Thanks True :)

So I totally get your thesis, but the whole reason IP shoves is for protection (mostly) vs this 9-Kx region (Ax mostly x’s turn). So when we have a hand like Q5 we block the region we don’t want them to realize their equity and are generally smashed vs value (the Q only adds 3 outs vs a particular part of OP value range.

Frankie,
Thanks for the response to my question. Yeah, I can see what you are saying about blocking some of the region that we are looking to fold out, it just seems like having 3 outs is a lot better than 0 in this spot. Always tricky when you have a card that has good and bad properties like this one where you block some value (QQ) as well as give yourself 3 outs vs 66-JJ but also block some of the folding range as you stated.

Thanks for the input Frankie.

Hands that interact in good but also bad ways with V's range is a tricky part of poker. When this happens, a good way to frame them is to go a layer deeper and compare the magnitude of the good vs the magnitude of the bad. In other words, using Q5 again, how many combos of QQ do we block vs how many combos of bluffs? The latter is much greater in this case. As you point out there is additional equity vs mid pps which adds some complexity, but the former math should be more than enough to make the decision.

Hope this helps color this in more.

Thanks a lot for the nice comment Sevens! :)

Thank you! Great question. I would say not understanding how wide ranges get which can lead to overfolding and overbluffing, but also undervaluing (lots more low/middling bluff catchers for more middling region of bettor to extract value you wouldn’t see 6max). There’s certainly some similar concepts vs 6max, but there are also parallel universe concepts that look similar but are the exact opposite. Spooky :)

Yea it looks fairly standard to me, this highlights the point made above.

Ehhh, 6max I may stick around still :). But def not as slam dunky vs HU.

Love the idea of using medium bet river for the reasons you outlined.

I personally would not, which is solely a personal preference due to me leveraging a 3x+ shove river. This line can be blundered easily. So the distraction of adding b50/75 really complicates the spot more than I would like.

So you would just use 1 sizing on the river of all in? Presumably the easy way to blunder the river is to not include enough nutted hands in the smaller sizing, so then the thing to worry about is our opponents finding exploitative check-raise bluffs on the river?

I would in this case. I actually think the trickier part is the bluffing range. We can peak at the sim now and go "ah ha" in terms of these bluffs want to go into b50, while these go into b300. However, in game multitabling and with a time bank going down, that takes away a lot of brain power that I want to spend making sure I get this b300 right.

Again, this is just my personal take in what fits my brain.

I agree good players would, ok players won't.

What a fun spot I learned so much from this one!

Since we have flush adv come river and all our bluffs have equity, we get to bet a lot (just not for sizing I choose). The genesis of the spot still works the same. We bluff pair/lower stuff as it unblocks a lot of higher air bluffs from V. So V will raise some of this stuff as it unblocks more of our bluffing range. So then we re-up with some of the better one's unblocking bluffs (more 2pair focused or pair + low kick).

Such a funky spot were V is suppose to fold QQ to b50 river prob, but call T9!!! Wowzer, we all know that's not happening even vs great regs. When bluffs have equity on river things get weird.