10NLZ - Flopped flush, river pairs board.

Poker Stars No-Limit Hold'em, $0.10 BB (6 handed)

Button ($22.19)
SB ($12.02)
BB ($12.01)
Hero (UTG) ($11.20)
MP ($17.91)
CO ($13.41)

Preflop: Hero is UTG with Jhttp://www.flopturnriver.com/pokerfo...ilies/club.gif, 10http://www.flopturnriver.com/pokerfo...ilies/club.gif
Hero raises $0.30, 1 fold, CO calls $0.30, 3 folds

Flop: ($0.75) Khttp://www.flopturnriver.com/pokerfo...ilies/club.gif, 6http://www.flopturnriver.com/pokerfo...ilies/club.gif, 3http://www.flopturnriver.com/pokerfo...ilies/club.gif (2 players)
Hero bets $0.50, CO calls $0.50

Turn: ($1.75) Qhttp://www.flopturnriver.com/pokerfo...es/diamond.gif (2 players)
Hero bets $1.20, CO calls $1.20

River: ($4.15) 6http://www.flopturnriver.com/pokerfo...lies/heart.gif (2 players)
Hero bets $2, CO raises $11.41 (All-In), Hero calls $7.20 (All-In)

Total pot: $22.55


Hands that villain raises for value are AcQc, QQ, 66, 33. I doubt many people in the CO are flatting Axs vs UTG open but don't really know the games I suppose. I've not given villain KK because he will almost always raise it and this is somewhat compensated by the fact I don't believe he flats QQ all the time.

That is 1 + 3 + 3 + 3 = 10 combos.

Assuming I need 35% equity to call after rake so that's 6 combos of hands I need to beat. Some hands that are maybe realistic for villain to bluff are hands like strong Aces especially w/blockers and draws to Ac & straight. I'd also think that villain could play worse flushes this way.

Not 100% sure on river sizing, may be too small.

Thoughts?


edit - 66 is only 1 combo so makes 8 combos in total which doesn't have any major implications on the calculations.

I'd assume he has it (FH or better flush).
You just don't get a lot of AI River bluffs at 10c and calling that far to make one when you could well have nuts...

6 Handed I'd guess (I don't play 6h much) there's a reasonable chance of more (winning) flush combos from a random villain (you opened JT UTG) and I can't see them raising weaker flushes here very often. K6 and K3 are also possible potentially -even KQ if he's fishy or thinks you are (you tell us nothing about villain or your image).

You might have bet harder on the Turn but I'm not sure you should have. River is a fairly weak bet but I don't think it mattered as I think he has it. Bigger bet would have got you more against small flush.


As all the experts tell us: If you fold to every big river bet you won't go far wrong.

I certainly make my share of poor calls here often thinking "what can he possibly have that beats me?" followed by "...oh yeah that" or "he called with whaaat?!?!!???"



They say don't post results but that applies to board cards (your play shouldn't be affected by what the River card happened to be): what the opponent turned out to have is potentially interesting and the basis for future reads ... so was I right?

This smells very fishy.
Is he floating you, maybe with Ac in his hand as a blocker?
Or did he have you beat from the beginning?
Why the huge overbet on the river if he has the nuts? He must know you have a flush.
Again, reads would be important.
I guess nevertheless against unknown I would fold, assuming he has a higher flush. I would not be scared of a FH.

Bet sizing is OK IMO.

I think you should definitely assume all Axs (8).
I'd assume at least 1 combo of KK and 2 of QQ - 3.
66,33 - 3 (discounted 1, that they may raise earlier sometimes).

So total value of 14.

The real difficulty here is what kind of hands will bluff here?
AcJ - 3
AcQ - 2 - should probably even be discounted, since it has a pair (1)
Possibly a hand like 99c if he gets that far - discounted to 1-2 combos.
Total bluffable hands 5-6.

You're good 26-30% of the time.

Pot of $15.35, calling $7.20 -> need to be good 32% of the time to call. So it should be a fold here.

An interesting thing to note about this hand is that if we only had top pair, but it was AcK we'd almost be in just as good of a spot facing a jam on the river, due to blocker effects. (blocking some of his bluffs but also blocking his nut flushes and some KK boats).

This is clearly a fold, it's just always a boat.

This post is like giving relationship advice...it's always easier to see the correct answer when it is someone else. Sure, reading the post, I immediately think that you are up against a better hand and it is a fold. But, if I am playing the hand, I probably talk myself into a call as the clock runs down and then mutter to myself for the next 10 minutes that I have to quit making big river calls.

Not knowing anything about the villain or your image, it's difficult to do much reliable analysis, but I have a hard time seeing this as a full house. I'm not sure I see the play that leads to a full house at the river. If you flop a set on a monotone board, do you really just call 2 streets, keeping in mind that neither player has a read on the other? If another club comes, you are either 1) now losing 2) getting no action. And a club is going to hit about 38% of the time by the river. I think the average player definitely raises a set on either the flop or turn. Obviously, arguments can be made for just calling, but usually only with a read on the opponent.

Like Griffey, I suspect that a lot of Axs are in his range, given what I see at 10nl. That hand makes sense across every street. Not that it matters much which hand beats you. A bad river call is still a bad river call.

Having said that, I have seen enough bizarre play at 10nl, that it could be 63o for all I know!

I have a question to those of you that play Zoom, or some such variant. Why? I don't mean that facetiously. I really am curious what the advantages are. Is it just volume? Are the opponents much worse? Is there an advantage to being less readable? How much do you lose from not having reads and table flow info?

thanks

I suppose it could be Acx chasing and then bluffing.

*calls*

villain shows 66

*sigh*

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by boutron

If you flop a set on a monotone board, do you really just call 2 streets?

---

exactly.

this is going to be AcKx,Ac6x or some other random spew. villain makes no sense. 63 exactly is the only hand I would expect to see here that villain flats twice and shoves river. if he flopped nut flush hes going to be worried about you betting the pair board OTR, if he flopped Q hi flush hes going to be worried about overflush or boat. if he flatted twice with a set then make a note that villain underplays on monotone boards and save monies next time. if you fold here you learn nothing about villains tendencies, which will cost you more than the extra monies you put in OTR in this hand over the long run.
call, sigh, learn. save money.
fold,sigh, feel stupid, cost money cuz u fold this time and call next and now you've lost twice the money you should have cuz your still thinking about this hand.

You call the two streets because the fish may fold to any raise but will likely check-call the river with top pair and may well keep betting into your with air ..well that's the sort of reasoning anyway: not sure it's good reasoning. Mono-suit flop you think your set may well be good but you're afraid of a flush so you're going to showdown as cheap as possible unless you hit the FH and maybe fold to a 4th club.

In any case it is something that happens at this level. What doesn't happen much is big (any) River bluffs (and you shouldn't make them yourself very much because you do get far too many calls).

Whatever you thought his range was the big river bet is highly polarised and almost invariably strong (at this level).

Why Play ZOOM?
I like zoom for a number of reasons:
+ looks like it should be attractive to fish (the one argument for playing those ghastly Spin games)
+ fast action
+ controlled action: you get the action very fast with only a couple (I like 3) of tables open but at the same time you don't risk having 8 tables all present tough decisions at once.
+ huge edge against people without HUDs
+ less bankroll on the table for the action (you can still lose it fast but at least you have to lose it sequentially) ...not sure this one is actually a real benefit

You probably do lose something in not having a table dynamic that might let you intimidate opponents but the chances of setting up plays for later at this level are limited: some people just won't fold to a bluff no matter how many times you showed them the nuts with identical plays -that kind of thing is more likely to just get you into trouble. Also how many tables can you play while tracking this kind of dynamic anyway?

Where you definitely lose something is that you can't select games to hunt down fish and destroy them utterly so if you're good at table selection (or use some kind of effective script) you should probably stick to that ..but then you can fold until you find the fish.

Other dynamics also apply: things change a bit with that FastFold button.
Blind stealing can be very easy in ZOOM but its value is a little questionable since you're playing against time not against hand number (count bb/minute not bb/100 since you can control hand/hr much more) -even if you can steal this blind would you be better off fast-folding and looking for a big hand?
One way to look at Stealing though is that you either get the blinds (end the hand) or see a flop for free (getting the blinds the other times pays for the flop assuming you have the right numbers) -CAVEAT this isn't qutie double-counting the blinds as I can count the first option (successful steal) as EV-neutral but you do need to watch out for double-counting yoru value. getting into flops "free" with marginal hands presents you with shots at hitting big concealed hands to take their stack.



The Bodog one; clearly it's just a matter of looking for more fish.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Timlagor

You call the two streets because the fish may fold to any raise but will likely check-call the river with top pair and may well keep betting into your with air ..
so hero is a fish who bets two streets and x/c TP on the river?

well that's the sort of reasoning anyway: not sure it's good reasoning.
prob. not so much

Mono-suit flop you think your set may well be good but you're afraid of a flush so you're going to showdown as cheap as possible unless you hit the FH and maybe fold to a 4th club.

pretty sure that's what nits do.

Most fish say OMG I flopped a set and this guy COULD bet draws so I raise to "Find out where im at". which is a horrible reason to raise but fish don't know that.

In any case it is something that happens at this level.

True

What doesn't happen much is big (any) River bluffs

if he only does this with the flopped NF and NFD when it bricks that wouldn't happen much as you say. this is a very small part of villains range.


Whatever you thought his range was the big river bet is highly polarised and almost invariably strong (at this level).

semi-agree, as I expect villain to do this with AcKx-Qx as well.

---

I

Clearly I need to be clearer.

1) Villain may think hero is such a player: there are such players. Hero didn't check the river however.

2) Villain may well be a nit: we have no read and nits are common in Zoom (as is set mining -skilfully or otherwise)

3) When I said River bluffs don't happen very much I mean ~90%* of players never do it at all and those that do either spew on almost anything or are strong(er) players and (try to be) careful about when they do it (inc who against). It's not really about range so much as opponent (and hero has no prior read on villain). The ones who will bluff certainly have a range (though not necessarily a reliable one) but they are in the minority: e.g. 1%* bluffs from 7% of players betting a 5%-50% range not 100% betting a 1% range.

4) I would not expect villain to go AI with AcKo or AcQo. It simply doesn't pay to represent the nut flush like that when you don't have it (especially when it's not even the nuts any more!) as you are far too likely to get called** (at this level). Players who understand the value of Ac as a blocker to help them bluff are also likely to realise it's a poor bet regardless (assuming villain doesn't have a much better read than hero). Certainly it can happen but not nearly enough to make it worth calling without a strong read on the player.
The $2 bet from hero does look weak which does make it awkward too.
Imsavy what would you have bet on the river if you'd had KK? (and would you have bet differently elsewhere? -my guess is you'd have done the same but bet more on River: $3?)

acg123 I take your earlier point about calling to buy the note information but I've had that thought at the table and I think it's fallacious. Save the money both times and make a note when you have the nuts (or close enough: you wouldn't fold KK here even though it turns out to lose).

I'm now leaning towards thinking the Turn bet should have been $2.5+. I think overbetting the Turn may be quite strong in these situations but I haven't tried it enough yet.


In principle (against an unknown) if you weren't sitting there begging for him to raise you then you're almost certainly behind -doesn't matter what range you thought you were facing: he's at the top of it or higher.



** You don't always get called of course but too much for it to be profitable in general. You also get enough call for it to be maybe profitable to make apparently ridiculously large bets with strong hands.

* 84.7% of statistics are made up on the spot. I have made no attempt to work out bluff frequency but it's definitely very low and I'm pretty certain it's limited to a small pool of players. I certainly note the player every time I spot a bluff. That said I have made the occasional 'gut' (probably more correctly spelled S T U P...) call that caught one as well as those where I simply had the nuts (or too close to fold) so they do happen. Not as often as calling with a strong hand and losing though.

With regards to assumptions on sets and how they will play on monotone boards.

If you have KQdd on Kc7h3d rainbow board facing a bet, do you necessarily raise? Maybe not, because there are many hands better than yours (33,77,KK, AK, AA) - a total of 21 reasonable combos better than ours.

If you have 33 on K73 monotone board facing a bet, do you necessarily raise? How many combos are better than us in this case? 6 sets and a number of flushes: 56s, 68s, 89s, 9Ts, 9Js, JTs, QJs, QTs, A2-AQs (9) - 17 total flushes, for approximately 23 or so combos better than ours.

Not to mention that by raising on the flop in this spot, you are heavily representing a flush yourself, when you can't even beat a flush. So you are somewhat over-repping your hand in a spot where better hands are fairly obvious.

I'm not saying you shouldn't raise a set on monotone boards, but I don't think it's a clear raise necessarily.

Quote:

---

griffey24
With regards to assumptions on sets and how they will play on monotone boards.

If you have KQdd on Kc7h3d rainbow board facing a bet, do you necessarily raise? Maybe not, because there are many hands better than yours (33,77,KK, AK, AA) - a total of 21 reasonable combos better than ours.

If you have 33 on K73 monotone board facing a bet, do you necessarily raise? How many combos are better than us in this case? 6 sets and a number of flushes: 56s, 68s, 89s, 9Ts, 9Js, JTs, QJs, QTs, A2-AQs (9) - 17 total flushes, for approximately 23 or so combos better than ours.

Not to mention that by raising on the flop in this spot, you are heavily representing a flush yourself, when you can't even beat a flush. So you are somewhat over-repping your hand in a spot where better hands are fairly obvious.

I'm not saying you shouldn't raise a set on monotone boards, but I don't think it's a clear raise necessarily.

---

There is a lot more to a hand than the number of possible combos that beat us.

First of all, I'm not sure I'm putting 65s, 86s, J9s, etc in an utg's opening range w/o some reads.

Far more importantly, the first example is a completely dry board with little chance of improvement. that is a classic WA/WB scenario, and against an utg open, I'm not comfortable at all. Calling is the prescribed action, and I probably don't call 3 streets.

The current hand is COMPLETELY the opposite. A ton of cards (38% by the river) can come to ruin your hand, if not your action. And, plenty of cards (34%) will improve your hand. You beat the majority of his betting range that falls within a likely utg open range. You lose to AQcc,KK,AJcc,ATcc = 5 combos. You beat AAxx, AcKx, AcQx, AxQc, QQcx, KQxx, KQxc. And....this is crucial, most of the hands that you beat, will call your raise, and you will be making them pay for the draw, against which you are very vunerable.

Just go look up any article on the type of hand you should call on the flop and the type of hand you should raise on the flop. I'm not saying that you always raise a set in this situation, but that is literally the worst possible comparison hand you could give.

I'm just saying...

Fair enough. I definitely agree that I gave a pretty dry board example, with minimal hands that could outdraw us compared to a monotone board where any hand with a club has decent equity.

I also agree with your assessment that villain has a tighter range from UTG (and less flushes) than I listed. That being said, for those same reasons he also has far fewer hands that will have strong equity (FD) vs our set than if this had been something like BVB where ppl are showing up with Ac6x or Jc7x or such nonsense.

The hands you listed as potentially calling a raise are also the types of hands that will barrel imo. Some of those hands (AxQc or AxJc - Not even sure those should/would continue to a raise, but may barrel).

In any case, I value all your points and think determining ranges in spots like this really is player dependent and has to be consistent with your overall gameplan (if you're concerned about being balanced). My overall gameplan vs UTG raisers and post-flop continuation is probably more passive on most boards,given their strong starting range. That being the case, I'm probably playing most of my continuing range passively in this spot - flatting nut flushes and nut FD's (both with intention of jamming over some river triples) and also calling down sets and a few streets with hands like TT-QQc etc.

I think we are pretty much in agreement. Very few situations arise where I will raise the flop on a utg opener. And, you are right that much of his calling range is also his barreling range. I just hate to give a (almost) free look at another card.

A lot of it depends on the player pool. 10nl on WPN has plenty of maniacs that will shove top pair in this situation and regs that either level themselves into getting it in w TPTK because of course they are up against only a flush draw, or think every flop is a p*ssing contest and "he who raises last wins". Of course, it also has good, thoughtful regs that I am VERY careful against. Luckily, I know who most of them are.

After my last post, I got curious...and nervous that I was wrong...so I checked my database for this situation. While my usual play is to raise here, against nits/solid reg and maniacs, I almost always just called. The nit/solid reg is folding a worse hand and the maniac is going to continue to bet his worse hands. The majority of hands I did raise and it was wildly successful, as flopping a set should be. What really amazed me is how many times the villain took it as a bluff and made some ridiculous move of his own. I was constantly getting it in w huge equity. Obviously, a few times I got it in behind, but with 34% equity (except for the very rare set under set), I am way ahead overall.

In fairness, it's hard to say what would have happened in the hands where I raised and they folded. I probably make more on those hands by just calling. But, the overall results, at least from my sample for the last year indicate that raising most of the time worked out pretty well.

Most importantly, this is player/read dependent. And, that is exactly why I don't play zoom and definitely don't play anonymous tables. I like to get a real feel for my opponents and the table flow just for situations like this. The response is so read dependent. I don't like playing against "the average player". And, they are probably doing the same towards me. "Let's wait for boutron to get rivered a few times, then when he goes on crazy, monkey tilt, we can get his chips until he calms down." But, that's a subject for another post. :(

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by boutron

I think we are pretty much in agreement. Very few situations arise where I will raise the flop on a utg opener. And, you are right that much of his calling range is also his barreling range. I just hate to give a (almost) free look at another card.

A lot of it depends on the player pool. 10nl on WPN has plenty of maniacs that will shove top pair in this situation and regs that either level themselves into getting it in w TPTK because of course they are up against only a flush draw, or think every flop is a p*ssing contest and "he who raises last wins". Of course, it also has good, thoughtful regs that I am VERY careful against. Luckily, I know who most of them are.

After my last post, I got curious...and nervous that I was wrong...so I checked my database for this situation. While my usual play is to raise here, against nits/solid reg and maniacs, I almost always just called. The nit/solid reg is folding a worse hand and the maniac is going to continue to bet his worse hands. The majority of hands I did raise and it was wildly successful, as flopping a set should be. What really amazed me is how many times the villain took it as a bluff and made some ridiculous move of his own. I was constantly getting it in w huge equity. Obviously, a few times I got it in behind, but with 34% equity (except for the very rare set under set), I am way ahead overall.

In fairness, it's hard to say what would have happened in the hands where I raised and they folded. I probably make more on those hands by just calling. But, the overall results, at least from my sample for the last year indicate that raising most of the time worked out pretty well.

Most importantly, this is player/read dependent. And, that is exactly why I don't play zoom and definitely don't play anonymous tables. I like to get a real feel for my opponents and the table flow just for situations like this. The response is so read dependent. I don't like playing against "the average player". And, they are probably doing the same towards me. "Let's wait for boutron to get rivered a few times, then when he goes on crazy, monkey tilt, we can get his chips until he calms down." But, that's a subject for another post. :(

---

Good post. I think a lot of people can learn from boutron. Many people will often assume they are either right or wrong in a forum discussion, but not many have the patience to go through their database and filter for a particular spot in question, to really see what is happening. That kind of analysis can be really enlightening.

boutron - I noticed you don't have too many posts yet, welcome to the forums! Your contributions have already been helpful.

Thanks griffey. I appreciate that.

I've been reading these forums for most of a year and have found it to significantly improve my game. Every now and then, I'll find a post about a hand that really fascinates me and I'll spend 2 days (off and on) studying that particular situation. I'll look at my database. I'll run spreadsheet EV calcs. "Well, what if the pot was this instead of this?" "What if the player was tighter/looser?" etc.

I am such a database junkie. At the end of the day, given a large enough sample, your database is Truth. Plain and simple. Cbetting too much? Check your database. Calling too many 3 bets? Check your database.

Ooh...I'm trying to be more active. I think I'll start a thread on ways to use your database to improve your play. Now, let me just go figure out how to do that....

This is why I love database analysis...

Decided to filter for hands similar to this post. I checked the following: Called any river bet w flush and paired board. Called shove w flush and paired board. Folded flush w paired board. To get a larger sample with a similar dynamic, I also checked: Called any river bet w set and straight/flush possible. Called shove w set and straight/flush possible. Folded set w straight/flush possible.

First of all, I confirmed my original thought...it's easier to say you would fold than it is to actually fold! With the set, I folded 7 times and called any river bet 49 times. I folded to shoves 6 times and called 19 times.

But, here's where it gets really fascinating. Keep in mind that I don't have a huge sample. My database is a little over 165k hands (lost 6 months to computer disaster earlier this year). But, for all the scenarios, the following is true across each:
1) It was profitable to call (any size bet) from 2nl to 10nl and unprofitable to call from 20nl to 50nl.
2) It was, surprisingly or not, MORE profitable to call the river shoves in both scenarios than to call value bets, although it was still a loser from 20nl - 50nl, just less so.

I would really like be interested to see what other players have in their database. Like I say, I don't have a huge database and 97 total hands fit the scenarios I entered. But, the results were consistent. The higher the game the worse the calls are. Calling the big river bets were more profitable than calling the value bets.

btw, most hands are on ACR, the rest on Juicy Stakes.

You must factor in that villain calls flop and turn, he does not raise. This is not just about the river.

Quote:

---

I'm not great at estimating how much equity we need in a given spot, and I'm too lazy to do the maths. I'd guess we need around 45% to call the river, 35% seems way too optimistic

---

Seriously what is the point in even posting if that is the start to your post.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

You must factor in that villain calls flop and turn, he does not raise. This is not just about the river.

---

I agree with you 100%! I might I say that I feel kind of flattered that OngBonga responded to my post. I've read so many of yours and almost always come away with something insightful.

The reason I used such a wide range of hands is just that my database isn't big enough to narrow it down. So, I just tried to find "similar" hands.

Besides, I would never use data mining info to decide how to play a specific hand. It's just a springboard to help me work on my process. For instance, if I noticed that I am not doing well in hands that I cbet the flop, then I would break it down further and look at specific textures and specific villain types to see where my leaks are.

Maybe I've strayed off topic too much, but this is how I approach these threads. I'm not looking for the answer to how to play a specific hand on a specific board against a specific villain type with a specific history. I am looking to improve the process I use to make those decisions.

Quote:

---

griffey24
I think you should definitely assume all Axs (8).
I'd assume at least 1 combo of KK and 2 of QQ - 3.
66,33 - 3 (discounted 1, that they may raise earlier sometimes).

So total value of 14.

The real difficulty here is what kind of hands will bluff here?
AcJ - 3
AcQ - 2 - should probably even be discounted, since it has a pair (1)
Possibly a hand like 99c if he gets that far - discounted to 1-2 combos.
Total bluffable hands 5-6.

You're good 26-30% of the time.

Pot of $15.35, calling $7.20 -> need to be good 32% of the time to call. So it should be a fold here.

---

That's why I like this post from Griffey so much. It doesn't just say "do this", but it explains the process to arrive at the conclusion.

So, in the database hands I mentioned in the post above, I am now going through them looking at the opponent stats. Is either AF or AFq a good predictor of a river bluff? Are there any stats that are more common among the bluffers? Do I need to add more specific stats to my HUD? And, if it is a villain I see all the time, then I switch the database to his hands and learn everything I can so I have the most accurate notes possible. And, all of that will be just one more piece of information I bring to my decision.

Unfortunately, when all that is said and done, it still to often boils down to "Dang it, my sports team is losing on tv. I call." :(

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

This is clearly a fold, it's just always a boat.

---

How's your New Year starting out? I had to tend to something for the past couple of months and have been out of touch. Thinking about taking some hands again this morning.

Quote:

---

I agree with you 100%! I might I say that I feel kind of flattered that OngBonga responded to my post. I've read so many of yours and almost always come away with something insightful.

---

You flattery is appreciated but misguided. I'm actually a much better poker player in theory than I am in practice, by which I mean I make this river fold in theory, because durr it's an easy fold, but in practice I call a non-zero % of the time because I lack discipline.

I'd also like to point out that there are many people here in the small stakes forum more worthy of your respect than I am. But thanks, it's still nice to read what you said!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BigSlickBaby

How's your New Year starting out? I had to tend to something for the past couple of months and have been out of touch. Thinking about taking some hands again this morning.

---

It's been up and down. I've been aggressive as hell with my bankroll, and as a result, so far this year I've played all stakes from 2nl to 50nl, currently at 10nl. I'm currently taking a break because IRL shit has been a distraction, negatively affecting my motivation and concentration.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

It's been up and down. I've been aggressive as hell with my bankroll, and as a result, so far this year I've played all stakes from 2nl to 50nl, currently at 10nl. I'm currently taking a break because IRL shit has been a distraction, negatively affecting my motivation and concentration.

---

Well, that's pretty much the same situation here. I had a bad couple of months that were just filled with stress and I don't think it would have done my poker game any favors. I'm coming around to playing a few hands this weekend as a) it's snowing and ten degress (f) out and b) I've been starting to get the itch again.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

You flattery is appreciated but misguided. I'm actually a much better poker player in theory than I am in practice, by which I mean I make this river fold in theory, because durr it's an easy fold, but in practice I call a non-zero % of the time because I lack discipline.

I'd also like to point out that there are many people here in the small stakes forum more worthy of your respect than I am. But thanks, it's still nice to read what you said!

---

Just for the record griffey basically summed up that it isn't an easy fold & he's wrong about people flatting all Axs in that spot which should be heavily discounted as a result especially as all the most likely Axs are blocked. As a result it's a borderline call & I have no idea why you assume I lost the hand.

I assume you lost the hand because I think villain has boats, and perhaps the occasional missed Acx, but seeing as I can only imagine AcJo in his range making this move, I don't feel like his bluffs come close to balancing out his value. If he flips over AcJo then I would argue you got very lucky on this occasion. If he flipped over Ac7o, or a small flush, then fair enough, great call and I'm wrong as hell.

Even though AcT is pretty much exactly the same hand so that's 6 combos of bluffs in total which is basically all we would need to make the call.

Let's do some combo counting. Boats vs bluffs. I'm just gonna work with us needing 33.3% because it's easy.

He hasn't got QQ/KK because he flats pre. I'm fine keeping those out of his range. He's got 66 (one combo at river), 33 (three combos), so he has four boat+ combos. He's got three AcJo combos. We need him to take this line with AcJo 2/3 of the time he has it, just for us to break even. And that assumes he doesn't have nut flushes in his range, which is an optimstic assumption.

I feel like he needs to be calling any ace to a raise here, then I feel like he's bad enough to spazz river here with junk. That might be where I'm going wrong... maybe I'm defaulting him too tight a range pre flop. But assuming he doesn't call A9o here, I just don't see how we can expect to be good here with anywhere near the required frequency.

I'm fine with his ATo balancing out his nut flushes.

I think we need him to bluff AcJo 2/3 of the time, or be wider to include more ace rags.

I'm not even sure this is about range. I think it's about bluffing frequency. That's much harder to put a figure on without any reads. I don't have any idea how often people are bluffing this spot, on average. No idea whatsoever. I'd guess half, but it would be plucking a number out of my arse.

I agree that he has not have KK nor QQ because he flats pre (but could he slowplay KK?). He might have 33 or 66, but its really strange that he flat calls 2 streets with such a coordinated board. He might have better flushes like AcQc or Ac9c or AcXc, maybe Qc9c or is it too loose to call preflop since its a zoom game? He might have AcQo or AcKo and is trying to bluff you. Its a very tough spot. In these kind of spots is where the HUD becomes essential, since its a zoom game and we have no reads on the villian.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

Let's do some combo counting.

---

I need work on understanding combos. How much of this is realistically to be done at the table during a hand?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BigSlickBaby

I need work on understanding combos. How much of this is realistically to be done at the table during a hand?

---

You need to practise doing it after the sessions, and then when it becomes easier you make it all in your head very quickly while you are playing. The more you practice you will start making it automatically on your head at the tables.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by matiusaa

You need to practise doing it after the sessions, and then when it becomes easier you make it all in your head very quickly while you are playing. The more you practice you will start making it automatically on your head at the tables.

---

Sounds like a plan. I'm using Flopzilla and studying some of the videos/threads on here and 2p2 to try and get this to be relatively automatic. I just started taking hands again this afternoon but I already feel really good at the tables.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BigSlickBaby

I need work on understanding combos. How much of this is realistically to be done at the table during a hand?

---

You shouldn't expect to be able to count the combinations for large ranges at the table while playing online.

However, doing a lot of practice during your study will help you to get a feel for it which will drastically improve your estimates at the tables.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ImSavy

Even though AcT is pretty much exactly the same hand so that's 6 combos of bluffs in total which is basically all we would need to make the call.

---

When EP opens I think there's gotta be a line somewhere in terms of cold call assumptions. Most ppl aren't capable of folding AcJ I wouldn't think. AcT, while similar, I think should be assumed as a fold. I mean it's clear that if we apply this logic then AcT = AcJ, so he calls AcT. But if he's calling AcT, Ac9=AcT so he's calling that too etc etc.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by griffey24

When EP opens I think there's gotta be a line somewhere in terms of cold call assumptions. Most ppl aren't capable of folding AcJ I wouldn't think. AcT, while similar, I think should be assumed as a fold. I mean it's clear that if we apply this logic then AcT = AcJ, so he calls AcT. But if he's calling AcT, Ac9=AcT so he's calling that too etc etc.

---

That isn't the logic that I'm using though. People tend to draw the line with calling AT pre in spots like this and whilst that obviously isn't 100% it's a fairly sound assumption to be making but even if he is calling hands like Ac9 etc by the time we get to the river it is getting more and more unlikely.

I can accept villain calling ATo, but if he's doing that, then he'll probably be calling all suited aces. So the wider his range pre, the more value hands he has at river. If you want to start talking about him doing this with a worse flush than ours, we have to ask why he doesn't raise flop or turn when his hand is very strong but also very vulnerable. Even the most passive fish should be assumed to raise 89cc before river. I think this is a boat a very high % of the time, with nut flushes and missed nfd's making up the remainder. Even assuming he has no nut flushes, I think this is still a fold.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BigSlickBaby

I need work on understanding combos. How much of this is realistically to be done at the table during a hand?

---

I only tend to count combos at the table when ranges are small, and it's a tight decision, such as this.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

I'm not even sure this is about range. I think it's about bluffing frequency. That's much harder to put a figure on without any reads. I don't have any idea how often people are bluffing this spot, on average. No idea whatsoever. I'd guess half, but it would be plucking a number out of my arse.

---

I've been playing Micro Zoom full ring and the bluffing percentage seems much lower. I haven't been through my database to check it but my losing sessions are almost all characterised by "don't call (substantial bets) on the river you idiot!" (also by bad sleep ..unfortunately knowing that is less helpful when lack of sleep also impairs my judgement about whether playing is a good idea)

It's possible that 6Max sees considerably more bluffing of course: it wouldn't be all that surprising if the people who like bluffing also gravitate towards 6Max.


Conversely my winning sessions are not characterised by "what an excellent call on the river!".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Timlagor

Conversely my winning sessions are not characterised by "what an excellent call on the river!".

---

I'm not trying to make sick hero calls. That isn't what this is.

No indeed. I felt that needed saying in relation to my other comment about bad sessions.

I still think this one should be a clear fold ..the sort I call on a bad day.
It's not a "sick hero call" just a weak/bad one at these stakes. If you were playing at higher stakes I might well have a different view and it might be that you get a lot more bluffing at 6Max (obviously villain-specific info could make the difference too)


If you'd bet $3 or $1 on the River, would you have viewed his Shove differently (assuming he still did so)?