100z value bet sizing otr 28222p

PokerStars Zoom No-Limit Hold'em, $1.00 BB (6 handed) - PokerStars Converter Tool from http://www.flopturnriver.casinowinning.net

Hero (Button) ($288.94)
SB ($339.04)
BB ($197.20)
UTG ($103.21)
MP ($163.15)
CO ($103.18)

Preflop: Hero is Button with J, K
1 fold, MP raises to $2.87, 1 fold, Hero calls $2.87, 2 folds

Flop: ($7.24) 6, 4, 9 (2 players)
MP checks, Hero bets $4.62, MP calls $4.62

Turn: ($16.48) 2 (2 players)
MP checks, Hero bets $11.54, MP calls $11.54

River: ($39.56) J (2 players)
MP checks, Hero bets $18.89


not sure what frequency people arrive with the following holdings by the river but here is a range I think the pool can play this way, may be off somewhere:

QQ(6) KK(3) - - TT(6) A9s(3) K9s(2) Q9s(3) T9s (3) 98s(3) JTss, QJss, KJss

I assume almost no one should c/c pairs below 9x twice (though I have seen it)

of the possible holdings villain could bluff catch otr (ignoring previous street splitting), we lose to 9 and beat 23.

if we bet half pot, we are making it pretty thin as we are making a lot of assumptions about villains range - maybe a 1/3 size would be more appropriate?

curious to hear what you guys think

My estimating of the 100z population's range here:

AA-QQ (15) discounted 50%, so 7.5 combos
JJ (1) discounted 50%, 0.5 combos
J9s (1) discounted 33%, 0.66 combos


TT (6) discounted 50%, so 3 combos
97s-A9s (17) discounted 33%, so 11 combos
As6s 7s6s 6s5s (3)
88-77 (12) discounted 66%, so 4 combos

So you lose to 8.66 and win against 21. The problem with going for a tiny size here is that people are smart enough to know you wouldn't bluff for 1/3 pot. I'm generally inclined to think that if you can't justify a half pot bet in this spot, you shouldn't bet at all. His QQ+ hands are likely above the cap of your range that would bet only 1/3 pot, so they could theoretically find a check/raise, which is a pretty big disaster for you if they're capable of balancing those raises with a few bluffs, causing you to lose your bet plus the whole pot when you fold the best hand sometimes.

With a solid 70% equity vs his range, I think I find a decent sized bet here of like 24, and I'd expect him to defend quite a bit of his range to it when the double flush draw bricks off.

I like the sizing. I feel like enough ppl can convince themselves that you're going for a cheap bluff with bricked FD to call pretty light here.

It's clear from the analysis that an accurate estimation of the frequency of his QQ+ slowplays is key here. Half pot might be best if you just aren't sure how he plays those hands. With a read that he mostly bets them, I like near potting it here, cause that's probably how I'd play my bluffs. I tend not to 1/2 pot it here with any bluffs like this so its pure explo for me to bet 1/2 pot with KJ.

Originally Posted by Renton

My estimating of the 100z population's range here:

AA-QQ (15) discounted 50%, so 7.5 combos
JJ (1) discounted 50%, 0.5 combos
J9s (1) discounted 33%, 0.66 combos


TT (6) discounted 50%, so 3 combos
97s-A9s (17) discounted 33%, so 11 combos
As6s 7s6s 6s5s (3)
88-77 (12) discounted 66%, so 4 combos

So you lose to 8.66 and win against 21. The problem with going for a tiny size here is that people are smart enough to know you wouldn't bluff for 1/3 pot. I'm generally inclined to think that if you can't justify a half pot bet in this spot, you shouldn't bet at all. His QQ+ hands are likely above the cap of your range that would bet only 1/3 pot, so they could theoretically find a check/raise, which is a pretty big disaster for you if they're capable of balancing those raises with a few bluffs, causing you to lose your bet plus the whole pot when you fold the best hand sometimes.

With a solid 70% equity vs his range, I think I find a decent sized bet here of like 24, and I'd expect him to defend quite a bit of his range to it when the double flush draw bricks off.

well then if people want to assume they are ahead on the leveling war, would it not make sense to do some work on a strategy that involves a smaller bet size on the river with a certain subset of value hands that really well benefit from it, add the appropriate # of bluffs, and then expect the bluffs to have a higher than standard expectation if the pool plays poorly (overfold) vs it?

As for him being able to c/bomb QQ+ being a disaster when holding KJ - are you saying that they may adjust their range in such a way that we no longer can value bet KJ? Or that we can still valuebet but its razor thin and we give up a ton of value (our stack maybe) vs that range when we have to call 1-a of our Jx combos to avoid exploitation) - - - - I think a counter to this would simply be to move bottom set combos into this range. we have 3 possible KJs, 3 possible AJs - and I guess even less if we aren't betting AJ/KJ w/o a FD. w/o doing any maths right this moment as im about to crash, if we just flip a coin when we have bottom set we can bet it the same size as our KJ/AJ hands and villain can't value raise QQ+ w/o value cutting himself. I think AJ/KJ will be discounted also given that we may 3bet sometimes preflop.

thoughts? as far as solving for how to build the combos should be easy to do in crev so will probably mess around with it more closely tomorrow

No what I'm saying is I'd be wary capping your range by splitting it into different sizes based on hand strength. I really doubt you're 1/3 potting it with a set.

There's just no way 1/3 pot is approaching optimal play here, when you have a zillion bluffs and a decent amount of >85% equity hands. Optimal play might have you splitting a tiny 1/3p range with hands like this, TT, A9 and nutty J9/99 hands which block the world. It's hard to know. JJ/66/44/22 are a good slice of your range here and REALLY want to pot it or larger, and since they are nearly 100% equity value bets, they dictate a lot about how you should size your range here.