200bb eff
Sb opens, BB 3bets Q♣:J♠:8♥:9♥:
Flop T♣:5♥:4♦:, checks through
Turn 8♣: SPR 10
BB?
This is HU, SB opens very wide. I'm not familiar with HU 3bet ranges, but I would think my hand is a 3bet oop at100bb, at 200bb deep I'm not sure.
I'm not going to have a lot of aggression on this board. The SPR is 10, I think It's small bet or x OTF. With little board interaction and little back up equity I decide to check. Maybe with a gutshot or 2bdfd I could small bet. Perhaps I gutshot would be looking to x-c instead?
OTT I think betting and raising frequency is going to very low, I'm mostly going to x-c or x-f. X-r is probably on the edge with no straight blocker. I would think that he's discounted in straights here as many of them would have bet OTF. As I write this I'm leaning towards x-c OTT.
BB bets 50%
River K♦:
When in doubt pot:f_wink:
I don't have full HU sim at this laptop, so I did a quick run for it. It seems that 200bb deep solver mixes that hand to 3bet and call, both being slightly -EV. So it's very borderline decision.
In HU we should start to adjust as soon as possible. As an example, 3bet ranges are often very different from solver ranges. If opponent 3bets way more than standard sim (18-20%), we should open less but call more often that 3bet. If opponent 3bets less, we should open more and then fold more often to 3bets. In the other way, if opponent never folds to 3bet, we should 3bet less than normal. The normal fold to 3bet in sim is around 22-24%, and I am quite sure average opponent doesn't fold that often. So we should 3bet less.
100bb deep solver plays this check flop, check-call turn. I wouldn't 3bet this, and in either way play it with check, check-call.
The normal fold to 3bet in sim is around 22-24%, and I am quite sure average opponent doesn't fold that often. So we should 3bet less.
+1
I don´t think it´s a 3bet either
Flop is decent for the pfa so I would prefer bet-folding over check-folding. You have to keep up aggression freqs if you expand your 3bets and find some suitable bluffs to do so, here we have some backdoor equity that could help us to stay in the hand on several turn cards. Otf Hand is too weak to check-call/raise.
As played turn lead is main option imo, same concepts true for not checking like otf, but check-callin can make sense in certain dynamics imo.
We heavily block draws but K♦: is also not a bad candidate to put some mediocre hand into a tough spot. Our SDV has no winning chances against his value check-backs so I like a 2barrel and he probably calls too much ott without solid coninuation plan like weak flushdraws and pair-combostuff so our FE remains high, remember having bluffs is a mandatory part of any solid strategy.
When in doubt pot
+1
For Macherano this is most likely 2handed situation with HU in title.
I would just call preflop with low suit for sure. Maybe 3bet with Q high suite.
Postflop we have some showdown value on turn and unblock straight so I would likely go for x-c. But yeah straight is somewhat less likely when opponent checks flop but hand is quite mediocre and board is bad for our 3bet range.
Originally posted by Mascherano95
For Macherano this is most likely 2handed situation with HU in title.
+1
This was HU as in only me and him were at the table. That's why BB acts before the SB who has the button.
Originally posted by Kyyberi
In HU we should start to adjust as soon as possible. As an example, 3bet ranges are often very different from solver ranges. If opponent 3bets way more than standard sim (18-20%), we should open less but call more often that 3bet. If opponent 3bets less, we should open more and then fold more often to 3bets. In the other way, if opponent never folds to 3bet, we should 3bet less than normal. The normal fold to 3bet in sim is around 22-24%, and I am quite sure average opponent doesn't fold that often. So we should 3bet less.
My thought process was this: by 3betting hands like this, that are mixing, I was hoping that SB would start adjusting to me by opening less. He was opening way to wide and to stop the over-aggression I started to 3betting lighter so that in future hands he starts to adjust by opening less. Whether he does adjust is another question. Probably not 
You said if opponent never folds to 3bets then we should decrease our 3betting frequency. But at the same time if opponent is opening wide shouldn't we then increase 3betting frequency? These 2 factors are opposing each other. Did the solver use solver opening ranges or wide ranges? Because villain was opening 80%
Originally posted by BunBun00
Originally posted by Mascherano95
For Macherano this is most likely 2handed situation with HU in title.
+1
This was HU as in only me and him were at the table. That's why BB acts before the SB who has the button.
yeah i got that wrong first but then corrected my post. Ofc heads up we gotta play way more loose. when some money goes in, I think many player tune it down acting like it´s still shorthanded dynamics, we gotta keep that in mind when facing non-adjusted value lines.
Because villain was opening 80%
80% in HU is solid afaik. Reason why we still do not 3bet your hand is, we´d rather start adding hands boardering the structure of a typical 3bet range oop like AB76ds, AJT8ss, JJTTds, QT87ds, AQQ7ss (we basically like to have an Ace or high double-suits) etc. You gotta take a look at that, comparison with a 3bet range ip also helps to identify differences since both are often similar frequencywise.
I got to ask about your profile pic, is that a football player? Is it Mascherano or Zidane?
Originally posted by BunBun00
I got to ask about your profile pic, is that a football player? Is it Mascherano or Zidane?
It is supposed to be Mascherano^^