Is this flushdraw+pair even worth anything?

This hand made me feel like a fish. The villain is natdang. He's pretty tight but he's definitely capable of some pretty crazy moves. He's one of the tougher regulars to play against in the 100NL 6-max game on PS in my opinion.

Reads: BB and UTG both suck bad. natdang probably knows that I know this because we've all been at the table together for awhile. Leading from the SB into a 5-way pot that includes two awful players, he has to give me credit for at least 2-pair or a huge draw, right? When he raises me, is it even worth a call out of position? It'll be tough to get paid off if I make my flush, and I have no clue whether aces or threes are outs. I think getting all-in on the flop sucks because so many of the hands in his range have me crushed.

PokerStars No-Limit Hold'em, $1.00 BB (5 handed) Hand History Converter Tool from FlopTurnRiver.com (Format: FlopTurnRiver)

natdang ($99.10)
Button ($53)
Hero ($99)
BB ($76.05)
UTG ($39)

Preflop: Hero is SB with A, 3.
UTG calls $1, natdang calls $1, Button calls $1, Hero completes, BB checks.

Flop: ($5) 3, 6, 4 (5 players)
Hero bets $4, BB folds, UTG folds, natdang raises to $12, Button folds, Hero calls $8.

Turn: ($29) J (2 players)
Hero checks, natdang bets $14, Hero folds.

Final Pot: $43

I little off-topic but maybe the guy from this post can help you a little bit

http://www.flopturnriver.com/phpBB2/...ic.php?t=39304

He's one of the better advisers here in FTP shorthanded NL games.

Hmmm...I would tend to play this hand way more agressively and would even consider pushing in response to his re-raise. Obviously you're worried about 33, 44, 66 and 57 (doubt he'd limp behind with 25) but you're ahead of a lot of his range as well. He could be on a weaker flush draw, have a mid PP and even if he has two pair you have outs to catch up.

Guess it depends how willing you are to stack off with this hand. I do seem to run into a lot of sets here which is bad...so take my advice with a grain of salt.

I just don't like how passive it was played....check/folding that turn just seems silly to me. I could see as a viable option 3-betting his flop reraise and find out if he has a set right away. If he just smooth calls, I probably open push the turn putting him on two pair or an overpair and placing him on a tough decision. If he smooth calls with a set, NH him. But I guess the stacks aren't deep enough to make this play. HMMMM............tough hand.

Would be interesting to hear more experienced 6-Max players thoughts on this.

call the turn just for pot odds?

i think its fine until you folded the turn, its not that big of a bet and he either a) has a set that he'll pay you a bet on the river if you hit, or b) a lesser draw and you own him. Overpairs are possibly in his range as well? Or does he raise all pairs even after limpers?

EDIT: a 3bet push on the flop would not be good in this spot against this player IMO.

Standard call on the turn

Call on the turn and hope he has KcQc or something. More then likely, he probably has a set, and nobody ever folds those things to 1 bet on the river. With the right circumstances (ie he can't ever raise the flop and bet the turn behind with a draw, and will rarely pay you off when the draw hits), the turn fold is fine.

As far as 3-betting the flop, that would be good in a raised pot in similar situations, but in a limped nothing pot when we're a 3:1 dog to a set, it's just silly.

with the weak turn bet, a lower flush draw is very possible.

reraise flop here

Originally Posted by gabe

reraise flop here

This is awful against somebody who you consider a good tag. Let's see, you get shoved on by sets, straights, and two pair hands which makes up most of his range seeing as how it is an unraised pot. I don't think we have nearly enough fold equity to reraise. There isn't even much dead money in the pot anyways to make it worthwhile.

The only value this play has is metagame, and that's really not worth it at 100nl.

Originally Posted by aislephive

Originally Posted by gabe

reraise flop here

This is awful against somebody who you consider a good tag. Let's see, you get shoved on by sets, straights, and two pair hands which makes up most of his range seeing as how it is an unraised pot. I don't think we have nearly enough fold equity to reraise. There isn't even much dead money in the pot anyways to make it worthwhile.

The only value this play has is metagame, and that's really not worth it at 100nl.

imo if villain is a regular and a good player meta game should not be underestimated. even at nl100. if I was villain and saw that hero had played his hand very aggressively it would change the way I played big pots with him in a big way.

Originally Posted by aislephive

Originally Posted by gabe

reraise flop here

This is awful against somebody who you consider a good tag. .

its awful against a nit, not a good tag who, as original post said, can make moves.

Originally Posted by gabe

Originally Posted by aislephive

Originally Posted by gabe

reraise flop here

This is awful against somebody who you consider a good tag. .

its awful against a nit, not a good tag who, as original post said, can make moves.

You honestly think he is going to make a stone cold bluff after a taggy regular in the SB leads a coordinated flop in an unraised pot into four other players OOP? I don't buy it. If he doesn't have a made hand already he has at least a big draw (78c for example or two overs + FD like QJc) in which case a cold call on the flop is clear to stack him when we hit a higher flush.

Originally Posted by aislephive

You honestly think he is going to make a stone cold bluff after a taggy regular in the SB leads a coordinated flop in an unraised pot into four other players OOP?

the logic you are using to justify reasons for thinking it wouldnt be a bluff are reasons a good tag would use to bluff

Originally Posted by gabe

Originally Posted by aislephive

You honestly think he is going to make a stone cold bluff after a taggy regular in the SB leads a coordinated flop in an unraised pot into four other players OOP?

the logic you are using to justify reasons for thinking it wouldnt be a bluff are reasons a good tag would use to bluff

thats a lot of thinking for 100nl where two fish are also involved in the pot.

raising here is either for protection or with a hand surely?

Originally Posted by gabe

Originally Posted by aislephive

You honestly think he is going to make a stone cold bluff after a taggy regular in the SB leads a coordinated flop in an unraised pot into four other players OOP?

the logic you are using to justify reasons for thinking it wouldnt be a bluff are reasons a good tag would use to bluff

I don't think any third level thinking is going on between two 100nl tags who are probably playing at least 4 tables. It's also not a good spot to bluff (even using that logic) because OP is not leading any weak hands into the field here.

gabe,

As much as I respect you as a player, 3-betting this flop just seems absolutely terrible.

Originally Posted by mcatdog

He's pretty tight but he's definitely capable of some pretty crazy moves. He's one of the tougher regulars to play against in the 100NL 6-max game on PS in my opinion.

you guys saw this, right?

Originally Posted by gabe

Originally Posted by mcatdog

He's pretty tight but he's definitely capable of some pretty crazy moves. He's one of the tougher regulars to play against in the 100NL 6-max game on PS in my opinion.

you guys saw this, right?

Yeah, I did. But do I think he is ever making a stone cold bluff raise there? No. If I did, then I would say it happens less than 2-3% of the time. Most players are capable of making moves, that doesn't mean they're just going to randomly bluff at a pot like this.

I understand defending yourself, but come on man. This is a no brainer flop call. A decent player showing a ton of strength in an unraised pot on a very coordinated flop multiway is almost ALWAYS a monster. Sometimes it might be a hand like 56s where he may fold to a three bet, but that's the very least and if he is capable of some crazy moves he might even go to war with his pair + OESD and have the best hand the whole way.

In a raised / reraised pot these hands are generally to go to war with because those pots are often played with one pair where not only does A3c have a ton of equity in the pot, it also has a lot of fold equity from one pair hands who put you on a set / overpair. Plus the pot is much bigger and there's more dead money. But if you're regularly playing combo draws for stacks in an unraised pots against decent players on the flop you are going to get killed because they will have two pair or better nearly every time. If I'm in natdang's shoes there I certainly have a monster hand or a huge draw, aka very little fold equity.

Originally Posted by aislephive

But do I think he is ever making a stone cold bluff raise there?

no, but he could be raising lots of one pair hands here. not saying he should, but the description makes it seem like we are not going to run into a set everytime we reraise.

Hehe, I remember this hand.
Just looked it up in my PT. I won't give away my hand (at least not yet), but it was definitely interesting.

Some things for you guys to consider:
-I was well aware that this table consisted of Mcatdog (who I know as a regular), myself, and a few reallly really bad calling stations who would definitely pay you off if you made a hand. It really took quite a bit of effort to shake these guys off, if you know what I mean.

-So therefore, I widened my range quite a bit, seeing more flops knowing that I'd get paid off more often than not with big hands.

-Yeah, with these players, who are willing to take a flop with any two cards, and won't fold to a c-bet if they get a piece, even a middle pair piece, I would limp behind with any PP < TT/JJ. Otherwise, I could pretty much guarantee seeing the flop with 2-3 others, which is not a good idea with, say, pocket 8's. I think I'd play overpairs similarly to this hand.

Anyhow, as played in your case, I'd definitely call the turn bet hoping to improve, and if I didn't improve on the river, obviously dump the hand.

But knowing who the villain is, I think the fold is fine because natdang tends not to pay off substantial river bets when the draw completes, even if he has a low piece of it, taking away my implied odds, and I might be killed already

Both three betting and taking the line you did have their merits in this situation. Its good to mix up your play and not only take a single line in this spot since both are often correct. Against a really aggresive player that can have a fairly wide range of hand (and yes a tagg can still raise with air/a very big range here) i'd be inclined to three three bet the flop more often as you will not be seeing a cheap/free turn very often, against a more passive player i would be inclined to call more and try to hit on him.

why can't he have 77ish?

turn fold is very odd.

Originally Posted by drmcboy

why can't he have 77ish?

EXACTLY!! lots of similiar hands raise here

I make it $35 and push any turn card.

This is *EXACTLY* the kind of guy we can play back at on this board.

Originally Posted by gabe

Originally Posted by drmcboy

why can't he have 77ish?

EXACTLY!! lots of similiar hands raise here

77-88, maybe (I assume 99 raises and maybe even 77-88). There's no need to go balls to the wall to get a smallish overpair to fold the flop when we have tons of outs anyways. Like I said, there isn't enough dead money in the pot to make it worthwhile. If you somehow end up putting your entire stack in on the flop you will be up against a set almost every time. On the rare occasion he has a weakish hand here you'll come over the top and win like a $15 pot? The risk/reward for this play is so awful I don't get how you could ever think three betting this flop is any good in this hand.

Originally Posted by Fnord

I make it $35 and push any turn card.

This is *EXACTLY* the kind of guy we can play back at on this board.

No way, a decent tag showing strength in an unraised pot is not an opportune spot to try to move him off the hand.

If I get all-in against a set, my expected value is about -$40. If I come over the top and he folds, I win less than $20. Do you think he folds to a 3-bet 70% of the time?

Originally Posted by aislephive

The risk/reward for this play is so awful I don't get how you could ever think three betting this flop is any good in this hand.

Agreed.

Originally Posted by aislephive

The risk/reward for this play is so awful I don't get how you could ever think three betting this flop is any good in this hand.

lol, DID YOU SEE VILLIAN'S DESCRIPTION???? you are way overestimating him.

Originally Posted by gabe

Originally Posted by aislephive

The risk/reward for this play is so awful I don't get how you could ever think three betting this flop is any good in this hand.

lol, DID YOU SEE VILLIAN'S DESCRIPTION???? you are way overestimating him.

I read the post and am fully aware. You have yet to give any good reasoning to why a three bet is good on this hand, and I know why; because there is none.

villian is raising more than just sets+. he will fold lots of hands to a reraise that wont pay you off anyway. 3betting is good because you can win the hand without improving.

like fnord said, this is exactly the guy we can play back at here. he can be raising many hands but we also know he is capable of folding them too. thats the type of person you want to try and run over.

excuse my noobery but what is metagame, and nit?

Originally Posted by gabe

villian is raising more than just sets+. he will fold lots of hands to a reraise that wont pay you off anyway. 3betting is good because you can win the hand without improving.

like fnord said, this is exactly the guy we can play back at here. he can be raising many hands but we also know he is capable of folding them too. thats the type of person you want to try and run over.

Villain was also noted as a pretty tight player, and a regular. Even if he is capable of making wild plays that doesn't mean he will often and to assume it's a weak hand a lot is pretty silly. Even if we said that half the time here he has a weak hand and the other half he has two pair or a set, three betting is -EV. You win a $21 pot on the occasion he is raising light, and when he has a set or two pair or a straight, with a set being much more likely, then he shoves over your three bet and you get all in as a 3-1 dog or you're a small underdog to two pair and you end up taking by far the worst of it for a $200 pot.

There is a ton of variance in this play as well, and while normally variance takes a backseat if the play is +EV, this one is certainly not. You're winning a small pot on the occasion he is weak and folds but losing a big pot when he comes over the top and you have to call the rest off, which is the much more likely scenario.

There were a couple of things I thought about in this interesting hand. I think a lot of great points are being made in this thread.

A. The first thing that comes to mind looking at this hand is that we have a protected pot. You veterans know instantly what that means, but for newer players when you go to a flop multihanded, and the first act bets out, he is way less likely to be bluffing with several players to act behind him. Therefore the villain, being a solid thinking player as stated, puts hero on a strong flop. He is now unlikely to raise a draw here, for fear of being 3-bet back, and slammed on the turn.

B. The pot is small, unbuilt. This makes representation more often valid from a math standpoint.

C. Given the liklihood that Villain raises a legitimate hand he feels is ahead via protected pot, being at a table with obvious dead money, and having nothing worth stealing in the middle, Hero has to consider his fold equity is treacherous at the very least.

D. Meta game dictates that if you can find that fold equity edge with so many percieved outs, than you are possibly elevating your future implied odds against the villain. In other words pushing him off this hand or drawing out if he calls increases your likelihood of tilting him later on.

However, your fold equity edge in this hand is too small coupled with the poise of the villain, who may likely not grant you implied odds for the immediate future based on this one hand. You're unlikely to tilt him easy enough to justify making this good draw hand a deep plunge for the sake of meta, especially with easy money at the table.

Hehe guys, like I said, we have two passive calling stations that I am well aware of sitting between us. Meaning that the range of hands I am willing to take a flop with definitely extends to a lot of speculative hands, with which I am hoping to hit a big flop with and get paid off by TP with a fish (I got called down with middle pair by same guys). So that being said, the range of hands that I limp in that position, and in that particular situation, include 22-88, SC's 34s+, Suited One-Gappers 35s+.

So it's a tough call for Mcatdog, because I would play a set, straight, and medium overpair in exactly the same manner as I did in OP. Maybe even TP, 7 kicker. However, in his shoes, I would proceed cautiously because there is a considerable chance of running into a set or straight, at which point your fold equity is near zero. I'd call the smallish turn bet and take another card and pray for a club.

Anyway, I didn't expose my hand earlier for fear of inducing some results-oriented thinking. But it looks like you guys have stated your thoughts and I couldn't resist

So yeah, I limped 57c and flopped the nut straight, along with a monster open-ended straight flush draw (which I now know wasn't truly open-ended). So, for Mcatdog to 3-bet the flop and/or push the turn would have been disastrous; his whole stack would have been riding on 6 outs with one card to come.

I think 3-betting this flop is fine on occasion, with the intention of not putting in another cent unless we improve. I think shoving the turn after a 3-bet though, is absolutely terrible, given the fact that it's an unraised pot. Make it a raised pot HU, then it's a totally different story.

As played, I'd call the turn and bet the river if I improved, otherwise c/f.