Rivered A Boat Super Deep - To Value Bet or Not?

Obviously the check because I fear a jam is an emotional thing. It went through my head because it was real money at the table and I'm not a robot. I know emotion was part of my decision. Discussing it here, it's much easier to remove the emotion.

So what's his range arriving on the river?

I'd say the hands I can get value from that might still be in his range in order of most likely to still be in the hand are 77, KQ, KJ, AK, AJ, QJ

I think QJ-KQ are likely only the suited varieties preflop. I think QJ, AJ, AK can be significantly discounted because I don't think the donk/call turn makes sense at all with those. And KJ can be slightly discounted because with nuts OTT with such a wet dynamic board, why wouldn't V just jam?

So I think 77/KQ spades make the most sense. In game I didn't consider 77. But I think he was trying to value bet/pot control vs my draws that I might check back or over bet turn with. And 77 is the kind of almost always good but super vulnerable and isn't going to want to lead most rivers. So I think his plan on the turn was to bet for value, then bluffcatch river. Say I flat, he checks most rivers hoping I bet worse value and missed draws. Not sure that's a great plan, but it isn't one I'd dismiss as terrible.

But the blocky donk doesn't make any sense that I can decipher with QJ/AK/AJ and I'm not sure any of those call the $2500 without the FD so if these somehow take this line, I think it's only spade combos for Qx and club combos for Ax.

Where is the logic wrong? I love people who criticize the ranges others suggest, and then fail to suggest and explain a range of their own.

Yeah I still think checking back is likely the right play, and that's after unemotionally thinking it through and considering other perspectives. Honestly in game I'm much more likely to jam because we unblock straights and trips, and have a maniac image. Thinking it through now though I'm not convinced that vs a grinder opponent any of the hands we're targeting actually pay us off, other than maybe exactly 77 (which l partially discounted due to this odd line including preflop 3-bet and turn donk). We're definitely going to value own ourselves sometimes. I also don't like betting 1/3 pot when it reopens the action for the reasons stated above. You're risking significantly more than you stand to gain.

No matter what range you put him on (it would be nice to see a range from someone questioning yours), 77 is the only hand you might get value from unless he's a complete moron. Everything else folds or beats you. Maybe AcKc sigh calls? Doubtful.

Wasn't even responding to you.... Was responding to the overall theme of this forum where villains just always have the nuts and once again, not bet/folding because you might get bluffed is terrible logic.

Agreed. First of all. Either your maniac image matters or it doesn't. Donk/calling a turn that likely checks through a high % of the time with the above mentioned hands is not that weird vs a ''maniac''. Sure, he could check/raise a maniac, he can also donk/call a maniac to keep his bluffs in.
Again, either you're perceived to have bluffs here, or not. I'm going by your own words. If villain did in fact bet/fold most of the above mentioned range vs your turn raise, you should increase your bluffing frequencies.

It's also hard to only give villain suited versions of the above mentioned hands as by your own words ''willing to 3!'' and he did kind of show up with 77 here which says something about his 3b range especially when you consider we're 1000bb deep.

So, perhaps we should first determine if your image is real and whether or not villain thinks you ever have bluffs on this turn.

One more clarification, I'm not sure about river sizing. I think I like bet/fold more than shove but genuinely unsure. I know I don't like checking back though. Could be right could be wrong. Who knows.

Respectfully, stop contradicting yourself first. Can't have nuts only and then also bet/fold the best hand.

Respectfully, this is now how poker works.... Not betting 2k on the river because a 6k pot might get ''stolen'' is not how poker works. Either the river bet is +EV or it's not.

What?????? My posts said the same thing. Try reading them again.

You guys honestly think this V: Has been playing a conservative game, always raising when entering, willing to 3!, but appeared to be playing ABC post-flop. Played rarely and generally took down the pot without showing or gave up.

Is playing KQ, KJ, AK, AJ, QJ this way (we know he had 77)? Maybe AKc or AJc -- and maybe we get a little value from them on the river, but I doubt it.

Pablito, is a bet on the river +EV or not given the range you give him? (Still not sure what that is except for the hands we beat.)

Late to the party, and obviously biased by seeing the results, but the spot is indeed quite interesting because of how deep you are, so here I am.

Foreword: kudos to H for turning 1.5K into 14K in less than one session !!!

OTTH
Preflop: this deep, I am wondering if H could 4bet smallish, like ~500 max, but calling seems totally fine.

Flop: ok, not much to add.

Turn: agree that the donk bet looks wierd, but your raise size seems too big to me nonetheless. I'd say that V should fold AK at this point (except for AKcc), probably call with AQ and 77, and shove QQ (maybe), KJ and the occasional AA (by the way, what do you do here if V shoves over the top?).

River: yeah, that's a weird spot, mainly because V should have folded almost all of his AX ott, imo at least.
On the other hand, do you guys know anyone capable to check/jam bluff or thin value otr for 1000bb total? I don't ...
So, overall I think you might b/f smallish, targeting AXcc, KJ and 77, and knowing that you will value-own yourself sometimes.

Thanks for posting this hand, Yami. The discussion is interesting.

I was thinking about it more, and started to wonder if theory would say we should have no bets on the ace-high flop when V has an uncapped range and checks to us, unless we're not 4B'ing AA pre, which leads to a debate about 4B frequencies at various stack depths.

If we are going to bet this flop after flatting pre, I'd think we'd want to use a polarizing size. If our read is that V is conservative, I'd think his continue range is going to be pretty strong, even against our somewhat smallish 60% pot bet.

If we think his 3B range from the BB is going to be pretty tight, then his range gets really narrow getting to the turn. If he's checking range from OOP, he's still uncapped, and could be slow-playing a monster.

Knowing that he had 77, I'm struggling to figure out why he donked turn. The best answer I can find is he didn't want you to check back, nor did he want to check raise if you bet small, nor did he want to flat a big bet and then donk river. So his turn donk is to take back the betting lead and maximize value against what he most likely thought was an Ax heavy range.

He was probably confused / concerned by your raise. If he would take this same line with AA, AQ, and QQ, his reaction would probably be the same.

If we were somehow able to figure out in game that he'd be donking with 77, and presumably AA/QQ, would we have raised? Probably not. To V, it probably looks like we're repping KJ, QQ, or AQ, at a minimum.

When he tank-calls, honestly, how many of us wouldn't be a little concerned?

If we think he gets to the turn with KJ, and flats our raise, maybe he flat calls a small river bet. I wouldn't expect 77 here, in this line, from this V, but 77 probably also calls a small bet.

The rest of his range would mostly seem to be PP's that are folding, or bigger boats that are raising, and maybe some AK/AJ that will make a crying call if we bet small. Occasionally maybe he decides to turn SDV into a bluff, especially if he knows we're shot taking and may be scared money.

I see the argument for b/f'ing, but if we don't think he has many worse hands that can call, I question the EV difference of b/f'ing vs just checking back. It just seems like his range is weighted towards hands that have us beat, and it's somewhat optimistic to expect him to show up with a worse hand that flicks in a call.

I should be perceived to have bluffs here. Certainly, there are a lot of high-equity bluffs that feel very natural to overbet when checked to on this turn or that I might raise into what I perceived as a mediumish value but non-nutted bet. I probably don't have any low equity bluffs here once I raise, say I have KQhh, I'm not turning that into a bluff OTT against this V. Against the shorter stacks where $2k or less was just the rest of it, I might have tried, and V definitely saw me make those borderline spewy moves against others. He may or may not have believed I would do that against him. I wouldn't because we are deep, and I had more respect for his game than the rest of the table. Its hard to say if V recognized that I was thinking that way and realized I was targeting certain players based on their tendencies or if he just viewed me as a spewtard on a sunrun.

I think some folks are thrown off by my use of the word "conservative". In this setup, I expected V to pretty much play a 3! or fold strategy, with two limpers to act behind, he wasn't the kind of guy to willingly go to a multi-way pot OOP against everyone.

As for frequency, it's always hard to estimate in live poker we were about 7-8 hours in, and V took an hour break. But in my estimation his preflop 3! range was over 5% but under 10%. Probably any suited broadway, maybe A5s at some frequency I think I'd be a little surprised at that, pps down to ? I wasn't stunned to see 77 that's probably close to bottom but 66/55?? Maybe. 22/33 no. AKo, AQo, and that gets you to a bit shy of 10%. You start adding in the offsuit broadways and the 3! range starts climbing toward 15% and if he was 3!ing that often from the straddle I think I notice that over this many hours.

If it was my impression that he was 3!ing KJo in a spot where he is 3! or folding, then 4!ing TT becomes an interesting option. I didn't even consider it because I don't believe this V is 3!ing that wide. I think the showdown adds evidence to that read. But obviously, if V is 3!ing KJo, KTo, QJo, QTo, or if he is going GTO nerd and 3!ing hands like K5s/Q9s/J8s that the computer loves to 3! deep that changes all the decisions throughout the hand. I don't think he was doing any of that, I think he had a pretty vanilla less than 10% 3! strategy mostly suited broadways and pps. So if that read is wrong and costs me money, the read is just wrong. Wouldn't be the first time, hopefully won't be the last. Basically, I would have to adjust my strategy going forward if V showed down KJo on the river. Showing down 77 I didn't feel like I needed to adjust my overall strategy toward him.

I excluded 77 post-flop because he didn't x/r flop. That was obviously an error in my read. I'm still not entirely sure about his logic for not x/r flop, but then donking turn. I guess maybe he thought I had some club bluffs that might just give up to realize the extra equity. If he was just trapping and check called or check raised turn, I would have included 77 in his range because I was betting a lot so giving me rope on the flop makes a lot of sense. But that's the kind of play that caused me to describe him as "conservative" because I think against a lot of players there would have been a lot more action on the flop. He took the lower variance route, and in that context, the donk really looks designed to attempt some pot control by setting the price vs my draws that might overbet bluff turn with the side benefit of getting a little value on my Ax hands that might check back. And if I flat, I think he bets a lot of brick rivers targeting my Ax for value. That kind of attempt at a lower variance route is pretty consistent with my impression from watching him play. Obviously, my raise on the turn blew apart the plan.

So I decided to run this spot through a solver last night, just for the hell of it. I set preflop ranges I thought would be reasonable. For the opponent's range I included most of the obvious 3-bets (big pairs, AK, suited broadways) and also added in low frequencies of some of the solver-approved 3-bets like Axs and suited connectors. I had full frequencies of QQ+ with the frequencies tapering down for smaller and smaller pairs to just a sliver of 66.

For our calling range I used something fairly close to what the LJ would call vs a BB 3-bet, assuming we're opening a little tighter than a button open with the limpers, but still attacking them pretty aggressively.

Solver results:

Actually both players' lines were pretty close to solver approved.

Flop: Opponent was betting on the smaller side 37% with entire range and checking 63%. They were mostly checking with medium strength hands but also including some traps and give-ups.

When checked to in our spot solver was using a similar size to what we used and betting 40% of the time with our entire range (betting 86% of the time with our actual hand).

Somewhat surprisingly our opponent was only raising flop 3% of the time so effectively always calling or folding, which actually makes sense because a lot of his strongest hands just want to bet not check raise (or check call to trap).

Turn: On this turn the 50% donk was actually used by our opponent 37% of the time with their entire range. This actually makes some sense as the Q improves some of their check-call hands and also we were supposed to be stabbing pretty aggressively on the flop. So they had a range advantage on the turn. 77 was donk betting basically always.

Here's where things kind of went different compared to solver. The solver had us calling or folding with most of our range, and mostly only raising (to a larger size than we used) with KJ and a few QJ bluffs.

The 2500 turn raise was only used .21 % of the time, so river solver results might be a little skewed from this point forward.

River: As I said, the river node didn't have a lot of hands in it, but for what it's worth our opponent was jamming 41%, block betting 37% and checking 21%.

When our opponent checked river we were jamming a lot with our remaining range (jamming 78.5% with range) but only betting 1/3 pot .7% (as expected because that is pretty much an exploitative play only).

Anyway TT was neutral EV between jamming and checking back, but was jamming more than 2/3 of the time. Betting 1/3 pot was only marginally lower EV.

So basically the solver confirmed that this is a very close spot and there's a reason we've all been arguing. Haha.

My thinking was that the range a human opponent arrives here with in our opponent's spot will be generally tighter compared to a solver, but I can get the argument for betting small (especially if they never raise with worse). Jamming could be OK too given our maniacal image.

Somewhat surprised 77 is a pure donk.

Seems like hero's raise is where the hand went off the rails. Effectively, hero was turning his hand into a bluff, repping KJ. I think OP's sizing is probably better in the real world, where opponents are likely to over fold if he goes even larger, because it looks so face up and very few players will find the bluff often enough, rather than just calling the donk.

V might have folded to a larger raise size, may have called a small river bet, but also might have jammed over the small bet, if he's putting hero on KJ. I think he would have had a to call if we jammed.

It would be a disaster to bet small, and fold to a raise, after we take this line on the turn.

I ask because I think it matters and affects ranges drastically. As I said before, this hand is not at all interesting if you're perceived as a nit.

This is what 10% roughly looks like; 77+, A9s+, KTs+, QJs, AJo+, KQo. We can argue till the cows come home what his actual 3b range is and I disagree that 7-8 hours of live poker is any meaningful sample at all to determine 3b ranges but also won't argue with your reads.

Just to clarify again. I wasn't sure and still am not about river sizing. I'm just confused at how much this forum seems to hate bet/fold in general.

Figured it would be a lot closer than ''he always has the nuts so fold''.

Rather than me saying for the 4th time in this thread this is terrible logic, would you mind explaining this to me? Perhaps I just don't understand.

I'm not sure what you're not understanding. I've explained it twice. It's the reason tiny bets are pretty much never used in position on the river in theory.

If you have the best hand and bet 2k you stand to win an additional $2k (it will actually be less than $2k because sometimes you'll be beat and value own yourself).

If he check raises with a bluff and you fold the best hand you lose the $6k pot plus the $2k bet for $8k.

So when you have the best hand if you get bluffed and fold less than 1/4 as often as you get called you're losing money.

We're repping KJ on the turn. V can check raise river with 77. If we fold, it's a disaster.

Don't know how much plainer I can make it for you.

While I certainly appreciate you taking the time to run this hand through a solver and give us more than just live players talking about live tendencies it's also entirely irrelevant what theory does here as we're trying to exploit a specific portion of villains entire range. The disconnect here is that people don't understand what bet/fold is designed to do. You're also constantly contradicting yourself with the below explanation because if I was under the impression that villain would turn hands into a bluff I wouldn't be advocating for bet/folding would I?

On the one hand the overall theme of this forum is live players call too much and don't bluff enough yet when someone suggest bet/folding rivers people are advocating against it because we might get bluffed off the best hand. There is a real lack of logic here.

Was hoping for something a bit more sophisticated than ''he might bluff so I check'' which is awful logic and lol at the contradiction. Villain never has 77 here but he's now also turning 77 into a bluff and making us fold the best hand. OKAY.

The real disconnect here is that the Docvails of the world will leverage an entire answer in other threads on the basis that villain is a ''maniac'' but when hero is described as a maniac it's irrelevant and river ranges are nuts and nuts only. Not how poker works.

Appreciate the answer guys. Interesting hand.

The real disconnect is you think a guy giving off "grinder vibes" as the villain was described in the OP is incapable of turning a hand into a bluff. I'm fine with bet-folding against some rec calling station but there's no reason to think that's who we're up against here. Maybe you read the first part of the original post where he described himself as a rec and thought he was talking about his opponent?

I know who is who and what I'm talking about, no need for you to think for me. Live player population tendencies would agree with me that people don't bluff rivers enough and certainly not this deep. Bet/folding was an option and the only reason we're still talking about it is because you keep saying ''we might get bluffed therefore I don't like bet/fold''. This isn't good reasoning at all. If anything if we think he's capable of bluffing our decisions switch to shove and bet/call. How you don't get this is beyond me.

I would once again point out the glaring contradictions but honestly we're never going to agree so lets just agree to disagree? I think checking is wrong, you think checking is right. /thread.

Rather than being snark and throwing shade, and telling us how poker doesn't work, perhaps consider the possibility there's a flaw in your own logic.

You got several "sophisticated" answers in the thread.

I never said he might bluff so I'd check. My very first statement in this thread was this:

I did say I'd never put V on 77 here, and that did factor into my thinking, but not in the way you seem to think. And I actually did take the reads into account, because I think they ARE relevant.

I've been consistent throughout. But if you need me to break down the logic, I will:

1. Based on the reads, I think his range getting to the river is mostly going to be bigger boats for value, straights that didn't 3B turn for some reason, and some slivers of AK / AJ. I wasn't giving him 77.

2. I think our raise on the turn is mostly repping KJ, not sets. His sets are hoping to boat up when he calls our raise.

3. I don't think KJ / AK / AJ are going to call a small bet. I think his boats just check-jam, because it looks like we have KJ.

3. Occasionally he might turn AK or AJ into a bluff if we bet small, but I'm not even sure how much AK or AJ he has here.

4. If we think his range is just boats that are going to check-jam, and KJ / AK / AJ that aren't going to call, there's no reason to bet. It would be a disaster to bet-fold, when we could just check it back.

5. If we're off in our ranging of V, and he has 77, or any other hands that are worse than ours and that could raise, it's an even bigger disaster to bet-fold.

Like said, also in my first post:

I think he's checking range here. I think he over-folds with KJ and AX. I wasn't giving him 77, but that's the one hand that we could actually target for value and expect to call a small bet. But if V has 77, and it looks like we have KJ, V could jam 77 over a small bet.

If we bet small, and fold to a jam by 77, it's a disaster.

I said several times that if we were to bet small, and get jammed on, I think we'd have to call. I said that because I thought a small bet would likely induce raises from hands like AK / AJ.

But if we ignore the read and put 77 into V's range, I think it's even more of a bet-call, not a bet-fold, precisely because our line looks like KJ, and V would be checking river hoping to induce a bet.

So, checking back is probably best. Bet-calling is next best. Bet-folding is the worst.

I have. There isn't. I said I don't know about river sizing but check seems bad because of our image and the hands I think villain will have. Then this debate about bet/folding unfolded because and I quote ''bet folding TT when villain might turn hands into a bluff is a disaster'' which once again is terrible logic. If I for a second thought villain/population was capable of turning hands into a bluff on this river this deep we're not bet/folding are we? Exactly.

Not going to respond to every point as it's pointless. Not like I disagree with ''if villain shoves better and folds worse we shouldn't bet'' like yeah obviously......

The highlighted is exactly why I said what I said. Either a maniac image matters and therefore our turn range is not ''mostly'' repping KJ or it doesn't matter and sure, we can go with your ''we only rep nuts on the turn''. Fine.

Anyways, same as I said to GWF, thanks for responding but cba arguing about this any further. We're not going to agree.

How's this: In this hand, bet/fold is -EV.

If hero's image is maniacal, it's even more likely V would be checking river to induce, rather than donking out with a block bet.

If he's checking range, planning to raise, it's even more reason to check back, not bet, unless we're planning to bet-call, not bet-fold, because we think our maniacal image would lead V to arrive on the river with a wider range than just hands that beat us.

Betting small and folding is the worst idea proposed in the thread.

Agree (as you stated, especially given the maniac image).

Funnily enough had hero bet 2k and villain shoved you'd both be telling us how this is now a fold because people don't bluff these rivers enough and he called turn hoping to boat up with his 2 pair hands that we now obviously lose to.

I'm just glad you both finally understood that if villain has enough bluffs on the river we're not bet/folding, of-course this goes against overall population tendencies and more importantly the advice you guys normally give but we can pretend none of that is true.