SH Zoom - Turn line?

all options seem possible on both flop and turn. too complex to think about. i have no idea.

Originally posted by NothingIsForSho
all options seem possible on both flop and turn. . too complex to think about. i have no idea.

That's pretty much always the case.

I do not see a point betting OTF, youve got barely a gutshot and you wont make him fold even the lowest pocket pair. As played you should have bet again OTT if improved and when the blank occured. Check-raising seems very odd play, he believed you were holding 55 then, doesnt look like anythink else tho

I would check flop too. Nothing much is folding.
On turn I prefer calling.

Thanks guys

I totally agree that not much is folding on the flop, but since we have some decent backdoors then I think c-betting the flop is justified if we plan to barrel the turn. Lets imagine your villain and you hold 22-88, TT/JJ are you stationing Flop, Turn and potentially river with those hands? Just b/c hands don't fold the flop it doesn't mean they won't fold on future streets. As long as they still fold some better hands at some point during the hand I think it's okay.

As for the Turn x/raise....agreed spew

I did an analysis regarding flop using both Equilab and Combonator.

Board: 9♦9♠Q♣
       Equity     Win     Tie
SB     52.16%  46.25%   5.91% { AcTc }
BB     47.84%  41.94%   5.91% { 99-33, A2s+, K2s+, Q2s+, J4s+, T6s+, 96s+, 86s+, 76s, 65s, A2o+, K5o+, Q7o+, J7o+, T7o+, 98o }

As you can see, we can't bet flop for value, even if villain is pretty loosy-goosy calling with calling with 50% of his range (removing AA-TT for simplicity).

The Combonator analysis, assuming we value bet two pair+, gives 150 value combos assuming an opening range of 37% (some call that loosy-goosy too). With 150 value combos, assuming 2/3 c-bet, wee need in the simplest model 60 bluffs to balance. Seeing straight draws and BDFD/BDSD as the best candidates, and building the bluff range from bottom up (meaning e.g. 8c7c goes in), AcTc does not qualify as a bluff (because it has too much equity - winning with 8 high is nice, making K high fold with A high is less of an accomplishment).

All this changes using other models and ranges of course. Removing AQ/KQ from villains range (or otherwise playing around) can hardly result in much more than 55% equity on that flop, which I regard as the very minimum for a value bet. Versus a tighter villain, things get much worse. If we in addition get tighter, things get worse too (because we have much fewer 9x to VB and should - accordingly - bluff combos).

so to clarify and summarise: AT should be in our value range rather than our bluffing range because it is too good? As you say getting K-hi to fold when we hold A-hi is not much of an accomplishment (especially since we are not exactly bluffing). With that said would you just x/f OTF as villain is unknown and we can't expect to bluff induce too much?

Out of interest. The approach you have taken in terms of determining value: bluff ratio. Is this sort of analysis super necessary at these stakes? Isn't this approach a GTO strategy. I though we should just be taking an exploitative approach at the micros. Or was it just to illustrate your point?

Yes, you get what I mean (I think at least?().

More precisely, what I mean is that AcTc is neither value nor bluff. It does better as a bluff-catcher. One can check-call or check-fold depending on villain and cost to call. Others disagree somewhat because they build their bluff-ranges differently (more like top down) but with the same size. But even in such cases, AcTc may be outside the bluffs. In pure top-down then AK/AQ/AJ/JT alone are 64 combos that should be bluffed before AT, so AcTc is probably still not a bluff.

To summarize, a bet with AcTc is probably a bet you have no idea why you make it. Hoping to end the hand right there is probably the reason I can think about.

EDIT: Two more things. If you check, it is not a dead certain that he bets. Also, if you bet and he raises (perhaps as a bluff), you must fold. But you must not fold to a small bet, and may pick up something nice on the turn. Checking is not 100% giving up.

It is a simplified GTO approach. Exploitation is the way to go at micros, but knowledge of GTO is the way to understanding why you deviate, and also how much you should deviate. One particular mistake people (good micro players) make at the micros is to try to figure out if the opponent is bluffing or not and then (if they decide he is bluffing) call with all bluff catchers, without regard to the bet size. It can work even in the reverse. A HUGE overbet must be a bluff... More often than not it is a smart player exploiting by betting huge with nuts knowing it looks like a bluff.

And no, you need little of this at the micros. It is just my way of trying to contribute (and learn myself), Others are much better at looking at 3-bet/fold stats and the like.

To summarize, a bet with AcTc is probably a bet you have no idea why you make it. Hoping to end the hand right there is probably the reason I can think about.

I knew why I making the bet OTF. I knew I may not get many folds OTF but I planned to get hands to fold on some turns by barrelling. However, as you have explained maybe ATs is probably better as a bluff catcher here. Even if he does bet maybe I can peel some turns or get a free one if he checks like you say. Obviosuly I assume we should only really be inclined to do this vs players who stab a lot vs missed c-bets right?

RE: GTO stuff. I'll probably tackle this concept at some point in the future but right now I think I need to focus on some more basics. Something to keep in mind though.

Thanks for the in depth explanation Yohan.

Much appreciated

just flip a coin