SEAMS LIKE A FOLD PREFLOP NO??

no way, i'd like a fold turn or at least river

wtf turn couldn't possibly be a fold? river fold maybe.

pre seems fold as UTG vs UTGplus2, facing a raise of 3.5x and being OOP. this hand doesn't play too well postflop OOP (esp vs opponent's value range) and is closer to the bottom of our overall range i think

e: yeah looking at this again i think river should be a fold as well. he doesn't have any bluffs here. AQ/AT is generally only betting turn if its got clubs, and we block that. same with other possible AXs or even AXo. we'd have to be hoping he has something like 87s or just going nuts with like A5dd or AQo. we just block soooo many bluffs with our Ac. and the J river is really relevant too because now if he has QJ JT QT or even AJ it got there

turn as exploitative fold, if theres never bluffs here since we block Acx then we are too far behind

well they should still have some bluffs at that point with the QJ QT JT and maybe some lower ones like 87. and we got 9 outs to the nuts along with another 5 outs to the effective nuts, plenty of equity even against a very strong range.

yea but that depends on if he ever bluffs for this size with his bluffs, its gonna vary depending on villain, my opinion is that usually when people bet like this is very skewed towards value and I don't think they are balanced, wouldn't be surprised if the turn call is slightly -EV if we consider AA, KK, 99 and AK and only few bluff combos

sounds insane. his sizing indicates he is a well balanced player who understands solver strategy, imo. He went for geometric sizing 115% on turn+river. How would almost any reg resist barreling this turn with a bunch of draws? Imo if someone uses this size, they are using only this size on turn a lot of the time, for bluffs and value.

you are inferring too much by his bet sizing, could be argued that he just wanted to get all in by the river because he's got AA, vs someone balanced I agree call turn and that's why I called, but thinking about it a bit more, if I believe they are heavily biased towards value and give them a range accordingly, this isn't exactly a +EV call turn

can we first agree that never bluffing the turn is objectively bad play?

when dealing with objectively bad play, one doesn't need to resort to making marginal exploitative adjustments. doing so only puts oneself at unfavorable risk (think of the risk-reward for this situation: high risk, low reward). just let bad play punish itself.

the problem with play based in pure exploitation is that it's totally fickle and not based in objectivity. almost anything can be justified, yet nothing confirmed. one can't TRULY know what the opponent's strategy is, even with untold amounts of information. not without maphacks anyway.

Why not? with enough data you can definetly make an educated guess on the pool of opponents strategy, thats why I think they are unbalanced here, because in bets 1.0-2x pot on the turn they are heavily biased towards value, but I need more hands to be sure.

exploitative play is fine, it generates the highest ev (obv). I'd just be suprised if someone can infer something as strong as 2 barrel's here being this unbalanced, particularly when barrel spots are the most well balanced spot regs have.

it only generates the highest ev in extremely specific situations, which can't ever be confirmed to be the case. and its totally subjective and not based on anything fundamentally solid.

consider these 2 extreme examples:

- folding KK preflop for a 10 BB jam, believing the opponent is ONLY jamming with AA. like sure, if he's doing that then we can further exploit his badness by folding KK, but is it really necessary? it certainly puts our own play into objectively bad / mathematically unsound territory.
- calling a 1000 BB jam allin preflop with Q8o, believing the opponent is jamming every hand. yes we have a TINY bit of ev to gain because Q8o is slightly better than the average (Q7o) but it's totally unnecessary and involves super high risk to low reward

like i said almost ANYTHING can be justified but NOTHING confirmed. let bad play punish itself! trying to actively punish bad play isn't necessary and just makes ones own play bad. objectively bad!

but anyway this is just general poker theory, if you have maphack / soulhack / state of the art intuitive biological hardware / plutonium psychological surreal estate i can't tell you not to make use of it

@Strogg I am not just talking about 2 barrels, also taking into consideration board, bet size and stack size, as most regs do play nittier as stack sizes increase, gonna vary from pool to pool, but I agree that I am not sure about my claim, only that I believe it to be true because of what I've seen so far.

I don't really understand what you are trying to say here fira. If we don't actively punish deviations from optimal it's only gonna be in our favor if we play perfect poker, which we won't. We actively punish fish bad plays all the time, we deviate vs them all the time for the highest EV gain, vs unbalanced regs we should do the same

Another reason I believe turn might be slightly -EV is because the cards we improve on the river besides a club are actually bad for us now as we will lose more vs his value, and also because we may not win anything more on a club river vs his value

i'll get back to this post later fira but you have some weird idea's about exploitative poker being 'mathematically unsound' or 'objectively bad'. whatever this means, if the assumptions are correct it generates the highest ev and that's all that matters if we are trying to make money.

folding KK to AA preflop is massive exploit and makes you lose less ev than otherwise in the long term. i dont see what's 'mathematically unsound' about winning more money.

i'm just saying that exploitative play can justify literally ANYTHING. calling 100x pot on the river with the 2nd nut low because opponent always has the nut low. checking back river with the 2 card nuts to avoid extra rake because we know opponent also has the nuts when he checks to us. folding 5d4d on Ad2d3dQdKd to a minbet on the river because opponent always has JdTd when he minbets. calling allin on the river with the nut low because opponent also always has the nut low when he bets like this. it sounds ridiculous but that's really the nature of it. it makes real poker discussion basically pointless because anything can be justified based on opponent behavior.

folding KK for 10 BB jam preflop is mathematically unsound because of the probability of a player being dealt AA (0.5%). arguably you can only fold KK to a preflop jam at ~200 BB or deeper, because 0.5% * 200 = 100 (something like that, i don't know the exact math) but the point is that if we fold with 99.5% of our range while losing 10% of our stack each time it becomes a factually bad play. we can never truly know what our opponent is doing, given that we aren't some sort of superhuman mindreader. and if we are, well, most of poker theory goes out the window.

ok you changed the KK 10bb example from what you said earlier to fit an argument where it is mathematically unsound.

you say 'we can never truly know what our opponent is doing, given that we arn't some sort of superhuman mindreader'. You don't need to be a superhuman mindreader to gain info on your opponents, and your essentially tacitly infering that no money in poker everyone's solid. well, that just isn't true. There are a lot of people that are making money off exploits in poker today, even as it is, where the game has become closer to gto than it ever was before. There's still information to be gained that allows people to exploit.

Exploitative poker can pretty easily be mathematically, or theoretically justified. and if there were superhuman mindreaders. (there arn't), but if there were, that would be incorporated into any good theory of poker.

i did not change the KK example in any way.

and i am not at all suggesting that "theres no money in poker, everyone's solid". i am saying that bad play does not need to be exploited for it to be bad; it is bad for a fundamental reason and that reason will shine through. there are PLENTY of bad players around but one really does not need to go the distance of trying to exploit them maximally, as their bad plays are already losing them money in various ways against good play.

here i thought of an analogy for how i see exploiting bad play:

bad play is like bringing a knife to a gun fight. it sucks pretty badly, but you might get lucky.
trying to exploit bad play is like, instead of buying a gun for the gun fight, you buy a suit of medieval armor, because you expect the opponent will ambush you with a knife. you'll counter that super hard, but against a regular gun you're dead meat.
so the point of it is, why not just bring a gun to a gun fight and deal with the off chance that the opponent gets lucky, instead of trying to HARD COUNTER the already terrible strategy of bringing a knife to a gun fight?
and poker is one of those things where you really can't confirm what sort of equipment the opponent will bring