Fishy Turn Raise

Aran Whelan ByrneAran Whelan Byrne Red Chipper Posts: 25 ✭✭
edited August 2018 in Live Poker Hands
Game = 1/2 NLH
Mississippi button straddle to $5.

Hero = :Kc :Kd in sb with stack of $530.
Villain = mp with stack of $750.

Hero raises to $16. Villain calls and button calls.

Flop ($50)
:Tc :5s :6s

Hero bets $28. Villain calls. Button folds.

Turn ($106)
:Tc :5s :6s :2d

Hero bets $85. Villain raises to $200. Hero calls.

River ($506)
:Tc :5s :6s :2d :Ad

Hero checks. Villain bets $250. Hero??

Villain is a reg but not a very good one. He knows how to play but not in any way deep thinking about strategy or anything. He plays generally a TAG style but on the passive side.

Comments

  • PapaGiorgioPapaGiorgio Red Chipper Posts: 63 ✭✭
    I'm not liking the cbet. Yes, there is a flush draw, but that only represents a small portion of his calling range. Moreover, you are oop and your hand isn't vulnerable. I'd check flop with intention of calling any flop bet. If checked through, then I'd make a delayed cbet.

    As played, I'd have to know more about villain. For example, is this a thinking player capable of raising a Tx because the board hits your range less than his? Or, does villian just play his hand and likely has two pair+?
  • AustinAustin Red Chipper Posts: 5,483 ✭✭✭✭✭
    1) pfr is small.. Usually go a bit larger to $20
    2) flop cbet is fine and should be betting this flop close to 100% of the time.
    3) turn is a tough spot. Probably gotta call down unless he is known to slow play. It is really player dependent. Need some history, without history probably call down. The river is the one card you can probably get away from some portion of the time cause of A3s-A4s type hands.

    Tough spot. Good post!
  • Aran Whelan ByrneAran Whelan Byrne Red Chipper Posts: 25 ✭✭
    so I have more info on the player as I play with him a lot but I don't want to give too much away as I think it makes it an easy decision.

    My reasoning for going quite large on the turn is he has a habit of not giving up his flush draws enough so I like to make him pay heavy for them.
  • SullySully Red Chipper Posts: 744 ✭✭✭
    On the flop you have a 3 street hand- bet

    On the turn nothing has changed-bet

    villains raises- drastic change- you're beat- fold
  • PapaGiorgioPapaGiorgio Red Chipper Posts: 63 ✭✭
    @Austin @Sully Cbet flop close to 100% even when OOP? It seems like a check makes the hand a bit easier to play vs aggression as villain could be raising with Tx hands (which is why I would lean more to calling down in this hand). I think my line would be to check-call flop, and bet river if he checks back the turn. It gives you 2 streets of value and might induce villain to try to bluff catch. The Ace is probably the worst card for this line, but this would be my plan for the hand.
  • SullySully Red Chipper Posts: 744 ✭✭✭

    Villain is a reg but not a very good one. He knows how to play but not in any way deep thinking about strategy or anything. He plays generally a TAG style but on the passive side.

    This is all we need to know. Keep betting until villain tells you he/she has something that looks better than your something- then fold

    You can't get 3 streets of value without betting the first one

    Just not sure I'm willing to turn my overpairs into bluff catchers on neutral boards every time I'm OOP. Lots of hands we beat can be calling here... some all the way thru the river

    IMO

  • Aran Whelan ByrneAran Whelan Byrne Red Chipper Posts: 25 ✭✭
    Villain is a reg but not a very good one. He knows how to play but not in any way deep thinking about strategy or anything. He plays generally a TAG style but on the passive side.

    You should really try not to classify players as "good" or "bad" and describe their play in terms of frequencies and ranges.

    Also for what it's worth, it doesn't look like your bet sizes really had any "deep thinking" behind them.

    Thanks for that. I didn't describe myself as having any deep thinking though. Just trying to improve.

    I take your point on classifying players as "good" or "bad" though.
  • Aran Whelan ByrneAran Whelan Byrne Red Chipper Posts: 25 ✭✭
    Sully wrote: »

    Villain is a reg but not a very good one. He knows how to play but not in any way deep thinking about strategy or anything. He plays generally a TAG style but on the passive side.

    This is all we need to know. Keep betting until villain tells you he/she has something that looks better than your something- then fold

    You can't get 3 streets of value without betting the first one

    Just not sure I'm willing to turn my overpairs into bluff catchers on neutral boards every time I'm OOP. Lots of hands we beat can be calling here... some all the way thru the river

    IMO

    Yes I agree.

    I was just disappointed in myself for not folding the turn raise. I think I got caught up by his raise being so small and didn't evaluate the situation well enough. Least I made the river fold which I think is correct. He has sets here only. I have never seen villain show up with a semi-bluff in this type of pot.
  • AustinAustin Red Chipper Posts: 5,483 ✭✭✭✭✭
    @Austin @Sully Cbet flop close to 100% even when OOP? It seems like a check makes the hand a bit easier to play vs aggression as villain could be raising with Tx hands (which is why I would lean more to calling down in this hand). I think my line would be to check-call flop, and bet river if he checks back the turn. It gives you 2 streets of value and might induce villain to try to bluff catch. The Ace is probably the worst card for this line, but this would be my plan for the hand.

    Where is this "aggression" coming from? We don't know if villain is going to bet or not. Hero said he was passive. You shouldn't make a habbit of checking over pairs as you are leaving a ton of value on the table. Do you seriously only bet when you have 2 pair or better on the flop?
  • PapaGiorgioPapaGiorgio Red Chipper Posts: 63 ✭✭
    @Austin No, I am looking to have a check-call and check-raising range when having the initiative OOP. I saw villian labeled as a reg and "TAG but a bit on the passive side", which to me, is a player willing to bet if checked to, but less likely to raise us with anything less than TPTK. Against a TP or LP reg, I would bet all of my pairs. Is this the wrong approach to the hand?
  • AustinAustin Red Chipper Posts: 5,483 ✭✭✭✭✭
    @Austin No, I am looking to have a check-call and check-raising range when having the initiative OOP. I saw villian labeled as a reg and "TAG but a bit on the passive side", which to me, is a player willing to bet if checked to, but less likely to raise us with anything less than TPTK. Against a TP or LP reg, I would bet all of my pairs. Is this the wrong approach to the hand?

    I don't understand your logic.

    You said passive, but say he will bet when checked to? Doesn't make sense.

    You would bet all your pairs, but you are looking to check call?
  • PapaGiorgioPapaGiorgio Red Chipper Posts: 63 ✭✭
    Villain is a reg but not a very good one. He knows how to play but not in any way deep thinking about strategy or anything. He plays generally a TAG style but on the passive side.

    @Austin All I can based my assumption on is OP's description of villian. He could have called him a TP with some aggressive tendencies, but he used TAG with some passive tendencies. Perhaps this means something different to other players, but I interpret the play style as a regular TAG, who in my experience would bet when checked to. I assume the passivity comes more from a reluctance to raise bets. I base my check-call line on my assumption that these players will bet a wider range (probably close to 100%) when checked to than their cbet calling range (could be as low as 25% depending on our assumption of their range). If they bet 100% of their range, then my line gets a street of value on the flop and gives them a chance of catching a pair that would allow them to continue with the hand. We risk losing a street of value by checking in this hand, but if his play style is to bet when checked to, then I think the risk is minimal. I would only check-call with AA/KK and some overcards for balance. This protects our checks and takes advantage of players who might autobet when checked to on the flop.

    Contrast the above with my line versus TP/LP players. These players are much less likely to bet when checked to on the flop. Their cbet calling range is much wider than their flop betting range. We can't get a street a value by checking to these players, so we have to cbet to get value from this street. Against these players, I would bet all of my pairs to get value from them, and I wouldn't worry about protecting my checking range because passive players are much less likely to bet when checked to on the flop.

    I'm working on my own game, specifically cbetting flops. I appreciate your comments on my line.
  • AustinAustin Red Chipper Posts: 5,483 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Villain is a reg but not a very good one. He knows how to play but not in any way deep thinking about strategy or anything. He plays generally a TAG style but on the passive side.

    @Austin All I can based my assumption on is OP's description of villian. He could have called him a TP with some aggressive tendencies, but he used TAG with some passive tendencies. Perhaps this means something different to other players, but I interpret the play style as a regular TAG, who in my experience would bet when checked to. I assume the passivity comes more from a reluctance to raise bets. I base my check-call line on my assumption that these players will bet a wider range (probably close to 100%) when checked to than their cbet calling range (could be as low as 25% depending on our assumption of their range). If they bet 100% of their range, then my line gets a street of value on the flop and gives them a chance of catching a pair that would allow them to continue with the hand. We risk losing a street of value by checking in this hand, but if his play style is to bet when checked to, then I think the risk is minimal. I would only check-call with AA/KK and some overcards for balance. This protects our checks and takes advantage of players who might autobet when checked to on the flop.

    Contrast the above with my line versus TP/LP players. These players are much less likely to bet when checked to on the flop. Their cbet calling range is much wider than their flop betting range. We can't get a street a value by checking to these players, so we have to cbet to get value from this street. Against these players, I would bet all of my pairs to get value from them, and I wouldn't worry about protecting my checking range because passive players are much less likely to bet when checked to on the flop.

    I'm working on my own game, specifically cbetting flops. I appreciate your comments on my line.

    Tags bet 100% of their range as the preflop caller when checked to? They only call 25% when facing a cbet?

    If that's the case you should only cbet your non made hands and check all top pair, over pairs, and most draws. Instead of cbetting 70% or so, should check raise 70% and show a massive profit against a really weak range.

    I think your stats are extremely flawed. At least the 100% bet when checked to. I do not understand where you got that from especially on this board texture. Imo most players only call cbets in low stakes 20-40% of the time, so your 25% is in the ball park.

    I would do some research of how often a player bets when checked to. Work out a tags calling range & then see how many combos a tag bets on this texture. I would estimate around 50% of his range bets and 50% checks.

Leave a Comment

BoldItalicStrikethroughOrdered listUnordered list
Emoji
Image
Align leftAlign centerAlign rightToggle HTML viewToggle full pageToggle lights
Drop image/file