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

And now you are being results oriented -- just going farther down the hole.

Wouldn't results oriented in this case be something like ''shove because villain has 77 he might make a crying call with''? Highlighting that both of you would 100% advocate to fold to a shove is not being results oriented. It's exposing your hilarious contradictions.

No, what you wrote is being results oriented.

Right, I'm being results oriented in a hypothetical scenario. Got it.

At least you're not denying that's exactly what you would say.

I would never say that because I would never bet small in this scenario vs this villain.

Ultimately, as confirmed by the solver, there is likely to be a small EV difference between check, jam or smaller bet on the river. The best action is pretty much entirely situationally and opponent dependent.

It's not really worth us all getting hung up on the decision.

Really there's more to be learned here on earlier streets. Like it's interesting why our opponent doesn't have much of a flop check raise range on this board and why they have a significant turn leading range.

Also, what do people think of the turn raise we made? This deep the solver is only raising stone cold nut straights and a few QJ blocker bluffs for balance. Do people think raising TT is a good exploitative move?

The river uncertainty might be more reflective of a turn mistake. If we just call our opponent is likely continuing to bet with their strong hands and their sizing will inform our response. We also keep both players' ranges wider to where there are a lot more hands we can target for value.

I notice super deep solvers tend to differ action until the river a lot, then make massive overbet jams with a balanced range.

We might have been better off calling turn, then if our opponent bet anything less than pot on the river we could go for the overbet jam and put a ton of hands in the blender. That line could more legitimately represent bluffs.

I guess the counterargument would be that humans might overfold against that kind of line.

We assume that V thinks he's bluffing if we bet $2k on river and he jams. But H is the one who most likely had KJ in range. H's actions are absolutely 100% consistent with KJ throughout the hand, and betting KJ small on the river might be a bit thin - but its certainly something a loose player might do on the river. So V very well could be jamming 7s full on the river for value targeting my AK, KJ type of hands.

From V's perspective H shouldn't have much AA or QQ because H would have 4! those a ton. (H would pure 4! AA and QQ might flat, but H is probably checking back flop most of the time or going with a smaller size if going with a range bet strategy. I bet large because I didn't think V would fold any value.) So if V is good at handreading, I think AA/QQ can be severely discounted.

And am I raising AQ vs the donk? I don't think it can be dismissed by V, but from my perspective if I did have AQ, I block exactly the kinds of hands I want to be called by with TT. I raised TT because I thought V had a lot of AQ, Ax FD/SD, and Qx FD/SD type of hands that were priced in to continue. If I have AQ, well that reduces a lot of combos of Ax and Qx I'm targeting, and suddenly it's a lot more likely I'm against 77/TT.

So getting to the river, I don't think my range has any AA and very rarely AQ/QQ. While I have a lot of KJ and maybe Kx FDs that bricked and might bluff. So TT is the only real value hand I have at full frequency that beats him. V could be excused for thinking he has the best hand and jamming for value. Mostly looking to get paid by KJ, but perhaps H gets sticky with AK and blunders.

So is V going to turn 77 into a bluff? I don't think so. Ax or Qx would be better bluffs, but V could be excused for thinking 77 is value vs a maniac who might be valuebetting too thin. I think bet/folding a hand like AK/KJ might be really good. TT I'm not so sure about.

I've read this twice and still have no idea what you're trying to say. Is English your second language?

There's just one problem with your statement here. I said from the beginning of the thread that if we bet small and he raises, I think we have to call. I said this BEFORE the reveal that V had 77, and I've been insanely consistent on this point.

I didn't just say it once, or even twice. I said it explicitly three times, in three separate posts, and someone with reasonable powers of deduction could infer it from my other comments...

Since words don't seem to make a dent in you, maybe math will.

To make the math simpler, I'm going to say there's $6k in the pot and we have $7k behind. Like I said in my first post, it's sort of impossible to find a bet size that makes sense for a bet-fold. The "bet small" suggestion was for $2k, or 1/3 pot.

Say we bet $2k and V jams. The pot will be $15k, and we'll have to call off another $5k, so we'll be getting 3:1. We need to find 1 worse hand for every 3 better hands in V's range.

Say we give V AA (1 combo), QQ (3), and AQ (6). That's 10 combos that beat us. We need to find 3.3 worse combos.

Well, there are 3 of 77, so that's almost enough. But if we're not giving him 77, he can have all the combos of AK / AJ and KJ. Even if we don't think he's ever jamming KJ, there are 16 combos of AK and AJ. He only needs to find the courage to turn one of those 16 combos into a bluff around 20% of the time.

If we want to get into the weeds, and say V has 2 combos of ATo, and 2 of A7s, okay, he has 14 combos that beat us, and we need to find 4.7 combos we beat. I'd argue that if we're giving him ATo and A7s, we can give him 77, and / or a little more AK / AJ. Either way - he has enough worse hands that we have to call, not fold.

The smaller we bet on the river, the more we're inducing a raise from hands we beat. The larger we bet on the river, the higher the pot-odds will be when V jams, and the fewer worse hands we'd need to find to justify a call. If we bet $3k instead of $2k, the pot will be $16k, we'll be getting 4:1.

There's no logic in saying there are worse hands we can target for value, and also saying we can bet-fold, when the worse hands we'd be targeting for value are EXACTLY the hands that V could jam, either for value (77), or as a bluff (AX), when it looks like we have KJ.

I don't know. It certainly felt good when I did it. Right or wrong, his donk was interpreted by me as "middling value, pot control" and I beat middling value, so let's blow up his ideas of controlling the pot. The best way to get me to do something is to tell me to do the opposite - it's a personal flaw.

I think most aware players facing a V who has been fairly aggressive at betting in other hands and definitely has bluffs, are going to just let H hang himself when nutted. Say he had KJ here, I would think he goes for the x/r confident that I'm probably going to overstab this turn.

Looking at in the theory lens, I understand it's a nut-changing turn, and that V has more KJ than H should, and V has a bunch of high equity hands that are just never going to fold and could actually have higher equity than many of my natural bluffs. So I think I understand why I probably should tone it down in theory. But in practice, I think triple barreling this runout is going to be very hard line for a live player to handle unless they, in fact, hit the nuts. I'm going to continue most of my range, and I'm probably going to continue pretty big. That might be influencing my perception of V's donk as a sign of weakness.

So when V donks, I assume he doesn't have KJ, and to a lesser extent, AA or QQ - hands that are happy to let an overaggressive V stab too wide and then drop the hammer. Maybe that's an errant assumption. But if you all were V, sitting there with KJ, are you donking turn against an aggressive V who is probably overstabbing?

So if V doesn't have KJ and has limited AA/QQ then I think the turn raise is good exploitatively. If that assumption is wrong and V does have KJ and a lot of AA/QQ, then I can see how it might be bad. The solver probably has KJ, AA, QQ. I'm not sure humans do.

In game I probably would have raised too. With two flush draws your hand feels vulnerable and a raise feels right.

There are other aspects to consider though:

1. The issue we're debating about the river is ultimately whether our opponent has enough strong but not nut hands left in their range to call a river value bet. It feels bad not to be value betting when checked to with a hand this strong.

Perhaps raising the turn created this issue by potentially getting our opponent to fold out too much of their range before stacks went in? If we called turn and our opponent bet 1/2 pot again on the river I would be onboard for an overbet jam. Both players would still have lots of weaker stuff in their ranges, and he would have to defend and call sometimes otherwise we could print by bluffing with stuff like missed flush draws. Don't you agree if we had something like a flush draw we'd always call the turn donk, and never make that big raise?

2. Is it better to call and keep the pot smaller then on the river use the power of position to make the best decision when the big money goes in? Once the pot gets bloated on the turn there will be some pretty sick spots on the river where you're put in a very difficult spot. For example if a club hits and he jams he could easily be bluffing with something like QJs. Raising the turn partially negates your positional advantage by lowering the SPR.

I rest my case.

Third language actually.

I disagree. I think this is exactly the river spot where live players leave far too much money on the tables because they're afraid of making thin value bets. As I said before, I appreciate you taking the time to run it through a solver and post the results here but it's not going to help us in a spot where we're obviously trying to exploit weak players who call too much and don't bluff enough aka live players.

Turn raise seems entirely too big but I actually don't hate it with hero's image. We're ip, aggro and deep as fuck, we should be getting called here somewhat lighter than usual.

Interesting. Didn't think of this line but you might be right.

Funnily enough, I totally agree and only helps my case for why river is a bet and not a check.

I understand what theory says, but is this true, 1000bb deep and ip? I doubt it.

Are you folding many turns vs maniacs?

Part of where we're seeing the situation differently might be in how we're interpreting the turn donk. You're looking at it as midling value but I'm interpreting it more as polarizing. I know if I made a bet like that OOP this deep that it would pretty much always be a strong value hand or a weakish bluff that I don't mind folding to a raise. There's no reason to bloat the pot there with midling hands.

So if I was in villain's spot sure I would continue against a maniac raise with the value side but I would have an easy fold with the bluffs.

That's another reason a turn call might be better, to keep the bluffs in and give him an opportunity to bluff river.

A couple of things, I think there has been some good discussion in this thread. I like to see it.

First thing is if Hero bets 2k on river its not an obvious bet/fold. Hero needs to decide if villain can bluff-raise. Betting smaller to induce bluffs is totally valid.

And I don't want to get too fixated on villain and Hero image in perception, that is often one of the least reliable parts of member posts in general.

GWB, i did find your solver post interesting, even though I think given hero and villain images, if given the choice between shove and check only, the adjustment would mean jam is favored and pure jam is the best strategy.

In particular, I found it a bit surprising that solver would have villain check this flop at such a high frequency, especially with exact holding unblocking the Ax so may get 3 steeets of value. And Hero has a bunch of Ax, but no AA, so TT is really the only hand to fear, and even in that case Hero may incorrectly fold at some frequency.

The turn analysis is where some of the assumptions seem a bit more dubious to me. Where does villain come up with less than 1/2 psb with range advantage 1000bb deep. Even if Hero has more KJ. Couldn't villain profitably overbet or even want to overbet?

I agree villain would most likely jam over the 2500 raise with KJ given the texture.

So I don't really understand why you would view villain turn lead sizing as polarizing. I would argue that if its polarizing it should mostly be polarized to a weaker range. Because what is the point of a polarizing strategy where villain is getting minimal value with top of range, and letting Hero cheaply realize ewuity in position super-deep in positio

Maybe I'm wrong. And mayb such a wete texture deep might actually give Hero a big advantage this deep. But idk. Villain should probably start with a larger 3! Too for the same reason.

Oh and I do agree turn call is still an option, though I think raising what looks like a not-very strong bet with this hand, in this texture, unblocking Ax is also very cimpelling. Raise/fold woukd be gross.

Another thing. Given solver finds way more overbluff jams than humans will, Hero has even stronger case to raise turn. Especially if villain is nitty and won't bluffcatxh enough when hero wants a call.