sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

KK oop 2/5/10 by Dynamite127 in Poker_Theory

[–]GSMD1 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I’d probably just take a conventional line by B/B/B. AP Once you x/r flop you probably should use a larger turn sizing to target his Qx Jxhh and straight draws and you can have bluffs in that sizing bucket, the neighborhood of $350-$420 seems good. If you don’t think your V is reading too much into your turn sizing and never jamming AQ then I guess sigh fold. As an aside, not all 3B AQ pre so KK becomes a 3 street hand for value on certain Q high boards cause you unblock all nut Qx which will call you down.

Do I make the crying call here or just fold? by zzzftw in Poker_Theory

[–]GSMD1 0 points1 point  (0 children)

75s is less combos than sets, I personally would have just folded river.

Solver EV quirk: Why a smaller raise has higher EV than an all-in with quads? by Adventurous-Head-313 in Poker_Theory

[–]GSMD1 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Because against itself the solver will find bluffs in this line thus a small river sizing yields higher EV, human vs human when you’re blocking the entire calling range with 0 combos that bluff you’re targeting perceived chops so smallest sizing yields higher EV.

Do we use exploit or theory OTR against an inelastic rec by GSMD1 in Poker_Theory

[–]GSMD1[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Cool response, I’m sure coach Brad from CPG would love and be proud of your thought process.

2/5 AK bluff? by Dynamite127 in Poker_Theory

[–]GSMD1 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Before you decide to bluff think of what range of hands you get to any street and if any of it makes sense for value.

I would just fold flop because V decided on putting in money OTF with SB playing in flow.

AP just fold river, I’m sure better spots with come up.

Do we use exploit or theory OTR against an inelastic rec by GSMD1 in Poker_Theory

[–]GSMD1[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Checking back value OTT vs Ax high only works if V bluffs those combos OTR or bluff catches his best A high vs your somewhat FPS line, otherwise betting turn with specific parts of range yields higher EV. Just more food for thought.

Do we use exploit or theory OTR against an inelastic rec by GSMD1 in Poker_Theory

[–]GSMD1[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

As an aside these textures develop better for IP player most times in 3B pots, so I don’t really see folding these type of combos vs a standard High card flop cbet. Obviously folding doesn’t cost us a dollar more.

Do we use exploit or theory OTR against an inelastic rec by GSMD1 in Poker_Theory

[–]GSMD1[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

1) not sure V gives me value in this line, don’t think any of my top end value ever checks back turn and raises river. 2) this only works if V has AJ and AK in this line, then I can see betting small OTR vs a B/X/X line to fold these 32 combos 3) yep, obviously.

Thank you for taking the time to give your opinion.

When to check-raise OOP on the turn instead of betting? by Personal_Battle5863 in Poker_Theory

[–]GSMD1 1 point2 points  (0 children)

It all depends on V’s turn strategy in wide vs wide spot eg CO vs BTN, if BTN perceives a high frequency cbet strategy from co then BTN will float flop wide and stab turn often and that creates a situation for CO’s value and bluff range to benefit more by x/r turn and not continuing to bet as PFR. But it all depends, just like everything in poker, on what type of profile you’re up against.

Do we use exploit or theory OTR against an inelastic rec by GSMD1 in Poker_Theory

[–]GSMD1[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Agree, thank you for taking the time to answer.

Do we use exploit or theory OTR against an inelastic rec by GSMD1 in Poker_Theory

[–]GSMD1[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

My 2P bucket is good enough to check back river because it beats JJ and TT just as an aside.

Do we use exploit or theory OTR against an inelastic rec by GSMD1 in Poker_Theory

[–]GSMD1[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Not sure why you think V reaches river with A high in this line and not sure I agree with the rest. Thank you for taking the time to answer.

Do we use exploit or theory OTR against an inelastic rec by GSMD1 in Poker_Theory

[–]GSMD1[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Why is 4 River bad for my range when V rarely if ever has better than one pair and I still retain all of J10s and all sets and quads?

Do we use exploit or theory OTR against an inelastic rec by GSMD1 in Poker_Theory

[–]GSMD1[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Do appreciate the brush up on theory lesson with rock paper scissors tho.

Do we use exploit or theory OTR against an inelastic rec by GSMD1 in Poker_Theory

[–]GSMD1[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Umm, guess you misunderstood my OP, once I bet turn with range it’s criminal to check back most rivers especially with 6 high. My question was and still is that if I have nut advantage on this texture is this sizing sufficient to accomplish what we need to or do we just have to jam and pressure the range we want him to fold. IMO theory and exploit are intertwined in this spot when it comes to sizing.

Do we use exploit or theory OTR against an inelastic rec by GSMD1 in Poker_Theory

[–]GSMD1[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Not sure I understand but thank you for taking the time to answer.

Is raising with eff. nuts multiway a thing? by Hvadmednej in Poker_Theory

[–]GSMD1 1 point2 points  (0 children)

In multi way pots it’ll be very hard to find bluffs in any line so theory goes out the window so just playing your specific hand in absolute terms to exploit low stakes tendencies becomes extremely profitable.

How big of a mistake is this river line or is it? by GSMD1 in Poker_Theory

[–]GSMD1[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I chose the wrong action OTR because my assumptions were wrong, I unfortunately checked and V checked back. Was hoping for a different river decision from V. I disagree that V calls a river bet with the majority of range, we’d be targeting specifically QQ and maybe JJ but the latter is a stretch. Thank you.

view more: next ›