[PLO25] A864d OOP

When BU check flop he rarely has set or two pairs. So when turn give us low flush it's actually hard to get value by betting. I would approach this more as bluff catcher to x-c turn and if turn goes checked then go for one street of value.

If betting turn I would prefer smaller bet like 1/4-1/3 pot because we want to go small enough for villain to call hands like AJ, J9 or some wraps that we actually do really good against.

If flop was with unsuited A I would be really careful versus check as it's imo quite often AA with nfd. On this flop slowplays are less common but possible.

When villain call turn and shove river he basically says to have slowplayed flop or having perhaps some KK, QQ with high flush. To call here we would need him floating turn bet with some straight draw or two pair and then bluffing river. Lot less likely to happen than if we went for x-c from turn.

Probably our hand is bluff catcher purely. So as played I would prefer fold on river. Would be unlikely to fold after turn x-c though.

I like the flop check (-call). We have medciore SDV plus decent backup. The A-high flop favours the 3-bettors range heavily so we do not donk here.

The turn is not a good situation to lead either with our particular hand. With a small flush we have good showdown value, we can realize or bluff catch 1-2 barrels whereas villains calling range that´d we get value is rarely existent (a discounted low portion of sets, very few lower flushes and maybe 2pair+flush-blocker) also bringing us to a difficult situation otr. We´d also face a bad situation if getting raised ott. At a turn shift in general we should start aggression with a polarized range that includes high (nutted) flush blocker and premium flushes for this reason we should go for a big sized turn bet -Solver plays 75% but potting is fine too since we are usually not bluffing that much. We are not supposed to do that much of leading ott from GTO perspective btw.

For the river the base-line is a 2 sizings strategy where I do an easier applicable half-pot river bet strategy only (exploitatively against overfolding tendencies and elastic calling ranges, I sometimes use 2 sizings anyways if villain has a solid defense strategy calling enough hands also solid bluff/value raising range, which makes me start potting twice with nutflushes and nutblockers and betting half-pot with value-flushes, flushblockers without SDV and some few Nutflushes without K♣ or Q♣ which is more according to optimum play). If I had check-called I would think about check-calling the river especially if there is an aggressive dynamics but as played we know villain does not call the turn bet with air and barely has a set/2pair (barely in his flop checking range also tendencially almost never in his river shoving range) so we can safely assume we are beat otr and fold easily. He might be floating with a naked K♣ to make a move otr but that is very far away from what some is doing reasonably so it is not smart to speculate on such a move from an unknown average player.

thanks for the inputs I already thought about the mentioned mistakes in the same way. two general questions:

1. how strong does the flush need to be to start betting the turn after x-x flop?

2. do we ever checkraise the turn?

Originally posted by efkay
thanks for the inputs I already thought about the mentioned mistakes in the same way. two general questions:

1. how strong does the flush need to be to start betting the turn after x-x flop?

2. do we ever checkraise the turn?

Very interesting questions.. I just checked that spot at Solver:

So at the flop we check 100% (because of the A-flop as mentioned), whereas villain is supposed to cbet with a very high frequency of 80%. If villain is checking too much (tendency is player do not bet aggressively enough when the pot is so "big" already) which is already a significant deviation from GTO. The question is what kind of hands he is more inclined to check-back. He might still be balanced checking back mediore hands like top-pair, flush draw.. which would result into a pretty strong checking range. If he just bets according to a fit-or-fold strategy the opposite is true. This presumption plays a role for your question nr. 1 as the strength of his check-back range should impact our turn strategy.

On the turn solver leads around 30%. He tends to have all ♣ with a frequency of 50% where it would be close to perfectly equally distributed not considering the second ♣. Taking a look into specific combos looking for some handstrength pattern solver seems to play an approximately 50-50 mixed strategy of betting and checking the stronger K♣ - 9♣ flushes and starts checking a flush 9♣ or lower. As I stated against tight regulars we might be more careful with the low and middling flushes as they 1. not bluff enough and 2. have a stronger checking range that includes more flushdraws. We´d rather lead more on the turn to exploit that. Please also note we have the K♣ flush more often (7%) than a low flush (4%) and the strong flushes Q♣ - T♣ frequency-wise are gradually distributed down whereas the action performed by solver is close to 50-50 with all of those but in fact we rather want to continue with a stronger flush against more tight ranges. If we check and villain bets, we are supposed to check-raise almost all of our nutflushes and most of our second-nut flushes. This might be some leak to fix for many players aswell who often check-call nutflushes to trap or do some weird river stuff. I guess it takes our leverage to bluff-raise turns and also misses value from the top of our range. We also bluff check-raise the K♣ blocker, some decent portion of our naked Q♣ blocker and 2/3 of the triple ♣:c:c. We are not check-folding a flush overall spoken.

After check-calling the turn we check-call 100% with the 9 and 8-flush and there is some 25% check-folding going on in case we have a baby flush. After betting the turn we are supposed to shove basically all our flushes (90+%) and should not do much checking at spr 1. If you fold too many flushes in the middling region J♣ to 8♣ against a second barrel you leave yourself open for exploitation quickly where as just going broke with most flushes in an unraised line is more according to a solid GTO line. There are some bare flush-blockers we can check (and give up) but once betting the turn we are actually not switching into checking our flushes. I would say if you feel uncomfortable going broke with bad flushes in 3bp´s against more condensed aggression you can still have the option to adapt to villains stab sizing oop where you are calling all mid- and low flushes when facing smallish bets and reevaluate rivers with the worst of your flushes. And when facing big bets or very nitty/value-heavy ranges you could check-fold more of your low flushes straight away rather than investing money with a big junk of your range jsut to give up against a potential allin.

checkraise is still interesting because after checkback flop I would almost always bet the turn with (2nd)NF (plus heavily bluffing with blockers too)

so I need to differ more in detail: do we attempt to checkraise with high flush plus pair/2pair/set or is it totally random?

Most important thing for value x-raising is to not block other high flushes. So hand like KcQc or QcTc would be bad candidate as we make it less likely villain has that bit weaker flush or fluch blocker to bluff with. I would also think having two pair or set as support makes us more likely to look for x-r in general. Reasoning being we make it less likely villain has hand to call bet and more likely he has hand that potentially bluff versus check.

This is also bit weird part of game tree on turn solver wise as BU should cbet flop very often.

thanks guys, that makes me re evaluate turns even more in the future

As hero checks the river, it seems that even with lead turn line he is going for 1 street of value. I think you get more value by checking turn and then betting river, as that looks a lot more like a bluff than turn lead.