In terms of river over-bet bluffing frequency

If V is worrying about QJ & JT, I believe the % players in the population who would open big from BB instead of limping closing the action with these hands, together with c-betting the 225 r flop is even smaller than % population who is capable of bluff jamming on this river. Going back to PF, from V's point of view, I should have KJ+ if I have a J.

On the one hand, QJs and JTs are top 10% hands in deep stack poker so any ISO strat that doesn’t include these is going to be very tight indeed.

On the other hand, QTs in the suit of the backdoor flush draw unblock the live combos of QJs/JTs so point taken :p

WTF is a TINO?

I'm opening QJs and JTs from the BB over four limpers. Why not? Notwithstanding the widespread and admittedly clever rhyme, limpin' is decidedly NOT pimpin'.

I'm just saying, if QTs makes a good bluff candidate, there ought be a logical reason why. Other than blocking some Jx combos, and unblocking Ax/Kx bricked flush draw combos, I struggle to see the logic, inasmuch as QT doesn't seem obviously more advantageous than any other random two card combo, lacking some explanation why it is.

Floating flop makes some sense. Floating turn makes less, unless V was planning to bluff river, in the event the BDFD bricks and hero checks.

My point was, if that was V's plan, then we gave him the opening to bluff when the river bricks and we checked. And thus, like I repeatedly said, we need to call.

But that's just me being logical.

Like I said, V wasn't checking his cards to see if he had a jack. If we're ahead on the flop and turn, the second jack on the river is a brick. Frequency shmequency, this is a call. Even at low stakes.

It’s a terrible call vs population at low stakes.

TAgg in name only.

People who call themselves “tight aggressive” but have like a 4% 3b, 8% flop raise percent, etc.

If you say so.

Assume I don't have enough context to understand the point you're making with that term and those percentages. Are you saying they're loose, not tight, or passive, not aggressive, or some combination of both?

If they're something else, why not just call them what they are, i.e, loose-passive, tight-passive, or loose-aggressive, and avoid confusion?

Yeah youre wayyyy overfolding the flop if you dont see the merits of calling with QTs on this board. Hes even in position!

Weak tight

Two reasons:

Because it calls attention to how much of a misnomer “TAgg” is when applied to most 2/5NL pros and almost every player below that. Like in the context I used it to challenge the notion that lower stakes means less bluffs, when in actuality the difference between a pro/marginal winner in these games versus one in tougher games is that they’re weak tight, so your adjustment should be to bluff more.

The other reason is (and this one’s very important) because it’s funny to me and being a bit trolly is the only thing that keeps me sane in this subforum.

Idk man, i agree the vast majority of 2/5 pros arent nearly aggressive enough, and you got the right to be your own poker lexicographer i guess, but i dont think you can use acronyms for **** only you say. Its basically begging someone to ask you about it. thirsty af lol.

The (apparently vague) point I was trying to make earlier is that whatever the reason he checked his hole cards happened to be, he checked them, then tank-called, indicating he must have considered his options before deciding to call. He must have had some sort of thought about what would happen on the river.

If he understands how hands rank, he'd know drawing to a low straight on a flushing board, or drawing to a flush with two overs on a paired board can be dicey. We don't need to know his hole cards to know he's "gambling, but with a plan" when he calls turn.

His plan could NOT have been to bluff with QTs, because it blocks QJ and JT - he didn't know the river would be another J. So what WAS his plan?

Seems to me that if he knew he was gambling when he called, his plan was to hope he hit his flush, or maybe check back or flat call a small bet if he makes top pair, or bluff hero out of his shoes if hero checks on a brick or any scare card.

To Tomark's point, or yours, sure, maybe QTs makes a good bluff candidate on the river, but ONLY if he sees the river. On the turn, he's just calling with two cards, hope, and a plan to bluff if he doesn't improve and hero checks.

It's being generous to credit this guy with accidentally making a genius play. He didn't. He called turn hoping to improve...somehow. But he checked his cards before he did, telling us he forgot what suits his cards were. We can deduce that he either considered raising or folding before opting to flat call.

If we knew the suits of the cards on board, it would be easier to narrow his range a little more, and possibly rule out A2s, but the simple fact that the turn wasn't a snap decision somewhat polarizes his range to hands that were strong enough to raise turn, or hands that would have been weak enough to fold, had they not picked up equity in the form of a BDFD.

But what hands that are strong enough to raise need to do a suit-check, but turn DON'T raise pre, or flop, or turn, and then over-bet JAM for 1.625x pot when hero checks? Damned few, if any.

JJ is probably opening for a raise pre. Probably 55, too, and maybe even 22. Those hands aren't doing a suit check, and probably not jamming when hero checks. A2s probably isn't jamming when hero checks. Even if A2s does jam, it's one combo. 52, J2 and J5 probably aren't limp-calling pre, and don't need to do a suit-check. J5 probably isn't thinking about raising turn. J2 and 52 definitely aren't thinking about folding turn. If the J on the turn brought in the BDFD, there's no combo of Jx that is also a flush draw, leaving just a few combos of AJo to do a nut blocker check.

That leaves all the BS floats that brick out on the river. I'd say his range is heavily weighted towards hands that need to bluff and pray for a fold, not monsters hoping for a hero call when they jam.

Most people who say this is a clear fold are looking at it through the lens of "how frequently are river over-bet jams a bluff", whereas I'm just looking at it as "what exactly is this dude repping?"

LLSNL players aren't smashing the flop, doing a fake suit-check / fake tank-call, and over-bet jamming behind a check with A2. They're just not.

This dude limp-called with something he thought was too good to fold but not good enough to raise, floated the flop wide, and needed to suit-check to confirm he picked up enough equity to call the turn, or wanted to confirm he had the nut blocker.

That's it. He's only repping a few combos of AJo for value, or pure air on the river, and we gave him the all-clear to bluff with his air when we checked, so we have to call.

Sorry, I think my post was too vague, such that my point wasn't clear. I don't mind his float, and don't disagree that QTs makes a good bluff candidate ON THE RIVER. But he floated turn, before he saw the river was another J.

My point was, when he called turn, he had to have a reason, and it wasn't "QTs makes a good bluff if the river is another J." Knowing he bluffed with QTs after the reveal doesn't really help us rationalize calling or folding before we know what he had.

Knowing he limp-called a 10x BB raise from UTG1 pre, that he flat-called flop, then did a hole-card check and tank-called turn - those are useful bits of info, if we care enough to use them.

There are damned few hands V can have for value, but a whole slew of bluffs. QTs just happens to be in the latter category. But he could also have A5 with the ace of whatever flush suit appeared on the turn, or some PP with that suit. Doesn't matter what his hole cards actually were before we decide to call or fold.

I appreciate you pointing out that QTs is a good bluff candidate, in case I'm ever in V's spot. I doubt I will be, since I'm rarely limp-calling a 10x raise from the BB when I'm UTG1, or forgetting what my cards' suits are when I float the flop with a SC. Let's not give V credit for sussing out what a great bluff candidate he had when he's most likely a bonehead who would have bluffed ATC here.

Funny enough, like you, I am also capable of over-betting the river as a bluff, and this hand reminds me of one such instance from my last session. My bluff didn't get through, either. Apparently my V didn't get the message from this forum, that over-bets on the river are just always thick value.

I agree that the turn tank call makes it less likely Villain has a bare J.

As for the rest of it, I’m happy for you

Or I’m sorry for your loss

Look, my dad traveled a lot for work when I was a kid, just let me have this one.

He had a flush draw on the turn, thats why he called. You also call because certain river bricks are EV+ bluff candidates, including Jx.

I mean, theres no good gto spot for this cuz of preflop, but lets say co raises, btn calls, flop 522r

CO is cbetting less than 20% of the time and is cbetting at 125% pot. EVEN THEN, btn is calling with KQs KTs type hands (it folds QT but again, this is a very different spot where btn is facing a way stronger cbet, and this sort of minor differentiation in gto strategy isnt super important)

Turn when co barrels again (75% pot), btn continues with all his KTs and KQs (and all other) flush draws at 100% frequency.

River when J comes and CO checks, btn is betting a 100% frequency with king high.

Was this response for me?

I agree with all of it, I think. We're not really trying to critique V's play, just suss out what hero should be doing.

My point wasn't to argue against QTs as a bluff candidate. My point was that V shows up on the river with a lot of hands that will bluff when hero checks, and not much that jams for value.

QTs is one of the better hands to bluff, but if he's good enough to understand why, he's good enough to bluff with A5o and a lot of his worst PP's, or KQ/KT.

OP framed the decision as binary - is the river over-bet jam at low stakes usually for value and rarely a bluff? I think you and I are making the point that even if it is usually for value and not a bluff, it's a bluff here often enough, because it's a good spot for V to bluff, the way hero played it.

We don't need to figure out what his bluffs are to call, when he has so many bluffs in his range. V can be great and bluffing with QTs, or terrible and jamming something with decent showdown value on this board.

I'd have played the river as a bet-fold, but check-call isn't bad either. I think check-fold is the worst option, unless we know our V well enough to know he isn't capable.

KQ/KT w a FD is 2 combos. Turning a pair into a bluff on a double paired board makes no sense.

It's also quite hilarious how there's a serious lack of logic with the quoted part. In 1 post he says it's generous to credit him with being smart enough to know that QTs is a good bluff candidate yet a post later villain understands that QTs is a good enough hand to bluff and therefore turns A5 and other pps into bluffs. Not to mention turning a pair into a bluff on 522JJ is not a thing.

There's just 0 consistency. Just a lot of words looking for reasons to call.

Population tendency > 3 page word salad.

To be fair to dovcail, he IS right about the turn timing tell and bare J DOES make up all but 1 combo of what he's repping and I DID already think this was kind of a close spot.

Is he posting like someone who's coping with losing an argument by posting through it? Sure. Do I begrudge him for making me sift through so much inane rambling and asinine lines of questioning just to get to one kernel of wisdom that could have been summed up in one sentence? Absolutely. But is he wrong on the merits of his case? Perhaps not...

When you need to find reasons to justify a call AND you contradict yourself while looking for those reasons you're wrong.

Not really. Your very first post in this thread says you're not calling without a J. So it's not a close spot at all. Which I agree with and I agreed with your original assessment. People don't bluff enough, they most definitely don't bluff enough on rivers and they most definitely don't bluff rivers enough with overbets.

QQ+ is the next band of callable hands after Jx, both in terms of absolute strength and blockers (probably regardless of suits). If Jx is the bottom of my standard call range, then it stands to reason KK would be among the first hands I'd consider calling with if I thought anything hinky were going on.

Also FWIW I didn't even initially pick up on the "until we saw red kings in the BB" part of the original post and thought this was more of a blind post to talk about how we play our range and what you make of overbets more generally.

My original post maybe doesn't make this clear enough, but my original assessment disagrees with your last sentence. When an unknown young gun takes a line that I would only attribute to exactly 1 combo from a standard player, I assume they are not a standard player. Therefore, I think he's capable of having unexpected hands here (including, btw, making it much more likely he has a bare J than a standard player). I just happen to think it's very easy for me to have a boat here so I don't feel the need to do a lot of pure bluff catching.

And, notwithstanding an additional consideration that makes his value less like, I STILL might fold our best bluff catcher. I'm not fully convinced by dovcail: before you overstate the certainty of another one of my posts, I said that he is "perhaps not" completely without merit.

Yeah doc could benefit from learning brevity. I am naturally far more verbose than necessary and have to curb my rambling, so i get it though lol. I manage to keep my responses 3-4 paragraphs long due to decades of considerable effort in cutting down how much I say.