Missed value with top boat? (1/3)

SPR is about 11.5 on the flop and we haz top set with a bully bluffy I'm-picking-on-you-image. We can play for stacks by the river by doing some large bets on early streets. So I'd PSB the flop in order to make this happen. I know the smaller bet is probably GTO approved, but unless we think he's often going to play back with an early street raise, it is going to be difficult to play for stacks by the river with this sizing.

Really don't like the turn check. Heck, even a min bet is better because it reopens the action to let him continue chasing draws (of which there are some), start bluffing (or semi-bluffing) now, or even start getting in real chips if he's unlucky enough to have 7x/etc. I'd probably go at least 1/2 PSB.

And I'd probably just shove the river and hope for the best.

Hand is overthought, imo. We have a big hand with the absolute best image to have a big hand with. Make as big a pot as possible as soon as possible in order to play for it all by the river.

GcluelessNLnoobG

V has a super wide range. The only actions we took to narrow it was a preflop raise and a halfpot bet on the flop.

Preflop: V could be calling with a very wide range. He is on the straddle and people will frequently overdefend a SRP against one opponent closing the action. We can basically discount the strongest hands like QQ+, AK. And the complete trash.

On the flop: It's a halfpot bet, he could call with any 4x, 7x, Qx. 88-JJ. OESD and any middling scs that have a BDFD, BDSD. 86, T9, KJ etc. The board is connected enough that almost any two non-paired cards creates a SD or BDSD, and there are a ton of BDFDs. So a lot of combos that a loosish player can find an excuse to call. This is a spot where a player with a little bit of GTO knowledge can be calling with way too many combos. If you're calling with all BDSD+BDFD, you're calling too often. Sounds like you already think this V is overdefending his straddles (most do), and it isn't a logical leap to believe he is overfloating the flop.

Turn: He is checking everything. The board paired, so with his 7x he is looking to x/r, if he picked up a BDFDs he is ecstatic to check through, if he has a Q or 4x, he is happy to just check down. If he has a pp, he is happy to check down. If you bet, maybe you get called by the FD he picked up, maybe you get called by the OESD, maybe some pp call. But not much else. So I don't think you can bet big. You'd have to bet maybe $50, and you're probably still getting a ton of folds. And you're not getting more value on the river unless he hits.

River: AP, V gets here with a very wide range. That's actually very favorable for us because he is here with nothing, and that might get a loose V to bluff too frequently. V bets $75. I greatly dislike the $250 sizing.

V has a super wide range getting to the river, but what is he betting? He is betting his air and he is betting his under-repped monsters.

Is V betting 4x here? No. Is V betting 88? I doubt it. Maybe he would be betting a Qx for value, but that is probably about as light as he goes, and we block all the Qx. So for value, V mostly has: pp that stumbled into a boat and 7x. How much would we have to bluff to push V off of 7x here? A lot more than $250! I think we can go for at least $400, I don't remember how deep we are but I think that gets us to a point we might as well shove? If V has quads, we're paying him.

With V's air, I think we already got maximum value. We got him to bluff, he was mucking no matter what we bet. In hindsight, he obviously had complete air, and most of those hands weren't calling $25 OTT. We got $75. Yay us. V didn't instamuck 7x or even Qx to a $250 bet. He would have called/raised 7x and would have at least thought about Qx for a second. So we got max value in this hand, but if V had a strong hand, I think we shortchanged ourselves with the river bet. We're letting him pay $250 with 78s when we could have gotten a stack.

Appreciate the feedback.

On the flop, do you think it matters what V has, when our image is bully-bluffy? Whenever I'm facing an opponent who uses big c-bet sizing on the flop, I tend to over-fold, because I expect the turn bet to be huge. But if our table image is "wild-man", does that mean he's going to float wide, even from OOP?

I think you got the maximum

Thanks for the feedback. It hadn't even occurred to me that I could have raised the river bigger, but your analysis makes some sense. I can definitely see how we might have lost value against 7x. Though in-game, I figured he'd bet larger with 7x.

My default setting in SRP's as the PFR when HU and IP is to c-bet 1/2 pot with my entire range, so I didn't stop to think about betting larger on the flop. Do you think I could have c-bet larger?

I think I might have a leak in my game, in that I'm hesitant to bet too large with huge hands, in situations where my opponents aren't likely to also have a very strong hand. I look at this board, and don't really see all the potential hands that may float too wide by calling a larger c-bet. I just see a ragged, disconnected flop where V can't have much 2P and will only occasionally have a set or an OESD.

So, having seen the river action, and figuring V for total air, you think the turn check-back is okay here? Or do you think I missed value? Like I said, I'd be worried V will over-fold to a turn barrel, even if I bet small, and we'll miss out on that river bluff he'll feel compelled to make with his entire range when we check back.

If I thought V was capable of x/r'ing turn as a bluff, to rep 7x, I'd have bet, but I think my earlier shenanigans made him skittish about getting OOL with me. If the situation were reversed, I don't think I'd x/r-bluff the turn to rep 7x against an aggro V who has proven capable of coming back over the top.

And I figured if V did have 7x, or a draw that got there, he'd be betting huge on the river.

About my river-raise sizing - we've got $550 back going to the river. I wonder if his worse boats and 7x don't just jam over my $250 raise, and his 99-JJ may sigh-call, whereas if I jam or make it $400, he turbo-mucks all his 99-JJ, and possibly finds a hero fold with some weaker 7x.

My gut feeling in game was that $250 was small enough that I could be raising as a bluff, or going for thin value with AQ or AA/KK. I was praying he'd jam 7x, but figured he'd be insta-folding no matter how much I raised, since I was also putting him on air.

But do we have AA/KK on the river? The turn check only makes sense for two reasons:

1: We block V from having a strong hand, because we have a super strong hand ourselves.

2: We have weak SDV or air that we are giving up on.

If we had AA/KK, the odds of V having Qx are a lot higher. We can bet/bet/bet and expect Qx to call down a lot. Hands that might check are hands like AK or 99, we stabbed a boring flop, got called, let's pot control. And maybe we have some total air like KJ.

So because we checked turn, I think our river raise is polarized by the situation. If we had Qx or 99 we are just calling. We have a decision with AK and other Ax hands, but given that if V had 7x or Qx he might play this way, turning SDV hands into a bluff seems spewy.

So I think we either have QQ, or we have total air when we raise at all. If the situation makes us polar, we might as well make the bet polar. I don't think V is folding 7x too frequently. If he is, we're going to be winning more rivers in the future. I think players are more likely to flat call even a strong 7x than to fold a moderate 7x on the river. Because your line looks like boat or bluff.

OTF, I think half is a good default size here. If we had 44 or AA, then maybe we can size up targeting Qx, but since we have all the Qs I think we fold way too much. The same logic applies to turn, a check is best because we block the likely hands that can face down a triple barrel. We are hoping V hits one of the 2-6 cards that improve his hand to something that will pay a chunky river between.

Thanks again. Good discussion.

Do we have AA/KK on the river? I think maybe we could when the middle card pairs on the turn. Conceivably we could check-back so we don't get check-raised. Then we think his river bet is too small to be 7x when we check-back turn, so we raise AA/KK for value, or we go insane and think we can rep QQ, and raise as a bluff (with whatever).

The meta from previous hands contested with V, in which I showed him bluffs, potentially leads him to thinking I'm too wild, and capable of turning AK or 99-JJ into a bluff. But also, from what I'd already seen from this V, I didn't think he was very smart or very good, and against such V's, I try not to give them too much credit for being able to figure out what I'm doing or why.

All that said - yeah, I'm not sure he's ever folding any 7x combo that he plays this way, facing this line. I'm not being consistent if I think he's going to give me AA/KK, but also think he might fold any 7x combo. Those can't both be true.

I think where I land on this is that his river bet is too small to be thick value, so conceivably I could be raising thin for value, or turning almost anything into a bluff, just trying to bully the guy into folding some QX or some PP, because that's what I'd been doing to him for the previous hour. So he levels himself into making a light call with whatever, or he shrugs and folds if he was just stabbing at it with air.

In game, I didn't take enough time with the river decision. If I tanked for even a few seconds longer, I may or may not have landed on a larger raise size, but I think taking longer with my decision might lead him to think I was tanking while trying to muster up the courage to put in a raise with a worse hand.

General observationsal analysis of this archetypical villains strategy in my experience is they like to put pressure on top pair hands with boards that can run out scare cards that benefit wider ranges, so following up flop bet with a turn bet might actually make them MORE likely to donk river or ch/raise over a 1/2 pot bet. paired 7 would be a good card when you hold KQ say but not when you hold QQ. So if they assess your action properly, they may have seen the turn check for what it was and not as pot control - especially if you had a more competent image in their eyes.

Wow. So much to unpack here...

When you say this archetype of V, what does that mean, exactly? I had him pegged as a bad LAG. Is there more to it, that I'm missing?

You're kind of blowing my mind with the turn analysis, but in a good way, if I understand what you're saying. Am I to understand that you think I should have bet turn, precisely because my image is wild, and V might try to rep 7x by leading river, to put pressure on the FOS parts of my range?

Can you elaborate on why the turn 7 is better when we have KQ than when we have QQ? That one stumps me.

Based on how I was abusing him for the previous hour or so, I would think V would be more inclined to trap strong hands, because I'd been pouncing on his bets whenever he looked weak. There was another hand we played, where he slow-played two pair on the river, and was sorely disappointed when I checked back, after raising pre, checking back flop, but betting turn.

I don't know if the earlier hand histories make me look more competent to him, but thinking about his view of my competency may be giving him too much credit. It took me all of two minutes after he sat down to decide he was an idiot.

I think you should've bet the turn - when he has 7x you're going to get well paid, if he has say 56s he probably calls to see a river, a hand like 66 probably calls the turn as well most likely folding the river. BDFD doesn't really matter much - think it's a very small part of his range.

**** forgot to address the two pair hand history one - do you remember the runout and pf action that hand? Just curious if there's any specific inflection point there that might trigger villain to take the trap line as they're OOP. But the hand in the OP differs somewhat drastically because they are utilizing the perceived "wide loose range of calling from the straddle" so woudl diverge from a more standard OOP line in SRP or 3bet pots.

basically what I'm saying is: there are certain data points that would prioritize shifts in a "general strategy" namely calling from the straddle etc.

Also 1 really important detail: you check back turn only to raise a river lead on a brick, so texture doesnt change and its unlikely you only JUST hit a rivered FH and more likely if you have strong value you had it on the turn etc - this is pretty strong no matter how you slice it. Even if you're bluffing this guy a ton, if he is loose - there's times you're bluffing with the best of the it so it doesnt cut his ego the same as a situation where you get him to fold out better (unless every time you did that he showed and you showed etc)

Yeah, look - I posted this because after the hand I couldn't help feeling like I misplayed it somewhere, somehow, even if he had air, which seems to be the case.

I might have gotten max value by checking back turn, but I might have gotten more value by betting turn small, or going bigger on the flop. I don't know. It may just be the case that I had a huge hand in a spot where V didn't have anything strong enough to pay me off, and I'm just disappointed I didn't get his stack.

I think @yamihere raises interesting discussion points regarding my raise sizing on the river. I think you're giving me good stuff to think about for the turn.

It would have been awesome to bet turn, and have him either raise turn, or otherwise try to put pressure on the QX parts of my range by donking huge on the river.

Maybe I need to think about what you're saying more, because at first pass, it just seems like such an absurd line for V to take - check-call flop, check-call turn when the board pairs and a BDFD appears, then donk huge on a brick river to try and rep 7x holding air.

I don't remember enough of the other hand histories to relate the details with any confidence. I know I 4B him light with A4s, and showed the 4 when he mucked. I remember showing another bluff in another hand.

The hand where he checked river with 2P was three-ways, with a passive rec in the middle. I vaguely recall it was a two or three-Broadway board, and I was bluffing with a flush draw, but then made 3rd pair on the river, and decided not to turn it into a bluff, not because I thought I had showdown value, but my spider-sense was telling me a bluff wasn't getting through both opponents.

This hand just felt weird - checking back a monster on the turn, rather than betting for value. I think my line was okay, maybe ideal. The meta may have worked against me. A more competent, less intimidated V may have tried check-raising turn as a bluff, but I probably shut the door on that with the earlier hands we played.

Betting turn $25-40 is fine, maybe villain peels light with weak pairs and gutterballs / etc. but i don't really mind the trap

Or induce a light xr

River raise size is fine

Yeah let me temper everything im saying with the following
1) I dont think you misplayed / played it bad
2) In the idea of exploring avenues of maximizing profit, I am merely suggesting an alternative possibility that _could_ have generated more BUT in no way am I saying "had you done it like this, you'd have stacked him"
2b) in tandem with this, I simply wanted to offer another analysis both of opponent given their description and then try to reverse engineer the strategy that typical villain employs as a means of developing a counter-strategy to find ways to exploit further

Mostly, I just appreciate the conversation on a topic that is both able to base its beginnings in fundamentally sound strat (think gto) but isnt constantly citing gto strat as the answer. If the question is "fundamentally is this ok?" then we can look at GTO strat and decide if the decision tree follows what it suggests as an unexploitable baseline.

But in the real world, we're playing against villains who, as described in OP, deviate from optimal in specific ways and HERE is where creativity in the game still exists and will continue to do so for quite some time because the question is no longer "is this fundamentally sound" it is "when i deviate from the optimal play given the assumptions made about villain, are these deviations exercising maximal exploitation?"

I think you played it fine and I know for a fact I would have taken your line in game because I JUST had this happen and the exact quesion i started asking myself and looking for concrete evidence to support if its best or if there is better has been circling in my head. Largely surrounding the concept of loose aggro but still overall bad villain strategy.

observational evidence i started looking for were notable trigger points that this style of play uses to guide its actions. Namely, the most agro of this archetype loves to utilize their image from the straddle in SRPs. It benefits form A) raised stakes B) many players level themselves into playing worse in a straddle pot due to the disrupted preflop nature of it C) many players are MUBSy (monster under the bed) and overfold. D) many players dont have nearly enough bluffs so while an opponent calling two streets IP could indicate a potential danger to an agro villian indicating they should slow down, the majority of live low limit players will buckle under the pressure and make a move on the turn with a raise fearing the river will simply grant their assaulter some miracle card etc - the strategy is designed to put its opponents on their toes and on the defensive.

The counter strategy, in line with the metaphor, is one where we still follow the lines the villain expects which incorrectly signals them to find those pressure points they think exist - "bricks" or non obvious range smacking cards (eg a face card when we are the EP raiser) which effectively allows them to increase their bluff frequency against a population that likely rolls over more often or simply is afraid of being felted on occasion or are just too timid/passive (mubs-y)

but tl;dr I dont know if what im suggesting is clearly a more profitable strat, and i'll probably make another post about some of the things I've been trying to isolate to support the more practical and applicable in game counter strategies and see if its robust enough to withstand critique of the forum here, but it IS at the very least an alternative set of eyes on a situation that at the very least offers some paths or threads to follow and see if they give up anything good in the future.

ok this is definitely a 1000 feet high kinda comment but:
vs a tighter range and a tighter player, the strategy to maximize is to taylor our betting lines to go after the value range we are ahead of, not curtail a strategy that hopes they suddenly start spewing.

vs a loose aggressive opponent with a wide range - because their game is less about the intrinsic value of their range and more about denial of value for opponents coupled with the fact that they have many more combos so the liklihood of attacking the top of the range and actually meeting it diminishes**, we want to build a strategy that allows them to "punch themselves tired" more or less. so we want to lure them into places they are accustomed to with other opponents so they feel like they can attack.

eg. say we flop a set vs a LAG, it is far more beneficial when we're IP to call their C-bet more often than raise it so as to not shut down the more offensive lines they tend to take.

** to elucidate the point: if i play 100% of my hands and the flop is always Q 8 3 and my opponent plays only the top 20% of hands i'll only have 31% equity. But if I play say the top 35% instead of 100%, my equity increases to ~46%. Now obviously the difference between every combo possible and a selected range with purpose would add meaningful changes to the example but effectively, at teh extreme our "lag" connects weakly with boards more often, and as such, the frequency they connects with a high equity holding also decreases. because their game is built more around denial of equity of opponents vs realization of equity, they don rely on the strength of their range but on the misconceptions of their opponents. Its also why the best players cant simply steam roll a table of other solid players, it becomes harder and harder to just roll over your opponents. (other factors like size of buy in also impacts this since its more likely the rich businessmen would have 100x BIs for the million dollar cash game to frivolously light on fire vs most top pros where that 100x BI eclipses their net worth let alone their available liquid or accessible bankroll.