AK in 3-bet pot, hits two pair on river

Red Chipper Posts: 108
edited December 2015
Hello-
I played this live hand a few days ago. 1/3 NL, stacks \$300. The hand went something like this.

My hole cards were . I raised first-in from middle position to \$10. A couple seats to my left I got raised to \$25. It was folded around to me and I called.

Now, I had only been sitting in this game for about ten minutes, and the villain was unknown to me.

The flop was . Check, villain bet \$25 and I called. Pot was \$100.

The turn was . Check, villain bet \$40 and I called. Pot was \$180.

The river was . Check, villain bet \$100. Here I wasn't sure what to do and tanked for about a minute. Was I to call or fold?
-Scott

• Red Chipper Posts: 773 ✭✭✭
4 bet pre for about \$100 IMO. Makes life easier
• Red Chipper Posts: 108
While I appreciate your input on what to do during the first round of betting, I'm more interested in hearing what you think about the situation on the river. Also, remember that we want to do what is most profitable, which is not necessarily the same as what is easier.

I probably should have said a little more about the villain: He seemed to be in his thirties, clean-cut. I'd only seen him play for about ten minutes, and he didn't seem wild or anything like that. He seemed to be friends with the gentleman seated directly on his right.

It turned out he had pocket queens and I did call the river bet. The fact that I was tanking for about a minute shows that I was at least pretty close to finding a fold, but I couldn't quite do it, and pushed a stack of red out instead. Oh well, I think I was in a tough spot.
-Scott
• Red Chipper Posts: 108
Analysis based on postulated ranges:
Suppose villain's range is AA-QQ,AK,KQs.
Remember my hand is .
The board run out is .
So on the river, villain has 5 set combos and 5 two pair combos.
I lose to the set combos (5 combos), chop with the AK combos (4 combos) and beat the KQs combo (1 combo).
Lose: 50%, chop: 40%, win: 10%.
Pot is 280 with 100 to call. Chop is 140.
Assuming I call, average win (not counting the call) is 140 * 40% + 280 * 10% = 56 + 28 = 84.
The call is 100, so my ev is -16.
• Red Chipper Posts: 51
I guess if you think he's only 3betting and then continuing to fire all three streets with QQ plus and AK it's very similar to my hand you commented on. So you can't beat anything. At best you're calling for a chop. So I guess it's a disciplined fold here.... For what it's worth a would prob level myself into thinking he has the same hand and call too.
• Red Chipper Posts: 290 ✭✭
any chance villain has AQ? That adds some more combos you can beat (6).

I'm probably folding, this \$100 looks too value-y, and we don't beat much that he thinks is the best hand.
• Red Chipper Posts: 262 ✭✭
by sullyooo on November 24th, 2015

4 bet pre for about \$100 IMO. Makes life easier

Are you 4 bet folding or 4 bet going all-in? Either way I think it's a mistake. You're probably not folding after putting in 1/3 of your stack. I don't think stacking off for 100bb with AK is +ev in a live 1-3 game.

I think the river is a fold in this situation. I don't see many 1-3 opponents 3-betting with AK or especially AQ. Which hands bet all 3 streets? If you assign his range as QQ+, AK, and AKs... on the river he has 5 combos of sets and 4 combos of two pair that you chop with. You're calling to chop 44% of the time and have 22% equity.
• Red Chipper Posts: 773 ✭✭✭
Yes, at 1-3, I can 4bet fold. To me a 5bet at 1-3 means one thing, :A? :A? and maybe :K? :K?.

My :A? :K? vs a flatting range is incredibly +ev. Which also means I get stacked if called here.

But, you know, at 1-3 some villains lay down :Q? :Q? because they believe a 4bet only means one thing.

Think of all the times you 4bet :A? :A? or :K? :K? and they folded. I just think :A? :K? should almost always be in 4bet range
• Red Chipper Posts: 108
I admit it's possible he would have laid down QQ to a four-bet. Heck, in my game I've seen people lay down KK to a four-bet. So, yea, four-betting AK is a reasonable idea. I've never had the courage to do it, maybe I'll try...

Also, there's quite a bit of talk nowadays about four-betting kind of small, like against the \$25 three-bet, we could four-bet to about \$60 or \$65. Or maybe a bit more since we're OOP, like \$70 or \$75.
• Red Chipper Posts: 108
I hate to keep harping on my own thread, but, to get back to the river action, I think this is a good example of Ed M's folding skill from his book "The Course." The villain here was representing a big hand, made a big bet on the river, top two pair was no good, and it was an example of a hand to be folded on the river in a 1/3 game.
-Scott
• Red Chipper Posts: 238 ✭✭
Yeah, a random \$1/\$3 player that looks conservative-ish is mostly not going to be betting 4 streets with a marginal made hand. So is he going to show up here w/ AJ, A10, A9 a non-negligible amount of the time? Probably not. That said he could also have some more AQ and KQ combos that you're not giving him credit for. (As played, the tacit assumption you made was that his 3bet range was wide enough for you to get value from those hands.) Also, his bet wasn't huge, you're getting 2.8 to 1. Plus your hand is way under-represented. In game, I wouldn't be crazy about calling, but I'd call absent a strong read or other significant factor militating in favor of a fold.

I think the real problem in this hand was the call OOP w/ AK. Which flops are good for your hand against a presumably narrow 3 bet range? I say presumably narrow because this is \$1/\$3 live, there's no dynamic b/t you 2, he's clean-cut, and you haven't seen him get out of line. So let's say QQ-AA (12 combos given your blockers); KQs and AQs (6 combos given your blockers); and AK+ (8 combos given your blockers). You tie with the other AK hands, are in bad shape against the heaviest part of his range (12 combos of pairs), and are roughly a 70-30 favorite over a grand total of 6 combos. Villain has position and initiative too.

Also, you'll miss w/ AK 2/3 of the time, making your only non-expensive bluff option a donk lead. Yes you could get a cheap showdown, but how likely is that given that he 3bet? What is more, the times you do flop a hand he'll mostly flop second pair making it hard for you to get more than 1 street of value.

Call me a nit, but I lean towards folding pf assuming we're up against a conservative player type with a narrow-ish range.
• Red Chipper Posts: 108
Yea, I had myself in a pickle on the river, and maybe a fold wasn't quite so clear-cut. My math above showed that the call was -ev, but not hugely so (-\$16), and that assumed that the range analysis was correct.

As for the initial raise and call, I raised to \$10, and then villain raised to \$25. Call me a calling station, but I just couldn't see laying my hand down for another \$15, esp. with full-size stacks. I say call and see a flop. Or if you're feeling real frisky, raise to \$70.
• Red Chipper Posts: 238 ✭✭
ScottVal wrote:
Call me a calling station, but I just couldn't see laying my hand down for another \$15, esp. with full-size stacks. I say call and see a flop. Or if you're feeling real frisky, raise to \$70.

True. I thought about that after my reply. He's giving you such a good price which militates in favor of making folding pretty nitty. I'm still not crazy about calling his raise OOP for the same reasons mentioned above. On balance, I like a 4 bet. It gives you the betting lead, you can actualize your equity with a c-bet on the flop when neither of you flop a pair, and also get some AK hands to fold to your c-bet when y'all don't flop a pair.
• Red Chipper Posts: 4,749 ✭✭✭✭✭
As a poster in another forum once wrote, "he has JT. They always have JT." Kinda funny, considering he really meant "always".

Anyway, I don't think the assigned range for villain is very optimistic, but if so it's a fold preflop. And if it's a fold preflop, then it's a fold at every point in the hand thereafter, unless you think he's bluffing (the most reaonable call to make would be the flop call, against a standard c-bet that you might actually be able to beat.) The only (tiny) part of his range you can beat is KQs. (However I think it makes no sense to include KQs but not AQ.)
• Red Chipper Posts: 4,749 ✭✭✭✭✭
ScottVal wrote:
Also, remember that we want to do what is most profitable, which is not necessarily the same as what is easier.

I get the logic, but there are actually other practical considerations.

For an analogous situation, see how a professional level blackjack player thinks about optimal card counting strategies.
http://www.blackjackforumonline.com/content/hundred.htm

Hint, the ability to make accurate, correct decisions trumps ultimate EV.