Absolute vs relative hand strength - what now?

Villain is a maniac I have 30 hands on and who does everything too much. Cold calls too much preflop, raises too much, 3bets too much, bets too much on all streets and calls too much. Stats like 50/35/3.

Preflop, standard. His range is likely heavy in weak hands since he didn't raise preflop.

Flop he can have hit in many ways - straight, pair, pair with draw, two pair. However he'll have more missed than hit combos, especially as I'm blocking two of the sevens. I bet to get value and price out draws. He's maniac enough to call sometimes when he's missed the flop (floater)

Turn I get that sinking feeling. Flush is now possible. As means we can rule out AsKs type hands, but since we're looking at the weak part of his range we can probably argue any Asxs hand would have been raised preflop. But due to his looseness any two spades can be argued to be in his range. I bet slightly smaller on the turn so I can represent either the one-card flush draw or a protection bet from an ace.

He is aggro, so I would not be surprised if he at this point raises his nut hands - mainly the flushes. I also don't think he takes this line with sets so often. With the call I'd say his most likely hands are two pair, pair+draw or random crap because he's a maniac.

River, I'm really torn on. I think he has crap and bluffs enough without a spade that I can't fold it if I check to him and he shoves ($20 into $18). At the same time he has a spade often enough that I hate calling off my stack. I hate shoving, because I'm only called when I'm beat.

Any suggestions?

PokerStars No-Limit Hold'em, $0.25 BB (5 handed) - Poker-Stars Converter Tool from FlopTurnRiver.com

saw flop

MP ($27.90)
Button ($47.60)
SB ($25.70)
Hero (BB) ($50.15)
UTG ($29.50)

Preflop: Hero is BB with 7, 7
UTG calls $0.25, 2 folds, SB calls $0.15, Hero bets $1.50, UTG calls $1.25, 1 fold

Flop: ($3.25) 8, 6, 7 (2 players)
Hero bets $2.50, UTG calls $2.50

Turn: ($8.25) A (2 players)
Hero bets $5, UTG calls $5

River: ($18.25) 2 (2 players)
Hero ?

c/f to a shove, you definitely shouldn't be betting this. If you have a read that he bets when checked to with air, use that and stack him in a better spot.

Originally Posted by tyrn

use that and stack him in a better spot.

This has nothing to do with the HH, but there's no such thing as a better spot in a cash game. Either you're ahead or you're not. Tournaments are a different story. Flame away nits.

For the record, I came up wth an answer which I thought was obviously best, it worked, I pulled my arm out of its socket patting myself on the back, my head and ego exploded in glorious symphony and I was about to go on raging invincibility tilt - and came to post the hand to become properly deflated.

Originally Posted by OhioRounder

Originally Posted by tyrn

use that and stack him in a better spot.

This has nothing to do with the HH, but there's no such thing as a better spot in a cash game. Either you're ahead or you're not. Tournaments are a different story. Flame away nits.

Umm, there is such a thing as a better spot in a cash game. Vs this guy there will be loads and loads of better spots. While "you're either ahead of villains exact hand or not" is true; it in no way makes it the case that there are no better spots (spots where we can play a big pot with more certainty that our hand is a good bit ahead of his range for sticking more money in.) We aren't soul readers sir, we can't just determine whether or not we are ahead and go with it jus like that. We are allowed to c/f this river because we're unsure about the EV of c/c, knowing that this donk will likely ship his stack in against us in a spot where we crush his range in the near future.

In this actual hand, I'd never bet this river obviously, even a spewtard will fold just about every worse hand you can think of here. Check and soul read his bet size and timing imo, failing that c/f and stack him in a BETTER SPOT because there will be a shitload of them- e.g when we have tptk and he spazzes his stack in with a gutshot.

Originally Posted by OhioRounder

Originally Posted by tyrn

use that and stack him in a better spot.

This has nothing to do with the HH, but there's no such thing as a better spot in a cash game. Either you're ahead or you're not. Tournaments are a different story. Flame away nits.

It can if you have reason to believe the guy will leave if he gets stacked too many times (or wins too much) and he's a huge fish, etc.

I would raise smaller preflop or even just limp (which keeps the SB in the hand).

We can pretty much guarantee that villian will call a raise and when he does, we will be OOP to him for the rest of the hand. We also know that most times our hand will not improve and we will be playing a difficult guessing game postflop against an aggro villian with a wide range that could hit any board.

Also, as villian is aggro (and a muppet), he is likely to pay us off if we do hit our set, thus negating us not getting so much money in preflop.

Originally Posted by spoonitnow

Originally Posted by OhioRounder

Originally Posted by tyrn

use that and stack him in a better spot.

This has nothing to do with the HH, but there's no such thing as a better spot in a cash game. Either you're ahead or you're not. Tournaments are a different story. Flame away nits.

It can if you have reason to believe the guy will leave if he gets stacked too many times (or wins too much) and he's a huge fish, etc.

I was wondering how long it would take someone to say this... and it just happened to be the BC mod. Hmm... the only other reason for there to be a "better spot" would be that you're not rolled to play this manner, which basically means move the fuck down. Waiting for a better spot to me translates to "I struggle with hand ranges", which is why the myth of waiting for that better spot exists so prevalently at low stakes. That's ok for now, because there will be better spots, lots of them... at the micros. Move up to $2/4 and beyond and "waiting for a better spot" will have you struggling to get in the green. I realized I opened up a can of worms that probably didn't need to be opened in this thread, but what's done is done.

I agree with Ohio to a large extent. It absolutely reflects uncertainty in range estimation. Though I do also think its ok to struggle with hand ranges in the early stages of your poker life and check behind in uncertain spots on the river, such as in the hand posted.

Hero will never get better in these spots without some serious analysis. I might do some myself tonight if I get the chance.

The other day i was playing super deep stacked, like 700bb stacks at 50nl vs this awful maniac who was just potting every flop turn and river when he felt like playing the hand at all. i definitely consciously folded some second pair type hands that would be +EV long run to wait for a better spot since that was probably his whole roll on the table...

this is a pointless post because it basically agrees with ohiorounder in that there is never a better spot if your properly rolled +EV is +EV and with spoon that he will leave if he gets stacked a lot so more +EV is waiting

Key to this hand is blockers. Particularly 8s, 7s and As. Because of these there is a solid core of non-spade hands in the villain's range (A8, A7, A6, 87, 86, 76, 65, 54, 95, 98, 97, 96 etc etc)

A range estimate based on feel and not specific hand combos (as I do not think he plays his combos this way 100% anyway so they need a degree of weighing):
50-70%: Hands with a spade
5%: Hands with no spade that beats us (88, 54, 95, T9)
25-45%: Hands with no spade that we beat

If we check the river we wave the white flag, tell him we don't have a spade and he will shove his entire range.

We can't fold. We need 30% equity vs his range for calling to be mandatory. Since there is a core of non-spade hands in his range that we beat we cannot just fold.

We can shove. Maybe we fold out the 5% without a spade that we beat. Could be better than check/calling.

Best of all: Bet/fold small.

If I had KsKx I would have the nuts, I would know the board is super scary and I am extremely unlikely to be paid off on my nut flush. It's consistent with my line on all streets. I would bet the river $5 to extract at least some value. A $5 bet reeks to high heaven of "please don't be scared of the board - just call". A $3 bet is too weak - couldn't do that with KsKx. A $8 bet reeks of "look the board is scary - now fold".

Whereas I need 30% equity vs his range for check/calling to be breakeven, I need 22% folds for bet/folding $5 to be breakeven.

If he shoves over the $5 bet he has a spade 100% of the time.

By bet/folding $5 I save $15 pretty much every time I'm behind, and win pretty much the same amount every time I'm ahead.

Best of all, we make him fold some set and straight combos. Maybe even flushes with 6s or lower.

Come on guys - throw me some spades. This is a beautiful and instructive hand.

I'm not claiming it's beautiful by plan and design, but it turned out absolutely gorgeous.

This is what you should take away from this hand:

1. Wide ranges are not always impossible to work with.
There are many ways to view ranges - some are more useful in some situations than others. In this situation creatively thinking about the blocker situation and deciding that there is a solid core of non-spade hands means that hero can with confidence assess his EV rather more narrowly than "some crazy maniacs wide range" would let him.

2. Learn how maniacs think
Maniacs are not trying to make +EV decisions or to win money. They are trying to beat you - to pwn you. Holding the nuts the maniac will almost rather have you fold to his aggression than have you call. Almost. While they are idiots, they are not imbeciles. They are thinking. Their thinking is just not very refined. They are reading hands. They are just not reading hands very well. The very aggression that characterises them is itself an adjustment - adjusting to the majority's propensity for folding. When they call off bets without much sense they are floating. If you convince them you are strong they are fully capable of folding. They don't call bets on the river with 5-high and no equity.

When you are OOP your perceived strength from the POV of some bad maniacs is this:
Flop: check/raise >>>>>> check/call >> donk
Turn: check/raise >>>> donk > check/call

Since they are trying to exploit just the one weakness (folding too much) and they don't put much store in equity by far most of their bets are backed by very little in the way of hand equity. Consider your hand equity, your perceived strength and manipulate him so he either folds when you have nothing or puts in lots of money when you have lots of hand equity.

This means you can check/raise flop or turn shockingly often with absolute air. He has so much air in his betting range and it will fold to a check/raise. I just recently re-read Robb's post on FTC ratios (Fold-To-Continuation ratios when a player takes a betting/raising action on a street). Same thing. Don't overdo yada yada - but, crucially, more often than you think is probably perfectly fine.

So in this hand "calls too much" means specifically - he is capable of floating both flop and turn with nothing. It doesn't mean calling with nothing on the river.

3. Always consider ALL the options.
So, in the original thread I very carefully suggested that we could check/fold, check/call or shove. I deliberately left out the bet/fold small that I consider optimal to get people thinking. We always have some options that occur to us faster than others and we can get stuck in a rut thinking only of the options that are obvious to us in the moment. We need to practive considering the unusual moves also. Which leads to...

4. Bet sizing.
It is my assertion (and feel free to disagree) that in this case a $5 bet causes more folds than BOTH a $3 bet and an $8 bet. And a shove for that matter. While the eternal question when a lot of your value comes from fold equity is which bet size maximises your fold equity there are times when the answer may seem non-intuitive. This is because for each bet size you need to consider what his continuation range to that bet size is and contrast that with the cost (the bet) and the payoff (the dead money). (As well as your equity against his calling range.) There are niche situations (and I claim this is one) where particular bet sizes (often this is the overbet shove) cause significantly larger fold % to a degree where the cost of the bet becomes a less significant part of the equation.

5. Good bluffing boards
4-to-a-suit boards are ideal bluffing boards. If you never bluff at them you are burning money. You cannot call even a small bet on a 4-to-a-suit board. Neither can any non-imbecile opponent. This means HUGE fold equity.

6. HOMEWORK: EV calculation exercise.
This hand is super-pretty for doing a set of EV calculations if you think that could be interesting to you. Here's the assignment:

We examine 4 lines:
1: check/fold (always 0 EV)
2: check/call
3: shove
4: bet/fold $5.

Ranges are as follows:
A: 50-70% - hands with a spade - shoves in line 1, 2 and 4, calls in line 3
B: 5% - hands with no spade that beats us - shoves in line 1 and 2, folds in line 3 and 4
C: 25-45% hands with no spade that we beat - shoves in line 1 and 2, folds in line 3 and 4

First set up and do an example EV calculation with full assumptions and details for each of the 3 lines that need calculation (2-4 - 1 is always 0 EV) with 50% spade, 45% no spade that we beat. Make a table and fill in results for 55/40, 60/35, 65/30 and 70/25. (15 results total)

Make your own assumptions. Like you could round pot and stacks to $18 and $20 respectively to pseudo-account for rake - you could accurately account for rake - you could ignore rake - you could decide to calculate for 57/42 etc instead - you could decide B range is 0% or 10%. And note them in your results post. Almost best to pick a slight variant than anyone else so you don't have a target value to aim for but have to actually do the calculations yourself.

For extra credit - go outside those bounds and examine how high the A range has to be for all lines to be -EV and if there is a low enough value for the A range that makes line 2 better EV than line 4. Or line 3 better than 4. Or both.

Scoring/grading/validating - don't look at me
1) I'm offline from today until the 22nd. Going skiing.
2) Take a page from the bible and do to others what you would wish others do to you. Go unasked to someone elses posted results and validate them for him following his assumptions and methods - post the result of your validation. A post validating someone elses results I think is a fair place to ask for someone to consider validating yours - don't just beg for someone else to check your work in your initial results post. Earn someone elses time and effort by first contributing some of yours. And validating someone elses results is almost just as good exercise as doing it on your own. This is an exercise that we could probably all do with repeating more than we do.

No, I haven't done this exercise. So?

Now, where the fuck are my spades?

Originally Posted by Erpel

Key to this hand is blockers. Particularly 8s, 7s and As. Because of these there is a solid core of non-spade hands in the villain's range (A8, A7, A6, 87, 86, 76, 65, 54, 95, 98, 97, 96 etc etc)

A range estimate based on feel and not specific hand combos (as I do not think he plays his combos this way 100% anyway so they need a degree of weighing):
50-70%: Hands with a spade
5%: Hands with no spade that beats us (88, 54, 95, T9)
25-45%: Hands with no spade that we beat

If we check the river we wave the white flag, tell him we don't have a spade and he will shove his entire range.

We can't fold. We need 30% equity vs his range for calling to be mandatory. Since there is a core of non-spade hands in his range that we beat we cannot just fold.

We can shove. Maybe we fold out the 5% without a spade that we beat. Could be better than check/calling.

Best of all: Bet/fold small.

If I had KsKx I would have the nuts, I would know the board is super scary and I am extremely unlikely to be paid off on my nut flush. It's consistent with my line on all streets. I would bet the river $5 to extract at least some value. A $5 bet reeks to high heaven of "please don't be scared of the board - just call". A $3 bet is too weak - couldn't do that with KsKx. A $8 bet reeks of "look the board is scary - now fold".

Whereas I need 30% equity vs his range for check/calling to be breakeven, I need 22% folds for bet/folding $5 to be breakeven.

If he shoves over the $5 bet he has a spade 100% of the time.

By bet/folding $5 I save $15 pretty much every time I'm behind, and win pretty much the same amount every time I'm ahead.

Best of all, we make him fold some set and straight combos. Maybe even flushes with 6s or lower.

Given that there is another thread on this topic going on right now, I'd just like to point out that by taking this line (b/f) you are betting for information. You don't expect to get value from worse, or to get folds from better, but you are expecting (rightly or wrongly) to gain enough information to take the correct action (ie. fold to a river shove)

I think this illustrates pretty effectively how betting for information actually works. When you bet for information what you are actually doing is betting to make your opponent unbalance his range, thus allowing you to exploit him. The fact that you are not happy to either c/c or c/f this river means that you think that when you check he is firing a balanced range against which you have very little equity. However you expect that when you bet he will only shove over with his nut hands and fold his air. If this is true (doubtful, but possible) then this is a clear occasion when "betting for information" is the best possible play.

I don't see how you think shoving here is good. If you're determined not to fold then surely it's better to allow him to bet his entire range (as you assert he will) and get it in sometimes ahead than to only get the money in bad.

Also, I hope when you talk about what you would do if you had KsKx you actually mean what villain would expect you to do. Given your read that opponent will shove his entire range when checked to on the river, not checking the river with a big spade would be absolutely criminal.

I may be way off here, and please forgive me if I am, but I suspect from this last post that you need to look very carefully at the psychology you take to the poker table. You think his betting range may be up to 50% air, but you don't want to check/call. You also won't put him on a range skewed enough towards value hands that will allow you to check/fold. Then you suggest that if you had the nuts you would lead small. To me this is symptomatic of a player who is trying to avoid a negative emotional response to their actions rather than one who is trying to maximise profit.

You won't check/call because you don't want to feel like a stupid station.

You won't check/fold because you don't want to feel like a weak-tight nit.

You won't check the nuts on the river because you don't want to feel like an idiot when he checks behind.

Again I apologise for theorising about your mental state when I don't know you at all, but I figure if I'm wrong you can just ignore me so it's a +EV comment.

FANTASTIC COMMENT, thanks.

That's why I post. I get some solid critique on my thought process. Having said that, I am obviously going to ignore your feedback.

Or rather... rationalize why what I said didn't mean what you think it said but means I'm just thinking on a higher level yada yada. Yeah, that one. And then being "right" my ego will ignore the feedback.

No, you're right. In some ways shockingly right. And in some ways I still think there is value in the process. I did mean that KsKx will be perceived to be a part of the $5 bet rather than that I would actually bet $5. With the nuts? Are you nuts? Bet the amount I think has most chance of getting fold with the nuts - no way.

I'm not particularly comfortable with considering it betting for information, but I guess you're actually right. Actually I consider it also something like bluffing with the best hand.

I did deliberate overstate the illogical impulses in the original post (hate check/call, hate check/fold, hate shoving) because.. I was trapping. I was trying to get readers to miss the bet/fold option so I could inflate my ego further later on by coming in and saying see how clever I am - how could you have missed it! Or in rationalization mode, I was trying to test how resilient the readers were to accepting only the options I gave them rather than ask if I had considered all the options. Whatever.

I don't think shoving here is good per se. However, I do think this villain will pounce on perceived weakness and shove his entire range if I check. And I will call of my stack. You are correct in pointing out that I have a huge EV gap in my head for the money realised from winning occasionally against the weaker parts of his range when I check/call. I still regret each additional $ that goes in on the river against his whole range in the sense that I get less out of each additional $ going in than the villain and check/check would be my ideal river action, which unfortunately I cannot dictate.

It would be funny after all my posturing if people would do my exercise and prove that my beloved bet/fold small is never higher EV than simply check/calling.

Anyway - "You think his betting range is up to 50% air, but you don't want to check/call" Well, even in my initial post I think I said that I cannot fold. If I check, I am calling. I hate it because I lose on each additional $ that goes in, but there is enough dead money to justify the call. Easily imo.

I CAN'T put him on a range that is skewed towards value. I think my blocker argument is rock solid. Air aside (and there is sure to be some, even without spades) there's a pretty good number of two pair, pair+straight draw, pair+overcard type hands where either one or both of the spades of that card value is accounted for. Enough that with air I definitely get perilously close to the 30% that makes calling mandatory if I check.

"Then you suggest that if you had the nuts you would lead small. To me that is symptomatic of a player who is trying to avoid a negative emotional response to their actions rather than one who is trying to maximise profit"

Ok, here is the promised rationalisation section. Not with the nuts, no. Or maybe even sometimes with the nuts if I think that is the best bet size to maximise my EV. I TRY to think through what the EV of the different bet sizes are. Which parts of his range will call different bet sizes - whether I am at the strong or weak end of my perceived range etc. I don't like emotional response and I may occasionally pick a lower EV, lower variance to reduce the chance of emotional response. I could rationalise that it's an EV decision because the negative EV of going on tilt over an emotional response may cost me more than avoiding the emotional response.

Station is something I rarely am. I'm much more often a spew monkey and looking stupid that way. My ego doesn't like being stupid, but sometimes it's just the +EV way. I try.

Sometimes I make weak tight folds. Not too terrible often, sometimes for image and sometimes for tilt prevention. I tend to acknowledge them to myself by mumbling "And now we're making a weak tight fold here because..."

You've pegged some of my flaws pretty well - I'm working on them. But they sometimes shine through in my wording.

Fascinating topic as its a situation we're all going to come up against fairly regularly
My initial thought reading through the hand was "F***" . I was thinking bet fold small as well , then read all the replies about how its spewing and started to wonder whether this becomes a false positive reinforcement situation.
Bet small and get shoved over and you assume he's got the flush and fold, check and he bets .....can you really call?Bet small and he folds could well be folding out quite a few hands that have you beaten and Erpel mentioned how good he felt when it worked out for him ....but does taking the bet fold line in this situation work often enough to actually be profitable in the long run.

Actually I consider it also something like bluffing with the best hand.

You're a clever guy, don't say things like this. You can call it betting for info or, if you want to sound clever rather than a donk, range manipulation, but you can't bluff with the best hand on the river.

Here's your EV calculation with your own assumptions. I took the middle ground of 60% spade, 35% air:

Option 1 (c/f): 0
Option 2 (c/c): +$0.30
Option 3 (shove): -$6.70
Option 4 (b/f): +$3.05

Unsurprisingly, your option of b/f has come out on top. I say unsurprisingly because you set up all the numbers to be perfect for that line. Let's look at some other possible sets of action he could take:

1. Instead of folding all worse hands when you b/f and calling with all his spades, lets say he shoves over with the better half of his spades (so 30% of hands) as well as 10% air. I've deliberately chosen these numbers so that you can't quite call the ship profitably, thus saving us from having to consider b/c as an option. Let's also say that he calls your tiny bet with some non-spade hands; let's say the 5% that beat you +5% that don't. Now the EV of option 4 changes to: +$1

2. Instead of shipping his entire range when you check the river, he checks back some hands that you beat, either because he thinks he has showdown value or because he thinks you'll call his bluff or whatever. Let's say he checks back 1/3 of the time when behind. EV of check/fold now changes to +$2 (c/f as a line can have some value, coming from when you don't have to fold)

3. Let's say he also checks back a lot of smaller spades as well (very likely IMO) and is thus shipping a polarised range on the river. If more than about 35% of this range is air then you can call and raise your ev above the +$2 value given in 2.

4. Perhaps he will bluff with a wide range as you suggest, but will bet smaller than all-in, allowing you to pick the bluffs off more profitably, boosting your c/c EV.

I've tried in these example scenarios to suggest reasonable possibilities, rather than extreme cases. There are worse lines villain could take for your bet/fold line. What if he shoves over with all his spades +20% bluffs? Then your b/f EV goes to -$1.30. Or perhaps he's going to give up a lot more on the river; EV of c/f could go anywhere up to +$6.30.

I think it's important that you see that while your bet/fold line could well be best, you have assigned a very specific set of actions to your opponent that make it the best option. It is super-exploitable and relies heavily on your opponent playing perfectly against your hand if you check, and very badly against it if you bet.

Originally Posted by knaplek

Actually I consider it also something like bluffing with the best hand.

You're a clever guy, don't say things like this.

I think I'm in love. God I wish there were more people who'd call me on it when I occasionally spew bullshit and ignorance. I'll now read the rest of your reply, thanks.

Well, what can I say - when you're right you're right.

In this case however!

You're right. Obviously. Obviously. But... you're more right the better our opponent is. In this situation the opponent is something of a straightforward and predictable maniac.

1) is almost certainly off - I very much doubt he has a nuanced enough understanding of poker to even consider ABCD theorem or randomization by hand equity. If he's only betting half his spades he's not also betting some air. He'd rather bet two thirds his spades than half his spade and a bit of air. That moves the some air back into his calling/folding range (more EV for us), while I agree that the spades (and presumably straights and 88) do take away our EV

2) is perhaps true. Yes, I accept he doesn't shove 100% of the time. I am waving a white flag quite energetically but he might not shove every time. If he does check behind some of the time when we're ahead it does improve our check/fold line - but it hurts out check/call line. These are hands that we beat that we now no longer get value from. It may even turn check/call into a check/fold (at appropriate spade %es)

3) I'm not really buying either. Again, I don't think he ships some spades and some air. He'll always pick any spade over any air hand.

4) is only really true if the bet size tell allows us to maximise EV from weaker hands while also reducing our loss to stronger hands. Here I assuming that "my" wide range you're referring to is every hand that he arrives on the river with. If he bets less with any hand we beat (and we call) we just win less. If he bets less with any hand that beats us and we call we lose less.

However, while I don't subscribe super enthusiastically to all of your scenarios I completely and fully agree that the picture I have painted is really really simplistic. Tailored to my audience I'd like to call it. Like, if they find my analysis too basic they can go into your suggestions and do more interesting exercises. However, if they are abject beginners and find my analysis complicated and revelatory enough - good on them. Gives people something to work on.

You are correct in pointing out that my line is super-exploitable. This is true - and increasingly true of how I play. I play a super-exploitable style when my reads on my opponents tell me that it is the highest EV style to play. I am very well aware that a super-exploitable style will not be profitable at 100nl or 200nl - except when a true maniac or fish sits down. And when that happens, why would I not want to play a super-exploitable style against them? Might even give regs the wrong idea about me and make them adjust wrong.

You are correct that I strictly defined my % ranges to make bet/call obviously best. The 50% number really stands out as a deliberate pick. I didn't do this to justify poor play on my part. I still think the bet/fold I executed was good - if anything in the particular situation I think he folds more than 50% of the time (including some of the low spades as mentioned) - but I tried to strike the right balance between complicated enough to be interesting while set in stone enough for the beginner to have an easy time getting a handle on it. I kind of veered into teaching mode. I really appreciate the comments - on me and on my hand - but at some point last night when I couldn't sleep I decided to take this thread in the direction of a calculation exercise, so some of my comments are designed with that in mind.

Most of what you say here seems reasonable. Of course you are quite right that just because a line is exploitable doesn't mean you shouldn't do it. I would agree that against certain villains your small river bet would be enough to deter them from ever shoving as a bluff and this is pretty much the keystone to the b/f line.

What I'm not so sure of though, is this:

Originally Posted by Erpel

I don't think he ships some spades and some air. He'll always pick any spade over any air hand.

which you say in reference to his line when you check.

I always expect most villains at micros to err on the side of caution when it comes to making thin value bets (especially in position on the river) and to check back a lot of weak made hands, which is how I would categorise any small spade here. I certainly wouldn't expect most to ship for slightly more than the pot with them. However I haven't played huge numbers of hands and I do remember in past discussions being surprised how much people put weak-ish hands with showdown value into villains' in position river betting range. Would be very interested to hear more people's thoughts on this.

I don't think my point here can be said to be generic. It's specific to this type of straightforward maniac on this 4-to-a-flush board with the action of this hand. When I bet $5 on the river it is just way too believable for his level of hand reading. He can't bluff.

People at these limits play... poorly. Often. There will be times when someone has a hand on the river with perfectly valid showdown value and the correct play is to check behind - and yet they bet. They are only called by hands that beat them so it's expensive and they will fold out pretty much every hand they beat. It's just wrong.

As the title of the thread suggests - playing the river is very much a question of weighing your absolute versus your relative hand strength. But what is implied is that we want to do a better job of doing that than our opponent is doing - where the assumption is that he's doing it poorly. I think that is a fair assumption to make and the basis of many of my chosen assumptions. If we bet he 1) cannot fathom that we could bet without a flush and 2) cannot fathom that we could fold if he raises us. That's what makes bet/fold so powerful. And why he isn't ever bluffing if he raises. He's looking at the board, the action, the timing tells, the bet sizing and.. he sees a flush in my hand. No other hand he can think of explains my actions. He doesn't know if I'm trying to induce with a big spade or trying to see a cheap showdown OOP with a low spade - but a spade I certainly have!

I think you're just giving him too much credit. Everything you say is completely correct and true and something I definitely need to take into account - and take into account correctly - against better players. I just don't think this guy is good at all.

Btw, bluffing with the best hand.

It's obviously not bluffing with the best hand - because it's not the best hand.

However, it is playing the hand in a way where I expect to realise most of my EV through my opponent folding. Not incorrectly, mind you, but where he would otherwise be able to take a line that is lower EV for me than if I manipulate the situation through my small bet. Realising EV through fold equity is not the same as bluffing, but they're often closely related.

In the situation where I am realising my EV through fold equity the hands I am getting my EV from are the hands I'm ahead of. So I'm not-really-bluffing bluffing against hands I'm ahead of to extract maximum value... thus... something not completely unlike bluffing with the best hand.

Of course a lot of EV is recovered by me not paying off an additional $15 when I am behind and that part certainly ticks a lot of the boxes of betting for information, and my something like bluffing with the best hand didn't focus so much on that.

P.S. Other peoples thoughts are of course welcome, but I think we've scared them off.

I don't have time to read all of Erpel's posts, but why would you bet for information against a maniac?

Given the read, it seems that he will still be pushing a balanced range if you bet 5$ on the river, so you aren't really betting for info... Instead, he could call his small/mid flushes and beat you, and jam his missed straight/+ pair combos and his random bigger flushes.

Having said that, this must be either C/C or C/F.

What type of bet sizing are we C/C here with? Is a jam more likely to be a bluff vs a maniac?

[x] Range manipulation
[ ] Bluffing

I consider a bluff in poker to be a bet made with the purpose of folding out better hands. Drawing the line between this and range manipulation I think is very important, particularly for beginners trying to sort out the jumbled mess of redundant concepts like cbets, blocker bets, "aggression is never wrong" etc, that every new poker player is bombarded with into some kind of coherent, logical basis for decision making. Making a thread in the beginners circle, going out of your way to encourage beginners to take part in it, and then describing something as a "sort of bluff with the best hand" seems kind of stupid. You are making this bet to manipulate your opponent's range. You know that's what you mean, but describing it as bluffing just confuses the issue, even though if you take the non-poker-specific meaning of the word, this is somewhat true.

Originally Posted by knaplek

[x] Range manipulation
[ ] Bluffing

I consider a bluff in poker to be a bet made with the purpose of folding out better hands. Drawing the line between this and range manipulation I think is very important, particularly for beginners trying to sort out the jumbled mess of redundant concepts like cbets, blocker bets, "aggression is never wrong" etc, that every new poker player is bombarded with into some kind of coherent, logical basis for decision making. Making a thread in the beginners circle, going out of your way to encourage beginners to take part in it, and then describing something as a "sort of bluff with the best hand" seems kind of stupid. You are making this bet to manipulate your opponent's range. You know that's what you mean, but describing it as bluffing just confuses the issue, even though if you take the non-poker-specific meaning of the word, this is somewhat true.

Right, consider me chastised. However, I don't just segue into the wrong terms in order to add to the confusion. In some cases it's because I feel I understand the concepts - as concepts - but am not confident in exactly what the right terminology is. So sometimes I bluff (in the non-poker sense) with terminology - throw a term out there and see if it sticks. I typically have a set of thoughts that kind of collapse into a semi-coherent explanation (like the something like bluffing with the best hand explanation in my previous post) - but I am more than happy to be corrected as well as said previously - called on spewing bullshit.

Considering that, I think range manipulation is likely the correct term. I think in this situation it requires a strong read. I think I had this. Again in this situation I think it requires being able to play in an exploitable way (without being exploited), which again I think is reasonable here.

Originally Posted by Erpel

Villain is a maniac I have 30 hands on and who does everything too much. Cold calls too much preflop, raises too much, 3bets too much, bets too much on all streets and calls too much. Stats like 50/35/3.

Preflop, standard. His range is likely heavy in weak hands since he didn't raise preflop.

Flop he can have hit in many ways - straight, pair, pair with draw, two pair. However he'll have more missed than hit combos, especially as I'm blocking two of the sevens. I bet to get value and price out draws. He's maniac enough to call sometimes when he's missed the flop (floater)

Turn I get that sinking feeling. Flush is now possible. As means we can rule out AsKs type hands, but since we're looking at the weak part of his range we can probably argue any Asxs hand would have been raised preflop. But due to his looseness any two spades can be argued to be in his range. I bet slightly smaller on the turn so I can represent either the one-card flush draw or a protection bet from an ace.

He is aggro, so I would not be surprised if he at this point raises his nut hands - mainly the flushes. I also don't think he takes this line with sets so often. With the call I'd say his most likely hands are two pair, pair+draw or random crap because he's a maniac.

River, I'm really torn on. I think he has crap and bluffs enough without a spade that I can't fold it if I check to him and he shoves ($20 into $18). At the same time he has a spade often enough that I hate calling off my stack. I hate shoving, because I'm only called when I'm beat.

Any suggestions?

PokerStars No-Limit Hold'em, $0.25 BB (5 handed) - Poker-Stars Converter Tool from FlopTurnRiver.com

saw flop

MP ($27.90)
Button ($47.60)
SB ($25.70)
Hero (BB) ($50.15)
UTG ($29.50)

Preflop: Hero is BB with 7, 7
UTG calls $0.25, 2 folds, SB calls $0.15, Hero bets $1.50, UTG calls $1.25, 1 fold

Flop: ($3.25) 8, 6, 7 (2 players)
Hero bets $2.50, UTG calls $2.50

Turn: ($8.25) A (2 players)
Hero bets $5, UTG calls $5

River: ($18.25) 2 (2 players)
Hero ?

What's wrong with "Hero bets more on turn to marginalize River Decision?" Pot it on the turn, make the River call manditory."

I read about half of this thread and skimmed the other half. There is one big gaping mistake in your analysis that it's important to point out: check/folding does not have an EV of 0 (though open folding does).

That did actually get covered, though I can understand why you didn't read it all. He was assuming that villain never checked back.