10$ | don | postflop | 99

Seems pretty standard indeed. If he's tight you can think of bluff shoving the turn, because his bet looks weak and K♣: could be a scare card for him.

Cheers,
SDK1987

Originally posted by SDK1987
Seems pretty standard indeed. If he's tight you can think of bluff shoving the turn, because his bet looks weak and K♣: could be a scare card for him.

Cheers,
SDK1987

Do you plan on to bluff JJ QQ out?

well in best cases yes but its also value vs worst stuff

Originally posted by maniac
well in best cases yes but its also value vs worst stuff

you answering for SDK means you completely agree with turn shove being the best option? Ok np, but how can you raise shove someone with an idea to both raise as a bluff and for a value at the same time? That´s the second time you propose such a thing and I don´t get it at all in general.

In this particular situation, how many worse hands do you expect to call your turn shove? 8x, 2x, 33-77 and a few draws really? How much of these combs does villain have in a 3bet range? Does he have more of these combs than those which beat you like Tx+ JJ+, or rather less?

I see. Well its quite simple. When do you put money in the pot? Its either for value or to create fold equity. Since we play vs a range of villains hands plays are sometimes black and white its either this or that. Nevertheless sometimes villains ranges consists of hands that I beat like lower pockets or a 8x and higher one that we can fold out. From a gto perspective he should have me crushed evertime with his 3 betting range but its not the case because unknown players tend to be fishes at these stake who got no clue what to 3bet and therefore have weird ranges.

Hey I read it twice to search for an answer on the idea, that you want somehow raise both for value and to bluff at the same time and I´m missing it.

When you say that we play against range where we beat some hands and some not, ok, that´s matter of course and I´m thinking for what other reason would you say it other than meaning this: "I raise for value against hands that are worse and I expect these to call me and pay me out and yet at the same time I bluffraise there against better hands that I feel might be folding quiet often! "

Perhaps i missunderstood, so I ask like this: do you think your raise can be both +EV as a bluff and +EV as a valueraise?

You say sometimes we are better sometimes not, fair enough, so let´s go through this exact same spot 10 000x and let´s calculate how are we doing in the longrun. If you want to be profitable or rather to make highest +EV move in the longrun you need to either bluff his range that beats you in SD which is good idea when you got high fold equity like in this case, right, OR to raise for value when you think his range is much more weaker and yet strong enough to not be able to fold - therefore when you have very little fold equity. So either we have high or low fold equity which determines what do we do with weak hand here. We got weak hand so we bluffraise them so they fold their better hands and we make money, but wait a minute, can we at the same time be raising for value from even weaker hands than our is (?!) When we expect them to fold better hands how can we expect them not to fold worse hands (at the same time at the exactly same situation run 10 000 times so we do not gamble playing guessing game - pushing random buttons, but making loggical calculated moves - making money)?

well looks like you need some simplification. The question is: Is a raise profitable vs his range of hands? The answer is yes. If we bet or raise we want to accomplish either value or fold out better hands or both like in this case.

There is no question whether raise is profitable. it´s certainly + EV, I didn´t question that, but do we want to win small or big? Do we want to maximaze value gain or not?

If the asnwer is yes, what do we need? The best decision EV calculation possible, right?

You again said "we want to accomplish both value or fold in this case" which was the point I´m curious about and I couldn´t find the answer.

So far I´d either bluffraise, being weak, expecting +EV from fold equity of his strong range OR (no and) I´d raise for value, being strong, expecting +EV from his dominantly weak range.

But the idea, that I raise super weak hand (like 99 on KT8-2-8 in 3beted pot) expecting EV gain from villain´s both fold equity of better hands AND call equity of worse hands, is something that I can´t grasp and meybe I´m wrong, but in all of my honesty I think it´s not going to work.

It was third additional question precision to the intial one as I honestly tryed to eliminate a chance of missunderstanding and so this is my final point:

The idea, that Beting or Raising with expectation to gain positive EV from better hand part of range´s fold equity AND at the same time to gain positive EV from worse hand range´s call equity, is false because of its contradictory nature.

Perhaps other pokerstrategy colegues might also give a hand to solve this problem and tell us their opinion, that would be awsome because the right logic behind strategy and its comprehension makes us better players, wining more money which is our common goal here, right? Thank you

I understand you point but I think its exacly what it means to play vs a range of hands. If his range of range is to tight our raise is not profitable whereas if he has a wide range it is profitable or more plus ev. If he has a wide range we make money from both ends our hand is either good or he folds. That what contradicts is not a problem at all.

@maniac Can you not see a contradiction in thinking that by shoving turn we can make JJ to fold, but 77 to call?

I can see it but its pretty standard because both hands are in villains range. Therefore it doesnt matter.