Flopped Flush, Turn pairs board in live 1/3 Game

osirus0830osirus0830 Red Chipper Posts: 62 ✭✭
edited March 21 in Live Poker Hands
Venue: Harrah's Joliet
Stakes: Live 1/3
Effective Stack: 320 (hero), villain cover with 1600

Reads: Villain is a fish who is running HOT. I witnessed him go runner runner three times to stack decent players.
Hero is likely viewed as a nit. My VPIP is likely between 10-12% so far this session.

Hero in BB with :Kh :Jh

Preflop action: 5 limpers before getting to hero

Hero makes it $30
Villain in UTG + 1 calls

Flop: :Ah :8h :6h
Pot: $72

Hero checks
Villain bets $45
Hero Calls

Turn: :AC:
Pot: $162

Hero checks
Villain bets $85
Hero Calls

River: :2S:

Hero Checks
Villain shoves
Hero tank folds




****spoiler***
Villain shows :AD: :8D:


In a vacuum it is an easy exploitative fold, because villains at this level literally have fewer than 5% bluffs on run outs like this. My questions are:

1. Should hero check raise flop or is it more optimal to check call?
2. Should hero seriously consider folding turn once the Ace pairs and I'm holding the King of hearts which is the only card that can be intelligently bluffed with? or is folding the turn just way too nitty.

Comments

  • Jordan PowerJordan Power Red Chipper Posts: 406 ✭✭✭
    Why did you check the flop out of curiosity?
  • blindraiseblindraise Red Chipper Posts: 153 ✭✭
    Yo what up osirus ay its more constructive to reveal the hand results after, not before, and focus on presenting your hand in a way that answers the questions you want answered (i.e. your first questions are on your flop play, so present the hand to the flop and let the answers arrive before you continue).

    That said, there's alot im left wondering with this hand. First off why the flop check? If V is a fish esp. one thats running hot then they're most likely going to be inelastic when it comes to bet sizing.

    That on top of the fact we flop flushes with suited cards something like .18% of the time (I have no clue the percentage of times we flop the nut flush with Kx holdings) this is pretty much a dream come true.

    You said yourself you witnessed V go runner runner multiple times. So why would you check and risk a free card or let V set the price?

    Hes got 1600 in front of him and hes willing to suck, I think I like a bet of something like $60-$65 on the flop. This leaves you with $230-$225 behind on a $190-$200 turn pot. This may also induce a raise from V allowing you to get it in right away.

    But folding the nut flush... Cmon man.. never fold the nut flush with this type of board.

    There are literally 5 combos beating you on the turn. 13 if you wanna assume V is crazy and called a $30 bet pf with A8o/A6o. Your money is never going in any better.

    Right here you made a fold that was ultimately correct, so good for you. But in a vacuum this is not a fold.
  • MichaelBMichaelB Red Chipper Posts: 211 ✭✭✭
    edited March 21
    "In a vacuum it is an easy exploitative fold, because villains at this level literally have fewer than 5% bluffs on run outs like this."

    You started the hand with ~106 blinds. Do you not think given your check call line that he would shove any ace, or any flush for value? I'm sorry, I just don't see given how you played it that you can ever fold here, let alone fold the turn. I agree with the others too. This is an obvious bet on the flop.
  • osirus0830osirus0830 Red Chipper Posts: 62 ✭✭
    Thanks for the comments and helpful feedback. I definitely appreciate it. I checked because if I lead out my hand is pretty much face up imo. If I check call, my logic was I could induce bluffs and check raise at some point. Once the board pairs, that plan goes out the window. It may not have been an optimal line but that was my logic.

    In terms of the actual fold, I think that when the ace pairs, it's the worst possible card pairing. Villain is most likely betting with either top pair, two pair, or a set. I have the Kh so a pair plus draw is not as likely. I think that it's a closer call if I don't have the Kh because there would at least be theoretical bluffs.
  • osirus0830osirus0830 Red Chipper Posts: 62 ✭✭
    MichaelB wrote: »
    "In a vacuum it is an easy exploitative fold, because villains at this level literally have fewer than 5% bluffs on run outs like this."

    You started the hand with ~106 blinds. Do you not think given your check call line that he would shove any ace, or any flush for value? I'm sorry, I just don't see given how you played it that you can ever fold here, let alone fold the turn. I agree with the others too. This is an obvious bet on the flop.

    Agreed that the flop check was horrible. I try to check the nuts in that spot while charging the nut draw when I have a lower flush. Balance is likely unnecessary at this level.
  • TheGameKatTheGameKat Posts: 2,010 -
    osirus0830 wrote: »
    Thanks for the comments and helpful feedback. I definitely appreciate it. I checked because if I lead out my hand is pretty much face up imo. If I check call, my logic was I could induce bluffs and check raise at some point. Once the board pairs, that plan goes out the window. It may not have been an optimal line but that was my logic.

    We've had a lot of this thinking recently and to me it's fundamentally flawed. Put yourself in the shoes of Villain. All they have seen you do is raise a bunch of limpers pre, then c-bet. If you faced that action, would you immediately say to yourself "Oh beans, a c-bet, musta flopped the immortal nuts"?
    Moderation In Moderation
  • Jordan PowerJordan Power Red Chipper Posts: 406 ✭✭✭
    TheGameKat wrote: »
    "Oh beans, a c-bet, musta flopped the immortal nuts"?

    Oh beans! I am 100% saying this during my next session if I have a HU clear fold situation. I am giggling in my home office/poker lair right now.

    Oh beans. You have raised and now c-bet. I presume you to have the immortal nuts! Well played, sir. Well played. Beans.
  • TheGameKatTheGameKat Posts: 2,010 -
    Ha yeah it has a surprise element which tends to get magnified by my appearance, which has been described as a cross between Joey Ramone and Professor Snape.
    Moderation In Moderation
  • Jordan PowerJordan Power Red Chipper Posts: 406 ✭✭✭
    But @TheGameKat is right. Look through your range in flopzilla in this spot and compare how many immortal nuts situations you have (oh beans!) to how many other hands you would fire c-bets here to charge :QH: and potential straight draws that might be out there. There's more hands that would c-bet sans immortal nuts so you are far from turning your hand face up.
  • osirus0830osirus0830 Red Chipper Posts: 62 ✭✭
    edited March 22
    TheGameKat wrote: »
    osirus0830 wrote: »
    Thanks for the comments and helpful feedback. I definitely appreciate it. I checked because if I lead out my hand is pretty much face up imo. If I check call, my logic was I could induce bluffs and check raise at some point. Once the board pairs, that plan goes out the window. It may not have been an optimal line but that was my logic.

    We've had a lot of this thinking recently and to me it's fundamentally flawed. Put yourself in the shoes of Villain. All they have seen you do is raise a bunch of limpers pre, then c-bet. If you faced that action, would you immediately say to yourself "Oh beans, a c-bet, musta flopped the immortal nuts"?

    The issue that I have with c betting is how do you get three streets? If the board doesn't pair, i want three streets. If i iso raise pre, and 3-barrel i don't see many villains calling three streets with any hand that they wanted to limp call with.
  • TheGameKatTheGameKat Posts: 2,010 -
    First, unless V has a specific subset of holdings, you're not getting 3 streets. Second, if you're aiming for 3 streets, isn't a bet/bet/bet line more likely to achieve that goal than a check-call/something/something line? Third, if you're destined to get less than 3 streets, it's often easier to get those streets earlier in the hand rather than later.
    Moderation In Moderation
  • Jordan PowerJordan Power Red Chipper Posts: 406 ✭✭✭
    You don't always get to get three streets. You can flop the effective nuts and your opponent will have missed and then we get no more money anyway. That stinks, but hey, we dragged a pot.

    The best way to get three streets is to, well, bet! When you are OOP as the PFR on a scary board and you check, you give your opponent a lot of incentive to check back. So if you check and he check backs, you just self limited yourself to two streets. Whereas if you bet and they fold, well, they probably were not going to improve on the turn, so you probably were not getting money anyway.

    The they hit, we hit harder scenario will always be our most profitable. But given the odds of two players smashing a flop, they will be rare.
  • osirus0830osirus0830 Red Chipper Posts: 62 ✭✭
    TheGameKat wrote: »
    First, unless V has a specific subset of holdings, you're not getting 3 streets. Second, if you're aiming for 3 streets, isn't a bet/bet/bet line more likely to achieve that goal than a check-call/something/something line? Third, if you're destined to get less than 3 streets, it's often easier to get those streets earlier in the hand rather than later.

    Thanks for the reply. I understand the flaw in my logic. Betting the flop OOP is the best line. I hope to not make that mistake again. Thanks again. I really do appreciate it.
  • osirus0830osirus0830 Red Chipper Posts: 62 ✭✭
    You don't always get to get three streets. You can flop the effective nuts and your opponent will have missed and then we get no more money anyway. That stinks, but hey, we dragged a pot.

    The best way to get three streets is to, well, bet! When you are OOP as the PFR on a scary board and you check, you give your opponent a lot of incentive to check back. So if you check and he check backs, you just self limited yourself to two streets. Whereas if you bet and they fold, well, they probably were not going to improve on the turn, so you probably were not getting money anyway.

    The they hit, we hit harder scenario will always be our most profitable. But given the odds of two players smashing a flop, they will be rare.

    Thanks for your contributions to the thread. Your post were insightful and I appreciate it.

    I thought that I could move to 2 5 soon but I have a lot of studying to do.
  • MichaelBMichaelB Red Chipper Posts: 211 ✭✭✭
    The bet/bet/bet line is by far the most common bluffing line precisely because it should also be your most common value line for monsters when you're the pre flop aggressor.

    I mean, I get it, checking QQ when you're heads up on a QQ2 flop is probably the right move, but in this instance, you don't block top pair, they can have a flush draw, just a pair, or even just call you on this scary flop with air hoping to take it away from you when you check the turn.

    As mentioned above, getting three streets is most often about the strength of their hand, rarely yours.
  • cxy123cxy123 Red Chipper Posts: 49 ✭✭
    osirus0830 wrote: »
    I checked because if I lead out my hand is pretty much face up imo.

    I do not agree.
  • Phil EbbsPhil Ebbs Red Chipper Posts: 251 ✭✭✭
    edited March 22
    I'm a huge fan of this flop check. Solvers will tell you that checking this board OOP is higher EV than betting - it's definitely not a bad mistake, if it's a mistake at all.

    Against a balanced opponent you are gonna have to call here, but if you have a good read on the opponent and he's never value betting worse, this might be OK. I would pay this off nearly every time for a half pot shove, since worse flushes should be in his range. But if he's an OMC, it is probably an OK fold.

    You can never ever fold turn. Villain might not have many bluffs, but you are still way ahead of his value range.
  • TheGameKatTheGameKat Posts: 2,010 -
    Phil Ebbs wrote: »
    I'm a huge fan of this flop check. Solvers will tell you that checking this board OOP is higher EV than betting - it's definitely not a bad mistake, if it's a mistake at all.

    Well played, Phil, this comment has just triggered a research project on the RCP-Chinatown campus.
    Moderation In Moderation
  • Jordan PowerJordan Power Red Chipper Posts: 406 ✭✭✭
    @Phil Ebbs could you elaborate on the potential reasons why? It seems to be this is a 3 streets of value hand and betting 3 streets is the easiest way to realize all three streets. I am very aware as I type that that it is simplistic ;)

    What inputs would the solver be considering to come up with that its a higher EV line to check there? I hesitate to slow play hands without near invincible equity (at 1/3 I think this tends to make me more money); would you think this applies more to games where opponents are playing closer to an optimal strategy? (I don't mean this to sound like 'well in my games...' haha)
  • Phil EbbsPhil Ebbs Red Chipper Posts: 251 ✭✭✭
    edited March 25
    @Phil Ebbs could you elaborate on the potential reasons why? It seems to be this is a 3 streets of value hand and betting 3 streets is the easiest way to realize all three streets. I am very aware as I type that that it is simplistic ;)

    What inputs would the solver be considering to come up with that its a higher EV line to check there? I hesitate to slow play hands without near invincible equity (at 1/3 I think this tends to make me more money); would you think this applies more to games where opponents are playing closer to an optimal strategy? (I don't mean this to sound like 'well in my games...' haha)

    This hand in particular is of course a 3 street value hand on this board, but solvers are considering what the rest of our range looks like, what our opponents range looks like, and how the opponent can react if we exploitatively bet all our strong hands here. It is possible that against certain opponents who just call way too often we can take an exploitative line here, but even if you step out of solver land here, hands from which you extract 3 streets of value are going to bet this flop anyway. So you really aren't giving up much (if anything) by checking, and you protect your AX hands by doing so.

    This has been said on the forum before, yet continually seems to get ignored - looking at individual hands and trying to figure out how to maximize value with that particular holding loses sight of how to play your entire range and opens yourself up for serious problems against thinking players. You've gotta look at all the hands you can have here and figure out the best way to play your entire range.
  • osirus0830osirus0830 Red Chipper Posts: 62 ✭✭
    Phil Ebbs wrote: »
    @Phil Ebbs could you elaborate on the potential reasons why? It seems to be this is a 3 streets of value hand and betting 3 streets is the easiest way to realize all three streets. I am very aware as I type that that it is simplistic ;)

    What inputs would the solver be considering to come up with that its a higher EV line to check there? I hesitate to slow play hands without near invincible equity (at 1/3 I think this tends to make me more money); would you think this applies more to games where opponents are playing closer to an optimal strategy? (I don't mean this to sound like 'well in my games...' haha)

    This hand in particular is of course a 3 street value hand on this board, but solvers are considering what the rest of our range looks like, what our opponents range looks like, and how the opponent can react if we exploitatively bet all our strong hands here. It is possible that against certain opponents who just call way too often we can take an exploitative line here, but even if you step out of solver land here, hands from which you extract 3 streets of value are going to bet this flop anyway. So you really aren't giving up much (if anything) by checking, and you protect your AX hands by doing so.

    This has been said on the forum before, yet continually seems to get ignored - looking at individual hands and trying to figure out how to maximize value with that particular holding loses sight of how to play your entire range and opens yourself up for serious problems against thinking players. You've gotta look at all the hands you can have here and figure out the best way to play your entire range.

    Thanks for your replies Phil. I definitely appreciate the insight that you provided. I thought that checking was the best line in real time but you helped me to further understand how I should be thinking about the line that I take and how it relates to my overall range and strategy.

Leave a Comment

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