AQo Multiway Makes a Straight: Sizing too Small Post?

CloutierCloutier FloridaRed Chipper Posts: 32 ✭✭
Before I post this I just want to say I've got a lot of helpful replies here lately. I really appreciate it. It's been great to read the different opinions and get wisdom from players who think about the game on a different level.

Onto the Hand

Live $2/$2 8-handed

4 limps
Hero in the CO: Raises to $15
:Ac:Qd

BTN: Call
SB: Fold
BB: Call
2 limpers call

FLOP: $80 ($7 drop)
:Ks:7s:Td

Checks to me.

Hero bets $35

Btn Call
BB Call
Fold, Fold.

3ways to the turn

Turn $185:

:Jh

BB: checks,
Hero bets $65

BTN call, BB call

River $380
:3s

BB: jams $50

BTN out of turn calls the $50.

Hero: folds

BB shows :6s:2s for the Flush

BTN shows :Th:Jc Two pair

If anyone saw my last post here, this is a hand from that same poker room and these are the type of spots that I love and fear.

I know BB is on the flushdraw because he never looked at his cards and his calls were done without much decision.

So my question is this: Are my postflop bets too small? I got value from these guys, I just happened to get outdrawn.

However, when we go to a flop with this many players it's common to get outdrawn.

So should I just drop the hammer and shove when I make the nuts and try to take the pot right there? Or should I just be sizing up?

I know I'm giving them a good price to call. But maybe it's too good. They'll likely call much bigger bets, but am I just costing myself money and building a pot for them?

I look forward to any critique. Thanks!

Comments

  • NinjahNinjah Red Chipper Posts: 1,194 ✭✭✭✭
    Don't really like the sizing on any street tbh.

    Preflop: After 4 limpers, I'm opening larger than $15. Probably $20-$22 here.

    Flop: I'd prefer to check multiway on such a connected board.

    Turn: I'm looking to get it in on the turn (you didn't give depths here so I'm assuming 100bb).
  • persuadeopersuadeo Red Chipper Posts: 4,317 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Good example of your concern. Everything is a guess unless the system is understood. What allows you to bet, which is laying a price on the pot is subject to your equity share, position, and number of opponents? Here, your raising range, as strong as it is, likely has about a 25-33% of the pot, depending on how many traps you estimate (you mentioned some of this in the other thread as a real concern).

    Even though you may own 30% of the pot right now and thus be ahead of the average equity share, you can see the immediate problem - you are behind the field. This should limit your ability to bet significantly, even at the slightly smaller size you are offering. Further, you should discount your betting frequency OOP because the button is still behind you. This means in sum, laying nearly 3:1 when you are already behind would be extraordinarily expensive with range. So the question becomes what hands can do this, even at a less risky price - which is the direction you should be going.

    The answer is hands that can sustain action over streets. AQo no spade does not fit this parameter. Its general outs are overcoated by spades, leaving three clean outs when called. By betting 0, the field, which has a responsibility to see that you don't realize something for nothing, you outplay your opponents - thinking you have to risk nearly 50% of the pot, with hands that don't need to bet, for 30% of the share (or in this exact case, far less) is outplaying yourself, not them. When you bet incorrectly, you just subsidized their original error in limp calling.

    You feared in the other post becoming too conservative and talked about making hands, but this just has nothing to do with the scenario, where you are in a low spr situation with fairly evenly distributed equity shares which reduces the profitability of bluffing to start with. You can't simultaneously propose to know you are facing calls and plan to bluff with very small equity. The bottom line is that your betting frequency in MW pots must trend toward zero and/or be very selective when it does lay a price.

    Nice fold on the end!
  • CloutierCloutier FloridaRed Chipper Posts: 32 ✭✭
    Ninjah wrote: »
    Don't really like the sizing on any street tbh.

    Preflop: After 4 limpers, I'm opening larger than $15. Probably $20-$22 here.

    Flop: I'd prefer to check multiway on such a connected board.

    Turn: I'm looking to get it in on the turn (you didn't give depths here so I'm assuming 100bb).

    Its so funny you say that. Normally I have been opening to $20 or so in these spots. But I'm making some adjustments and experimenting there.

    But yeah, oddly enough the other 2 main opponents in this hand both had $200. BTN had a little more. Based on that I probably should've been going bigger, at least on the turn.
  • CloutierCloutier FloridaRed Chipper Posts: 32 ✭✭
    persuadeo wrote: »
    Good example of your concern. Everything is a guess unless the system is understood. What allows you to bet, which is laying a price on the pot is subject to your equity share, position, and number of opponents? Here, your raising range, as strong as it is, likely has about a 25-33% of the pot, depending on how many traps you estimate (you mentioned some of this in the other thread as a real concern).

    Even though you may own 30% of the pot right now and thus be ahead of the average equity share, you can see the immediate problem - you are behind the field. This should limit your ability to bet significantly, even at the slightly smaller size you are offering. Further, you should discount your betting frequency OOP because the button is still behind you. This means in sum, laying nearly 3:1 when you are already behind would be extraordinarily expensive with range. So the question becomes what hands can do this, even at a less risky price - which is the direction you should be going.

    The answer is hands that can sustain action over streets. AQo no spade does not fit this parameter. Its general outs are overcoated by spades, leaving three clean outs when called. By betting 0, the field, which has a responsibility to see that you don't realize something for nothing, you outplay your opponents - thinking you have to risk nearly 50% of the pot, with hands that don't need to bet, for 30% of the share (or in this exact case, far less) is outplaying yourself, not them. When you bet incorrectly, you just subsidized their original error in limp calling.

    You feared in the other post becoming too conservative and talked about making hands, but this just has nothing to do with the scenario, where you are in a low spr situation with fairly evenly distributed equity shares which reduces the profitability of bluffing to start with. You can't simultaneously propose to know you are facing calls and plan to bluff with very small equity. The bottom line is that your betting frequency in MW pots must trend toward zero and/or be very selective when it does lay a price.

    Nice fold on the end!

    That makes so much sense it's ridiculous. I think there's still some online remnants in my game. And I wasn't very good online lol.

    It really seems like live low stakes could be played similar to the way I'd play online mtts:
    1. Base my play on stack sizes
    2. Early on (some bigger stacks) choose playable hands for a cheaper price
    3. EQR is crucial

    Online I relied so much on cbets, but that clearly isn't going to be effective in live low stakes. I think my fear of not being aggressive enough has blinded me to reality. Instead of well-timed aggression, I'm just clicking buttons, almost on autopilot.

    You're very good at explaining and it's clear you have tons of poker wisdom. I really appreciate it. Any chance you do any coaching for terrible live players?

Leave a Comment

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