5/10 live, gross spot

LoveFishLoveFish IllinoisRed Chipper Posts: 184 ✭✭
edited August 2021 in Live Poker Hands
5/10 $1500 effective.
We have :3d :4d in big blind.
Villain opens to $30 from UTG+1
HJ call
CO call
We complete from BB. Pot ($125)
Flop :9s :3h :4c
We check
MP C-bets $90. We are only caller. Pot ($305)
Turn :9s :3h :4c :3s check - check
river :9s :3h :4c :3s :Ad
we lead for $225 and he snap rips all in for $1,200….. what would you do?


  • KossKoss Red Chipper Posts: 144 ✭✭✭
    Fold. You have bottom boat on a board that has little to no natural bluffs against a range that contains almost all possible combinations of better boats. I actually don't think it's that gross honestly. 44 is where I'd start to think about it, since we can now beat A3s, but even then it's still probably a fold. 99 & AA make a lot of sense here.

    I also think this is a fold pre. I think some preflop charts may have this as a call, but it's going to be bottom of range, and it's a hand that doesn't do well multiway. Heads up we have a much better chance of winning at showdown when we hit a pair. In a MW pot we are rarely if ever getting to showdown with a good 1 pair, and we have to worry about RIO with a baby flush.
  • TheGameKatTheGameKat Las VegasPosts: 5,440 -
    These small connectors are taking a battering from ongoing theoretical work. You need a massive skill edge to make them profitable.
    Moderation In Moderation
  • AKQJ10AKQJ10 Red Chipper Posts: 20 ✭✭
    edited August 2021
    The flop XC instead of XR seems suboptimal. Even 55 has five outs on the turn and eight on the river, and V is more likely to have something betting into a field.

    I'm struggling to accept that preflop this isn't worth a call getting 5:1. At 150 BB deep, I have no concern at all about RIO of making a flush. With only eight diamonds left in the deck, our three opponents are collectively a massive underdog to have another diamond draw in there. But 43s is clearly much worse than say 76s as discussed.

    River depends on reads, and since I have no idea about 5-10 population reads, I'll defer to others. A smaller raise could be for value with AK, the way you've underrepped your hand, but obv this size is highly polarized/-ing. A quick action tends to shade more toward a bluff by unsophisticated opponents.
  • KossKoss Red Chipper Posts: 144 ✭✭✭
    The RIO of the small flush is maybe an overstated concern, although it does happen more often than you might think, but there are far more problems with this hand realizing its equity. Preflop pot odds become much less important in deep stacked spots Even 4 ways we are looking at a > 10 SPR spot here. It's possible that when all factors are considered this is a better call for $30 OTB than $20 in the BB (but I would still fold this OTB). The problem with flush draws OOP and especially in MW pots is we have to hope that our 3 opponents play nice on the flop & turn and let us draw profitably, then get paid when we do hit, which is going to happen infrequently. We can't profitably get to SD with just 1-pair here, which we might occasionally do in a HU spot. The straight might be OK, especially if there is an A on the board. But the 2-6 straight always sucks because rarely do those boards hit our opponents.

    It would take a lot to convince me otherwise, but MW I'm usually folding this, HU vs. a late position open it can be an acceptable defend.
  • persuadeopersuadeo Red Chipper Posts: 4,396 ✭✭✭✭✭
    FWIW, at least some multiway solves will show 43s as a low frequency call in this formation at games deeper than 100 bbs, which is mostly relevant if you use a model as authority.

    It's not entirely relevant, because the idea that the HJ or CO or BU are playing remotely close to the models is probably absurd, just as it is unlikely the BB is calling with the "right" hands to start with. For instance, players probably think 54s or 44 are far higher EV calls, yet they are not, given what the flatting ranges of the others should (but probably) don't look like.

    Nor it is likely the opponents will play well or even close to well after the flop. The absurdly large MW cbet should confirm this, and surrenders a ton of EV which the BB can take multiple lines against. Check raising as suggested by AKQTJ is especially attractive versus all this dead money, and given bottom two pair's high incentive for denial aka value.

    As for the river as played, the snap jam is very suspicious. Of course the big lead is itself not very great, and is probably based on the mistaken idea of targeting the Ax. A value leading range that ignores range incentives is one of the most common areas of improvement low stakes players could focus on. Ax and misses now have an incentive to bet, and protecting that river checking range for the BB is one of the basics of good play in that scenario. The mishmash of actions makes everything hard in game and later in analysis, too.

    For all these reasons, learning to play post-flop is far more important than getting an exact set of related, low EV hands that basically round out strategy on certain runouts, exactly right.
  • PapabroPapabro Red Chipper Posts: 9 ✭✭
    Could you extrapolate what you mean, “A value leading range that ignores range incentives is one of the most common areas of improvement low stakes players…”
    Thanks, PB
  • persuadeopersuadeo Red Chipper Posts: 4,396 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Papabro wrote: »
    Could you extrapolate what you mean, “A value leading range that ignores range incentives is one of the most common areas of improvement low stakes players…”
    Thanks, PB

    I have to speak generally because no or few hands want to bet 90 into 125 four way here, but let's just go with it. On the river, IP's hands ranging from 65 to KQ to value hands like good Ax or A9s all want to bet on this card. By leading into this range, part of the EV of a full house from the BB is lost, as now all of those bluffs have an opportunity to fold. Even natural bluffcatchers like Ax will be suspicious and may overfold, defeating the whole purpose of the lead itself- and that's ignoring the large lead sizing which is yet another problem in this HH. Going even further, the leading range is now easily put into a spot when raised, because OOP never has AAA - we used to call that "putting yourself in the cage."

    In other words, when IP has an incentive to bet on a particular runout, but OOP leads, mostly bad things happen. In addition to the EV loss versus part of IP's range, the opportunity to check raise for value or bluff, and get two bets in rather than one, is lost.

    Doug Hull used to talk about the "chickenhawk" line, where a passive OOP player goes xc/xc/b with the nuts, regardless of runout. That was a casual way of explaining a line that exploited itself versus good players, as it had little to do with the board or any strategy beyond the most novice games where non-nutted bets rarely happen on the river and simultaneously, everyone wants to see showdown.

    In sum, moving up and playing better means getting beyond the mere manipulation of value hands, and looking at where and what EV is derived from.

Leave a Comment

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