NL10z Triple barrel bluff with 98s
Posted by whiteshark
Posted by
whiteshark
posted in
Low Stakes
NL10z Triple barrel bluff with 98s
Blinds: $0.05/$0.10 (6 Players)
BN: $12.80 (Hero)
SB: $10.02
BB: $25.47
UTG: $9.80
MP: $26.24
CO: $9.80
SB: $10.02
BB: $25.47
UTG: $9.80
MP: $26.24
CO: $9.80
Preflop
($0.15)
Hero is BN with
8
9
, , ,
Flop
($0.60)
5
A
2
, ,
Turn
($1.20)
5
A
2
7
, ,
River
($2.70)
5
A
2
7
2
, ,
Flop: Axx boards are no range c-bets in late position battles, which is why I bet half pot. I think the backdoor equity of my holding is enough to justify betting.
Turn: This is kind of close, but I picked up equity through the gutshot and continue barreling.
River: On the river I was quite hesitant. I convinced myself into betting since I unblock a large part of his folding range (all suited broadways with flushdraws) and 9 high is never good. I might check back some K-high here since I am beating missed flush draws, but this particular holding is really on the bottom of my range here and I should be able to generate some fold equity.
Nice bluffing candidate? Would you bet bigger?
Loading 5 Comments...
Otf I'm going for 1/3. For me its more easy to play with this size on this kind of flops because population doesnt defend or x/r nearly enough. Ott I'm not sure about the barrel because he should defent tighter against your half pot and we should cbet turn with a more polar range, but I guess it cant be bad. We should have some fold equity. Otr if your plan is to fold his spade combos I like your size, no need to go bigger, he has 26combos of spades that can fold.
Thanks for the feedback! OTR I indeed targeted the spade combos in particular and I'm glad you like the sizing.
I'm currently constantly changing my opinion whether I want to range bet Axx flops in single raised pots or not. I agree that population is defending poorly against the 1/3 sizing. My only issue is that several of our holdings do just not have the incentive to bet on this kind of board. Imagine we have A3 here or QQ. These hands can go for maximum two streets of value and essentially play way ahead or way behind. Aren't we better off with a check/bet/bet line here? This sharply contrasts from K-high boards on which top pairs or QQ definitely want to bet for equity denial against any Ace.
My current way to go is range c-betting K-high and Q-high boards, while selectively betting the A-high ones and checking back weak top pairs and KK/QQ OTF. What do you think about this?
For sure there is nothing wrong in constructing a checking range on A high boards in srp or 3bet pots and its proabably better, but I found it more easy to play with a range bet.
Checking back the turn would be my action of choice here.
As played I think we need to size-up on our river bluff because we need more fold-equity, and we have a large number of bluffs in our range.
If you are cbetting based on human metric "i got the backdoors" then your cbetting wide will inevitably be too wide and every subsequent bet will be causing you to bluff to wide as well.
Not to say its not +ev to bet flop here and turn here, but on this river is definitely -ev unless you do some kind of retarded overbet which is still probably -ev but less -ev (confused yet?).
Betting a flush river or 3 straight river will be better relatively but if you plug this into an solver its just going to go dude its -ev and then show you a bunch of -ev lines and make you realize how shameful it is to be human using our brains just to pick the least -ev of lines out of all the -ev lines.
This is similar to an inaccuracy if you've ever played with Chess AI. So for example if you plug this into the AI, it will probably say: flop is good but not the best, turn is an inaccuracy, and river is a blunder.
Be the first to add a comment