Over 52 hands he is 45/9, with AFs of 0.8/1.5/3 for F/T/R.


No Limit Holdem Ring game
Blinds: $0.25/$0.50
6 players
Converter

Stack sizes:
UTG: $89.71
UTG+1: $30.22
CO: $50.30
Hero: $102.80
SB: $99.50
BB: $76.90

Pre-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 $0.5


On 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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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!

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.

Bluffing

Raise 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.

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 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.

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 raise

C = call percentage (as a decimal)
r = raise size

pot = pot size


E6x = (2r + pot) * C + (pot) * (1-C)
simplifies to: 2rC + potC + pot - potC
simpliefies to: 2rC + pot
EQJ = (pot) * (1-C) - (r + pot) * C
simplifies to: pot - potC - rC - potC
simplifies to: pot - 2potC - rC


combined equity of E6 and EQ = (2rC + pot) + (pot -2potC -rC)
(assumes 50-50 balance)


simplifies to: rC + 2pot - 2potC

simplifies to: rC + 2pot(1-C)



we have some variables defined let's look:

shove = 67.46

pot = 46.25

normal raise = 40

first let's plug in the pot:

total equity = rC + 2* 46.25( 1 - C)

simplifies to:
rC + 92.5 - 92.5C

simplifies 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.

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 C

if 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 bluffing

i 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.

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

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.

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 equity


my head asplode, i quit

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.

I like you.

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.

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

VVVVVV

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.

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).

Obviously, you can experience things with specific individuals that make you not three barrel here.

My complete default setting is that unless any noticeable draws come in, I'm going to keep firing. Not to be completely results-oriented with this specific hand, but if villain doesn't hit his six outer here, he's still playing it the same way except the river call.

Some examples of raising donkbets:

Dealt to SIMO123 [As 10d]
SIMO123 - Raises $1.75 to $1.75
KAMIKAZE808 - Folds
ICALLUTILT - Calls $1.75
POKERIDI0T - Folds
DINKDONG - Calls $1.25
*** FLOP *** [4s Qh Ks]
DINKDONG - Bets $1.50
SIMO123 - Raises $7 to $7
ICALLUTILT - Folds
DINKDONG - Calls $5.50
*** TURN *** [4s Qh Ks] [6s]
DINKDONG - Bets $4.50
SIMO123 - Raises $33 to $33
DINKDONG - Folds


Dealt to Simo123 [6s 2c]
I_Interceptor_I folds
meyus folds
Pannenkoek folds
dairishbank1 calls $0.25
Simo123 checks
*** FLOP *** [8h 2s 9s]
dairishbank1 checks
Simo123 bets $1
dairishbank1 calls $1
*** TURN *** [8h 2s 9s] [9c]
dairishbank1 bets $0.50
Simo123 has 15 seconds left to act
Simo123 raises to $6
dairishbank1 calls $5.50
*** RIVER *** [8h 2s 9s 9c] [8d]
dairishbank1 checks
Simo123 bets $7
dairishbank1 calls $2.40, and is all in
Uncalled bet of $4.60 returned to Simo123
*** SHOW DOWN ***
Simo123 shows [6s 2c] two pair, Nines and Eights
dairishbank1 shows [Qc Ts] two pair, Nines and Eights <----- Ya, didn't work so well, but at least you see what he was bet/calling the turn with.


Dealt to Simo123 [Ac 9h]
cola_tight folds
pavara1 folds
Bonazzoli folds
Simo123 has 15 seconds left to act
Simo123 raises to $1.75
my_invest calls $1.50
Amarillos Risk folds
*** FLOP *** [2h 7c 3s]
my_invest checks
Simo123 bets $3
my_invest calls $3
*** TURN *** [2h 7c 3s] [6c]
my_invest bets $5
Simo123 raises to $17
my_invest folds


Dealt to Simo123 [4c Kc]
Goggolito folds
sherfy folds
Chesszza folds
Simo123 raises to $1.75
crazysculler folds
sherfy is feeling confused
sherfy is feeling normal
AceHiStation calls $1.25
sherfy is feeling happy
*** FLOP *** [Ac Jc Ad]
sherfy is feeling normal
AceHiStation checks
Simo123 bets $2.50
AceHiStation calls $2.50
*** TURN *** [Ac Jc Ad] [7d]
AceHiStation bets $7
Simo123 has 15 seconds left to act
Simo123 raises to $45.75, and is all in
AceHiStation folds

Dealt to Simo123 [As 4s]
petgyu calls $0.50
Sahree folds
Simo123 has 15 seconds left to act
Simo123 raises to $2.25
WscieklyPies folds
Kriie folds
Temeteron folds
petgyu calls $1.75
*** FLOP *** [5s 9h 8s]
petgyu checks
Simo123 bets $4
petgyu has 15 seconds left to act
petgyu calls $4
*** TURN *** [5s 9h 8s] [Ad]
petgyu has 15 seconds left to act
petgyu bets $5
Simo123 has 15 seconds left to act
Simo123 raises to $13
petgyu folds

How did you find those so quickly?

EDIT: I guess what I'm asking is, is there a PT setting that filters only plays taught on the Super Fish Forum?

The wonder of PokerEV.

Filtered for
"action on flop is bet or raise" and "action on turn is raise"

obv. I wasn't trying to say you were crazy.

Villain bet a scare card and you pushed him off of it in position. Nh.


I still think min-donkbets are just screwing around in general and we shouldn't count on ANYTHING in particular happening, whether it be villain folding or calling. I just get called 9/10 times when I raise min-donkbettors.

Anybody have a theory as to why the min-donkbet line is taken so often? I see it once a session at least.

Dealt to Simo123 [6s 2c]
I_Interceptor_I folds
meyus folds
Pannenkoek folds
dairishbank1 calls $0.25
Simo123 checks
*** FLOP *** [8h 2s 9s]
dairishbank1 checks
Simo123 bets $1
dairishbank1 calls $1
*** TURN *** [8h 2s 9s] [9c]
dairishbank1 bets $0.50
Simo123 has 15 seconds left to act
Simo123 raises to $6
dairishbank1 calls $5.50
*** RIVER *** [8h 2s 9s 9c] [8d]
dairishbank1 checks
Simo123 bets $7
dairishbank1 calls $2.40, and is all in
Uncalled bet of $4.60 returned to Simo123
*** SHOW DOWN ***
Simo123 shows [6s 2c] two pair, Nines and Eights
dairishbank1 shows [Qc Ts] two pair, Nines and Eights <----- Ya, didn't work so well, but at least you see what he was bet/calling the turn with.

Villain had maybe 1/7 of teh pot in front and you bet?


I had 6 high with the river counterfeit, and I was pretty certain he didn't have a 9. I would despise checking behind there and losing to 77, JT, QT, 67, XsXs. I think betting there is EASILY the best play. He is folding more than 1/8th of the time.

I'd say that >80% of the time the mindonkbet folds to a raise on the flop.

It's usually something like ace or king high. Sometimes it's an underpair or bottom pair weak kicker. Occasionally it's a random draw like a gutshot.

Sometimes they get stubborn - they call the flop raise, and then fold the turn.

Firing the river isn't something I do every time. If I have showdown value against some missed draws or bottom pair or something I'll check it back, but when you know pretty much for certain that someone is very weak, it seems pretty clear that you should bet if you think they will fold a decent % of their range.


In this hand I thought an 8 made up a large % of his range, and that he wouldn't call with it. It turns out he turned top pair with a king high OOP float, which wasn't too large a part of his range imo, and he even thought for a long time before calling with that.