3bet Flop decision facing check

persuadeopersuadeo Red Chipper, Table Captain Posts: 4,085 ✭✭✭✭✭
edited December 2015 in Live Poker Hands
5/10 main game

200 bbs effective between hero and villain

Hero raises EP/early MP range of 77+ QJs+, AQo+ over two EP limps to 70.

Folds to SB, mostly loose passive pre reg, who makes rare 3b to 200, 200 bb eff, folds to hero who calls with perceived range of 77-QQ, AQs+.

Villain's range is QQ+, AK, a few outliers, and complete garbage 5% of the time.

Pot 430

:Ks :Jh :9d

SB checks.

What does hero do with this range now?
«1

Comments

  • blasterblaster Red Chipper Posts: 83 ✭✭
    Smells like check raise coming if that's his range pre.
  • bonezybonezy Red Chipper Posts: 82 ✭✭
    This is confusing for me because you are talking in ranges and I dont know what you actually have so I can only talk in assumptions.

    Since the 3b checks and given that the range you assigned him is accurate and not taking into consideration the blockers you have in your hand I feel like...Im going to bet AK for value, Im betting AA for value,betting sets for value, betting two pair for value. Im bluffing with my gutshots and pair and gut shots because I feel like his check means he is weak. You have to ask yourself "would he play AK like this? would he play AA like this? and would he play KK or JJ like this?"

    I wish you told us your actual hand so I could give a better analysis but I think you are more worried about thinking in ranges anyway. With that being said I dont think I would give you credit for some big pairs because you almost always 4bet those pre so idk how they are still in your range postflop
  • persuadeopersuadeo Red Chipper, Table Captain Posts: 4,085 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Sorry, I can't give you the exact hand and also get a good answer for this spot, but am highly interested in hearing everyone's different takes and considerations.
  • bonezybonezy Red Chipper Posts: 82 ✭✭
    Also to make clear, Im my op I said he check means he is weak. That isnt true. He range is very strong pre but once he checks that flop I feel like he is scared to bet it and might have QQ for an underpair. I like a bet on the flop almost always and I will intend on firing again on my bluffs. people tend to play pretty ABC in 3bet pots.
  • Skors3Skors3 Red Chipper Posts: 667 ✭✭✭
    I think I check behind here and see what he does on the turn. A 3-bet from a loose-passive is usually a big hand and I feel this hits too much of his range. Based on your posts/blogs he may be relying on you to bet for him due to your aggression.

    That being said a loose-passive at 5/10 is probably much different from a loose-passive at the games I play in.
  • goodtimesgoodtimes Red Chipper Posts: 61
    is the complete garbage 5% adding on to the QQ+ AK range? or are you saying the entire 3bet range from SB is 5% of hands - includes QQ, AK, maybe some Axss & then like a 72 83 til we hit 5%?

    That said, your perceived range is in a WAWB situation - you dont have a lot of Kx Jx combos so if you bet you rep thin. You probably would have come over the top pre w/ the hands that smash that board and you dont have any SDs in your range meaning its a bunch of small PPs and the occasional set.

    That said, you should check behind if we are pretending villain knows all this.
  • persuadeopersuadeo Red Chipper, Table Captain Posts: 4,085 ✭✭✭✭✭
  • mdw72mdw72 Red Chipper Posts: 135 ✭✭
    I think you have the range advantage. Your raise came from EP and a 3 bet from the SB after two callers is an attempt to squeeze you. I would say lead out. Your stronger range and position on the SB should not be wasted. However, SB is a loose passive reg so the raise has more meaning than if it came from and loose aggressive player. So you could be up against KK or AA for sure. Since the SB's perceived range includes junk 5% of the time he could be hating this flop. I would consider checking this back considering who made the raise. All things taken into consideration I would bet. Theo one thing about passive players is they will let you know for sure when you are beat. So if the check raise comes you can fold without thinking. Its close for me but I would error on the side of betting.

    That's my take.
  • Ruxton_AtheistRuxton_Atheist Red Chipper Posts: 152 ✭✭✭
    Loose-passive villain is laying 2.3/1 pre with a nutted 3B range of ~3.17% hands. Can Hero profitably call IP playing ~6.33% hands? Does villain have clearly defined exploitable post-flop tendencies? Other than position and deep stacks, does Hero have enough of an edge to make the call +EV? Equilab has Hero's range 42%-58% preflop and 46%-54% postflop. Villain should c-bet this flop with a high frequency, but here he checks. Hero has ~5% fold equity, so villain's range will usually c/c this flop and occasionally c/r. Does Hero have a profitable betting range on this flop? A portion of the flop range decision tree ends with Hero folding to a c/r, and continuing with the remainder of hands. Same for villain: a small percentage of hands ends with a c/f leaf, and the remainder continue. As the hand ranges are narrowed on successive streets, we can do the math to solve for the expectation at each leaf. Question is, will villain make enough errors to offset his edge at equilibrium? What actions can Hero take to induce these errors? A dry range vs range analysis does not answer these questions.
  • persuadeopersuadeo Red Chipper, Table Captain Posts: 4,085 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Ruxton, my assumption was that villain would overplay his hands, as he has in the past. I also found his range to be so narrow it would be easy to play against on the whole. I also found his 3bet to be undersized, so all this added up to a profitable call with 200 blinds to play for, it seemed to me.

    His check to me was very surprising and was not in keeping with his general play.
  • jeffncjeffnc Red Chipper Posts: 4,745 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Well, 5% of garbage is quite a lot, so you're crushing him. There's more garbage in his range than actual hands, plus whatever "outliers". We wonder what slowed him down, but KJ9 is a whiff for most garbage hands. Outliers includes flopping the nuts, but that part's a little vague. You never have the nuts here, but he could (either KK or QT are the nuts if you never have QT). He has garbage most of the time. So we have a situation where he usually has absolutely nothing at all and apparently isn't going to continue (he probably thinks the flop is too strong for your range for him to bluff into), but occasionally has you crushed with QT or KK, or has your range mostly beaten with AK, as goodtimes said WAWB. If he hit the flop, he destroys you, if he missed the flop, you destroy him, with the latter being more likely. The most optimistic scenarios are AA or set for hero vs. AK for villain. It doesn't happen often but the question is, does that happen more often than you being behind.
  • Ruxton_AtheistRuxton_Atheist Red Chipper Posts: 152 ✭✭✭
    persuadeo wrote:
    Ruxton, my assumption was that villain would overplay his hands, as he has in the past. I also found his range to be so narrow it would be easy to play against on the whole. I also found his 3bet to be undersized, so all this added up to a profitable call with 200 blinds to play for, it seemed to me.

    His check to me was very surprising and was not in keeping with his general play.

    Hero puts $ into the pot pre-flop with a clearly defined inferior range of hands. Heads up to the flop: at equilibrium (both players making the most +EV decisions at each possible point in the hand), Hero will win -x and villain will win +y, so what (if any) actions can Hero take where he wins -x+(w) and villain wins +y-(z)? To solve for w (Hero's potential maximally exploitative result) we have to assign more than hand ranges: at every point in the decision tree we can use our analysis of villain's tendencies (e.g. to overplay his hands or use incorrect bet sizing) to assign folding, betting and calling ranges that are less than optimal (less than the most +EV result). When the entire tree is complete, we can compare the sum of w to the sum of z to solve for Hero's expectation. On this specific flop, I think the issue is how much of Hero's pre-flop bet/calling range allows for profitable semi-bluffs when checked to. Without solving the tree (should take about 7 hours i think to solve for all the combos by hand - although, Split Suit wrote last week that he created an excel page for EV calcs that speeds this up - I need to get that!) my guess is that Hero should be calling pre-flop with a wider range in order to get the maximally exploitative result.
  • persuadeopersuadeo Red Chipper, Table Captain Posts: 4,085 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Jeff: I was trying to say that about 5% of the time he has some sort of garbage, not 5% of hands available hands. So let's get more specific and clear this up:

    QQ+, AKs, AKo

    maybe 4 combos of JJ or TT or 99 but never as low as 88 as infrequent outliers

    so there's about 38 combos of value max, with a focus on the top 3%, so a very narrow range

    then about two pure garbage hands that he raises on a whim to show off if I fold, like 92o or 34cc

    so we're looking at around 40 hands, 5% of which a pure garbage
  • persuadeopersuadeo Red Chipper, Table Captain Posts: 4,085 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Ruxton: I agree it looks like I should call with a wider range than I do to take advantage of errors.

    That said, I never expected him to ever check this flop with that range. I want to zero in on this action on the flop.

    With 6 combos of queens 4 combos of other pairs (which have gutters, no less) and 2 airballs he can easily blow through, so let's just say 1/4 of the time he has missed means he should be betting or check raising all the time, right?
  • SullySully Red Chipper Posts: 773 ✭✭✭
    SPR is that weird 5

    IMO check everything but the sets. You are at a big range disadvantage, which you knew when you called. I don't like villain check. He should know this flop hits his range harder as you are going to have a lot of pocket pairs in your calling range that give up here. If C/R is in his game, I agree this smells like one.

    I think it's odd that :A? :K? off is a 4 bet but :A? :K? suited is a call but here it doesn't really change things much. Villain should only fold approx 23% of the time, if at all, to a flop bet.
  • persuadeopersuadeo Red Chipper, Table Captain Posts: 4,085 ✭✭✭✭✭
    @skors, yes, loose passive pre won't necessarily translate into how they play post in this sort of game. But it does help define their thinking and their actual cards, and how I know he should be very strong on the whole here.

    @sullyooo so I only bet the nuts? That's an argument for checking. You're getting at the problem, though, as least as I saw it both in game and later. For the record, I don't see him x/r that much.
  • SullySully Red Chipper Posts: 773 ✭✭✭
    Yeah, when I wrote that I thought it's sooo unbalanced. It's just that villain should never, ever be checking here unless he is smart enough to know most players will bet when he checks. Or, is he really the type of villain who always sees monsters and assumes you have a :K? to his :Q? :Q? ? I would want to have a good read before I started a bluff line.

    A line you still might be able to sell on turn and river depending on circumstances

    I mean passive players get that name for a reason. They won't bet hands that shock other players when they see what villain holds but call all the way with these holdings. Which is why I have to bet those sets even though it's looks obvious to me what is going on. They will pay

    If you want to check entire range, I get it, but you are a big dog to range and board texture, so betting as a bluff looks like a mistake to me, no matter how balanced it is.

    Good post. Thanks
  • goodtimesgoodtimes Red Chipper Posts: 61
    edited December 2015
    ok - sorry i had to delete all this i forgot important info and just started responding. wouldnt let me delte, so gimme a few ill write up a new post in a few. my bad.
  • jeffncjeffnc Red Chipper Posts: 4,745 ✭✭✭✭✭
    My bad, that makes more sense.

    I don't know, it seems villain is probably more interested in his actual hand here than your ranges. You're crushed by his range. After he checks, I'd think QQ and KK are his 2 most likely hands (but sullyoo points out that some hands will surprise you.) The point of betting here is that you can get QQ to fold maybe. You can fold to a check/raise unless you have KK (wouldn't it be sick to get check/raised holding JJ here?)

    But that leaves betting only on a bluff. Balance requires more, but what can you bet after he checks?

    Not sure where sullyoo's 23% number for villain folding to flop bet comes from, but does that include villain having checked the flop, or only his preflop range?
  • Jimmy3150Jimmy3150 Red Chipper Posts: 362 ✭✭
    sullyoo makes great comment here.

    Interesting to see a post from 5/10 where depths of thinking are far greater and creative plays are the norm!

    First impression when reading this was that this check is toxic, so I'd be checking back. Seems to me (being a simple minded 1/2 player) that he checked for 3 possible reasons here:

    1) he has QQ, doesn't want to cbet to 'see if he's good' vs the overcard, but is likely in check/call mode to the turn at least

    2) he is v v strong, KK, Q10 for the possible outlier. check/raise quite likely

    3) he 3-bet preflop with the 5% total garbage as an attempted steal

    So as others have alluded to we're either way ahead, way behind ... Or potentially in this odd spot up against QQ where we're not sure if we can blow him off it.

    in 1) & 2): if you bet, you likely either get called or raised .... At least if we get check-raised we can be more certain we're beat. However If he just calls its just as confusing as his flop check and potentially just as tough spot on the turn (unless we have the nuts...).

    In 3) : if you bet, you probably get a fold (unless the passive reg is turning v creative). Betting doesn't give him another bluff opportunity on later streets which we want if we flopped a set.

    So with a range that hits this flop harder than yours and the above considered ... This really leans towards a check, even with a set/nuts.

    I could be completely wrong here of course since I don't know dynamics at 5/10!!
  • Renato_LRenato_L Red Chipper Posts: 190
    As sullyoo mentioned, with SPR of 5, there isn't room for any fancy plays.

    First, a bet/fold range is out of the question.

    I think when villain checks, you have two options: a bet/shove range or a check/evaluate on turn range.

    Bet/shove range: KK, JJ, 99, KJ, and TT for balance with semibluff gutshot

    Check/evaluate everything else: AA, QQ, AK, AQ, QJ, AJ, 77, 88
  • persuadeopersuadeo Red Chipper, Table Captain Posts: 4,085 ✭✭✭✭✭
    sullyooo wrote:
    Which is why I have to bet those sets even though it's looks obvious to me what is going on. They will pay

    This seemed like an important point to me both in game and later and is part of the problem I have in thinking through what I want to do here.

    @Jeff, I think my strongest hand in his mind is JJJ,999 or AK, that I shouldn't have KK as I would 4bet it. I agree that he has my range crushed.
  • jeffncjeffnc Red Chipper Posts: 4,745 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Yes, right about KK.

    Here's one thing about balance. Sometimes situations are more specific than balancing is worth.

    Here's what I mean. Let's say you raise AK UTG and get 2 callers. Now you cbet sometimes and check sometimes. You bet when you hit sometimes and check when you hit sometimes; you bet when you miss sometimes and bet when you hit sometimes. That's important because that situation happens a lot.

    Now let's say there are 3 EP limpers and you raise AK EP and a loose/passive SB reraises and the other 2 fold and the flop comes KJ9 and you think SB's hand is QQ. Well, this situation is so uncommon that I don't think balancing is all that important. Even if some players at the table are paying attention to the details, your action isn't the same action you'd take against them. It's not that you always check with this range, it's a more specific situation.

    So I don't think there's much harm in trying to optimize for this situation.

    I do agree with sullyoo that you can bet your sets with some possibly surprising value, and I'm just saying I'm not going to lose any sleep over balance this hand.
  • goodtimesgoodtimes Red Chipper Posts: 61
    comin back to fix my post and reading the other things and im seeing folks talking about how we should be playing AA and such post flop - we dont have KK/AA here ever according to the hypothetical.

    Strongest hand in our range according the hypothetical is QQ (prior to the flop coming down)

    Against a passive villain who perceives our range as described, my decisions tree would be largely dependent on what kind of post flop errors our villain makes. Does he call bets liberally? Does he fold too much? Does he check give up whiffed flops?

    Those sorts of things would outline my post flop play more so than just comparing the ranges. The fact that a passive villain checks to us on the flop would suggest no monsters as I think even a passive villain in a 5/10 games knows to 1/2 pot a flop in this situation w/ a nutted hand. However a check doe not necessarily rule out he wont check call either. Also, because we dont have any connectors for a straight besides AQ, villain wouldnt be as worried about us catching a straight on a miracle turn. The real problem im seeing is we dont have a lot of room stack wise either so if we were to bet flop and get ch/raised, we arent really continuing with much. We have sets (6 combos) & AK (12combos) as far as made hands vs the 24 combos of pairs we could hold (QQ, TT, 88, 77) & the whiffed AQ (16). We dont have any two pair combos.

    I dont mind checking it back on the flop - it keeps all the hands we're WA in the pot still & a turn card also gives us "outs" to improve the strength of our holding in accordance w/ our range. I think another check on the turn and a half pot bet is large enough, i dont see why we need to jam a turn if checked to. If villain is passive most bets mean something so we can always get away from our hand or evaluate based upon bet size/turn card. I think im trying to make an argument that a bunch of turns would increase our FE if we face a bet from villain and think jamming is the best option there.
  • jeffncjeffnc Red Chipper Posts: 4,745 ✭✭✭✭✭
    So who thinks the villain check super-narrows his range, and who thinks like sullyoo, who is not as surprised as persuadeo, that villain could still have anything?
  • Skors3Skors3 Red Chipper Posts: 667 ✭✭✭
    I agree with Sullyoo. I can see villain checking with :Q? :Q? , :T? :T? , or his 5% garbage but also checking with strong hands to try to get an aggressive player to bet.
  • jeffncjeffnc Red Chipper Posts: 4,745 ✭✭✭✭✭
    And part of the reason I ask is that IMO, the more the check narrows his range, the less we have to worry about balance, and if we think he can still have anything, the more we need to worry about balance.
  • persuadeopersuadeo Red Chipper, Table Captain Posts: 4,085 ✭✭✭✭✭
    goodtimes wrote:
    Against a passive villain who perceives our range as described, my decisions tree would be largely dependent on what kind of post flop errors our villain makes. Does he call bets liberally? Does he fold too much? Does he check give up whiffed flops?

    He has a long history of overplaying hands in multiple directions, but mostly overplaying value or going for thin value, or making big moves. He is moody and it colors his play. I don't expect him to go broke with Ace high, however, so if we both have that hand preflop and miss, or if I have mid pair, I expect to find a way to win a good percentage of the time; and if I hit a set, I expect to win a big pot against his big pairs. He is fairly creative and will seize on perceived weakness. I can read into his bet sizing very well. He generally bets out and cbets whiffs as much as anyone else; I'm not equating his preflop docility with the postflop game.

    @Jeff, re balance: fine for you, but I've lost a lot of sleep over this one, lol.
  • blasterblaster Red Chipper Posts: 83 ✭✭
    He cbets QQ AND THE 5% garbage and is looking to xraise AA, KK, AK. IF he checks QQ it is more likely with the intention of check call and evaluate later. Without knowing the Villian this looks super nutted to me.
  • jeffncjeffnc Red Chipper Posts: 4,745 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Why expect check/raise on AA, AK blaster? Check/call 2 streets is possible with QQ I guess, I was assuming villain might fold (only get 2 streets of betting really with SPR 5.)

Leave a Comment

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