I'm back and punting

Your hand stacks quite a few or actually four blockers on this flop. It's also good flop for your range. So I would like to cbet this even without any diamond. If we check we have to fold to bet which is bit of shame with said blockers. If we did cbet I would then continue to barrel on this turn. On river it would be then check and evaluate. Theory wise we maybe would want to bluff catch but it's questionable if pool will find bluffs in spots like these.

As played on turn I would prefer delayed cbet over x-r. We don't really have that much showdown value to check with but have very nice blockers.

As played on river to block bet for value we need weaker to call. But I have hard time to think of what would call. Weaker flush is unlikely to be in preflop call range. Straight might shove turn plus does it really call on this river? AT and trips very unlikely. On other hand he can easily have better flush or 77 type of stuff. Maybe that A6 or 76 with fd.

I'm back and punting

♠_thumbsup:

In SRP oop on Ace-high flops our CBet frequency is comparably high so I would have bluffed using the T♥: midpair blocker + ♣:c Bdfd. Regulars likely just fold having no nor ♦ flushdraw. Weak top-pairs are supposed to fold aswell.

As Played I would have delay cbetted the turn (repping nutstraight so bet big). We lack SDV but have perfect nutblockers and improved our Equity hitting the bdfd. Villain often not protecting his check-back range also indicates weakness skipping the flop stab.

As played checking the turn I would check-fold. We lack nuttiness, visibility and blockers alone without SDV are too weak to defend against aggression in general. Against OD-players check-calling for 1 street is fine equitywise though, we also have picked up a nut-gutter. Bluff Check-raising bare blockers on Micros/Lowstakes is a mistake, I am pretty sure about that, with the additional combodraw it is more marginal I'd say, I'd still don't like it, what I can say is you make money on those stakes just playing straightforward from my memories.

The river is a way-ahead-way-behind situation which favors check(-call). You also block villains calling range you can beat (straight). The line is uncommon so it becomes a very player dependant situation, theoretically you should call frequently but regs never bluff this spot (they continue very straightforward having faced a check-raise earlier) so you kinda need more information.

Thanks for the replies guys, very appreciated

Originally posted by ghaleon
Your hand stacks quite a few or actually four blockers on this flop. It's also good flop for your range. So I would like to cbet this even without any diamond. If we check we have to fold to bet which is bit of shame with said blockers. If we did cbet I would then continue to barrel on this turn. On river it would be then check and evaluate. Theory wise we maybe would want to bluff catch but it's questionable if pool will find bluffs in spots like these.

As played on turn I would prefer delayed cbet over x-r. We don't really have that much showdown value to check with but have very nice blockers.

As played on river to block bet for value we need weaker to call. But I have hard time to think of what would call. Weaker flush is unlikely to be in preflop call range. Straight might shove turn plus does it really call on this river? AT and trips very unlikely. On other hand he can easily have better flush or 77 type of stuff. Maybe that A6 or 76 with fd.

Yes c-betting the flops is probably the standard play and then easy turn barrel. But what about check/rasing the flop? All the components that want to c-bet are also good to x/r. I block MP+pocket pair+bdfd+straight blocker. OTT I choose to x/r because on a 2fd board I probably don't have enough FE, so I'm going to see a lot of rivers as OOP on a very dynamic board with lots of nut changes just like this river, and I'm going to lose the pot 9/10 times. So with x/r I generate more FE I take down the pot without having to play river. Also our bluffs should mirror value, and Nuts+fd want to x/r instead of potting? Also this hand class that blocks nuts has equity but poor visibility prefer to x/r to take it down instead of calling. I agree OTR at the moment I didn't know what to do, so I opted for the "safe options".

Originally posted by Mascherano95

In SRP oop on Ace-high flops our CBet frequency is comparably high so I would have bluffed using the T♥: midpair blocker + Bdfd. Regulars likely just fold having no nor flushdraw. Weak top-pairs are supposed to fold aswell.
As played checking the turn I would check-fold. We lack nuttiness, visibility and blockers alone without SDV are too weak to defend against aggression in general.
Against OD-players check-calling for 1 street is fine equitywise though, we also have picked up a nut-gutter.

Yes c-betting the flops is probably the standard play and then easy turn barrel. But what about check/rasing the flop? All the components that want to c-bet are also good to x/r. I block MP+pocket pair+bdfd+straight blocker.
This hand class that blocks nuts has equity but poor visibility prefer to x/r to take it down instead of calling, espically on such a dynamic board I'm going to face very tough decision when the nuts change, like this river for example. Maybe having bottom 2PR would make this a better candidate as then I would have SDV.

What does OD stand for?

Originally posted by Mascherano95
Bluff Check-raising bare blockers on Micros/Lowstakes is a mistake, I am pretty sure about that, with the additional combodraw it is more marginal I'd say, I'd still don't like it, what I can say is you make money on those stakes just playing straightforward from my memories.

I try to maximize ev as much as possible. And in my experience players over cbet/bet IP and over probe bet. And so I try to use these fringe solver, or solver adjacent:D, rare raises to maximize ev. So instead of for example c-betting, or delayed c-bet, OOP which would be +ev why not x/r and generate even more +++ev. Bluff raising in micro stakes is rare and so I try to "imitate the solver" frequency as much as possible, Instead of doing what the player pool is doing, and by that I capture more of the pot.
Basically my idea is ABC is profitable, but at the risk of sounding like a douche ♦, I want to dominate/exploit as much as possible. I don't want have a decent WR I want more

Originally posted by BunBun00

Originally posted by Mascherano95

In SRP oop on Ace-high flops our CBet frequency is comparably high so I would have bluffed using the T♥: midpair blocker + Bdfd. Regulars likely just fold having no nor flushdraw. Weak top-pairs are supposed to fold aswell.
As played checking the turn I would check-fold. We lack nuttiness, visibility and blockers alone without SDV are too weak to defend against aggression in general.
Against OD-players check-calling for 1 street is fine equitywise though, we also have picked up a nut-gutter.

Yes c-betting the flops is probably the standard play and then easy turn barrel. But what about check/rasing the flop? All the components that want to c-bet are also good to x/r. I block MP+pocket pair+bdfd+straight blocker.
This hand class that blocks nuts has equity but poor visibility prefer to x/r to take it down instead of calling, espically on such a dynamic board I'm going to face very tough decision when the nuts change, like this river for example. Maybe having bottom 2PR would make this a better candidate as then I would have SDV.

What does OD stand for?

OD means One-&-Done. So villain is never bluff 2barreling.

Your arguments are correct and make perfectly sense, it is a very good candidate to bluff check-raise indeedn. So Check-raising in general is an option, but as always it depends: First, for a bluff to workout you kinda need to know how much villain is stabbing ip and if he is the type of guy having a polarized range (has bluffs). I mean rush tables there are so many nutpeddlers and many tags just cbet like 30% otf. If he is a nit betting a super strong value range you are fucked up most of the time and that's the problem with unknkown opponents, you have no postflop stats/reads. It's all so random and hard to improve your exploit-skills. I find the preflop HUD on GG totally useless (idk if you play on GG). If he is merged he is usually also sticky then check-raising is bad. Another thing would be, on 2-toned flops/boards, having no flushdraw is pretty bad pretty much always. So when bluff check-raising solver wants :Tx::8x::8x: at least to have a flushdraw blocker. Yes check-raising some of the pair+blockers is aligning with GTO and you do it to be balanced, but that's not something to worry about on Microstakes.

Originally posted by BunBun00

Originally posted by Mascherano95
Bluff Check-raising bare blockers on Micros/Lowstakes is a mistake, I am pretty sure about that, with the additional combodraw it is more marginal I'd say, I'd still don't like it, what I can say is you make money on those stakes just playing straightforward from my memories.

I try to maximize ev as much as possible. And in my experience players over cbet/bet IP and over probe bet. And so I try to use these fringe solver, or solver adjacent:D, rare raises to maximize ev. So instead of for example c-betting, or delayed c-bet, OOP which would be +ev why not x/r and generate even more +++ev. Bluff raising in micro stakes is rare and so I try to "imitate the solver" frequency as much as possible, Instead of doing what the player pool is doing, and by that I capture more of the pot.
Basically my idea is ABC is profitable, but at the risk of sounding like a douche ♦, I want to dominate/exploit as much as possible. I don't want have a decent WR I want more

If you do have the impression villain bets too much the X/R is perfectly fine. But this is not a cbet situation actually for villain, you gotta be careful cause it has huge impact on ranges. Cold-calls in GTO world are supposed to be very tight, 5-10% in position usually whereas his RFI would be 15-25% from MP that's way more hands. Facing tighter ranges is a reason why we also have to be careful oop when villain is capable. (Against passive fish you can just value-bet/protect/give up everything according to handstrength even oop). The thing with the EV is, that it does not stem from a single action. Your whole strategy on this streets is what totals (max-outs) your EV. You gotta think first about villains betting range and then how to react properly. If you just tune up aggression into gray area, your EV is unknown and it'd be basically gambling. Not necessarily a mistake, there are situations we have to gamble but it does not necessarily increases our EV.

If you want higher winrates, you migh switch to regular tables, it is way easier to eexploit there and that's what actually improves the pure winrate. Ofc there is a maximum to it like you can't win 50bb/100 over longterm so you gotta ask yourself how good is your overall gameplan vs unknown and then weigh the additional volume against the profit you could make from regular tables - winrate does not equal the money won ($net-winnings) you also gotta consider volume. Usually for beginners it's better to play regular tables because your winrate is not set in stone, it is more easily affected by your mental state, it is often lower than expected and it should increase over time. Playing less hands with more focus you also learn more, can put more into thought process, ask better question after session reviews, you will see more showdowns, get a complete picture of different opponents plays etc..

Originally posted by Mascherano95

If he is merged he is usually also sticky then check-raising is bad. Another thing would be, on 2-toned flops/boards, having no flushdraw is pretty bad pretty much

That's a very good point, I belive that's the case most of the time.

This was actually my first time playing gg rush&cash PLO. Yeah I agree about regular tables being easier. Reason why I played rush is because I got 20% rb deal so might as well try. Even with 20% rb I think I'm paying more rake than regular tables though. If every one is nut peddling then I should loosen up but respect when facing aggression I suppose.

Originally posted by BunBun00

Originally posted by Mascherano95

If he is merged he is usually also sticky then check-raising is bad. Another thing would be, on 2-toned flops/boards, having no flushdraw is pretty bad pretty much

That's a very good point, I belive that's the case most of the time.

This was actually my first time playing gg rush&cash PLO. Yeah I agree about regular tables being easier. Reason why I played rush is because I got 20% rb deal so might as well try. Even with 20% rb I think I'm paying more rake than regular tables though. If every one is nut peddling then I should loosen up but respect when facing aggression I suppose.

Yes it's something I have found during solver studies. Solver always (semi-)bluff raising when having at least a flushdraw (blocker). It never raises naked stuff when there is a flushdraw possible. Also it heavily influences the value of our made hands if we have a flushdraw or not.

The rakeback deal usually are not worth it unless you really know how to exploit those nits (difficult when having no detailed preflop stats, VPIP/PFR/3BET is not enough imo).