I'm sure it is losing against a computer. No GTO computer is going to let this type of hand be a +EV turn, because it would violate GTO principle of establishing a threshold hand in the middle of my range that is 0 EV. The trouble with this is the solver also has fairly low frequency check-raise on this board, since I have 30ish combos on the flop that beat AA, so it's usually going to be play pot control lines with its overpairs.

If we assume a low frequency c/r with overpairs, then the value range here is very small. Maybe some 65s, 87s, 88,77, 74s, 4x (15 combos or so) and the number of draws can be very large-- without non nut gutshots I get around 70 combos. If he only takes this line with say 1/2 his draws, this call is going to be slightly profitable.

On the river, I'm not shipping, because it's the easiest trap spot in poker with the value range (who checks back T9?) and I lose to virtually no semi-bluffs and his value range should be mainly flushes, full-houses and straights. It's unlikely that I fold any of those hands with obvious bluffs on the board. Plenty of tags, like to jam pure with A8, K8, Q8 with a heart, so folding straights/flushes/full houses here is a leak.

Given I beat his bluffs, and I am unlikely to fold much value, I think I've got a medium strength showdown hand here which needs to be taken to showdown.

PIO is playing xr then bet turn with JJ through 99 when it doesn't cbet those hands. I have a 15% xr frequency in my sim so it is in fact quite high. My perception of how people play this board is that they will cbet more frequently than equilibrium with draws, and hence their check-raising range is stronger than equilibrium.

On the river, I'm not shipping, because it's the easiest trap spot in poker with the value range (who checks back T9?) and I lose to virtually no semi-bluffs and his value range should be mainly flushes, full-houses and straights.

This is a good point! Certainly vs weaker players who check-raise too strong both in terms of made hands and draw strength. Vs a good player I would be more likely to bluff and vs a weak player I think your check is very good as bluffing is probably very -EV. If we are assuming the river range is too strong to bluff our hand though, then the turn range is probably too strong to call against with A5 too I would think.

Hey Matt,

So I reran the sim here, you are right-- the overpairs, I've got c/r about 1/2 the time and roughly pure barrelling the 4. I've also got a low-frequency c-r with 88 and 87s, so against a computer it's really centering it's value range around 99-QQ here, which would make the river a much better jam. I'm not sure this is happening in practice here, but definitely against a computer this would be a much better balanced range which really penalizes Ah5.

One thing I would note is that the player pool c-r against 3/4 pot, the global average is 8%, so the range is likely going to be missing some combos.

One thing I would note is that the player pool c-r against 3/4 pot, the global average is 8%, so the range is likely going to be missing some combos.

I ran an aggregate report for SB vs BB SRP and the xr frequency vs a 75% stab is almost exactly 8%, so I think population will probably stumble upon a decent frequency here. I think population will still lack folding hands on this river though as they won't have as many weak draws or overpairs as a solver would.

So the raises here are all going to be pulled from high equity semi-bluffs likes straight-flush draws. This hand doesn't have a good raising properties, because it's absolutely crushed when called. Occasionally, you'll see a A7 no heart hand jammed here at low frequencies to make Ahxh indifferent to bet/call turn, but that's about the wildest solver gets.

I disagree with that I beat a sliver of the range, I beat every non-pair, non Ax give-up and c/r potting overpairs on this board is not really a thing, because of the connectedness of the board. On a traditional unconnected board, I'm happy to just fold turn with this combo, but the value range is so small that I'm skeptical that it's correctly balanced.

On 833, I'd love to have two overs with a backdoor flush draw with the equity pop, but I also just need two overs with showdown value, which A9 has-- I beat all bluffs and still have 25% against top pair. That's going to be substantially higher EV than A7 which only has 14%.

Something funky is going on the with AhQ hand in GTO wizard -- smaller bet == weaker calling range. If we block Ace-high calls, we should get more EV by betting bigger and stripping on the blocked range from the defense. If we bet smaller opponent should defend more Ax (which we block, so less calls => less EV). Without seeing the sim, my guess is that it's a clear defend against raise and the 1/2 pot bet, generates more bluff raises with KhX of hearts, where as 3/4 pot, the bluff raises would be pulled more from the AhX region.

Do you ever play jam with your type of hand on the turn? GS + 1 over doesn't really have much equity to call a 75% barrel, so becomes more of a raise or fold spot?

Like Tyler Forrester said it's not the right hand class - the shoving range for BB is mainly nutted hands, combo-draws with low SDV, the occasional naked FD, and interestingly some 8x with hearts.
This happens in other low SPR spots too like 3bet pots where pair plus flush draw can shove turn - in part I think because the pair has poor visibility if the draw bricks, yet we still have good equity if we get it in on the turn. The pair gives us great equity against SB combo-draws like T6hh, K5hh, A5hh which call the shove, and also blocks 88 and 87.

I'd argue that c/r bluffing the river with K3dd is slightly suicidal against this particular player, because the value range starts at two pair. If we lead, we put all his one pair check/back hands in a difficult spot which is going to be a large number of combos with his particular strategy.

Depends on the player, I'd say yes with JJ and I'd probably end up flatting AA, because of card removal. I don't really think two pair is a huge part of range. It should be more Ax, straights, flushes, bluffs then two pair. There's just not many combos of bottom two pair on this board and we remove 24 combos of Aces up.

So I'm all for bluffing, but it should be pulled from regions with high-equity and low-showdown value. I think AKo has good showdown value and falls clearly in a bluff-catcher range. . Leading flop is fine to balance ranges across board textures and to put some bluff-catchers in the bet check/call lines. It's always mixed, because I have too many AKo on the turn on this type of line, so I get to c/c once with some and check-call twice with others (and even 3-times at super low frequencies). If the strategy is executed correctly QTo is a pretty low value bluff, so I'm not long-term concerned by his play.

On blocking flop, I think it doesn't balance very well with the rest of my range and is open to exploitation by aggressive recs.