[Closed] nl100 Rush ATs oop vs reg

Bet $7 on the flop for value&protection.

On the turn you should think about his range.
I think it looks something like this:
{QQ-JJ,99,ATs,KTs,QTs+,J9s+,T9s,97s+,87s,AdKd,AdQd,KdQd,AdJd,KdJd,7d6d,6d5d}.
So basically some TPs, OESDs, FDs and medium pairs.
Against this range we have:

Board: T♦3♦8♠ 5♠
       Equity     Win     Tie
MP2    38.23%  36.54%   1.69% { QQ-JJ, 99, ATs, KTs, QTs+, J9s+, T9s, 97s+, 87s, AdKd, AdQd, KdQd, AdJd, KdJd, 7d6d, 6d5d }
MP3    61.77%  60.08%   1.69% { AcTc }

The question now is which of those hands he's betting once we check to him, imo he will bet almost all because he either expects to take down the pot or he wants value.

So generally I think the c/r is fine (vs worse TPs, FDs etc), but you should make it a lot bigger - he gets 4.5:1 odds!

As played I'd lead the river for something like 1/2 pot. He is likely to shove it in with T8 anyway and he might even spazz out against this. If he had the NFD he has a hard time folding now. I expect him to check back with weak Ax quite a lot.

Ok, thanks. If we ch/R Turn to a normal size and he calls, and the river is a blank, do you mostly plan on ch/f (on basis we only beat bluffs if he bets, since we expect him to ch/b 99, KT etc almost always)?

I'd shove it in on most rivers unless I expect him to bluff all busted draws (I'm check/folding if the FD gets there).
As you say he's just checking back worse Tx and there aren't many better hands in his range.

okay, so mostly you would not expect him to value bet JJ/QQ on the River - if it is a brick - since you assume he puts us on polarised range on turn where we ch/f our missed draws and never ch/call worse?

Thanks

Originally posted by Tim64
okay, so mostly you would not expect him to value bet JJ/QQ on the River - if it is a brick - since you assume he puts us on polarised range on turn where we ch/f our missed draws and never ch/call worse?

Thanks

Yes, exactly. A good reg might try to go for thin value against something like the Tx we have, but he might as well think we could've done this with the NFD in which case we're now bluffcatching with TP.