unlucky block bet?

Well on the turn you basically probe air into 2 players. Without further further information I don't like it, but ofc I am open to explanations why it was a great play... (I have some arguments too why it might not be).

I agree with your river thougts though, beside top-pair you might also get value from worse :Tx:. No that's not too thin, straight and full is unlikely and there will quite some worse made hands around..

Bluff with air versus 2 players on draw heavy board... Don't. Even versus one player you don't have enough FE, yet along versus two.

You need preferably some nutty equity with good blockers to bet low equity hand on turn. So with T we would prefer to have high fd blocker which block opponent continuing range and potentially open bluff opportunity on flushing river. Hand like KJJT with K♥: would be kind of prime hand in low equity category. We have quite low showdown value, block lot of continuing range and can put also lot of pressure on rivers. Some other stuff could be e.g. K644hh but that has lot more potential to also make strong hand.

Our hand wants to just check and see if it gets free river.

Alright, time to teach a couple of things:coolface:

I agree this hand isn't a good candidate to bluff. That being said: 1) players over c-bet, so when he checks, in my humble opinion, he caps his range very much. Same thing goes, but slightly to less extent, for BU when he checks back. When They check back or don't c-bet I think we can remove all Sets/2PR and strong TP combos and inside wraps.

2) OTT I have way more straights in my range than theirs. If they do have a straight they will raise all of them, and I will have an easy fold. But I won't face a raise here often, and when they call I will bet blanks OTR and take it down:profit:

As they are, as previously mentioned, deficient in good bluff catchers. I think solver doesn't go for such bluffs because solver's opponent, the solver :coolface:, has a decently strong checking back range and doesn't over c-bet so turn probes needs to be more selective. Also solver bluff raises turn probes way more than player pool.

Basically I want to attack capped ranges. I don't want to pat my self of the back but damn I'm good

1) players over c-bet, so when he checks, in my humble opinion, he caps his range very much

That's a vast generalization. From my experience, cbets stats are all over the place ranging from 100% down to 0%.

2) OTT I have way more straights in my range than theirs. If they do have a straight they will raise all of them

Not really, they are about equally distributed. To be more specific none of you has the straight very often and villains usually are aware of it. So a 2 streets line is not necessarily centered around the nuts, but they do play a role yes.

I don't want to pat my self of the back but damn I'm good

Uhhhhmmm...

Spoiler

Jnandez mentioned somewhere in his 10-week transformation you'd rather want to be on the modest side, cause over-confidence usually leads to less work, less focus and less discipline. His words.

Not really, they are about equally distributed. To be more specific none of you has the straight very often and villains usually are aware of it. So a 2 streets line is not necessarily centered around the nuts, but they do play a role yes.

Probably not the best tool for this. But I checked with PLO trainer, so assuming GTO ranges, UTG RFI 18.4%, of that about 13% of 45 combos open. BU 10% calling range, 45 also 13%, BB calling 18%, 45 23%. So BB has wider calling range and 45 specifically is almost double. That's significant no? My thoughts were that I would have straights more often than UTG RFI range and BU calling range.

That's a vast generalization. From my experience, cbets stats are all over the place ranging from 100% down to 0%.

C-bet OOP I agree. but C-bet IP are imo very high and mergy. Also just betting as IP in general is very high/mergy.

Originally posted by BunBun00

Not really, they are about equally distributed. To be more specific none of you has the straight very often and villains usually are aware of it. So a 2 streets line is not necessarily centered around the nuts, but they do play a role yes.

Probably not the best tool for this. But I checked with PLO trainer, so assuming GTO ranges, UTG RFI 18.4%, of that about 13% of 45 combos open. BU 10% calling range, 45 also 13%, BB calling 18%, 45 23%. So BB has wider calling range and 45 specifically is almost double. That's significant no? My thoughts were that I would have straights more often than UTG RFI range and BU calling range.

That's a vast generalization. From my experience, cbets stats are all over the place ranging from 100% down to 0%.

C-bet OOP I agree. but C-bet IP are imo very high and mergy. Also just betting as IP in general is very high/mergy.

God. I dont understand why you guys all count in absolut numbers. If BB has the double amount of combos than having 54xx straight twice as often means that he has it proportionally as often as BTN. Let's say someone bets 1/3pot, he is not targeting those x% straights specifically you need to continue way more hands than nuts otherways you'd be massively overfolding - from odds perspective you gotta defend over 70% of your range (riverplay not taken into account) - you dont have that many straights, fulls or even sets . So theoretically there should be atleast some other hands that come aslong aswell, it is a frequency driven game - the odds force you to loosen up. On the other hands many player tighten up ridiculously so we gotta take into account that betting and coninuing ranges are overly tight, but since there was not any betting yet we have to bet out somewhat with a normal frequency not "nuts only". The straight plays a role here cause it'd complement more loose ranges well with its above average SDV. If someone calls like trips+ and only pays off a second abrrel with fullhouse, that's fine we can check-fold straight otr. But if he defends more decent straight is a value-hand. By doing so we are grabbing a bigger than fair share of what would belong to us. Since we cannot know how villains react we just set up a range that is somewhat reasonably having both value and bluffs.

Without a HUD you just dont know cbet frequencies. that's the problem so I would not make assumptions into the dark and pendle my strategy somewhere between GTO, straightforward (value) play and counteradjusted strategy vs pool tendencies.

And in general even solver understands that FE for bluffs is WAY different in hu versus 3way+. It's just pure math. Here if one opponent folds 50% of his hands to a bet on the turn, to get 2 people to fold is just 25%.

There are situations where we want to bet total air versus 2 players on turn bluff, but those are more static/dry boards. More draws = more possibilities to have something = less FE.

Idea of bluffing turn and betting all blank rivers is a bit weird, as a bit less than half of the deck are blanks and rest are not good for barreling.

Opponent ranges are likely more capped than they should be but our combo is also bad for betting. We can likely get away stabbing wider but we have so many combos with more equity or better blockers or both.

But yeah after both villain check flop our range is definitely least capped. EP can cbet wide on A high flops even 3way and BU in position can bet often as well. He should check fair amount of Ax but those can be easy to bet too mergy.

So at this point our range can have lot of Ax two pair, TT, some 22/33 though those are rare and good amount of 54. Making spot good for betting but again doesn't mean we should go as wide as on this hand.

There are situations where we want to bet total air versus 2 players on turn bluff, but those are more static/dry boards. More draws = more possibilities to have something = less FE.

+1

But yeah after both villain check flop our range is definitely least capped.

+1

Or capped to a certain degree since villain might check some stronger hands but maybe not always