Care to elaborate/refute Duarte Baptista's arguments? Interested to know why you think checking back clearly trumps betting.
April 27, 2017 | 12:48 p.m.
Thanks for the reply. Don't you think all flushdraws would just go ahead and c/jam though? Similar for wraps? And like bare 76 is probably too weak to c/c. If I were in villain's shoes I don't see myself doing a lot of c/c, but that may well be bad on my part...
April 27, 2017 | 12:45 p.m.
Thanks for the insight. Btw this was three-handed, and not HU :)
April 26, 2017 | 9:28 a.m.
I'm not familiar with using PJ at all, so I can't help you with that. I do have some thoughts about bluff-catching rivers though. In this case for example, you block a lot of drawing combos villain could have, and basically not a single made hand combo. Additionally, I think villain's overall agression (factor) is an important indicator as to whether he bluff-stabs missed rivers. In this case for example, someone playng 50/10 over 20 hands imo is way more likely to check back hands like KK, and even 9xxx with or without a missed draw. To me it seems a bit redundant to try and break down his entire river range into value-bet, check-back, and bluff portions, especially since you know so little about him and his tendencies, but maybe that's my loss :)
April 26, 2017 | 9:26 a.m.
SB's stats indicate that he's some sort of a reg and therefore I think he isn't supposed to connect with this flop very often. On the other hand, he leads into three people on a very dynamic board, which appears very strong. I think his most likely holdings are topset, nfd combos (like JBBB, AJ87, maybe even AA, AKJ6, and so on), and maybe some b/f hands like 8765 or 9865 or something, myb even like a J with sidecards that isn't good enough to c/c, although that might be a bit of a stretch. Having one player behind you left to act isn't ideal. You do have position if it goes HU though, and also enough money behind to play two more streets of poker, which benefits the player with position. All in all, I think it's close whether to peel the flop or not. Personally I think I'd call, but maybe I shouldn't. The turn benefits SB's (perceived) range - but actually improves your hand a lot - and it stands to reason that he'll bet 100% of his flop betting range. As played, and with SPR of 3, I think you can go ahead and stick the rest of your stack in, expecting to sometimes be in bad shape against topset and JT + diamonds, and to be a favorite or get him to fold otherwise.
April 26, 2017 | 9:07 a.m.
SB: $229.97 (Hero)
April 24, 2017 | 2:40 p.m.
BB: $200.00 (Hero)
April 24, 2017 | 1:47 p.m.
I agree too. Seems like a clear bet to me for all the arguments you stated. Maybe we're missing something.......
April 24, 2017 | 1:24 p.m.
Thanks for taking the time to come up with such an extensive reply. I almost automatically tend to not donk when someone c-bets at a high % (since there's "no need") and I'm also more hesitant to donk on light boards against other wide ranges (in comparison to being up against a tight UTG range for example). Additionally, since this is BTN vs. BB I wanted to just keep the pot small, not letting it escalate with a mediocre hand, and preferably get to showdown cheaply. But I guess that ship had sailed already when villain potted it pre-flop on this ante table, thereby decreasing SPR significantly (in comparison to defending against a min-steal on a normal table). I agree that it would be pretty bad for top and bottom two to see the flop getting checked through, and also that after c/c many turns would be uncomfortable. I'm convinced now that leading is better for my hand regardless, but that it also makes the hand easier to play on later streets (amongst others because I get to choose the sizing). Much appreciated.
March 26, 2017 | 2:40 p.m.
With SPR ~10 I think c/c as you did is probably best; too often you'll be dominated. Since both your (perceived) ranges are wide, I think you're looking to play a small pot, realize your equity, and try to get to showdown cheaply most of the time. Which is kind of obvious since you have a hand that will rarely, if ever, dominate your opponent's, but can certainly be dominated itself.
Turn looks pretty tricky. With SPR 3.5, two pair, a flushdraw and a weak open-ender, simply c/f certainly appears weak. However, in my experience if an opponent keeps betting big when the most obvious draw completes, they usually had that draw themselves. Also in light of the overall game plan as described above, I think getting lured into playing a big pot might be unnecessary and a bit of an overplay.
March 6, 2017 | 5:39 p.m.
Don't agree on pre-flop. Your hand isn't so smooth that you can pot/commit on a whole lot of flops (and expect to dominate your opponent's stack-off range). Instead I think it's best to just flat, and try to play a small pot most of the time.
As played I'm not sure. Since the board is actually pretty dry, but also is unlikely to have hit your 3-bet range, I wouldn't mind a c/c. But I guess that also leaves you open to getting barreled on turns and rivers. I think a lot comes down to opponent tendencies. Myb against someone passive you can check, and against someone (overly) aggressive it's best to just go ahead and bet yourself (and probably again on the turn). I'd rather avoid these tricky spots though and 3-bet hands that are a lot smoother from OOP.
March 6, 2017 | 5:23 p.m.
The KKQ3 is a clear call pre-flop. You're hand is not very smooth at all and misses a lot of flops. Instead it's good at flopping the nuts and over-setting someone some of the time, and thus relies on high implied odds. By 3-betting this pre-flop, especially squeezing, and especially from OOP, you'll end up in this situation too often. The same goes for the AAJ3 hand, with the side note that if CO is too loose pre-flop and also plays weakly post-flop, a 3-bet to get it HU and IP might be preferable (granted that there are no cold-calling fishes in the blinds).
As played I think you should be done with both hands otf (which illustrates the problem of 3-betting these polarized hands perfectly).
March 6, 2017 | 5:12 p.m.
Agree that there are few hands willing too raise, let alone one that we're a big favorite against. Nonetheless I think this gets checked through way too often to go for a c/r. For the same reason I would also lead hands like AKJT + nfd, QJT + nfd, Q9 + nfd, QJT9, KQJT + fd, etc. Missing value/failing to build the pot would be an absolute disaster. (Fwiw I think it's nice to be able to balance that with leading like, bare JT, Q3, 93 (although probably not against a very tight UTG range).) Agree on delaying c/r to the turn with (bare) 99/33/q9 basically to avoid gii either flipping or poorly against a flop stack-off range.
March 6, 2017 | 5:03 p.m.
Any more thoughts on turn play :D ?
March 6, 2017 | 4:47 p.m.
Makes sense. Myb I'm just overly afraid of getting c/r and biased by a few unfortunate experiences.
March 2, 2017 | 1:49 p.m.
March 2, 2017 | 12:48 a.m.
Think it's definitely too loose of an open. Seems like you slightly overestimate the likelihood of ending HU IP against the fish.
As played, with SPR ~4 on the flop, this feels like a no-brainer stack-off, basically no matter what. I think I'd still prefer to check though. If he indeed has AA, than he's drawing slim most of the time, plus it's not that likely he'll call more than one bet with it. Furthermore, with SPR as it is you can still get the money in by betting on the turn and the river, plus your hand doesn't really need any protection. If he has air you deny him the opportunity to c-bet: the board is actually pretty dry, and I, and I think him neither, wouldn't necessarily think that this flop hits your range better than his, because he's supposed to have a very strong (perceived) 3-betting range against your UTG. I can be convinced otherwise though.
As played with SPR ~1 and because the board just got wetter, I'd just pot/commit on the turn. If he has a duplicate straight he's probably getting it in as well no matter how small or big you bet. He also might make the (bad) call/stack-off with turned diamonds, or two pair, or a set, or a lower straight, or a combination of the aforementioned. The one thing I would avoid doing is turning this into a three-street game from OOP unnecessarily, and giving him the opporunity to force you into making a mistake.
March 1, 2017 | 11:45 p.m.
I think donking the flop is clearly best. Since the flop is three-way and the board is wet, it's not very likely that one of the opponents will bet light. What this means is that if someone bets their range is going to be decently strong, or that it will get checked through. The latter would be a disaster. Unless the flop is HU and/or the board is somewhat dry - and thus the likelihood of the pre-flop raiser making a c-bet being high - I would default to leading the top of my range (and some hands that aren't good enough to c/c but too strong to c/f). In this case for value, for protection, and to build the pot, and as part of a general donk-betting strategy to keep your own range uncapped and to define your opponent's range as well.
Furthermore, also in terms of multi-street planning I think donking trumps c/r. Now you c/r and give away that you're strong, while you leave SPR ~1 on a board that's likely to create another nuts on the turn, leaving you to play a guessing game from OOP. All this allows your opponent to play perfectly against you. By leading the flop though you can either get the money in if raised (which is preferable when OOP anyway), or leave a much better/less awkward turn scenario for yourself when called.
March 1, 2017 | 11:19 p.m.
Thanks for the insight. Betting indeed seems to isolate us with the stronger part of his range, which isn't very appealing.
(Don't really agree on your pre-flop opinion though. It's not like the hand is good at dominating a wide stack-off range. Instead it's good at making some nutty hands post-flop, and it benefits from high implied odds. Hence, no real need to isolate a 85bb limper, especially with the high likelihood of BB coming along, or either one of the blinds 3-betting. Besides, the connectedness part isn't great, with the low straight possibilities and the two-gap up top. The hand doesn't play very well against a 3-bet range either; it'll often be dominated.)
March 1, 2017 | 12:50 p.m.
Yeah what plolearnerguy says. Mainly for value. Probably a favorite against a stack-off range too.
March 1, 2017 | 12:34 p.m.
BN: $310.48 (Hero)
Feb. 28, 2017 | 2:07 a.m.
Great post, very illuminating! Thanks a million.
Feb. 6, 2017 | 10:37 a.m.
Besides rivering a diamond, J, or 2 all I'll have is a bluffcatcher with SPR ~1; not a very good scenario imo. Feel like it gives villain the chance to barrel all of his air/missed draws on all blank rivers, as well as to check-back and showdown all J5+ type of hands on nut-changing rivers, or to accurately bluff or value-bet otherwise.
Jan. 11, 2017 | 5:03 p.m.
Totally agree that this isn't the sort of hand where I want to force money in, and as I experienced it indeed got awkward on the turn. However, I'm not sure on your statement that medium hands are exactly the ones I'm supposed to call... I mean, literally none of my outs is to the nuts. Don't you think that improving to a flush, straight, or set, can cause a lot of trouble? I would much rather c/c bare nut flush draw or QJT, for example.
Jan. 11, 2017 | 4:52 p.m.
SPR is below 3. If he jams we're probably forced to call, which seems to be a pretty big overplay of our hand... And like DirtyD says, I feel like we're in between value and a bluff, which in my eyes would make river play even more confusing.
Jan. 9, 2017 | 1:46 p.m.
BB: $466.87 (Hero)
Jan. 9, 2017 | 1:41 p.m.
UTG: $200.00 (Hero)