interesting river spot

bivbiv MelbourneRed Chipper Posts: 3 ✭✭
$1, $3 live cash game

Hero ($1100ish) is dealt :Qs :9d in the BB. MP ($350ish) opens to $13. SB ($700ish) calls. Hero calls.

Pot $40

Flop :2s :4s :9c
SB checks.
Hero leads out for $30.
MP calls.
SB calls.

Pot: $130

Turn :9h

SB Checks.
Hero leads again for $50
MP calls.
SB calls.

Pot $280

River :6c

SB leads out for $65


My question is this. Can I ever fold this river? I tank and consider his range to include 9x combos and 3-5 combos. He's been pretty much TAG and seems to be playing optimal. The 3-5 combos stand out considering the great value he got on both streets. (Regardless of the FD and paired board I think its still in his range) which also includes :5s :3s

Do I have to just call based on those 9x hands most of which I'm beating.
I really felt he would have raised on the turn from his 9x hands.


Hero calls.
MP folds.

SB shows :5d :3d


This post probably doesn't hold much merit for hand analysis considering it may be somewhat of a "hero fold" spot, but too often in similar spots I call these thin value bets when I know I'm beat. This is one of those leaks I'm looking to plug. Is it wrong to fold here?

(Other parts of this hand might seem wrong i.e preflop call, turn bet size etc. I'm happy to discuss my reasoning throughout)

Comments

  • TheGameKatTheGameKat Posts: 2,124 -
    I think it'd be pretty bad to fold to such a tiny bet. SB kinda let you off the hook.
    Moderation In Moderation
  • RedRed Red Chipper Posts: 2,090 ✭✭✭✭
    edited December 2018
    I'll let you do your homework, but how I see it , I don't think V has many combos we beat. Maybe some worst 9X - if he leads with ! - but otherwise it could be boats or straights. Straights are totally possible if he is sticky and not positional aware.
    Considering the price, we should pay, especially with kicker Q (as we beat other 9X combos). Based on range I'd give V, I'm way more reluctant.

    But I think this meh river situation comes from 2 mistakes:
    - Preflop: fold your junky hands! Except if you've a read or a neat skill advantage on MP (and SB), you should fold Q9o. Do you really can win this hand 33% of the time with Q9o v. 2 Villains including one who has position and has range advantages?
    - Turn: your bet is way too tiny. 50 into 130$? Why underbet when you mostly rep 9X? This is IMHO not a place for an underbet, but for a big bet or even an overbet, with a pole range.

    Also donking with :QS: isn't that great since you block FD.
    Also your donk kinda look like what you have (TP). If I were MP, I'd raise you on flop kinda often with overpairs and nice overcards, putting you in a very difficult spot.
  • jeffncjeffnc Red Chipper Posts: 4,683 ✭✭✭✭✭
    biv wrote: »
    My question is this. Can I ever fold this river?

    Except against the most ultra weak tight nits, no.

  • RedRed Red Chipper Posts: 2,090 ✭✭✭✭
    But it's an ugly call IMHO
  • jeffncjeffnc Red Chipper Posts: 4,683 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited December 2018
    Yeah it's gross, but what do we have to go on? Villain is described as TAG and "playing optimal" (whatever that means), and yet on this hand he is passive, and drawing to 6 clean outs on the flop getting a bad price, and possibly drawing dead on the turn getting a price.... well, that you can't really put a price on. So it's hard to say what we're dealing with here. I've seen bluffs like this before with things like :AS: :5S: turned over. I've also seen J9 and T9 turned over. 53s is a rather questionable preflop call for a large raise and being in the worst position for a "TAG, optimal" player. And :5S: :3S: specifically should have been raised by an aggressive player on the flop, which means I'd reduce that holding by about 25% from his range. So something does not add up.
  • RedRed Red Chipper Posts: 2,090 ✭✭✭✭
    edited December 2018
    I totally agree with you @jeffnc
    jeffnc wrote: »
    Yeah it's gross, but what do we have to go on?
    As previously stated: the situation is gross because of decision on previous streets.
    Yes, once on the river, the choice is gross but the call must be made. Still, this situation should have been avoided with better earlier decisions.
  • Jordan PowerJordan Power Red Chipper Posts: 429 ✭✭✭
    biv wrote: »

    He's been pretty much TAG and seems to be playing optimal.

    This post probably doesn't hold much merit for hand analysis considering it may be somewhat of a "hero fold" spot, but too often in similar spots I call these thin value bets when I know I'm beat. This is one of those leaks I'm looking to plug. Is it wrong to fold here?

    Two thoughts:

    1. He's playing far from optimal in that he let you off the hook for just $65 here.The river sizing is so weird. Or that he played that hand there at all.
    2. For $65 and a chance to win what is now a $345 pot, yeah we're calling, and it sucks when V has 3-5.
    3. @Red is right - let this hand go pre.
  • jeffncjeffnc Red Chipper Posts: 4,683 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Another aspect to the hand is that from a GTO point of view, we can't really get exploited, or very little, because of villain's small bet sizing. If you count the pot odds we gave him on the turn and the payoff on the river, he's getting close to the exact odds he needs which means this is close to a break even play for him. But in the long run we're going to have a full house sometimes or have a flush draw sometimes (dropping his outs from 8 to 6.) So long term, we should be OK if he plays this way even if we pay this bet off. And then there is the fact that he called with this hand preflop to begin with.....
  • Steve JonesSteve Jones Red Chipper Posts: 95 ✭✭
    As played, its an easy river call.
  • Michael EMichael E Red Chipper Posts: 122 ✭✭
    100% a Call. Not even a consideration with the sizing.

    Bigger question...why are you betting so small on the turn?
    He can't much other than a draw, so charge him for the draw.
  • jeffncjeffnc Red Chipper Posts: 4,683 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited December 2018
    He could have a weaker 9, he could have pocket 7s, he could have pocket Ts, etc.

    Having said that, while I find a straight draw pretty unlikely, a flush draw certainly is not.
  • RedRed Red Chipper Posts: 2,090 ✭✭✭✭
    jeffnc wrote: »
    He could have a weaker 9, he could have pocket 7s, he could have pocket Ts, etc.

    I strongly doubt it. Do you really see a V x/c, x/c, underbet with 77 or TT on 2s4s9c - 9h - 6c ?
    I can see V underbet donking with 77 or TT on 249ssx on flop, but not on river.
  • jeffncjeffnc Red Chipper Posts: 4,683 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited December 2018
    Red wrote: »
    jeffnc wrote: »
    He could have a weaker 9, he could have pocket 7s, he could have pocket Ts, etc.

    I strongly doubt it. Do you really see a V x/c, x/c, underbet with 77 or TT on 2s4s9c - 9h - 6c ?
    I can see V underbet donking with 77 or TT on 249ssx on flop, but not on river.

    I was responding to Michael, who was talking about hero's small bet on the turn (Michael said villain would only have draws here).

    To answer your question, yes I could see a small blocker donk with T9 and possibly some other holdings.
  • RedRed Red Chipper Posts: 2,090 ✭✭✭✭
    jeffnc wrote: »
    Red wrote: »
    jeffnc wrote: »
    He could have a weaker 9, he could have pocket 7s, he could have pocket Ts, etc.

    I strongly doubt it. Do you really see a V x/c, x/c, underbet with 77 or TT on 2s4s9c - 9h - 6c ?
    I can see V underbet donking with 77 or TT on 249ssx on flop, but not on river.

    I was responding to Michael, who was talking about hero's small bet on the turn (Michael said villain would only have draws here).

    To answer your question, yes I could see a small blocker donk with T9 and possibly some other holdings.

    Ha ok. Sometimes cross discussion leads to misunderstanding. Then I agree with you :-)
    V donk block bet on river with meh trips I'm ok; but donk block with MP or med overpairs, I don't think so.
  • persuadeopersuadeo Red Chipper, Table Captain Posts: 4,001 ✭✭✭✭✭
    every minute you spend worrying over this river play you make another preflop dung pile, I'd venture.
  • bivbiv MelbourneRed Chipper Posts: 3 ✭✭
    edited December 2018
    Thanks everyone for your feedback on the hand - I really appreciated it and look forward to posting more in the future.

    @Red I agree with folding this junky hand although like you said I felt I
    did have that post flop advantage on both these players, I should mention that MP
    was the weakest player at the table he wouldn't know what range advantage is and hes c bet frequency was non-existent, raising me on the flop without a set or an over pair was not in his arsenal of plays. With positional advantage on SB in a multi-way, I'm cool with that too. Do I think I'm taking this pot down 33% of the time - probably upwards of 50% If I'm being completely honest.

    The "donk bet" on the flop... there's not a lot of turn cards that I like. I don't want to peel the turn for free and I know our MP isn't likely to c bet it. With that bet we are also playing for a decent pot size now and our TP is TP.

    After getting 2 callers going to the turn - admittedly the biggest blunder of this hand was the bet sizing here on the turn although once again I don't think its as bad as it looks if you ignore the result. It's apparent that at least one of our opponents is likely on the FD (and possibly both of them) I've got the blocker and they could have each other blocked. In support of my small bet here, I'm doing some pot controlling - these opponents could be likely to continue even if I make the correct bet size - I've committed more chips to what could potentially be an ugly river card - why not see the river and then adjust? I don't think I'm creating too much variance with a small bet and also reducing my loss when the FD does come, there are also good rivers that can see value (10o-Ao) or some pocket pair combos that stick around.

    All that being said I agree with a larger bet here generally.

    @jeffnc @Jordan Power obviously after this hand played out we can no longer profile our V as an optimal TAG, but that's my read on him so far. What do I mean by optimal I guess I mean he hasn't made any obvious mistakes although he hasn't showed down very many hands. It's probably wrong to assume he's a good player but he hasn't done anything to make me think otherwise.

    It easy to say he's garbage after the hand.
    "oh he called OOP with 3-5"
    "Oh he chased a OESD on the worst board imaginable"
    "He let you off the hook for $65"

    Yeah we know.
  • jeffncjeffnc Red Chipper Posts: 4,683 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Red wrote: »
    he hasn't showed down very many hands.

    Bingo

  • jeffncjeffnc Red Chipper Posts: 4,683 ✭✭✭✭✭
    OK that was a little terse. My point is that we all want to post hand examples where we have these nice profiles on the other players. IMO it's best to simply say "villain hasn't shown down too many hands yet". Unless we've played with them for multiple sessions, we honestly can't say much except maybe they're not super extreme in one sense or another.
  • RedRed Red Chipper Posts: 2,090 ✭✭✭✭
    jeffnc wrote: »
    Red wrote: »
    he hasn't showed down very many hands.

    Bingo

    But this isn't a quote of mine :0)
    jeffnc wrote: »
    OK that was a little terse. My point is that we all want to post hand examples where we have these nice profiles on the other players. IMO it's best to simply say "villain hasn't shown down too many hands yet". Unless we've played with them for multiple sessions, we honestly can't say much except maybe they're not super extreme in one sense or another.
    I may disagree. After few orbits we shall be able to put a (at least rough) profile on every V around the table.
  • RedRed Red Chipper Posts: 2,090 ✭✭✭✭
    biv wrote: »
    obviously after this hand played out we can no longer profile our V as an optimal TAG, but that's my read on him so far. What do I mean by optimal I guess I mean he hasn't made any obvious mistakes although he hasn't showed down very many hands. It's probably wrong to assume he's a good player but he hasn't done anything to make me think otherwise.
    Almost all low stakes player are terrible - and Ed Miller would say that everybody is terrible.
    I think this point out that you need to pump up your observation skills.
    "Not showing down very many hands" doesn't mean good. It could mean NIT. It could mean aggro fish v. weak players. It could mean TAG (good or bad one). It could mean weak passive.
    Only knowing he showed down only few hands isn't enough info. You need to know how he went to showdown.
  • jeffncjeffnc Red Chipper Posts: 4,683 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Red wrote: »
    After few orbits we shall be able to put a (at least rough) profile on every V around the table.

    I don't disagree with that, but what I'm saying is that as has been proved in this forum so many times, "rough" just leaves too much room for variation that we can't assume enough from that to make reliable decisions, other than how you'd play against an average of that type from the pool. Just a little pet peeve if you will, you can ignore :)

  • jeffncjeffnc Red Chipper Posts: 4,683 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Red wrote: »
    But this isn't a quote of mine :0)

    Sorry about that.

  • Michael EMichael E Red Chipper Posts: 122 ✭✭
    jeffnc wrote: »
    He could have a weaker 9, he could have pocket 7s, he could have pocket Ts, etc.

    Having said that, while I find a straight draw pretty unlikely, a flush draw certainly is not.

    Well of course he could have those hands..but we can't bet $50 because we "put him on 77"....we have to bet against his range and specifically against his Flush / Straight Draws.

    The $50 bet is only getting called by the weakest of his hands while it lets him draw for a good price.
  • jeffncjeffnc Red Chipper Posts: 4,683 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited December 2018
    Michael E wrote: »
    Well of course he could have those hands..but we can't bet $50 because we "put him on 77"....we have to bet against his range and specifically against his Flush / Straight Draws.

    That makes no sense. You're putting him on a "range", then tell us we have to bet specifically against the part of the range we beat that currently has nothing.

    I didn't put him on pocket 7s. I provided the other part of his range we can beat that he would play this way.

  • Michael EMichael E Red Chipper Posts: 122 ✭✭
    Jeffnc....notice the "We Can't" part of my statement. I think you are reading it like we can.

    You answered my post question of why he was betting so small on the turn and you answered because he could have 77...or a weaker 9...etc.

    And I am saying...a $50 bet is good only against 77....whereas a bigger bet is good vs. a smaller 9 and a straight draw and possibly 77.
  • jeffncjeffnc Red Chipper Posts: 4,683 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Michael E wrote: »
    Jeffnc....notice the "We Can't" part of my statement. I think you are reading it like we can.

    What you wrote was a counter to my post. You said we can't put him on 77. I never said we could. I gave a portion of his range that we beat, not a hand. You are saying we have to bet against his flush and straight draws specifically, which I don't agree with.

  • NinjahNinjah Red Chipper Posts: 1,125 ✭✭✭✭
    Michael E wrote: »
    Jeffnc....notice the "We Can't" part of my statement. I think you are reading it like we can.

    You answered my post question of why he was betting so small on the turn and you answered because he could have 77...or a weaker 9...etc.

    And I am saying...a $50 bet is good only against 77....whereas a bigger bet is good vs. a smaller 9 and a straight draw and possibly 77.

    How large are you advocating for? Our donking range is very strong here while V is pretty capped and has a face up range. I'm not saying $50 is ideal here but if I think if we go too much larger, we significantly risk not getting any more money.
  • Michael EMichael E Red Chipper Posts: 122 ✭✭
    edited December 2018
    Ninjah wrote: »
    How large are you advocating for? Our donking range is very strong here while V is pretty capped and has a face up range. I'm not saying $50 is ideal here but if I think if we go too much larger, we significantly risk not getting any more money.

    I think a HSPB or slightly higher would be an ideal sizing. I'd go $70. I'm going to bet the same amount on my bluffs as well.

    With the $70 Bet, Villain has to make $150 to be break even on the river when it hits.....with the $50 bet she has to make $70 on the River to be break even. It doesn't seem like a ton, but the math changes big time.

    When you bet $50 the pot is $180. To breakeven at 5 to 1 for a straight, she needs to win $250.

    When you bet $70 the pot is $200. To break even at 5 to 1, Villain needs to win $350.

  • NinjahNinjah Red Chipper Posts: 1,125 ✭✭✭✭
    Michael E wrote: »
    Ninjah wrote: »
    How large are you advocating for? Our donking range is very strong here while V is pretty capped and has a face up range. I'm not saying $50 is ideal here but if I think if we go too much larger, we significantly risk not getting any more money.

    I think a HSPB or slightly higher would be an ideal sizing. I'd go $70. I'm going to bet the same amount on my bluffs as well.

    With the $70 Bet, Villain has to make $150 to be break even on the river when it hits.....with the $50 bet she has to make $70 on the River to be break even. It doesn't seem like a ton, but the math changes big time.

    When you bet $50 the pot is $180. To breakeven at 5 to 1 for a straight, she needs to win $250.

    When you bet $70 the pot is $200. To break even at 5 to 1, Villain needs to win $350.

    That's certainly reasonable and I agree. Your earlier posts made me think you were thinking about potting the turn.

Leave a Comment

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