SC flops primo OOP

Exactly, when he goes 3x pot, you can't be sure of his range. You are slightly ahead of QQ-AA. You are behind TT/JJ and other pair and straight draws from scs. You are in bad shape against sets and higher flush draws. So you need to fold, even though you flopped a huge combo draw. That is part of the problem with hands like 54s.

it's not a fold lol

You can't call the 3x pot cbet and you are either flipping or behind anything he does this with. There is little in the pot and you have little FE.

why can't you call the cbet?

its also 2.4x by my math and not 3x

im pretty open to dialoguing about this but im not really sure what your logic / reasoning is beyond you just keep saying it over and over so it must be true

from ev standpoint in solver at equilibrium its a much larger error to fold than to jam vs alternatives

the only way i can really get it to lose is if i make ip cbetting range {OP, NFD, combo draw} and never b/f any of it. (jamming. calling is still decently +ev)

i still mostly stand by my first post in the thread but it does appear preference order once nodelocked is call > fold > jam

actually having messed around w this a bit more. it looks like its just a c/c. if he has exclusively overpairs, having like ~10% fe isnt enough to change preference. it looks like around 25-30% is where i can see small ev difference in gtowizard where shove > call.

the thing that really nukes our ev is if he has draws (and doesn't fold them)

this is again highly biased sim where he has absolutely no air so no natural b/fs (range im using here is {OP, 15% sets), which is conceivably accurate given the sizing i have no idea. its not unbelievable to me that a guy that his sizing in his arsenal sometimes just bets random stuff bc why not, or AK, or maybe he doesn't know how the chip denominations work or whatever).

anyways sort of insightful hand in that it looks like jamming probably decent mistake here (vs call) though ev of call will likely depend on us playing later streets well (sizing wise, leading on cards that improve us, etc)

i have same heuristics more or less. (not drawing to nuts / no sdv / oop would make me v inclined to gii here in real time)

its unclear to me if this is a limit of gtowizard ai solve - i think it calculates each street independently but i am not exactly sure why i think that.

intuitive guess is he calls when he has a heart and folds otherwise but ill look.

for purposes of sim will have turn be 2h and eliminate oop leading range (oop is leading range for 40 here on 2h which makes a ton of sense given ranges). if i elminate that option ip range checks turn. if oop jams river ip folds range which is unexpected and i guess means oop range is extremely fd heavy

stealth benefit of call is i think we can over realize our ev / equity on 4 strs and maybe an ace

I'll take a stab at responding to Submersible's point...

I guess the first thing to establish is that most of us aren't trying to play equilibrium at 1/3, because our opponents aren't playing anywhere near equilibrium. So we're trying to make reasonable adjustments vs the pool or according to our reads of individual opponents.

My first thought is that we can fold 54s pre because V is RFI'ing to 17 from EP (UTG1) and everyone folds to us. I don't know if we should be defending our BB with 54s vs this open sizing in a raked game, but it feels like we don't have to, and we should just fold.

Ordinarily, I'd think a larger open is indicative of a big PP, often TT or JJ that is terrified of seeing over-cards on the flop, or making 2P with three to a straight on board. When the board comes out super wet and connected and V blasts off, it seems likely he has an over-pair, or a big draw.

Once we see the flop, I agree that a donk here could be viable. But since OP checked and V c-bet for more than 2x, almost 3x pot, whether or not we continue is going to be dependent not just on how much equity we think we have, but how likely we are to realize that equity and how likely it seems that we'll get paid off if we make our hand.

My mental checklist in this spot would look something like this:

1. Since V just sat down and is completely unknown, there's a non-zero-percent chance we're drawing close to dead vs a made hand or just a better draw.

2. We've got a combo draw, but it's to the bottom end of a straight.

3. The 8 will put four to a straight on board, such that any T makes a higher straight, making it hard for us to get paid by worse.

4. Any heart gives us the third worst flush possible, in a spot where V is unlikely to have a worse flush in this line.

5. When V opens for a large size pre, and over-bets the flop, it seems reasonably likely he's planning to bomb the turn on any card that doesn't complete one of our draws.

6. When low-stakes opponents make big bets, they tend to fold less, not more. A jam may not generate nearly enough fold equity, if any. He's probably not folding any hand that takes this line, even to a 3x jam.

7. Our 1P outs are probably no good.

I appreciate you running a sim for this. I wouldn't have thought call > fold > jam, even at equilibrium. I think for me, and likely for many people here, the key point worth debating is how often V bet-folds in this line.

If I understood you correctly, you said the only way you can get the sim to lose is if you make V range-bet with all his over-pairs, the NFD, and all his combo draws, and never fold to our jam.

I think the reality is that the low-stakes population is never bet-folding in this line, because they mostly just have OP's or better draws. I think the reveal of V calling hero's jam with KThh bears this out. And so at low stakes, I think fold > jam > call.

The only reason I could get on board with a jam is because I don't think his OP's are folding, nor do I think he's paying us off when we make our hand. So if we think we have enough equity vs his range, I'm okay making sure we get paid by jamming the flop, rather than calling and folding when he jams turn on a brick.

And the only way I can get there is with a read that V's range is heavily weighted towards OP's, without very many better draws. But when V just sat down, and is completely unknown, I'm not willing to continue vs this bet size.

the value of equilibrium is you see what should happen when you don't know what's going on in the hand (where they're deviating). this is a bizarre size that i am unsure i have seen in a single raised pot from a non tilted player in maybe 10 years (with the exception of one whale i play w regularly). so the point of equilibrium is to see what to do. then we can node lock it or realistically just lazily guess where other guy is making mistakes bc its a pain in the ass. you can say solvers are worthless or whatever but theres basically no range you're going to be able to find where raise > call from ev standpoint unless v is b/fing a really large amount of the time. also i find it very difficult to find a range where we can't continue vs this size profitably.

no when i said lose i meant where ev(raise) was signif worse than ev(call). there's really no scenario where ev(call) will be losing otf (which would make folding the best option). i node locked it to OP / sets / NFD / combo draws and it still wanted to continue lol

what is interesting though is pretty much entire thread in agreement re shoving including me, and thats not really right either in theory or explo

Just to be clear, I wouldn't say solvers are worthless. I'd expect we could use solvers to node-lock what we think this V is doing and find the highest EV response.

I think this is one of those spots that most of us approach intuitively, with our opinions based on a mix of what we may know of theory and what we remember from past experience.

It's probably hard for most of us to think theory would suggest continuing on the flop, and hard for most of us to remember an instance when continuing in a spot like this, with a hand like this, worked out well for us.

Maybe this is revisionist thinking, but the reveal in this hand makes me wonder if V takes a different sizing with his over-pairs, and maybe even his NFD's, and this sizing is purely a reflection of better combo draws that have us drawing close to dead.

We don't know, because V is unknown, and that's the underlying point. Facing this line from an unknown V, folding is probably going to be best, until we know what the hell this guy is doing.

It is possible villain checks QQ+ on this flop. When he bets this size, it is more likely JJ/TT, which has a straight draw and needs more protection. The big sizing looks like a combo draw. We are behind pair plus straight draw and crushed by flush draws. Villain let hero off the hook with bet size tell with huge cbet.