I like c-r on F but i think i would stop on T since it's a 3th spade , i would continue on any non spade,k,t,7 and same on R.

"I feel that if I x/raise here I'll have to bet three streets as Kx is calling a turn no matter what it is tbh."

No! Instantly get away from that Paradigm you just put yourself in!
You don't have to bluff three streets if you don't think it's profitable, it's really as simple as that.

Don't make your decisions based on some "paranoia-paradigm" that you "have to have bluffs" or something simillar.


To your hand:

Pre: standard ofc (can 3bet sometimes ofc)

Flop: x/r is perfectly fine, don't worry about that! His range is wide, people tend to cbet a lot, you have some nutted outs - x/c is kinda awkward to some degree.

Turn: I would give up here, your equity vs range just got way less, and you are barreling in an uncapped range. Just check and hope to see a free river.
I would keep on barreling a hand like J9 one spade for example, simply due to having better blockers / more equity.

River: Well we kind of put ourselves into a bit of a weird spot here, didn't we?
So we have 2 options here: Give up ; Or just fire a 1/3 type of bet to (hopefully) fold out his non spade hands.


IMO the only mistake you made was OTT, wouldn't worry 2 much about the hand TBH - just try to not barrel into uncapped ranges for the most part!

What do you suggest I barrel on the turn there after I x/raise as a bluff on the flop, I think it will take at least turn and river barrel to get him off his Kx on a ton of runouts,

block betting river with 1/3 type is kind of random and could induce some calls from Kx but I guess it will look like we are begging him to call. some small spade hands might fold I guess as well because we do rep a flush with our overall line like that. Can you expand on what you mean by x/c is awkward to some degree.

I didn't mean that I would bluff three streets because I don't think it's profitable. It is precisely that I do think it is profitable that I was thinking about barrelling three streets. What I mean is that if it's my plan to get a decent amount of bluffs that I probably have to be committed to x/raise flop then barrel off turn and river if I'm to commit a solid bluffing line. Otherwise I feel that I can't x/raise flop profitably. In hindsight, I'd rather x/raise a hand with more nut opportunities and less equity.

The reason I would rather x/call is because we can still hit many turn cards and if he checks back we can still take the pot down with a turn and river barrel.

People expect FD to c/r flops, so if you're going to bluff, you absolutely HAVE TO fire if the flush comes in. That's a major part of our fold equity. But when he calls turn, def shut it down. His sets and 2p would have tried to gii otf, most pairs would fold the turn, so what's left are his FD that got there.

I like your c/r in this spot specifically because (obv not this hand, but most of the time), we get paid when we get there, and get folds when the flush gets there.

"What I mean is that if it's my plan to get a decent amount of bluffs that I probably have to be committed to x/raise flop then barrel off turn and river if I'm to commit a solid bluffing line."

Trying to be balanced in such a specific spot is simply torching EV.

I think you are quite stuck in a theoretical-paradigm to at least some degree, and I don't think / I know that that's not the most intelligent way to beat the micro stakes.

Let me post a quick video about this topic: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Exg0P-Ijr1s&list=PLq8DE8O_uiB3ViQxbhw1H8hlWHLfBd4jV&index=31

Villains simply don't care enough and realistically won't ever find out wether you are balanced in certain spots or not, for that they would need massive sample sizes on you AND they would need to analyze them in quite some depth.


To your other questions: I would barrel a hand OTT that simply has more equity - which mainly means a hand with one spade.
It's insane how much better a hand like J9o one spade would be here, so yeah hands like that.


To your other question: x/c is awkward because we simply don't have iniative - so even if we hit he might just check back etc. etc. - simply because we are a) OOP and b) don't have iniative - x/r kinda fixes those problems to some degree.

I disagree that trip barreling would make you money here - once he calls flop and calls turn he usually doesn't has a hand like JTs KQs anymore - he usually has Two pair plus - those hands are generally not looking to fold OTR.
That being said this would be a river where some parts of those hands could fold.

But here is the deal: If I don't see a spot as a !HOTSPOT! to bluff - I just won't bluff, basing my decisions on assumptions is never really something I want to do.
Basically like: "Yeah he might fold xyz - he might have already raised his KK and TT OTF - so we can discount those - he might perceive me to x/r a lot of spades which know got there".

I want to see a spot and instantly reckognize it as a hotspot e.g.: villain is super capped here - I look strong - he has tons of marginals.

This is not such a spot, he doesn't have tons of marginals, he is not uncapped, yeah we do look realatively strong that part is true.


To your last point: Well x/c will be a profitable play - it basically totally depends on villains strategy wether x/r or x/c is better - I personally don't mind either way and both will be +EV in a vacuum.


So to sum it up the biggest problem I see here are: We barrel in a spot villain is uncapped, we barrel in a spot villain has tons of good continues, we might EASILY be drawing literally stone dead, our outs are tainted / we don't have a lot of them, our blockers really aren't great, villains range is already somewhat defined from x/r OTF.

And this is probably the biggest problem I see: I feel like you feel kinda "forced" to have bluffs here for the sake of having bluffs, is that correct?

Basically: There is tons of misinformation out there a lot of it suggests that you need a somewhat GTOish, balanced approach to win at poker - most good players will tell you that that's just not true. Start worrying about balance and such if you hit the 200nlz streets.
If you don't want to take my word on that, look at MMAsherdog (one of the best 6max nl players) when he plays even 100nlz and how he thinks about it, how he plays there.

Or watch the video where sauce aka ben sulsky played 50nlz etc., I'm a great enemy of the overall "theory is the way to go-paradigm" and I'm certain that in the next 1-2 years people will dramatically shift away from it at the non-highstakes, or well actually the trend is already starting.

Ok there you go a little rant about that topic haha


One last point I wanted to adress: "It is precisely that I do think it is profitable that I was thinking about barrelling three streets" - think about why you think that, think about the things you are basing this assumption on and ask yourself honestly wether it's true or just you being assumptive about it, basically ask yourself wether you can really say that statement with high confidence.

Ow hell that post got longer than I was indenting it to be haha - I always get so fired up about that topic though

Nah It's fine I don't mind the discussion. I'm not averse to making assumptions because nothing is certain in this hand. I can't be certain that villain is folding anything by the river even the T3 with the 3 of spades. I disagree that you can't make assumptions, i feel that you have to in poker where there is incomplete information.

I don't remember saying anything about balance. On that note though I don't think we only have to play value lines in this hand.

Also I disagree that villain's range is uncapped since he calls a x/raise on a pretty connected flop. I expect, like cycle says that two pair plus gets it in on the flop so his range is capped on the flop at least to draws and top pairs.

Do you think KQ always folds to a barrel on the turn? I don't think he always folds KQ but I could just be levelling myself.

You have to make assumptions, yes. The question is how hard you rely on your assumptions when analyzing a hand.
You generally don't want to rely on your assumptions to hard - you can basically rationalize any move in poker given certain assumptions and there is the problem.

"Also I disagree that villain's range is uncapped since he calls a x/raise on a pretty connected flop." You really can't disagree with it, because it's simply a fact. An uncapped range means he can have all sorts of nutted hands, which he clearly can have here OTT. He can clearly and without a doubt have plenty of flush combos > hence his range is uncapped. (Obviously mixed in with other nutted parts of range like QJs - AA AK etc.)

"I expect, like cycle says that two pair plus gets it in on the flop so his range is capped on the flop at least to draws and top pairs. " - Exactly, and I was talking about him being uncapped OTT - since the main topic was wether to barrel OTT or not, and there he clearly is uncapped hence you would barrel in an uncapped range.


There basically are 3 type of persons when discusssing poker hands:
1 - The "Yes-man" - the ones that always say yes and agree with you
2 - The ones that will do anything to prove that their line was good
3 - The ones that try to stay as open, objective and rational as possible - will not just agreeing with everything

Not saying you are either one of those (I just don't have enough "sample-size" on you to judge that), but you def. want to be in the third category!

The first and the second one are really counterproductive for evolvement (more so the second).


"On that note though I don't think we only have to play value lines in this hand." - Well I would only choose a certain line with either value or bluffs if I'm convinced it's a winning play. No one ever said you should not ever bluff! You should just choose your spots pretty carefully (detect hotspots and exploit them) - one of the (or perhaps THE) biggest leak of the population is that they are MASSIVE stations, which deincentivises us to bluff a ton.


"Do you think KQ always folds to a barrel on the turn? I don't think he always folds KQ but I could just be levelling myself." Yeah I'd personally judge it as > he mainly folds KQ (no spade) OTT but not always, I would also slightly discount it OTF already. So overall we def. can discount KQ quite hard once we reach the river (without the Qs), so I'd say OTR that would be a rather small part of range overall.


Anyways I guess I got as in depth as possible about the spot, hope you got some nuggets of worth out of it.

So many condescending undertones in your replies but I appreciate the discussion. I'm still not convinced on the best line in this hand. Does pokervip have any pro guys that analyse hands in the forums?

It sounds like you are saying that 1) I'm a yes man (maybe for agreeing with cycle) or 2) someone that tries to defend my line to death (maybe for not giving up on my own reasoning too quickly) rather than being 3) objective since you think that there are only those three types and you basically said that I'm not the third type (but I should aim to be).

On a separate note. I appreciate you clearing up the point about the uncapped range on the turn. It didn't occur to me (but it's not surprising) that you can go from having a capped range to an uncapped one when the texture of the board changes, I'd never thought about it like that.

"So many condescending undertones in your replies but I appreciate the discussion." Sry for that m8, I didn't mean it that way. I'm just a pretty direct and open guy, sometimes that comes off as me being a bit of an ass / comes over as being condescending, I def. see where you are comming from!

Nonono I didn't say you were any of these 3 type - I even wrote that - I just wanted to raise awarness to that topic because it's a general leak with poker-players that they are quite often number 1 or 2. If you want to know the truth: I have been that guy that defends my lines until the death and doesn't back in. And I just know how destructive that can be.

But as said I didn't mean to put you in any category of those I just simply wanted to raise awarness, maybe I did see some tendencies and yeah I just thought better say it instead of leaving it unspoken.
If you want to hear my honest analysis on it: From the small sample size I have gathered I would say you are in between 2 and 3. You def. aren't 1, which is good, you agreeing with one of the comments here didn't make you a "Yes-Man" in my eyes, but there def. are those type of guys and IMO it's really counterproductive.


As said sry if I was being condescending, I didn't mean to, I'm just trying to not sugar-code my words and be direct and honest. FWIW I have been in touch with a ton of guys in the poker scene that constantly are being condescending, and I think it's extremely toxic and bad, so yeah I totally get you there.


So yeah as said I didn't mean it in a bad way.


I think I somehow mainly have / had the percetion of you being focused on being balanced trying to play in a theoretical way, but I totally might be wrong about that, I'm obviously only having a tiny sample size of 1 hand discussion on that.
And yeah I have a pretty strong opinion against a balanced / theoretical approach in an environment that doesn't really justify it.


Edit: I guess I can also add that I felt kinda like shit the past 2 days health-wise, which might have lead to me overall being in a bit of a bad mood, maybe that did create the condescending undertone.

Maybe (more like probably) I'm too passive in this one but, I think calling flop is fine without a lot of info. Obviously I can rep the flush on the turn if I do ch/r the flop (eminently possible) but do I have a clue about villain to do that? Just seems I'm getting aggro OOP without the history or knowledge about villain.

I call flop, chk/f turn because I'm a wimp and I have no spades.


@Scrubx You can be condescending in my posts anytime you like, it's all learning.

Just my thoughts but I'm a little confused by life anyway.

Great replies Scrubx, I really learned a lot there.