som exploitationament thought

[Imthenewfish]

as we've been preached to so so many times, most Microstakes and a lot of SSNL regs that you'll play against do a lot of things poorly, but this is concerning barreling. So say a decent reg at our level opens in the CO and we flat in the big blind with some hand thats too strong to 3b bluff because it has more value in flatting. So we flop TPTK OOP on something like J92tt and we have AJ or something like that and are trying to extract value. So we snap check because we've pretty much burned it into our brains that we want to let our opponents to keep bluffing so we need to give them the rope. Well, this really applies to the flop because a lot of regs at microstakes are going to be cbetting a rediculously high % of flops vs you because we're a reg so we know how to fold and they have a hard time reading flop textures so they just cbet when they don't know what to do tbh. so great, we c/c and the turns an 8o. One of the biggest leaks that i hear about right now is bitch regs not barreling enough, so handing him the rope is only going to work if he maintains aggression a decent % of the time here. Given that he's cbetting flop like 80-85% of the time against us, he has a ton of air in his range that can bluff, but he'll usually recognize this as a very bad card to barrel vs us without equity so he checks back with a lot of air. So this turns into a fairly easy card to lead for value because hes checking back a lot of worse hands with showdown value that will call a bet. Now lets say that the turn was a Qo. We notice that BTN is fairly fishy, but not a massif drooler, so his opening range doesn't have a lot of Qx(mebe just AQ,KQ,QJ,QT,Q9s). Along with Qx, he still has QQ+,22,99,and JJ that beat us. He still has AJ,KJ,JT,J9s,A9,K9s,T9,98,97s,33-88, (and i guess some AT/KT type hands, but idk if they go in this category or with FD's because he may see increasing equity as different than as compared to keeping it like a FD on the flop that missed the turn) in his range with showdown value that we're trying to get value from by leading. so leading here is pretty thin with just those hands in his range, maybe even -EV because river is hard to play (we get less value and we're OOP). So we have the option of leading river if turn checks through, which seems like a super duper amazing idea because we're pretty much always ahead once he checks back turn. However, theres a part of his range that we haven't really addressed yet because we kinda discounted it somewhere. We do get value from FD's sometimes if we check here(given this is villain dependent), but they pretty much all regs at microstakes will mash call with FD's here, so we do get more value from just betting. The reason why betting is better than checking if villain is still betting when checked to is because he's not betting a range that isn't calling. So adding FD's into his calling range, leading 2nd pair here seems +EV in a vaccuum from what i understand(not taking into account future betting being OOP). Sorry that this thread doesn't really have a defined lesson behind it, or paragraphs/subtitles for that matter, it's just going through some thought process that could be done in real time instead of autopilot trying to get to showdown because overcards are bad and we're playing too many tables.

[!Luck]

Paragraphs. K, Thanks.

[Imthenewfish]

i already apologized for that, but i guess you didn't read it ;(

[oskar]

How can you read that which is unreadable?

[ggpokergg]

@op, try editing your post and divide the text into paragraphs you have to demonstrate some interest in your own post for otheres to be interested in it as well.

Not meaning to be rude, just an observation!

[EasyPoker]

is this just copied and pasted?

[Carroters]

Not fucking reading that.

[kmind]

I might try and read it later but would love some paragraphs. Also, "CO" should be "SB" at the top.

[Imthenewfish]

I might try and read it later but would love some paragraphs. Also, "CO" should be "SB" at the top.

sorry was meant to be reg opens in CO and we flat in one of the blinds so we'll be OOP post

[jyms]

I can't believe after reading the title I expected any better and still clicked. Not reading that either.

[spoonitnow]

I'm not going to lock since I don't want to discourage you from contributing your thoughts. However, your presentation needs a lot of work, and reflects on you (and your content) very poorly. Additionally, you should go over what you write before you post to see if it makes sense, if you have misspellings, if you have grammatical errors, etc.

I personally wish I would have realized this before I was in college, so hopefully you'll take my advice.

[unclesteve]

so, OP, cliffnotes here would be that c/c flop, lead turn is better coz of draws?

Totally villain dependent imo, i don't really like to take this line often coz it's pretty werid, adn I think oru ranges for doing it are easily defined... plus the river becomes hard to play... do we b/f? c/c? c/f? We need to know our villain pretty well.

[Imthenewfish]

so, OP, cliffnotes here would be that c/c flop, lead turn is better coz of draws?

Totally villain dependent imo, i don't really like to take this line often coz it's pretty werid, adn I think oru ranges for doing it are easily defined... plus the river becomes hard to play... do we b/f? c/c? c/f? We need to know our villain pretty well.

i just know a lot of regs don't really know when to lead so i tried to give a situation with a given reg that seems pretty standard. river does become hard, but im not going into that because i don't really want to talk about all the different things that can happen on the river and how we play it. the point was people don't think about taking weird lines and i think thats a leak. our ranges for doing it are easily defined? usually regs spazz out here because they don't know how to think. If they do start nitting it up i can just add a c/c lead bluff range, it's not that hard.

[kfaess]

I agree with a lot of what you said (even though it was painful to read).

I think something else we should be considering when we're deciding whether or not to lead the turn is how much value we can get from our hand vs a particular player. If we can't get 3 streets of value then it doesn't make sense to lead turn imo because if he checks behind we can pretty comfortably value bet the river. If we think we can get 3 streets (which is probably pretty likely with TPTK vs most players at the micros, even the regs) then I think leading turn ourselves is better.

I think that it basically comes down to their calling range being a lot wider than their betting range. The more passive someone is the more inclined we should be to bet ourselves. The more aggressive they are (and the wider their betting range), the more we should check and let them barrel.

[!Luck]

Formatted and did a slight edit to make this readable. I believe that there is value in this post.

It is a known fact that Microstakes and a lot of SSNL regs do a lot of things poorly. This post addresses barreling. A decent reg at our level opens in the BTN and we flat in the big blind with some hand that’s too strong to 3b bluff. We flop TPTK OOP on something like J92tt and we have AJ and are trying to extract maximum value.

We snap check because we want our opponent to bluff, which they do often in this spot. This example applies to the flop because a lot of regs at microstakes are going to be cbetting a ridiculously high % of flops vs. you because we're a reg. Therefore, we know how to fold. When this is combined with the fact that they have a hard time reading flop textures so they just cbet when they don't know what to do tbh.

Great, we c/c and the turns an 8o. One of the biggest leaks that I hear about right now is regs not barreling enough. Meaning that checking here and “hoping” that they continue to bluff works only if he maintains aggression a decent % of the time, which many regs don’t. Given that he's cbetting flop like 80-85% of the time against us, he has a ton of air in his range that cbets flop, but he'll usually recognize this as a very bad card to barrel vs. us without equity so he checks back with a lot of air.

Thus, the turn is a good time to lead for value because he’s checking back a lot of worse hands with showdown value that will call a bet.

Now let’s say that the turn was a Qo. We notice that BTN is fairly fishy, but not a massive drooler, so his opening range doesn't have a lot of Qx(maybe just AQ,KQ,QJ,QT,Q9s). Along with Qx, he still has QQ+, 22, 99, and JJ that beat us. He still has AJ, KJ, JT, J9s, A9, K9s, T9, 98, 97s, 33-88, (and I guess some AT/KT type hands) in his range with showdown value that we're trying to get value from by leading. Leading here is pretty thin with just those hands in his range, maybe even -EV because river is hard to play (we get less value and we're OOP). So we have the option of leading river if turn checks through, which seems like a super duper amazing idea because we're pretty much always ahead once he checks back turn.

However, there’s a part of his range that we haven't really addressed yet because we have discounted it somewhere. We do get value from FD's sometimes if we check here(given this is villain dependent), but most/many regs at microstakes will mash call with FD's here. So we do get more value from just betting. The reason why betting is better than checking if villain is still betting when checked to is because he's not betting a range that isn't calling. So adding FD's into his calling range, leading 2nd pair here seems +EV in a vacuum from what i understand(not taking into account future betting being OOP).

Sorry that this thread doesn't really have a defined lesson behind it, or paragraphs/subtitles for that matter, it's just going through some thought process that could be done in real time instead of autopilot trying to get to showdown because overcards are bad and we're playing too many tables.

[Imthenewfish]

Yeah, this defo applies to a lot of other streets and situations, but i think i forgot to stress that we're relying on villain checking back the turn with a lot of hands that are going to call a bet. This is because I'd made the villain cbet like all of his hands with showdown value on the flop. I also realize that we could just check turn and bet river, because he's not calling two streets with a lot of his range with weaker showdown value.
I'm not going to say betting turn is better or worse than checking and betting river, but in this spot with the little information i've given, betting turn will capitalize on dead money from making him fold hands with some equity that aren't barreling, and more importantly gets value from draws that we can't get on the river from if they miss.
Obv villain can barrel FD's and then we get just as much value from checking (maybe a little less because we don't set the size of the bet). I didn't really give enough information to be sure if leading was better than checking, i just wanted to point out some advantages/disadvantages because i think it's an option that's often overlooked.

[Outlaw]

Please post specific hands with reads because I am not sure what you are saying.

[Carroters]

Please post specific hands with reads because I am not sure what you are saying.

He's saying that what is important is inducing pot control with your pot control range while pot controlling your inducing range so that you can induce mistakes from your opponent by pot controlling.

Don't worry so much about value.

[HarleyGuy13]

Please post specific hands with reads because I am not sure what you are saying.

He's saying that what is important is inducing pot control with your pot control range while pot controlling your inducing range so that you can induce mistakes from your opponent by pot controlling.

Don't worry so much about value.

Outlaw I can't believe you didn't get it? Carroters thanks for spelling it out so very nicely!