UpUpAndAway

I wouldn't be able to fold here. As you said, it's unlikely he has many flushes or straights in his range since he didn't cbet flop and straights wouldn't raise the river anyway. His hand therefore seems super polarized to me as 54 or a high spade bluff so I would call alteast this trip combo that doesn't block his bluffs.

I much prefer a river check/call rather than a thin value bet. I doubt you have many bluffs that take a bet-check-bet line on this board so I think it's best to protect our river checking range which is tough to have a high frequency of as it is.

It seems strange to raise suited wheel draws on the turn for balance when villain can really only rep 44 in his value range. Turn seems like even moreso of a call with that range when there's another player behind, imo.

I'm in with the check/call turn camp. You block KQ and I don't think AQ calls down 2 more streets on this board unless villain is super sticky since your only draw is KJ.

Why does this seem like a really good hand to XR on the river and why do you want to find a value range to do so after this action? Reason I ask is because I can't imagine you having much of a XR bluff range at all on the river here.

I'de fold as well. You have plenty of better hands to call the river and villain isn't likely to play AA-JJ like this nor do I think he's overbet bluffing the river here ever given how strong your range is.

SPrince took the words right out of my mouth. I would fold, especially holding a 9. You're going to likely be severely overcalling with your range here if your calling range contrains J9.

I wouldn't count on a 23/13 overjamming the river with small flushes in order to not be exploited by betting less than all in. I don't think it's a huge assumption given that his preflop stats are passive and likely less than optimal so I'm not counting on his river jams being optimal either.

To answer your question, you're right but all it would take was for villain to mix in a few nut combos with a 2/3 pot bet.

I think you should continue barreling the turn here. Your range still contains a lot of draws (KQ,clubs, perhaps AQ/AK) and while I think your hand should still be ahead of villain's range, the board is so dynamic that risking giving a freecard in this sized pot is detrimental.

As played I actually don't mind your river shove although it seems unorthodox. I agree with you that villain should be checking back most of his pair+9 combos and shouldn't have AK while you're unlikely to have many missed bluffs given your turn check/call line so you're really only ever bluffing with a showdownable pair turning into a bluff. From there, it all depends on your image.

This seems pretty reasonable against the passive villain. If he bets 2/3 on the river then I think the decision becomes a lot tougher but I can't see him overjamming rivewr with too many lower FDs in this spot.

The converter doesn't work for the hands I try to convert either so I'm stuck copy and pasting a generic one. Personally, I find a generic black and white copied HH quicker and overall easier to read than clicking a link that takes me to a hand but I'm wondering if others feel the same?

Q1: Do I shove here or just call here?

Since it's blind vs blind, we should expect villain to be calling a bit wider than usual on the river since both ranges will be wider here. So for a shove to be better than a call on your part, villain needs to call more worse hands than better hands.

I think a fair calling range on the river that beats you for a 29% opening villain would be 88,KK,JJ, and 97s for 13 combos.

I would rarely expect KJ to fold very often so let's say he calls 7 of the possible 9 combos for that hand. I think it's fair to give him a few K8 combos as well which should bring his total combos pretty close to 13 combos making the river shove very close imo.

From there I would say it just comes down to how cally villain is in this spot. If you don't think he's ever folding KJ/K8 at the least then the river seems to be an easy raise. Obviously, the higher your sizing, the more you make his close-calling hands fold so a river jam of 380 might be too large imo.

Hmmm the link takes me to a QQ hand totally different from the one you guys are talking about. Anyone else?

I'm isolating the weak CO limper from the BUT PF in this spot. I think the extra equity you get from the times it gets HU and you win with a flop cbet is more than trying to make the pot multiway but it does seem relatively close.

I think postflop is well played and I'de play it the same. If CO is a fish, which he appears to be as you say, then I can't see him ever folding to your flop 3bet so you might as well get as much money in as you can before the board changes.

Why does his bluff ratio have to be larger on flop? I never fully
grasped this. Doesnt that just mean we can start raising a lot on
flop?

I believe, but could definitely be wrong,that our bluff:value ratio is higher on the flop due to draws and other hands that have equity whereas the river is different since there's obviously no more cards to come. Someone please correct me if I'm wrong!

And I'm not sure if there is even a way to find out precisely how much to defend on the flop due to how many variables there are with the board changing on the turn and river.

Interesting.

I admit I play a bit more NL400 and 600 than 200 but from my experience with NL200, I feel like on players, on average, have a higher 4bet than 2% especially from the CO vs Blinds.

I feel like if there's little information on our oppoent then we should probably rely on player pool tendencies to guess at his 4betting range.

Given that it's CO vs SB, it feels like we're going to be wrong more often than not if we assume villain is at the top of his range and skewed to KK+ and AK.

While AQs is preferable to AQ when calling a 4bet OOP, my guess is that those 4 combos might not be enough to combat a villain with a few bluffs in his 4bet range, especially with his "2x + 1bb" 4bet sizing.

If hero thinks the river value bet is thin but profitable and therefore bets resulting in a checkraise from villain, it still doesn't make the bet a bad or unprofitable bet in the long run just because he get's checkraised this time.

There's no way for hero to tell, before betting river, if villain is going to checkraise jam for value, checkraise jam as a bluff, or check/call with a worse hand.

If hero knows more about villain's river tendencies and falls into this trap over and over again then his play should move into the incorrect category but it seems wrong to me to not bet a river that's close but possibly profitable because a checkraise would put hero in an uncomfortable spot.

You can checkraise and donk still, you just have to balance those lines and make sure you aren't only doing it with strong made hands.

I'm not sure if I follow what you're asking but we should be defending on the flop more vs cbets since villain should have a 2:1 bluff:value ratio with a larger betsize.

On the turn the ratio gets closer to 1:1.

It is just that I so often see people treat these sims like they have
"solved" a hand. If you watch videos of the best pros playing you can
hear them say stuff like "wow, I can not understand how he could take
that line with that hand" and similar.

I think they know they have basically solved certain spots to the best of their ability. Obviously if villain mixes it up or takes an unorthodox line with a certain hand that's unexpected, it will catch someone off guard even if they've ran a sim.

Think of a sim as an educated guess that could change and evolve over more time with a certain villain as opposed to a rulebook with villain's tendencies.

I know the HH is wrong and it still pains me to see KT check through the river.

Agree with this, without doing the math I would guess that unless we have some sick 5bet jamming strategy with our premiums and a bunch of higher equity holdings, folding AQo to a 4bet would likely allow villain to 4bet with ATC.

Correction: I would need villain to bluff at least 3 combos with his 7 value combos in order to have a 30% bluffing frequency thus giving me 30% equity. I mistakenly used a ratio that gave me a combo # from 30% of his value hand range instead of 30% of his total hand range.

This actually makes the decision much closer again imo.

Thanks for the reply SPrince.

These types of spots get me in trouble quite often in-game since I feel like I'm making a lot of assumptions on what a relatively unknown villain could arrive at the river with AND play the way that it did. I'll try to take a better crack at this hand away from the table now:

I'm calling $234 to win $324+234+234 = 29.5% equity needed in order to breakeven. So I need him to have atleast ~30% bluffs in his range.

His value range could contain 33,88,99,98s,T9s,J9s,A9s for 3+3+1+2+2+1+2 combos = 14 total value combos that COULD, but don't ALWAYS, donk jam river. There's a decent chance he continues to check the river to me so I'm going to estimate he only donk jams the river 50% of the time with that range for 7 total value combos and continues to give me the lead with the rest.

So I need him to be jamming atleast 2 bluff combos on the river in order for my call to breakeven. Some possible low-showdown hands he COULD arrive at the river with but not ALWAYS bluff are AQdd, ATdd, QTdd, maybe KQdd, JTcc, and JThh for let's say 5.5 combos since I'm unsure every villain check/calls KQdd on the flop. I think AQdd checks the river with a bit of showdown value a large majority of the time which leaves 4.5 combos of hands that might possibly donk the river as a bluff.

My guess would be that villain is donking the river a bit under 50% of the time since it's a line I don't see very often and I'm getting pretty decent odds so I would think villain is donk bluffing 1-2 combos which should make my river call very, very close. When it's this close, I have an overpair vs a strange donk, and villain is an anonymous player with stats that are loose over a small sample on a site with many fish, I think it's ok to err on the side of calling the river here given the odds.

Please let me know if I missed anything and what you would disagree with, if anything!

Not really, your assumptions seem pretty fair to me. I agree that this might be one of my better continuing hands since I block 99 and don't block any FDs although it still seems sketchy to continue vs a complete unknown.

I wonder how we could run some sort of sim to figure out if calling turn/calling safe rivers or jamming turn is more +EV.

Good point, I missed that at first too and I would definitely bet turn after the flop goes check-check...