I've been busy the past week, but I decided I'd post my "answer" to this theory question.

I think that there were some interesting factors brought up that were touched on as far as the decision making process goes. I liked the whole idea of the fact that his flop calling range was weaker because of his propensity to float and therefore double barrelling more seemed profitable. A lot of people mentioned with some hands that c/r or c/c the turn would be good, specifically QQ since we had the deck crippled.

I think when I put the floating aspect of opps game in the description, I had in mind two concepts. The first is it is rare that we want to use anything but upfront aggression (bet/raise, rather than checking or calling planning either to raise or win on later streets) against anyone who is very over aggressive, something you rarely see in a full ring or six max games. There are two main reasons for this. One is that opponents most of the time call lighter than they are willing to bet. The 2nd reason is that checking or calling gives us less oppurtunity to bluff in a range with a large amount of value hands, therefore lessening the amount of hands we can play profitably and decreasing our Shania, our overall winrate. So with that in mind, when facing the decision of whether to bet the turn or c/r to exploit his floating, it seems like we should be betting the turn with our made hands rather than c/ring. Another support for betting the turn rather than c/ring/check calling is that this is a not so draw heavy board, and its not likely he'd actually float a large amount of hands on it. Although, because QQ has the deck somewhat crippled, betting the flop and checking the turn seems like the best option.

The 2nd concept I had in mind was betting into balanced ranges. Using the definition of a balanced range as something with both nut hands and hands that are weak or a bluff, it is clear that we want as little as possible to bet into a balanced range. This is because the strong hands increase the overall equity of the range and make it only profitable to bet good equity draws as a bluff. In other words, the strong hands act as protectors to the weak hands. A great example of someone who takes advantage of this concept is mastrblastr / Scott Seiver. If your goal in life is to put people in as tough decisions as you possibly can, play by this rule: Never bet into a balanced range, find unbalanced weak ranges and build as big of pots as you possibly can.

If we were to play by this rule, the unparalleled, best decision to make with nearly our entire range of hands here is to check the flop. Why? Because opp vbets very thin. When he checks behind the flop, his range will be unbalanced towards weaker hands, and we have the turn and river to get nearly our whole stack in. This line may not get any credit initially, as a good hand reader may see that checking the flop is repping weak sd value, while a big turn and river bet is repping strong sd value, and therefore he may put us on a bluff. Of course, this is why we are checking KK,AQ,AA, A9, 99-JJ and all that good stuff on the flop to balance our range.

However, a lot of the time, the best move for us is to bet into the balanced range anyways. I think this is especially true in 6 max or FR where you're not 3betting people greater than 20% of hands. If, for example, we were playing a player who was folding to 80% of my 3bets, and I was 3betting 30% of the time (which believe it or not happens a lot for me), I think the clear answer in this exercise would be to check the flop with most of our hands, including nut hands, pretty good hands, and air, probably not including a hand like 89. This is because preflop our range is weaker than our opponents range and therefore we should be less inclined to build a pot postflop, especially in a threebet pot where the flopped board isn't significantly better or worse for either player. In other words, when you threebet someone a shit ton and they call a small amount, you should be checking more than you are used to.

But because this isn't the case, I think pretty much everyone who didn't check much were "right."

So here are my answers.

1. 89. I agree with the bet flop group. I'm not sure why we would double barrel some good turns here? We're not folding out anything we're losing to. I like the idea that our hand has good equity but nonetheless it just seems like we're betting to fold out floats, which we are already beating. I'd bet flop and c/f or c/c turn, hoping flop/turn timing or turn bet sizing would give away whether he was floating.

2. 76dd, Honestly I could go either way here with c/fing, and then betting many turn and rivers on good turns, or betting and double barreling good turns.

3. 44, Seems like a c/f flop, but turn or river seems interesting based on the fact that he vbets the flop thin, leaving his range with a lot of air. I think if he checked behind the flop and bet the turn when we checked again, I may call down. This hand has no equity when behind so bluffing is obviously stupid.

4. QQ, I would just try to play this hand against the maximum amount of bluffs, so betting the flop and c/cing or c/ring the turn seems good.

5. 54hh, we have no equity so c/f. Betting and barreling a 6 or 2 turn seems alright but I don't think its going to be profitable to barrel a 7 or Ace.

Disputes are welcome.