the reveal. Won't be embarrassed if I'm proven wrong. Will strut around like a peacock if I'm right.

*RE, Bart Hanson - I do seem to recall some of his content talking about slow-playing big hands by flatting pre in certain situations (like this one), then playing them like a flopped set post. Maybe he's talked about it with people who have nitty images or are playing in nitty games where 3B's generate too many folds. I know I've played in games where I start doing "unconventional" stuff when I start to feel like my opponents aren't voluntarily giving me their money.

Results:

So... he's a maniac and got insanely lucky.

Nice hand. Good game.

You rang? (lol)

X-raising an underpair on TT7 into the opener is certainly something. I think I actually did have 66 in the equity calculator as a possibility, along with a bunch of Tx trash and other stuff ofc, but I wouldn't actually have thought V had it.

i mean theres no way you have 45% vs this line

v's line is ok. these are the types of hands you sometimes raise otf as some combination of equity denial / semi bluff. i see it less w 66 than the lower pairs but seems w/e. turn line is kind of interesting by him. looks like turn is v good (though small raise > jam). its also extremely easy for me to see op way over cbetting the flop given posting / sizings, in which case way over aggressing is going to be his best option

annoyingly i had more written up for this hand a day or two ago but it didn't post. i think in general your approach to paired boards is kind of eh (its usually a bunch of small bets - think b25-b33, and if you're going to introduce larger bets i would do it with hands that actually cooler him as oppose to mostly get coolered if all the money goes in ie 77 or AT something), and i believe you are misranging him substantially if you think this is overpair heavy ott. could see an argument towards him being less polar if there's a fd anywhere but its actually pretty tough for me to see someone overplay jj to protect on a rainbow, paired medium board for 15x pot or whatever. maybe your games are drastically different than the ones i play in but i dont really see that happen often, and this is a line you almost never see people take - the double x/r

i think the advice to check the turn is actually pretty good too. is not approved whatsoever but i could get behind betting like 10% and seeing if he freaks out vs it. i think theres pretty good (~15?%) chance if you do something odd that guy who is playing loose and dark checking might bite.

final note. its worth pointing out even if i force ip to use only 10% ott, it will bet range 65% of the time, but will check t8 half the time here, though bet some substantially worse hands for protection (think 7x, underpairs, overpairs)

I mean, I wanted to say the same thing, if nothing else for the sake of contrarianism and to sound cool, but I don’t think it’s great at this size.

(And usually not even preferable against OP’s size, but in this game 1/2p minus a red chip might be the equivalent of a B30 range bet, idk)

I suggested that was the top end of any sort of range you could attempt to defend. I didn't say it was the mostly likely landing spot between 30% and 45%.

I definitely didn't believe that his range was mostly overpairs on the turn. It doesn't have to be mostly overpairs in order for me to have equity in the mid 30s.

the overpair thing was to someone else

yeah sizing is a bit large by both parties at every opportunity lol

was working w forcing ip to cbet 100% for b~50 though and it had oop c/ring like 30% iirc

Indeed. I wasn't considering he might do this with 66. It's kind of crazy. It makes me wonder if he would have barreled turn on any other cards, or if this was just a one-off?

It raises questions about how he'd play 99/88, or 98, and if he would also x/r the flop with 22-55. Would he check-jam turn with 77?

If V is capable of taking this line with 66 on the flop, I wonder what our assumptions and range need to be to 3B the flop, and bet, call or fold turn.

It's good that you're questioning your assumptions about how villains play. Lean into that.

Lol.

Though I did see that bots sometimes like x-r'ing their underpairs like 66-22 on these kinds of flops. (Though to which sizing? And how often?) Versus just giving up or calling. So definitely a TIL moment.

if villain is capable of CRing flop light there's even less reason to bet the turn. youd rather him fire the river with air then fold air on the turn.

in general im not sure what worse hand calls your turn bet though. you are basically hoping an overpair CR'd te flop on a paired board and then will now c/c. seems pretty unlikely to me.

If I'm V, I'm x/r a lot here - way more than the computer recommends - because people over c-bet and the blind should have the nut advantage. I've gotten to the point where if I'm HU in a blind and the flop comes out T high or lower, I almost x/r range. I think its an easy exploit because almost everyone over c-bets IP vs blinds (including me).

So yeah, a hand like 66 that might possibly be good OTF, but often won't be by the river, I think its a very reasonable x/r because H so often has two random overs that just have to give up, and if they have a BDFD, they might stick around one card and give up OTT if the BD doesn't start filling in. I've had a lot of success with a x/r then a smallish bet OTT in similar situations. Giving up if I meet any significant resistance (unless of course you turn a boat!)

V's x/r turn is what confuses me, and it starts smelling like a bluff with a hand like J9 looking to get overpairs to fold. I don't think it's optimal, but it worked to get max value from OP and it would have gotten max value from me too, so maybe it isn't so bad. If I were V, I'd probably bet small or x/r small to keep in JJ-AA and look to gii OTR. That's probably better in theory. I think if OP had QQ, V let him off the hook, lucky for V, H was stronger. (I'm assuming we missed our boat outs OTR)

If we're going to x/r with almost our entire range on a flop like this, I'd think that's just way too high a frequency. Nh,gg makes a good point about 66 at least having some runner-runner straight potential. Same for 99 and 88. I'd think it would be higher EV if there wasn't a pair on board, but either way, taking this line with 22-55 on this board just seems like spew. Is he barreling turn when he doesn't boat up?

I've only gotten double-check-raised once that I can remember, and V turned the nuts after flopping an OESD on a much drier board. Pretty trivial fold in that scenario. But here, I agree, it looks bluffy, or at a minimum, like he's over-playing a worse value hand.

You made good points in your earlier post, about V being able to just go bet-bet with his thick value after he x/r's the flop, how often hero is just checking back the turn, and how much of hero's range just folds out when V check-jams. It's just such an insanely narrow range of hands that V can rep and target for value in this line. Hero has to have exactly TX, or 98 that thinks it's chopping.

I wonder what V would do if hero checked back turn, and the river is any card 7 or higher.

Oh it's definitely way too much in theory, but in theory CO is supposed to check back 20% of the time on this board and isn't. In theory, CO is supposed to call a 3x x/r 50% of the time with hands like KJ, K9, all gutters and 33. People aren't doing that. So they are over-stabbing, over folding, and under 3!ing (QJs is supposed to 3! flop 20% of the time! I'd suggest that happens nearly 0%) which means we can over x/r.

Sure, it's exploitable, but someone has to play you a lot to note that you're over x/r in heads-up pots from the blinds on low boards. Whereas you can play someone for a couple hours and recognize that they over c-bet when HU IP.

I don't actually blindly x/r range, but it's my default choice that I'll modify - less likely if we're shallow, more likely if I have equity, more likely if V has shown ability to fold, less likely if they're a fish that's never folding an overpair, etc. But it gets tons of folds and when called Vs tend to check back turn more than they probably should.

Say H had JJ here, is anyone suggesting he should bet turn? I doubt it, but the computer is betting JJ 60% of the time. Most of us after calling a x/r with a medium strength hand are breathing a sigh of relief when V checks turn and are thrilled to see a free river.

I contend people IP on these boards are cbetting with ranges that are too weak, calling a x/r too tight, 3!ing too rarely, and then playing too passively OTT letting the blind realize whatever shred of equity it has. Playing theoretically sound against a x/r on these boards is very unnatural.

It's not that deep. They check dark because a set is the nuts so it's easy to play and they're expecting a cbet so it's easy value. They wont do this with suited hands or random pairs because those are vulnerable and they want to make sure they dont 'miss a bet'. This particular opponent appears to have got a little creative with his missed set and just turned it into a bluff, which I actually dont mind at all.

I agree with javi and others that it is not horrible for Villain to c/r the flop here. I also agree (and I think others do as well) that it wouldn't be correct for me to play exactly as a solver would suggest because of the low likelihood that an old Villain at a 5-10 live table is playing close to optimally.

OK guys, that’s enough. We’re betting 120, and moving on.