Questions marks...

[Aisthesis]

[MVPSPORTS]

[Pok 7's]

[Aisthesis]

[Aisthesis]

[Pok 7's]

Well mostly I'll avoid connected type boards or boards that are likely to hit hands people will usually play. Paired up boards with paired and connected broadways are ugly because people will always play. For example a board like KKJ like you mentioned... Most people will usually play and call raises with hands broadway hands KQ, QJ, QT, JT, some people will even just call raises with AK-AT too. But a lot of times (for whatever reason) seems like most people, if they have any kind of PP are calling you down on paired boards, unless you really are firing multiple barrels. Learned that one from Semillion

So something like JJT again nails those types of hands... Now also consider out image as well, if we're doing nothing but showing down similar type hands (big A type or big K etc) we'll likely get credit for having a monster. Believe it or not and I've only been experimenting with this recently, I've been doing some delayed Cbetting on some scary looking flops with some success... Now it could just be that they have absolutely nothing as well but so far it seems to be going fairly well.

Flops like that can often fall into the "it depends" category, both on the player and how we might be viewed... Some times you can get away with things having a nittier image that you can't do if you look like you're LAGging it up.

As far as the other guy being a fish that's fine but even they pick up hands once in a while... Either way though I'm not sure if you are really maximizing much more there, if he's on complete air he'll fold the river to a bet anyway. If he will call down with anything you probably maximized by raising because if he had anything callable he would've called the with a 5 or anything remotely callable if he's that bad. Maybe just on a stone cold bluff?

[Aisthesis]

This JJT board is still bothering me. Am I getting it right that you're advocating exclusively value-bets? That should mean that if we bet, we have something like 99+.

I'm going to attempt a rather exhaustive analysis tomorrow. Too tired for that right now, though.

[Aisthesis]

[Aisthesis]

[shamdonk]

[Aisthesis]

Continuing really more for theoretical interest, since this isn't the way anyone actually plays.

First, the check-call is only a good play imo on JJ (since that eliminates so many of the stronger hands), but that's not his range. In actuality, it means that he thinks I'm betting this board too often.

But, if I'm only VBing 99+, then it looks like this: Say I bet 7 into a pot of 10. He's calling 7 to win 17, so he needs to be ahead on the turn a bit less than 1/3 of the time. The draws are clearly bad calls given the range.

He actually should be calling with somewhat more than top 60 out of that range. Top 66 is AT or better.

And now one should only be betting the turn with trips or a hand that beats trips.

So, the point is: Most opponents are likely to overplay their hands on this board.

In general, roughly optimal play (on any board) from a game-theory standpoint should be roughly to bet top 1/3 (this may be higher, I'd have to figure that out, and depends also on bet sizes) and bluff 1/6. However, if for reasons of reads or board-texture we get sub-optimal calls or bets, then this can change to betting ONLY top 1/3 or to bluffing everything (in addition to betting top 1/3).