Air Against A Double Min-donkbet Line

[simo_8ball 1]

Over 52 hands he is 45/9, with AFs of 0.8/1.5/3 for F/T/R.No Limit Holdem Ring gameBlinds: $0.25/$0.506 playersConverterStack sizes:UTG: $89.71UTG+1: $30.22CO: $50.30Hero: $102.80SB: $99.50BB: $76.90Pre-flop: (6 players) Hero is Button with J Q UTG calls, UTG+1 calls, CO folds, Hero raises to $3.25, 2 folds, UTG calls, UTG+1 folds.Flop: 8 6 6 ($7.75, 2 players)UTG checks, Hero bets $5, UTG calls.Turn: T ($17.75, 2 players)UTG bets $0.5, Hero raises to $14, UTG calls.River: 2 ($45.75, 2 players)UTG bets $0.5On the river I can pretty much guarantee that he never has an overpair or better. The very top of his range is something like AT, but he could easily have 44 or 78 or 83s imo.FWIW, if he checks the turn I probably check behind, but the minbet just screams "DON'T RAISE ME, PLEASE DON'T RAISE ME".Any thoughts on this kind of thing in general?

[psujohn 0]

Strangest aggression stats ever.I see some super passives do this with good hands - trips even - but this guy isn't super passive. Unless his turn and river aggression is normally min bets.My guess is that he has a weak hand but he's not folding to a raise. Getting 90:1 you can't and it's worth the 50c to see what he's doing this with anyway. I just call it and hope he's an idiot with 75.

[Sheiky 0]

Once he called your turn raise, i don't think there's much chance in hell that he folds any of his one(/two) pair hands given that he knows(maybe even hopes) that you're going to raise him a high% of the time.

[Acid_Knight 2]

I play this hand two or 3 times a week at HU. The guy defends J6o. Mindonk/calls JT8. Mindonk/call turn 3. Mindonk call river X.They almost never fold there. Sometimes if you shove they do, but on the river, I just call for information most of the time becuase they're not folding often.

[LJB723 0]

Once he called your turn raise, i don't think there's much chance in hell that he folds any of his one(/two) pair hands given that he knows(maybe even hopes) that you're going to raise him a high% of the time.

Yup. Also I assume this won't have been the first time you've been the aggressor on every street? Or is that giving your opponent too much credit to notice that?Best play is probably call. If you're beat its cheap, and if not its good info.

[simo_8ball 1]

Ok, now change my hand to 65s. Do you shove the river or just make a smaller value raise?

[Acid_Knight 2]

Ok, now change my hand to 65s. Do you shove the river or just make a smaller value raise?

I wouldn't be shoving the river regardless, but I'd still raise the pot or something close to it whether I'm gonna bluff or value bet.

[simo_8ball 1]

I wouldn't be shoving the river regardless

Reasoning?He doesn't fold enough to make bluffing correct, but folds too often to make value shoving correct? I'm not sure I buy that his fold% is balanced enough to really distinguish between shoving and raising.

[No_Neck 0]

Reasoning?He doesn't fold enough to make bluffing correct, but folds too often to make value shoving correct? I'm not sure I buy that his fold% is balanced enough to really distinguish between shoving and raising.

you put him on a week hand... so why shove the river? MILK HIM!

[simo_8ball 1]

you put him on a week hand... so why shove the river? MILK HIM!

Ah. You think he folds quite often to a river shove then?In that case, why is shoving the river bad with QJ?This is what I'm trying to determine.

[simo_8ball 1]

BluffingRaise to $40:Win 45 or lose 40. Need >47% fold equity.Shove:Win 45 or lose 68. Need >60% fold equity.He needs to fold 28% more often for shoving to be correct.Value:Win $40 more or win $68 more. C1% = call raise%, C2% = call shove%.$40 x C1% = $68 x C2%C1% = 68/40 x C2%C1% = 1.7 x C2%.If he calls $40 50% of the time, he only needs to call a shove 29% of the time for shoving to be better.If he calls $40 80% of the time, he only needs to call a shove 47% of the time for shoving to be better.If he calls $40 100% of the time he only needs to call a shove 59% of the time for shoving to be better.I just need to find the links between the two situations. I'll come back to it later.

[Acid_Knight 2]

Reasoning?

It's just how I play. This is not a situation where I'm shoving often if ever. If he's folding for $40, then that's the bet I want to make. If I knew what his range was and what he'd call a shove with, it'd make me more or less inclined to do so, but in the absence of that, I'm making my normal bet.

[simo_8ball 1]

It's just how I play.

I do that too. I rarely overbet for value, and even rarer as a bluff. I'm just trying to work out if that is a mistake in this kind of situation not to.1) The more he folds to a value shove, the better bluff shoving becomes.2) The more he calls a bluff shove, the better value shoving becomes.It's a pretty linear equation. I'm wanting to define some thresholds.

[Temporary Nuts 1]

This assumes a couple things: 1) we always win when called with 6x on the raise 2) we always lose when called with QJ on the raiseC = call percentage (as a decimal)r = raise sizepot = pot sizeE6x = (2r + pot) * C + (pot) * (1-C) simplifies to: 2rC + potC + pot - potC simpliefies to: 2rC + potEQJ = (pot) * (1-C) - (r + pot) * Csimplifies to: pot - potC - rC - potCsimplifies to: pot - 2potC - rCcombined equity of E6 and EQ = (2rC + pot) + (pot -2potC -rC)(assumes 50-50 balance)simplifies to: rC + 2pot - 2potCsimplifies to: rC + 2pot(1-C)we have some variables defined let's look:shove = 67.46pot = 46.25normal raise = 40first let's plug in the pot:total equity = rC + 2* 46.25( 1 - C)simplifies to:rC + 92.5 - 92.5Csimplifies to:92.5 + C(r-92.5)^^^^ let's look at this equation... clearly we can take out the constant 92.5 from deciding how big our raise size should be, as it has no effect on the final outcome. The percentage the other guy calls also really doesn't effect our raise size, since it is just multiplying the raise minus double the pot size. So basically we can conclude the higher we bet the more we gain.This probably isn't done the cleanest, and assumes a 50-50 balance between bluffing and value betting (basically you have to place ratio multipliers on the total equity equation... too much work)this may be horribly off... i think i'm missing something... maybe that C goes down as our raise size increases?This is way more than linear, sir... making it linear is making a ton of assumptions.edt: also, in this situation, we know a shove can't exceed double the pot... which means we're always losing money on the call... so if us betting bigger reduces the frequency of his call that only supports the argument for betting larger.

[Temporary Nuts 1]

Continuing from last post:actually, that equation is technically wrong, you have to divide the whole thing by 2 to get your proper equity, but the principles remain the same... i figured that out when i plugged in 0 for Cif we are going to bet, we need to bet really large, but let's think about this, we are losing money every time we're called on a 50-50 balance.When we're betting we're better off bluffing a lot less, because that will reduce the size of the constant against our r, which is our raise size, and may allow r to surpass the constant, making a call against us profitable... which would increase our profitability...however, looking at just the 50-50, and the never bluffing line, unless C is close to zero we're almost always better off not bluffingi don't feel like doing the ratios... but I have a feeling that the peak of profitability of bluff percentage here is somewhere in the 5-10% range, no matter how big the bluff.

[simo_8ball 1]

I'm not intending to find optimal bluffing ratios here, I'm looking for the perfect exploitive strategy.

[Naismith 0]

I only read as far as Acid's response where he said he plays this hand a few times a week and then a bunch of other stuff that was wrong.Maybe I'm playing worse players or whatever, but once the person donk min-bets into me, I know I'm winning a decent sized pot with whatever junk I'm holding. Raise this on all three streets, including a strong river bet and this is almost always going to get a fold.

[Temporary Nuts 1]

I'm not intending to find optimal bluffing ratios here, I'm looking for the perfect exploitive strategy.

how is the latter not completely dependent on the former?I mean... for a bluff percentage of b, your full equity equation is:(1- b )(2rC + pot) + ( b )(pot -2potC -rC)and this gets super complicated because call percentage is going to be skewed by r... and from the call percentage we're going to need to skew b in order to perfectly optimize equitymy head asplode, i quit

[simo_8ball 1]

I mean, I don't care about what % we should be bluffing and what % we should be value betting. It could be that bluffing 0% is correct.It isn't possible to know the answer to the equation because we don't know what % of his range will call $40 and what % will call a shove. What we can do is create intervals where shoving is correct and where betting $40 is correct.

[simo_8ball 1]

Raise this on all three streets, including a strong river bet and this is almost always going to get a fold.

I like you.

[simo_8ball 1]

Oh, FWIW he had KcTc and called my shove after timing down for a while. I was somewhat surprised. I put him pretty strongly on an 8 tbh and I thought that while he might make a hero call for a normal river raise (after all, he called the turn), he would never be able to call over a buyin with second pair.

[Temporary Nuts 1]

I mean, I don't care about what % we should be bluffing and what % we should be value betting. It could be that bluffing 0% is correct.It isn't possible to know the answer to the equation because we don't know what % of his range will call $40 and what % will call a shove. What we can do is create intervals where shoving is correct and where betting $40 is correct.

If you look at it though, without balancing bluffing properly, the % he calls doesn't matter and shoving is always better.VVVVVV

92.5 + C(r-92.5)^^^^ let's look at this equation... clearly we can take out the constant 92.5 from deciding how big our raise size should be, as it has no effect on the final outcome. The percentage the other guy calls also really doesn't effect our raise size, since it is just multiplying the raise minus double the pot size. So basically we can conclude the higher we bet the more we gain.edt: also, in this situation, we know a shove can't exceed double the pot... which means we're always losing money on the call... so if us betting bigger reduces the frequency of his call that only supports the argument for betting larger.

[simo_8ball 1]

If you look at it though, without balancing bluffing properly, the % he calls doesn't matter and shoving is always better.

I think you've got something backwards.With a static call%, betting smaller is better.If he folds 50% of the time regardless of bet size, betting $1 is obviously better than betting $40 or $20 or whatever.

[DonkSlayer 1]

It's just how I play. This is not a situation where I'm shoving often if ever. If he's folding for $40, then that's the bet I want to make. If I knew what his range was and what he'd call a shove with, it'd make me more or less inclined to do so, but in the absence of that, I'm making my normal bet.

I only read as far as Acid's response where he said he plays this hand a few times a week and then a bunch of other stuff that was wrong.Maybe I'm playing worse players or whatever, but once the person donk min-bets into me, I know I'm winning a decent sized pot with whatever junk I'm holding. Raise this on all three streets, including a strong river bet and this is almost always going to get a fold.

Funny how 2 people who have played a ton of hands respectively can have completely different experiences. Like Acid, I have hands in my playing history when someone does this, and I raise them BIG every single time, or I raise but make it look like a value raise, and man do they call every...single...time. Sometimes I'm bluffing, sometimes I'm not. But I seem to get called every..single..time.So, my line is also to call the .5 for info on the river. IMO villain always turns over something like tp or a small overpair if the board is raggy and small as well, when he plays like this. If we have 65s, I'm erring on the shove-side of raising, as a player who does these min- or small- donkbets is often thinking that we'll just call with a hand similar to theirs and that we won't overraise with pretty much anything he can put us on (wouldn't put us on a 5 here very often imo).

[simo_8ball 1]

Funny how 2 people who have played a ton of hands respectively can have completely different experiences. Like Acid, I have hands in my playing history when someone does this, and I raise them BIG every single time, or I raise but make it look like a value raise, and man do they call every...single...time. Sometimes I'm bluffing, sometimes I'm not. But I seem to get called every..single..time.So, my line is also to call the .5 for info on the river. IMO villain always turns over something like tp or a small overpair if the board is raggy and small as well, when he plays like this. If we have 65s, I'm erring on the shove-side of raising, as a player who does these min- or small- donkbets is often thinking that we'll just call with a hand similar to theirs and that we won't overraise with pretty much anything he can put us on (wouldn't put us on a 5 here very often imo).

I always raise small donkbets (this hand is a good example of it). The small donkbet/call line is never better than TPWK. Quite often it is bottom pair, an underpair, or a draw.Occasionally I'll get called down (like here), but I find that usually they fold to the first raise, and they fold to the second raise a fair amount. It is a very rare situation for them to donkbet/call all three streets imo (if you make the raises large enough).