$5nl multiway with TPGK

[Micro2Macro]

Villain who continued postflop is 15/2 over 100ish, pretty passive.

PokerStars No-Limit Hold'em, $0.05 BB (8 handed) - Poker-Stars Converter Tool from FlopTurnRiver.com

MP2 ($2)
CO ($5)
Button ($8.28)
SB ($1.81)
BB ($9.62)
Hero (UTG) ($5)
UTG+1 ($11.25)
MP1 ($6.94)

Preflop: Hero is UTG with A, Q
Hero bets $0.30, 2 folds, MP2 (poster) calls $0.25, CO (poster) calls $0.25, 2 folds, BB calls $0.25

Flop: ($1.22) A, 5, 7 (4 players)
BB checks, Hero bets $0.75, 2 folds, BB calls $0.75

Turn: ($2.72) 4 (2 players)
BB checks, Hero checks

River: ($2.72) 3 (2 players)
BB bets $1, Hero?

My guess is his range is pretty tight here though he could be bluffing the 4-straight which he obviously doesn't have. At worst he has AJs I guess..looks like a fold?

Thoughts on line from preflop on?

[Keith]

hmmm you only beat A8-AJ, 88-JJ,KQ,KJ but is the number of callers going to let him open his preflop calling range up a bit.
Sitting back and thinking about it I'd probably fold too as played , but I'd probably have been paying him more in the end by betting the turn.

[ColdDecked]

I like to bet more on flop in multiway pots. 60% pot could potentially let a lot of draws in since implied odds are good.

I think I call the river because I think you're good enough here to make it profitable, and this could be a defensive bet from a medium ace who's afraid of a big river bet.

[bjsaust]

You still dont value bet enough.

clear bet on the turn
and if he donks river it's a fold

[Micro2Macro]

You still dont value bet enough.

What's wrong with checking back the turn here? pot is already 50bb's, and I'm underrepping my hand so I'm likely to get value from hands like 88-QQ that this player will probably call a c-bet when he closes the action on the flop but fold to a 2-barrel with that ace out there. He's not really loose passive he's tight passive, I don't think he's going to call a 3-barrel with worse so why would I be betting all streets?

Now when villain donks river I'm thinking this is a weird spot, and that his range is probably polarized to either sets or hands with little to no showdown value. Given this players style it didn't make sense for him to bet a hand like 99 or TT here, since I figure he would be more apt to check/call and try and induce me to bluff. But then again, he's a bad player and may be betting these hands instead of checking to induce the weaker part of my range to bet so he can pick off a bluff. My range is quite strong though, so I'm typically betting this river almost every time - for value.

If you plan on checking back river after betting turn, I think that's bad. If you bet the turn you're looking at a river shove based on the pot size, and once again, based on this players range after he calls 2-barrels, at worst we'll see AQ here. But by checking the turn we keep his entire range for calling the c-bet to the river, and on a dry board like this, my line will look bluffy enough to get 2 streets of value from pairs < an ace.

So an explanation would be nice, otherwise it's obvious you didn't really think about his range. I'm assuming your comment means your betting turn and river here.

[Micro2Macro]

clear bet on the turn
and if he donks river it's a fold

would you call river donk as played after I checked the turn?

[daven]

call river and hand is played fine

[bigspenda73]

fold river and you played the hand fine

[Fnord]

Sample size too small. Look this bet up please.

[Micro2Macro]

yeah there's no real way im folding getting nearly 3:1 here. the donk bet threw me off but seeing what he turns over will answer alot of questions.

[Fnord]

That said, one of the adjustments I had to make moving to live poker is to stop snapping this bet off without hesitation.

[speedcake]

ya its a tough call on river but without any other reads look it up?

its hard for him to be bluffing though

clear bet on the turn
and if he donks river it's a fold

would you call river donk as played after I checked the turn?

it's not a donk bet because you gave up your lead on the turn by checking
it's only expected for him to bet

[bigspenda73]

the turn is not a clear bet

[Micro2Macro]

the turn is not a clear bet

When this hand came up in the IRC it was interesting to see some people questioning the turn check and others said it was fine. I've come to notice a difference (in general) of the thought process in the way each of the two sides look at this particular hand.

[ColdDecked]

Usually when I check the turn in these situations, I'd call a decent sized river bet. And with little or no history, it's often a good call, since you can put a note down on the guy.

The bet check bet line isn't a bad line to take for situations like these imo.

[Ragnar4]

I asked M2M in chat why not bet the turn and try to check out on the river, or try to get out cheaply on the river.

I wonder if this is still a valid line. M2M made a good argument about not chasing away value.

[bjsaust]

On one hand you post threads talking about how people call with weak hands and suck out on you, on the other you dont bet your strong hands. Think about it.

[Micro2Macro]

On one hand you post threads talking about how people call with weak hands and suck out on you, on the other you dont bet your strong hands. Think about it.

wat? i supposed i've improved then since I don't care about villains calling me with weak hands...obviously no one enjoys getting sucked out on, but them calling with weaker hands is what I want and what we all want since it maximizes our value. where did I say I do not like others calling me with weak hands? Link please, I don't think I ever said I do not want weaker hands calling.

Ranges - think about it. Relative strength - think about it.

There are spots where I'll bet 88 here for 3 streets - this isn't one of them.

The play I made was to maximize value not minimize it. Spoon, Spenda, and Daven and Fnord all seem to understand why I checked the turn - notice how they've all accomplished quite a bit?

I still do not understand why you are so eager to bet the turn...

[bjsaust]

This hand is exactly what I'm talking about. As soon as you're called on the flop you seem to assume you're beaten?

Flop bet should be bigger, you want value.

Turn should be a bet, let him call with his weaker hands, you can always fold if he raises. They'll generally let you know if you're beat.

Why not bet turn? This is the BB who called behind 2 other callers (i.e., great odds). Even a 15/2 can turn up with AT or AJ here. You want ranges? These are calculated on the turn:

Hand 0: 51.263% 42.93% 08.33% 680 132.00 { AcQd }
Hand 1: 48.737% 40.40% 08.33% 640 132.00 { 77, 55, ATs+, ATo+ }

That assumes he doesnt 3-bet AK, if we take them out of his range:

Hand 0: 63.961% 53.25% 10.71% 656 132.00 { AcQd }
Hand 1: 36.039% 25.32% 10.71% 312 132.00 { 77, 55, AQs-ATs, AQo-ATo



15% of hands in PS = A7s+,ATo+,K9s+,KTo+,QTs+,AJoJTs+,77+. Since he no doubt has 22+ in there and maybe a few more SCs then deduct some of the weaker hands from that range to replace them, but as you'll see there are still a LOT of hands in his range you're ahead of that he would have called flop with.

[Micro2Macro]

hahaha i do not assume i am beaten. I felt it was MORE EV to check back and v-bet river than to 2barrel.

Like I said I was attempting to MAXimize value and felt checking back would do just that. I wasn't afraid of giving this particular player a free card on this dry board.

Your thinking is too narrowminded imo. The box has an outside to it.

[bjsaust]

You know how you maximise value? You bet when your opponent will call with more worse hands than they'll call/raise with better.

[Micro2Macro]

But in this spot I didn't think he would, hence the check.

[bjsaust]

Look, you can choose to take the advice or not. In my experience, when I value bet a lot I crush games, when I take fancy pot control 'value' lines I dont. People love to call, so when you have a good hand, let them. If you bet 3 streets of value here, you'll be surprised what even nits can turn up with.

[edit]Ahh, I see you deleted the dismissive post this was a reply to.

[Micro2Macro]

sorry I don't have a set strategy for every single player I face. I try to adjust when I start to accumulate some info on their play.

[bjsaust]

Lol, if this is how you react to someone disagreeing with your line when you post a hand for review, gl to you I guess.

[edit]Oh look, another edit.

[Micro2Macro]

I disagree with your thought process since you seem to be the only person who will auto-bet the turn.

[bjsaust]

And yet I'm also the only person who actually posted ranges and explained what those PF stats really mean, and who uses those ranges to explain my actions. Auto-bet, lol.

[BooG690]

I can understand both sides of the coin here (which strengthens the point I made in another thread that there is no right or wrong way to play a hand).

I personally would have bet the turn as well putting him on a weaker ace. We see medium pocket pairs call your flop bet as well...but being that we see weaker aces a larger percent of the time, a turn bet seems profitable.

As the hand is played, isn't the river bet exactly (well not exactly) what we wanted from the check you made on the turn? He thinks his AT or AJ (and even possibly a split pot with AQ) is good and is looking to gain some value. I do not see him calling preflop with A6+. I agree with calling here and looking him up.

[Micro2Macro]

I can understand both sides of the coin here (which strengthens the point I made in another thread that there is no right or wrong way to play a hand).

I personally would have bet the turn as well putting him on a weaker ace. We see medium pocket pairs call your flop bet as well...but being that we see weaker aces a larger percent of the time, a turn bet seems profitable.

As the hand is played, isn't the river bet exactly (well not exactly) what we wanted from the check you made on the turn? He thinks his AT or AJ (and even possibly a split pot with AQ) is good and is looking to gain some value. I do not see him calling preflop with A6+. I agree with calling here and looking him up.

This is a good point. I've said it too many times but I felt checking back would squeeze more value out of the hand in this spot based on what I think he would call a c-bet with but fold to a 2barrel, though.

The river bet is interesting because I really wasn't expecting it from this player. Though the sample size is too small to fold as pointed out by Fnord, if I had more history with the villain I would have a clearer idea of where I'm at when facing the river bet, and be possibly be able to narrow his range more at this point and determine how bluffy it may be. However, what he decides to bet with here on the river is to unclear due to lack of history, and given almost 3:1 odds, this looks like a correct call.

[Illfavor]

We can't bet then turn b/c we can't profitably shove this river IMO, and checking behind the river with like 2/5 of the pot left behind is just dumb. Player is tight/passive. Play your hand for what it is (good but not something looking to get all-in) and bet the river for some pretty good value.

Edit:

It's like "yea lets bet turn for value" and then it's like "oh noes I'm behind this tight players river calling range of Sets/AJ+ but I have no monies left behind"

[Micro2Macro]

Ok I think the fact that you went and wrote out the ranges etc is great but I here's what I think.


Preflop I'm going to assume he's flatting with AK and pairs QQ below. He's a weak tight pansy and the pot is already large when it gets around to him, he's afraid to re-raise and have to stack off pre without AA/KK. This is how I think this player would think, given the information we have thus far so I'm going to go with it. If he was aggressive at all preflop, we could simply take these out of his calling range and add them to his 3bet range.

Ok now, what range of hands is he calling my c-bet with?
Well he could be with a number of hands. Since he's tight he seems to know at least something about poker - ie: c-betting is common from someone who raised pre but it's also hard to make a hand. So he's likely peeling the flop with a fairly wide range relative to the strength of my hand - mostly pairs or any ace of course. He may think his pair of 8's or 9's are still good and that I will shut down on the turn if I missed the flop.

So obviously he'll call a c-bet with hands that have us beat:
AK, 55, 77 (we assume AA is not in his range because he would have 3-bet preflop based on our assumption)

However he'll also likely call 1 street with alot of hands that we either chop or are well ahead of:
AT+,88+ (and maybe a SC for the straight draw but it's probably somewhat unlikely so I'll just ignore it for simplicity)

I put 88+ which to be honest we don't really have perfect information on whether he calls with any pair worse than an ace or not, but if he does - HE IS LIKELY FOLDING THESE HANDS TO A TURN BARREL - because I'm repping an Ace or better basically. I don't think he'll call down the mid pairs in his range to the river that may have called one street so far. He'll likely shut down as a turn bet basically sets up stacking off on the river.

The rest of the hands that he called preflop with will of course fold to the c-bet based on the assumption that he's not tricky and floating us with air, though he could be. So I imagine at least a few combo's of weird stuff could be in his range by the turn, though I won't get value from them either if I bet. And if he bet's the river he may have some of this junk in his betting range.

Which brings up my point of checking back the turn - we want to keep the ENTIRE c-bet calling range in there till the river. The board is dry so we can't be too concered about being drawn out on because I'm assuming he doesn't have much raggy junk in his range, thus there's no real need to 'protect' or hand. Against OTHER villains betting here is great.

We'll find out if we're beat when we go to v-bet the river as a C/R is basically never a bluff here. So if we bet the turn we basically commit ourselves on the river and likely will not get called for stacks unless we are beat - thus the reason for pot control. My assumption is this player will not stack off with a worse hand often enough to make trying to get it in profitable, so why are we setting up a river shove when it's likely -EV?

Now I've checked the turn, and in doing so, I've under-repped my hand so I can attempt to get value from many hands in his range that would shut down to a turn barrel, but may call a river bet after sensing weakness from my turn check. He may take Ax completely out of MY range, so he may think whatever pair lower than an ace that he called one street with is good - thus more combo's for me to get value out of with 2 streets of betting, which I would not have accomplished by betting again on the turn.

as you'll see there are still a LOT of hands in his range you're ahead of that he would have called flop with.

This is exactly my point and is even more a reason to not bet the turn - because he likely isn't continuing to a 2barrel without a narrower range than his range he called the first street with. So if I check back the turn, I keep his entire range he called a bet with on the flop with on to the river, where I can expect to exctract value from hands like TT or JJ, weaker aces etc - hands that I felt would not have called a 2-barrel. 2-barreling is basically setting up committment to stack off on the river against a range that has will have greater equity than us.

I disagree with your thought process since you seem to be the only person who will auto-bet the turn.

Didn't I say I auto-bet this?

[Micro2Macro]

I disagree with your thought process since you seem to be the only person who will auto-bet the turn.

Didn't I say I auto-bet this?

I guess so lol

[bjsaust]

I think the only hands he folds to a 2 barrel are 88+, and as you'll see I left them out of my ranges on the turn.

The idea that we're committed to shove (or call a shove) on the river if we bet turn is kind of ludicrous.

[Micro2Macro]

okay so let's just bet the turn and have him fold out 27 combo's that we can get value out of on the river that we will just fold out on the turn.

okay so let's just bet the turn and have him fold out 27 combo's that we can get value out of on the river that we will just fold out on the turn.

we don't get value from them on the river either unless they hit their 2 outer

[Micro2Macro]

okay so let's just bet the turn and have him fold out 27 combo's that we can get value out of on the river that we will just fold out on the turn.

we don't get value from them on the river either unless they hit their 2 outer

it depends. sometimes we will sometimes we wont of course.
at least by checking the turn we give it a chance.

[Illfavor]

If we don't go BET/BET/BET wtf is the point of betting the street that will narrow the villains range to stuff that beats us?

[Ragnar4]

Well since your ? is: What's my action on the river guys.

I would have to say, it seems like your torn between calling and shipping?

All of your arguments you've made seem to infer you have 0 intention of folding here.

[bjsaust]

I would bet/bet/bet, but the idea that theres some magical threshold that requires us to do something if we have a read that we're totally behind is just stupid.

If you come up with a range that really says we're always (or almost always) beaten if we bet three streets and get called, then yes betting turn is bad. I just think you guys are giving way too tight a range for him in that situation. Its like you think you found THE guy at 10nl who can fold TP on non-scary boards.

[siltstrider]

okay so let's just bet the turn and have him fold out 27 combo's that we can get value out of on the river that we will just fold out on the turn.

If he's gonna fold to a turn bet, he'll fold the river unimproved. All you do here is give him a chance to improve and then take your money when he does so because you'll be thinking, "Well, I did just induce a bluff by showing weakness...". Against an unknown player, I'd pot the flop, pot the turn, probably check river since I suck at ranges and wouldn't really be able to figure out if I was ahead or behind at this point, never mind the fact that I'd expect him to fold to a river bet unless he had me beat anyway.

This is probably going to catch some flak, but I don't even think about ranges here if I'm just being called down by an unknown. I consider their range to be so wide that they could have middle pair and think I'm just bluffing or maybe they did catch two pair playing 73o. Since I play without a HUD, I have no idea how loose/tight this guy is and what kind of hands he calls with, so I can't tell without seeing more hands from him. I just assume his range is wide since most unknowns are, and figure I'm ahead most of the time.

I guess I really went off on a tangent there. Summary:

okay so let's just bet the turn and have him fold out 27 combo's that we can get value out of on the river that we will just fold out on the turn.

Your reasoning here is backwards. You'll get value out of the hands that want to see the river, and the only hands that don't want to pay to see the next card right now will fold when the river doesn't give them the winner. These "27 combos" are only giving you value before the river. What you're essentially doing here is slowplaying, but you only have TPTK. Don't slowplay TPTK.

EDIT: I'm hardly a half-decent player myself, so take my advice with a grain of salt. I'd appreciate it greatly if someone would come along to point out where and why I'm wrong.

[Robb]

As played, I snap call river.

I bet flop bigger ($1) and bet the turn, too, fwiw.

If we don't go BET/BET/BET wtf is the point of betting the street that will narrow the villains range to stuff that beats us?

I would bet/bet/bet

just because the river doesn't come very good and we may opt to check it back doesn't change the fact that I would bet 90% of all rivers

[Micro2Macro]

okay so let's just bet the turn and have him fold out 27 combo's that we can get value out of on the river that we will just fold out on the turn.

If he's gonna fold to a turn bet, he'll fold the river unimproved. All you do here is give him a chance to improve and then take your money when he does so because you'll be thinking, "Well, I did just induce a bluff by showing weakness...". Against an unknown player, I'd pot the flop, pot the turn, probably check river since I suck at ranges and wouldn't really be able to figure out if I was ahead or behind at this point, never mind the fact that I'd expect him to fold to a river bet unless he had me beat anyway.

This is probably going to catch some flak, but I don't even think about ranges here if I'm just being called down by an unknown. I consider their range to be so wide that they could have middle pair and think I'm just bluffing or maybe they did catch two pair playing 73o. Since I play without a HUD, I have no idea how loose/tight this guy is and what kind of hands he calls with, so I can't tell without seeing more hands from him. I just assume his range is wide since most unknowns are, and figure I'm ahead most of the time.

I guess I really went off on a tangent there. Summary:

okay so let's just bet the turn and have him fold out 27 combo's that we can get value out of on the river that we will just fold out on the turn.

Your reasoning here is backwards. You'll get value out of the hands that want to see the river, and the only hands that don't want to pay to see the next card right now will fold when the river doesn't give them the winner. These "27 combos" are only giving you value before the river. What you're essentially doing here is slowplaying, but you only have TPTK. Don't slowplay TPTK.

EDIT: I'm hardly a half-decent player myself, so take my advice with a grain of salt. I'd appreciate it greatly if someone would come along to point out where and why I'm wrong.

Okay, just because he will fold to a turn bet does not mean he will fold to a river bet or attempt to bluff the river. I basically explained this in my long post, please read it.

What is there to improve in his range? I'm not worried about getting 2 or 3 outed on really. I can b/f river.

You should definately get a HUD as it will help you in determining ranges allowing you to adjust your play correctly to certain villains. Having a one size fits all line for everyone isn't a great way to learn how to play poker.

It looks like you seem to misunderstand combinations as well as you put them in " " when you mentioned them. I would strongly suggest reading this as it will give you the information you need to learn them (this helps with ranges) : http://www.flopturnriver.com/phpBB2/...t=combinations

Also, there are times where it is fine to 'slowplay' top pair, it just really comes down to what you feel your opponents range is etc. If this player was looser for example, he would have many more hands in his range that would be calling a turn bet, which is why checking vs a loose player would be terrible. For more information on this, consider reading The Theory of Poker - by David Slansky, and Professional No Limit Hold'em by Ed Miller. If you have yet to read these two publications, I urge you to get yourself a copy as each contain some very important concepts.

well you said he was pretty passive, so why would you say that he would try to bluff the river
sure, he will try to bluff the river sometimes... but if he's passive he's going to improve more often than bluff

but you get more value from a worse ace if you bet/bet/bet which is why I bet all three streets
you also get value from weird hands like 56, 76, 96, 5hxh, 7hxh that have tons of outs on the turn and probably don't bluff the river unless they improve

let's re-iterate:
1. guy is a donk and calls a lot
2. we have a good hand and we want to bet a lot

[bjsaust]

You should definately get a HUD as it will help you in determining ranges allowing you to adjust your play correctly to certain villains. Having a one size fits all line for everyone isn't a great way to learn how to play poker.

You should consider expanding your HUD to include postflop stats, and make reads/notes .

I have a hud so I can shove over 3bs

[Micro2Macro]

You should definately get a HUD as it will help you in determining ranges allowing you to adjust your play correctly to certain villains. Having a one size fits all line for everyone isn't a great way to learn how to play poker.

You should consider expanding your HUD to include postflop stats, and make reads/notes .

Me? You haven't even seen my hud...lol ask dranger, it's got enough #'s. Additonal postflop stats are in the drop down menu (aside from the 4-5 I alread have up front), though most aren't too accurate with a small sample to begin with.

[Micro2Macro]

well you said he was pretty passive, so why would you say that he would try to bluff the river
sure, he will try to bluff the river sometimes... but if he's passive he's going to improve more often than bluff

but you get more value from a worse ace if you bet/bet/bet which is why I bet all three streets
you also get value from weird hands like 56, 76, 96, 5hxh, 7hxh that have tons of outs on the turn and probably don't bluff the river unless they improve

let's re-iterate:
1. guy is a donk and calls a lot
2. we have a good hand and we want to bet a lot

I expected him to c/c rather than lead really. If anything we probably can't profitably call a river bet given his passiveness :/

[ColdDecked]

I think that checking the turn gives us more of a chance to get 2 streets of value with our hand here. Betting the turn folds out a large part of his range that we can beat that may call after you show weakness on the turn. Showing weakness on the the turn could make him think that a medium pp like TT would have showdown value here, and would call a river bet.

If we bet the turn and he calls then donks river, we're put in a kind of akward spot where we're probably gonna fold if it's a big bet. If we check the turn and call the donk bet, we're pretty much committing the same amount of chips, but we get to showdown.

I dunno, I like keeping pots small when our hand is somewhat marginal, since we're usually way ahead or way behind with tptk/gk.

[Micro2Macro]

I think that checking the turn gives us more of a chance to get 2 streets of value with our hand here. Betting the turn folds out a large part of his range that we can beat that may call after you show weakness on the turn. Showing weakness on the the turn could make him think that a medium pp like TT would have showdown value here, and would call a river bet.

If we bet the turn and he calls then donks river, we're put in a kind of akward spot where we're probably gonna fold if it's a big bet. If we check the turn and call the donk bet, we're pretty much committing the same amount of chips, but we get to showdown.

I dunno, I like keeping pots small when our hand is somewhat marginal, since we're usually way ahead or way behind with tptk/gk.

Well I obviously agree with you here lol, but I there are definately spots where going for 3 streets is fine - but this is dependant on villains range, and of course in this scenerio we've already defined villains range as fairly tight.

Like for example, if he was much looser preflop (i.e. 30=vpip) then we can easily work on getting it in since he'll have more worse aces and weird draws in his range. If villain was a huge loose station we could even bet worse than an ace for multiple streets of value.

[ColdDecked]

I think that checking the turn gives us more of a chance to get 2 streets of value with our hand here. Betting the turn folds out a large part of his range that we can beat that may call after you show weakness on the turn. Showing weakness on the the turn could make him think that a medium pp like TT would have showdown value here, and would call a river bet.

If we bet the turn and he calls then donks river, we're put in a kind of akward spot where we're probably gonna fold if it's a big bet. If we check the turn and call the donk bet, we're pretty much committing the same amount of chips, but we get to showdown.

I dunno, I like keeping pots small when our hand is somewhat marginal, since we're usually way ahead or way behind with tptk/gk.

Well I obviously agree with you here lol, but I there are definately spots where going for 3 streets is fine - but this is dependant on villains range, and of course in this scenerio we've already defined villains range as fairly tight.

Like for example, if he was much looser preflop (i.e. 30=vpip) then we can easily work on getting it in since he'll have more worse aces and weird draws in his range. If villain was a huge loose station we could even bet worse than an ace for multiple streets of value.

Yeah, and I'd probably bet turn if the villain is more aggressive, so we keep control of the hand and avoid big river bluffs.

[bjsaust]

That last sentence makes no sense ColdDecked. Think about what you're saying there.

[ColdDecked]

Sorry, I'm kinda tired. What I mean is that if the villain is really aggressive and may c/r river or pot/overbet the river even if he misses just because you show weakness on the turn, it might lead us to a difficult position on the river. And you'd bet the turn because you'd rather try to pick the pot up on the turn. I hope that makes some sense.

[bjsaust]

No, I understand what you're saying, but if you think a villain is likely to bluff big on the river, then you're much better off checking turn and picking it off.

[ColdDecked]

But with the board as it is on the turn, say you check the turn, and an aggressive villain donk pots/shoves the river. It's a really akward spot since he may have hit his straight or already have a set that he's looking to c/r to get it in on the turn. A big bet on the end from an aggressive player doesn't necessarily mean he misses, and if we bet the turn we could avoid guessing.

Against a more passive opponent, who will c/c the river with a medium pp, or a medium ace, or ones who make weaker bets, we wouldn't have to do as much guesswork. So by checking the turn, we are more likely to get 2 streets of value with the range we beat than betting flop, betting turn.

If I had a better hand than TPGK, I might consider checking to induce a bluff, but our hand's only marginal imo.

[bjsaust]

If his range is monsters and bluffs, then what gets more value, betting or calling?

[Luco]

My thoughts:
Pre-flop: Called in a multiway pot 15/2 stats. 22+, AJo+, Axs, SC maybe but not the most likely.
KQ KJ and ATo down are less likely if the villain is any sort of thinker due to reverse implied odds.
Flop: Pretty safe board, given stats I'd put villain down as a 'fit or fold' flop player without a read to the contrary. So after the c/c we're down to Axs, AJo+, 88+, 55 or 77, maybe weaker open aces...
Turn: I'd thin value bet here. 40-45% will keep worse in more often than not, while forcing passive villain to wake up if he has 55 or 77 and wants to stack off. Given tightness of the villain the sd isn't a big threat. I tend not to check behind with people who aren't likely to bluff. If they've called flop they'll call small bets on turn and river, so thin value bet and see how they respond.
River: As played, the river lead says they have something, this isn't too often a bluff. They could have picked up two pair with their Axs, hit a set, made a backdoor straight with A2s, or they're value betting the ace with Ax. Are you ahead often enough to make this call? I'd think you're behind but as played you're calling. Thin betting the turn would have made the river easier.

In short, I'd bet the turn...

[ColdDecked]

We would get more value from calling, but our hand isn't a lock hand. A big river bet would still be a difficult decision since we only have TPGK. On a safer board or a better hand, checking to induce the bluff might be good. I'm not saying that we're trying to extract maximum value from the tougher villain, I'm saying we try to avoid difficult decisions with the tougher villains, and pick on the weaker ones where our decision making would be easier.

The board as it is on the turn and our hand, if we were playing an aggressive villain, I'd rather try to pick up the pot on the turn rather than face a big river bluff. If a passive villain pots the river, we can probably let go of the hand. If an aggressive villain pots the river, we're not sure where we're at.

I think that checking the turn gives us more of a chance to get 2 streets of value with our hand here.

Betting turn gives us more of a change to get 3 streets of value. DUCY?

[Illfavor]

My thoughts:
Pre-flop: Called in a multiway pot 15/2 stats. 22+, AJo+, Axs, SC maybe but not the most likely.
KQ KJ and ATo down are less likely if the villain is any sort of thinker due to reverse implied odds.
Flop: Pretty safe board, given stats I'd put villain down as a 'fit or fold' flop player without a read to the contrary. So after the c/c we're down to Axs, AJo+, 88+, 55 or 77, maybe weaker open aces...
Turn: I'd thin value bet here. 40-45% will keep worse in more often than not, while forcing passive villain to wake up if he has 55 or 77 and wants to stack off. Given tightness of the villain the sd isn't a big threat. I tend not to check behind with people who aren't likely to bluff. If they've called flop they'll call small bets on turn and river, so thin value bet and see how they respond.
River: As played, the river lead says they have something, this isn't too often a bluff. They could have picked up two pair with their Axs, hit a set, made a backdoor straight with A2s, or they're value betting the ace with Ax. Are you ahead often enough to make this call? I'd think you're behind but as played you're calling. Thin betting the turn would have made the river easier.

In short, I'd bet the turn...

Lol...if his turn calling range is A2s+, AJo+, 77, 55 you are bluffing on the turn. No value there. DUCY? We would be going bet/bluff/bluff. The bet/bet/bet line assume he only calls down w/ATo+, 77,55 which gives us a marginal equity edge (51-49). That's like the only range that works for this line. If you start putting suited aces in his range our hand becomes even more marginal, but apparently playing large pots with marginal hands is what we do around here?

[ColdDecked]

But betting the turn also gives us a chance of only getting 1 street of value on some hands which may otherwise give us 2 on the river. The range that calls a turn bet makes a river bet pretty thin. If he's tight passive he probably won't be calling 3 barrels with worse. If I bet turn, and he calls, I don't think I'm betting river. Wouldn't it be a good idea to keep pots smaller when you're wa/wb? If you check turn, bet/call river, at least you get to showdown, and we have a hand that has showdown value.

It might be a leak for me, but I don't think I'm going for 3 streets of value with our hand on this board, against a tight passive.

What is going to do, call the flop with A8 and say "his barreling range is very small, probably only two hearts and the rest of his range is value, his value range has me crushed so I fold the turn"

or is he going to say "hmm I have an ace, but bad kicker, so I'll play carefully and check and call a bet"
if you seriously play against people who would fold A8 here you're playing in the wrong 5NL game

[Illfavor]

How far down does his Ace range go then iopq?

Forget it. Robb, iopq and bj are correct and spenda, fnord, daven, and spoon**now are incorrect, lulz.

every ace he plays pf

[Sir Pawnalot]

Thank you guys for giving me a very entertaining and educational thread to read.

My only problem is that if we play this passive our FE gets too high when we bet for value. This is great if we have good balance between value/bluff.

The camps seems to be divided between "E players" (more showdown) and "FE players" (less showdown). Personally I love to get hands like this win without a showdown and thus play more aggressive lines. It helps in reducing FE in future spots with good E. Downside to this is that we often pay off very good hands (2p+), but win most pots where no one has tptk+.

Let it be said that your line is very good taken into context.


P.S
Please dont edit out the bitching. This is funny to read!

[Micro2Macro]

Ok I think the fact that you went and wrote out the ranges etc is great but I here's what I think.


Preflop I'm going to assume he's flatting with AK and pairs QQ below. He's a weak tight pansy and the pot is already large when it gets around to him, he's afraid to re-raise and have to stack off pre without AA/KK. This is how I think this player would think, given the information we have thus far so I'm going to go with it. If he was aggressive at all preflop, we could simply take these out of his calling range and add them to his 3bet range.

Ok now, what range of hands is he calling my c-bet with?
Well he could be with a number of hands. Since he's tight he seems to know at least something about poker - ie: c-betting is common from someone who raised pre but it's also hard to make a hand. So he's likely peeling the flop with a fairly wide range relative to the strength of my hand - mostly pairs or any ace of course. He may think his pair of 8's or 9's are still good and that I will shut down on the turn if I missed the flop.

So obviously he'll call a c-bet with hands that have us beat:
AK, 55, 77 (we assume AA is not in his range because he would have 3-bet preflop based on our assumption)

However he'll also likely call 1 street with alot of hands that we either chop or are well ahead of:
AT+,88+ (and maybe a SC for the straight draw but it's probably somewhat unlikely so I'll just ignore it for simplicity)

I put 88+ which to be honest we don't really have perfect information on whether he calls with any pair worse than an ace or not, but if he does - HE IS LIKELY FOLDING THESE HANDS TO A TURN BARREL - because I'm repping an Ace or better basically. I don't think he'll call down the mid pairs in his range to the river that may have called one street so far. He'll likely shut down as a turn bet basically sets up stacking off on the river.

The rest of the hands that he called preflop with will of course fold to the c-bet based on the assumption that he's not tricky and floating us with air, though he could be. So I imagine at least a few combo's of weird stuff could be in his range by the turn, though I won't get value from them either if I bet. And if he bet's the river he may have some of this junk in his betting range.

Which brings up my point of checking back the turn - we want to keep the ENTIRE c-bet calling range in there till the river. The board is dry so we can't be too concered about being drawn out on because I'm assuming he doesn't have much raggy junk in his range, thus there's no real need to 'protect' or hand. Against OTHER villains betting here is great.

We'll find out if we're beat when we go to v-bet the river as a C/R is basically never a bluff here. So if we bet the turn we basically commit ourselves on the river and likely will not get called for stacks unless we are beat - thus the reason for pot control. My assumption is this player will not stack off with a worse hand often enough to make trying to get it in profitable, so why are we setting up a river shove when it's likely -EV?

Now I've checked the turn, and in doing so, I've under-repped my hand so I can attempt to get value from many hands in his range that would shut down to a turn barrel, but may call a river bet after sensing weakness from my turn check. He may take Ax completely out of MY range, so he may think whatever pair lower than an ace that he called one street with is good - thus more combo's for me to get value out of with 2 streets of betting, which I would not have accomplished by betting again on the turn.

as you'll see there are still a LOT of hands in his range you're ahead of that he would have called flop with.

This is exactly my point and is even more a reason to not bet the turn - because he likely isn't continuing to a 2barrel without a narrower range than his range he called the first street with. So if I check back the turn, I keep his entire range he called a bet with on the flop with on to the river, where I can expect to exctract value from hands like TT or JJ, weaker aces etc - hands that I felt would not have called a 2-barrel. 2-barreling is basically setting up committment to stack off on the river against a range that has will have greater equity than us.

read this ^ because it's obvious no one did

[Illfavor]

every ace he plays pf

Wow ranges are unbelievably important here but ok.

[bjsaust]

You guys seem to think a 15/2 has a particularly tight range here. We disagree.

[Illfavor]

Fnord, spenda, daven and sp**n seem to think a 15/2 has a particularly tight range here. We disagree.

Done replying in this thread now.

[bjsaust]

Forget it. Robb, iopq and bj are correct and spenda, fnord, daven, and spoon**now are incorrect, lulz.

Probably the most useless reply in FTR history. Feel free to just ignore responses if you dont want our input.

every ace he plays pf

Wow ranges are unbelievably important here but ok.

he's not limping Ax and then folding if he actually hits his ace
maybe he only plays A8+
maybe it's A2+

the point is after he calls the flop whatever his preflop range is now his turn range is a lot of ace hands

[bigspenda73]

I feel like it's a huge stretch to put anything under ATs/AJo in his PF range. If a 15/2 peels with weak Ax hands chances are he is c/f'ing a non-2pr or pair+draw hand to a second barrel.

The river bet makes zero sense from a worse hand that ours, therefore his range is like blocking-bet with a set/some sort of A2s/A6s/67s hand (if you want to argue he's loose enough PF to call with these hands). Do I think his river betting range is balanced, no.