500Zoom river decision in reraised pot
Posted by Jim Block
Posted by
Jim Block
posted in
Mid Stakes
500Zoom river decision in reraised pot
Blinds: $2.50/$5.00 (6 Players)
BN: $1319.85
SB: $513.99 (Hero)
BB: $805.71
UTG: $521.29
MP: $854.57
CO: $712.29
SB: $513.99 (Hero)
BB: $805.71
UTG: $521.29
MP: $854.57
CO: $712.29
Preflop
($7.50)
Hero is SB with
Q
A
, , , , ,
Flop
($91.50)
3
6
A
,
Turn
($192.60)
3
6
A
7
,
River
($408.96)
3
6
A
7
8
, ,
Final Pot
CO wins $406.16
Rake is $2.80
Rake is $2.80
Hey guys,
playing against an aggressive villain playing 25/20 folding to 3bets 42%. I think betting flop and turn is pretty standard given the amount of draws. On the river I was really unsure ingame and decided to ccall riv - then I couldnt really put him on many bluffs and folded. Which I now think is pretty bad given the fact he has a wide defending range and can turn many weak pairs + draws into bluffs and he probably will value jam AQ himself. I think all AK combos should be a value jam for me, AQ could be either a ccall or value jam.
Do you agree? How should weaker aces be played here? How important is having a ccalling range on this river? What is the perfect ccalling hand?
Loading 20 Comments...
river fold is not bad i think. you Ah blk many villain's flush draw range.
He would not bluff AhXy.
Having a diamond kicker is good when x/c river because it reduces his ammount of flushes.
think you prolly wanna bet a little more ott? and maybe otf?
Flop shouldn't be bigger imo, turn is kinda close. But I think i like this sizing, 310 into 400 is a ok stack size for us to jam OTR (if we would like)
I agree hes gonna valuejam AQ himself here.
He can only have some KQhh,KJhh. Not sure if 89hh turns into bluff but def possible.
So i agree not many bluffs he could have.
you should xf river more than a naive 1-a bc his range is strong enough that he will need to bluff hands with significant EV to check back. i think he should probably jam AQ when checked to, which makes me think you would never fold any of your AQ.
what do you mean with 1-a?
this video http://www.runitonce.com/pro-training/videos/improving-on-1-a/ is explaining that 1-a concept pretty well.
Ya I agree w nick there's alot of hands that are gonna be excited in taking the showdown here making his shoves here prty strong
Wasn't sure what you meant tho nick when you said that you u think he never rly wants to fold aq cuz villain will be jamming for value w that hand
Having a calling range here will reduce the EV of his floats, and reduce the EV of calling hands like 65cc on turn in order to bluff rivers. Jamming more often will reduce the EV of his calling hands like ATo which will typically be near indifferent to the river shove.
I dunno about the flop bet; I think checking is better.
why?
if your not cbetting this board then your checking your whole range otf almost?
edit: oops I accidentally edited this post when I meant to "reply" and now it's gone :(
Hey!
I disagree that you can't get 3 streets of value with AQ here. I think that's only true on some run outs (like this one), but not true on many others, where you might get called down by AJ, AT and some other stuff sometimes. Also, in a spot like this where we have so much range advantage, and yet a pretty polarized range, I don't think it makes sense to not c-bet such a strong hand as AQ. Maybe a hand like AT would apply better to your idea.
hey Felipe,
Just because you can name a couple weaker hands (AJ, AT) that may call you down on some run outs doesn't necessarily mean you can get 3 streets of value. If you name a random run out, out of the hands that villain goes call call call with, it is likely there are more combos that beat AQ than lose to it. Sure there are a few exceptions like the turn pairing and the river coming a low card, but I don't know if you can get 3 streets the majority of the time.
However that was not the main point of my previous post; it was only one reason among a handful of why I prefer checking. Inducing bluffs and also getting value later from hands that may improve to a pair (KQ, KJ etc.) are other considerations.
i just mean that assuming villain is balanced otr when he jams (which would probably require doing stuff like jamming some weak pairs), you would never XF a hand that ties or beats a portion of villains value range. If you dont think he turns pairs into a bluff, hes likely not bluffing enuff and you would XF AQ even if you had some chop EV
I don't think this is true when you take blockers into account. If villain is trying to make AxTd and AxQs into equally valuable bluffcatchers it can even be the case that villain jams AJ sometimes and yet AxTd and AxQs are both indifferent to calling because AxTd is blocking flushes and AxQs isn't. I don't know if anyone actually does this at the table yet but people seem to be starting to call based on what blockers they have and the next iteration on the way to actually betting and calling the right ranges should be betting ranges including hands which beat the bluffcatchers with good blockers but don't beat the bluffcatchers with higher hand-strength but worse blockers.
yea i'm not good enough to know if thats right. i do know that from working with GTOrangebuilder a bunch lately, it is constantly splitting out very fractionally weighted bluffcatching ranges otr. A lot of times it seems to pass on calling at 100% fqcy with good blocking hands, and it will fill the range out with poor blocker quality bluffcatchers instead. i'm guessing that if this is correct to do, it's b/c player 2 would have still have counterstrats if he was clairvoyant to player 1's concentrated bluffcatching strategy?
pls post an example from gtorb where it passes on calling 100% frequency with good blocking hands at the expense of worse quality bl9ocking bluffcatchers.
I've used gtrob a lot and every time I've looked into spots similar in detail this has not been the case
Be the first to add a comment