TT runs out pure at a juicy table

i think this is fairly poor hand reading / understanding but i dont really want to go back and forth

would try to understand why he's unlikely to have ak given pre and aq given pre to a lesser extent and post to a larger extent and why "if we bet 5x bigger he might call wider / faster bc he might think it looks bluffy" is not how to approach poker. sets also seem discounted to me from both pre and post action. i would play vs something like middle 2 pair as i think thats his most likely holding given the action that can reasonably pay off a bet (also axss i guess)

if the river is an 8 im more open to betting bigger but i mostly think his hands all get devalued substantially here. idk how you're attempting to count combos but it looks fairly fixed / wrong to me tbh given pre action vs an unknown

again you're welcome to disagree am not looking to dive deeper into this hand as its not really that interesting to me

He is a villain who ''looks like an action player'' in the SB he doesn't have 105 combos of 2p and sets here, you know better than that. It's a complete fantasy to think our 3.5x jam is going to get called by worse 30% of the time.

It's also odd when you say ''a jam looks more bluffy''. Like this isn't based on anything. If we flipped this around and hero got to the river with say AK and we were facing a 3.5x river jam not a soul would suggest this looks ''bluffy'' therefore call.

I'm all for overbets and a turn overbet here is probably a better spot than river but to pretend a river 3.5x overbet gets called anywhere near enough is just a fantasy. Submersible is 100% right.

Fwiw, turns tend to be super under-bluffed when someone raises the aggressor, which is part of why I think we're better off sizing up to get value, rather than sizing down to try to induce.

I think it actually is a fairly interesting hand. For $100, I'd think he folds everything worse than aces up, but that of course should make us think about what the max bet size is that he'd call. And I'm not claiming to know the answer.

I do wonder if he tells himself that we were chasing the NFD and just ran into top pair, but we don't have AK or AQ, so he can hero call a big bet with AJ or A9. Not sure we'd even take this line with AK or AQ, so a big river bet would be polar, and maybe V hero's more. It seems he wasn't putting us on TX when we check back the flop, so I think we could infer he may have called a larger bet.

Nice hand. Interesting discussion. Thanks for posting it.

I mean, you just can't say that because you don't know but to just assume JJ/QQ/KK are preflop flats from the SB so it makes your ranges make more sense isn't correct.

I'm not saying they definitely do flat, but I'm saying that you can't assume they 3! 100%. An amazingly high number of casino players don't 3! big pairs. In my math, I assumed that AA/KK weren't there and only QQ and lower are. I assumed QQ/JJ/99 and all the 2p combos. Most of the players on this forum aren't 3!ing JJ from the SB. The Sunday afternoon crowd is even more passive at most casinos, especially if the larger games are running. This player just sat down and we haven't seen any showdowns or hands of note, so our assumption should be that he fits with the generaly Sunday afternoon population until proven otherwise.

We can go in and adjust the range however you want. I mean is V calling from the SB with Q9o, J9o? Maybe, maybe not. Is V calling with 99? Of course. JJ probably. QQ maybe some people 3! but I'd say that flatting is probably the default for the population. So as we narrow the range, the skew is going to be toward V having stronger hands because the strong hands aren't leading flop. Sitting in the SB first to act with a bunch of people behind, it is very natural for sets to look to x/r.

Are those strong hands going to bet the turn when the 4 straight comes in? Not often. Even from a theoretical angle, a hand like J9 would be a better bet because it blocks JT/T9. But in a typical $1/$2 sunday afternoon game, Vs aren't frequently betting this turn with value or bluffs without the T. It's a spot that is underbet. The sets are most likely going into check/call mode because they are afraid they are beat.

So getting to the river, yes Vs in a $1/$2 game have a lot of very strong hands and we can exploit that by being eggregiously greedy. V is going to consider whether we have a T or not if we bet $100. I'm not convinced that $100 gets called by J9, Q9, QJ even K9. I certainly don't think we get called by all of those 100% of the time. Yet EVEN IF those are calling $100, 100% of the time, the jam is superior if the jam is called by AQ+. To the extent that V is folding J9/Q9/QJ, then the jam is that much better. If V is only calling $100 with KJ+ then he is calling $100 with 54 combos (excluding AA/KK) and if the jam is called by QQ/JJ/99 + AK, the jam is superior.

I believe against the general population, I'm getting called by AJ+. I don't think $1/$2 players are pure folding when they just rivered 2p. And if that assumption is true for the V, then jamming is the right move. I put plenty of caveats in my original assertion. If V can fold a set here, jamming is terrible. But IME, $1/$2 Vs aren't folding sets. I could jam 5x pot and Vs are calling me with a set. So many $1/$2 players will call with strong hands, even when they are weak relative to the board and the action. The exploit is to simply get super greedy with your value.

I'm not denying any of your math, I think your range is off but I'm not arguing with the math or the range perse. I'm arguing with the notion that we will get called by AJ+ when we bet 3.5x pot on a 4 straight board. This is just a fantasy that's not supported by anything. Not a soul will reach this river and go ''ooh a 3.5x pot shove, that feels very bluffy, call!''. It's just not happening.

I haven't played anything lower than 5/10 in a good 10+ years and I certainly am not arguing with you that the overall 1/2, 1/3 and 2/5 population is made up of terrible regs and even worse fish. I agree. They're still not calling a 3.5x pot overbet on a 4 straight board.

Faaaaar too many ifs. It's just not how poker works.

Just last weekend I saw a KQJT board, and it checked to the button who bet $25 into a pot that was around $100, the next player jammed for $300, the next player snap called, and the button tanked and called with KQ. Unsurprisingly, the other two chopped up his money. Makes one scratch their head, but it's casino $1/$3. Many players don't read the board and get married to 2p.

Ifs are all we have in poker. If players range is X, then we should do Y. If X changes, then Y changes and usually we are dealing with very incomplete information on what X is. We make assumptions, our assumptions get tested, we adjust our assumptions as new data comes in. Our job is to determine in game if this specific player is likely to call a jam with 99-QQ sets + AK (and whether those are in his range). For many $1/$2 players with under 200bb, they aren't folding top two let alone a set.

The bottom line is that V has to fold 70%+ of his hands that would call $100 in order for a jam to be worse. That's what the math says. Is V folding 70% of combos because of the difference between $100 and $340? I doubt it.

Thinking it over, I honestly think river might be pretty close. I think fish in general will be quite sticky, and I would honestly expect J9 to be calling $100 almost pure (which is why I advocated for that size). The biggest issue with a river shove is that I struggle to see almost any sets in range given postflop play - find it hard to see someone checking a set twice on that board even with the one-liner coming in on the turn. Also someone who x/c a set on the turn is likely someone who can figure out to fold it OTR. There's probably a chance some 2p call a shove but it does feel quite marginal, even if the additional value is huge.

In terms of extracting slightly more value from the hand, I think overbetting turn is much more important. I don't think much folds to $70 that calls $40, and now with a lower SPR I think both options are much more attractive OTR. And for either $40 or $70 I really doubt almost anything is going to x/r the turn. If we want to "induce" the turn bet probably needs to be more like b33 and that just seems bad.

I see weird **** all the time too.

Poker is a game of incomplete information yes. Poker is not a game of infinite ifs and the stars aligning. That's hope and hope is not a strategy.

Sorry, I thought I was clear but let me make sure I am now. I disagree with your range, which means come river there's a huge difference between hand strength BUT even if I agreed with your entire range I simply do not think he's calling anything but Tx (I know Tx doesn't play turn like this) vs 3.5x river bet which makes shove infinitely worse than betting somewhere between 70-100. Yes I am saying we'll see close to 100% fold and most certainly no where near a call 30% of the time.

Anyways, lets agree to disagree. You're not changing my mind I'm not changing yours. I do think you're one of the few good posters here!

curious trend on here where people post not to improve but to try to convince their fellow forum goers of how good at poker they are

its like everyone is trying to run the coaching scam but instead of the payoff being money for unqualified advice, its external validation.