Nutflush on paired board, got raised on the river

I would check call the flop. As played barreling turn is fine. OTR I would be a little bit scared when the board pairs and might not bet so big.
River raises are very often nuts. Villains raise size is so huge that you would have to win around 33%. I don't think villain will shove that often with non nut flush on a paired 4 flush board.

I would check/fold this on the flop.
See too many hands that beat us here in villains range.
River is a clear fold too btw. Raise is nutsplay mostly there..

Originally posted by la55i
I would check call the flop.

What is the advantage of X/C over betting myself? Because i don't want to get reraised or sometimes see a free turn?

Originally posted by KingKlaas
I would check/fold this on the flop.
See too many hands that beat us here in villains range.
River is a clear fold too btw. Raise is nutsplay mostly there..

x/f flop seems to weak to me. Or am i wrong.

River was obviously misplayed.

x/f too weak and cbet too exploitable, it's typically a case of x/c here, often missed by most regs I know, not that many people are actually conscious that OOP the right cbetting frequency is about 35% only !

As played I dislike every street, you impaled yourself hard dude, that must hurt

Yes check folding with 2 overs and backdoors is definitely too weak. Cbetting here would lead to cbetting too much. In position you can cbet but when OOP I think it is more important to defend our checking range.
Not sure if we should cbet only 35% though. Our overall cbetting frequency should be around 60% so to get there we would have to cbet a lot from IP.

Very ggod points regarding cbetting IP and OOP. Wasn't too aware of the importance of position when cbetting. Just restarted Poker after a break of years and have to (re-)learn a lot now. So much to keep in mind these days..

Also protecting my checking range is one thing to keep in mind.

Thanks!

Check-calling flop would be senseless. Why draw expensively to hitting a one-pair possibly dominated hand? This is a hand I check-fold on the flop totally without regrets. Too weak? His air may be better than our present air. Any A, any pair... You are not defending your checking range by check-calling with trash unless you plan to proceed very aggressively on later streets. Besides, there is no dishonor in letting him steal small pots when you have nothing of value.

There is also extremely little in the sense of implied odds drawing two cards to a (non-nut) flush. Do you expect him to call a big river donk with four on the board. At least c-bet so you get some FE and get to set the price if you insist on proceeding.

@Yohan : what is senseless here is that if you focus only about the equity and playability your present combo seem to have, you'll find that in many spots you are overfolding, let's say on some flops you'll come with a range that x/f until about 80% of the time... Good luck trying to get a good winrate while giving up so many little pots to villains.

@la55i : never heard of 60% overall (not since several years ago when we still thought we could get away with like 75% IP etc lol, the meta switched pretty badly since ♦), according to Janda it's about 35% OOP and 60% IP on most textures, and crazy genius pros work on fine tuning the numbers on pecular spots but as far as we go we only need a rule of thumb to try to play consistently.

That would be 47.5% total cbet frequency, right?
I don't know about Janda but w34z3l said that GTO approach would be around 55% and exploitative approach (which I think is way more profitable at the micros) would be around 60-65%.
People still fold way too much at the micros.

My overall cbet is around 60%. My cbet success is high enough. I'm making a lot of profit when my cbet=true. Sooo why exactly should I stop doing that?

I simply don't believe in the meaning of an "overall total frequency", you should keep in my mind that it's hard to judge how much more (or not) you'll be playing IP than OOP, with initiative or without initiative in game etc, and those factors affects the ratio drastically.
Of course your tracker can give you a number but it's just a concrete fact that says nothing in itself of the sound mecanic behind.

I wouldn't dream of asking you to stop doing anything, except maybe trying to make a rough medium from statistics, which is something statisticians know doesn't work that simple at all, when you want to take the ratio of other ratios without knowing how exactly the ratios meddle with each other (or even with other ratios maybe xD) it's the open door to lots of paradoxes well known in probability theory.

If you're satisfied with your cbet sucess then it's indeed a incentive not to change anything drastically I do agree, but I would add nevertheless that it doesn't mean that there is never any room to improve your game right there : it's totally possible that in lowing a little your EV here you could gain more of it on your checking line elsewhere for example.
Once again I don't say it's true or whatever, I just advice you against thinking too quickly about some stats, lots of people have biaised reasonings with those it's a shame. Poker taken globally is a far too complicated game with lots of tree branches etc for us poor humans to apprehend it in one go with our little brains.

I usually base my decision if cbet or not on villain´s stat fold to cbet. I think in this spot is ok both, c/c and c/f (and I would consider here, if villain is likely to bet turn as well if he bets flop). As played, I´d fold OTR, unless villain is a fish. I don´t think any solid played would do this without FH.

PS: After reading other comments I gues I´m probably wrong about that flop play, I will need to study it up.

Ask yourself this would you raise here with Q high flush? With Q high flush, most of us would just call unless there is a read or history.

b/f river should be fine otr. big river raises tend to be really strong hands in these stakes.

Originally posted by MyFloXyBabY
@Yohan : what is senseless here is that if you focus only about the equity and playability your present combo seem to have, you'll find that in many spots you are overfolding, let's say on some flops you'll come with a range that x/f until about 80% of the time... Good luck trying to get a good winrate while giving up so many little pots to villains.
...

The rundown equity you have here (low) is impossible to realize. The number you see in Equliab (perhaps 40% in this spot) is not the number you get by calling flop turn and river. When I say impossible, I mean on average, and it is because we are out of position things are this way. Nothing can change that. Trying to realize small equity in small pots out of position by passive play, i.e. check-calling a , say, 75% bet with at best 4 outs and maybe 4 fake outs (I count 4 because not all fake outs tend to materialize in real money, just like ordinary non-nut outs) is mathematically a very bad proposition.

As far as playability goes, the hand is quite bleak. Q♥:J♦: would be much better. On the next street you'll be out of position in a pot that is no longer that small and you face a new decision. So you hit a miracle Q. What do you do now? So you hit another miracle card, the J♥:. What do you do now? both are mediocre spots, because you don't have position and initiative. Of course, hitting these is better than hitting 2♦:, but hitting the 2♦: will be the typical outcome.

I personally have 86s, 98s, J9s, QJs, and assortment of A high (suited or unsuited), and on a good lose day QJo to "defend" with.

EDIT: You will frequently see me advocating calls when other people say snap fold. You'll also see me advocate call turn and fold river. The counterargument is "why call flop/turn when we fold on the next street"? You probably know the answer (don't fold good hands only because someone sneezes), but the present spot is not the same.

It's not about trying to realize a small amount of equity OOP which is mainly hopeless indeed, it's about not needing that much to begin with. It seems hard to play like this but it makes it hard to play for villain too. If you overfold, his bluffs work too well and he knows too well where he stands with his medium hands. If you call at least once with that kind of hand, it's hard for him to rentabilize his bluffs without risking too much with multibarelling peanuts etc..

Playing that type of flop OOP is a pain in the ass either way, better to make it a pain for villain too.

Calling for the only sake of not folding with no hand no plan is simply not good poker, no matter how much you twist it. Villain has position and can quite easily stand the pain you cause him. His bluffs with A high and small pairs will actually be for value.

I agree with YohanN7 on this one. I think c/c is bad OTF (unless you plan to go aggro OTT - c/r on any scary card- however I don't think it would be EV+).

I like cbet though; IMO the board only hit JT/QT/KT and some PP (for which we have some blocker), so I think cbet is fine (if you're worry about overfolding).

Ed Miller will explain the idea better than me, I'm taking an extract from "Poker 1%, the one big secret that keeps elite player on top" (cheesy title I know :P) :

"You don’t need a lot of hand value to call.
One hang up many players new to the frequency-based way of thinking have is that they find it hard to find enough hands considered worth it to fill out their calling ranges on some boards—particularly dry boards. They are uncomfortable calling with some of the no-pair, no-draws that are necessary to fill out the frequencies on some board types.
Don’t let this stop you. The frequencies are what matter the most. First of all, the bar for calling with one of these hands is pretty low—since you are getting odds from the pot, you are supposed to lose the bet well more than half the time. You can think about it this way—the worst hands in your calling range aren’t much better than two blank cards. You’re just hanging in there with them mostly on the hope that your opponent will stop betting on the next round, and you can just bet and pick up the pot.
And, of course, almost no matter how worthless your hand is, there’s always a small chance that you can snag a pair on the turn and it will hold up.
It is far, far worse to have folding frequencies that are consistently too high than it is to pick a few bad hands to call with. When your folding frequencies are too high, players who just bet when checked to will crush you. When you pick the wrong hand to call with, the worst that happens is you lose a small fraction of what’s in the pot on that mistake (compared to calling with a slightly better hand instead).
So do not be shy about calling light when the frequencies say to do so. It’s the right thing to do. Just remember that your job with these hands is to bet when checked to."