OESD & 4-To-Flush On Turn - Navigating These Situations

Paul SALTERPaul SALTER Red Chipper Posts: 32 ✭✭
edited August 2018 in General Concepts
The past two poker trips (4 days of playing) I've identified the majority of my losses coming from one of the following situations:

a. OESD with 1 card to come
b. 4 to nut flush with 1 card to come (mainly here)

I'm seeking additional points of consideration when playing these hands - I recognize strategy varies pending IP/OOP, villain, effective stack size, etc. - in hopes of taking a different approach/reframing my mindset to these situations.

I have found I typically go all-out aggressor in hopes of capitalizing on FE ...here's a recent hand at the Aria last week ($1/$3).

Hero has AJs (h) in MP2 and raises one limper in front of him to $15. SB and BB call - four to the flop. Effective Stack Size: $220

FLOP: 2h 5c 9h

Checked to me and I bet $33/~60. SB calls and other two fold. Heads up to turn.

TURN: Ks.

SB checks and I bet $70/~130 trying to represent K, strong pocket pair, or a set.

RIVER: 5d

I bet again to put SB all in...thinks and ends up calling with 88.

Just one recent example to share to give more insight into my current approach.

Any additional variables to consider would be greatly appreciated.

Comments

  • AustinAustin Red Chipper Posts: 5,483 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Ran into a sticky villain, but realize villain put in $118 out of $102 into the pot. He's past the commitment point. While you played your hand fine,I think there are some spots you can improve on.

    When you bet the flop you might not have lower sets in your range, unless you iso all pairs. When you barrel the turn you may in villains eyes be representing AK or nothing. River is not a good bluff card once your turn bet gets called.

    I'm ok with half bet on flop, smaller sizing, or even checking. For turn I prefer a larger sizing to around $90 and probably give up on the river due to effective stack size. Ace high does have some SDV against other missed draws.

    Post some more HH.

    Also did you purposely leave off river is ~$270 and villain is calling roughly 100 to win 370? Not much FE there.
  • Paul SALTERPaul SALTER Red Chipper Posts: 32 ✭✭
    @Austin thank you for the great feedback as always - I appreciate it.

    Nope - did not intentionally leave off - just didn't copy all of it from my notes app :).

    In hindsight, I agree that the turn bet could've been bigger. While I did acknowledge the math was in villain's favor on the river, I think I had a tough time believing he'd call with a medium pocket pair (what I put him on) after I played so strongly. Yet, with that board, there weren't too many strong hands.

    Thank you again!
  • AustinAustin Red Chipper Posts: 5,483 ✭✭✭✭✭
    @Austin thank you for the great feedback as always - I appreciate it.

    Nope - did not intentionally leave off - just didn't copy all of it from my notes app :).

    In hindsight, I agree that the turn bet could've been bigger. While I did acknowledge the math was in villain's favor on the river, I think I had a tough time believing he'd call with a medium pocket pair (what I put him on) after I played so strongly. Yet, with that board, there weren't too many strong hands.

    Thank you again!

    We all make this mistake. It's hard to know when a villain is committed some times. Some times you see them call off $100 and fold with $50 left.

    I think as you go up in stakes at least $2\$5 and $5\$10 people make these plays as bluffs to look like value and they are committed, but they have pure air.

    I don't think your play is bad, just don't bluff fish.
  • moishetreatsmoishetreats Red Chipper Posts: 1,819 ✭✭✭✭
    Important questions that are, IMO, secondary.

    The primary question shouldn't be about the turn play but rather about how you got there in the first place. The issue is on the flop. By the turn, the die has been mostly cast.
  • Paul SALTERPaul SALTER Red Chipper Posts: 32 ✭✭
    Important questions that are, IMO, secondary.

    The primary question shouldn't be about the turn play but rather about how you got there in the first place. The issue is on the flop. By the turn, the die has been mostly cast.

    Do you mind elaborating on your thoughts?
  • moishetreatsmoishetreats Red Chipper Posts: 1,819 ✭✭✭✭
    Important questions that are, IMO, secondary.

    The primary question shouldn't be about the turn play but rather about how you got there in the first place. The issue is on the flop. By the turn, the die has been mostly cast.

    Do you mind elaborating on your thoughts?

    Sure. I'll start this way: Why are you cbetting this flop?
  • Paul SALTERPaul SALTER Red Chipper Posts: 32 ✭✭
    Important questions that are, IMO, secondary.

    The primary question shouldn't be about the turn play but rather about how you got there in the first place. The issue is on the flop. By the turn, the die has been mostly cast.

    Do you mind elaborating on your thoughts?

    Sure. I'll start this way: Why are you cbetting this flop?

    Thank you for following up. Reasoning includes IP, and a lot of equity with two overs and flush draw.
  • LeChiffreLeChiffre NetherlandsRed Chipper Posts: 550 ✭✭✭
    Would do the same so would love to know too why we're better off checking.
  • DeucesWildDeucesWild Red Chipper Posts: 64 ✭✭
    It sounds like, and I can be wrong here; but it sounds like the villain put you exactly on a failed FD, but not by skill, more like an assumption. Especially since he ignored your turn bet (probably still hyper-focusing on whether another heart came to fill out or not). I have found this to be the case at the 1/2 level here at the local poker rooms..players are VERY sticky and will chase things all the way down...and even throw an over-sized bluff on the river from time to time.
  • moishetreatsmoishetreats Red Chipper Posts: 1,819 ✭✭✭✭
    edited August 2018
    Thank you for following up. Reasoning includes IP, and a lot of equity with two overs and flush draw.

    LeChiffre wrote: »
    Would do the same so would love to know too why we're better off checking.

    Here's my first thought: What hands are calling here?

    A cbet on a board like this doesn't narrow Hero's range at all; I think that you get called a little more widely. And betting into three players can be profitable given some table dynamics. If this a table where over-folding is prevalent, then I'm cbetting all day long (and almost certainly double-barrel/shoving).

    As a default, though, given the stack sizes, I'm checking. If/when Hero cbets and is called, you're getting past a leverage point given the remaining stack size and pot size. That doesn't allow Hero to apply any real pressure, and Hero's range here versus Vs' ranges is one best applying pressure. I think that checking back opens up the pressure points.

    If any V bets, Hero can comfortably check-shove. If it checks through, then Hero can use a delayed cbet on just about any card, generating more fold equity on the turn and preserving fold equity on the river shove. I just don't see stacks as deep enough to apply meaningful pressure more than once. Instead, cbetting eliminates any opportunity for real pressure.

    You see the problem with cbetting here and double-barrelling as played. Can Hero really represent the king on the turn? This double-barrel is starting to look polarizing. Once V calls the polarized turn bet, there is no meaningful fold equity left given the stack sizes. Here, too, there just wasn't that much pressure applied to V.

    Again, against a table of over-folders, then I cbet and double-barrel almost 100% of the time here. Otherwise, I want this hand to apply as much pressure as possible, and a cbet, IMO, doesn't do that: It only works if ever other one of the three players missed entirely and over-folds.
  • Martin DMartin D Red Chipper Posts: 79 ✭✭
    Looking at the hand you posted it seems like a few spots where I've accidentally pushed people into commitment because of greater preflop sizings and multiwayness live compared to online.

    Youve got an spr of 3ish on the flop, meaning that 2 good sized bets will get it in. Have you considered playing a 2 street game in these spots? I imagine that's what mr mysterious is getting at ;)
  • Paul SALTERPaul SALTER Red Chipper Posts: 32 ✭✭
    DeucesWild wrote: »
    It sounds like, and I can be wrong here; but it sounds like the villain put you exactly on a failed FD, but not by skill, more like an assumption. Especially since he ignored your turn bet (probably still hyper-focusing on whether another heart came to fill out or not). I have found this to be the case at the 1/2 level here at the local poker rooms..players are VERY sticky and will chase things all the way down...and even throw an over-sized bluff on the river from time to time.

    Well said. I agree this could be the case.
  • Paul SALTERPaul SALTER Red Chipper Posts: 32 ✭✭
    Thank you for following up. Reasoning includes IP, and a lot of equity with two overs and flush draw.

    LeChiffre wrote: »
    Would do the same so would love to know too why we're better off checking.

    Here's my first thought: What hands are calling here?

    A cbet on a board like this doesn't narrow Hero's range at all; I think that you get called a little more widely. And betting into three players can be profitable given some table dynamics. If this a table where over-folding is prevalent, then I'm cbetting all day long (and almost certainly double-barrel/shoving).

    As a default, though, given the stack sizes, I'm checking. If/when Hero cbets and is called, you're getting past a leverage point given the remaining stack size and pot size. That doesn't allow Hero to apply any real pressure, and Hero's range here versus Vs' ranges is one best applying pressure. I think that checking back opens up the pressure points.

    If any V bets, Hero can comfortably check-shove. If it checks through, then Hero can use a delayed cbet on just about any card, generating more fold equity on the turn and preserving fold equity on the river shove. I just don't see stacks as deep enough to apply meaningful pressure more than once. Instead, cbetting eliminates any opportunity for real pressure.

    You see the problem with cbetting here and double-barrelling as played. Can Hero really represent the king on the turn? This double-barrel is starting to look polarizing. Once V calls the polarized turn bet, there is no meaningful fold equity left given the stack sizes. Here, too, there just wasn't that much pressure applied to V.

    Again, against a table of over-folders, then I cbet and double-barrel almost 100% of the time here. Otherwise, I want this hand to apply as much pressure as possible, and a cbet, IMO, doesn't do that: It only works if ever other one of the three players missed entirely and over-folds.

    I appreciate the time clarifying and elaborating. That's an excellent point of view to consider - not just for this hand, but in these 4-to-a-flush situations as a whole. I do tend to lean towards playing them aggressively, which is fine, but I really like what you said about stack sizes and crossing a threshold with an action. Thank you!
  • Paul SALTERPaul SALTER Red Chipper Posts: 32 ✭✭
    Martin D wrote: »
    Looking at the hand you posted it seems like a few spots where I've accidentally pushed people into commitment because of greater preflop sizings and multiwayness live compared to online.

    Youve got an spr of 3ish on the flop, meaning that 2 good sized bets will get it in. Have you considered playing a 2 street game in these spots? I imagine that's what mr mysterious is getting at ;)

    Yes, between the last comment and this one I am seeing that a two-street hand would've likely worked out in my favor more often :). Thanks for the insight!

Leave a Comment

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