Yeah, seems that all three of us agree that leading is better on the turn (that is, you, me and video-me).  It just disguises our hand so well, ensures that we extract at least some value and can cause the regular to play poorly vs our holding as well.

I'm a little on the fence whether reraising once the recreational play min C/Red is the best play, or just flatting, capping the action and seeing a river.  On one hand (it seems, because I ended up getting coolered here) we have 210$ guarrateed for us if we ship right away, and possibly 410$ if the river is a brick.

I still lean towards reraising right away, even if it tips the reg off easier.  Assuming our recreational player has made 2 pair, there are 10 straight cards, 6 counterfeit cards and 4 aces in the deck that may slow him down.  Not to mention that a backdoor flush can sometimes scare them, but we won't worry about that...  That's almost 1/2 the deck!!! Any of these cards could cause our recreational player to check, and have the reg check back in our face and get 0$ instead of 210$ or 420$...  If we were in the middle of the rec and the reg, that would be a different story as the rec would be shoving into us, and the reg could overvalue their hand vs. our underrepped hand and possibly reship to extract more value from us once the rec ships and we call.  But that's a pretty farfetched benefit.

As I've finished typing this, I think I have to disagree with the idea that flatting is better.  With that much money in the pot, our recreational player ready to put his money in and 20/46 cards possibly killing our action, I want to reraise there all day.

Well, it seems that you disagree with my assessment that he will call one more bet with 2 pair.  And apparently that means that I have no clue what I'm doing...

I feel that I have very close to zero fold equity on my turn bet.  So I agree that it seems like a bad spot to bluff.  I also feel that he's more likely to have AQ/AJ/AT/QJs than QTs/JTs here, strengthening his calling range slightly.  If we were to bluff in this spot, the 5h6h would be the hand to do it with, but with little to no history with my opponent, I chose not to bluff.

If we continue bluffing on the turn, as I said in the video, I don't like the idea of following through on the river as we can easily be running into a K.  On the flip side, if we hit our heart, assuming the board doesn't pair, and our opponent isn't overcoating us (a rare case), we only get paid off by a K, and 2 prs will probably fold most of the time.  I don't think this play is profitable or +EV over the turn and river bets.  This play would have to be justified by balancing because I see us losing money over the long run when we continue to bet here.

Saying that if our opponent calls with hand like QJs/QTs/JTs we are bluffing too frequently has no bearing on this hand.  We have no history, and I cannot control what my opponents do, I can only predict it.  From experience of playing millions of hands in my poker career, I feel that regulars sometimes find a call here, and definitely find one with aces up.  For arguments' sake, I am willing to concede that 2prs that aren't aces up, may fold.

I have no idea what the table you have posted is supposed show.  I'm not familiar with it.  Perhaps you'd like to explain.

Since we are UTG and HJ, assuming that our opponent auto 3bets QQ+ and AK is very inaccurate.  I must add as well that from the limited knowledge I have of this player, I feel that he would have the tendency to flat big hands in this EP spot more than more regs.  This is probably the point that divides our logic the most, as we add in 6 combos of sets and 18 combos with a king in it (AK/KK).  If we halve those because of a possible pf 3bet, we have an extra 12 combos of very strong hands.

When we break down the math of his range (I will assume no Ah9h or worse because of tight posistions), he has 12 combos of (QQ+, AK), 9 AQo/s, 9 AJo/s, 2 ATs, 6 JJ/TT, 3 KJs and 3 KTs for a total of 56 combos that will NOT fold to a turn barrell.  We have 2 QJs, 3 QTs and 2 JTs for a total of 7 combos that will.  Lets even double that to 14 combos and invent some floats (T9s/T8s, which were probably folded pre).  He's folding 11% of the time and 20% if we include the floats.

Once we get to the river, he should call 9/12 of the (QQ+, AK) combos, and 18 of the (KQo/s, KJs, KTs), so 27/56 combos = ~48% so betting the turn to barrel bluff the river starts to seem more attractive.  Since the board is going to pair ~1/4 the time, and our best paired card being the T where he would only fold about 32% of the time (AQ/AJ), I think it's best not to bluff paired rivers (A pairs, he folds 0%, Q or J pairs, he folds 20%).  Combining these stats we actually realize we may be able to win the pot 40% of the time on rivers (giving up paired boards and betting everything else).  So in the end, with good betsizing, lets say 3/5-2/3 pot, we can make a profitable river bluff.

I have not even brought into the play the scenario where we hit our heart.  If the Kh falls, we have a opportunity to bet big and get called... The rare AhKh, AhJh and KhJh will take our 100$ river bet away from us as well as 2prs/sets that boated up when the Ah, or Jh hits.  I think we should be B/Fing river when heart hits.  When the board doesn't pair, we only get paid off ~50% of the time which is acceptable.  Although doable, the calculations would be very complicated to break down this situation, (and I don't feel like cause I've already written a novel here after being told I have no clue what I'm doing), but I would guess that making money off a heart is really secondary to following through with our bluff on the river and which should show a small profit over the long run (and be good for our "range").

While commentating this video in real time and without doing a calculation, I thought this was one of those rare spots where a scare card comes down that also increases our equity, but actually turns out to be a bad spot to continue bluffing.  That was true for solely turn street play; we can't just bet once and only bet on heart rivers.  However if we package this with a mandatory river bluff on non-paired boards, I am clearly wrong.

This is very crucial, you have around 20% equity with your hand, so if you were to bet 80% pot and get called 100% of the time you would need 30% equity and no implied odds on the river.

I don't see how you get to this 30%.

I didn't got this from your video. Obviously if this is the case he shouldn't have much of a 3-betting range in this spot and moreover he holds much more Kx combos here. That would actually be a stronger argument for check folding the turn than that he calls every two pair combo. However this would make for a bad bluff spot on the flop, so I concluded that you perceived his range to be capped on the flop as a result of him 3-betting most of his QQ-AA,AK combos.

I mentioned that in the video that he could have AK in his range, but I failed to talk about the fact that in our two positions (at 6max) is the most common spot for people to flat AK and QQ+ as a cold caller.  My mistake for not being clearer in the video.

I'm very sorry if I offended you. I never intended to mock your game or capacity for reason. Your check fold was based on the assumption that your fold equity on the turn was close to 0% and that you couldn't get much value on blank/paired/flush rivers from bluffs and valuebets.

It's not a big deal and I'm not offended - that would be too strong.  I just found your choice of words slightly rude considering that you are opening a discussion with another poker player.

I just wanted to state that if your opponent would call his two pair combos, even the ones from he very bottom of your range he had to assume that you either think this is a great spot to bluff to much or that you bet worse for value. Against a calling station bluffing here would be bad of course, but a decent reg should find a fold here with the bottom of his range. No clue what you were doing refers to his perception of your game in case he would call 100% of his range here, not my perception of your game based on your videos!If you had QJs-JTs in his spot, would you always call on the turn?

As a general rule, when the board changes and a player continues bluffing/betting, their opponent is likely to look them up one more time, assuming both players know each other and one of them is not a complete nit.  Especially in a case where the board generally cannot get worse (just pairing).  Ex: (579fd, and K pops off, a 6, 8, T, flush card or A can come off on the river that changes the board again.)  In my opponents shoes, calling AQ and JTs is very much the same thing IMO.  We are bluffcatching, and AQ gains those 9% nut outs compared to JTs 's possible reverse implied 9% outs.  If we had QQ on this flop, its still conceivable that our opponent could be value betting JJ, or TT one more time, on top of the fact that we are drawing to the boat.

When calling this bet, it all comes down to do you believe your opponent has a K or a set here?  Most of the time, against most opponents, I would call once more since I would assume they are trying to take advantage of a bluff card.  Against nittier, non bluff/barrelling opponents, I would probably fold everything but Ks and sets, and perhaps reserve only AQ for my pure bluffcatching hand knowing that I do have a 1/10 chance to possibly cooler him.

I do agree with you that if we were to robotically play out our hands, it would be good to reserve QJs/QTs/JTs as our folding bluffcatching range, and keep the higher 2prs in there for one more call.  But I find in these spots, the timing of your history with your opponent plays a larger roll than managing our range according to optimal theory.

Ok.

Thanks for your analysis Game Theory.

I can definitely change my lines of attack vs recreational players' as gameflow changes.  That being said, it didn't occur to me in this pot.  Maka might be in a content mood after winning and might not want to run a big bluff...Or, might see this new buy-in as "spending money" and start to get wilder.  Who knows?!

I think your point is a good one, but we would need more info about our recreational player.   And from what I know of him, he didn't really bet anytime I was hoping he would.  With your  insight, I think you're right in this particular situation that I should be doing the betting and not trying to trap him.  Thanks, I didn't take that into account in this hand.