NL10z Top set on connected board v reg
Posted by downflux01
Posted by
downflux01
posted in
Low Stakes
NL10z Top set on connected board v reg
Blinds: $0.05/$0.10 (6 Players)
BN: $10.11
SB: $4.13
BB: $11.81
UTG: $14.40 (Hero)
MP: $9.04
CO: $8.70
SB: $4.13
BB: $11.81
UTG: $14.40 (Hero)
MP: $9.04
CO: $8.70
Preflop
($0.15)
Hero is UTG with
K
K
, ,
Opponent is a reg, but dont have any further notes
Flop
($0.55)
Q
K
J
, ,
Think Flop is pretty standard.
Turn
($0.91)
Q
K
J
7
,
Now since im up against a reg, I thought about this hand making a perfect case for a checkback, since were usually so ahead of him and we block his calling range significantly (if I had QQ, or JJ, id be more inclined to double barrel). I would definitely just continue against a fish.
River
($0.91)
Q
K
J
7
3
,
River I was unsure about reraising small for value against his two pairs, but surprisingly found that we have around 42% equity if he bets all of his straights and twopairs here (apparently our KK blocks a lot of his combinations), so thats not really a move and call is the only play.
I plugged this into solver to get an idea and it seems like it would just like to continue betting here, and rather checks back something like AK. Reason being is that we should still expect to get a call from a lot of pair+OESDs and what I think is more important, villain has a lot of two pairs in his range that dont want to play aggressively OTF (prob since we have all the sets and he doesnt) that we get heaps of value from.
Loading 7 Comments...
I don't think we're slowplaying sets here. You looked at it in a solver and it says the same. If we were behind sets have more outs compared to two pair. So if you're worried about blocking and want a check range do it with two pair instead of sets.
I may lack some theoretical background to fully understand this: So we rather check two pair than sets, because sets themselves are too good to be checked? Or could you clarify that?
So when we bet a hand for value such as two pair or sets there is a possibility that we are behind. When that is the case we have 10 outs when we have a set and only 4 outs when we have two pair.
Blocker effect is similar, 2 cards removed from their range that make a pair. So for those reasons, when we need to make a decision between 2pair or sets, we bet sets and check 2p.
Does that make sense?
Got it, in case of balancing purposes, we have worse hands that achieve the similar goal, so we shouldnt use the better hands and instead the worse ones. Thanks
Never thought about this effect, makes ton of sense, lIlCitanul!
IMO we have to strongly take both ranges into account when we decide to cbet or not at this kind of board. Therefore this boards smashes Heros range while villain might have a peace of it, we should be betting quite polarized here
There are a bunch of hands in heroes range that should concider checking: AK/AQ/KTs/QTs/JTs or (pretty close imo) QJs and some stronger underpairs like 88-TT
Every other 2p is a clear valuebet imo. This is also important to balance a decent number of bluffs we have.
I would size up to halfpot on the flop, there are a lot of hands that will continue (Kx Qx some Jx any Tx) and you can comfortably call a raise.
Turn I am 100% betting and around 3/4 pot, you are giving a free card to hands like QT, AJ and a few spade draws that have decent equity against you. He has 15 2pr, and many pair+T that are likely calling. AQ/AJ might get stubborn and call again.
River as played I my instinct was to take a raise/fold line because his 2pr and sets can call us. However he does have up to 32 straights so we have to be careful, and his line is reasonable for them. I think I would raise in the moment, but a call may be best if he can slowplay a flopped monster, as he doesn't have many sets that call flop and we block lots of 2pr. But I am betting the turn so this situation doesn't happen.
Be the first to add a comment