Calling 3-barrel all in

osirus0830osirus0830 Red Chipper Posts: 46 ✭✭
edited April 3 in Live Poker Hands
Venue: Harrahs Joliet
Stakes: 1/3
Effective Stack: $513

Limped Pot, hero is in BB with :9s: :5H:

Two other villains, one limped UTG and one limped on button.

Flop:
:KS: :9H: :5D:

Hero leads $6,
Villain UTG calls, Villain on button raises to $100.
Hero Calls, UTG folds.

Turn:
:3C:

Hero checks
Villain bets $165
Hero calls

River:
:2D:

Hero checks
Villain shoves for $246
Hero????

Relevant reads

Main villain is a spewtard preflop, but I have never seen him triple barrel with air. Multiple times in the session, he would straddle $20 and then raise it all in if people limped to him. In general when he has gone three streets, it was two pair. With no obvious draws on the board, this was a tough spot.

Questions:
1. In spots like these, should I just default to my analysis of the preflop action and my blockers? Since I block bottom two, and it was limped pre, does that weigh more towards calling?
2. I know that in general it is bad to take the perspective that if you call turn then you will call river, but when the river is an absolute blank, do you essentially commit to calling the river after calling the turn when the board doesn't change in a significant way?
3. Does the UTG villain's call play a factor in the hand? In real time, the UTG villain was very tight, pretty much only playing pairs and broadways (even in limped pots), so when she called, I pretty much felt like she had a king. Not sure how I would go about incorporating that information when making decisions though.
4. General advice for valuing two pair. This is probably one of my biggest leaks. I have no clue how many streets of value two pair is worth. I know that it differs based on board texture, but even when you get raised on dry boards with no draws, I have been shown sets with the other card that I don't have more often than I have won in those spots. It could just be negative variance, but if anyone has any general advice on how to improve in playing two pair, that would be greatly appreciated.

Comments

  • Phil EbbsPhil Ebbs Red Chipper Posts: 217 ✭✭✭
    edited April 3
    This is pretty gross, but clearly he is never value betting better. If you think he has enough bluffs here, you can call, but you have to belief he's overbluffing. And it's pretty hard to find bluffs on this flop.

    Honestly, yes, you should think about blockers, but in general, in these low stakes games, you can pretty easily classify someone as an over-bluffer or an under-bluff guy. Once they are classified this way, a fold here is trivially easy to an underbluffer (what draws is he raising on flop?), and a call is mandatory if the guy overbluffs.

    From a GTO perspective, that $100 raise on the flop narrows down your range massively. I'd have to run some numbers, but I'll bet that calling with 9 combos of K9 and K5 and maybe 55 (if you don't raise pre?) is still enough defends to keep him from overbluffing. I think you can let this go.

    One last comment: your lead here is fine, but keep in mind you can't really have too many sets. So I sort of like check calling down. but the lead can't be that much worse in EV.
  • RedRed Red Chipper Posts: 1,923 ✭✭✭✭
    osirus0830 wrote: »
    River:
    :2D:

    Hero checks
    Villain shoves for $246
    Hero????

    This is way too late to ask yourself "do I call the river shove". This decision has been made when you called V massive over raise on flop.
    Only flop decision is relevant, other streets are just consequences.
  • Phil EbbsPhil Ebbs Red Chipper Posts: 217 ✭✭✭
    Red wrote: »
    osirus0830 wrote: »
    River:
    :2D:

    Hero checks
    Villain shoves for $246
    Hero????

    This is way too late to ask yourself "do I call the river shove". This decision has been made when you called V massive over raise on flop.
    Only flop decision is relevant, other streets are just consequences.

    This statement is completely incorrect. Decisions on future streets when opponent has 2x pot behind are not dictated by flop calls. Interesting comment from a guy who I've previously heard say "nothing is mandatory" ;)
  • Phil EbbsPhil Ebbs Red Chipper Posts: 217 ✭✭✭
    edited April 4
    Major (but hopefully obvious) edit on my original comment, @osirus0830 : *Clearly he is never value betting worse.
  • In The DarkIn The Dark Red Chipper Posts: 190 ✭✭
    edited April 4
    Red wrote: »

    This is way too late to ask yourself "do I call the river shove". This decision has been made when you called V massive over raise on flop.
    Only flop decision is relevant, other streets are just consequences.

    I find the general pot commitment rules I learned long ago from Ed Miller et al are simplistic, strategically counter-intuitive at times yet so often right I just go with them.

    A made hand that calls the flop here is in for the ride (barring turn=K) even though it's only ~20% of your stack.
  • RedRed Red Chipper Posts: 1,923 ✭✭✭✭
    Phil Ebbs wrote: »
    Red wrote: »
    osirus0830 wrote: »
    River:
    :2D:

    Hero checks
    Villain shoves for $246
    Hero????

    This is way too late to ask yourself "do I call the river shove". This decision has been made when you called V massive over raise on flop.
    Only flop decision is relevant, other streets are just consequences.

    This statement is completely incorrect. Decisions on future streets when opponent has 2x pot behind are not dictated by flop calls. Interesting comment from a guy who I've previously heard say "nothing is mandatory" ;)

    Sure in a vacuum or against a "normal" raise. But when we are calling a 100$ raise on a 6$ c-bet - 16.5X raise ! - , we are clearly not folding later except on very specific unfavorable run-out.
  • osirus0830osirus0830 Red Chipper Posts: 46 ✭✭
    edited April 4
    Thanks to everyone for the helpful feedback. I definitely appreciate it.

    Results:

    Hero Calls.

    Villain shows KQo, hero scoops.

    I essentially decided to call purely based on blockers, which may or may not be the correct thing to do at this level. When I block middle and bottom set, which are the most likely sets in a limped pot, I felt like it would be exploitable to fold two pair with that run out. I had also won a large pot from him when I flopped a set and he rivered two pair. During a hand right before the last one we played, he made the comment that "Brandon (osirus0830) can't always have it". That may have subconsciously impacted my decision as well. Interesting note, villain was the same villain from my first hand history post here. I don't know if my folding the nut flush to him when he hit his full house played a role in him thinking that he could get me off anything except for the nuts, but I think that he will hesitate making that play again going forward.

    @Phil Ebbs your feedback, as always, is really helpful and helps me to better think through these spots. Thanks for all of your posts in all of my hand history threads.
  • osirus0830osirus0830 Red Chipper Posts: 46 ✭✭
    edited April 4
    Red wrote: »
    osirus0830 wrote: »
    River:
    :2D:

    Hero checks
    Villain shoves for $246
    Hero????

    This is way too late to ask yourself "do I call the river shove". This decision has been made when you called V massive over raise on flop.
    Only flop decision is relevant, other streets are just consequences.

    I don't know if I agree based on the dynamics. Villain had been overbetting the entire session. I don't know if it was his conscious strategy, but he would cbet large in the hopes of getting people to release their entire range. Our pot was at least the fourth time that he had made a massive bet on the flop. Just based on frequencies, there's no way that he is going to have a monster each time.
    The spot was difficult because this was the first time that he raised huge. All of the other times he was the PFR and would over bet as a c bet. The only other time I had seen him go three streets he had 2 pair.

    With his frequencies I was not ever folding that flop. I was essentially evaluating each street. If another broadway card comes, and he still wanted to apply pressure, when I could have middle and bottom set, as well as a better two pair, then I would be willing to release because at that point only bluffs would be a suicide bluff with air.
  • Phil EbbsPhil Ebbs Red Chipper Posts: 217 ✭✭✭
    edited April 4
    Yeah once he shows KQo you can never fold this in the future. total maniac. If he's value-towning hands this weak, just close your eyes and call down.
  • Phil EbbsPhil Ebbs Red Chipper Posts: 217 ✭✭✭
    edited April 4
    Red wrote: »
    Phil Ebbs wrote: »
    Red wrote: »
    osirus0830 wrote: »
    River:
    :2D:

    Hero checks
    Villain shoves for $246
    Hero????

    This is way too late to ask yourself "do I call the river shove". This decision has been made when you called V massive over raise on flop.
    Only flop decision is relevant, other streets are just consequences.

    This statement is completely incorrect. Decisions on future streets when opponent has 2x pot behind are not dictated by flop calls. Interesting comment from a guy who I've previously heard say "nothing is mandatory" ;)

    Sure in a vacuum or against a "normal" raise. But when we are calling a 100$ raise on a 6$ c-bet - 16.5X raise ! - , we are clearly not folding later except on very specific unfavorable run-out.

    Again, simply incorrect. folding on later streets is completely admissible. Making the same statement twice doesn't make it any more convincing.
  • persuadeopersuadeo Red Chipper, Table Captain Posts: 3,889 ✭✭✭✭✭
    The advice in this thread is reasonable, however it's worth noting a few things, as some things are becoming trends around here but without much underlying information:

    1. The distribution argument advanced here and elsewhere does have one call folding or call call folding, or such range narrowing, by its own logic, but
    2. Isn't really playing the player very well. One should be able to foresee a naked kx here as OP did fairly often, which
    3. makes sense from many perspectives, as the distribution argument is a generic schema for continuance, which means,
    4. that while Red's argument is actually the worse argument through a Theory lens, it will often be the winning play.

    Poker is not solitaire... yet.

Leave a Comment

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