topset vs fish donkbet riv 3betpott

Flop sizing is fine in my opinion since it looks like villain has no pair most of the time so we want him to flout us with overcards. I might bet bigger myself though. Turn sizing is too small in my opinion since we want more value from villains flouts that got a flushdraw on the turn. I'd bet like 390 vs. fish.

I think this riverspot is pretty tough. I tend to just fold in these situations if villain donks on the river when flushdraw gets there. It's just really often a flush. However this is a 3bet pot and there is a chance that villain is shoving something worse for value or villain is bluffing with some flout with one heart. Calling is definitely ok since we're playing 3bet pot but I really don't know what is the best play. Any extra info would help.

why bet so big OTT? we will have hard time foldning if we bet bigger I think.. couse calling will not be +EV?

so rather bet smaller and have more space to fold than bet big and feel sick commited to call..

Just bet until you have no more chips left. He's a fish, fish bet and call when they shouldn't.

Ugly spot, he looks pretty strong actually, you maybe win vs some overplayed KJ by fish though. Many times you will also run into hearts.. idk, ugly I probably end up calling bcs of the good price, yeah I dont think we can fold almost half pot bet readless vs fish here..

@stttNNN

It's not the first time I've seen you contemplating (or executing) an extremely tight fold. This time you don't even have a read. You need to look into some game theory.

On the river, you get 3:1 for calling. The Game Theory Optimal (GTO) play is (roughly) to call with 67% of you bluff-catchers. It's debatable whether JJJ is a bluff catcher according to GTO, exploitatively, versus a habitual bluffer, it's a super-easy call.

Even if JJJ would turn out to be a bluff-catcher according to GTO, then if you use your holecards to randomize your calldowns, JJJ is high up enough to call. You aren't going to have very many x:heart: y:heart: here (and probably no straights) since you reraised an UTG open.

I'd probably call even if K fell on the river - expecting to lose, but be pretty sure of winning in the long run due to the pot odds.

He don't even need to bluff, he can value bet worse hands tbh. Like 2p a worse set or even a random hand.

I would also bet bigger because he can have alot of pair + gutters on this board type and some random gutshots and shit.

I would bet flop 200, to set up for a shove.

Originally posted by stttNNN
why bet so big OTT? we will have hard time foldning if we bet bigger I think.. couse calling will not be +EV?

so rather bet smaller and have more space to fold than bet big and feel sick commited to call..

This is a mistake. By betting too small, you have put yourself in a situation where you could make a BIG mistake. Read No Limit Hold'em - Theory and Practice by Sklansky and Miller. You have used the right principle, but in a totally wrong way.

How GTO has anything to do with fish tendencies?

Originally posted by 02bub02
How GTO has anything to do with fish tendencies?

If you deviate too much from GTO, then you are the one likely to be the fish.

lol

Originally posted by YohanN7

Originally posted by 02bub02
How GTO has anything to do with fish tendencies?

If you deviate too much from GTO, then you are the one likely to be the fish.

Vs fish we still play gto, but gto means dont bluff the fish,
Dont bluff catch passive fish, bluff catch wide agro fish.
So i dont think we need to defend 66% as you suggested
Because fish will not exploit us. I would fold here because my experience
Tells me he has almost always flush, and next time i will have more
Info on him so no way he will exploit me.

Originally posted by GingerKid

Originally posted by YohanN7

Originally posted by 02bub02
How GTO has anything to do with fish tendencies?

If you deviate too much from GTO, then you are the one likely to be the fish.

Vs fish we still play gto, but gto means dont bluff the fish,
Dont bluff catch passive fish, bluff catch wide agro fish.
So i dont think we need to defend 66% as you suggested
Because fish will not exploit us. I would fold here because my experience
Tells me he has almost always flush, and next time i will have more
Info on him so no way he will exploit me.

What you describe is 100% exploitation and not GTO at all. Not saying it's the wrong play. Just saying that GTO doesn't care one bit against who you are up against.

This is a tough one to be honest, from what I read from people's posts they are saying that it's 50/50 call or fold. I in this position would have to fold even though it's a ugly fold. As people have said the worst case scenario that he has two Hearts in his hand, maybe call and see what he has if he has the two hearts note it down and move onto the new hand. Sorry if my post is swapping from one to the other I'm not really good at giving advice lol.

Originally posted by YohanN7

Originally posted by GingerKid

Originally posted by YohanN7

Originally posted by 02bub02
How GTO has anything to do with fish tendencies?

If you deviate too much from GTO, then you are the one likely to be the fish.

Vs fish we still play gto, but gto means dont bluff the fish,
Dont bluff catch passive fish, bluff catch wide agro fish.
So i dont think we need to defend 66% as you suggested
Because fish will not exploit us. I would fold here because my experience
Tells me he has almost always flush, and next time i will have more
Info on him so no way he will exploit me.

What you describe is 100% exploitation and not GTO at all. Not saying it's the wrong play. Just saying that GTO doesn't care one bit against who you are up against.

Actually not true. GTO assumes optimal move vs opponents move. It doesnt mean defend 60% (if he bets 3/4 pot) to make his bluffs indifferent. If a player is cbetting only nuts and you know it, GTO is to defend only better range and not anymore 60%.
http://www.pokerstrategy.com/strategy/bss/1620/5/

"For player 1, strategy p is called the 'best response' to player 2 playing strategy q iff p produces maximal payout for player 1, that is, iff the following is the case:"

Here on 2nd page it is described. IF you know opponent is playing GTO, then your optimal move will be to defend 60% vs his bet (to make his pure bluffs EV = 0). If opponent is betting only nuts, then your optimal play is to fold. For sure, if you defend in that case 60%, it is not optimal play, but burning money. So vs fish, you dont need to defend 60%, it is not GTO, but you exploit yourself

Originally posted by GingerKid

Originally posted by YohanN7

Originally posted by GingerKid

Originally posted by YohanN7

Originally posted by 02bub02
How GTO has anything to do with fish tendencies?

If you deviate too much from GTO, then you are the one likely to be the fish.

Vs fish we still play gto, but gto means dont bluff the fish,
Dont bluff catch passive fish, bluff catch wide agro fish.
So i dont think we need to defend 66% as you suggested
Because fish will not exploit us. I would fold here because my experience
Tells me he has almost always flush, and next time i will have more
Info on him so no way he will exploit me.

What you describe is 100% exploitation and not GTO at all. Not saying it's the wrong play. Just saying that GTO doesn't care one bit against who you are up against.

Actually not true. GTO assumes optimal move vs opponents move. It doesnt mean defend 60% (if he bets 3/4 pot) to make his bluffs indifferent. If a player is cbetting only nuts and you know it, GTO is to defend only better range and not anymore 60%.
http://www.pokerstrategy.com/strategy/bss/1620/5/

"For player 1, strategy p is called the 'best response' to player 2 playing strategy q iff p produces maximal payout for player 1, that is, iff the following is the case:"

Here on 2nd page it is described. IF you know opponent is playing GTO, then your optimal move will be to defend 60% vs his bet (to make his pure bluffs EV = 0). If opponent is betting only nuts, then your optimal play is to fold. For sure, if you defend in that case 60%, it is not optimal play, but burning money. So vs fish, you dont need to defend 60%, it is not GTO, but you exploit yourself

Once again, what you describe is exploitative play. Your play is perhaps optimal but it is not game theory optimal. GTO makes no assumptions whatsoever about the opponent. It takes into account the action, the board and your hole cards only.

And yes, the conclusion is that good exploitative play will win more money than GTO versus fish. That said, one shouldn't deviate too far from GTO, that would open up for getting exploited.

Didn't read the other comments. But I would close my eyes and call on the river. ♦