TPTK in 3bp facing likely river give-up

yeah i think my comment which was admittedly dickish mostly stemmed from having the whole thread just be biased from madrabbit saying solver said its a check and it isnt a check at least in solver in like the 4 different permutations i ran and after 60 posts of debate him saying oops lol. i do get my posts come off condescending and combatitive and im not that sure why. at least when i reread / edit them in my mind they seem ok but that appears to not really be the case. its hard to talk poker on here when people dont / wont / cant / refuse to look at solves bc like honestly intuition and feelings dont really matter that much when it comes to strategy.

i think the thread itself is really interesting re conclusions from my end. its the first time ive really ran node locks to try to see how to alter strategy and prove it. and the jasamgale hand i had seen and looked at and even implemented sometimes but had never looked at in solver and really understood what was going. if you have access to solver i think thats really interesting to see how oop strategy changes if you only give ip a b10 sizing, and if you nodelock ip to always b10, and compare those to the default. its actually a really sound adjustment with a8 / range

Trust me I understand where you're coming from. Sometimes I feel like this forum makes me worse because the nit energy can kind of seep into your game. There's a reason that when you compare something like a 1/2 game with a HS cash game they're like entirely different games. The discussion here can be motivation though to look at solves and work on your game, even sometimes if you're interacting with a less experienced player. They can surprise you with some good exploitative moves and if nothing else you gain insight into how some of your opponents are thinking.

Regarding the HS game, the part I don't understand is why IP would ever want to limit themselves to only a B10 sizing? Aren't they missing out on a ton of value with their strongest hands when they just B10 and get called by hands that would have called a big bet?

so this is one thing i cant really answer. i (obviously) dont play these games, i dont know these people, i dont even railbird the games just saw a few of the hands bc the youtube videos / 2p2 thread.

its a tricky node for oop to balance because hes very incentivized to just keep betting his polar range because ip is going to have a bunch of bluff catchers with not much interest in reopening that will call bc mdf / bunch of plausible bluffs. i think plausible bluffs matter much less than mdf at this level fwiw.

maybe jasam thinks the population as a whole is incredibly unprotected when they check the river in this type of spot so he leverages that by choosing a really small size that "forces" oop to call high card hands pure. if u look at the solve vs b10 jt is a mandatory call as oop. usually when the other guy is capped we can just jam and let him figure out a way to call enough but maybe he thinks the spot gets so over folded or its easier to defend vs larger sizings (mostly air, some traps) that b10 makes more sense as a whole to challenge most of the giveups that still beat our conceivable bluff candidates.

i have no idea and i dont see anyone else ever doing it so its easy to write it off as bad (esp when you see this size from most unskilled players its extremely thin value basically pure or like a missed draw trying to fold you off better draws that whiffed pure) but he is one of the best players in the world and the video made it sound like its a strategy and not a once off play so ive been thinking about it

re the forum idc much about nit energy. i would be better off in a bunch of spots if i was more risk averse / afraid and theres plenty of people that win despite being cautious. is just frustrating where its almost like a circular thought pattern from most people. "i think thing x because i think thing x" with no actual justification or reasoning behind it. show solver work etc and its still just ignore solver or "well thats your opinion but i am right because i think thing x". i honestly dont really care what stakes people play and i approach these conversations with open mind and very very rarely talk down to people (debatable) etc its just when i get sucked into conversations it feels very science vs religion esque where they believe things based on their belief. and its like uh the game is more or less solved and we got access to bunch of tools to figure out what the solution is and what to do if the other guy doesn't believe in the solution. again is all good if people are crushing midstakes+ or whatever, but when the body of work is playing the lowest possible games with unverifiable winrates and the advice seems off, i really need to see the work to entertain the validity of any of it. and in turn i go out of my way to show proof in most of these threads

Yeah maybe I should look into what jasam is doing with these incredibly small river bets. It could be worth trying to add to my repertoire beyond just exploiting a fish who played their hand face up and always had AK no pair or something.

My thinking is that the range that 2x overbets turn then checks river is almost always give ups with a small sliver of nuts that are slow playing. In that case it might make sense to construct a small bet range where you're betting most of your range, including very weak value and bluffs. Then you force your opponent to defend sometimes with stuff like jack high, otherwise you'll be able to get bluffs through if you ever have like a 7 high missed draw or something (can't remember the specifics of the hand now, whether there was a jack or 7 on the board, but you get my point).

I'm definitely going to start making these small IP bets more when my opponent's range is all give ups that will never call a bigger bet. I'm still skeptical about doing it with thin value though that would hate to get raised. I'm going to focus on making the play more with nuts looking to induce and weak 7 high type hands looking to fold out jack high or something. Weaker competition is not going to find the jack high call downs to keep you from auto-profiting with 10% pot bets when you have 7 high.

Anyway it's good for all of us to have our perspectives challenged from time to time, as that's how we grow as poker players.

It doesn't. You're a rando internet anon to me. Your opinion barley registers, much less matters.

I'm weird in that I find rude people entertaining. There's something morbidly alluring about a person who refuses to make even the slightest concession to societal expectations of the most basic courtesies.

You're not up to "Get off my lawn" level entertainment, but you're above the it's-enough-already level of "Ackshually".

well take a look at the solves and see what u need to defend vs various sizes so he can't just spaz and wreck you. and figure the small % he goes for x/r he wins 10% pot vs all the times you win 10% pot from high card or whatever. if he just spews in a stack and you're doing this w value hands too, you greatly increase ev w those hands and while you lose the pot when you have sdv, he still will be losing on his spazzes if you defend appropriately. also if you have showdown value (beat bluffs) and think they are bluffing, you can always call solver be damned. in my experience these bets are annoying and people blow up vs them at a decent frequency (still low but > 0). certainly several magnitudes higher than they go for 2e sizing ott and then decide to trap river. im sure theres opponents where theres a nodelock of only jamming value and only bluffing 10% is optimal but i think trying to guess that stuff is really really hard until you have a lot of experience in the line and with how a particular opponent thinks. id bluff b10 vs no one readless in basically any spot

the big exploit in most of these spots is people don't trap enough with various hand classes (trapping doesn't just mean nutted hands that play for stacks, it also means having enough hands to c/c and x/r that ip cannot bet for value beyond a certain threshold bc of equity and mdf constraints)

what do you think ive said in this thread to you that's rude?

the other thing too with this thats harder to conceptualize is the amount of money that actually goes in.

if we jam for pot and he calls that idk half of the time and we have whatever equity, does that do better than if we bet 10% of pot and he calls 92% and we have whatever equity? it feels like more the times we get called, but the overall amount of money he calls might be higher when we b10 (and that leaves out the times he raises!). usually need software to figure that stuff out and then its never perfectly accurate anyways. and then all of this fails as soon as villain knows what you're doing and adjusts

Yeah I agree that these tiny bets do induce some spaz raises.

I actually already use them a lot, but it's mostly OOP and not as much for that reason. Like when you defend vs a late position raise out of the BB. Flop 842. Check to opponent who makes a tiny bet, clearly with range when they shouldn't be range betting.

Many regs do a lot of check raising here, but when you think about it we have very few value hands in the BB strong enough to check raise this flop. So I think a lot of our opponents correctly recognize that we're bluffing a lot, and either float or reraise with air.

If I have something like 65s for a gutshot and some backdoor draws, I more often will check call flop. Then if the aggressor checks back turn I lead the river small with a lot of weak pairs plus my weakest bluffs. Like 65s is happy if you can just fold out stuff like jack high, and even midstakes opponents don't defend enough vs 10% pot bets.

Between calling a 25% flop cbet and putting in a B10 on the river you're only risking like 1/2 of the size of the pot on the flop. So it doesn't have to work often when you combine your fold equity with even a very slight amount of flop equity with your hand. You're kind of flipping the meta because usually people are trained to think the small river bet represents almost all thin value (which in theory it sort of should).

The thing is you would be surprised how much people under defend. I sometimes have people fold AK face up to the small river bet. Obviously most players call with AK, maybe even most of their ace highs in general, but they fold enough.

Also obviously this isn't my only plan for the hand. Sometimes something like the frontline flush draw comes in and you can turn your hand into a big bluff or whatever. I think people often don't have the patience to let a hand develop, when sometimes delaying bluffs until later streets can be very effective.

Dude you're constantly rude to everyone. You're probably so used to doing it and not being called out for it that you don't even know you're doing it.

You're also insanely hypocritical, when you accuse everyone else of posting meandering opinions based on feelings with no more proof than "trust me bro", and then you do the EXACT. SAME. THING.

I have no idea if you're actually any good at the game, or if you actually even play. I've never seen you post a hand history. You often swoop in to post an opinion after the reveal. You seem physically incapable of acknowledging anyone who doesn't blindly follow solver output might actually be competent, and even when someone does use a solver you'll $hlt on their assumptions when you disagree. The times when someone finds the GTO line on their own, without using a solver, you still somehow find a way to belittle them, rather than accepting that a human might be capable of discerning the correct course of action through independent thought and the application of logic.

I literally don't care what you or anyone else thinks about me or my game, which is why I don't bother with impossible to prove claims about my prowess. I never saw the point in putting others down on the internet.

It's possible to post solves without belittling others. You either choose to be abrasive or you've got some sort of compulsive condition.

again, what do you think i said that was rude to you in this thread?

Yeah, agree it's a reasonable spectrum here. If the point of the sim was to debate whether AQ is specifically a check-back or jam at equilibrium in the hand in the OP, then I think it would be very much worth re-running it with differing ranges and seeing the results.

I'm more interested in the shape of b10 on the river though, in which case I don't think the exact ranges are a huge deal. Regardless, in equilibrium, OOP is barreling turn with a polar range and the check is going to be a give-up against which IP shoves polar, whether or not AQ is actually in the shove range or not.

I think you're basically just explaining why b10 is -EV at equilibrium. (And note that any deviation should be exploitable after that node, so OOP shouldn't need to adjust checking range to gain EV.)

I should play around with more b10 strats with the equilibrium river range as I'm curious some of the things sub is implying here. But in terms of exploitative play at low stakes, it does feel like some of this does edge toward "jam bluffs, b10 value" because the solver isn't really choosing a large size "for value" here per se, so much as doing it to increase the number of river bluff combos. Size splitting OTR with bluffs and value is a pretty standard exploit versus players who won't adjust (and kind of pointless to look at in a solver since you're telling it whether you're bluffing). And hand-versus-range, the defense against the b10 value really comes more from raising very thin by OOP, which I think is hard to find.

this feels backwards to me re the choosing a sizing based on bluffs. we can prob test if we get rid of jt from ip's range pre.

theres decent chance im wrong here based on the preliminary solves i ran which is surprising. is hard to tell what to conclude because if i only give ip all in sizing it will use AQ but it has an option to auto choose one size and as i remove jt / kt / kjss combos pre it goes from all in to 40% to 25% as the default size for ip otr. weird pre range w no AQo for oop (id think the more AQ oop has the more ip is incentivized to size down)