Dont take this the wrong way but first off I just want to say it's good to see the original poster responding - however here it seems like you aren't necessarily into taking points opinions offered by the rest of us into consideration but rather break down our analysis - offer justifications to your own actions and brought across in a defensive manner. I'm not angry nor calling you out by any means - but seems here you already have your mind made up that what you did was correct and you just want everyone else to agree. Do you know what I am saying? You're responses aren't consistent of "oh I never thought of it that way" or "that makes sense, I see your point" - your responses are more along the lines of "yeah I know what you mean but I did it this way for this reason and the reason that line makes sense is because of this" - hope that whole constructed dialogue makes sense lol I am just trying to get my perspective across - honestly dude, not trying to shame or bash you in your own thread.
That all being said I have some points from your response to me I would like to go over. Such as, I would want to ask how you determine the small turn bet would "help to identify the queen"? Small turn bets can allow tons of weird hands and draws to come along while a large bet on the turn is likely to be ONLY getting called by a Q. So if you are betting to polarize a Q on the turn, seems that a larger bet sizing is most ideal.
Secondly...there is no such thing as a "value check" or any concept to being "the same as a check with a little value added to it" - checking the turn gets us no value - but it also doesn't take ourselves to value town. Large bets on the turn are highly likely to get worse to fold (no value) and Qs to call (value owning ourselves). So dont give yourself the reason/illusion that betting the turn small is like a small value bet very similar to a check...no such thing exists. When you bet you are doing so for two reasons - you are either betting to extract value from worse hands - or your are betting to get better hands to fold, ie: you are bluffing. It literally is as simple as that. For those that consider betting as a way of "paying for information" - this is entirely true...but if you are betting SOLEY with the idea that you are buying information then you are betting for the wrong reasons and you may as well just fold and pay them to show you their hand instead. We bet for value or a bluff - that is all there is to it - when we get called we can evaluate what hands are calling our value bet/bluff and whether we need to bet again or take a different approach.
I hope this makes sense. Again - I didnt come back to respond to cause issues, I really hope this helps you to improve your game. Thanks for reading. Take care
EDIT:: Forgot to also touch on one more thing- I saw you explain to another individual that your bet sizing was "table dependent" - bet sizing is not something we should be changing based on tables/players. Loose players are calling us no matter what sizings we choose and tight players are folding the same way. Deviating bet sizes only accomplishes one thing - it gives opponents a window into our strategy and allows us to become exploitable. Sticking to a solid strategy makes it much more difficult for opponents to determine the strength of our hand.
Dont take this the wrong way but first off I just want to say it's good to see the original poster responding - however here it seems like you aren't necessarily into taking points opinions offered by the rest of us into consideration but rather break down our analysis - offer justifications to your own actions and brought across in a defensive manner.
I assure you, I have and will not take anything the wrong way. As I have said numerous time throughout my replies, I am interested in DISCUSSIONS. I don't want people to say okay here is what I think and that is the end of it. The same way I don't want to post my opinion and that be the end of that. I hope that my replies and thoughts would create a good back and forth of thought and strategy.
Every point offered that I see merit in I have tried to note that it is a good point, and multiple time throughout have stated that I made some terrible plays, but explained the reasoning of why the play was made in hopes that after knowing the thought process behind it, could then be broke down some more, by everyone. Because this game is one of information, and the more information we have the better decisions we make.
I am not even in the SLIGHTEST trying to be defensive. Just trying to have a discussion about a game I love, and am passionate about. I feel like I have been tremendously nice throughout thanking each person for their time, and working on making a learning experience for everyone through good strategic conversation. However not one person has even attempted to have a discussion.....
I'm not angry nor calling you out by any means - but seems here you already have your mind made up that what you did was correct and you just want everyone else to agree. Do you know what I am saying? You're responses aren't consistent of "oh I never thought of it that way" or "that makes sense, I see your point" - your responses are more along the lines of "yeah I know what you mean but I did it this way for this reason and the reason that line makes sense is because of this" - hope that whole constructed dialogue makes sense lol I am just trying to get my perspective across - honestly dude, not trying to shame or bash you in your own thread.
Nor, am I matter of fact the opposite, I'm happy someone is actually attempting to create a discussion. I guess we are not understanding one another, I do not want everyone to agree with my play. Just the opposite, hearing different lines was the main point of this thread, and I mentioned that multiple times throughout that, certain lines are a good idea, and that I would use them moving forwards.and my responses may not have come out as "oh I never thought of it that way" because I have thought of it that way... I've been playing since I was thirteen, and have the good fortune of being able to work with some circuit pro's and highstakes grinders, on a daily basis. We have study sessions, go over hundreds of hands a day, and spend more than a healthy amount of time discussing different strategies.
I'm sorry you don't feel like I gave credit where credit is due.... I feel like everyone made a lot of valid points. I appreciate you getting your perspective across and that is all I'm attempting to do as well. I hope we can have constructive
poker strategy discussions.
That all being said I have some points from your response to me I would like to go over. Such as, I would want to ask how you determine the small turn bet would "help to identify the queen"? Small turn bets can allow tons of weird hands and draws to come along while a large bet on the turn is likely to be ONLY getting called by a Q. So if you are betting to polarize a Q on the turn, seems that a larger bet sizing is most ideal.
The queen is going to more than likely raise, making it easily identifiable and if we don't improve on river can easily fold as you wrote "weird hands and draws" are going to flat which is why I took the line of leading the river after the flat on the turn. The river bet is me merging my range.
I completely agree with what you are saying about sizing up the turn bet, it is definitely going to polarize the Queen. however the risk we take is losing that bet which is a larger portion than we had to, to gain the same information.
Now, if you don't think the three queens is going to raise but just flat then I could be completely wrong... however I feel like more often than not on a small blocker bet three queens will raise to get some more value.
Secondly...there is no such thing as a "value check" or any concept to being "the same as a check with a little value added to it" - checking the turn gets us no value - but it also doesn't take ourselves to value town. Large bets on the turn are highly likely to get worse to fold (no value) and Qs to call (value owning ourselves). So dont give yourself the reason/illusion that betting the turn small is like a small value bet very similar to a check...no such thing exists. When you bet you are doing so for two reasons - you are either betting to extract value from worse hands - or your are betting to get better hands to fold, ie: you are bluffing. It literally is as simple as that. For those that consider betting as a way of "paying for information" - this is entirely true...but if you are betting SOLEY with the idea that you are buying information then you are betting for the wrong reasons and you may as well just fold and pay them to show you their hand instead. We bet for value or a bluff - that is all there is to it - when we get called we can evaluate what hands are calling our value bet/bluff and whether we need to bet again or take a different approach.
Correct there is not a technical term it was somewhat of a joke, but apparently not a very good one. It's meant to be as in I'm getting the same result if I check and If I bet small, except for if I check, I don't get any extra money from the part of villains range that I'm currently ahead of. Perfect example in this exact hand (I got additional chips out of villain that I wouldn't have otherwise received by checking) and barring the 7 outs hitting on the river would have won the pot.
I want to make this extremely clear, I am not disagreeing with ANYTHING you are saying, I know it all to be true. I'm simply offering another way to look at it. this game is every changing and if we stick with the same plays that have been done for years we stay below the curve. I also wanted to add there are other reasons to bet other than the two you listed like denying your opponent
equity, or fold out your opponents share of equity in a pot.
I hope this makes sense. Again - I didnt come back to respond to cause issues, I really hope this helps you to improve your game. Thanks for reading. Take care
EDIT:: Forgot to also touch on one more thing- I saw you explain to another individual that your bet sizing was "table dependent" - bet sizing is not something we should be changing based on tables/players. Loose players are calling us no matter what sizings we choose and tight players are folding the same way. Deviating bet sizes only accomplishes one thing - it gives opponents a window into our strategy and allows us to become exploitable. Sticking to a solid strategy makes it much more difficult for opponents to determine the strength of our hand.
And to you I hope we are able to have a good discussion out of this. I am doing everything I can to improve my game. Which is why it is where it is now. By having these discussions and getting down to it makes understanding the game so much easier. We will never understand it completely or be able to solve it but it's fun to try and get close.
On your edit, I'd say that's debatable. Your reasoning for me not changing bet sizing is because it's exploitable clashes with my entire exploitative strategy. I don't ever want to play GTO. There is nor reason to play GTO unless you are playing with other GTO players. I play an exploitative game because I believe it is more profitable. Like I said I'm willing to have a discussion on this. So definitely please write back on this subject. Until our next talk. Take care.