Monotone flop and a turned set

mono boards in general play very cautiously and use smaller betting / less betting volume as a whole has been most of my takeaway from looking at them. this one i think tricky because even if he doesn't know that there are more hands than flushes that both beat you, and should also make him much more afraid if he has a hand you beat (AK making a straight i think makes it really tough to get value here from people). with that said you could convince me he uses a bigger sizing ott with his good hands or atleast the hands that beat you that arent invulnverable (98, 65dd type) and maybe it makes sense to raise vs this. but is important to realize thats what you're doing / why

even when i nodelock him to bet 100% of his range ott it barely raises your hand fwiw

How much offsuit Broadway stuff is in those range for Vs? I know solvers in general massively prefer cold calling pps and suited combos.

At the table I think I was overly focused on things like Kx offsuit and QTs/T9s/99. You're probably right that more bet flop in practice, but when I raised turn my mind was thinking of all the pair-plus-draw type hands that aren't folding for one bet right now. Like maybe I'm crazy but it feels like KQ no diamond calls turn, but maybe from V2 IP it would also bet flop. The biggest point I think I have failed to consider here is removing V2's hands that would likely have bet flop after I checked.

You're probably also right about V1. Ordinarily he would be leading with any diamond, any pair, any draw... but in a 3bp with AK just making a straight he's likely much more cautious this time. I don't recall exactly his stats on river after call, but iirc he was fairly stabby. I mostly remember a few pots I wasn't in where he bet/folded turn or followed up by bet/folding river.

Huh, that's a pretty bad sign for raising being a good idea. Would have thought I get more credit for V basically not likely to show up with AK or QQ and I should have some plausible boat outs too.

i think v1 is much more likely than v2 to have offsuit broadways from pre. you could easily convince me he never folds anything he opens closing the action given player profile, less so for guy cold calling btn with something like KJo

i think if v2 does have offsuit broadways that have a combo draw that compel him to continue vs this action ott he is gonna stab flop with them some amount and maybe jams turn occasionally too

other thing re mono boards / multiway is both guys got a flush about 10% each. so by the time you got multiple bets going in, you have a whole hand class that everyone has that beats your QQ+ / AK advantage, and because theres 2 its almost like another street of betting has gone in if you use remotely large sizes. imagine a headsup pot where v flopped a set / flush / nfd twice as often and think about how you would need to play your range against him

am just aggregating the 2p+ the 2 villains have, and these are weird pre ranges and theres going to be blocker effects but when you see the flop here with black aces you are already beaten ~30% of the time compared to qt3 tt where you are beaten ~10%. the flushes are so prevalent in both ranges you really need to respect that and essentially design your strategy around it

I wouldn't expect nodelocking the lead frequency would change much because V1 leading range for a small size is probably a fairly small error and we still have to worry about V2 (vs V1 if he's leading too wide we probably want to call in isolation to get bluffs on river).

The more relevant nodelocking is to look at V2s checking range OTF. Is V2 protecting his check back range with made flushes as much as the solver? Is he ever checking back QQ? I suspect V2 has a somewhat weaker check back range than the solver probably does with less made hands and more Kdx hands. I would think modifying V2s check back range would have a materially larger impact on His action than anything you assume with V1.

Also, interested in how V2 should respond vs how a "willing to gamble" $1/$2 V actually plays. I suspect in general live V2 might 3! hands like Kdx or Adx with more frequency than the solver. I would expect to get stacks in a lot vs naked Ad or Kd from either player as described after raising. If you nodelock how V2 likely responds irl, you probably get more raises for H.

That said, when V2 flats that's a big red flag to me because if our read is he's more likely to gamble the hands we get value from like 2p, smaller sets and combo draws probably don't flat the turn. It's time to check and decide if we should bluffcatch river.

Bet 50 on the river so he feels compelled to see it.

Honestly, V2 cold-calling pre, and then smooth-calling turn would make me pretty leery that he flopped a low or middling flush and is just sand-bagging, or he's got the naked Ad and he's hoping to either bink or steal this away.

I'd think if we check river, he's going to mostly check back all his 2P and worse sets, and just bet all his flushes and missed draws, so it's a pretty straightforward check-call to any bet 1/2 pot or less and check-fold to any bet over 3/4 pot.

Sucks if he bets 2/3 pot, but since we 3B pre, that would push me towards folding. We could have some flushes here, or Broadway. Not too many 1/2 players who will fire a big bet with just a missed draw, when we could have a hand that just isn't folding.

ETA - you could also take a block-bet-fold line, but I don't love doing that with a set on this board. I think too many opponents are going to jump on bets that look weak, and start over-bluffing. I'd rather check-evaluate and either call or fold based on V's bet size, assuming he doesn't just check it back.

How much Ax suited does V2 have in this range? Full combos of all? It belatedly occurs to me that this probably has an obviously huge impact. Having the Qd and Td on the board and assuming AKdd would be 4-bet significantly blocks Broadway flush combos (literally just AJdd and KJdd).

I can't really say that well for how much they gamble post - the "gamble" comment in my read was more along the lines of these are players who are choosing to VPIP 40% plus (rarely limping), perhaps consciously knowing it's bad, because it's more fun than folding. They're also straddling, trying to talk the table into playing bomb pots on dealer changes, etc. Quite possibly they're also more likely to stick it in with a draw postflop too, but I don't have a good read on that.

Note river spr is 0.65

Oof. I missed that. Sorry.

So...yeah, the SPR being what it is, he can't bet more than 2/3 pot, and I'd think that if someone is going to go for a bluff here, they're not going to go 1/2 pot when they only have 2/3 pot left, because it raises the obvious question of why they didn't go all-in, and thus induces more calls.

So, logic is our only guide. Let me take another swing at this...

PRE - With the read that V1 is aggro and V2 will cold-call 3B's, I might size up with our 3B size.

I feel like I'm always telling people here to size up pre, but I think it's generally a good policy in high-rake low-stakes games, where our opponents tend to be too sticky pre, and will call 3B's too wide, or like this guy, cold-call 3B's.

FLOP - obviously a $hlt flop for our hand, especially multi-way, sandwiched between Aggro Andy and Cold Call Kyle.

Checking seems standard / fine.

I'm not going to say I'd block bet here, and I wouldn't want to die on that particular hill, but...without the Jd in our hand, but double-blocking hands like QJ, and holding the gut-shot outs of hands like K9, I think maybe an argument could be made in support of a small block bet, just to clean up some equity, especially if we know V1 will frequently come out firing on the turn if this checks through.

Like, I wouldn't expect either opponent to have AQ or KQ all that often, and I'd think their Q9 and worse QX combos are going to have a hard time holding on, on a lot of run-outs. They might just fold those hands now, because kicker problems.

It's not the worst result if we fold out some draws and worse 1P + FD's. If we had the Jd in our hand, I think I'd feel better checking this through.

TURN - I understand the urge to raise when our hand improves and V1 dink-and-dunks for a small size, but...our hand just got upgraded to a pretty decent bluff catcher, not thick value. In addition to the flopped flushes our opponents could have, K9 and 98 got there.

Assume for a moment that someone has 2P here, be it QT, QJ, or JT, or someone has 33, or even maybe occasionally TT. We don't want those hands to hero-fold, and they're basically the only hands worse than ours that might put more money in if the river's just a brick.

When we raise, we're mostly just getting called by better, or draws to the nuts. We're forcing (most of) our opponents to get to the river with a more polar range, which sucks for us when we have a decent bluff-catcher that is going to be in the blender if we don't boat up.

Our hand isn't strong enough / vulnerable enough to benefit from protection. We're basically just hoping to boat up or have the river check through. We'd prefer to keep the pot smaller and the SPR higher.

With the read that these guys are...I'm going to label them "thinking gamblers"...I'd think we're going to see them continue with some hands that really should fold now - hands like KQo with the Kd, 8d8x, T9, AdXx, and some smattering of KdXx and 9dXx.

Yeah, we beat those hands, but we're going to be in a weird place when they get to the river with a range that has so many hands that probably can't win at showdown and will therefore get turned into bluffs. Like, we'd really like to have a higher SPR when our opponents' ranges are overflowing with bluff candidates.

RIVER - It sucks, but I'd mostly check and hope it either checks through, or V2 bets tiny, like less than $100. I'd probably just flick it in and not think about it too long if V's bet is $90 or less.

I'd think most opponents who are at least semi-aware are mostly going to bet polar here. It'll either be a flush or the naked Ad. The flushes will sometimes jam all in, sometimes bet smaller. The naked Ad will sometimes jam, and sometimes bet smaller. Hard to tell which way they'll go.

If V bets more than $90-$100, I wouldn't snap fold. I'd take a moment to see if we pick up any tells. If he mean-mugs us, I'd be inclined to call. If he's doing everything possible to avoid eye contact, I'd be inclined to fold.

If he starts talking, pay attention to what he says, and do the opposite of whatever it seems like he wants you to do. But mostly I'd be more inclined to call regardless of what he says. If he's usually a chatty Cathy but he clams up, I'd be more inclined to fold.

Since your read is that V is capable of ranging opponents and attacking weakness, I'd think there's likely to be an increased mergey value-bluff frequency, such that I think we'll see some bets from hands like KQo with the Kd, some 2P, occasionally worse sets (mostly 33 and 77), and some hands that should have folded turn, but didn't, and haven't improved, but get bet because WTF else are they going to do?

We're kind of handcuffed after we raise turn and he calls. If we bet, he mostly just folds worse and calls with better. If we check, he's mostly checking back with worse value and betting polar.

But I think the read is going to mean he'll also bet some worse hands that really ought to check, so we probably need to call down a bit more when we have a hand that can beat some of those hands that get bet when they shouldn't.

This thread has made me appreciate that the turn is more of a decision point and probable mistake than I had previously considered.

As mentioned, I was getting a little greedy and was really focused on the wide range of thin value hands that Vs could hold that might put in money on the turn (pair-and-draw mostly). Biggest thing I probably missed was that while I was considering Vs couldn't have AK for a straight, I didn't really think about the fact that I could and that the J is actually a decent scare card in that sense which pushes JJ to much more of a mid-value hand against their calling range.

I do think being passive here gives some credit to Vs being decent, but per my own read they very well might be decent players post.

On the river, I didn't really get out of value mode and wanted to see if I could get a crying call from pair-missed-draw hands like KQ, AdQx, etc.

Hero bet $50. V2 raises $173 all-in.

Perhaps another mistake, but at this point I convinced myself that for 20%, maybe V played QTs this way or we somehow induced. I don't love the call, but folding is tough after I dug this grave.

I woulda got stacked here too by raising turn bigger and just jamming the river for value. NH, whatever. Too much analysis in a standard not deep stacked cooler tbh.

yah i think the call is large torch

good hand to learn from though i hadnt realized the math in multiway mono was this exxagerated

I haven’t yet read the posts. My instinct given the reads and low SPR is just jam the river. V calls with two pair and Ax.

You gotta also think about the magic at the table when you semi-bluff the river. As OP writes, they make bad calls for fun. Just give the gamblers the action to look you up.

Just saw results. Bet-call river is a spew. Why bet so little (I still need to review Doc’s tortured logic)?

KdJd makes no sense but I have seen gamblers play monsters passively. A royal flush is more exciting than a large pot?

I can’t fault hero for raising the turn to set up an easy shove on the river (the shorter satisfactory explanation is the better). The exploit with gamblers: they call too much.

This is third or fourth level poker with players acting irrationally, not GTO.

What doesn't kill the logic makes it stronger.

Just read through the posts. I wonder what people would have written if OP made the turn the inflection point, that is, if OP did not reveal that he bet and that V2 called hero’s raise. Revealing the call by V2 probably biased the analysis.

The 27 percent turn bet by V1 suggests a weak holding like Tx or a single diamond, Kx, or 9x draw. Gambly types love to bet their equity and hope for folds. I would make V1 and V2 pay more than 25 to see the river.

Of course, the turn raise set up 0.64 SPR on the river, getting hero pot committed. I guess V2 calling the turn wasn’t supposed to be part of the plan.
But OP says both Vs “rarely fold marginal spots.” I think v2 calls the turn with Kx, 9x, and most diamonds.

Because V2 checked back the flop in position, he doesn’t have QT. On the turn, there are now only three combos of QJ. 33 is unlikely given he called the 3bet. TT definitely bets flop in position.

So now I think maybe just checking the river makes sense. My instincts are often wrong. It’s a gross spot multiway on the turn. I would have lost my stack too. My logic is shorter than Doc’s but probably just as tortured.

Meh. At worst, you just smacked the logic around a bit.