Tir-X
Whats your mainstake dude? Just interested as i appreciate your thoughts on this forum.
Tbh. i´ve used to play more NL25/50 some time ago and had to drop recently quite hard.
But i guess your right that im too focused on improving a GTO-strategy that is not the best for these stakes.
Cheerz

Makes sense to ask as it matters a lot when considering someone's opinion, I get that :)

My main stake depends on the site. I play mostly NL200 and some NL400 but it's softer than let's stay stars. On Pokerstars I play NL100 and some NL200. If it's stars zoom, I would probably only be breakeven on zoom200 and only be able to win at zoom100. That's harder than normal tables obv (I play some zoom50 and zoom100 sometimes, even zoom25 when I'm just trying out stuff so I know it's regheavy).
Been playing for a living since 2009 and coaching since 2014-2015. Also had a few years off cash game, I was playing spin n gos.

You're adding good and useful thoughts to hands around here so I'm sure you'll have no problem climbing back up the stakes :)

Hopefully you didnt get me wrong. If it comes down to comments here im always relying on the thoughts people share here and not really the stakes they are playing.
There is some decent players arround that are playing micros as well. So i didnt want any confirmation about your knowledge (even though its nice too see that there is some decent midstakes players around here that are willing to help) as your comments approve that on theire own.
Was just a little curious :)

ps: thanks for your compliment

Lol I was also about to ask the same question regarding the stakes which you play:P
I honestly was like you have to play at least nl100 based on your replies/advices:)

However, back to the hand. I agree we should be folding this river.. I mean if all flush draws missed, we should be in general more inclined to make a hero call, simply because they have more bluff combos. However, now based on his 3b stat and also that it's hard for him to have an unpaired bluff (only ATs and AQ) it's hard for him to be overbluffing even if all draws missed.

Okay now back to the turn play. I think now it's getting closer and I probably disagree with what Tir-X said. I mean, based on his sizing he might be value betting even QQ at some frequency for protection. Possibly AJ or even KTs (if 3bet pre). Still he might also have some bluffs such as ATs, AQ, 98s.
We need 25% to call and for example against AA we do have almost 20.
That said, the confidence interval which we would have to assign in order to make this exploitative fold is so tight, therefore I would stick with the baseline and just call.
I think I would be more inclined to fold this turn if I would know more about the villain, mainly the sample size which you have on him!

Tir-x May I express my disagreement about using solvers at low stakes? First of all I want to say that I have never used a solver by myself but I have been reading a lot of hand reviews on 2 plus 2 that involve some output from a solver for the last 6 months.

My homble opinion is the most difficult part using a solver is to know when and how you should deviate from a theory right play. Also node locking can provide us better output when we get some idea of how villain plays/constract his range. This missaplication of solver is when mistakes are made.

Also exploitative strategy goes hand in hand with gto. How can you exploit properly if you don't know how someone is deviating from theory?

There is also a misconception that someone who is using solver is trying to copy every frenguency /move exactly which obviously is stupid and not true against low stakes players at least.

My last point is there are some really tough spots sometimes that you literally can not figure up what is the best play even out of the table. And I doubt you will find a decent advice online without a solver output. In that case solver comes to give as light and show us the right way, it is up you to follow or not thought.

Thats an important point imo and i totally agree.
We should be aware that specific lines vs specific players/pools are exploits and GTO-wise wrong. This hand is a good example for this imo.
I was already in game pretty sure that this would be a GTO-call and folded regardless.
So if im doing HH-Reviews and see hands where i take lines like this i go usually like this:

1) Collect as much data as possible on Villain
2) Run a sim on the spot
3) Judge the decision comparing 1) and 2)
4) Post the hand at RIO to get a confirmation that the deviation from GTO (exploit) or the relation on a GTO-line is reasonable here.
5) Try to generalize these infos about this spot and similar ones.

This1s Pok$r Of coure man, more input is always good. Even if we disagree, it's all good :) Very often the truth lies somewhere in between and these opinions of others are the ones that help one to soften those edges and change those views a little bit in the right way.

My point of view comes from my experience. I've made it to beating midstakes without learning GTO at all and in the past 11 years I've also seen a lot of students and fellow players, coming at poker in so many different ways. And I just believe that most of them who delved into GTO at smaller stakes were wasting time with solvers and could've used that time for much more valueable stuff - again: given the stakes and the player pool they were playing at, understanding GTO can be very useful from a certain point of a poker career. I just think most players jump into it too early therefore they miss a lot of other stuff.

Also exploitative strategy goes hand in hand with gto. How can you
exploit properly if you don't know how someone is deviating from
theory?

It's not deviating from GTO that is a mistake or a leak. You say that GTO is useful because you know when to deviate. Actually, at smaller stakes you should always deviate. There is almost no spot when you should play even a near GTO range at a decision point, otherwise you'll loose EV. That part only comes when you're playing against someone who doesn't have many leaks or as you said, is playing in a way where you find it hard to decide what to do, so you can't make more EV than GTO based play because they won't make mistakes and the situation is not transparent. In that case, sure, GTO will help you. But at the smaller stakes the player pool's tendencies are so transparent, easy to read, easy to gather, therefore those situations occur much less.

How you can be so sure that he has close to zero semibluffs when you have 2 possible FDs on board?
I think its more assumptive than expecting him to have lets say 4 bluffs of ATs (OTT)

So villain has not that passive postflopstats what goes hand in hand with his tight prefloprange. So if we are arguing if this is a turnfold (Which is debatable) just about ATs and AQ this just underlines more that this should be a fold pre i guess. :)

I think the sample size on villain is pretty crucial. Cuz in a vacuum this is a call even if they 3betting range is in general tighter than it should be. I mean AQ is pretty natural bluff as well as AT and some guys might bet for protection even QQ which makes instantly +ev call for us

Let me do some equilab calculations: I will divide it into 3 possible ranges and then I will try to estimate weights for the every single one of them

1. TT+,AQs+,AKo almost 4% already pretty tight, but imo this is the range we will see most often, I think his range OTT is JJ,KK,AA,AK,AdQd,AsQh. Vs this range we have only 21.53% of equity.
2. Loose reg: 88+, A9s+, KTs+, QTs+, JTs, AJo+ - my rough guess 10-15% of regs. Those ones imo would barrel the turn pretty wide. So I would include all AQ,ATs as a bluff and then value 99,JJ,KK,AK,AA,KQs. Vs this range we have 44.86% equity.
3. Super nit: JJ+,AK, 10-15% of regs (again rough guess). Barreling everything except of QQ leaves us with only 15.66% equity.

Okay here is our interval from worst to best scenario [22.9825; 24.4425%].
And since we need 24.44% equity to call (without rake consideration) we should be folding this already OTT.
It seems I was wrong:) thanks mates to forced me to do this calcs even its maybe with like 70% confidence and probably even less, I think its something.
Crucial is the distribution and their range preflop.