2/3 NL ($100-$300 Buy In) River Decision

RosyRosy Red Chipper Posts: 13 ✭✭
First ever Hand History, so apologies if the format is off.

2/3 NL, afternoon game in Southern California, mostly loose passive opponents including villain. $6 rake is taken on the flop, and $1 more on the turn.

A couple hours into the session. Hero had been making the biggest bets at the table and some of the more conservative players were getting annoyed by it. Villain was erratic and liked to draw in big pots; one orbit prior he had doubled through hero by calling $75 preflop with :6c:6s leaving $50 behind.

f
Hero, UTG+1 (720) :Kd:Td , raise to 12
fff
Villain, CO (280) call
fff

Flop (23 after rake)
:Ks:6d:9h

Hero, Bet 20
Villain, Call

Turn (62, after rake)
:6h
Hero, Bet 30
Villain, Call

River (122)
:Qd
Hero, Check
Villain, Bet 100
Hero ???


I picked up no live reads from villain's betting motion or body language. What does this bet represent? Flopped set of 9s? If villain had a 6 I would have expected a raise on the turn, even given his passive nature; the turn puts a flush draw on board and there are a couple of straight draws in there. Hero's line doesn't necessarily reflect a draw, but in my experience players who like to draw a lot are hyper aware of draws on board when they hold a strong hand. The river brings home JT. Villain does like to draw, and if he called a nearly pot sized bet on the flop with a gutterball, he's likely to call a half pot bet on the turn as well. Should I have bet bigger on the turn? Should I have led the river? For what it's worth, I did not consider check raise jamming the river to be an option. I'm looking at either calling or folding.

I'll post results in a few days.

Comments

  • KeyserS023KeyserS023 Red Chipper Posts: 4 ✭✭
    I wouldn't rule out the villain having a 6: there aren't too many draws, and they may be hoping you'll fire again on the river with something like top pair.

    I would be tempted to check-call on the turn. My guess is your hand is worth at most two streets of value, and on a dry board I wouldn't be too concerned about taking the second street of value on the river if you like the runout.

    Given your description of villain, I'd put him on a range something like this (which may be off...I'm really just starting on hand-reading): QQ (depending on whether or not you think he would 3-bet), 99, 66, A6, KQ, K9, K6s, JT, 87 (missed draw). There's probably some other junk in there that would surprise me, but you're only beating 87. So I fold.
  • RosyRosy Red Chipper Posts: 13 ✭✭
    KeyserS023 wrote: »

    My guess is your hand is worth at most two streets of value, and on a dry board I wouldn't be too concerned about taking the second street of value on the river if you like the runout.

    I agree with you. If the board were more draw heavy, I would want to take my second street of value on the turn. I would like to say my thought process was something along the lines of, "That 6 probably didn't change much, I think I can squeeze an extra street of value out of a weaker king or a whiffed pocket pair by betting smaller twice." I do think there are plenty of weaker kings in his range, including all suited combos. But you can see where this got me.
    KeyserS023 wrote: »
    Given your description of villain, I'd put him on a range something like this (which may be off...I'm really just starting on hand-reading): QQ (depending on whether or not you think he would 3-bet), 99, 66, A6, KQ, K9, K6s, JT, 87 (missed draw). There's probably some other junk in there that would surprise me, but you're only beating 87. So I fold.

    Actually, I give him a lot more 6's than this, 86s, 76s or o, 65 s or o, 64s. This of course strengthens your argument. And he "could" have quads of course. But I still think he at least click back raises the turn with a six. That call really took 6s out of his range for me, except the quads.

  • RosyRosy Red Chipper Posts: 13 ✭✭
    Results:

    Hero called and villain showed

    :Qh:Tc

    for a busted inside straight draw.
  • persuadeopersuadeo Red Chipper, Table Captain Posts: 4,202 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited November 29
    "taking streets of value" ?

    You don't just get to "take" value when you want it.

    The reason this is a flop check is that from EP is or should be the worst Kx Rosy is opening. If she bets all her value hands on the flop, she has little recourse to fighting her way through the pot on the turn and river, forcing her to call down with hands like QQ or JJ or 10x which actually are even worse as they block the natural bluffs of her opponent. If you say but she should trap with sets, then she has no calls on the river but mostly xr on the turn or river.

    Her opponent should very often bluff the six on the turn, and now she is set to win vs a range on this runout.

    While she won the hand this way, i doubt it was a profitable call overall vs a 2/3 player's river range that goes call call bet on this board, as opposed to calling two streets of action. 87hh is one combo and could raise turn. The cutoff should never flat q10o nor needs to bet on the river with Q10s, so this is pretty much a lucky catch or the opponent is so loose it's a great exploit of his tendencies.
  • RosyRosy Red Chipper Posts: 13 ✭✭
    Hi persuadeo, thank you for taking the time to respond. I am a guy. Rosy is a nickname that is derived from my last name.


    persuadeo wrote: »
    "taking streets of value" ?

    You don't just get to "take" value when you want it.

    The reason this is a flop check is that from EP is or should be the worst Kx Rosy is opening. If she bets all her value hands on the flop, she has little recourse to fighting her way through the pot on the turn and river, forcing her to call down with hands like QQ or JJ or 10x which actually are even worse as they block the natural bluffs of her opponent. If you say but she should trap with sets, then she has no calls on the river but mostly xr on the turn or river.

    KTs is the absolute worst Kx I am opening there. And I agree, this should be a check. I posted this hand because I thought I played it very poorly. On this board, I think I actually have a bluff catcher, and I should have played it as such.

    persuadeo wrote: »
    Her opponent should very often bluff the six on the turn, and now she is set to win vs a range on this runout.

    Again, agreed. I would bluff this 6 if the roles were reversed. Now I am really wishing I had checked the flop.

    persuadeo wrote: »
    While she won the hand this way, i doubt it was a profitable call overall vs a 2/3 player's river range that goes call call bet on this board, as opposed to calling two streets of action.

    Yep, this is not a great call even though it was a good result. But I am curious, would you x/call 3 streets in this spot? This assumes a bet on the flop of course; I think this opponent probably checks back the flop so maybe this is not such a great hypothetical.
    persuadeo wrote: »
    The cutoff should never flat q10o nor needs to bet on the river with Q10s, so this is pretty much a lucky catch or the opponent is so loose it's a great exploit of his tendencies.

    If there is one thing I did well in this hand, it was allowing the option of "opponent plays terribly" to enter my river decision, even though I agree with you it is more often than not a losing call. This opponent was very loose passive preflop, and flatted all kinds of unprofitable hands. I don't know why he bet after making a hand that had a bit of SDV; 15 minutes later as he was describing the hand to a friend he said "I knew he had a king, so I had to bet to win." I think I was getting at this by giving him the descriptor "erratic" but specificity would be better. Honestly, I mostly called out of confusion, which is often a losing proposition.
    persuadeo wrote: »
    "taking streets of value" ?

    You don't just get to "take" value when you want it.

    Can we talk about this a bit? I'm still learning. I think I was parroting some phrasing I read in a book or saw in a video. The idea I was trying to get at was, "I think my hand is better than his hand if 2 streets of betting take place. My opponent is quite loose preflop and is willing to call with a draw even without the correct price. So, I want him to do that, and I'm going to bet." Even though you've made your point (and I take it) that the better way to play the hand is to start with a check, is there a better way to get my point across than the phrase "take value?" Or is it my flawed assessment of how to play the hand that was more offensive?

    I'm not trying to be obsequious. I think I can get the most value out of this forum by posting hands I screwed up, and I think I can contribute the most value by being honest. Thanks for your time.
  • persuadeopersuadeo Red Chipper, Table Captain Posts: 4,202 ✭✭✭✭✭
    The idea I was trying to get at was, "I think my hand is better than his hand if 2 streets of betting take place. My opponent is quite loose preflop and is willing to call with a draw even without the correct price. So, I want him to do that, and I'm going to bet."

    Sure, so two comments, one specific and one general.

    You are OOP, so if you open the betting on any one street, you can be raised, and now more than two bets go in anyway. So in projecting out the streets, "taking value" on the flop with thin value hands can be one of our worst plays OOP, especially at any bet size that isn't trending toward zero. In your case, a substantial and polar bet of nearly pot. So even if you wanted to cbet a variety of holdings, you'd force yourself to check K10s on the turn and river as you are losing to the value that is supposed to call this size on the flop, and then another bet on the turn unimproved. Your opponent is out of order and so it happens to work out well.

    So while "taking value" is a simple and useful strategic concept because it quantifies streets of play and gives a reason to put chips in the pot or not, and is thus useful in creating a novice strategy, it can immediately be bettered. That's up to you, and you will see it used in even some very good material.

    Second, and more to your general question, you play a range of hands (whether you like it or not), and together with stacks and position, they determine a rational strategy of betting. If you are viewing your game through the lens of value and the taking or not taking of it, you can never come up with a coherent explanation for what you are doing with that entire range. No one should really be calling you that much, because your bluffs become sporadic rather than determined by the same factors of range, stack, position.
  • RussRuss Red Chipper Posts: 110 ✭✭
    persuadeo wrote: »
    The reason this is a flop check is that from EP is or should be the worst Kx Rosy is opening. If she bets all her value hands on the flop, she has little recourse to fighting her way through the pot on the turn and river, forcing her to call down with hands like QQ or JJ or 10x which actually are even worse as they block the natural bluffs of her opponent. If you say but she should trap with sets, then she has no calls on the river but mostly xr on the turn or river.

    I've been studying this paragraph for awhile now. Not surprisingly, Persuadeo is at least one level of thinking (and probably several) above my thinking. Do we reach the conclusion that we need to check this hand on the flop based on needing a 2:1 bluff/value range, as per the "Constructing Ranges" pro video?
  • persuadeopersuadeo Red Chipper, Table Captain Posts: 4,202 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited November 29
    I've been studying this paragraph for awhile now. Not surprisingly, Persuadeo is at least one level of thinking (and probably several) above my thinking. Do we reach the conclusion that we need to check this hand on the flop based on needing a 2:1 bluff/value range, as per the "Constructing Ranges" pro video?
    Well let's say we were following that formula - which is questionable but I am not going down that road - remember that one of the keys to construction in the RCP threads of thought is identifying continuance, not merely aggressive actions. By xc your worst top pair (along with some other strong equity), you allow yourself to play more streets profitably as well as down more paths of the game tree - specifically your checking range here. To put it another way, front-loading all your value into large cbets is -EV against all but the worst opponents, because the runout and position will very often work against the OOP PFR.
  • RosyRosy Red Chipper Posts: 13 ✭✭
    persuadeo wrote: »
    You are OOP, so if you open the betting on any one street, you can be raised, and now more than two bets go in anyway. So in projecting out the streets, "taking value" on the flop with thin value hands can be one of our worst plays OOP, especially at any bet size that isn't trending toward zero. In your case, a substantial and polar bet of nearly pot.

    Yeah, I knew better, or rather I know better now. And I can think of a sizing that trends very near zero. It rhymes with "blecch." That pot sizing is way out of line for that hand strength and position.
    persuadeo wrote: »
    Second, and more to your general question, you play a range of hands (whether you like it or not), and together with stacks and position, they determine a rational strategy of betting. If you are viewing your game through the lens of value and the taking or not taking of it, you can never come up with a coherent explanation for what you are doing with that entire range. No one should really be calling you that much, because your bluffs become sporadic rather than determined by the same factors of range, stack, position.

    Thank you for the clarification. I'm going to spend some time thinking about it.
  • RussRuss Red Chipper Posts: 110 ✭✭
    persuadeo wrote: »
    To put it another way, front-loading all your value into large cbets is -EV against all but the worst opponents, because the runout and position will very often work against the OOP PFR.

    Thank you, that is starting to make sense to me. Let me ask you about what has been my default strategy, admittedly against "the worst opponents," since that is who is in my low level games now. My thought process was to downbet on the flop, probably 1/4 pot or so, and if called, a bet of 1/2 pot or so (obviously paying attention to the turn card and adjusting accordingly). On the river I'm evaluating and checking, since the bad players in my game normally don't bet for thin value. In this case, obviously, Rosy's opponent didn't do that and I would have had to decide whether to bluff catch.

    With range advantage on the flop, I get a lot of snap folds from fit-or-fold players with a small cb. I get some more folds on this turn card and bet from draws that give up. As I said, even OOP (although less than IP), I often get to the river with no more money invested.
    persuadeo wrote: »
    ...allow yourself to play more streets profitably as well as down more paths of the game tree - specifically your checking range here.

    I thought that was what I was doing with my strategy here, but I suspect you are going to disagree with me.
  • persuadeopersuadeo Red Chipper, Table Captain Posts: 4,202 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Well, if you are betting 25% on this flop you can bet your whole EP range most likely, so you effectively have no flop checking range to be concerned with. Rosy bets 20 into 23 and so needs a significant checking range. (Further, the 2:1 value/bluff ratio you referenced definitely does not apply to you if you are betting 25% pot.)

    Your particular strategy as described pivots on the turn, where a 50% bet does not put enough money in the pot with value hands, so your turn checks are now where you might find K10s as a check, and your bets need to be bigger.
  • RussRuss Red Chipper Posts: 110 ✭✭
    Got it. Thank you.
  • jeffncjeffnc Red Chipper Posts: 4,846 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Rosy wrote: »
    That pot sizing is way out of line for that hand strength and position.

    Well he did say "against all but the worst opponents". I think it's worthwhile to study how this guy plays. As with all players, I don't like labeling someone "terrible" in general as almost everyone does some things well, even if it's blind squirrels and nuts at best.

    It's easy to call a passive player terrible who calls large bets with gutterballs, but the fact is we can't be sure of his overall m.o. I don't think he could have predicted you'd check the river and thus might not have a K, because most of your open raises that include a K will bet this river from his point of view. And yet, after the hand he claimed to "know" you had a K. Maybe he was playing some kind of combo float, which at the very least makes him more difficult to play against. (You did post the hand after all.)

    So when we say we can't bet this flop big here against all but the worst players, we have to keep in mind in what way they're bad. There are in fact a few players that despite persuadeo's excellent analysis, I would still pound away on the flop. Is this guy one of them? Probably not, even though this hand proves you can get a lot of money from his mistakes, and your large flop bet did after all create a bigger pot for him to bluff into and for you to profit from. It's just that there are other ways which are probably equally profitable long term.

  • RosyRosy Red Chipper Posts: 13 ✭✭
    jeffnc wrote: »

    Well he did say "against all but the worst opponents". I think it's worthwhile to study how this guy plays. As with all players, I don't like labeling someone "terrible" in general as almost everyone does some things well, even if it's blind squirrels and nuts at best.
    @jeffnc I mean, you're totally right. Honestly, I was embarrassed at how I played this hand, and my wording here was attempting to cover it up with humor. An accurate assessment of my opponent at the time I played the hand would be:
    Calls large preflop bets without sufficient money behind with pocket pairs and broadway cards.
    Calls flop and turn bets, both IP and OOP, without sufficient direct or implied odds (though I did call his rather large river lead, so maybe I was wrong and he did have implied odds after all?)
    Embraces and derives value from the gambling part of poker - gets a lot of psychological satisfaction from taking a weak hand and beating a strong hand. This may or may not have come into play in this hand specifically, but in the interest of being accurate, I do think I had picked up on this in the session. He was so triumphant when a hand that started as a preflop dog beat a stronger PFR's hand, whether or not he was involved; he went out of his way to congratulate the holder of the weaker preflop hand.

    jeffnc wrote: »
    It's easy to call a passive player terrible who calls large bets with gutterballs, but the fact is we can't be sure of his overall m.o. I don't think he could have predicted you'd check the river and thus might not have a K, because most of your open raises that include a K will bet this river from his point of view. And yet, after the hand he claimed to "know" you had a K. Maybe he was playing some kind of combo float, which at the very least makes him more difficult to play against. (You did post the hand after all.)
    Agreed.

    jeffnc wrote: »
    So when we say we can't bet this flop big here against all but the worst players, we have to keep in mind in what way they're bad. There are in fact a few players that despite persuadeo's excellent analysis, I would still pound away on the flop. Is this guy one of them? Probably not, even though this hand proves you can get a lot of money from his mistakes, and your large flop bet did after all create a bigger pot for him to bluff into and for you to profit from. It's just that there are other ways which are probably equally profitable long term.

    Yeah, in the end, I think @persuadeo is right, I should have checked the flop. A near pot sized bet is not great in this spot, and my rational of "getting value from a weaker King" isn't good enough. Thanks all for helping me out, I look forward to posting my next poorly played hand. I have lots to choose from, but I want to look for ones where I haven't already diagnosed the error.
  • jeffncjeffnc Red Chipper Posts: 4,846 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Rosy wrote: »
    Calls flop and turn bets, both IP and OOP, without sufficient direct or implied odds (though I did call his rather large river lead, so maybe I was wrong and he did have implied odds after all?)

    This one always annoys me. I remember one player in particular who in hindsight I know is a big loser, but at the time I wasn't sure. With a little experience against him I knew he was a little crazy and hard to read. I recall one hand in particular where I had a set of aces and I was pounding it IP. I'd seen he had a willingness to call big bets, but some guys like Stu Ungar are good players, but their forte isn't making big laydowns. He called twice. On the river a gutshot came in and he made a big bet. I added it all up and his calls (especially on the turn) along with his big bet didn't add up to getting the right odds. I thought about it and I decided he just wasn't a bad enough player to call such big amounts with a gutshot. I figured he put me on AK, and he made 2 pair or a lucky set on the river. I called, saw the straight, and went home that night muttering to myself "how can this game ever be figured out?"

  • Mr_Big_StackMr_Big_Stack Over The RoadRed Chipper Posts: 18 ✭✭
    Am I the only one folding KT UTG+1?

    This flop appears to be a great candidate for a check.
  • TheGameKatTheGameKat Posts: 2,727 -
    Am I the only one folding KT UTG+1?

    This flop appears to be a great candidate for a check.

    Given we know of at least one player sitting < 100bb, my default would be to fold pre.
    Moderation In Moderation
  • jeffncjeffnc Red Chipper Posts: 4,846 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Am I the only one folding KT UTG+1?

    One thing I've noticed when reading through hand examples is that many people think in terms of very static ranges. "This hand should be raised, this hand should be folded. This hand I raise, this hand I fold." Such ranges tend to be pretty easy to read for anyone paying attention. There is nothing wrong with saying "I raise this 20% of the time and fold it 80%", etc. Depending on myriad conditions of course. A KTs hand is not a great hand but sometimes you have to keep 'em guessing, especially as game conditions change.

  • Mr_Big_StackMr_Big_Stack Over The RoadRed Chipper Posts: 18 ✭✭
    jeffnc wrote: »
    Am I the only one folding KT UTG+1?

    One thing I've noticed when reading through hand examples is that many people think in terms of very static ranges. "This hand should be raised, this hand should be folded. This hand I raise, this hand I fold." Such ranges tend to be pretty easy to read for anyone paying attention. There is nothing wrong with saying "I raise this 20% of the time and fold it 80%", etc. Depending on myriad conditions of course. A KTs hand is not a great hand but sometimes you have to keep 'em guessing, especially as game conditions change.

    Certainly we should look at our hand in the context of who's in the hand, who's yet to act, and how they will respond to our raise. UTG+1 with a table full of L/P. Would it be better to balance with SC JT+, A5s than KTs when the pot is likely to be MW?
  • TheGameKatTheGameKat Posts: 2,727 -
    jeffnc wrote: »
    Am I the only one folding KT UTG+1?

    One thing I've noticed when reading through hand examples is that many people think in terms of very static ranges. "This hand should be raised, this hand should be folded. This hand I raise, this hand I fold." Such ranges tend to be pretty easy to read for anyone paying attention. There is nothing wrong with saying "I raise this 20% of the time and fold it 80%", etc. Depending on myriad conditions of course. A KTs hand is not a great hand but sometimes you have to keep 'em guessing, especially as game conditions change.

    That's fair, but let me offer a counter-argument. Miller is very big on the idea of having a static preflop range for a couple of linked reasons. The first is that it simply saves mental energy. That in itself may seem rather weak, but it does have the added benefit that if you get used to specific preflop ranges, you also know how they perform postflop. The sort of Flop Falcon work @Doug Hull described in his last group coaching session is a lot more tractable for static ranges.

    I'd add that in most games I'm not convinced we have to "keep 'em guessing". For many of our opponents, they'd actually be taking a step forward if they attempted to guess our opening range; typically all they see are their hole cards.
    Moderation In Moderation
  • jeffncjeffnc Red Chipper Posts: 4,846 ✭✭✭✭✭
    If you tend to play very tightly and don't get a lot of action, it can be a help. Also if you notice changes to the table dynamic, it can also work. So in that sense, you're not just raising a hand 20% of the time you get it, but you might raise it only in situations where particular players have sat or people have tightened up, whatever.

Leave a Comment

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