RagingPillow

I like the donk bet on the flop here. This is a flop that equalizes your range and villain should be checking this flop back a large percentage of the time as there should be a lot of weak hands that he is going to get raised off of.

The river is an easy call imo, and I like the check call line because it allows villain to bluff. Occasionally V will have a flush, but I think there are so many combinations that would fire a less than 2/3 bet as a bluff or value hands that you are still ahead of.

If you bet the river as a blocking bet I would b/f. A raise on the river after the line you took has to be nothing short of the nuts at 5nl.

I have watched a few of your videos using pio and after watching this video I have a clearer understanding of how to use it exploitatively. For the way I learn I think I need to be hands on with the software to start to be able to fully understand and apply. Can GTO+ do the same thing with the same efficiency as Pio? I ask because the cost of pio is pretty high for someone playing 50nl/100nl, and I am trying to decide between purchasing GTO+ or waiting until my winnings are large enough that purchasing pio is more easily justifiable.

I think the bets are doubled, and the pot is correct.

Arteus this might be more of a call. Price is decent and as maco pointed out there are some hands he may have we dominate.

In the moment i would probably be pouring through all stats on all streets to try to come up with something that pushes me one way or the other.

Do you have fold to cbet stats on villain? Flop is pretty dry with only decent draw being 54. A villain continuing 4 handed i would assume is top pair. This river is gross, and if the villain is bluffing they are insanely lucky, because their stats suggest they aren’t capable of thinking past the cards in their hand.

The fold to cbet would help me filter his range properly. For instance if it is 70% we can narrow it to we are beat.

Something is off with the post. It looks like everything is doubled including the amount the bb and sb have to post.

My phone is being a pain, but i will try to be more clear. If the high cards are paired and we have a low flush on this board our opponent is likely continuing with higher flushes and raising nut flush draws because the board is effectively blocking the Q to an extent it makes the suited hands more likely.

If we have the nut flush with AX and villain continues the QQ board still effectively blocks the queens enough that it makes it more likely villain continues with the second nut flush.

So on a paired high card where a flush comes it becomes more about whose flush is higher than extracting value from top pair as they aren’t as likely to have the Q.

Is it because that it becomes more likely that the opponent is continuing with a flush or a set because two QQ are on the board. If we have a low flush then the lower portion of the continuing range is a Q and it is semi blocked so we are more likely to be crushed and this would make the opposite true when we have the nut flush, and the board is blocking the queen combos then it makes it more likely our villain at least isnt continuing with a nut flush.

Just a thought not sure if i am on target or not.

What solver is this?

If I had a better understanding I would try to contribute, but my solver experience is lacking. I want to purchase one (if that is necessary) and get familiar with what you are doing here so that I may contribute.

Thank you HawksWin and maco for the feedback. I have learned a lot today and had a very profitable session which included a few hands i would’ve folded if it wasn’t for some general cbet strategy i found throughout the day, plus i ran hot over about 500 hands. Thanks for the criticism and guidance.

PS. how do you link a comment to a person the way you did my name in your post.

Just did this for the first time and filtered only for 50nl as it is the limit at which I have been struggling lately (still 5bb/100, but struggling). Might need to learn more about Pokertracker 4 filters and interpretation of statistics as well. In position, post flop, 3 handed I have a wwsf of 46%. This is only 500 hands that meet this criteria. I play very aggressive preflop with little calling so many of these scenarios I am likely isolating limpers with a decent range. I also stab when checked to at a very high percentage.

I filtered for OOP, post flop, 3 handed I have a wwsf of 29% with only 500 hands. Both of these filters show my win rate being much higher than I expected. I imagine this is largely variance.

I do get the concept and disadvantage multiway at the flop. I watched two videos today and checked another training website for info and I haven't found anything that definitively changes my opinion about my cbet strategy with the majority of my player pool, but I will definitely be adjusting against the few good players. I did learn a lot about exploiting players like me, but not many seem to be capable of doing that. It may be because my range is typically way ahead of who I am attacking.

I ran the same report for all stakes to try to get a bigger sample size, and it only doubled the size of the hands but the results were pretty consistent across all limits.

4 handed and up may be where I should focus as my win rate is on the lower end but I also partially attribute that to limped pots where I am at the weakest portion of my range because I couldn't put in a big raise preflop.

When it is a flop that i would use a merged betting range i have been consistently using a 1/3 pot bet. And i would bet my entire range that way. This flop is dry as hell too.

Thought about the turn bet some more, and I think because I block the good queens of villains that this overbet is a bad bet as those are the hands that I am hoping call.

We aren't oop as we have the button. Does this change your approach?

Why would flop be a 100% check for you? I think it is a decent protection bet as a pair of tens is vulnerable and we block the top Queens that are in their range. I will go back and watch some fundamental flop cbetting videos.

The BB is villain and cbets 3 consecutive streets. I don’t think there is a call call donk here. Am I missing something?

I agree. No way I fold here as played. I call expecting this to be about a coin flip. 3bets 8% so definitely capable of bluffing some AXs, and villain isn't completely out of control with 3bets as around 8% is mostly filled with blockers for bluffs and some strong value hands.

KK is the only hand that would shock me because of the showdown value on the river. All others make sense and I would toss in AxJx some small percentage of the time and I would change KcQh to KcQx as I think villain could do this with all 4, but much more likely to do it with flush draw.

Edit: I misunderstood this question. I would make notes similar to what hawkswin outlined below, and if your tracking hud doesn't do it for you I would take notes of the type of hands he 3bets UTG with. He turns over T9s you will know to 4bet your AKs 100% going forward.

Also, I recommend forgetting GTO. 2nl is loaded with Fish and GTO is going to adversely impact your win rate.

A lot of mistakes in my opinion, but they wouldn't change the outcome of the hand. Unless you know BB is passive I would only 3b preflop from the SB. Since this is 2nl probably a safe bet the BB is passive so a call probably isn't terrible. Why it is terrible is that you are likely to get squeezed by BB. I would have either 3bet this hand as bluff or folded it. Calling with this out of position to the entire table and you aren't closing preflop action is going to put you in some tough positions.

Flop, you get lucky and hit one of the best flops possible for this hand. I don't like the donk bet, but this is a spot I haven't studied in depth. I think villain is likely to cbet and I would elect to check raise so we get some additional value out of his air. After you value bet and are raised you are definitely looking to get all in on the flop unless you have some odd read, or are playing against the most passive 2nl player ever.

I would recommend either reading Clarke's "Grinder's Manual" or purchase the From the Ground Up Series" on this site. I personally think the book is better and takes its time explaining things better and that the videos are a bit too quick. Those will give you better fundamentals and this situation will look more like asking someone if 1+1 still equals 2. Don't take that as an insult as you shouldn't be afraid to post any questions here, just that after a little bit of reading and experience this situation is going to be routine.

That is a good question and a scenario I haven't encountered. I don't think we would be looking to shove for this amount as almost any villain will have a set if they come over the top of our c/r. My plan would be to check raise to take advantage of a villain who is likely to overbluff this flop. If called I would look to bet the turn and maybe river depending the cards that come out. If we check raise and villain shoves over the top we fold.

I think this flop is a check raise. I just rewatched the FTGU episode that covers range checking yesterday thanks to another member and this is the perfect scenario for checking your entire range to the button because it misses the bulk of your 3b range and favors the button. The button will likely perceive that this flop does not hit your range and stab at a high frequency to take down the pot. QQ is perfect for raising because it is vulnerable to overcards and is still a strong hand.

You should have a check raising range for value: Sets if you 3bet 88 55 or 66. And you can probably throw in all overpairs 99-QQ.

You should have a check call for value: AA, KK (not as vulnerable). High flush draws maybe (I'm new to this so take the range with a grain of salt).

A check raising bluff range: Gut shots, Maybe A9s, JTs if you occasionally 3bet those.

A check fold range: All your garbage that doesn't block buttons value range and has low equity.

I think this is a call and we win a high percentage of the time. I think at lower stakes aggressive players are likely to pounce on bets that are less than 1/2 pot. Any chance you are playing in MI? Since it just came online I think a lot of players are stuck playing pre 2010 strategies. I would make a note that when this Villain is shown weakness that V responds with aggression. 1/3 pot bet he fires, check behind he fires.

Edit: Especially because MP checks the turn after raising the flop. I think it is highly unlikely an aggressive player does this when a draw hits, and I don't think an aggressive player checks here with a set. The only value hand I can see taking this line is 54s and I can't imagine a TAG player calling 54s after being 3bet let alone opening it to begin with.

I watched the video today and I think this is an interesting spot. Mr. Clarke is describing a standard range for SB vs. BB where the SB typically has stronger hands. If that is the case for your scenario then this flop would be a Cbet candidate as it hits your stronger range.

The interesting part for me is that I wonder if it changes if you steal about 50% and BB folds to a steal 70% plus. Then your ranges are effectively switched which may make this a check raise candidate.

I am very surprised by the hand that looked you up. Was his kicker the Ah?