MrNiceGuy
-
Content Count
1,146 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Calendar
Posts posted by MrNiceGuy
-
-
If he does, it's a very thin river bet.Prior to the river, I've got him on approximately AQ-A2 or KQ-K9. That would leave 54 hands that we tie (A8-A2), and 71 hands that we beat.If we're calling hoping to split the pot we're getting about 3.25-1. So I guess if you think he would often bet A-rag again on the river on this board, it's a call. But in my experience, I think I'd assume otherwise until I'd seen him try really thin value bets. It's probably a call if the river is an 8, but that J river just makes the board so scary.(Granted, a very good player wouldn't necessarily find that board scary, as it's hard to put us on a Q unless we have precisely KQ. So he might put us on an A and bluff the river for half the pot, knowing that it will be hard for us to call on that board. But given his limping tendencies, it's unlikely that we're dealing the a very good player).you don't think the villain could have A2-A8? -
I'd consider folding the flop after getting raised (depending largely on what I thought of CO's call).I'm definitely folding the river. Do you really think we get shown K8 or worse more than 1/9 times here?
-
My 2 cents:Villain probably didn't start with a premium preflop hand, but otherwise could have any two cards.He has flopped one of four hands:1)A good hand (top pair or better, or a premium draw (SFD, pair+FD, etc.))2)A weak made hand (middle PP, 2nd pair, or 3rd pair)3)Some kind of ordinarly draw4)Absolutely nothing1) Villain might bet out, or might attempt to check/raise. (IMO, he's probably best to check/raise, since anyone with any draw that threatens him will likely bet for him anyway, and he'll get action from a wider range of hands if he checks than if he bets.).2) Villian might bet out, or might check and see what happens. Because the board is weak, his hand is vulnerable, and anyone who bets is fairly likely to have a J, I think he would probably bet out.3) Villain would probably bet out (if he's going to play it aggressively). A bet is more likely to come from late position than from early position, and any bet is fairly likely to be a J, so check/raising with a draw doesn't make much sense.4) Villain could bet out, or check and see what happens (presumably planning to fold to most bets).So, after the flop check/raise, I'm putting villain on most likely either a big hand or a very weak hand. Thus, my play would be to either directly fold to the flop check/raise (if I think he's unlikely to be bluffing), or to call down (if I think he's fairly likely to be bluffing, or if I think there's a decent chance he would play a weak hand or a draw this way). Exception: if I don't believe he'd fire a second bullet as a bluff, then I might call the flop, and fold the turn UI if he bets again.
-
I don't like the preflop raise; BB seems fairly unlikely to fold, and you don't feel you have good control over CO even if you do get it heads-up, so why bloat the pot from OOP?As played, I'd have trouble folding on the turn myself, but I suspect that it's the best play against a "non-spewy" player. If he was going to make a raise with an OESD, I'd expect him to do so on the flop, rather than the turn after two opponents have shown considerable strength. So the only realistic hands you can beat are worse J's. This is an odd way to play a J, but a fairly standard way to play a big hand (J9,99,33). He could be making a free-showdown raise with a J and a flush draw, but even then you're losing to AJs, and KJs is freerolling you. You're getting roughly 5-1 to call down, but it does seem. If villain rarely raises the turn without a big hand, then I think you should fold. If he likes to make plays on the turn, then you can't fold.
-
Interesting.After going through the thought process below, I've decided that given the information we have, I think folding is the slightly better option. (But some specific information could easily change my decision to a call; for example, if we had any specific indication that he would likely not make a big reraise with AA/KK, or if I've seen him make a sizeable reraise with AK or QQ, then I'd call. On the other hand, if I've seen him cold-call on a previous hand with QQ, and it appeared to be based on caution rather than as a trap, then I'm very comfortable with a fold).If we call, we're risking $394 to win $510. So we're getting about 1.3-1 pot odds. Calling is break-even if we win win 43.5% of the time. (A couple quick notes: we're about 47% against a range of AA,KK, and AK, and of course we're almost exactly 50% against a range of AA,KK, and QQ. If you remove half of the AK's from the first range, we're at 33%, and if you remove half of the QQ's from the second range, we're at 40% Against AA,KK, and half the AK's and QQ's, we're at 45%).I think before we can make a decision, we need to ask some questions. First, can this possibly be a bluff? I think we can say no with virtual certainty; villain has not given any hint that he is capable of such a play, and if he were going to pick a spot for a big bluff, this hardly seems like the spot he would pick.So, that leaves legitimate hands. I'm asking myself -Would he do this with AA?Unless we have an indication otherwise from specific hands he's played, I think we have to figure that he might push with AA here.Would he do this with AK?You get dealt AK, on average, a bit more than once every 100 hands. I'm assuming we've played several hundred hands with this guy, and he's only made 3 or 4 raises. Unless we have an indication that he usually does not raise with big pairs, I have to assume that he generally not raising with AK, so I'm not expecting him to re-re-raise with it. But I'm only really comfortable with this assumption if I've seen him cold-call raises with AK in this past.Would he do this with QQ?This is really the key question. If we think that he is much more likely to push with AA than with QQ, and if we don't think he'd push with AK, then we have to fold. But if we think that he's almost as likely to push with QQ as he is with AA, then we have to call (given the overlay, and the possibility that he could also be pushing AK,JJ,etc.). If we think he's somewhat more likely to push with AA than QQ, then we can only call if we think there's also some chance he might push with worse hands. If we have only his history to go on, then this is tricky; it's certainly possible that he's gone a few hundred hands without getting dealt many AA,KK, or QQ hands (you get each of these once every 221 hands). With no other information that the fact that his raises are very infrequent, I'm going to assume that he is much more likely to push with AA than QQ.
-
Odds of filling (or quadding) by the river are 1-(40/47*36/46)=33.4% (slightly higher if you assume that the villains aren't holding any of our outs).I agree that, normally, getting raised on a 3-flush board is not necessarily reason to slow down with a set. But it this particular hand, I think CO's raise is overwhelmingly likely to be a straight or a flush (or, even worse, a slowplayed AA or KK). Even a moron should recognize that that monster flop likely hit hero very hard. The only plausible hand CO might raise with here that we can presently beat is a naked Jc, but for that too be the case CO would have to be loose-passive enough to limp with such a hand preflop, yet aggressive enough to raise with it on that flop. Very few players fit this description.And because I think we're behind the vast majority of the time, and because we're only 33% to win when we are, I don't want to risk knocking BB out of the pot on the flop.(If there's a bad beat jackpot, I start hoping for the royal on the flop. But as far as playing the hand, I don't think it's a concern until CO makes it fairly clear on the turn that he has the nuts. Once we are pretty sure he has the suited Jc, JTc becomes a very likely hand).flop 3 bet is standidillyandard, especially 3 way. There is a decent chance that we are ahead already, and if we aren't we have 10 outs already, and the chance that by the river the turn card will pair (I'm too hungover to attempt the math for this right now to give our true odds). The flop cap obviously tells us to slow down, which zach does. obviously there is always the chance of a royal, but that likelyhood is way too slight to really factor in. -
You didn't say which river card paired; I like the river lead if it was the A that paired, and I think it's close if the K or Q pairs. Unless the CO is an idiot, it's not hard to read you for a boat at that point, whether you bet or not. The 8 I think you can go for the check/raise (you need CO to bet somewhere between 1/2 and 1/3 of the time).A not-insignificant drawback to check-raising is that if CO has the royal, we lose an extra bet (assuming we make the crying call). If we but him on the suited J when he 3-bets the turn, I think we can figure it's JT somewhere in the neighborhood of 1/5 of the time. (Figuring that a typical fish is more likely to play JTs or J9s than J3s or J2s).P.S. I'm not crazy about the flop 3-bet, but I don't hate it either.
-
I couldn't (and still can't) decide whether it's better to wait for the river or check/raise on the turn. Is waiting for the river more likely to gain me one (or two) bets, or more likely to cost me one (or two) bets? I probably should just raise the turn, as you suggest, because few players will fold top pair in a heads-up pot, and because villain could check behind with a marginal hand (like AT) on a scary river (like a K).If we're gonna check the turn, which I don't hate, then we should really just raise the turn. Villains hate that ****, and will almost always call down. I don't remember a time I've c/r'ed the turn and not gotten at least my 2 bets in, and almost always my bet on the river as well. -
I'm not suggesting that the range I've given villain is complete; I just think that the majority of players I've encountered at 2/4 will have a range something along these lines when they raise from the cutoff, call a 3-bet heads-up in position (rather than cap), and call on this flop. Certainly there are many players out there who could have a wide variety of hands here; some of which my line will make extra money from, and some of which my line will miss a bet (or even two) against.Betting out on the turn and the river is the "safest" line, as it doesn't miss any bets, and it doesn't risk losing more than 3-bets (assuming that we won't opt to 3-bet if raised). I would for sure use this line against known players who raise liberally preflop and then make loose calldowns with weak hands, as well as against players who will not try thin value-bets when checked to.But I'd like to use the line that will be most +EV on average against an unknown. It may be the simple, bet every street line. (I wouldn't have posted the hand if I was sure I knew the best approach.) As you mentioned, there are players who will call down with a small pair or a K-high. However, there are also many players who will take one off on the flop with a weak hand, then fold to further action. So I still think my overall logic is sound.My idea of Villain's range is drastically different than this.And it greatly surprises me that you have narrowed an unknown's range so much. -
I'm kind of surprised that almost everyone prefers leading the turn.My thoughts:Villain's range when he calls the flop bet is probably something along the lines of: AQ-A9(perhaps not including suited Ah),KhQh-KhTh, and perhaps 66 and 55.On the turn, that's 21 Ax hands, 5 AJ hands, a few heart draws, and 6 set hands. So I'm still roughly a 2-1 favorite against this range, the majority of which are worse Aces that are way behind.Villain probably suspects I have something along the lines of AK, AA-99, perhaps AQ.Although I don't know villain, I think it's unlikely that he raises the turn or river with a worse hand than mine if I bet out, unless he tries a free showdown raise on the turn.If I check the turn, I imagine he'll suspect I don't have an A, meaning I likely have a big pair, and he'll probably bet the turn and river for value.If I check/raise on the turn, it's possible (though probably unlikely) that he folds a hand like AT or A9, or maybe even AQ. So I decided to wait for the river to make the check/raise, as I expected another bet.Of course, if villain has a flush draw, he may take a free card on the turn. But I think flush draws are probably only a small fraction of his range, and he might semibluff the turn when checked to anyway (I think it's unlikely that he would try a semibluff-raise with the A out there if I bet out again.)
-
I doubt it, particularly since I'm not sure he calls on the flop with an underpair.Does he make this play with a counterfeited pock pair often enough to make a call right? -
PokerStars 2/4 Hold'em (6 handed) Hand History Converter Tool from FlopTurnRiver.com (Format: FlopTurnRiver)Preflop: Hero is SB with A
, K
. 2 folds, CO raises, 1 fold, Hero 3-bets, 1 fold, CO calls.Flop: (7 SB) A
, 5, 6(2 players)Hero bets, CO calls.Turn: (4.50 BB) J(2 players)Hero checks, CO bets, Hero pauses and calls.River: (6.50 BB) 6(2 players)Hero CHECKS, PLANNING TO CHECK-RAISE.Final Pot: 10.50 BBIf the river had been a Q or a T, I check/call. As is, if I c/r and get 3-bet, I'm reluctantly calling.Villain is unknown. Ok, or FPS? -
I agree with other responders. The only way I'm checking the turn is if UTG is a tight-passive opponent who almost certainly has at least an A (and almost certainly won't be folding it).Make the Jc on the flop the 3c instead, and I'd check behind against more (but not all) opponents.
-
Assuming that I would forget what they had after I acted (If I would know their hands throughout the hand, then I'd raise in every case, knowing that I'd never make a bad fold or give a dangerous free card postflop), then I think I'd check in the first case and raise in the others. In the first case, I'd just as soon not give them the right odds to draw at gutshots on the flop, plus I'll be very vulnerable to semibluffs and I'll often make a bad fold postflop (so my 43% preflop chances would actually be reduced, as I'll often make a bad fold and my opponents almost never will). In the latter 3 cases, my opponents hands are so hard to play that it should make my hand relatively easy to play, even out of position. (Of course, in the second hand, I'll take a beating if I flop top pair against a set, but I'm going to be in trouble in that case whether I raise preflop or not, and if I raise preflop and still take a lot of heat, the fact that I raised preflop may make it easier to make a good laydown with top pair).If you could see your two opponents' hands...Would you raise preflop here if they heldJTs & 98s44 & 22A4 & A2K4s & K2s -
Certainly this is true, and I do think raising buys you some fold equity against small pocket pairs when an A flops, but I think that's probably about it (on the flop anyway). I think in most other situations when you miss the flop, you have about the same amount of fold equity on the flop whether you raise preflop or not.The raise definitely represents extra strength, but it also makes the pot large enough that anyone with middle or bottom pair or a gutshot should be calling you on most flops even if they put you on a top pair or overpair hand. In these cases you will need to fire again on the turn, which is a questionable play against calling stations (sidenote: if your image is good and the limpers play too many hands and then seem to fold too much postflop, then I like raising preflop and firing away postflop).YesBecause I feel that a raise from the small blind represents a good deal of stength.--cm -
Reading over your list, do you think that your preflop raise buys you any more fold equity than you would have had had you just checked?Also, I would argue that few players would fold a pair (other than a pocket pair) on an A-high flop after you raise preflop in a 3-handed pot getting 7-1 immediate odds. A decent player might fold middle or bottom pair if you had not raised preflop and then bet on an A-high flop though.That said, the fact that you can often win with a semibluff against the limpers when you miss the flop does add to the value of your hand, and may make it worthwile to raise for value. Let's say, if you raise, you have a 40-50% chance to win the pot. Then the immediate value of the preflop raise is 0.2-0.5 small bets (I suspect your chances are closer to 40% (0.2 small bets) than they are to 50% (0.5)). The other side of the coin is that raising preflop can cost you value by: (1)opening yourself up to a limp-reraise, (2)possibly increasing the rake, (3)reducing your postflop edge by bloating the pot(opponent-dependent), and (4)giving your opponents information about your hand.(1) is admittedly a minor point, but we are talking about a close decision here. (2) is a point that is often overlooked, but I think it can be significant in low-stakes games. If your raise will ultimately increase the rake by 0.5 small bets 1/2 of the time, and if you win 2/5(40%) of the time, then the raise costs you 0.2 small bets on average this way. If your raise will only increase the rake 1/4 of the time, it still costs you 0.1 small bets on average.(3) depends on the limpers, but usually it is true that people who often limp preflop are likely to play too loosely preflop, and thus your edge decreases in a larger pot (by making your check-folds and bet-folds either incorrect or less correct, and your opponents' loose calls with gutshots/1-pair either correct or less incorrect).(4) may not hurt you too much with this particular hand. An opponent who flops top pair with a worse K or Q will probably not raise you on the flop, though.I can't be sure, but I suspect that these factors added together make just checking preflop the better play. I could be wrong though.(Also, I honestly don't know whether there are any metagame advantages created in future hands when you raise with marginal hands in these spots. In principle, it should make players less inclined to limp in with weaker hands when you are yet to act).I feel that this oversimplified logic can't be sound and passes up on some profitable opportunities for good players. -
The fact that CO could easily have a worse hand only means that you should be hesitant to fold. You should only be raising if you think CO probably has a worse hand than yours.(Also, note that even TT with a club is not far behind you on either the flop (11 outs twice) or the turn (19 outs)).he could easily play TT with the club exactly like this. -
IMO, unless CO is a complete maniac, you gave WAY too much action.Your flop 3-bet pretty well anounces that you have either AK, AA, or JJ, yet your opponent caps. I think you have to slow down at this point.Personally, because the board is so scary (not just because it's suited, but because it fits so many playable hands), and because CO is loose and aggressive, I just call down after the flop raise. If CO is on a draw, or betting a worse made hand, then I'm happy to let her bet the hand for me.
-
In general, I like c/c, c/c (and bet most rivers if he checks behind on the turn). But, against this opponent (generally passive postflop), c/c, c/f might be a reasonable alternative if my image is ok.I don't like leading the turn because I think villain will fold a lot of pocket pairs that he might bet himself when checked to, or else that he will check behind with and pay off a river bet. Plus, if villain plans on seeing a showdown anyway, he has the option of raising the turn. Also, if villain does have us beat, he might just call. I would only consider betting the turn if I felt I was against the ideal loose-passive, straightforward opponent.
-
I would just call the flop 3-bet (but not with the intention of raising the turn). Villain is repping JJ,AA, or QQ, and we're behind that range. It's possible that viillain's range includes a few more hands, which could make us a slight favorite, but even then I think the information we give by capping the flop likely outweighs whatever slight immediate value it may have. Plus, I'm content to let villain keep the lead (I would hate to cap and then get check-raised on a blank turn).
-
Hmm..I think preflop is close; I would normally fold though, although (under certain conditions) I might call (soft game) or raise (tight players behind me, and both blinds are likely to fold, and the limper is a weak player). Otherwise, I'm figuring the pot is going to be at least 3-handed a lot of the time, and that's going to be rough on a small pair, not to mention there are still 4 players left to act that could wake up with monsters.As played, I think the turn is interesting after the check-raise. The most worrisome hands for the check-raiser are 76, A2, and 55 (28 hands). We're way ahead of A4, A5, A3, and 33 (23 hands, not counting Ac4c). We're also ahead of an A plus a flush draw (9 hands, not counting Ac2c). Overall, we're 54% against this range. Of course, this range in reality should be weighted, with some hands more likely than others, and there's other hands villain could have. However, it appears that we're probably at best a slight favorite against villain's range, which is probably not enough to 3-bet with if we were heads-up (since villain will presumably always cap with a straight, so it's a win one lose two situation most of the time). But, the question is further complicated by the presence of the CO. I think we can put CO most likely on a good or medium A, although there's other hands he could have. Unless he has a flush draw, he will probably fold if we reraise, but he might overcall drawing nearly dead if we call. So I suspect that in this case, we would prefer to keep him in if he has a hand that he would fold for 2 bets.So, although I probably would have 3-bet at the table, I think that just calling the check-raise is probably the better play against an unknown.As for the river, if we assume that villain doesn't have a straight when he doesn't cap the turn, then there's 23 hands we're beating and 9 hands were behind. Villain will probably always check-raise with a flush, but given the distribution, I think we still have to bet. (If villain is known to habitually sandbag, however, then there is still some chance he has a straight, and we should consider checking behind).
-
Unless I expect villain to make a crying call on this river with A-high (which given the description, I don't- after all, what is villain going to put us on that A-high can beat after we peel on this flop), I actually like a check-fold on this river. (I'm expecting that usually villain will check behind, and we'll win the pot against his A-high, but sometimes, he'll check behind, and well lose to his TT (or something similar), and sometimes he'll bet and we'll fold, but I don't think we win 1/6 of the time that he bets).
-
I think the blinds (chiefly the BB) are they key to the decision. I like the raise against any limper (except of course for the guys that only open-limp monsters) as long as there is a reasonable chance of getting it HU. But, if the BB is the type who will almost never fold for a single raise, then I would call if the BB and limper are horrible postflop, and fold if they are decent postflop.i do that against any player that would open limp ever. -
I agree. With that in mind, I think this is one of those spots where a check-raise bluff should at least be considered.If he called the turn card with a PP less than ten or with a 6, he's calling that river with it too.
Aks Backdoors Into Flush With 2pair On Board
in Other Poker Cash Games
Posted
I think the river is worth a check/raise, even given the double-paired board. (as long as you think MP will value-bet an overpair, otherwise you should probably lead out). It seems very unlikely that either opponent has a ten, and nealy impossible for either to have a 3. Button probably raises the river with any T or 99; he probably has something like JJ (although I suppose it's possible he has A3). Unless MP was screwing around with his preflop 3-bet, we're only losing if he has TT or 99, and chose to fastplay it on the flop.