1c/2c Zoom: Hero call turn w/AK in 4bet pot?

ach1llesach1lles Red Chipper Posts: 9 ✭✭
Is a hero call on the turn here reasonable? His shove looks super fishy. What would he be worried about with overpairs? That being said, part of his range here is definitely TT-QQ scared of being outdrawn on the river.

Hero (BTN): $3.28
SB: $1.93
BB: $1.92
UTG: $2.78
MP: $1.25
CO: $1.78

SB posts SB $0.01, BB posts BB $0.02

Pre Flop: (pot: $0.03) Hero has Kc Ah
UTG raises to $0.06, fold, fold, Hero raises to $0.18, fold, fold, UTG raises to $0.44, Hero calls $0.26

Flop : ($0.91, 2 players) 8d 3c 3d
UTG bets $0.29, Hero calls $0.29

Turn : ($1.49, 2 players) 3h
UTG bets $2.05 and is all-in, fold

UTG wins $1.44

Comments

  • TheGameKatTheGameKat Posts: 2,280 -
    What does he 4-bet pre that you're ahead of on the turn?
    Moderation In Moderation
  • ach1llesach1lles Red Chipper Posts: 9 ✭✭
    I know. Nothing really in a reasonable 4betting range. But why the overbet shove on the turn. Surely you'd want to extract maximum value from worse pairs if AA-KK. I guess 99-QQ makes more sense.
  • blindraiseblindraise Red Chipper Posts: 195 ✭✭
    Zoom poker is different than traditional 6-max/full ring when it comes to ranging opps. out

    Im still working on ranging out opps. in zoom myself but a typical UTG raising range looks something like: 77+, ATs+, KJs+, QJs, AJo+, KQo

    A 4bet from UTG suggests TT+, AKs, but very rarely AQs and AJs.

    Just because you have AKo doesnt mean your opponent doesnt have kings or aces, it just makes it less likely.

    But as played, opps. face up by the turn.
  • ach1llesach1lles Red Chipper Posts: 9 ✭✭
    edited July 27
    face up as in TT-QQ? You occasionally see some bizarre 4bets at 1c/2c, but yes I agree. It is still a fairly narrow range to ship with, and if there are any bluffs in his range then a hero call w/AK might be profitable or breakeven.
  • RedPachydermRedPachyderm Red Chipper Posts: 2 ✭✭
    I actually think your intuition that this is a fishy shove could be correct here.

    I like to think of worst-case/best case ranges and they probably look like this:

    Worst-case IMO JJ+, AQ+ (6+6+3+3+12+9) or 39 total hands with card removal
    Which would mean you're ahead of or chopping with 21 hands, and that's quite a few in this scenario. We don't play for chops though, so let's remove them for the math.

    That means pre-flop is a (51/49) flip in your favor.

    On the flop, it flips (42/58) in villains favor, but still, you have the 24% EQ here needed to call

    So you're ahead here of roughly 12/39=31% of his holdings but have 43% EQ against this worst-case scenario range

    So, your EV=(.43*5.59)-(.57*2.05)=2.4037-1.1686=$1.24

    Meaning calling here is probably profitable if he indeed has this range.

    Best case scenario, let's say he's got a few 4bet bluffs here

    99+,A2s-A5s,ATs+,AJo+,KQs or (6+6+6+6+3+3+3+3+3+12+12+9+3+3+3) 81 hands with card removal pre-flop which means you have 57/43 Eq in your favor PRE.

    On the flop does shift 49/51 villain's way again.
    But let's look at his holding distribution, he has 30 combos of 2 pair, 1 combo of trips, 8 flush draws, 45 A high, 36 BDFD, and 9 BDSD (yes I did this all in my head xD)

    Which means he's value betting 39% of the time, semi-bluffing 10% of the time, and pure bluffing 50% of the time.

    If this is his range, he has become perfectly balanced and either has no idea or is a really decent player IMO.

    Now, let's say he c-bets his entire range on the flop, you only need 24% EQ to call and you have it.

    When he shoves, all thoughts of him being anything other than a fish go out the window.

    On the turn your EV=(.52*5.59)-(.48*2.05)=2.91-.98=$1.93

    The only issue here is that it does look like a protection bet. However, I think when you look at the tight and loose version of these spots they provide excellent comparison tools.

    All that to say, that any way you slice it unless you have a direct read on this guy, it looks like a profitable spot to hero call to me!
  • blindraiseblindraise Red Chipper Posts: 195 ✭✭
    edited July 27
    ach1lles wrote: »
    face up as in TT-QQ? You occasionally see some bizarre 4bets at 1c/2c, but yes I agree. It is still a fairly narrow range to ship with, and if there are any bluffs in his range then a hero call w/AK might be profitable or breakeven.

    Face up as in TT+. I've never played at .01/.02 but I occasionally throw on 2 tables of .10/.25 zoom on ignition if the tables are juicy(18bb+ avg by flop) and one thing I've noticed is opps. are pretty much never bluffing in these spots. What youre seeing as a protection bet I see as opp. going for max value. Btw its zoom poker so theres no reads.

    To echo Kat, what are you really beating here?

    Also, if you took your opponent off AA-KK why didnt you 5bet pf?

    Might be profitable isnt the way to think. Figure out if its profitable, then proceed.
  • ach1llesach1lles Red Chipper Posts: 9 ✭✭
    RedPachy, thanks for your detailed response. I think the 'worst-case' scenario is probably a bit wider than usual in this spot at 1-2 zoom, but the range including bluffs is absolutely why I was questioning this spot in the first place. I'd need to do the math, but I'd say ball park that worst-case I'm always way behind, and best-case I'm probably chopping a lot of the time, but still behind AKd, which is a small consideration but still impacts his bluff vs semi bluff distribution.

    blindraise, yes I absolutely put AA-KK in his range here until the turn, but then why overbet such nutted hands, particularly AA, on the turn? It has to be considered. Honestly, I don't really beat a lot, but am potentially chopping quite a lot, and therefore might have odds to call if indeed he's doing this with AK. As it was played, I'm fine with it. At these stakes, and in zoom generally, ranges are tighter hence the flat pre. It was only the overbet on the turn that raised the question about his holdings, but at the time, and now as well, I think he most likely had a somewhat vulnerable overpair i.e. TT-QQ, but could very well have KK+ too, and that value/protection is the most likely logic behind his action.
  • blindraiseblindraise Red Chipper Posts: 195 ✭✭
    What are TT-QQ vulnerable to on this board?
  • ach1llesach1lles Red Chipper Posts: 9 ✭✭
    A range of exactly AK has 15% equity here on the turn. It's not a lot, but honestly you see this logic a lot, both online and live, where people look at the size of the pot and want to just take it down there and then.
    If going for max value, rather than protection, QQ has 92% equity against a range of 99-JJ, A8s, so then why overbet the turn? Surely at max a half pot, and even 3rd pot bet is more appropriate, in order to ship river. Similarly KK-AA has 95% equity against 99-QQ, A8s so again, similarly smaller bet sizes are surely optimal.
    It's this huge equity advantage that a thinking player would consider, and therefore raises the question why he would overbet shove the turn. Would it not, therefore, be more likely that he does this with combos of AK included in his range? In that case, my equity here against TT+, AK goes up to 23%, whilst if discounting KK+ from his range, 27%. It is still a fold, sure, but it's less cut and dry than it looks at first glance. Of course, if he's doing this only w/AK then I'm only losing 2% to the Ad/Kd combos and chopping to the rest, therefore making a call profitable considering the money already in the pot.
  • blindraiseblindraise Red Chipper Posts: 195 ✭✭
    Why would opp. put you on 99-JJ/A8s?

    The thing about zoom is well, its zoom. Opps are rarely risking their entire stack on bluffs, and even if he is bluffing you'd need a read (which you dont have) in order to profitably call over the long term.

    Theres no way to tell if opp is a thinking player or a guy who plays .01/.02 simply when he's bored.

    Even if he has AK you still lose to rake, youre just not losing as much. You only beat AQ, and youre possibly dead by the turn. Not an ideal pot to invest ~100bb imo
  • ach1llesach1lles Red Chipper Posts: 9 ✭✭
    I just meant that they're the only hands that he could realistically go for max value as opposed to protection. I do think it's a fold, it's just one of those spots where his play doesn't make a lot of sense, and sort of challenges your perception of his range. I agree though, which is why microstakes are problematic: logic doesn't necessarily apply to opp. behaviour in all, maybe even most cases

Leave a Comment

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