Line check, live deep 1/3

LoveFishLoveFish IllinoisRed Chipper Posts: 154 ✭✭
Line check. Live Deep 1/3 game.
$900 effective. We raise 20$ with :9h:7h from HJ.
Villain is lag, Vpip 70, pfr 50 ish, from SB 3bets to $80.
BB calls
we call.
Pot$240

Flop :9s:8h:6d
SB cbets $80
BB folds
We call.
Pot $400

Turn :9s:8h:6d:Qc
SB checks
Do we ever bet? We check.
Pot $400
River :Ad
Check check villain shows….will post in comments later.

I figured we could take a passive line or an aggro line. As this is a 3-bet pot and we hold all sets and straight combos. We could go hard on turn, and jam rivers, which line is more profitable?

Comments

  • persuadeopersuadeo Red Chipper Posts: 4,382 ✭✭✭✭✭
    With so much here to discuss, I'll focus on the big points.

    1. Opening to 20 is an obvious losing play.
    2. Calling the raise is an obvious play.
    3. Not raising flop that 3b rarely hits hard is a losing play.
    4. Not betting turn with analog to straights and severe range advantage is a losing play.
    5. By river, does it even matter?
  • LoveFishLoveFish IllinoisRed Chipper Posts: 154 ✭✭
    Thanks for the feedback persuades. As the game was super deep for 1/3 this is the standard open. Plays more like a 2/5.

    If we raise the flop and are called are we firing on every turn? Raise 2.5x to 3xon flop. Would mean we would probably have to jam turnS.
  • persuadeopersuadeo Red Chipper Posts: 4,382 ✭✭✭✭✭
    "standard open" is just fish talk.

    Yes, you are blasting away after flopping the range nuts. Let this guy deal with it.
  • KossKoss Red Chipper Posts: 82 ✭✭
    The large opens in live games sort of break fundamental poker math of being a battle for the blinds. We can make them with strong hands because people will call them with weaker ranges. But they make a lot less sense with these bottom of range hands like this where villains calling ranges have more equity. Our profit in these games comes from making strong hands against players who can't fold weaker ones and getting paid. Either from strong top pair hands in shorthanded pots, or the nuts in multiway pots. A $20 open from the HJ with a suited 1 gapper puts us in a weird spot. It's not a horrible play if the opposition is very loose passive, but it's probably bad here. You should usually size down your opens as you get close to the button in these games as well.

    Calling the 3-bet here is likely a big mistake. 3-bet ranges in these games are very strong and you're just not going to flop good enough here.

    If you do get to the flop this way you really want to raise. Just shoving even at this depth is probably good. That said call is also clearly +EV in this spot, but it's hard to make a mistake when you flop this much equity.

    I'm less sure what to do on the turn now that villain has shown some weakness and you have showdown value. This check heavily tilts his range towards AK/JJ/TT. Given your equity I don't think betting is a big mistake, but we have a decent chance of winning at showdown with a check, even unimproved and if we do get called we are likely behind and getting a bluff through on the river may not be possible.

    In summary, I think you want to play a bit tighter preflop, and hammer your equity a bit more.

  • AKQJ10AKQJ10 Red Chipper Posts: 16 ✭✭
    edited July 16
    persuadeo wrote: »
    1. Opening to 20 is an obvious losing play.
    2. Calling the raise is an obvious play.

    Was the second one supposed to be "obvious losing play"?
    persuadeo wrote: »
    "standard open" is just fish talk.

    Could you explain more? If the table is gleefully calling 7x because poker is fun and folding is boring and tonight is a fun night to play poker, and my opening range is better than what they're calling with, why wouldn't I open 7x?
  • AKQJ10AKQJ10 Red Chipper Posts: 16 ✭✭
    edited July 16
    Koss wrote: »
    The large opens in live games sort of break fundamental poker math of being a battle for the blinds. We can make them with strong hands because people will call them with weaker ranges. But they make a lot less sense with these bottom of range hands like this where villains calling ranges have more equity. Our profit in these games comes from making strong hands against players who can't fold weaker ones and getting paid. Either from strong top pair hands in shorthanded pots, or the nuts in multiway pots. A $20 open from the HJ with a suited 1 gapper puts us in a weird spot. It's not a horrible play if the opposition is very loose passive, but it's probably bad here. You should usually size down your opens as you get close to the button in these games as well.

    I agree with everything except the changing sizes for 97s, and I'm open-minded about that. Actually if your opponents are oblivious or you're new there, sure, match the bet size to your hand strength.

    I agree that folded to the HJ it calls for a smaller raise -- in this case "standard live $1-3 raise" doesn't really apply because it's non-standard for multiple people to open-fold preflop.

    Are you advocating forking playing range here into "big raise" and "small raise" ranges?
  • persuadeopersuadeo Red Chipper Posts: 4,382 ✭✭✭✭✭
    AKQJ10 wrote: »
    persuadeo wrote: »
    1. Opening to 20 is an obvious losing play.
    2. Calling the raise is an obvious play.

    Was the second one supposed to be "obvious losing play"?
    persuadeo wrote: »
    "standard open" is just fish talk.

    Could you explain more? If the table is gleefully calling 7x because poker is fun and folding is boring and tonight is a fun night to play poker, and my opening range is better than what they're calling with, why wouldn't I open 7x?

    1. No, but I'd take back "obvious" if I could rewrite the post. He's in the non-dominated portion of his range vs what will 3bet vs giant open, so I'd rather have this hand than say, KJo, even though both would be pure opens (although not at this size) and both might be calls in another scenario. Price and position also matter.

    2. Well, NL is full of possibility. You can just move all in with AA pre and expect to get called in some games.

    The point is more the idea that a table sets the open size and then everyone falls in line with it is a mistake. As we raise the price of realization for our opponents, the profitablity of the speculative hands goes down. In other words, if everyone agrees to a size, this benefits the players who are playing the right hands for that size. The better way is to open to a more proper risk/reward versus the blinds and the percent chance of raising ranges behind.

    If your game is so soft you can open 7x and get consistent action from dramatically worse hands, sounds like a plan; I've even written an article about it. However, you likely won't show a profit with 97s at that size no matter what they do, just given the % chance of stronger hands than 97s showing up behind you is so easy and so high. Further, position will always influence the effectiveness of this strategy, meaning 97s will do far better in LP than EP under a large open strategy. Lastly, once you leave the drunken, splashy game state or anyone starts adjusting, large sizes start burning up EV.
  • LoveFishLoveFish IllinoisRed Chipper Posts: 154 ✭✭
    The problem is in the loose splashy game, if you open smaller you are bound to go multi way to the flop lowering your equity. You have to find the pain threshold sometimes.
  • persuadeopersuadeo Red Chipper Posts: 4,382 ✭✭✭✭✭
    LoveFish wrote: »
    The problem is in the loose splashy game, if you open smaller you are bound to go multi way to the flop lowering your equity. You have to find the pain threshold sometimes.

    It's an approach but not a necessity.

    You don't get to choose how much equity you share with the field, so it's mostly a convenient mathematical fallacy that heads up is desirable. If one range calls you that is reasonable, and another one calls you that is unreasonable, players 1 and 2 share the majority of the pot, while player three adds an overlay. Or to restate, if player one invests more than he needs to, he also loses EV vs the smart player who folds the hand he was actually targeting. If all three players have reasonable hands vs the price laid and taken, there was never any option to change this scenario except to lay a higher, lower EV price in the first place. Now we're chasing isolation at the cost of losing money.

    In other words, isolation may be a preference, but it is never a necessity.
  • KossKoss Red Chipper Posts: 82 ✭✭
    AKQJ10 wrote: »
    Are you advocating forking playing range here into "big raise" and "small raise" ranges?

    No, I was talking strictly about opening position. In games with large open raises, I will usually gradually size down as I get closer to the button. Since the goal is usually to avoid large multi way pots while still giving us a chance to win the blinds, the raise size required to do that naturally gets lower as we get closer to the blinds.

    In my typical 1/2 game I am usually opening $15 UTG with a tight range and $8 OTB with a wide range, and then blending in between. My raise size is determined by the table conditions and position, but never hand strength.

Leave a Comment

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