is folding the river too nitty ?

[Guido]

on the river i was convinced he has me beat

the betsize , the timing , how the hand played out , my say "experience"

the solver would never fold here , never ever , what about you ?

https://upswingpoker.com/hand/?pokeit=624JVBRXp

side note the solver would cbet the flop 25% potsize

[Dilly]

We're definitely in the top 2/3 of our range so if villain is capable of bluffing here we probably need to call it off

[AJH914]

I fold this. I don’t see this line or the half pot bet being a bluff. At least not frequently enough to make a call. We are absolutely in the top two thirds of our range but what makes this play that we beat? Does TT do this? That’s the next best hand we get value from and I can’t see it playing this way.

Interesting flop note, I would have also bet two thirds pot on that board.

[Guido]

This is the type of spot if you call you Lose almost every time. The line was very suspicious to me but i felt villians strength

[MoeLestin.jr]

You must have called a lot in the past to recoil from here. T/his hand isn't as interesting as the player playing it. I call.

[LondonImp]

All the draws miss, and we check the turn which is going to cause the villain to bluff at a higher frequency.

I think we have to call. You can't just be calling with a FH here.

[The Machinist]

All the draws miss, and we check the turn which is going to cause the villain to bluff at a higher frequency.

I think we have to call. You can't just be calling with a FH here.

Agreed. If I was on the other side of this and missed my draw (very possible to have a ton of straight draws or flush draws calling from the BB), and I see the check on the turn, I would bet it against most players in the smaller stakes expecting most hands to fold. I've also seen people do this to try to avoid a split with ace high (though I would not unless I know the player folds to much). With that being said, most jacks play it the same. Not knowing the player, I probably default to a call. If there were no (or a lot fewer) obvious draws on the flop, I probably start leaning toward a fold.

[Skybuxs]

2 things I saw could have been diff...1st, your 3bet size should have been larger...pot size(around 530-540) not a 3x of the raise. As far as your fold...I would tend to consider calling in the spot. I think its possible to that the top Jx Suited are in his range, but no 5x, however a draw was a possibility as well AKs, AQs and that AJs at times as well. BC no 4 bet pre with just a flat from the button its seems that AA could have been a flat..but I could see KK, QQ, AK Poss 4 betting...AJ, KJ (seems unlikely), A flat with JJ very poss from the button. With out knowing how V had been playing, my gut would be to call the river bet...Actually..I can see myself Flatting a slightly wider range pre in his poss, but facing the raise, then 3bet really tightens the range. I personally like to widen a just a bit on the button. tuff decision imo.

[LondonImp]

4.35x 3! IP is far, far too big. 3x is absolutely fine 60bb deep.

[Skybuxs]

Longdonlmp...I had someone else share that with me recently...I have missed that a 3bet in pos drops according to stack size...can you lead me to where it teaches that here? I dont want to be making those mistakes!! thank you!

[LondonImp]

Skybuxs On p2 of the following charts there are good guidelines to follow regarding preflop sizing. Whilst the effective stack is important, I think that position is the biggest consideration.

https://poker-coaching.s3.amazonaws....lop-charts.pdf

[XBobLove]

Folding here is ok on the exploitative realm but by the book against better players you have to pay off. The price given is too good, assuming the villain has bluffs in his game (the obvious ones being the missed draw and repping the jack with 2nd best pairs). Easy fold against face up players.

[Guido]

Thx Bob welcome back

[kkep]

I actually would have bet the flop larger, around 80%, check turn call river.

I'm surprised the solver liked 25% on the flop. Interestingly HU I believe PIO would like the larger size so maybe it's a big error when I do that multi-way.

I would have made my 3! larger too BTW, 520 - 3x IP + the chips in the pot. so 3 x 120 + 30+60+72 . LondonImp is that wrong?

[LondonImp]

Personally 3! 100% pot is just way too high.

I think we're going to miss out on value often, but also put ourselves in a tougher spot (with our range, not this exact hand) when opponent 4! shoves which they are incentivised to do more than usual due to the increased size of the pot. It seems like the worst of both worlds to me.

[kkep]

LondonImp I think the problem is when we go 3x our bluffing range has almost no fold equity. In this scenario (suppose the BB folds) our value range is roughly 25 combos QQ+ I like 77 but it could be JJ instead and we'll call AKs value. Then our bluffing range is roughly 60 combos (in mixed frequencies) A2s, A5s-A7s, A9s, K8s K9s Q9s J9s T9s 98s, ATo+, KJo+

The V needs 37% equity to break even, OOP so a bit more, what 38-.38.5%?

(If the BB calls now we each own about 1/3 of the pot and we have 2 ranges to deal with.)

So does ATo get AJo to fold, A2s get A3s or better to fold, it shouldn't.
A5s-A7s, A9s won't get better to fold but some worse hands should call.
Does K8s get K9s+ to fold or worse to call? I doubt it.
You see where I'm going.

At 3x we are really only getting mostly worse hands than our bluffing range to fold....

Now lets say the H 3! to 520. The V needs 50% to break even. I think this is where the most mistakes will be made. The V will 4! a tiny portion of their range, leaving their calling range mostly dominated by the strongest portion of our range so they have to play a mostly marginal range OOP. Then they will often over-fold given us an immediate profit which is great since 68% of our 3! range is essentially a bluff or they over defend OOP which is great too.

Some will be good players that play it just right but still be in a tough spot OOP.

What I actually do most of the time IP in my low stakes games is raise 4.25x with my value range which is 3x the opening bet + the SB and BB (1.5) I don't add the antes. That lays the V roughly 42% and I use 4.9x with my bluffing range and or if I know the V is a station I just go 4.9x with my entire 3! range which will now be slightly less bluffly.

Let's not forget that only going 3x gives the BB a fairly good price to see the flop and most people already over defend the BB. Which is fine but do we really want them in there with any 2 cards? I don't mind 3 way pots IP but I much rather play an inflated pot HU which gives more bluffing room.

Oh vs limpers I will pot them when I'm IP or OOP but if they seemingly never limp fold I add an extra BB as an additional exploit with my strongest hands.

The V shouldn't have much of a 4! all in range at 60BB. But here is plenty of room to 4! for value and if they're good enough they will mix in a smattering of bluffs.

For sure I can find plenty of spots where the V ripped in a 60BB 4! way OOL but I think that player type will do that with the hands they want to go with no matter what size the 3! is.

[kkep]

LondonImp So I suppose the GTO solution would be 486 since the effective stack is just under 60BB

[kkep]

LondonImp you didn't add the blinds and antes.

[LondonImp]

The blinds and antes shouldn't be added. Look at JL's example in your screen shot above. He adds an additional 2.5 to the total because there is a caller. The blinds and antes aren't counted.

[kkep]

Yes I saw the +2.5 as the a big blind ante example and missed the cold caller. BUT he made one of many of the mistakes in this class there. There are a shit ton of examples where he adds the blinds and antes. I'd be shocked to learn I'm wrong about this.

[kkep]

I'm going to look for more since this is a limped pot but it's shouldn't make a difference.

[kkep]

So in the actual video where he discusses 3! IP with a shorter stack size he says we want to raise smaller and mentions he doesn't add the antes but he says nothing about blinds.

When he says antes does he mean blinds and antes?

He doesn't add the blinds in on that chart yet in other spots he does. The 30BB facing a 2.5x raise and a caller was used for when we are supposed to go all in or raise he wanted to illustrate that we just go all in when the raise size would be around 30% or more of are stack. He didn't need to add the blinds in to show that so I'm thinking that's why he didn't bother.


This should be some of the most basic crap and JL has me freakin confused!

[kkep]

(PokerCoaching.com)

Dec 15, 2020, 9:59 PST

Hey!

The raise sizes assume a standard sb, bb, + ante set-up. So you should not use them for any calculations when deciding your 3-bet size.

When there is a raiser and a caller, you need to take the caller into account and increase your raise size because the pot size has now increased.

So from a broad aspect (not accounting for every stack depth), you should 3-bet 3x IP and 4x OOP, and then add 1bb for every caller in between.

Feel free to send me a message in Discord to talk further.

All the best,
Justin - JustGTO

There it is. How have I gotten this concept so wrong for so long...

[Guido]

This is Common poker strategy Knowledge for years you got it