Fore sure. So lets take a example of 3 players, A, B, and C. Let’s say C is all in and A and B are HU for dry side pot. If A decides to overbluff and B still plays GTO, in a HU situation the lost equity of A goes to B. But in this situation most of the lost equity would go to C. However, a even stranger situation occurs if B decides to maximally exploit by calling more often given A is overbluffing, then C loses equity which both A and B gain. In fact, A now makes more money if B exploits A’s overbluffing. Spooky stuff :)

Thanks I will!

Thank you very much Trinity!

I appreciate the comment matlittle. I believe there is some sort of rudimentary node lock function in Monker, but I’m not even sure how to use it. Not even sure it works correctly anyways.

Some of the trends you mentioned are similar to what I see. I'd be careful saying we get to stab more because 1) we don't know for sure what MP b/v cbet ratio is, 2) we have a uncapped V in BB. I do have these sims solved with 2 sizings, so when I let MP bet a large sizing the shift we see for BTN is lots more folding 1 pair hands w/o BDFD, straight draw, etc including top pair. Even folding some combos of AJ! Raising is non-existent. I think this jives with our understanding of multi's as BB is uncapped and generally a large bet here from MP would be represent some sort of 2pair+.

To answer 2, I agree pool likely is overcalling these middling non-draw hands way to often. Figuring out where the lost EV goes is situationally dependent and incredibly complex. I do find myself going for thinner value because of this dynamic depending on the situation.

I'd be careful saying we get to stab more because 1) we don't know for sure what MP b/v cbet ratio is

Let's assume that it's balanced in terms of bluff to value ratio. My thinking is that BTN gets to stab more often (like we would see in a heads up pot between MP and BTN). Also, on the turn, given that MP has removed a big chunk of good hands, I would assume that the BB gets to probe more often?

I think it would be possible to test this theory too with the following method:
Multiway sim with BB, MP, BTN on a board where MP should be checking whole range
Remove a balanced range of good hands and bluffs from MPs range before running the solve
As long as this doesn't induce donking from the BB, I think by comparing this sim to the original sim, we could work out the exploits by seeing how the strategy changes?

To answer 2, I agree pool likely is overcalling these middling non-draw hands way to often. Figuring out where the lost EV goes is situationally dependent and incredibly complex. I do find myself going for thinner value because of this dynamic depending on the situation.

Yeh, good point! I was thinking bluffs would gain a lot by betting the turn, but I guess thin value bets do too.

I would agree with you but important is not just the b/v but also the freq. If MP still includes strong hands in x’ing range it might not have a huge impact. Very difficult to say.

It’s an interesting idea and worth exploring. My guess is BB donk freq won’t go up that much as BTN smashes this board and has the crown of IP. When I get a chance I’ll look into this. Thanks for suggestion.

Hey matlittle. So I ran the sim you suggested. You see BB donking now vs none b4 which makes sense. However, interesting you see the same freq BTN bet, however you now see mixing small/large strategy. I do caution here, the issue with this result is it assumes BB donks now which I don't think happens very often in practice. If this is true, you may ultimately see the same freq and small sizing float range from BTN since BB would be uncapped on a board they connect well with.

This inevitably leads back to the same issue about exploiting in multiways. It's extremely complicated to figure out if it would actually add EV given the distribution of equity/EQr/etc across multiple opponents.

Thanks for running the sim! I guess if the BB starts donking then it's necessary to remove the BB's option to donk the flop in the sim. It's only the BTN's response to MP removing strong hands from it's range (by cbetting them) that we were interested in. I think the result of your sim is still very interesting - not only did MP remove some strong hands from its range, but now also so did the BB by donking. And yet the BTN is still not making a sizeable strategy change. Having a large betting size is still a slight change, and if you confined it to just a single small size you might see a frequency change? I guess the main conclusion so far is that, like you said, it's hard to know how to exploit a single player in a multiway pot. If we are unable to find a substantial strategic change from BTN in response to MP's mistake, then I think one of three things is happening:
1. There is not a substantial EV loss for MP
2. The EV is transferred to the BB who will act different to exploit MP (e.g. with it's probing strategy)
3. BTN (or BB) gains EV passively without needing to actively exploit

Wow thanks a lot for the comment italobalbino!

Thank you soup! Good heads up on Snowie. I remember using it years ago and didn't like it but for multiway it may have a nice purpose. I'll have to re explore.

So we need to be careful exploiting someone misplaying because as I described above in a comment the math gets funky given the counterweight of another player present in the hand. Sometimes your attempt at max exploit line can actually lower your EV. I would play normal and let the EV lost from the players misplay get divided amongst you and the other V.

I guess what I am saying is it can be tough to exploit one particular player when in a multiway. What I would do is if we get HU with players overcalling here, it will be a nice opportunity to polarize at high freq on turn.

Maybe go 1/3 instead of 1/4 or maybe as big as 1/2 to clear out some of these hands?

Why change your betsize when your opponent is making mistakes vs the standard bet size? Why "clear out" hands that your opponent shouldn't call because they have poor visibility and playability on future streets and hence have low/negative EV for calling? Let them make the flop mistake and then barrel them on turn and river if they have a range that is too middling/weak to call down often enough.

matlittle Frankie Carson I understand your point but some times I level myself on later streets to thinking they called a strong hand and end up over folding.

Hand I played a few days ago:
I cold called a 2bet 77, goes 5 ways to the flop.
Q76r
I call a 1/4 CB, goes 4 ways to the turn. (I should be raising flop I know).
Turn Q768
SB donks, BB 2bets, EP folds, hero cold calls, SB 3bets, BB calls, Hero calls.
River Q7689
SB X, BB bets 20%, Hero folds 77, SB calls.

SB some how over called KK preflop and got sticky post flop with it.
BB has 86o here for 2 pair.
When SB called he said "if you called you must be good" and SB proudly showed KK. BB "Never mind that's not good." Rolls over his 2 pair.

Hands like these where so many people misplay their hands on just about every street makes me want to use larger sizes to have better reads on later streets. I like the smaller size when I have the board more locked up but with one pair hands just giving great odds MW to players who are sticky.

Where is this game, I want in!!?!?

Frankie Carson it was at the Bellagio actually $1/$3 game. Do you think my fold is bad, good, or indifferent? I was thinking player behind = fold and last to act would call. The small size is very tempting. Didn't expect neither hand.

Well for sure raise flop next time. But as played, ehh, I'm folding given A) we aren't winning here >=17% of time, B) when we factor in SBs equity and potential to x/r makes for a easy but sad fold IMO. I would be disgusted to see the hands they flipped. O well. Nh, gg.

Always appreciate it mx!

Thanks Zi! I'm sorry not fully understanding the question?

Frankie Carson Xiang is asking on a J98ss board if its fine to bet QT, JJ, 99, & 88 for a large sizing and expect villains not to notice.

Gotcha thanks. So I'd say in a non-anonymous pool a hard no as that is easy peasy to exploit. Won't take long for regs to sniff that strat out. A softer no in anonymous pools. This issue that will come up with your sets/two pairs is your playing 2 opponents who have a combined high freq amount of straights. With your sets you start isolating your opponents range vs that part of their value range as the hand proceeds.

I'm sure against a couple of fun recs you can get away with this from time to time, but as a general rule playing in such a extreme unbalanced way on the flop is dangerous.

RunItTw1ce thx for your help, Frankie Carson thx, I get it, I have to be more careful when I face multiple opponents because they easier have strong hands, and don't make a extreme unbalanced actions that are easily exploitable.

Glad it was helpful for you. b25