Turn decision - hero put to the test

AustinAustin Red Chipper Posts: 5,486 ✭✭✭✭✭
I had a whole post written but hit back on my phone and its not in my drafts -_-!! Ill keep it short this time.

Villain is on the btn. Semi loose preflop limping but not calling many raises. Pretty passive overall and haven't seen him bluff yet.

Hero has aggro image have 3 bet 5-6 times first 90 minutes playing together. Got caught bluffing once shoving 2nd pair + fd on the Turn.

Preflop goes 5 ways to the flop $12 each.

Flop ($57) :As :9s :3s
Hero ($289) :3c :3d bets $40
3 folds
Btn ($400) calls $40

*i put him on A10+ with a spade or some 87s+ flopped flushes.

Turn ($137) :8h
Hero ($249) bets $80
Btn all in.
Hero $169 to win $466 ($635 if i call)

I wouldn't expect a passive player to shove Ax With a spade but maybe 20% of the time? I really feel like he has a flush here so is 2.75 : 1 good enough to call? I need to make a boat or be good here 26% of the time.

What to do?

Comments

  • moishetreatsmoishetreats Red Chipper Posts: 1,714 ✭✭✭✭
    What is the pre-flop action?
  • Brad CBrad C Red Chipper Posts: 181 ✭✭
    edited January 10
    Just to make a boat your close to 20. I actually think it is 20% to boat up or make quads from turn to river here.

    So you really don't need to be good that often here. I don't think?
  • RedRed Red Chipper Posts: 1,551 ✭✭✭✭
    edited January 10
    If Villain is a passive guy waking up, who is never bluffing (never caught, means never bluffing or bluffing way under the % needed to be balanced).
    You've to call 169$ to win 635$ or 26.61% pot odds. Your equity is 22.73% (during the hand with the rule of 2: 10 outs =~20% equity).

    @Austin : It seems such an easy exploitative fold. Why asking ?
  • Brad CBrad C Red Chipper Posts: 181 ✭✭
    Red wrote: »
    If Villain is a passive guy waking up, who is never bluffing (never caught, means never bluffing or bluffing way under the % needed to be balanced).
    You've to call 169$ to win 635$ or 26.61% pot odds. Your equity is 22.73% (during the hand with the rule of 2: 10 outs =~20% equity).

    @Austin : It seems such an easy exploitative fold. Why asking ?

    Ah okay, so is this exploitive fold assuming villain bluffs this 0% of the time?
  • RoblivionRoblivion WisconsinRed Chipper Posts: 206 ✭✭✭
    Do you think he's ever jamming A9/A8 here?
  • Benjammin Benjammin Red Chipper Posts: 19 ✭✭
    edited January 10
    I can’t see how you could be less than break even
  • RedRed Red Chipper Posts: 1,551 ✭✭✭✭
    @Brad C
    So much dead money makes almost 33 pot committed. We don't need Villain bluffing so often to be +EV.
    But if Villain is a "passive guy waking up" who is "never bluffing", then I doubt he is bluffing enough.
    So it's an exploitative fold as we exploit, based on @Austin 's info, the fact Villain is raising only with a nutted hand (here only with a flush).


    That's also why I don't like Austin turn bet sizing. Either Villain has a made flush (or set of 9...) and crushes our face, or he is drawing and we crush him. Betting "so large" should allow Villain to play perfectly against us... and makes it harder for us to fold when raised.
    Against a loose passive, I think we could bet smaller... and he still would draw badly. He has ~20% equity when drawing, so turn betting 50$ already gives him a bad price for his draws - and 50$ into 137$ and after 40$ seems a good price! Also, if we got raised by this loose passive Villain, it's easier to get off the flush-hook.
  • AustinAustin Red Chipper Posts: 5,486 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Red wrote: »
    @Brad C
    So much dead money makes almost 33 pot committed. We don't need Villain bluffing so often to be +EV.
    But if Villain is a "passive guy waking up" who is "never bluffing", then I doubt he is bluffing enough.
    So it's an exploitative fold as we exploit, based on @Austin 's info, the fact Villain is raising only with a nutted hand (here only with a flush).


    That's also why I don't like Austin turn bet sizing. Either Villain has a made flush (or set of 9...) and crushes our face, or he is drawing and we crush him. Betting "so large" should allow Villain to play perfectly against us... and makes it harder for us to fold when raised.
    Against a loose passive, I think we could bet smaller... and he still would draw badly. He has ~20% equity when drawing, so turn betting 50$ already gives him a bad price for his draws - and 50$ into 137$ and after 40$ seems a good price! Also, if we got raised by this loose passive Villain, it's easier to get off the flush-hook.

    We dont know if we are going to get raised. I bet to get value from Ax with a spade, which is why i choose a decent sizing. Betting smaller because we might get raised doesn't make sense to me. Bet until they give you a reason not to. Villain could also have just a naked :KS: and be drawing.
  • AustinAustin Red Chipper Posts: 5,486 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Roblivion wrote: »
    Do you think he's ever jamming A9/A8 here?

    It crossed my mind because some times they wait for 1 card to peel so we fold on the turn and they have higher chance of winning.

    Overall i need 20% to break even. I think I can make up the other 6% @red from the times He has Ax with a spade, naked :KS: or some weird two pair. If i know 100% he always has a flush then I agree with exploitive fold.
    villain had Ax :KS: and river bricked.
    Hero won.
  • Brad CBrad C Red Chipper Posts: 181 ✭✭
    Red wrote: »
    @Brad C
    So much dead money makes almost 33 pot committed. We don't need Villain bluffing so often to be +EV.
    But if Villain is a "passive guy waking up" who is "never bluffing", then I doubt he is bluffing enough.
    So it's an exploitative fold as we exploit, based on @Austin 's info, the fact Villain is raising only with a nutted hand (here only with a flush).


    That's also why I don't like Austin turn bet sizing. Either Villain has a made flush (or set of 9...) and crushes our face, or he is drawing and we crush him. Betting "so large" should allow Villain to play perfectly against us... and makes it harder for us to fold when raised.
    Against a loose passive, I think we could bet smaller... and he still would draw badly. He has ~20% equity when drawing, so turn betting 50$ already gives him a bad price for his draws - and 50$ into 137$ and after 40$ seems a good price! Also, if we got raised by this loose passive Villain, it's easier to get off the flush-hook.

    Hm. But even if Villain is only bluffing this like 10% of the time it's an easy call. So just seems like we have to be pretty damn certain Villain is never bluffing ya?

    Based on the initial post I thought the assumption was a 20% bluff frequency for villain which if that is the case would seem to make this a very profitable call.

    Is that accurate?
  • AustinAustin Red Chipper Posts: 5,486 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited January 11
    Brad C wrote: »
    Red wrote: »
    @Brad C
    So much dead money makes almost 33 pot committed. We don't need Villain bluffing so often to be +EV.
    But if Villain is a "passive guy waking up" who is "never bluffing", then I doubt he is bluffing enough.
    So it's an exploitative fold as we exploit, based on @Austin 's info, the fact Villain is raising only with a nutted hand (here only with a flush).


    That's also why I don't like Austin turn bet sizing. Either Villain has a made flush (or set of 9...) and crushes our face, or he is drawing and we crush him. Betting "so large" should allow Villain to play perfectly against us... and makes it harder for us to fold when raised.
    Against a loose passive, I think we could bet smaller... and he still would draw badly. He has ~20% equity when drawing, so turn betting 50$ already gives him a bad price for his draws - and 50$ into 137$ and after 40$ seems a good price! Also, if we got raised by this loose passive Villain, it's easier to get off the flush-hook.

    Hm. But even if Villain is only bluffing this like 10% of the time it's an easy call. So just seems like we have to be pretty damn certain Villain is never bluffing ya?

    Based on the initial post I thought the assumption was a 20% bluff frequency for villain which if that is the case would seem to make this a very profitable call.

    Is that accurate?

    Bluffing meaning he still has around 20% equity with any spade, but ya profitable call vs his exact hand. RvR its pretty close i think where its not crazy profitable.
  • kageykagey Red Chipper, KINGOFTAGS Posts: 2,207 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited January 12
    I can’t see how you could be less than break even
    @Benjammin - disagreements are cool... but show your math....

    @Red shows 22% equity with 26% pot odds... seem like this IS less than break even IF V is never bluffing

    this is a great example of Hero getting way too aggro on a board he should be slowing down... and dumping in so much aggressive dead money with a hand that's essentially a bluff catcher. Hero created this cage that he then volunteered to enter.... not a very sophisticated move imo.

    Hero got lucky - but Hero is really pushing small edges (on winner's tilt?) that in the long-term makes for high variance and -EV decisions.
  • Adam WheelerAdam Wheeler Red Chipper Posts: 2,633 ✭✭✭✭
    edited January 12
    @Austin

    What is your betting Flop/Betting Turn range ?

    @Red
    Why in the hell would V raises us with the nuts ? Specially with the image Austin seem to have as described.
  • RedRed Red Chipper Posts: 1,551 ✭✭✭✭
    kagey wrote: »
    I can’t see how you could be less than break even
    @Benjammin - disagreements are cool... but show your math....

    @Red shows 22% equity with 26% pot odds... seem like this IS less than break even IF V is never bluffing

    this is a great example of Hero getting way too aggro on a board he should be slowing down... and dumping in so much aggressive dead money with a hand that's essentially a bluff catcher. Hero created this cage that he then volunteered to enter.... not a very sophisticated move imo.

    Hero got lucky - but Hero is really pushing small edges (on winner's tilt?) that in the long-term makes for high variance and -EV decisions.

    That was my point. Better said by a better player :)
    @Red
    Why in the hell would V raises us with the nuts ? Specially with the image Austin seem to have as described.

    I didn't say the nuts, but a nutted hand. I expect a (bad) loose passive player to raise a lot of made flushes here - maybe all of them except very low ones. Be it for protection (mid made flushes, like T high flush) or full value (K and Q high flushes).

    I don't expect loose passive players to raise with draws here. Maybe it happened here because if the effect on stack sizes to pot on river if call. But still, I think it will be only a marginal to minor part of V raising.

    Also I don't expect bad / not-great players to be able to adapt their gameplay. If we get raised, it's because Villain's play style and nature, very rarely because Hero's image.
  • Brad CBrad C Red Chipper Posts: 181 ✭✭
    oh that's interesting @Red @kagey

    Slept on it. It almost seems reasonable to just check back 100% of our holdings on this flop but with 4 people in the hand I'm not sure how that influences this.

    Given preflop action, what do you guys think about just checking back 100% of our hands on this board? Somewhat for the sake of simplicity
  • Brad CBrad C Red Chipper Posts: 181 ✭✭
    edited January 12
    Checking 100% on flop seems like it would help to protect some of our more vulnerable holdings on this kind of board and allows us to navigate future streets easier with the majority of our holdings. and I'm not sure how necessary it is to bet out even when we have a flush here. Like the value of protecting our weaker holdings on this kinda board seems to outweigh the value of betting out with our nutted hands given how much more of our holdings are going to want to check back anyway it seems.

    Like especially with a set, I think a lot of the time we can still get stacks in vs. hands that don't flush up on turn if it's a brick (particularly draw+pair type hands) and it allows us te opportunity to evaluate turn without the pressure of a potentially dangerous SPR if it's another flush card.

    Just thinking out loud based on what you guys were writing.
  • Adam WheelerAdam Wheeler Red Chipper Posts: 2,633 ✭✭✭✭
    edited January 12
    Red wrote: »
    kagey wrote: »
    I can’t see how you could be less than break even
    @Benjammin - disagreements are cool... but show your math....

    @Red shows 22% equity with 26% pot odds... seem like this IS less than break even IF V is never bluffing

    this is a great example of Hero getting way too aggro on a board he should be slowing down... and dumping in so much aggressive dead money with a hand that's essentially a bluff catcher. Hero created this cage that he then volunteered to enter.... not a very sophisticated move imo.

    Hero got lucky - but Hero is really pushing small edges (on winner's tilt?) that in the long-term makes for high variance and -EV decisions.

    That was my point. Better said by a better player :)
    @Red
    Why in the hell would V raises us with the nuts ? Specially with the image Austin seem to have as described.

    I didn't say the nuts, but a nutted hand. I expect a (bad) loose passive player to raise a lot of made flushes here - maybe all of them except very low ones. Be it for protection (mid made flushes, like T high flush) or full value (K and Q high flushes).

    I don't expect loose passive players to raise with draws here. Maybe it happened here because if the effect on stack sizes to pot on river if call. But still, I think it will be only a marginal to minor part of V raising.

    Also I don't expect bad / not-great players to be able to adapt their gameplay. If we get raised, it's because Villain's play style and nature, very rarely because Hero's image.

    I don't think it's a good idea to think that V never raise other hands than nutted hands specially when you imply he is bad. Bad players can do all sort of weird plays for no particular sound reasons.

    Now considering this, it would be interesting to know what is the bet/bet range of Austin here on Turn. Then we could see if we overfold or not given the shove. Don't forget that Austin limp preflop so 33 might be at the very top of his range on this board. V is not "never" raising other hands then nutted hands so what does Austin can call with honestly.

    If we consider he got flushes, trips and 2 pairs, folding the only possible trips in his range here might be a gross mistake, the flushes combos he got are a very slim margin of his probable range.
  • kageykagey Red Chipper, KINGOFTAGS Posts: 2,207 ✭✭✭✭✭
    @Brad C i don't mind a c-bet on the flop... but maybe a bit smaller.
    if we had :Ks :Qs would we really be betting here?
    I also don't mind putting our set in our check/call range.

    the bet that I think is very optimistic is our turn bet.
    i'd probably check back the turn with a high frequency.
    Once we get called on the flop - I'd want to try to get to showdown somewhat cheaply.
    (of course this all depends on V's tendencies)

    targeting here is very important.
    yeah, we can target any :Ks :random or :Qs :random hand... but in low limit games - since live player's ranges are so suited heavy - betting here can put us in a cage when V shoves.
    And as @Red assumed... it's typically a flush (although not necessarily the nut flush).
    @Adam Wheeler is correct that there SHOULD be some bluffs in V's range - but again, this depends on our V and our games. 95% of the LL live games - this is a flush and only a flush. And YES they will raise the nuts. Sounds stupid - but I see it all the time in live games. QJss or JTss here would be afraid that we've got the Ks and want to push us off our equity. It happens more than Janda would like.

    So anticipating future actions is very important. When we bet - V can leverage his stack by shoving. We're giving him the opportunity to push us off our hand.
    If we think he's FOS, then a better play is to check/shove on him. We trap his bet and
    now we're leveraging our stack against him and denying him future equity.
    Pot is 137 we've got 249 behind... being congnitive of this small SPR is essential here.

    Maybe Hero had a soul-read on V and knew what he was doing. But in the range vs range game... we should be more thoughtful on our actions as it applies to our range and not this single particular hand, imo.
  • RedRed Red Chipper Posts: 1,551 ✭✭✭✭
    I can't agree more with @kagey :)
  • Adam WheelerAdam Wheeler Red Chipper Posts: 2,633 ✭✭✭✭
    Let's be realistic given previous action and although HH preflop play is a bit missing/messy thanks to OP, let's assume Austin bets his only sets here on Flop, possible T2P which are probably suited, and some low sc's.

    1 combos of sets.
    3 combos of T2P
    5 combos of sc's that gives Hero a Flush.

    Pot Turn is 137$
    Hero bets 80$
    Villain shoves 169$

    Pot before the shove 217$

    217$/386$=56%

    Vs. A very competent opponent this would be MDF.

    But this board is somewhat polarizing ranges when they give actions. And we assume V is almost never bluffing.

    So theroretically the sets is right on the fringe of not defending as our 5 combos out of 9 gives us a 55% defence frequency.

    But since Villain is practically never bluffing it is probably ok to fold.

    But the more he have bluffs in his range when he raise, we can clearly see that 33 could be easily in our defence range.
  • Brad CBrad C Red Chipper Posts: 181 ✭✭
    Let's be realistic given previous action and although HH preflop play is a bit missing/messy thanks to OP, let's assume Austin bets his only sets here on Flop, possible T2P which are probably suited, and some low sc's.

    1 combos of sets.
    3 combos of T2P
    5 combos of sc's that gives Hero a Flush.

    Pot Turn is 137$
    Hero bets 80$
    Villain shoves 169$

    Pot before the shove 217$

    217$/386$=56%

    Vs. A very competent opponent this would be MDF.

    But this board is somewhat polarizing ranges when they give actions. And we assume V is almost never bluffing.

    So theroretically the sets is right on the fringe of not defending as our 5 combos out of 9 gives us a 55% defence frequency.

    But since Villain is practically never bluffing it is probably ok to fold.

    But the more he have bluffs in his range when he raise, we can clearly see that 33 could be easily in our defence range.

    What's the overall benefit to betting such an unbalanced range on this flop?
  • Adam WheelerAdam Wheeler Red Chipper Posts: 2,633 ✭✭✭✭
    I would ask you what are your reasons to bet.
  • Brad CBrad C Red Chipper Posts: 181 ✭✭
    edited January 12
    Well part of me thinks that checking 100% of our range on this flop seems like it plays into a better overall strategy on this board.

    The benefits of betting here might be to deny equity to naked spade draw type of hands and to get value from worse hands like two pair.

    The issue I'm debating in my head is not necessarily abou betting or checking the flop specifically but rather how that action sets up future streets from an SPR perspective and how that SPR may almost limit optionality in our strategy down the road which is otherwise preserved through checking and keeping the pot smaller.




  • Adam WheelerAdam Wheeler Red Chipper Posts: 2,633 ✭✭✭✭
    Maybe, but Hero bets the flop.
  • Brad CBrad C Red Chipper Posts: 181 ✭✭
    Maybe, but Hero bets the flop.

    Yeah for sure. Thread just got me thinking about this board type in general and how it can be approached.

    Thanks though- was helpful to read through all the different responses.
  • AustinAustin Red Chipper Posts: 5,486 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Preflop hero is in the BB and closing the action. Utg1 bet $12 got 3 callers, and i called in the BB.

    Hero led $40 into $57 on a :AS: :9S: :3S: board

    Preflop i can have
    3 combos of A9s
    3 combos of A3s
    3 combos of 33
    3 combos of 99
    3 combos of AxJs
    3 combos of AxQs
    *AK would be a preflop squeeze

    Flushes (9combos)
    65s, 76s, 87s, J10s, QJs, KQs, K10s, KJs, QTs,

    Turn :8H:
    Im betting almost entire range above for value. I would likely bet fold AQ, AJ (6 combos), A3, A9 (6 combos) call all in with 15 combos of flushes and sets. Might drop 65s, KTs, QTs some times from my range here.

    Other AJ AQ naked :KS: Qx im checking on the flop. Bet folding about half my range on the turn vs this particular player and stack sizes.

Leave a Comment

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