Hand reading fails me. What does this donk-barrel-call-donk line rep?

Hand reading fails me. What does this donk-barrel-call-donk line rep?

1/3, 9 handed, $500 max buy-in, Parx Philly Friday night. Rake is 10% up to $5 with $2 promo drop.

PRE -

EP limps (UTG or

10 January 2025 at 07:09 PM
Reply...

55 Replies


Earlier posts are available on our legacy forum HERE

I'm referring to the frequency of turn bluffs, not the size of the overbet.

Google's AI wrote:

In No Limit Hold'em, overbetting the turn allows for a greater bluff-to-value ratio because it significantly increases the pot size, making it more difficult for an opponent to call with marginal hands, which in turn, creates a larger window for profitable bluffs while still extracting maximum value from your strong hands; essentially, you can bluff more effectively because your opponent is less likely to call with weaker hands due to the large bet size.


by Always Fondling

I'm referring to the frequency of turn bluffs, not the size of the overbet.Google's AI wrote:

You're asking a valid question, perhaps two or three in one. I'll have to pay more attention to how often I'm bluffing when I over-bet the turn. It's possible I'm too value-heavy when I'm over-betting. I'll also have to look at my sizing when I'm over-betting, which I think may be too large.

I'm not positive I've been betting the turn too frequently, but I think I may be. Part of it is that I have a bad habit of losing track of the SPR when facing shorter-stacked opponents, leading to situations where I barrel turn, they check-jam, and I'm somewhat priced in to call when I was semi-bluffing.

I also sometimes forget to slow down and check back with showdown value, which I think would make some of my turn barrels fall under the heading of polarization mistakes (betting when it's not for value or as a bluff).

It's possible I'm betting as often as I should be, and I just tend to remember the times I get check-raised more than I remember the times I bet and get called or I just check it back.

The example hand I gave, of turning trips, may be a good indicator. I turned bottom trips. I think the board was QT55. I don't think I'd be check-raising that turn as a bluff anywhere near as often as I should be, if I'm supposed to be balanced. And I don't know that I should be x/r'ing rather than donking or just check-calling, or x/r'ing to 6x rather than a smaller size.

For all I know, V had a weak Qx and I got max value by checking the turn, and he wouldn't have bet again if I just check-called, so I didn't lose any value. Hard to say for sure. But I suspect a turn donk and river barrel, or a turn check-call and a river donk might get me an additional street with value, and a smaller turn check-raise with a hand like KJ or J9, followed by a big river barrel, is a better line with my bluffs.


After watching the HH videos, I've tried some overbets (1.2x pot) on the turns and had a good run of successful bluffs. However, when I have done this with value hands (pocket 2s with a set), I have been getting folds from top pair (Aces with jack kicker), and such. Small sample. But seems like it's more effective for bluffs, and I need to be more thougthful and maybe size down when I want a call.

by docvail

I'm struggling to remember a recent hand where I made a massive over-bet or raise on the river with a bluff. I have made some stupid-small raises on the river with bluffs, which have mostly gotten through, and I'm pretty pleased with myself for pulling them off. Marc is a big proponent for sizing up or down on the river based on V's likely range, but betting the same size on th


by OGfromOCC

After watching the HH videos, I've tried some overbets (1.2x pot) on the turns and had a good run of successful bluffs. However, when I have done this with value hands (pocket 2s with a set), I have been getting folds from top pair (Aces with jack kicker), and such. Small sample. But seems like it's more effective for bluffs, and I need to be more thougthful and maybe size down

Sounds like you're seeing the same thing I have - they over-fold to the turn over-bet. The point I was trying to make is that even when we're bluffing, we win more when they call turn and fold river.

I don't know, but I think the adjustment is to not go as large on the turn, and size up with our bluffs on the river. I wonder if I've hesitated to do it, because over-betting the turn when the pot is smaller is more comfortable than over-betting the river when the pot is larger.

I can hear my own thoughts - "He called 1/3-1/2 pot on the flop. He called 2/3 to full pot on the turn. He's not folding. Save your money, give up, and check back." I'd be even more hesitant to barrel the river if I over-bet the turn and got called.

Perhaps the irony here is that my smaller turn bets seem to increase the frequency of V's donking into me on the river, and I'm totally comfortable raising when they donk somewhat small, hence this thread. If V was deeper, I wouldn't have had to think about it nearly as long as I did. I'd just click it to $500, and expect him to fold close to 100%.

So, yeah, I think the adjustment I'm going to make is to not over-bet the turn with value or bluffs, because they over-fold. Instead, I'll stick with the more "normal" sizing, and either barrel or raise river if they donk into me.


by docvail

What this and other threads here have shown me is that many of the frequent posters here are timid when it comes to finding opportunities to raise as a bluff, leaving money on the table. The flop and turn in this hand are clear opportunities,

Do not confuse people telling you that they don't think you've chosen a good spot to do something, with them being incapable of doing it. The results of this hand clearly show that you picked a bad spot, since you did not get the fold that you were "supposed" to get.

In LLSNL, and probably in all of poker, you get the money by being patient and waiting for the right spot. Whether it's the right spot to take a pot away from someone else, or the right spot to extract value, whatever it is, you can't force action. This hand reeks of entitlement tilt--you're forcing action because you saw someone do something they're not "supposed" to do. But if this guy doesn't know he's not supposed to lead into you when you have a range advantage, he also may not know he's not supposed to play back when you apply pressure. And that's exactly what happened here.


by CallMeVernon

In LLSNL, and probably in all of poker, you get the money by being patient and waiting for the right spot. Whether it's the right spot to take a pot away from someone else, or the right spot to extract value, whatever it is, you can't force action. This hand reeks of entitlement tilt--you're forcing action because you saw someone do something they're not "supposed" to do. But i

I'm not sure I agree with this sentiment of patience is a virtue/waiting for spots. It sounds too much like a static/nut-peddling approach to poker strategy and the underlying assumption that the game doesn't evolve. I'm sure most would agree that even weaker players are more knowledgeable these days (about preflop ranges, 3betting, bluff-catching, etc.) due to the plethora of free information out there on the web, which means we have to adjust our exploits and take the game into areas where our opponents' knowledge is less applicable or robust.

More specifically, in this HH, saying we shouldn't "force action" because a player is doing something they shouldn't could be paraphrased as: we shouldn't "exploit" a player because they're making an "exploitable play." Just because a player didn't act favourably to an initial exploit (e.g., calling a raise on the turn when we have a range advantage) doesn't necessarily mean he won't act favourably to a subsequent exploit (when we raise his river donk). Much of a winning LLSNL strategy revolves around making multiple attempts over multiple streets to exploit mistakes made by weaker players. If a player makes mistake A in limp-calling preflop, and then mistake B in leading on the flop, doesn't mean we should stop betting on the turn and/or river with a stronger range, whether as a bluff or for value.

Bottom line is that if a player is doing something exploitable then we should be trying to exploit it.

Reply...