Hey 777TripSevens777 have you got a timestamp for this one?

Hey Akshar Patel they're an aggregation tool I put together. DM if you're interested

Hey JoeAdams1 timestamp please?

44mins

I agree he's capped, but only to an extent. Moreover, I feel that he's never going to vbet Qxhh this way, so I don't have to be worried about that. However, I am scared of some nuts in his range that are trying to induce with the small sizes. So yeah, I also don't want to xjam and overplay my hand here. Don't get me wrong, I'm ahead of a bunch of his value, but when I consider his bet-CALLING range vs my shove, I'm pretty sure I'm torching my equity. Talking exploitatively

i really don't think he bets 2/3 on turn with hands that make boats on river and if he does he can have my money lol
at least thats how i'd play it

especially finnish redliner i think population thinks he's overbluffing

JoeAdams1 Tbh, this boils down to subjectivity

• I do think he can have some boats here. No sets from the turn, but some 2p. Admittedly not too many.
• I do not view him as a redliner
• Whether or not he is overbluffing is not relevant; I need him to call WORSE more often than not. I really, really doubt this is going to happen. Albeit I think it is rather close, not like my EQ is <30% after being called, but surely <50% IMO

Ah yes ty, I remember now. Indeed a very strange line from villain to size up flop → size down turn on a brick and then 3b-shove over the top of my raise. Likely just 99/AA IMO

Would definitely like to see more of this.

Hey SoundSpeed, thanks man, noted!

2:15 k7 these spots are always a bit confusing to me. So we raise for value/protection/semibluff? Do we barrel hearts and 2pr/trips turns amd xf broadways?

All of the above, yes. It's a mergy play.

8:00 jj if he sizes up does jj start to go indifferent?

Vs this villain, I'd say it's pretty damn close, yeah.

29:15 q9, I understand the xr line, essentially check for showdown then bluff your hand if he can value bet a thinner range. I also understand the jam if you bet and he raises for similar reasons as above (please correct me if i am wrong on any of that), but what purpose does a bet from us serve? Is it a value/bluff net? Seems mergy.

An initial bet from us, which would be a block, is a standard value bet. HU vbets are thin!

[VBet]
[3b-shove]

Thanks!

Welcome!

Interesting spot indeed

Yes, as you imagine, I expect our continue is due to:
• having two nutty outs, which given our incredible pot odds, are well worthwhile.
• unblocking bluffs. The BW region you spoke of blocks a LOT of OOP's bluffs, and has to go runner runner to be somewhat happy

Thanks a lot mate. I'm happy with the hand, too. Indeed just looks like a rare instance that it doesn't really make sense for the nitty rec to have anything but a super trap, given the 3b pre and large flop cbet, then size down OTT into fast 3b-shove

I'm not sure I am a fan of the raise-fold. I have made a bunch of plays like this in the past so I completely get the logic behind it. Personally I think that call or raise-call are both better than raise-fold here. If you raise the turn, I feel like OOP is going to play shove or fold extremely often. If you are planning on raise-folding you kinda destroy lots of the value of JJ. The phrase "don't ask questions you don't want to know the answer to" comes to mind here.

it doesn't really make sense for the nitty rec to have anything but a super trap, given the 3b pre

Was this player very nitty overall, or just had a small 'nitty' 3bet percentage? I remember watching a Free Nachos video and he pointed out something very interesting - MDA shows that recreational players, despite having low 3bet percentages, still have a very mixed 3betting range that is not excessively strong. The reasons being:
They sometimes trap big pairs preflop by flat calling
They 3bet a bunch of very random junky hands, partly due to impatience/tilt

matlittle

Was this player very nitty overall, or just had a small 'nitty' 3bet percentage?

Both nitty preflop and postflop

Regarding JJ postflop. I disagree with your thoughts:
• Raising will not make OOP raise/fold happy, that is the case in a sim, not vs his presumably weak range that cbets turn 1/3p
• "Destroying" our equity with JJ is not true. We likely maximise vs his weak range and then save vs the very occasional times he has a strong hand

The phrase "don't ask questions you don't want to know the answer to" comes to mind here.

I asked the question, and found out exactly what I needed to know, and lost the minimum. Vs this player I will not be Call-Call-Folding on bricks. In essence, you are afraid to ask the question because you are afraid of the answer. This is a really poor mindset/attitude vs recs that we should actually be targeting, not cowering away from.

--

Overall, I think you have looked over a few very key points

• he is a very tight rec, not a usual rec
• the psychological aspect of him sizing down the brick turn into 3b-jamming
• the timing of his actions

I hate to talk in absolutes, as it's in general a very bad way to go about your pokering, but this line vs this player is going to be incredibly underbluffed, and will seldom include worse value. It's not an easy fold to make in game, but at the same time, it's a snap fold.

Yeah :'(

Haha, yeah. Calling, at least for me, makes more sense as per my gameplan.

I don't fully understand the downsides here of not raising this hand for the smaller sizing. Do you really think that IP will attack a 40bb raise here perceiving it to be capped? If you are worried about that then surely you can add a few super-nutted hands to this sizing, and/or call down light vs a river 3bet shove?

You also said that picking the right blockers to XR the river for each sizing is difficult given that the solver is using counter-intuitive hands for each sizing. I don't see why that would be a problem though? As long as you pick the right hand-types and spread bluffs across both ranges in a decent frequency, then what does it matter that you used QhT in the smaller sizing rather than the bigger sizing etc? I doubt your opponent would ever realise and/or counter this.

As you can see from the solution matlittle , we lose literally no EV overall by not including the smaller size.

As long as you pick the right hand-types and spread bluffs across both ranges in a decent frequency, then what does it matter that you used QhT in the smaller sizing rather than the bigger sizing etc? I doubt your opponent would ever realise and/or counter this.

As I mentioned, I wouldn't be sure which hand types to use for the xr-small bluff and xr-AI bluffs/value. And some hands specifically make more when shoving, this evens out the EV of not including 84hh for a small XR.

We want to try and see the bigger picture here. By omitting 84hh's raise, we also maximise other hands in our range, both value and bluffs. This all sums to virtually the same EV and more simplicity.

Another way of looking at it is like this:
You ask "why not xr 84hh small?". I can counter by asking "why not only xjam w/ nut bluffs/value?"