Hi, Gary!

Would the only J8, 108, and 98 in your range be the suited ones with backdoor flush draws? (On a turn 8 I mean)

I will listen to this one soon but to anyone reading this and playing live 2/5 and below: Overbets on turn & river are almost always thick value. Over fold and you will print.

@@TheTree1 agreed. It’s almost always value, no one is properly using this tactic as a bluff, which brought me to the conclusion that I need to be slamming some pots in attempts to steal, when I have a superior range advantage in certain spots

I use it more as a bluff than value I'd say

So does that mean your paying for it now that you proclaimed how good it is

​@ImGoated3 Stoopid

The counter strategy there is to tone down the bluffs (but still bluff some)

Then overbet with your value until they stop calling at which point you start overbet-bluffing...

You can’t bluff the guy who doesn’t fold so choose wisely

Yeah I agree with chrisko. If perfectly normal plays like this are analogous to lighting money on fire, your opponent is probably overcalling by a huge margin, and your job as a thinking player is punish them for that with a savageness that would make a typical UFC fighter blush.

@@pokersoftwarereviews5051 big words for don’t bluff station, and value bet for bigger

Yes very much so, you tend to do a lot more smaller betting in multiway pots so you can revert to using 33% or 50% as your cbet size.

A valid question and I think you can adjust your bet size to a pot sized bet so you don't have to play jam or fold on the turn

If you have 65s then you should check because your strategy is betting big with a polarized range of strong hands and bluffs. If you want to c bet 100% of your range then you should use a 33% betting strategy.

I thought they said AKJ was bad to bet big on

On the flop they bet 2x pot? It's likely they're weaker players in that case. But I'd wait to gather a bit more info (their preflop open/3-bet size for example) to make the judgement that they're weak.

In cash games there's definitely flops where you can just stick it in at most stack depths. It's probably not solver approved, but exploitatively it works quite well. For example, if you make a 3-bet with 87s and the flop comes T96 with two cards to a flush on the table, try firing out a small bet and see if you get reraised. Any reraise is evidence that, exploitatively speaking, you need to stick the chips in. The reason is because you're 3-better, so therefore your opponent will likely put you on high cards, which means they're probably thinking that you're jamming with overcards and some kind of combo draw. This makes it easy for the opponent to talk themselves into calling your jam with any set or 2-pair, and you're way ahead of both. Worst case scenario they call with a combo draw themselves, in which case they're only slightly ahead. Not sure about tournaments though. I guess that at normal tournament stack depths you're not really playing a lot of pots with suited connectors anyway, so it's probably a moot point in that case.

Yes, betting for value is a better reason. I was specifically addressing the "I need to bet for protection" logic that compels some people to bet in these spots too often. But it's really important to note that our range as the 3-bettor needs to play defensively on these connected flops (in theory). Copy-pasting my response to a similar comment: The overpairs get checked by the solver on those flops to protect the rest of the the range. If you always or very frequently bet overpairs, your checking range on 876 is going to be incredibly weak. In short, you don't have enough strong hands to support both a checking range and a betting range, so the solver ends up checking a huge amount of the time on these types of flops. That said, if you have an exploitative reason to bet -- like you know your opponent is very straightforward and won't put you in tough spots -- betting becomes more attractive. Though I'd still urge you to mix in some checks with overpairs because it tends to lead to some amazing situations and avoid some not so amazing ones.

@@mbradycf :) awesome response thanks