PLO100 AA87ss nutblocker in 3bp oop

With a board card and gutshot, solver checks-raises turn. With naked As blocker it favors pot slightly over half a pot.

I am not sure how often people would fold flushes in 3bet pots at PLO100z. I would think that in general they don't. So I am not sure how much we should barrel A blocker versus unknowns. Here we have decent equity versus his non-flush hands, I would check turn as 2nd barrel would target 2p hands mostly.

I had that gut-feeling ott "oh I could check-raise here that would be a perfect bluff hand to do so" but than my brain told me "check-raising here going allin with just one blocker potentially being drawing dead is pretty crazy" ...

I am not sure how often people would fold flushes in 3bet pots at PLO100z. ...

I dont know either. That was the problem.. Yes checking 1 street is the less variance rocketing option I guess.

Showdown:

Would personally just call preflop with low suit and being deep stacked. Solver might prefer squeezing. I checked somewhat similar spot with trainer some weeks ago and it was just calling deep stacked quite a lot of AAxx versus open raiser alone and squeezing most AAxx with caller. Probably for lower SPR and for more fe versus open raiser or something like that.

Postflop would cbet 1/3 and probably x-f turn. One thing I use as sort of randomisation is lack of board pairs if I decide to triple barrel. Logic being if I don't block pairs it's more likely villain has set or two pair which means more hands to fold to either second or third barrel. Not sure if that make sense solver wise though.

Anyway I think we are not supposed to barrel river once we hit top set as we beat some of villain range now in showdown.

For villain it's probably sort of freeroll to shove river as in practice no one checks nuts on river imo.

lol I like your line and also I think when you 1/2 turn and get called you have a bigger 3rd barrel and should have some FE on PLO100, at least more than potting turn where the 2nd bet might not be that hard to call instead of three barrels.

but OTR we improve. should we stick to our plan of bluffing or do we have SDV all of a sudden? I guess you can answer that question by thinking about what CO calls a squeeze with: are there many KK or is the majority some hands with good playability/suited/connected hands?

We talked aout it once: calling squeezes I somehow dont have content for so is a rule of thumb: the nuttier the hand is to play multiway the better it is to call preflop.

checkraise turn: I wonder how you wold play your nutlushes here and which nutflushes you would checkraise: those with sets?

Would personally just call preflop with low suit and being deep stacked.

Nah I am pretty sure that´s not good. Solver does call some AA when facing 3-bets from the blinds, we are not 200 but 140 bb deep because of the effective stack size. Additionally his range preflop are more loose than optimal.

One thing I use as sort of randomisation is lack of board pairs if I decide to triple barrel. Logic being if I don't block pairs it's more likely villain has set or two pair which means more hands to fold to either second or third barrel. Not sure if that make sense solver wise though.

That makes no sense. In a video course I watched yesterday it said we should prefer barreling if we do block those pairs because we remove them from villains´calling range ( villain is supposed to call a set and some players do so).

but OTR we improve. should we stick to our plan of bluffing or do we have SDV all of a sudden?

Good question. Probably once we barrel turn we are supposed to follow up our story and the way how he tanked with his second nutflush otr in another situation indicated he is willing to fold a hand like straight or non-nutted flush, maybe 4th nutflush maaaybe 3rd nutflush aswell. We do have some SDV though against his set-calling range which is primarily KKxx.

You are 220bb effective with CO...

Well it's pretty rare for people to call three barrels with sets after monotone flop and way more likely with flush. So feels like it's better for third barrel if we don't block sets. Even if small minority on pool would be ready to call down sets with flush blocker.

In practice sets are very often bottom of villain turn call range. I would say two pairs are mostly folding turn as their chance to improve is very limited.

Originally posted by ghaleon
You are 220bb effective with CO...

Well it's pretty rare for people to call three barrels with sets after monotone flop and way more likely with flush. So feels like it's better for third barrel if we don't block sets. Even if small minority on pool would be ready to call down sets with flush blocker.

In practice sets are very often bottom of villain turn call range. I would say two pairs are mostly folding turn as their chance to improve is very limited.

CO folds pre. And with 2 opponents pre we are more inclined to 3-bet AA aswell because of dead money and lower SPR postflop.

Not to call 3 barrels but to call 1 or 2 barrels which lowers the FE of my flop and turn bets in the first place.

Otr ranges often cap down to nuts or nothing, sometimes second-nuts when playing against regulars since they tend to be so straightforward and funnel-like (not keeping up high enough Aggression with non-nutted hands when the pot gets bigger just like you and me in many spots I would say).

We don't know if CO folds when we 3bet

Plus I wouldn't call anyone dead money especially when people tend to way under fold in CO shoes. Most likely scenario in real life at least is that both players call. That will create around SPR 4.5 versus CO and 2.5 versus BU. That is scenario I want to avoid with pretty crappy AA.

Originally posted by ghaleon
We don't know if CO folds when we 3bet

No but CO already invested money with the RFI preflop which make it a squeeze situation.

And with 2 opponents pre we are more inclined to 3-bet AA aswell because of dead money and lower SPR postflop.

Ok ok its just different view on terms I suppose. Yeah its squeeze spot but "dead money" refer in general to spot where we assume to get some opponent to fold practically their whole range.

I think if you have a read that villin is capable of folding flushes I really liek the hand as played and pull river trigger

Originally posted by efkay
I think if you have a read that villin is capable of folding flushes I really liek the hand as played and pull river trigger

It was something I noted in a hand I played afterwards. At the moment in the hand I did not know it.