1/2 hand

NYCRyNYCRy Red Chipper Posts: 336 ✭✭✭
Villain is in the small blind I am on the BTN. I've been at the table for maybe 20mins. Villain is chatty and seemed solid/aggressive. He had a $600+ stack. I sat with $300 and probably had about that.

MP raise to 15. I call on the BTN w/KcTc. Villain raises to $65. MP folds. I flat thinking he could be on a squeeze and my hand should play pretty well vs. his range IP. Pot $140 after rake.

Flop Ts9d6h ($140)

Villain bets $75 I flat.

Turn 4h ($290)

Villain bets $110. I now have roughly $175 I think. Hero?

Comments

  • Danny MDanny M Red Chipper Posts: 353 ✭✭✭
    edited January 2018
    Well let's think about this and put the pieces of the puzzle together...

    9 combos ea of JJ-AA only 3 kk 1 combo of TT, 3 combos ea of 99 66, 1 combos of T9s, 4 combos of 78s, and 8 combos of AT or 53 combos are killing us.

    We tie with 2 combos KTs.

    3 combos ea of QTs and JTs would he fire 2x with any of those except the heart combos though on the turm?

    What bluffs does he have... lets be generous and say 16 combos each of QJ and KJ, 4 combos of J8s, and AK AQ AJ A5 of hearts 4 combos total or 40 combos total and I think we can discount some KJ that isn't hearts, so realistically probably 25 bluff combos and 6 hands we are beating.

    What river cards are you happy to see besides a T which is about a 4% chance of hitting but will you like the Th (so really 1 out 2%)? A King completes QJ eliminating a ton of bluffs in his range so I think it is a fold on turn unless you have a read that this player has way way more airball combos he is barrelling or you put him on exactly an overpair and have a plan for bluffing heart or straight river cards when/if checked to!
  • RedRed Red Chipper Posts: 2,159 ✭✭✭✭
    Ryan A wrote: »
    Villain raises to $65. MP folds. I flat thinking he could be on a squeeze and my hand should play pretty well vs. his range IP. Pot $140 after rake.

    And what is his range you put him on? What is your equity ?
  • NYCRyNYCRy Red Chipper Posts: 336 ✭✭✭
    22-AA, Aks-A2s, AK-A9, suited broadways, suited connectors maybe down to 65s, probably some suited one gappers as well. I'm probably like 47% equity with hands I'd limp/call a 3bet with there(KQ, suited broadways, pairs, suited connectors down to 67s)
  • NYCRyNYCRy Red Chipper Posts: 336 ✭✭✭
    Danny M wrote: »

    What bluffs does he have... lets be generous and say 16 combos each of QJ and KJ, 4 combos of J8s, and AK AQ AJ A5 of hearts 4 combos total or 40 combos total and I think we can discount some KJ that isn't hearts, so realistically probably 25 bluff combos and 6 hands we are beating.

    What river cards are you happy to see besides a T which is about a 4% chance of hitting but will you like the Th (so really 1 out 2%)? A King completes QJ eliminating a ton of bluffs in his range so I think it is a fold on turn unless you have a read that this player has way way more airball combos he is barrelling or you put him on exactly an overpair and have a plan for bluffing heart or straight river cards when/if checked to!

    I think he has more bluffs than you mentioned. KQ, A high and lots of connected and one gappers that connect for pairs that I beat. Also if he bets the flop and check/gives up on the turn that line looks super weak and allows me to float him with any two cards and take the pot

  • NinjahNinjah Red Chipper Posts: 1,138 ✭✭✭✭
    Ryan A wrote: »
    22-AA, Aks-A2s, AK-A9, suited broadways, suited connectors maybe down to 65s, probably some suited one gappers as well. I'm probably like 47% equity with hands I'd limp/call a 3bet with there(KQ, suited broadways, pairs, suited connectors down to 67s)

    I don't expect V's range to be anywhere near this wide in a 3-bet pot, not to mention that he has narrowed his range even more by firing two streets. Furthermore, KTs doesn't play well against a 3bet range when we have a SPR of 2. If we think V is capable of 3-betting light, I'm much more inclined to 4-bet preflop with this hand.
  • NYCRyNYCRy Red Chipper Posts: 336 ✭✭✭
    Ninjah wrote: »
    Ryan A wrote: »
    22-AA, Aks-A2s, AK-A9, suited broadways, suited connectors maybe down to 65s, probably some suited one gappers as well. I'm probably like 47% equity with hands I'd limp/call a 3bet with there(KQ, suited broadways, pairs, suited connectors down to 67s)

    I don't expect V's range to be anywhere near this wide in a 3-bet pot, not to mention that he has narrowed his range even more by firing two streets. Furthermore, KTs doesn't play well against a 3bet range when we have a SPR of 2. If we think V is capable of 3-betting light, I'm much more inclined to 4-bet preflop with this hand.

    I don't remember how long I was at the table before this hand happened but this guy was definitely a LAG, playing 40% minimum hands with a few 3bets mixed in. I had also played very few hands so he probably took that into consideration as well. I agree it could work as a 4bet as well but I thought he could maybe sniff out that would look weird considering I had just called the 15 and maybe call me light
  • NYCRyNYCRy Red Chipper Posts: 336 ✭✭✭
    edited January 2018
    Ok so let's say my play was questionable at best up to this point, based on assumptions about this particular player. Moving on...

    I called leaving myself with like $65-$75(which I didn't pay attention to since was too busy thinking out the hand). River was a brick and it went check check. He announces he has a 9. I show my T and my hand is good. He is visibly annoyed and says, "fell in love with top pair eh?" Then a minute or so later he said, "why didn't you just shove the turn?" I said because I knew I would only be called by a better hand. Then he said, "but you're never folding the river." Then I thought, hmmm he's right. So then that led me to discovering that this has to be a leak of mine.

    So my question is - is it usually correct to shove the turn in a low SPR pot if you have a weak-ish made hand that you think is best to ensure you get full value(as opposed to some sort of draw)? I mean if he had a 9 like he said(can't remember if he showed) he probably has to call due to the pot odds.

    Also considering this awkward spot it probably shows we weren't really deep enough for me to justify this call pre. Probably needs to be 4bet or fold
  • AustinAustin Red Chipper Posts: 5,483 ✭✭✭✭✭
    3 bet range is way too wide even for some bad lags. You state you been at the table for 20 minutes, so you seen him play around 8 hands out of 20, and he 3 bet two of those? Think sample size is too small in general and easy spot to just let go. I was in a similar spot yesterday and let go of KQs, someone that flat called my original $15 open rejammes with KJs and i guess he was more curious than I. Villain showed QQ and it held up. But as stated above, hand plays better as a 4 bet or fold.

    Similar to 3betting 1 gap Scs like 86s. 4 bet or fold KTs. Where you can flat J10s-KQs.
    Ryan A wrote: »
    22-AA, Aks-A2s, AK-A9, suited broadways, suited connectors maybe down to 65s, probably some suited one gappers as well. I'm probably like 47% equity with hands I'd limp/call a 3bet with there(KQ, suited broadways, pairs, suited connectors down to 67s)

  • RedRed Red Chipper Posts: 2,159 ✭✭✭✭
    edited January 2018
    Ryan A wrote: »
    22-AA, Aks-A2s, AK-A9, suited broadways, suited connectors maybe down to 65s, probably some suited one gappers as well. I'm probably like 47% equity with hands I'd limp/call a 3bet with there(KQ, suited broadways, pairs, suited connectors down to 67s)

    @Austin is right. You will never see such huge 3-bet range, even for a squeeze. This is a 18.6% range! This means Villain would 3-bet almost every 6 hands he has the opportunity to 3-bet.

    IMHO, you have here a huge analysis issue:
    Ryan A wrote: »
    I don't remember how long I was at the table before this hand happened but this guy was definitely a LAG, playing 40% minimum hands with a few 3bets mixed in.
    There is a difference between a) opening often b) playing often and c) 3-betting often.

    Let's say Villain actually opens often (playing often could be just a loose passive Villain): This is very different than 3-betting often. Maybe he opens wide, but squeezes / 3-bets fairly tight. There is a gap between these 2 ranges, and this gap can hurt you badly - and this look to be the case when you say "few 3-bet".

    Now 2 last points:
    - You may have seen Villain previously 3-betting wide, like J9s, A2, 22, or 65s - allowing you to think he might 3-bet a 18% range. But I assure you it doesn't mean he always 3-bet that wide: maybe what you witnessed was against a specific 2nd Villain, or he was feeling kinky ("I just won a big pot" or "I've just got my beer yeah!" style), or it was his favorite hand, or else.
    So even seeing a weird loose hand to be 3-bet doesn't mean his 3-bet range is always that wide.

    - Villain is OOP. Even if he tends to 3-bet wide (i.e. more wide than the pool), you've to take in account that he may tighten up because of his position. (IF he is position aware)
    Suddenly, his range is stronger, and your equity goes down the drain.
  • Pat ZemanskiPat Zemanski Red Chipper Posts: 4 ✭✭
    edited January 2018
  • NYCRyNYCRy Red Chipper Posts: 336 ✭✭✭
    Red wrote: »
    Ryan A wrote: »
    22-AA, Aks-A2s, AK-A9, suited broadways, suited connectors maybe down to 65s, probably some suited one gappers as well. I'm probably like 47% equity with hands I'd limp/call a 3bet with there(KQ, suited broadways, pairs, suited connectors down to 67s)

    @Austin is right. You will never see such huge 3-bet range, even for a squeeze. This is a 18.6% range! This means Villain would 3-bet almost every 6 hands he has the opportunity to 3-bet.

    IMHO, you have here a huge analysis issue:
    Ryan A wrote: »
    I don't remember how long I was at the table before this hand happened but this guy was definitely a LAG, playing 40% minimum hands with a few 3bets mixed in.
    There is a difference between a) opening often b) playing often and c) 3-betting often.

    Let's say Villain actually opens often (playing often could be just a loose passive Villain): This is very different than 3-betting often. Maybe he opens wide, but squeezes / 3-bets fairly tight. There is a gap between these 2 ranges, and this gap can hurt you badly - and this look to be the case when you say "few 3-bet".

    Now 2 last points:
    - You may have seen Villain previously 3-betting wide, like J9s, A2, 22, or 65s - allowing you to think he might 3-bet a 18% range. But I assure you it doesn't mean he always 3-bet that wide: maybe what you witnessed was against a specific 2nd Villain, or he was feeling kinky ("I just won a big pot" or "I've just got my beer yeah!" style), or it was his favorite hand, or else.
    So even seeing a weird loose hand to be 3-bet doesn't mean his 3-bet range is always that wide.

    - Villain is OOP. Even if he tends to 3-bet wide (i.e. more wide than the pool), you've to take in account that he may tighten up because of his position. (IF he is position aware)
    Suddenly, his range is stronger, and your equity goes down the drain.

    Well this is live poker so I'm obviously not calculating exactly how my hand is doing against the 3 betting range of a somewhat unknown player. My on the spot decision was that I had a good chance of being ahead based on the situation and that I wanted to see a flop in position. Looking back, due to stack sizes that was probably not a great idea. Its a weird spot and I don't love any options really and if I could go back in time and do it again I'd probably 4bet AI. He may not put me on a monster but I'd still have some good FE
  • RedRed Red Chipper Posts: 2,159 ✭✭✭✭
    Ryan A wrote: »
    Well this is live poker so I'm obviously not calculating exactly how my hand is doing against the 3 betting range of a somewhat unknown player. My on the spot decision was that I had a good chance of being ahead based on the situation and that I wanted to see a flop in position. Looking back, due to stack sizes that was probably not a great idea. Its a weird spot and I don't love any options really and if I could go back in time and do it again I'd probably 4bet AI. He may not put me on a monster but I'd still have some good FE

    I agree. Now think in term of percentage. How often does Villain 3-bet? Several time per orbit? Once per orbit? Once every 2-3 orbits? Once in a while? Once every blue moon? You can then have a guess about his range based on his 3-bet frequency

    Also you can have another point of view. You're holding KTs, which means:
    - You're behind pocket pairs, AX+, KJ+
    - You're ahead of SC and gapers with Q high or lower, plus K2s-K9s.

    Do you really see Villain 3-betting with QT, J9, K8 or 65 all the time and from SB ? Maybe once if he spazzes out, but not regularly.
    I think usually you will face a range between QQ+ (you've 23% equity) and 99+/AQ+ (you've 33% equity). And surely having between little IO to having reverse IO (Villain not continuing or you facing a better TP or an overpair).

    This is imho a no brain preflop fold. Having position isn't enough to justify a call here.
  • RedRed Red Chipper Posts: 2,159 ✭✭✭✭
    Ryan A wrote: »
    Looking back, due to stack sizes that was probably not a great idea. Its a weird spot and I don't love any options really and if I could go back in time and do it again I'd probably 4bet AI. He may not put me on a monster but I'd still have some good FE
    A 4-bet with KTs isn't the best. You have only 1 blocker (K). You've plenty of better hand to 4-bet bluff like AQo or KQs.
    If Villain does has a strong hand (like he should by being "solid/aggressive" and 3-betting OOP), you want to have good reasons to 4-bet bluff. First being Villain mentally able to 3-bet fold and Second is Villain having enough combos to fold (=3-betting wide and Hero blocking him having the top of his range)

Leave a Comment

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