i hate overcalling - .5/1 6-max

[psujohn 0]

Prima .5/1 6-MaxVillains are both loose and on the passive side and entirely capable of horrid play. I don't remember BB ever raising pre-flop in some 30+ hands.Preflop: Hero is UTG with [Ah], [Jc]. Hero raises, BB callsFlop: (6.50 SB) [Ac], [9c], [9s] (3 players)BB bets, BB calls, Hero calls.I have no respect for BB's lead - he's entirely capable of Arag - but MP's 3-bet makes me fear trips.Turn: (7.75 BB) [3c] (3 players)BB checks, Hero checks, MP bets, BB calls, Hero calls.Possible flush though I doubt anyone's drawing.River: (10.75 BB) [Qs] (3 players)BB checks, Hero checks, MP bets, BB calls, Hero ??With 2 opponents left I fear trips or AK/AQ - getting 13-1 is this worth a call?

[pokerplayer24 0]

Honestly if the players are passive I most likely just fold to the flop 3-bet. Once you call the turn you are stuck calling the river with the pot being that big.

[Actuary 3]

ok...I'll try this one. (as opposed to most of the others where I don't :? )I really want to lead the turn.1. MP could be pulling a free card play, with a draw2. We have redraws to a flush nowIf MP still raises on the turn, I don't over call the river.Unless they've show down lots of aggressively played crap.*** read replies ***re-noting they are passive..a Free Card Play seems highly unlikely.I would call the Flop 3-bet (I hate raise/folding to 1 bet, on flop especially)I would c/c turn with flush redraw and 2 Ace outs, sometimesI would not over call river(Unless they've show down lots of aggressively played crap. - but they are passive)I'm less sure about this hand that others.But, alas, you just have AJ.

[screech 0]

I'd fold the flop. It may seem like you have the odds to continue with your bdflush, but those outs are very dirty if your opponent has trips.I think you can safely fold this river.

[txag007 0]

I think you can safely fold this river.

No, the pot is too big to fold on the river to one bet. Most of the time you are behind, but you only have to have the best hand a little more than 7% of the time for this call to be correct. Call.

[screech 0]

I think you can safely fold this river.

No, the pot is too big to fold on the river to one bet. Most of the time you are behind, but you only have to have the best hand a little more than 7% of the time for this call to be correct. Call.

I don't think we win this 7% of the time. I don't think we win this hand 1/100 times.What are passive players betting and 3-betting this flop with. I gauruntee it's nothing worse than AJ. This hand should have been folded on the flop. It's close between folding to the first bet and folding to the 3-bet, but it still should have been folded. Just because we got to the river with TPDK, does not mean we have to call if all evidence suggests we likely have the 3rd best hand.I'm all for calling in big pots when the decision seems close, but here it doesn't seem to be close at all.

[psujohn 0]

I don't think we can fold to the first flop bet. Villains are loose and a worse A is highly likely. BB was very passive pre-flop but I didn't have enough hands on him to know for sure that he wouldn't raise AK.I was tempted to fold to the flop 3-bet mostly because BB called. Had BB capped it would have been an easy fold. Had BB folded I'd have called easily.The turn brings the flush draw so I figure I have odds to call. I'll have to think more about leading the turn. I was fairly sure that MP had trips though so if we're behind here I really don't like leading. I hate bet/folding the turn because we have the flush draw.On the river I was sure I was beat and folded. I'd have called if BB had folded but with two left I figured one for trips.Of course I was wrong. MP shows pocket sixes!!! WTF? I swear he really was a passive player to this point. BB shows A7. I kicked myself repeatedly for folding the river but I still think it was probably the right play.

[txag007 0]

This hand should have been folded on the flop. It's close between folding to the first bet and folding to the 3-bet, but it still should have been folded.

I'm don't disagree. That wasn't my point. The OP's question was specifically about the river, and I think it's worth a call.

I don't think we win this 7% of the time. I don't think we win this hand 1/100 times.Just because we got to the river with TPDK, does not mean we have to call if all evidence suggests we likely have the 3rd best hand. I'm all for calling in big pots when the decision seems close, but here it doesn't seem to be close at all.

Our only disagreement is whether or not we win this hand more or less than 7 out of 100 times. I think you are giving your opponents way too much credit here. At 0.50/1.00 stakes, people do some crazy things. The pot is large enough here to err on the side of calling.Anyone else have any thoughts? Do we win this hand 7/100 times?EDIT: Just read psujohn's post above. (He posted while I was typing mine). This was my point exactly about the crazy things people do at these stakes. Regardless of the results, my question remains: Do we win this hand 7/100 times?

[TJ_Eckleburg 0]

Anyone else have any thoughts? Do we win this hand 7/100 times?

The read is that the opponent is passive, i.e. doesn't bet much and calls a lot.The passive opponent is betting into our marginal situation, and has the whole time. We were worried about it on the flop, which is why we raised, but for the flop 3-bet, AND the turn bet, AND the river bet, we are not good here 7 in 100 times.Therefore fold.

[Abbaddabba 0]

The Q river hurt you.Why?Because, if you did have one of them outkicked before, you are now chopping.If they had you outkicked before, they either still do, or they now have a better two pair.If the river was an offsuit deuce, it would be closer.

[amarillotg 0]

i call the river. you will win this way more than 7% of the time @ .50/1.00.on a side note, i've noticed that quite a few times at these levels when im in a hand with a loose passive player they have made some of these horrible donk bluffs in big pots. when a player is loose and passive i would think of them to be a very unknowledgeable player. Unknowledgeable players are capable of making any type of play. (loose or tight, passive or aggressive)i would say you win this pot at least 15% of the time at the micro limits.

[Abbaddabba 0]

Using the phrase "at the microlimits" misrepresents the situation.We have information about the player. We dont need to assume that the villain is a typical player for the stakes that we're at.How reliable you think that information is, and how accurate you think that information is... is another story.So what we need here is more detailed reads.Do you have his VPIP/PFR/AF? That would be helpful.

[txag007 0]

The read is that the opponent is passive, i.e. doesn't bet much and calls a lot.

That brings up another point about relying too heavily on reads. Reads like this are never 100% accurate, especially at these micro limits. This is why folding this marginal hand to one bet on the river is a mistake. Don't do it.

[amarillotg 0]

Using the phrase "at the microlimits" misrepresents the situation.

no it doesn't. in a mico-limit game the errors that are made by any type of player are exponentially larger than the errors you will see at mid or high limit games.

[screech 0]

The read is that the opponent is passive, i.e. doesn't bet much and calls a lot.

That brings up another point about relying too heavily on reads. Reads like this are never 100% accurate, especially at these micro limits. This is why folding this marginal hand to one bet on the river is a mistake. Don't do it.

People make crazy plays at all levels. Passive players are much less likely to act out of order though. When one passive player bets this flop, and another 3-bets, we can be sure we aren't winning this hand unless we hit an ace or running clubs/jacks.Sure you can say that reads are never 100% accurate, and that's true. But then what are the point of reads if we don't use them. All the information in this hand is telling us we're beat. We won't win this hand 1/20 times. Ever. Sure we may occassionally fold the best hand, but that's ok, because we made the percentage play. This might have been the 1/100 time we actually won.

[amarillotg 0]

whoa, for someone reason i thought hero flopped top 2.i take back my original remarks about 15%.screech is right. you need to fold this hand.

[psujohn 0]

I don't have PT numbers but I stand by the read based on the way they played after this hand. BB was passive as you could see based on how he played this hand. MP was passive before this and after this. I think he seriously thought that he had the best hand all along. One of the problems with reads is that you can only read what the player thinks of their hand. If the guy sucks so bad that he honestly thinks he's way ahead at this point we'll read him as being stronger than he really is.I'm not really sure I can justify calling the flop 3-bet after thinking about it. I'd have said I was 90% sure that MP had a 9 to 3-bet it and even though the pot was big it wasn't big enough to justify calling with 2 outs (3 with the bd flush). Chalk it up to a "heat of the moment" decision.The only thing I could use to justify calling the river is that MP3 was bad and had made some dumb plays before - though mostly of the calling station variety. Still BB sticking around makes me think that a fold was really the correct decision even though it wasn't right here.

[Actuary 3]

we don't win when we over call 7/100 times.on folding to flop 3 -bet...I just can't. Screech, I think this is a worse hand from MP more often at this level as it's so twicky to bluff with pair on board.We are usualy behind though.

[Abbaddabba 0]

That brings up another point about relying too heavily on reads. Reads like this are never 100% accurate, especially at these micro limits.

Then i suppose the OP should be happy to know that the pot isnt infinitely large, and his read doesnt need anywhere near absolute certainty.

no it doesn't. in a mico-limit game the errors that are made by any type of player are exponentially larger than the errors you will see at mid or high limit games.

Yes. The error here would be that they're too predictably passive. And not using that information would be an error on your part. Playing with people who're inexperienced doesnt mean you're playing with people who're erratic retards. Loose/passives are anything but erratic.

[screech 0]

Yes. The error here would be that they're too predictably passive. And not using that information would be an error on your part. Playing with people who're inexperienced doesnt mean you're playing with people who're erratic retards. Loose/passives are anything but erratic.

Such an excellent point, I felt the need to quote it. :-)