EmanuelC16

Since you don't have any info, why not just play your range? Plus, he's Russian, I'd be inclined to think he is more spewy than your average NL100 player on Zoom.

Nobody in Zoom pases on a clear +EV situation if you are too wide when they have position. Your idea makes sense if people actually don't notice what you are doing. They have an incentive to play as many profitable spots per hour imo, not to play just the nuts. It makes sense to open like 30% UTG with ABC regs behind and with fish in the blinds but that's just a specific situation that you exploit both in Zoom and on normal tables.

That's why I said most Zoom adjustments just came from normal ring games but the situations happen more often or less often because you always move tables.

It's clear that river shove was bad now but the turn sizing was still unclear, so the discussion for far helped. Obv we can have arguments for both. If I'd bet 23 on the turn and check river, nobody would say anything about the hand when, in my opinion anyway, there's a lot to talk about doing non-standard plays vs a regular here given both ranges.

Thank you for your very constructive post and taking the time to read what my questions about this hand were.

Check the equity of ATo vs a capped defending range based on his opening perecentage and see for yourself. :-)

Postflop is where I wanted comments, especially on our turn range + sizing. With TPTK vs a range that doesn't contain JJ+ we are obivously value betting. River play is clearly too thin of a shove without more info on villain and dynamics between us.

It makes your hourly higher on some assumptions:
1) Blinds and other players fold tight enough. Hard to do so because the more players left to act, the more likely someone has a hand.
2) You don't screw up post when you don't succeed with stealing. Hard to NOT screw up OOP post.

In other words, it can make you money in ONE hour, and in the second hour you will loose more than enough to compensate for your previous profits.

Regarding your second statement, there's no single way to play those hands in normal ring games either so any adjustments you make because of the Zoom field/format can often be adapted to conditions on normal ring games depending on how you are perceived and how others respond to dynamics.

One word: Stats.

Open wider UTG than BU and you won't get away with it vs anyone competent. It could work under NL25 from what I know of the fields, but that's just because the regs play their own hands. When someone sees you, it's over.

Playing 'reverse' positionally aware is like saying the wheel is better squared instead of round. Money is made IP, why would you want to play more OOP?

What do you think betting 3/4 or 5/4 (like I did here) does to my perceived range?

AT is barely a bluff pre.. We are way ahead of his opening range and after he calls we should be around 45-50% while dominating quite a few Tx hands imo. He 4bets everything that has us really really crushed so when we get called and flop TPTK we basically have the nuts imo. Only two thoughts I had were turn sizing with our range and with this hand plus river shove which is clearly too thin. I thought it was very thin in game and it only looked thinner when reviewing so not too much to talk about there imo.

Ks is on the river. Unless Stars' deck is bugged, he doesn't have it in his hand. :)

Huh? I think you misread quite a bit of the action. That or you typed in such a hurry that all of your pronouns are mixed up.

If you only barrel so few combos for value it becomes too easy to play vs you in BB imo. BB can just look at your AFq/cbet stats and if it's reasonable high, call down 8x, maybe A high since you are so polarized. He's only worry is that you don't turn a better hand than his into a bluff. By not barreling you probably make it a bit tougher for him to value bet 8x when you check but still shouldn't be that tough. Basically, if you check here you clearly cap your range so you have to call some bluffcatchers all the way vs some opponents and QQ is definitely one of the best to do so with.

BU seems reggy, who's in the blinds and what is is pre 3betting range?

To me it looks often like a flop bet/fold depending on how much respect you give him for good play on turn. Your hand has very poor playability and if you get bluffed sometimes while calling incorrectly other times it's hard to think of you making a profit here by calling or by 3betting flop.

Hey,

How is your range for check/calling turn weirghted to Jx? What do you bet 3 streets with here if not Jx?

Thanks for the solid input from both. Would definitely like to hear more input on turn + river range construction here like chigah asked.

I only thought of having a turn leading range because people usually use that sizing with the weak part of their range and bomb it when they have the stronger part. If that's his standard sizing with all his range I can see why leading makes no sense.

Against that cbet size I feel I could float A high with clubs so AQcc, AJcc (sometimes AKcc in these positions), JJ, TT, 99. The main problem I see for me is that my range is not too wide preflop so I'm obviously not very wide post either. I'm actually thinking about not check/calling almost anything after he bet so small so leading all our continuing range, including 88, 22, 55 and overpairs plus all our A high with overs that float (usually suited Ace with backdoor flush, not just clubs).

I do check back more but with position you can vbet AQ on flop and check it down often. Position is quite useful, more posibilities...

I think you are right that you have showdown value on the flop even OOP but this is where the trouble starts:
- if you check/call your opponent bets a decent range and realizes his equity a lot of the time.
- if you bet you can get floated and raised more often

AQ is just a semi-bluff in all spots for me but depending on opponent you can barrel or not imo. Would definitely like to hear more input on this...

In all cases AQo has quite some equity and I personally believe you can start of by cbetting as a standard. To keep in mind is that how they react to cbets is quite important but here are my thoughts in general for each situation:
1) Your tight-ish/standard opponent will usually flat pairs there and maybe some suited broadways depending on who's left behind to act. The wider he flats, the more likely your cbet is a success. Knowing he has many pairs, I don't expect a flop fold or raise so it's a spot where you can barrel but it's risky to try and make people fold flopped overpairs. You can probably triple J+ on turn or river as a bluff/value depending on what comes and do so with many of your broadway hands. If turn is a blank you can barrel if he floats some and if it's J+ you represent TP+ by tripleling. If river is the broadway card it's a bit tougher but might still work.

2)More equity and some more folding equity, he probably floats more often so you can be inclined to barrel more as a semibluff with your overs. Make sure he is not the type of player that calls wide pre just to hit because then he doesn't bluff call (float) the flop.

Check/calling is a bit risky if he barrels vs missed cbet. If he bets once and gives up it's decent since he'll try to rep A and Q => implied odds, plus you are likely to have the best hand without improving. The problem here is you are not much ahead and he capitalizes on his equity share very often. You need to weigh that before you decide.

3) Cbet more obvious than all of those. Readless you have enough equity + folding equity to bet and if your assumptions of average unknown is he doesn't fold a pair or some A high here you can double barrel with reasonably clean equity and blocking at least part of his continuing range like AJ, AT, KQ, QJ, QT, etc.

Hope it helps and let me know what you think.

Just read you play NL25 6max Zoom. In that case the read I just gave you should be quite solid about bet sizing from regulars.

I do agree with what you are saying of bet sizing on these low paired boards but I've found that in practice people give away their hand because opponent's calling range is reasonably inelastic, isn't it? They bet bigger for value and bluff quite a small sizing often.

Okay, makes sense for bluff range.. River Qx call obv depends a bit on his freqeuncy and inability to bet Ax but seems like the only hands we could call since we don't have many that flat here OOP anyway.

Something's wrong with your assumption that everyone opens 40% to 3bb on CO and never folds to a 3bet if you think this is a 3bet without any history in Zoom against what seems like a regular on NL100. I would like to 3bet for value too, I would also like the villain to get it in with all worse aces but what are the chances of that heppening preflop?

Back to more serious stuff about postflop: If we check/raise here, what is our perceive bluff range and what is our check/calling range that doesn't fold river?

You would also stack off on the turn if he shoves? Turn check/raise = strength for most standard NL100 regs so I'm a bit worried about actually getting value. What type of hands would you bluff on the turn?
@3barreling: If he doesn't bet almost any Ax for 3 streets then we can probably bluffcatch Qx on bricks. Do you think we show up with weaker than Qx on the river with our line?

@repping strong range: Which gets tough on a dry board with a capped range with not so many pairs in your range. That's the feeling I get a lot... on wet boards it's a bit different since we also don't slowplay as much and we have high equity draws, 2 pairs, etc. On dry boards however, we rep little as a caller IP, don't we? It actually makes me think of barreling a lot as 3bettor on dry boards when I block the best overpairs that could call down very often..