Or a really good player
Oct. 13, 2020 | 6:37 p.m.
Do you think they find triple barrels with underpairs here? Because I think those are the hands that they need to bluff flop and turn to show up with any bluffs in their range on the river. If you think they instinctually check back with sdv which is very common then I don't think they have any bluffs. However, given the sizing I think there's a reasonable chance this could be worse 2 pair trying to get value from AQ so even if we give them no bluffs I still think I call this hand.
Oct. 13, 2020 | 1:10 p.m.
Yeah, in agreement here, if you give them flushes then you give them busted straight draws, I really don't think they rep a value hand here at all tbh. People tend to use the term "under bluffed" when only thinking about the bluffing region with little concern for the value hands.
Oct. 13, 2020 | 2:55 a.m.
Not saying don't deviate if you have reads more just that there are a lot of lines this hand can take for a lot of different reasons to target a lot of different things. Turn bet can definitely be fine just wanted to put some other lines out there as possibilities and also talk about the weakness of thinking of this sort of hand as a mandatory bet.
Oct. 13, 2020 | 1:34 a.m.
Really like the flop raise, I skimmed comments and some people don't like it because you have very marginal equity which makes people uncomfortable but if you really want to apply pressure to someone who is cbetting too often and not defending properly this is exactly the kind of hand that you need to include. Raising draws actually doesn't apply particularly as much pressure as people think because they tend to be high EV hands anyway so folding a marginal bluff catcher to a range made up entirely of high EV hands is really not the end of the world and might not even be a mistake. Finding bluffs with these hands is also important not just to target the flop overfold but also because on your best turn and river cards where you're most likely to get folds from your opponents you often run out of bluffs if you only stick to bluffing with direct draws to the nuts. With that in mind this is one of those better turns for you so I think in terms of sizing you can go bigger and still bet at a really high frequency, this card is just very good for your range, I'd go something like 75% pot and then I'm jamming the majority of rivers. I think river is likely to be very overfolded because on these dynamic board textures people tend to x/r the turn to get it in with way too many value hands with no consideration for how weak the range that they get to river in the x/c line is so then if you rip the river you're folding everything except maybe some rivered 2 pair (that might fold anyway because people are just nitty). If you get called on river that sucks but whatever, you're supposed to get stacked sometimes bluffing and now you know that there's a spot where you get to jam for value and they have to pay you off but when it's the other way around you can fold safe in the knowledge that they just don't have any bluffs here because all their straight draws hit a pair and bluffing a missed fd is blasphemy to a lot of regs.
Oct. 12, 2020 | 4:43 p.m.
I disagree that you absolutely need to bet turn, I think betting is fine but in theory at least we should be mixing with this hand, weird things start to happen when you never x/c this sort of hand strength as on the river IP starts to be able to bet very thin and very big for value. I think that if you go with the assumption that this hand is a must bet hand in this spot then you might want to consider if the other regs look at it the same way and look at how you can exploit this way of playing. I don't think 50nl players are likely to realise this and punish you for it but it's just good to understand that this hand actually has fairly mixed incentives particularly given the Q kicker as this is the weakest Jx where you still have some protection from overcards and the ability to hit 2 pair over a rivered top pair. If we have JT or KJ more likely to bet, AJ has a bit more of an incentive to go for x/r or x/c as we induce bluffs when blocking ace high and we dominate a lot of the folding range from suited aces that might flat pre which we'd like to hit something or bet themselves as they are drawing dead so we don't benefit at all by denying equity from these hands. Also we don't really lose much value if any by checking here because when IP checks back again this hand is more than strong enough to put in a very big value bet for at least pot on river if it bricks out. It's nice to have hands to do that because that also means that you get to start bluffing in that line as well and if you think about just how much pressure you're putting on someone who is really capped by checking twice IP they will either have to pay off very light or just hand you the pot every time you get to this node.
Oct. 12, 2020 | 4:26 p.m.
I see what you're saying but 5.5% 3B is not the customer to do this against, if they have a 3B of 10%+ then I think jamming is probs +EV and anything above 15 I reckon it's printing but this is all just intuition, haven't done any maths to back this up. Also with regards to AA wouldn't usually recommend going multiway with aces voluntarily but the spr is so low that's is probably fine, just really want the whale to hit a pair and get stacks in. I think with JJ you need to consider what you're doing when you flop an overpair here and realistically you're just going to have to go with it almost always so if that's the case then you might as well just get it in here and deny some equity as well, I think the EV of just getting folds is going to make it worth running into QQ+ sometimes but again, not 100% certain on this especially against someone who only 3B 5.5%.
Oct. 12, 2020 | 10:06 a.m.
Yeah it really just depends what part of their range you want to put most pressure on, my goal is usually to make them fold everything worse than a flush by river and I'm just assuming that's their entire range until they prove otherwise. I think your way is definitely fine but it's more the strategy that I'd use on something like 985ssQr2r where I'm just looking to get a snap call from every pair + draw whilst also ensuring that they raise all their turned 2 pair/straights and then I just jam river to watch them fold everything. The reason here I just like to go for 2 small overbets and not 3/4 -> jam is because I don't think the smaller turn size here induces raises from their nuttish hands because they've never improved, they either flopped a flush and decided to trap or they have a hand I can get them to fold on river. The above works as high as 500 zoom btw so defo worth giving a go, it just hinges on the fact that good regs understand that people are generally too passive so they don't trap because they know just raising is higher EV. You're supposed to run into sets and straights here fairly often and a bunch of 2 pair as well but in my experience it just doesn't happen from anyone except the absolute best regulars.
Oct. 11, 2020 | 7:41 a.m.
Pio likes the nut flush blocker a lot less than humans do but you might not be wrong to value the nut flush blocker in a practical sense and that's because a lot of times people may be uncomfortable "trapping" a baby flush that gets turned into a bluff catcher if you size up big enough so they like to just trap with only the super nuts. Also it's not so much of a thing on this board due to the runout but often times the nut flush blocker will have a non 0 ev of checking because of villain floating K/Q high fds.
That being said people really overdo it with nut flush blocker a lot of the time and often in spots like this when you're facing aggression the way that you want to work out whether you should call or not is by considering exclusively the amount of combos your villain has with this card in their hand.
Oct. 11, 2020 | 7:30 a.m.
I'd assume 25z players are not good enough to x/c a flush facing a small flop bet until they show me the evidence that they can so with that in mind I think you should overbet turn and river to apply maximum pressure, you can also do this reasonably thin for value as well because you don't run into flushes particularly often so weak flushes sets and maybe 2 pair can go into this line (or possibly value bet river but for a smaller sizing). What you may find is that you're just never getting called down when you do this so with that in mind you want to go about finding more bluffs than just the nut flush blocker so that you can fully punish this leak that people have and either force them to call some very light stuff or you can just continue to run them over. Finding spots like this and learning how to deliberately overbluff them is one of the best ways to crush small and mid stakes regulars.
Oct. 10, 2020 | 10:48 a.m.
On 4 straight boards the jam isn't supposed to be just the nut straight + bluffs, it's supposed to be the nut straight all the time + the regular straight sometimes + a very small selection of bluffs. The idea is for villain to make it so that when you are holding just a ten here you chop a bunch, lose a bit and scoop the pot a very small amount, this will make you indifferent with essentially every Tx and you just call or fold based on blockers to whatever bluffing hand they choose (which you really can't know over the table like pio does so this isn't particularly important). So basically your hand is, at equilibrium worth roughly 0 chips as a call and might mix call or fold. That being said, we can do better than that.
If we consider how our opponents are likely diverging from equilibrium they probably don't understand the dynamic where they shove hands that will chop when called in order to incentivise us to call, this is quite a weird niche part of poker theory that you won't find unless you dive into some pretty specific pio sims most likely. This means that they're essentially going to be playing a polarised range of nuts and air. So how do we think that they're going to do at selecting their air? Well the thing is any hand with a king in it is a reasonable bluff candidate however going with all of them will be way too much, in fact it's probably a very low frequency for each Kx blocker. When no individual hand really screams out "bluff me! bluff me!" and you also account for the fact that this is not an enticing spot to jam as a bluff and just get snapped by a ten I don't expect people to find enough - or even any - bluffs here so I actually think you can fold this spot against a lot of people. You can also fold this spot safe in the knowledge that it is very unlikely that you are being overbluffed and been exploited and you've just ditched a hand that was, at best, 0ev in the long run.
There is also a compromise between nitting up to fully exploit someone we believe is underbluffing and remaining unexploitable ourselves and I think here is an important place to consider this; what you can do is just call a ten sometimes and fold it sometimes. I think the reason that you want to consider this option here specifically is that there will be players who just do this with all of their Tx due to either understanding the spot or just overvaluing their hand and in this case you should just be calling off Tx every time to chop and if one of you has KT that's just good for them but if you never call you will never find out that this is the type of player you are up against and whilst you might not see this spot again, 4 straights are common enough that you might be owning yourself in the long run. You also want to look out for the flip side to this, if someone calls Tx to your river bet that's not a mistake in isolation, but if they never raise Tx then it's worth a note that they aren't going to try and raise you off chops - this can also be relevant for similar spots like 5 flush/straight boards, double paired + ace high or when the board boats up where in theory both players need to bet at a high volume expecting to get called to chop in order to make sure they get value when they have a hand that doesn't.
Also worth keeping an eye on how people play these spots when you're trying to get them off chops, often people will either fall into the call everything every time category (which is somewhat often actually correct in theory) or they'll just let you have the pot and if you notice this you can start noticing a bunch of spots where you can just steal half the pot away at minimal risk.
Oct. 10, 2020 | 7:44 a.m.
Also to add to this often times multiple equilibriums will exist and it is impossible for us to know which one our opponent is playing without an absolutely massive sample size. An example of this is say you face a half pot bet on the flop and you have memorised the GTO strategy to respond to someone who either bets half pot or checks so you think you're perfectly unexploitable but in reality this person doesn't just bet half pot or x, they also use a full pot sizing here. Now the response to the half pot bet is going to be different to the one you have memorised, you may end up not attacking their half pot sizing aggressively enough because you mistakenly presume that all their nuttish hands are still in their range when in reality a lot of stronger hands have gone into the bigger sizing so you should increase aggression with marginal hands yourself.
Oct. 2, 2020 | 11:11 p.m.
GTO strats actually don't capitalise on a lot of mistakes, I think a lot of people just try and emulate pio and expect the money to come rolling in. It's not that GTO won't win over time but a lot of mistakes only lose potential EV and not absolute EV. The difference being that potential EV only equates to money lost if it's exploited whereas absolute EV losses just passively lose money. Basically there's a lot of stuff which comes about as a result of frequencies but if someone messes up those frequencies and you don't adjust they don't actually lose money for their mistake because the EV of taking each line is the same vs a GTO strat. One very common example of this is if someone bets too many marginal value hands on the flop/turn OOP which means that their x/c line is going to be devoid of those hands which means that their fold to river bet after they x/c on a previous street will be very high (maybe even their entire range if you go big enough on certain run outs) but if you don't adjust to find more bluffs in this line they don't actually lose any EV for their mistake because those calls would have been 0ev bluff catchers anyway.
Oct. 1, 2020 | 10:16 p.m.
KQ on the flop folds hands that it dominates whilst QT folds hands that dominate it so I think the preference is likely to be the other way around but there might be mixing with all of them.
Sept. 30, 2020 | 11:37 p.m.
Don't copy a solver, try and understand why a hand does what it does and the incentives that are required to make you indifferent between different actions. Poker is not about who can play the most GTO strategy and also you never get to "play your range" you only ever get to play 2 cards at a time even if the way you play them is shaped by your range as a whole. Use solvers to understand how perfect play comes about and then try and work out what happens when the incentives that you're faced with don't match those that you'd find in solver land.
Sept. 30, 2020 | 11:26 p.m.
You can still get overfolds with small sizes live just because some of the defends will just look ridiculous to someone who doesn't understand how they're supposed to make a certain hand profitable but I think just playing super polar is overall the better way to go. A lot of those overfolds that you pick up on the flop feel horrible to just give away because they're auto profiting but you don't get to test the delay CB and bomb river line to really make that bottom pair hate life if you just always CB flop on auto pilot which will potentially be more successful as their x/c on turn is going to be incredibly under protected in most cases (disclaimer: you may get called and told "I just don't know what you're repping" but you'll find a fair few people that you can bully with this)
Also the turn is a really good place to find overfolds, when people defend every pair and board connection to your flop bet of 75% or so and then you put in a small overbet on a brick turn they'll probs overfold quite significantly a lot of the time. Obviously pick your customer and all that, some people don't know folding is allowed, but I'm sure you can find the right kind of people that won't want to be bullied off their equity on the flop but the idea of defending 2nd pair without a redraw to a massive turn barrel sounds like insanity to them but if you go through it in pio with the range you think they are defending flop that's exactly what they need to do to keep you indifferent (the absolute best boards to look for are boards where there's no turned straight and full rainbow because people hate folding pair + draw but pair + unblocker isn't a hand class that exists in their mind). You also just look balanced when you do stuff like this, there's a danger some1 notices that you don't tend to fire rivers as a bluff particularly often but when you x back and they win with their top pair that they really didn't believe in it just affirms in their mind that you're an aggro player that just has to be paid off.
I guess this all really relates more to how best to deal with weak regs and fish rather than out and out whales but it's hard not to make +EV decisions even if you play super face up versus them because pseudo balance isn't particularly important.
Sept. 29, 2020 | 6:01 p.m.
Something that I think is worth noting is that not all flopped straight boards are created equal, on the ones like this with 2 gaps our overpairs are significantly stronger than say 987ss. There's a few reasons for this, one is less immediate nuttish combos, another is that on the 2 gap board there are no pair + open ender combos possible and less pair + gutshot combos and finally it's significantly less likely that we face a 4 straight turn so the incentive to put money in on the flop with a view towards betting the turn as well is in fact higher. Also when we consider preflop where it's a 2.8bb open and a 9bb 3B we're actually putting a lot of pressure on suited connector hands which should probably be folding here OOP given the price so with that in mind this board is actually less threatening than it might initially seem.
Also the x back range heuristic is something that I think I might have suggested before but the more I look at it the less I like this as a solution. The reason for this is what is supposed to happen when we bet at too high a freq is that our opponents should find increased aggression vs our x range with marginal equity holdings, I'm fairly certain that only the top regs at 500z and higher are managing this, below these stakes I think the notion of doing something like just going nuts with some overcards with no draw other than to top pair or they might block a flush if it completes on the river is not something that they have in their arsenal to punish your x range being insufficiently protected here so you're only really going to feel pressure from strong draws and inducing aggression from hands like 2 overs and a flushdraw isn't exactly a massive win. You do open yourself up to exploitation if you overdo the value betting on a flop like this where I agree some x back with overpairs is fine but realistically when you x here are you seeing people put in massive bets with thin value and very marginal equity holdings regularly?
I think the important takeaway when you see something like this where someone should be protecting their x range a lot more than they likely are is not "I'm going to stop value betting because pio told me to" and is rather "How do I punish people who are incapable of checking back an overpair in spots like this?" and I think you can actually shoot up in stakes by finding spots like this where the pool is just going to hand you the pot if you turn up aggression and then really pushing the boundary of what you consider to be a reasonable bluffing candidate.
Sept. 28, 2020 | 7:51 p.m.
Just to quickly add to this I think you can punish their inelasticity again on the flop, they're unable to go through the process of "Button raised much bigger (5x) than normal pre and is now betting 75% of pot (or even bigger) on the flop, this is much different to a normal raise size (3x say) and a half pot bet, the following hands that I would usually defend should go into my folding range..." A lot of exploitative stuff that I work on in pio relates to this idea of inelasticity where people do not adjust sufficiently to sizing or texture differences and tend to just have an overall blue print for how they play bottom pairs for instance. Just as one example a fairly typical weak live player in my estimation cannot fold a suited hand pre to a button raise (unless you go insanely big) and will never fold a pair on the flop even if you pot it so if you take those two assumptions you can start to really increase the average size of a pot that you're winning from these players.
Sept. 27, 2020 | 3:58 a.m.
In this situation described not as enthused to jam just because as someone who jams vs 3B OOP a lot, good regs will flick it in with 88+ fairly often because they just think it's AKo (which it usually is). Also this spot is fairly specific so your numbers might not hold up as the situation changes. What you want to do to put aggro regs back in line is have a very aggro small 4B because the big 4B is not particularly hard to deal with, this isn't a terrible idea but the marginal hands that you're asking people to call are significantly more comfortable. If you 4B small and aggressively here then you can really just make their life hell because they can't just immediately isolate to nuttish hands.
In case you don't have one, here's a GTO 4B range for CO vs BTN when you open 2.2x and face and 8x 3b with a 4B to 22.5 (although very much feel free to play around with sizings, go smaller if you want to punish a nitty defending range): AA:1,AKs:1,ATs:0.39,A9s:0.414,A8s:0.394,A5s:0.374,AKo:0.42,KK:1,KJs:0.242,KTs:0.604,K9s:0.482,AQo:0.718,KQo:0.236,QQ:0.692,QJs:0.116,QTs:0.164,AJo:0.27,JJ:0.492,JTs:0.34,TT:0.618,99:0.2,88:0.126,77:0.11,66:0.024
As you can see a lot of hands here just get flatted on auto pilot, stuff like KTs, K9s, TT, 99, AQo and this is why the 3B or fold strategy is so strong because they can comfortably overfold to 4B because they know these hands just go easily into a calling range when in reality they're supposed to face a 4B almost as often as they get called in this particular spot (18% vs 26%). Just a small note but the missing % of AKo and QQ isn't flatting, it's jamming so just something to keep in mind as an option, I tend to pure jam the AKo until people cop on at which point you should tone it down a bit but you can also throw in JJ as well particularly if they get too call happy with pocket pairs (99 is the indifference hand so this is the one to look out for). Also this is when your opponent has both options to flat and to raise, when they're playing 3b or fold (8x vs 2.5x open) then you start to 4B 20% and call 27%
Sept. 26, 2020 | 7:56 p.m.
I think what's confusing you is ev of hands vs the ev of range. Let's just ignore the small blind for a second because this is easier to explain HU. The EV of defending each hand vs a raise goes up with every extra hand that you open but there is also an EV that every hand in your opponents range has vs a fold (namely they get to keep their BB and pick up the SB). So the mistake you're making is you're focusing on the individual node (EV of hand vs open) and not the EV of the entire game tree ([EV of hand vs open] * [% of range that opens] + [EV facing a fold] * [% of range that folds]).
It might be more intuitive to look at it from your perspective though as you're not trying to minimise your opponents EV, you're instead trying to maximise your own. Basically there's an EV to taking down the blinds and there's an EV that is your potshare when they don't fold (which can be further split up into when they just call and when they 3b if you like but this isn't necessary). As it's a soft live game the EV of taking down the blinds is fairly minimal, it's still a factor but not a particularly big one, what is much more prevalent is your pot share when they defend too weak a range and make mistakes post. My understanding here is that vs loose players you want to size up and vs tight players you want to open looser. What you're suggesting is that these players are so bad that you can size up and open looser because your fringe hands will over realise their equity by enough to be profitable, this may well be true, live players do have a tendency to punt stacks but also it's something intuitive which is hard to properly know in a live game without a database, when you're essentially never going to take down the blinds I think it's hard to be certain that you're going to make your K7o profitable or at least that it is not more profitable to just get in even more money with a strong range.
In summary because I think that's all a tad convoluted I think that the essence of live games is to get in a lot of money with strong hands against people who suck at folding and I think that this applies to preflop as well, I don't doubt that if you hit something with a very marginal open you're going to get paid but I think just inflating the pot as early as possible should on average serve you better.
Sept. 26, 2020 | 7:34 p.m.
Just call it off and make a note imo, I never fold any showdown value to these weird lines that shouldn't exist the first time I see them but then you can go note this player as "donks turned value" and now you know when he x turn he's capped to top pair and he probably does the same thing on flop and rivers as well so their hands are going to be very face up and you can value bet a lot thinner or bluff them off their weak hands with big sizings if they have a fold button.
Sept. 19, 2020 | 5:34 p.m.
Hey man, first of all good luck. Secondly some advice that I would give you is that you should play the micros to practise not to grind a roll because the rake is extremely high to the point that the difference between a player beating 25nl and 100nl is smaller than you would imagine because there is just so much less rake but a lot of 25nl regs will take a very long time to move up because they're just grinding out hours at the table and checking their bank roll rather than focusing on improving and using their playing time to check on their implementation of concepts and to identify new spots that need work.
Sept. 19, 2020 | 5:31 p.m.
If you don't also have a bigger sizing betting less than at least 25% is losing some EV here, it's not a big deal and is most like a result of different preflop ranges though.
That's not what a mixed strategy is, playing 2 sizings is not "sometimes I play one and sometimes I play the other", it is "I am always playing both and I know which hands prefer to go into each sizing at what relative frequencies in order to maintain balance". Under your strategy a hand like AA bets small half the time and big half the time when in reality it probably has a fairly significant preference for the big sizing and the opposite with KK that is a hand that fairly typically goes into a smaller sizing if you're using one on this board but here you're just mixing it 50/50.
In terms of playing 2 sizings in the same spot it's not that the situation is tangibly different it's just how much complexity you're willing to handle, 1 size will not lose much if any EV but playing more sizings definitely won't hurt your EV and it will allow your opponents to make more mistakes that you can pick up on; for instance you may notice they over call to one size and over fold to the other so you shift your bluffs primarily into the sizing that they're folding too much to.
Sept. 19, 2020 | 5:24 p.m.
If this were LJ vs BB I'd agree with you but as ranges get wider equity denial becomes a much more prevalent factor when deciding our strategy. 2 undercards with no backdoors still have 6 outs twice if you have a non-dominating ace high so you're allowing them to realise a lot of equity with your hands that can't bet when you play a more polar strategy. Say we were in the LJ and as a result the BB defending range gets tighter and therefore connects with the board better along with the fact that we have less hands that just want to take the pot down now the incentives to play different strategies become less clear.
Also in terms of exploitative play people actually tend to defend a touch too much as you start approaching pot sized bets on favourable boards because they often get to fold things like underpairs and bad gutshots without a backdoor fd which most people will instinctively flick a call in with regardless of sizing.
Personally the way I play this board is 25%/90% with no x range but you only use the bigger sizing with something like 15% of your range and it doesn't add a ton of EV whilst adding a fair bit of complexity so I would say that there is definitely "lower hanging fruit" to go after first and just picking a size and betting your entire range is what I would recommend on this texture.
Sept. 19, 2020 | 5:14 p.m.
Problem with x is if you x and face a shove I think you just have to fold because of how poorly you're doing against the bluffing region despite all the equity that you have against their value bets.
As far as sizing goes it's not really a solver EV thing it's more just an intuition that people give way too much respect to small bets when the SPR gets short because they just figure that you're milking them because you don't need to bet big to set up a shove on river. Still leaning towards shove just because I think a lot of your value wants some amount of protection not just from getting drawn out on but from the river killing your action so I'd lean towards keeping my range nicely together and balanced until I have a concrete read.
Sept. 19, 2020 | 4:55 p.m.
I think you should shove turn in the first hand or block really small but you're just going to have to call off anyway if they shove, I prefer shove because you can most likely get folds from the nfd which is a big win with your hand. I am a bit concerned with being called off by pair+draw particularly Kxdd which has us crushed but I don't really see another way to play your hand at this spr because we're not going to x/f.
Second hand just don't really think you run into a better hand often enough to hero fold this, I don't think many people are double floating KQ no diamonds OOP here and even KQdd/Q9dd they probably x/r turn. Also it's just really not a disaster to call off the value hands that you would have shoved anyway if you can't come up with a good read one way or the other because then this play is still -EV for them if it's only value hands as it denies you the chance to bluff.
Sept. 19, 2020 | 10:30 a.m.
You might want to size up slightly on flop, range betting this small probably loses a fairly decent amount of EV, I understand what you're doing which is trying to capitalise on overfolds but the thing is almost every single hand in villains range will be able to realise enough equity to justify a call here (exceptions being undercards with no backdoor equity) and also your range as a whole is so strong that you want to be putting more money into the pot than this with a lot of hands. I like that you're pushing limits to pressure them to call super wide which they'll struggle to do and I tend to do something similar but there tends to be quite extreme effects on pot geometry when you go this small on the flop.
On the turn if you don't have an overbet sizing you're losing EV, beyond that it's up to you how simple or complicated a system you're happy playing, the simplest is probably playing 1.5x pot or x but 2x, 75% and x is also a very viable way to play this spot which has some advantages, most notably that people will not attack the smaller sizing as much as they should so you don't need to protect it properly and can be greedy with the 2x sizing. However it does also have draw backs because you will have a harder time grasping pool tendencies vs each sizing as you'll get a smaller sample of each.
Also on a related note playing 1 hour of 66% and 1 hour of overbet isn't a coherent strategy, when things get mixed it's not with the intent of just confusing everyone involved there are strategic reasons for doing so.
Sept. 18, 2020 | 8:23 p.m.
First things first, nice flop float, too many people just roll over and fold this hand because it's super marginal but on J high boards with 2 low cards we really do want to fight back and some of that is done through calling. Good of you to recognise that on a rainbow board you're going to need to find some pretty marginal floats in order to properly call here.
On the turn I think that raising this might not be the worst thing in the world but there are a lot of other hands that I'd raise first as a bluff, you're going to have some 76 and 64 that didn't raise the flop, maybe some 87, T8 or Q8 with a bdfd, QT you could potentially be floating all of it so I just want to show you how easy it is to get wildly out of line here especially when you consider how rarely you've turned a strong value hand on this 9. You want to be looking to get more aggro on turns which complete some of your flop, floats particularly if you have an offsuit straight that your opponent only has the suited version of, so on this board on a 4 where we can have 76o, 54o, A2o, 62s, 43s, J4s while our opponent should be folding the majority if not all of these hands preflop we really want to be upping our aggression. Compare this to a 9 where they will have all the J9o and the only non-duplicated strong hands we can have is 93s (maybe 95s depending on villain).
I also think it's reasonable to consider to x/c your hand again, yes now it is getting fairly dicey and you can lose to some potential bluffs, from KQ and Ax gutters but you've got an overcard to the board and a gutshot to the nuts on full rainbow along with reasonable showdown vs a river give up because you beat all the open enders so just want to throw this option out there, not something to be doing vs overly tight players but against players that might find the more rogue bluffs like a random Q or K high with a bad kicker to throw in there along side their other strong equity driven stuff this is something to consider. I ran a quick sim to check how viable this is and pio was floating KQ again here but not KT so it is pretty close. Also this is kind of a fun and slightly weird exploit to run on people because pio is bluffing stuff like A6 with the future blockers to straights but it also partially bluffs hands like A6 to deny this play because it reduces the EV of floating a hand like this because you lose too often at showdown. In GTO world pio will often x to realise equity with open enders as IP but I think you'll see that in practice very much the opposite happens and people are very resistant to bluffing without at least a few outs they can confidently value bet on the river if they hit and they don't understand that they can bluff 2 streets and x back to win occasionally with weird merged bluffs. This probably doesn't gain a ton of EV but I find it interesting so thought I'd share.
Once you get to the river I think it's kind of interesting, honestly can't be too mad at call or fold, IP has a fair few natural bluffs but they also have a bunch of value hands, we block some but still not thrilled about it, theory call but I think you can argue for letting this go against a lot of players especially if you see them x back to just lose with stuff like T8 ever in this spot.
Just going back to the turn briefly it may sound really weird to float flop to just fold turn when we turn equity but that's because a lot of the EV we capture by floating particularly at low stakes is going to be from picking up the pot vs missed turn CB. If you want to continue floating people very light then the key to making it work is not to fight back incredibly hard vs their double barrel every time you turn equity; instead you should be looking to get very aggressive on rivers vs x back in fact you can most likely overbet any jack for value on most run outs and this is where your floats will pick up tons of EV at 50nl as people fold their entire range to you.