Quote Originally Posted by sauce123 View Post
This is pretty interesting actually.

So, the main thing you left out in your analysis is his turn cbet%, and this appears on your HeM HUD (though it includes 3bet pots as well, but let's leave that out and assume it is accurate). Without that stat you are only comparing two lines, flop c/r and flop c/c and not 5+: flop c/c turn c/c river c/mix, flop c/c turn c/r river mix, flop c/r turn mostly bet river mostly bet, flop c/c turn chk chk river bluff, flop c/c turn chk chk river showdown. And then you need to think about various runouts which you can loosely group into 1) fd hits, 2) fd misses, 3) 1 or more sd hits, 4) total blanks 5) paired boards and then various subsets containing overs or conjunctions thereof. Anyways, the turn cbet% is particularly salient for your actual hand because you have both showdown value and 3 nut outs, and 8 outs against the vast majority of his range beating you on the flop. So, check/raise and then getting 3bet with a range that contains a moderate % of semibluffs (or worse, total bluffs) is a moderate equity disaster.

Another important stat is fold cbet to raise, your c/r wins a ton of equity if he folds a hand like JT or AK or K9 to your c/r.

Ok, fine, I'll be helpful now. Based on empirical work I've done, flop c/r and flop c/c are going to have similar equity here against typical populations of 6max opponents, which isn't to say that they may have wildly divergent value against individual opponents within the populations. Therefore, to make my range more difficult to read I typically mix my strategy with your hand in this situation if i have no knowledge of my opponent. Whichever line you choose, you are going to make a considerable profit relative to folding because cbetting 88% on this board with the way your ranges interact is going to be way too much on the part of the pfr if you exploit in a strong way. Your method of exploitation should be weighted more towards flop passivity with weak and medium draws when your opponent is passive on later streets (ie a turn cbet gives away a ton of information about his range which you can use to make a lot of good folds) and more towards flop aggression when your opponent is aggressive on later streets (ie he is likely to bet twice with K9 and AK and JT and 87 against which you have 52% equity but are forced to fold the turn mostly). It also may be correct to c/r if your opponent continues past the flop with an extremely wide range, but then folds too much to turn or river barrels.

I suppose to frame the analysis in more GT type vocabulary, the 88% cbet opens a hole in his game: either he has to fold a ton on later streets to not be exploitable by value betting/raising or he has to call a ton on later streets not to be exploitable by relentless bluffing/semibluffing. You can use your HeM stats to find which way on this axis he is disposed and exploit accordingly, or you can just stop folding the flop to cbet and showdown/apply aggression in a balanced manner if you want to hedge against his possible later street adjustments.
given my sample his turn barrel was 44%m (4/9). so it seems unlikely he's a barrel monkey and on a board of this texture i wouldnt expect someone cbetting with such frequency to barrel it too often (i think?) because when i call once it doesn't really look like I'm going anywhere and when his range for getting to the turn is going to be so weak that makes a good argument towards c/c. I also think on this board in particular c/c might be better than c/r for the reasons you stated about how getting 3bet blows us off what is really good equity vs his cbet range. then again, he seemed like the type of player who wouldn't go nuts over a c/r by 3bet bluffing/semibluffing it - my speculation here arises from his standard behavior when facing 3bets: to just fold alot and not 4bet much at all aside from the hands he wants to get all in preflop. At the time i debated all 3 options: lead, c/c, c/r. I disregarded lead since he just cbets too much (not sure why nuts want to lead here vs this guy..maybe didnt see his cbet stat? although, c/c and getting barreled off our hand sucks and c/r getting 3bet sucks so i guess that leaves leading looking attractive. plus if we lead we basically take away the chance of him cbetting profitably - does that even make sense since he cbets too much? lol). as for whether to c/c or c/r at that point both seemed to be pretty even so i just flipped a coin in my head and went for c/r. i think i tend to just mix it up here quite a bit without any real specific reads.

you say that since his high cbet % is a hole in his game..so basically, we need to just find out what street he's folding the most on and then keep on attacking up to that point? (i.e. say he always peels flop rlly light but folds turn w/o picking up equity then we can just go to barrel town on the turn, and when he does continue to the turn, we know we have little FE on river). also, his fold to flop raise stat was 40 or 50% i think over 6 or 7 trials.

now to the people saying c/r'ing a flush is 'overplaying our hand' i dont think it really matters whether i actually c/r a flush here or not on the river but whether or not villain can perceive my range to include such hands so that when he bets river with an over pair or Qx his decision becomes more difficult as to what other hands i could be vbetting other than just 6 combos or w/e of boats and then the rest air. if hes the type of player to never make hero calls on a scare card like this then yeah, i guess we are value cutting ourselves. but if he's the type to b/c because he wants to 'own us' with some 'sick call' then c/r for thin value is obv the nuts...

as far as his range being polarized if he's not betting 1 pair here then it seems like an easy c/c with any bluff catcher that has decent blockers. seems bad to not vbet at least AQ here in his spot when surely he's gonna want to be able to float this flop/bluff river (i guess?)

sorry if this post is rly long and unorganized