J9s bluff raise flop

I think you are repping absolutely nothing on the flop because you should always slowplay a set to keep the fish in. Betting the turn with such a hand is really spewy because you have zero outs and your frequencies are out of control. Id rather check turn and potbet the river if he checks back.

fish is not in the hand at all on flop
even if fish would be there, I woud raise strong hands 100% of time, because fish never folds a draw and probably calls top pair, and reg surely calls a draw not sure about top pair (with your logic I dont rep anything so he should call all top pairs).

Betting the turn with such a hand is really spewy because you have zero outs and your frequencies are out of control.

The EV of a bluff is not purely calculated from equity of our hand and our frequencies. It also includes in calculation FE we have. And if we have enough of FE, in this case
> 38%, then EV of bet will be higher than EV of give up so we should bluff. The card is the worst in the deck for villian, so I really expect to have even around 60% FE in this spot. It is not that he is going to fold on each card 60%, but on the worst card super likely. Sure, now you can say if he would know exactly bluff frequency in this spot he could allways call down, but the chances that he knows exact frequency (or even close to good) are 0%. Also my question was if it is exploitatively ok to bet turn.

Also I am not sure if I am bluff heavy in this spot I am raising some lower fd and some nut bdfd and sets, so on this board I will bet sets, flushes and if I bet all bluffs I will be likely just a bit bluff heavy.

Originally posted by GingerKid
fish is not in the hand at all on flop

Oh sorry I thought he called, because they are calling almost always in these spots ♦. However you are only judging your line as a vacuum play. If you are betting J9hh OTT you are bluffing waaaaaaaaay too often and as soon as villain starts to realise, your EV of bluffing suddenly gets negative. Your play might work quite well vurses people who dont know you but it is really bad as a longterm strategy.

Agree, any unbalanced strategy is very bad long term vs guy who knows your weaknesses and is going to exploit them. And as I said, I would try to play balanced if I am playing vs a guy who has chances to know my frequencies in this spot (which is nearly impossible). And if we would have so many hands played in this spot (again impossible), and he would be able to notice my frequencies, then I would be also able to notice his adjustment (by seeing light calls) and I would again exploit him by bluffing less in this spot. So I dont see a problem.

Again I repeat, I asked this question if it is ok exploitatively, not long term or theoretically optimal.

Originally posted by GingerKid
[...] And as I said, I would try to play balanced if I am playing vs a guy who has chances to know my frequencies in this spot (which is nearly impossible) [...]

This can happen much faster than you might think. Just imagine villain calls and gets to see your hand. This would tell him a lot about your style of playing. You are bluffing scarecards extremly often which lets him make light calls in the future in similar situations.

Originally posted by GingerKid
Again I repeat, I asked this question if it is ok exploitatively, not long term or theoretically optimal.

Everything can be OK from an exploitive point of view. If you have a good reason to assume that villain is folding enough then go ahead and bluff but no coach on earth can tell you wether he does or not. So the only objective way of judging your line is by thinking if this is a good hand to bluff the turn with and Im 100% sure it is not.

This can happen much faster than you might think. Just imagine villain calls and gets to see your hand. This would tell him a lot about your style of playing. You are bluffing scarecards extremly often which lets him make light calls in the future in similar situations.

you are right he can spot conclude that. But also it is not that he is right about it that I bluff scare card too often. I am changing my ranges often, because I am learning, and when we see each other in a similar hand again, who knows if I am still going to be bluff heavy in that spot. Maybe I was on tilt when I bluffed that way he cant know it. Drawing conclusion from few samples and then adjusting is imo not good.

Everything can be OK from an exploitive point of view. If you have a good reason to assume that villain is folding enough then go ahead and bluff but no coach on earth can tell you wether he does or not

I think coach can tell it if it is exploitatively good or not. I get answers from coaches all the time about exploitative plays. You can observe how much % is weak in villians range, and how much % in my perceived range became strong and make conclusions from it. Also you can use average player stats, population tendecies in such spot etc.

Hey guys,

I think exploitatively it's a great spot to barrel on turn here and I have no issues with the flop x/r here either.

You can question whether the turn barrel is too wide from a GTO point of view. It probably is. I doubt it matters at these limits. From GTO point of view we should probably at least be holding something like QJ/TJ/QT:h:h but we obviously want to have some bluffs that are not flush draws. Also we don't have the A:d or K:d which changes things a little since they are hands we might bluff raise these on a different texture with diamonds.

the flop raise is going to be highly unbalanced too

preflop, I think is pretty marginal. I'd want some good reads on the fish or BTN to cc. With the information given, I lean towards 3b. I'd still want some 3b range here. And if you want any 3b range at all that isn't nuts, then this hand fits pretty well.