Folding middle set on the river?
Posted by Cina F
Posted by
Cina F
posted in
Low Stakes
Folding middle set on the river?
BN: $315.52
SB: $104
BB: $100
UTG: $103 (Hero)
HJ: $298.88
CO: $70.35
SB: $104
BB: $100
UTG: $103 (Hero)
HJ: $298.88
CO: $70.35
Preflop
($1.50)
(6 Players)
Hero was dealt
T
T
Hero raises to $3, HJ folds, CO folds, BN calls $3, SB folds, BB folds
Hero raises to $3, HJ folds, CO folds, BN calls $3, SB folds, BB folds
Flop
($7.50)
6
K
T
(2 Players)
Hero bets $4.50,
BN calls $4.50
Turn
($16.50)
6
K
T
9
(2 Players)
Hero bets $8.35,
BN raises to $26,
Hero calls $17.65
River
($68.50)
6
K
T
9
5
(2 Players)
Hero checks,
BN bets $46,
Hero folds
Final Pot
BN
wins $65.70
Readless, i suppose 66 is somewhat in his range althought not as likely as QJ and that some AJ/AQ kind of hands cud be ... slamdunk call? If we do call not only because he does have that couple combos of 66 in his range (raises flop or doesnt raise turn big % of the time imo) but because we think we can bluffcatch easily vs some AJ/AQ or maybe even some weak 1 pair hands wud that make Kx a call too?
Loading 8 Comments...
I guess QJs and 87s are in your range, so it actually shouldn´t be much of a problem to fold TT on the river.
66 would be a pretty overplay from him and readless we shouldn´t assume that he´s bluffing like hell just because there are numerous combinations "possible". We don´t know anything about him so we should just try to play unexploitable.
If we're up against a range of KK, 66, QJs we have 30% equity and need 28.75% to call profitably. If we throw in 78s into villains range our equity drops to 21.4%. So on the surface the call is going to rely on how wide villain flats buttons vs ep opens and how wide he check raises for value on the turn. The one thing that I would note though is that if a call is pretty close when you give villain a near nutted range it almost HAS to be call in game because of the random spew factor or that they might actually have a bluffing range.
Other factors to consider here are that you only bet half pot on the turn and may have induced by feigning weakness and that villain only bet 2/3 pot on the river in a situation where you're pretty likely to go to showdown. The latter factor leads me to believe that villain may be going for thinner value and doesn't necessarily have to have QJ when he/ she bets the river.
@James, I totally agree with your basic argument that we shouldn´t make too tight folds when we had a close call vs. nutted ranges, although I think your argument gets a bit counterfit in this special situation, where the ranges we´re looking at are so incredibly narrow.
Like you said, we have 30% equity against KK, 66, QJs. Now, if you eliminate one single (!) combo of 66 our equity drops to 22%, eliminate two combos, we have 12% and against no 66 at all we´re dead. And there´s not even 87s included yet.
That said, I kinda disagree with saying that we have a "close call against a near-nutted-range", depending on 3 combos he can have or not have, we have between 0% and 30% at best, so I´d say the margin for mistakes is just too big in that case. Do you agree?
"Like you said, we have 30% equity against KK, 66, QJs. Now, if you
eliminate one single (!) combo of 66 our equity drops to 22%, eliminate
two combos, we have 12% and against no 66 at all we´re dead. And there´s
not even 87s included yet."
If villain doesn't flat QJs preflop our equity jumps to 50%. Which is possible by the way. When you're working with narrow ranges tinkering with combos is obviously going to make a big difference but giving someone a range that is exclusively the pure nuts with no thinner value bets or any bluffs whatsoever seems like a bad way to analyze a situation barring a really strong read.
My initial range was QJs/66 and 1 KK combo. Against this we have 33% and need to call. I really dont think he is likely to have 87s, but even if you 2 combos of that you still have 30% ev. I always feel like I call and lose here, but i think that given the math calling is right.
especially after ur low betsizing (which i absolutely dislike) i think villain overplaying 66 or possibly bluffing a bit more than usual i see no other choice than just calling down for the reasons alrdy mentioned.
*edit i somehow didn`t see james alrdy wrote that :-)
What James Said, I really think that villain went on a spew bluffing mission there after he saw you bet small on the turn and the fact that you were UTG is unlikely that that you have 87 or QJ as opposed to AK KQ or a two pair.
I'd call here and laugh if he shows a bluff :)
Be the first to add a comment