Do we ever turn our overpair into a bluff on a four-flush board?

I don't see what hands that called the turn are going to fold on the river.

The only reasonable hands you're targeting are TdTx, 99, or lower PPs that hung on PF and then beyond this single suit flop. Otherwise, he called the turn with either a made flush or a hand that was drawing to a high flush.

I'm inclined to agree that any hand that calls turn is either worse and folding to a bet, or better and calling, though I wonder if he has some PP's with a diamond below 99 that might fold if we bet again. Does he fold 8d8x, 5d5x, or 4d4x?

Are you saying you think V folds TdTx or 99 here?

It's hard for V to show up with a bigger PP when he doesn't 4B pre, with the other opponent still in the hand behind him. I'd think he'd mostly 4B with AA/KK, and very likely QQ+/AK. I don't know how often he's flatting the 3B from OOP with AXo that's worse than AK or AQ.

The villain didn't call the flop and turn to fold on the river when the flush came in. If you wanted to push him away, you needed to at least make a good sized bet on the turn.

That's the thing - I wasn't trying to push him away. I figured I was either up against a flopped flush or a lower pair. I bet small to keep him in the hand and not value-own myself.

But when the 4th diamond rolls off, AND he checks again, I have to consider that he may have been calling with a lower PP that was hoping I'd check back the river rather than triple barrel.

I just don't see him getting to the river very often with these hands. And what Venice said.

Maybe...but with less than a 1.5x psb, you're targeting a very limited range with no guarantee that they're going to fold.

Yeah seems like a good spot to check back the turn and let him bluff rivers if the diamonds miss or just continue betting for value

That's a good point. Should we just check back the turn when he check-calls flop?

We'd be giving away a free card if he has a lower PP with a diamond, but we're pot-controlling, and opening the door for him to monkey-bluff the river. Of course, we'll have to call, and lose sometimes, if we take that line.

Are you saying we could bet river for value when he checks? That seems awfully thin.

I played a similar hand last night w/AA and got my ass handed to me when I jammed and villain nit rolled with A6dd saying he feared the straight flush.

I certainly would. I mean, he already showed he's capable of hero-ing off with that one hand, so he's probably capable of calling pre-flop with a wide range (TPGK). So either checking back turn betting small river, like on an offsuit queen or something, or betting turn now checking river, mixing both lines with bluff and value, maybe something like b60 turn.

I can't imagine a situation where we'd want to bet b25 turn, we either have overpairs or nut flushes that want to trap or continue building a pot. So something like b40 might be more appropriate based on our ranges

The turn card should essentially be a blank in these positions

I dunno. There are a lot of hands I play, or see, or read about, that make me think there's a way to win or avoid getting stacked if we can just find the right line by way of doing the right hand-reading. But maybe that's not always realistic, and sometimes we're just doomed to lose.

Like, here, we could conceivably credibly rep the nuts if we barrel off. We're going to have a lot of AdXx, plus some KXdd combos. Hell, we could have 54dd for the SF at some frequency (probably not when we 3B the EP raiser, but if we're playing LAG, maybe).

If we bet and some worse PP without a diamond folds, okay, that's fine. We weren't betting for value on the river. We were bluffing, and we want folds. If V folds any worse PP with a diamond, and he'll have some, it's a huge win.

It's kind of soul-crushing to check it back, and see V roll over 55 or 44 with 1 diamond.

Yeah, but he might've folded if you bet anything other than $45, you just gave him the exact odds to call in that spot with the exact range of hands you're worried about.

I guess we have a pretty simple answer then - no. This guy makes huge hero calls with weak hands

Even if we could somehow see our opponent's cards, it doesn't mean we can always make them take the action(s) we want.

It shouldn't be. You pot-controlled by betting small on the flop/turn so you wouldn't get value-owned if you were drawing thin or dead.

I don't like the tiny flop and turn bets with this hand reopening the action. Unless you know villain is very passive, you set yourself up to be bluffed. I would make real bets or check, particularly on the turn. You are betting small because you have a medium strength hand, and that is too face up and vulnerable.

You 3! preflop, so you should have a lot of JJ+/AK and maybe some other aces, so reasonable to represent a high diamond. The small turn bet is not consistent with Ad though. It you had AdK/AdQ, you probably would have bet large on the turn as a semibluff. If you had a high flush, you probably would have gone larger for value.

I would bluff the river anyway. He could have a wide range versus your tiny flop and turn bets and hard for him to call without a high diamond.

I would bet about 150 on the river. You bet small on the turn, so hard to represent the nut flush. However, you can credibly represent Kd/Qd/Jd, after 3!ing preflop and you would value bet those when checked to in position. It is a large bet in absolute terms. I guess you checked and lost to a low diamond, but your hand could be good.

Also a good point. I suppose we could say we dragged him to the river with all his low PP's that include a diamond, and if he called the whole way hoping to spike a diamond, he probably isn't folding if we bet again, unless he was hanging on praying the river wasn't another diamond, and that we'll check back, which is what I've been wondering.

That would seem to suggest we could bet for value with our better but non-nut flushes, and still expect him to call. I just wonder how often we're getting here with the second or third nuts and finding that third barrel rather than checking back.

Good points.

I know it hasn't been 24 hours yet, but I suspect knowing the reveal may foster the discussion rather than hinder it.

I did check back, without really thinking about it. I figured he could show up with any AdXx combo and play it this way.

V rolled over 5d5h, and scooped.

Obviously I wasn't putting him on 55 or 44 when he opens from EP and flat calls my 3B. But in hindsight, I wondered if I could have put him on a range of hands that would fold to a triple barrel, and if 55 would be in that range.

I probably wouldn't have bet very large if I did bet. Of course that raises the question of how often he folds to a small bet, and if we ever want to size up to target everything that isn't nutted to fold.

1/3 players usually call 3-bets and they certainly won't fold pps that maybe can stack you with you big hand. It is also reasonable to open small pps in ep, because you usually get multiway pots and don't get 3!

I don't think there is any point in another small bet. He isn't going to fold a flush to a small bet. There is no point in going pot or more, because it is hard to represent the nut flush after you went small on the turn.

If you are going to bet, I would go 40-80% pot. That might get exactly 5d5x to fold, but you are targeting a really narrow range. Often you are ahead. If he doesn't have a small pp, he usually has fairly high cards, so he would have 9d or higher if he had a diamond. So probably best to check.

Sure, if you ignored the rest of his range that was either folding a worse hand to a bet or was calling with a better hand.

You know better than this. This is just results-oriented thinking, especially after you made the conscious decision to pot-control.

I really don't like the small turn bet in position. I think your best options on the turn are to bet big (2/3 pot at a minimum) or to check back and bluff catch. As played it's an easy check back -- your hand has a reasonable amount of showdown value when you bet the turn so small, because he's going to be calling turn with almost his entire range. It's very difficult for him to fold a better hand on the river, because he almost never has sets or two pairs, and most flushes will not fold to any size.

On a side note, I think villain played his hand reasonably. I guess you can argue that he could have folded twice preflop, but you basically gave him the odds to call flop and turn by betting 25% pot.

Agree river check is good and turn small bet is bad.

Villain probably played the hand perfectly. He could also limp initially. Open folding a small pp in ep in most 1/3 games is bad. I know a solver would tell you 55 is an easy fold. When you bet small, it looks like you have high cards and his pp is good and maybe his flush draw is good.

I would mostly check flop.

If not checking than I think you want to bet bigger, so V should be more worried about random Td9x hands or even small flushes.

Almost dito. turn, we got screwed by 77d and 97 but it's the same basic situation.

Would basically always give up on the river ... maybe we can get some two pair or sets to fold, _maybe_ small flushes (but that's 8d/7d/5d, and it's still a maybe -- would doubt any Td that gets here is folding).

Seen the reveal:

FWIW I mostly hate V's line, and would likely mentally label him as a calling station bad player from just this hand.

I kind of understand everyone spew calls 55 to the 3bet preflop, but it's still pretty bad. Would be bad even with a bunch more money behind, esp. given how he played it.

Flop is also kind of understandable "you bet small, me call with pair+FD" but both of those are garbage and he's OOP. Raising has to be better than calling, and makes the preflop call better. If the hand ended here it's maybe an okay call, but with two more streets OOP and basically zero outs it's just bad.

Turn seems like spew even for the size.

Also would be happier with how I played it as you, fish got there which happens.