Is This A Cooler? Or Does The Turn Raise Tell Me He Has A Better Hand

[jmbreslin 0]

I find it interesting that there is such an inconsistency between responses here and responses in the tourney hand I posted. In that hand the common response was "It's a $4.40, they do stupid things so don't give them credit." Here, even though it is also micro stakes, the response is "you have to exclude hands from his range that he shouldn't play that way, because playing those hands that way is stupid." So which one is it? Do unknown micro players play stupidly, or do they deserve some credit? Because it can't be both.Besides, my caution on the river isn't about skeletons under the closet. I'm not advocating cautious play because I'm scared of one possible hand he could be holding, or even two. I'm advocating caution on the river because, as I have repeatedly stated, the number of hands that beat us on the river far outnumbers the hands we beat. There isn't a range of hands we beat there and I'm saying call because I'm worried about AA. I'm saying call because I see little to no value in raising when there are several hands that beat us and only one or maybe two that we beat.As I stated before, the way I play may cause me to lose out on value in some spots. I admit that. It's a lower-variance approach to the game and I'm fine with that.

[Acid_Knight 2]

turn is a fold but the river is a jam? wait wut? does the combo remover and QT counterfeit mean that much equity wise to swing the spectrum?Also, this is ****ing five cent no limit, why are you removing nonsensical hands like 2-3, Q-3 etc, AA, and wtf JT from his range?Supermicros its a pretty clear call down... your hand doesn't have a ton of value against his range but there's enough random bullshit to make calling down +EV. Stop giving retards credit

It's not so much that the river counterfeits QT as it is that he bet $1 into a $6 pot on the river. I'm trying to act rationally and yes, I'm removing hands like T3, Q3 and 23 from his range here, which I don't think is too unreasonable. Maybe sometimes he'll have those hands, but I think that he rarely shows up with those hands. The turn is a fold because there aren't any draws for him to have and it's a good board to slowplay a set on and when he c/rs the turn, he reasonably has sets as well as QT, all of which we're losing to. When the river comes, it makes 33 less likely and we now beat QT, which is a huge deal since I think many reasonable players at all stakes could and would l/c QT UTG. I think jamming the river is fine because I think if he's got a boat or quads, he bets more, so his hand is now more likely to be something dumber like QT, QJ, JT or similar hands that we beat.

[Acid_Knight 2]

Even if we just limit the range that beats us to the ones you mention (which I don't think we can necessarily do), the question is what hands does he play up to the river the way he did that Hero beats on the river? The only hand is basically QT. So although there aren't a huge number of hands we lose to, they far outnumber the likely hands we beat.

Combo wise, there is one combo of 33, 3 combos of 22, 3 of TT and you could randomly throw in a combo of AA or two if you like. There are 9 combos of QT for him to have. By my count that's about even for him having QT or a hand we lose to. Throw out the times where he doesn't slowplay a set or AA on that flop and toss in a few random floats with KQ or QJ or something and I think it's much closer.

Maybe you wouldn't but lots of micro players would. There are basically two common types of players at these stakes, neither of which understand proper bet sizing: the ones that shove their big hands because they get excited or perhaps they're trying to look like they're bluffing, and the ones that bet ridiculously small with their big hands because they don't want to scare off the money or because they want to entice a raise.

This is fair. If this is something that players will commonly do with a big hand, then calling becomes much better. I just think that most of the time, any players, especially bad ones and at lower stakes are more apt to bet huge when they have a huge hand than they are to bet this tiny.

[Acid_Knight 2]

As I stated before, the way I play may cause me to lose out on value in some spots. I admit that. It's a lower-variance approach to the game and I'm fine with that.

I'm not familiar with your style as I don't read these forums too much anymore.This statement is very dangerous and will hold you back greatly as a poker player. You passing up spots that are clearly +EV is flat out bad. If you come across a spot where you say to yourself "it's unlikely that this guy has me beat" or "a raise here should be profitable because he's going to call with worse more than half of the time" and then you fail to raise because you're averse to losing more money the times where he does have a better hand, then you're lighting money on fire. Poker is all about making the right decisions. If it's profitable to raise, you raise. If he's going to call with a worse hand 54% of the time and call with a better hand 46% of the time, I'd be bombing the hell out of that pot. I don't care that I lose 46% of the time. Lowering variance is a crappy argument. If you have a proper BR and are a winning player, then normal variance shouldn't be able to hurt you. If your raise or bet is +EV, you make it. If it's not +EV, you don't make it. I don't care about results as long as I'm confident I made the best move. Be able to look at a 54/46 situation that's in your favor and realize that even though you're gonna lose 46% of the time, it's still a good move to raise.

[KingJames 11]

Excellent post, Matt

[jmbreslin 0]

I'm not familiar with your style as I don't read these forums too much anymore.This statement is very dangerous and will hold you back greatly as a poker player. You passing up spots that are clearly +EV is flat out bad. If you come across a spot where you say to yourself "it's unlikely that this guy has me beat" or "a raise here should be profitable because he's going to call with worse more than half of the time" and then you fail to raise because you're averse to losing more money the times where he does have a better hand, then you're lighting money on fire. Poker is all about making the right decisions. If it's profitable to raise, you raise. If he's going to call with a worse hand 54% of the time and call with a better hand 46% of the time, I'd be bombing the hell out of that pot. I don't care that I lose 46% of the time. Lowering variance is a crappy argument. If you have a proper BR and are a winning player, then normal variance shouldn't be able to hurt you. If your raise or bet is +EV, you make it. If it's not +EV, you don't make it. I don't care about results as long as I'm confident I made the best move. Be able to look at a 54/46 situation that's in your favor and realize that even though you're gonna lose 46% of the time, it's still a good move to raise.

I agree 100%. But let's remember that assessments of ev aren't as objective as people sometimes think they are. The ev of calling vs raising the river depends to a large extent on certain assumptions (the range of hands we put villain on, what we interpret his small bet to mean, etc). The assumptions we make determine whether a play is + or -ev. The disagreement between me and other posters here is around those assumptions. My post above wasn't meant to imply that I agree raising is better than calling in terms of ev but that I prefer to call to reduce my variance. Rather, I disagree that raising is +ev over calling because my assessment of the hand is different. But here's another aspect to the river decision that I don't think has been sufficiently discussed. In order for raising the river to be +ev, we have to expect villain to call with a worse hand often enough to make up for the times we run into the better part of his range. We can't just say that the range is balanced between between stuff we beat and stuff that beats us and conclude that raising the river is +ev. If he folds his worse hands a high percentage of the time (which I think is likely, especially if you put random non-QT hands in his range), then calling may still be the better play.

[Ninja Ace 1]

Yes it does. When someone bets $1 into $6, what do you ordinarily do? Call? No, from the posts you've made, you jam ATC.

Not 200bbs deep IN A VACUUM I don't... my game becomes drastically more passive the deeper it gets. Especially since most players good and bad have a tough tough time raising with less than one pair hands in deep pots... let alone check-raising the turn. It just so happens he's giving us a price to call down. If his turn raise were anything reasonable I do agree it's a clear fold. And I'm certainly not jamming unless I have a hand that crushes 95% of his range, or a hand that has 0 showdown equity (which would be *exactly* KJ in this spot given the turn action). The other thing I don't like is that even if we can be ahead on this river enough to make a call profitable (which I think is true), it doesn't mean he pays off the Vbet jam with weaker often enough, but he is ALWAYS going to call when he's ahead.And yes, I'm clearly results oriented, which is why I'm always jumping down posters throats for posting results early. In fact, that's the first thing I said in the thread.edt: I missed this, which is a point I hit in the post after

But here's another aspect to the river decision that I don't think has been sufficiently discussed. In order for raising the river to be +ev, we have to expect villain to call with a worse hand often enough to make up for the times we run into the better part of his range. We can't just say that the range is balanced between between stuff we beat and stuff that beats us and conclude that raising the river is +ev. If he folds his worse hands a high percentage of the time (which I think is likely, especially if you put random non-QT hands in his range), then calling may still be the better play.

[Ninja Ace 1]

The turn is a fold because there aren't any draws for him to have and it's a good board to slowplay a set on and when he c/rs the turn, he reasonably has sets as well as QT, all of which we're losing to.

I agree that the c-r does rep this range ridiculously hard, I won't contest that... but isn't it a little ridiculous to lay down an overpair to such a small raise? I mean, this is a minraise and a half... I think I could rationalize peel and fold to most river jams a lot better.

[mtdesmoines 3]

I agree that the c-r does rep this range ridiculously hard, I won't contest that... but isn't it a little ridiculous to lay down an overpair to such a small raise? I mean, this is a minraise and a half... I think I could rationalize peel and fold to most river jams a lot better.

99% of the time we see the turn minraise, we're seeing a river jam. Or I do at least.

[Acid_Knight 2]

I agree that the c-r does rep this range ridiculously hard, I won't contest that... but isn't it a little ridiculous to lay down an overpair to such a small raise? I mean, this is a minraise and a half... I think I could rationalize peel and fold to most river jams a lot better.

What does it matter? It's not THAT small of a c/r. 2.5x is a pretty standard size. If he's not bluffing, we're not winning. We're not getting odds to outdraw anything except QT and I'm gonna go ahead and say that you're not just calling the turn c/r, but you're paying off a river bet a fair amount of the time because you're still going to have an overpair, so you're paying a lot more than just the smallish turn c/r.

[stinkypete 0]

Your mistake's simple. You got value-bet and raised him on the river. The right move is to smooth-call on the river, pay him off, and lose half as much money. Shit, you lose LESS than half: $4.25 vs. $9.25. Here's why:1. Ask yourself, what's villain going to limp-call with pre-flop? It's not a (totally) insane move to limp-call with queens preflop just for pot control in rush, which is assumed to be crawling with retarded maniacs. Frankly, my read pre-flop's going to be a small pair, and I'd be more worried about the 23T than the Q that eventually falls.2. If you think you're beat on the turn, (and I have to at least give you credit - I might make the mistake of jamming it all-in on the turn, in Rush, at least,) then the range of hands that beat you on the turn contain an awful lot of stuff - sets - that still have you crushed. And all of them became more likely when you get check-called on the flop, primarily because all the two-high-cards-AK-AQ-KQ-QJ hands would have gotten the @#$% out of dodge.3. The raise by the villain on the turn's a little small. If you're going to look for indications and tells, a raise of only 60% of the pot size on the turn probably means he's hoping to get called.4. The villain's bet on the river should also have warned you. It STINKS of a value bet, putting in less than 18% of the pot size. If you're getting value-betted, why would you raise, given that you haven't really improved on the river?

[stinkypete 0]

You think AA is remotely possible? QQ too? LOL

"LOL", indeed. QQ was precisely what he had. And 5-handed, AA isn't impossible either, with the villain trapping & deciding he's not letting go of them no matter what. (Which, in this case, would've worked out just fine.)What, have you not played poker in a few months or something? Have you ever even played Rush?

I haven't played poker in a few months, and I haven't played 5nl Rush ever, but I have a very hard time believing that the game has evolved in such a way that AA/QQ are believably played this way.

Oh. Apparently not.

Because of the bolded, this river is the nuts. When villain bets $1 into $6, it looks like a blocking bet. So if he has a butchered FH, good for him, but I'm charging him the max for when he has QT and some random shit like AQ.

Yeah. Feel free to charge all you like for two hands that don't make it to the turn anyway. You really think AQ calls a flop bet? And you think QT is even AROUND for the flop? Sometimes, perhaps. But I can guarantee you that QQ is sticking around past the flop of three undercards 100% of the time. And a defensive bet on the river makes no sense after the turn raise.

If we assign him TT/22/33/QT, and I'm discounting QQ because this is the stupidest ass way anyone could ever play QQ, then we're 56% on the river. I assume he is never folding for when we raise, and I say that's a fair assumption. Give him QQ and we're 47%, but surely if he's capable of playing QQ this retardedly then he can have a hand like AQ sometimes, too, in which case our equity is tremendous.

Tell me, why is it necessary that if QT and AQ is in the range that they're that much more likely than the set? 'Cuz 56% is a stupid-ass number if they're not? An overpair to the flop that doesn't have the kings beat becomes a stronger possibility after the check-call on the flop. So do 2's, 3's, and T's.And why does any of this matter? It's not a question of folding on the turn or the river, it's a question of calling the value-bet or shipping on the river. And hoping you get called when you're not beat. Which probably ain't happening more than 50-65% of the time by QT/AQ anyway. What's that do to the 56%? Perhaps you should also assert KQ and QJ is plausible as well. Would that make your number go higher?By the way. "retardedly" isn't a word.

[trystero 0]

Yet another troll, most likely a 4bb gimmick account made years ago. But in case you are real, I must lol at your whole post of mass attack fail. You rule out AQ because you cannot conceive of it calling a flop bet, as no one would ever call a 2/3 PSB with two overcards...you NEVER see that...but you consider AA because, well, you know AA just always limp/calls preflop, right? You say AA is more likely 5-handed, when 1) this hand is played full-ring and 2) AA becomes LESS likely shorthanded because players widen their raising/3-betting ranges SH. You say QT isn't even "around" for the flop as if a micro-stakes donk wouldn't ever limp/call with it, but hey players limp/call with QQ all of the time. They want to as you said in a prior post play "pot control." Then you guarantee me that QQ will be around after the flop. Holy shit what a revelation. Thanks for the guarantee dude. QQ won't fold for 43 cents as an overpair. I bet you're the boss man around your home game, for sure. When the action goes limp/call pf and check/call otf, I'm ALWAYS thinking that my generic online opponent has an overpair of JJ+. Because that's how random online villains play in 2010 - they don't raise preflop with big pairs, and they wait to make sets before giving action. Finally, you believe that a micro-stakes donk will bet/fold on the river with Qx here, especially QT. Nothing to say to that except to insert : the biggest rofl gif I can find:You're just a troll, so I don't know why I'm responding seriously. What I want to know is what took you so long to write that God awful reply? Did the HTML tags baffle you?

[stinkypete 0]

Yet another troll, most likely a 4bb gimmick account made years ago. But in case you are real, I must lol at your whole post of mass attack fail. You rule out AQ because you cannot conceive of it calling a flop bet, as no one would ever call a 2/3 PSB with two overcards...you NEVER see that...but you consider AA because, well, you know AA just always limp/calls preflop, right? You say AA is more likely 5-handed, when 1) this hand is played full-ring and 2) AA becomes LESS likely shorthanded because players widen their raising/3-betting ranges SH. You say QT isn't even "around" for the flop as if a micro-stakes donk wouldn't ever limp/call with it, but hey players limp/call with QQ all of the time. They want to as you said in a prior post play "pot control." Then you guarantee me that QQ will be around after the flop. Holy shit what a revelation. Thanks for the guarantee dude. QQ won't fold for 43 cents as an overpair. I bet you're the boss man around your home game, for sure. When the action goes limp/call pf and check/call otf, I'm ALWAYS thinking that my generic online opponent has an overpair of JJ+. Because that's how random online villains play in 2010 - they don't raise preflop with big pairs, and they wait to make sets before giving action. Finally, you believe that a micro-stakes donk will bet/fold on the river with Qx here, especially QT. Nothing to say to that except to insert : the biggest rofl gif I can find:You're just a troll, so I don't know why I'm responding seriously. What I want to know is what took you so long to write that God awful reply? Did the HTML tags baffle you?

Well that's upsetting. The guy who admittedly hasn't played a hand of Rush in his life is calling me a troll. Whatever will I do? Funny how it's always the loudmouthed jackasses who're the first to cry "troll, whaaa!" It's a pity there isn't a moniker like "troll" for the self-assured schmuck who whines like a little girl when anybody disagrees with them. Actually, there is, now: I've decided the term is trystero. Congrats, you're the new Santorum, pal. In so many ways...There's no way to argue your answer, tryst, primarily because all you've said, (though you've managed to repeat it ad nauseum) is that people at that Rush level are idiots. Great. In that case we can't analyze the hand at all. If your opponent is an idiot, they could have T3 offsuit there.If anyone actually wants to pay attention to the hand, however, you'd see there's no value in jamming on the river. You blather on all you like about "charging the max" of QT, but aside from exactly ONE hand, nothing else is calling you when you ship on the river unless they've got you beat. So you keep making pot-sized all-in bets that are only called when you're beat. You keep playing hands assuming if you wish hard enough that your opponent has the one thing you can beat, he'll have it. While you're at it, perhaps a fairy will get it's wings.So long as you're playing against idiots your whole life you'll break even.As for the hand, shynepo, I think the only problem was shipping on the river. I don't think it has positive value. The turn raise is a red flag and I think the right move after that raise is to call & keep the pot small. There are very few hands that you caught up to on that river (pretty much QT and... uh... yeah just QT) so I think the value in shipping is minimal. QT might pay you off, and everything else either folds or has you beat. Your opponent gave you a chance to show down for just a dollar, I think in that situation you take it.