I-Sue-U

Nice one, subbed as well.

Thank you for your answers!
Honestly I don't feel like 4-tabling is a problem, I used to do it 6-max and FR is easier to follow the action, read the stats etc.

Against an unknown player I don't like the shove at all: the river improves also KJ, and you can't really assume that he's gonna call you with QJ/JT hands, even if in this particular case he did.

Honestly I don't see how we can miss "a ton of value" when a part of his range is likely to fold to our shove, and the other part is crushing us and not gonna fold.

Yes, I definitely need some more practice on FR dynamics before moving to NL100, just started basically.

Yes, I think that the 4th spade change the scenario quite a lot, since of course we have way more combos of Asx that Asxs.

I know, I started playing NL50 FR recently: happy to know that at NL100 is the same :)
Anyway, you got my point: I think that doing this size you are losing value.

Yes I do, but you're just doing it wrong here IMO, especially against braindead (cit.) who just won't call you here with a ten high flush (but they are gonna call you when you bet a different size).

I mean, if you think that someone is "braindead" how he's going to call you "to not get exploited by your range"?

As I told you, I have an hard time believing almost anyone is going to bet a balanced range here with that size at NL100 FR ---> you are not betting on a capped range with a polarized one, since you don't have air basically, obv IMO :)

You pretend him to call a 2x pot sized bet on a 4 spade board with what exactly?

People don't take your line as a bluff IMO, so when you bet here with that size you almost always have the ace of spades.

It's really sick, but I don't think you beat anything when he jams, and you have ridiculous pot odds to call when he CRAI, so I don't see:

1) Which hands he could bluff on that board
1a) How can he expect you to fold anything with that pot odds on a 3-betted pot when you take that line
2) Which worst hands he may play like that for value

Even if the sample size is almost irrelevant, he has 1.5 AF, I think with KQ he's gonna x/c or b/decide OTR.

Also, the river improves both QJ/JJ that he could play the same way I guess.

I agree that the river play is questionable, to say the least, but I am not sure about leading OTF: which is your leading range here Carl?

I think it depends also on our opponent and our image (especially if villain is a regular).
I mean, I think that this board hits more his range than our, but without knowing some stats about villain (both preflop and postflop) I have an hard time saying which line is best.

Generally speaking, I think betting here is better because:

1) By betting you can represent JJ+
2) You block KJ/AJ, and when called by TP you still have equity
3) I will not expect him to x/r that much here, and when he does he probably has some J9/set, so our equity against is x/r range is poor, so when you fold to his x/r you are not throwing away too much equity

I am not completely sure about the call OTR, I mean: our pot odds are great, but what he is supposed to bet here with that size?

If you think he can bluff with that size or that he can bet a worst T it's a different story, but I would expect a bluff to bet bigger and at least some T to check behind, along with his SV.

Also, I guess he can floats a decent amount of kings OTF once you bets 11 on 25, am I wrong?

I don't like raising OTF, since:

1) You are BvB
2) The board is drawy and 8 high, so he would not fold often
3) When he 3-bets life sucks, since we have plenty of equity but against his range we are not in a great shape

OTR I'm not sure which is your best option, but I think I'm likely to bet in game.

I know, but the games FR seem really soft and variance seems lower too: since I am not a professional and I don't plan to play NL200+ looks resonable to me.

A friend of mine has like 0.5 bb/100 at 6-max NL50 over 350k hands.

Even 100k hands could be a small sample size to judge your expected, especially at ZOOM.

We are not sure that he's a reg, but since is nickname looks reggish there's a good chance that he's not a random fish (could be a pretty bad player still).

So hero just CALLS the flop, turn is T of diamonds: hero checks and villain GOES ALL-IN, so the pot is 4k and he goes all-in for around 16k effective...

Questions are:

1) Alternative lines OTF? Could be x/r/f a possibility ever?
2) We are calling because is action makes no sense and our hand is probably under represented, or we are folding since we are still deep in a soft tournament?

I'm aware that this early in the tournament we look just at cEV, still a WTF spot I guess.

I am a nit too, no doubt about it :)

Hero checks, Villain1 bets full pot, Villain 2 folds...And back to hero!

OP said villain is aggressive, not crappy.
Anyway, say he's valuebetting KJ, which worst hands are gonna call him?

That river is THE scary card IMO, and given the perceived range of hero, it seems really unlikely to me that he's gonna valuebet with a worst hand.

Seems more logic to me that, since the river is that scary, villain is trying to induce hero to transform his showdown value (which now has little to no value at all) in a bluff, in order to snap him with some good hand like the nuts: if he valuebets with a regular size hero is gonna fold too often, in that way he could be called or even raised by worst hands, so it seems a nice plan.

Also, which is hero perceived range by the river? KJ/KQ, some Tx hand and QJ if he's not gonna raise it somewhere IMO.

Of course not :)

I think generally speaking cold 4-betting to broke PF is the best.

IMO is more interesting thinking about how the LAG 3-bettor reacts, since:

1) If he starts realizing that we are capable to cold 4-betting him, he can not be able to 3-bet that lightely anymore when we are behind him, but

2) If he's aggressive and overextimates our frequencies (maybe thinking we are cold 4-betting a blocker hand in bluff too often) he may push with hands like AJ/AQ

In order to let him think so, of course you have to start cold 4-betting also your top range in this situation, IMO.
Obviously I am never folding against OR QQ+, even if I am not the happiest person on planet earth when he goes all-in and I've got queens.

Fold > call >>> raise IMO.

I mean, given his image he can't really hope to let you fold a hand like your betting so small, and that river is perfect for bluffing, but not using that size.

So, IMO when he bets that size he's likely to trying to induce you some bluffs/overplaying some 2P, or maybe to let you crying call with some king.

Nevertheless, given that pot odds in game I may call anyway: I don't think we are good 20% of the time here, but knowing what he has here (like the nuts or something else) seems a valuable information for the future.

I disagree, but of course I could be wrong.

Not calling PF but definitely not folding OTF when he bets less than half pot.

I think once you call PF and you call OTF you are pretty faced-up, but at the same time I don't think that this villain (AF 1) will put you any more pressure when he's behind on this board, since he can't hope to force you folding a full house on a 3-betted pot.

So, my plan is to call OTF and revaluate on future streets: in this way I don't think we will fold the best hand almost never, and at the same time when he has a better hand he won't get more money from us.

Which is our perceived range, in your opinion, for c-betting the flop and betting the turn? Because IMO our range is way stronger than his OTT.