PLO50 AT96ds 3bet pot, river sizing?

Not much worse is likely to call.
Trips or 2-pair might bluff-catch — maybe even overpairs

There aren't a lot of hands you could have that would be bluffy here — overpairs perhaps, so if you bet you either have a straight or air I think.

So I would bet/call this river, starting with 1/3 to 1/2 pot.

Note that most of my PLO experience is PLO8, and on this hand you even have a low, so I would bet a bit bigger.

I´d also draw the line here between A♣:T♣:9♥:6♥: and :A♣:T♣:9♥:7♥:. Wow we have a quite accurate match in our playing preferences.. but yes the 2-gappers are really worse for quite a bit since they hit less straightdraw possibilities (17&16wraps also less oesd´s as far as I can remember). All in all I don´t think it´s a mistake. Solver favours those suited Ace+T9 with 4th card either connected or pairing Jacks/tens in 3bet pots also takes some of them to 4-bet. I guess it´s because the combination of having the Ace blocking AAxx at the same time having no K or Q unblocking KKxx and QQxx. So 3-betting is surely no mistake either.

I think without SDV betting the Turn is fine since we have our overpairs value range that would bet here aswell and 2♥ is maximum blank.

The river indeed has an huge impact on our winrate. If we manage to elaborate villains range and calling range as accurately as possible, we maximize our winrate since river is such an expensive street. I´d split villains range into 2 parts, one that´d call a big bet and a weaker one that might call a smallish bet. I think it ´s pretty unlikely for villain to hold J8xx or better since you should lead or check-raise the turn. 33xx and 22xx are also quite unlikely especially for an early position openraising range. Since we already narrowed the stronger end of his capped range already quite, he is unlikely to have a strong hand and way more likely to have a mediocre hand that is not willing to call a big bet but m ight call a small to mediocre sized bet that is not repping the nutstraight so I would bet sth around 40-50% pot to get value from Overpairs and Jx twopair combos.

Not sure about the turn bet vs someone who likes to limp every now and then. He is not folding if he has any connection with the board, and it's somewhat hard to miss that board completely. I wouldn't assume much FE there. And as that is not the player we want to bluff at the river, I would check turn.

On the river half a pot seems like a good option, as it's unlikely he would call a big bet often, but on the other hand limpers don't really make a difference between $10 or $15 there imo.

Originally posted by Kyyberi
Not sure about the turn bet vs someone who likes to limp every now and then. He is not folding if he has any connection with the board, and it's somewhat hard to miss that board completely. I wouldn't assume much FE there. And as that is not the player we want to bluff at the river, I would check turn.

On the river half a pot seems like a good option, as it's unlikely he would call a big bet often, but on the other hand limpers don't really make a difference between $10 or $15 there imo.

In theory we should not bet too frequently because we are kinda capped too and would face difficulties against continued aggression ott or otr. But against the most who are passive or at least straightforward when it comes to Allin-thresholds most opponents I think we can exploitatively extract value as we should not face too much aggression ott and otr.

It also kinda has an "stop"-effect preventing villain to donk-bluff rivers which we barely can call. Otr we won´t get value from the hands that might peel another card ott. The better and more balanced villain is, the more I would advocate for checking the turn.

And the more call happy opponent is the more I would check the turn.

Originally posted by Kyyberi
And the more call happy opponent is the more I would check the turn.

Yes. Is it a mistake to play presumed pool tendencies instead of GTO? I mean even if I try to play GTO it´s often not GTO anyways..

Our default strategy should be based on the player pool. Solver strategy is one option for starting point, if we don't really have a player pool that has notable tendencies. Or majority of the pool are decent players.

I have played in player pools where most opponents are passive and don't bluff. And then there are small number of aggressive gamblers who bluff without any strategy. Let's say that the probability that an unknown player is passive non-bluffer is 90%, we should definitely treat all raises from unknowns as value/nuts. And we are 9/10 times right.

Also we can make assumptions based on actions. If opponent limps, there is a high chance that he is recreational. Which means that solver approach is not maxEV. If we can come up with adjustments that increase our EV versus average recreational, we should definitely use them until proven otherwise.

It's all about probabilities. Some people say that you shouldn't use HUD stats if you have less than 500 hands on opponent. Some say that we shouldn't adjust based on one hand that we see. I say we should, but we should always weight probabilities and be open to change our reads/notes if necessary. Let's say that after 10 hands the opponent is 80/0/0. He could be almost anything, but the chance that he is high VPIP passive player is a bit higher than if his hud was 20/20/5 or 80/80/60. Probably not much, but it's still information.

Same thing with player pool, if player pool has very value-heavy river raise range, then we should give an unknown player's river raise a higher chance to be a value range than what solver assumes. As an example.

Yeah half pot might be better. Villain surprised me by having some AA82r after calling river. Versus this type of player turn bet might be bad but on other hand its big plus if we get practically anything to fold as we lack showdown value plus have nut outs in case we get there. Getting x-r in turn is very low risk.

I don't think it's big plus if we get anything to fold. It's +EV if we get him to fold enough based on our equity and bet sizing. Not sure if hero here over values his hand, but against any random 4 cards we have only 31% equity. Versus 20% opening range we have 26%.

If he calls turn with any board card, overpair or OESD+ he will fold only about 15% of times. If he likes to call with a gutshot, FE drops to only few percent. That "any pair or OESD+" range has 75% equity, so if he is folding he is dropping only 25% equity. So it's not that great bluff, as we are quite beating the range we are aiming to fold.