JJ - shove for value?
Posted by taaazz
Posted by
taaazz
posted in
Low Stakes
JJ - shove for value?
SB: $28.50
BB: $25.35
UTG: $25.35
HJ: $24.25
CO: $37.70
BN: $28.17 (Hero)
BB: $25.35
UTG: $25.35
HJ: $24.25
CO: $37.70
BN: $28.17 (Hero)
Preflop
($0.35)
(6 Players)
Hero was dealt
J
J
UTG folds, HJ folds, CO folds, Hero raises to $0.50, SB folds, BB raises to $1.80, Hero calls $1.30
UTG folds, HJ folds, CO folds, Hero raises to $0.50, SB folds, BB raises to $1.80, Hero calls $1.30
He 3bets w/ a wide range, I don't want to 4b/c as I believe it's a little too loose, so I called, given that I'm likely ahead, IP, and don't need to improve my hand to bluffcatch.
Flop
($3.95)
4
7
5
(2 Players)
BB bets $2.50,
Hero calls $2.50
A very 'bettable' F for him, I don't wanna raise/get it in as I would likely be isolating myself vs better hands, so I called.
Turn
($8.95)
5
(2 Players)
BB checks,
Hero bets $4.20,
BB calls $4.20
So this is where it got weird. His check made me feel really good about my hand as I believe he'd triple w/ QQ+ as I rarely have QQ+ myself. It also isn't a good hand for him to keep bluffing and I still need protection, so I guess the bet is kinda mandatory.
River
($17.35)
5
(2 Players)
BB checks,
Hero bets $19.67, and is all in,
BB calls $16.85, and is all in
Following my assumptions from the T, I decided to rip it on 'for value', or at least so I thought. :p
To be honest, I really like his play as I think by playing his hand that way, not only does he protect his checking range, but also likely expands the range that I would barrel off for thin value as opposed to the one that I would call him with (if that makes sense :p)
To be honest, I really like his play as I think by playing his hand that way, not only does he protect his checking range, but also likely expands the range that I would barrel off for thin value as opposed to the one that I would call him with (if that makes sense :p)
Final Pot
BB has
A
A
Hero has
J
J
BB
wins $48.80
3b BBvBU: 14% (28)
CB OOP (3B): 75% (4) / 1rsd: 65/38(8)/0(3)
XF F (1rsd): 100% (5)
Loading 5 Comments...
I don't hate his play, but I think I would bet AA on the turn still. It makes more sense to c/c QQ or KK since you'd have more A high hands that would go for a bluff. If he has AA, such as in this spot, it follows that hero is going to have much more PPs than Ax type of hands which also means that you're going to call more and bluff a bit less. So, if I want to protect my checking range on the turn, I would bet AA and check KK and QQ as a stratring point (That's obviously just some ideas; I haven't worked to spot out properly).
As played I bet the turn bigger and bet river as well. If you're not betting the river, there's hardly a value hand that you would bet here, I assume. Although I would probably bet half again. He might not have hands like 88 or 99 at all; so we're left with 78s, A7s, TT and occasionally a slowplayed premium. Basically, I want to give him some ok odds to call; I think that if you shove, you often fold out the exact hands you might get a call from with a smaller bet.
I think Ahigh hands are mostly trying to get to sd on this board, so checking aces would make more sense.
Thanks, Whipman. Another great insight. I agree with what you said about AA blocking some Ahighs and that it means he'd have pairs more often. But the point I was trying to make is that his turn check makes me feel really good about more hands than I would given he triple barreled.
As for the sizing - good point, as I don't look bluffy at all.
If you think he can have 88-TT, then 4betting PF is better, imo.
With your reads, we are trying to get value from 7s mainly. I'd check his WTSD, but since I hardly ever expect villain to have a better hand there, I like betting, but would make it smaller... a little bit over 1/3 I think.
I had no reads on the guy, so I don't know how he constructs his 3b range.
But a friend of mine said the same thing - especially if I only 4b/c w/ QQ+,AK, than I'm not able to 4b bluff that often.
WTSD - 35 / W$SD (ex small): 57
But yeah, now that I look at it, shoving makes no sense there (unless I had a particular read).
Be the first to add a comment