Villain's line #2
Posted by fiveplus5is55
Posted by
fiveplus5is55
posted in
High Stakes
Villain's line #2
Blinds: $5.00/$10.00 (6 Players)
SB: $1230.00
BB: $1222.00
UTG: $665.18
MP: $1235.54
CO: $1000.00
BN: $2576.74 (Hero)
BB: $1222.00
UTG: $665.18
MP: $1235.54
CO: $1000.00
BN: $2576.74 (Hero)
Preflop
($15.00)
Hero is BN with
K
A
, , , , ,
Flop
($195.00)
7
A
7
, , ,
Turn
($685.00)
7
A
7
6
,
Villain is reg, my questions are :
- Should villain have a raising range flop if i 3bet him linear with occasionally suited connectors,axs ? or how about vs generalized 3bet range given the positions?
Raising AK,AQ make any sense?
1.1 . regarding my flop size : I would bet basically my entire range here like that , is that fine?
- turn spot : turn bet i guess, but such a weird spot , that if i do bet, and it comes to the river when he calls, the ranges would be so super narrow.
I am kind of angry at my check behind, cause it's clear value bet, but i thought my betting range turn is like Ak,AA,7x maybe Aq to like no bluffs. so what worse is he gonna call down for stacks?
He polarised his range on the flop towards 7x,Aq,AK or air(doubt though that there is a lot of air).
Loading 17 Comments...
Your turn decision depends fundamentally on your read on vilain's range. Since you're unsure of what he's raising with OTF and checking the turn, it's tricky to view the turn as a 'clear value bet'. It's very unclear to me.
If you do decide to bet turn in that situation, I think choosing the best decision is incredibly interesting here. It depends so much on what you read vilain on. I could see merits to bet between a minbet and 1/4th pot, and I could see merits in betting huge. Rly depends on what you think is going on here.
Saying 'vilain is a reg' is not a read, it basically says very little on what he thinks of the game (good board to bluff and whatnot), or what he thinks of you.
In a vacuum, vilain's line look like a weird flop bluff and give up turn, and sometimes a trap / slowplay (which I like a lot because very few regs would go for the tricky check/call turn for value or double check-raise). For that reason, I wouldn't bet turn by default. But if I have different reads on vilain's line, def turn decision shall differ.
yes turn is little level battle, hugely depending on reads, as i think neither played here Gto (my cbet flop and his raise ).
In game i gave him AQ some percentage of the time, but thought i am better off x/c it on the river (assumed he bets big when i check behind turn). would loose some money vs Aq maybe, but safe vs his traps and maybe induce a weird bluff river.
What happened was, he checked again on a dry river board to me, what 's our river sizing now?
Exactly why are you betting small? When we bet small we usually do it because we want to a) deny villain equity b) get protection.. I dont think we need protection at all in this spot, and I dont think we deny villain much equity because he's going to check the turn a lot most likely. This isn't like one of those boards where villain just starts stabbing out of control. His range is going to be rly A-heavy as well given positions etc so I don't think we accomplish much at all with a small bet. I would just guess that he plays better vs a small bet size than a bigger one.
I would probably check a lot here as a default to trap with big hands such as like AA, other Ax etc and we got a bunch of hands that doesn't want to play a big pot. We can still gii on l8r streets with overbets etc, that seems like a cool thing to do with our bluffs as well. I'm far from sure how to play this spot however so my line might be totally off.
Kind of agree with you. Once we c-betting flop, some of our range wants to check back turn ( KK,QQ maybe jj and lower, Aq and lower ) which leads to weird spots:
1. We could make an other smalish cbet turn , but we kind of isolate ourselves then with a big junk of our range vs stronger hands.
2.we check back turn entire range. but on the river, we need to bluff shove some river bets from villain, to balance our AA,7x. Getting kind of weird then. Or overbet when he checks again....
so yes, checking back flop seems the better choice, and use over bets turn or river in a balanced way.
lets say we check back flop, how would you make your sizing when villain checks again to us? what hands would we use to bluff over bet with?
I understand that you want to work on the spot, but IMHO you're better off not trying to 'solve it'. You'll play the spot differently versus different players or with different history. Like I can totally see situations versus some players where I just bet / fold the flop (rare outcome for sure, but some people are bad and unbalanced right?), and I can see other situations where I 3b / stack off the flop. Obv those are the two 'extremes' and could be outcomes that happen 0.5% on that particular board. But in between the extremes, there are still loards of way this hand can unfold, and I wouldn't look for 'one' way to play the hand (instead adjust to immediate profit).
I don't agree.. You could say this about every single spot. You "solve" spots and learn things from it that you can use in other spots. How else would you get better at poker?
fiveplus5is55 Why does it get weird if we overbet river? The bluffs I would use are the ones that gets maximum ammount of folds and/or got some equity to go with it. Maybe some QJs/QTs type of hand or what we might show up with.
I guess I didn't use the word the same way you do.
When OP says that:
=> it seems to me that he's trying to symplify the spot to a definite answer (what I associated with 'solve'). In that sense, solving the spot is not getting to the optimal strategy, but to a 'good enough' one. I'd say there are dozens of good sizing there, depending on X and Y.
In your eyes, solving spots make you improve as a poker player, and for me solving spots delays the improvement, but that's only because you see solving as welcoming the complexity of some spots, and I see 'solving' as limiting the game to fewer and less important variables. So we mostly disagree on the use of words I think.
In this spot in particular, I'm wary of trying to 'solve', because I'm quite sure the right play depends a lot on the opponent and the moment the hand happens. Pretty sure very few players are balanced in this situation @ 5/10, it's just not a common spot to check-raise A77r and check turn in a 3b pot.
Let's see it another way: the way the hand played out, it looks to me that vilain either doesn't really know what he's doing (spazzing, clicking btns), or he knows what he's doing and has a good reason to do that (exploitative, so we ought to figure that out and fight back). If I'm right about that, in both cases it looks like we should adjust as much as possible to the reads we have, or just the 'feel' of the situation.
Let's go back to the solving dilemma: if you want to have an unexploitable river check-raising range on a given board (like a hand you yourself posted Sweet16), then there is solving involved, because you're dealing with combos and looking for balance. And def improving the solidity of our ranges and lines in some situations is necessary in contemporary poker.
In a spot such as this one, it's so dependent on read and metagame that the attitude of 'solving' leads more often than not to a simplification of the game. Keep in mind that as humans we fear uncertainty (this is the reason most people call too much in poker) ; consequently we're looking for answers that appease the fear (how should I play this turn in a vacuum? but there's no vacuum) => being a better poker player is sometimes accepting not to control and ride the wave of the 'flow', understanding dynamics and getting in opponent's head.
Hope it makes things clearer!
Sry double post
Weird, when we c-bet our entire range flop small and therefore have to check back turn mostly.
I just don't think its good here to bet flop and turn, big chunk of our range doesn't want to do that and that leads us to c-bet small, check back turn, overbet spots river, which is really unusual.
I prefer, like you pointed out, to check back flop and go from there with potential over bets.
@sneeze : i also agree to that. in game i had strong feeling of villain having AQ , which he actually end up having.
But the reason why i did not bet turn, was me thinking he could fold AQ to bet turn ,shove river (which he should, cause seriously , i would not bluff that way or play a worse hand like that ) and then isolate myself toward 7x.
But , I should have just followed my instincts and play the mind game. HIM x/r here, was telling me, "i will call you down anyway, so i might just play it fast to confuse you, induce sth, get more money vs some of you range and hell GET it over with !"
So after he checked the turn, ( also had feeling he will keep barreling the 7x) , it got to be air or the AQ .
So, if you think villain is able to play this hand "wrong", and you got soul reads on him, try to maximize right now , and don't feel bad when you were wrong, cause very often you are not.
don't play these games fwiw.
hero says he's betting his entire range otf for that size, so while it might seem non-standard for villain to develop a x/r range otf, it's going to put a ton of pressure on a sig portion of hero's range (thin value bets and bluffs).
if villain assumes hero is folding a bunch to the flop x/r, then developing a significant checking range ott- or even checking his entire range ott- makes some sense to me (cause villain will have some air and hero's range for defending against the x/r is very strong).
as for hero's turn decision- seems like a bet to me. i wouldn't expect villain's range to include much 7x and we have eq v those hands. we're often freerolling AK and occasionally dominating AQ. if you don't have many (any?) natural bluffs, then size down i guess.
Why would we check back this flop? We are betting this flop with literally any 3 bet bluff we could have and villain probably knows this (or assumes this). If we check back he is going to rightly assume we have the stronger part of our range. I would as a default be betting this flop with all my air as well as AQ+ most of the time.
I like your flop sizing, maybe a bit bigger like 95$. Without any reads my general feeling is he is just spazzing on the flop and giving up turn so I would check back turn and try to pick off a bluff on the river. If you had a read that he can overplay top pair betting turn becomes more appealing. Would bet small on the turn if that is the case.
Giving my thoughts. I don't play 1000nl. I don't know villain or meta game. An exploitative perspective from lower stakes. Don't berate me too much.
I'm curious as to what you put villains 3bet calling range on preflop? Is it broadway/broadway heavy? Pair heavy? Ax heavy? Suited connectors? Does he ever flat AA out of position?
I don't see hardly any 7's in his range. Maybe 87 or 76 and one combo of 77. And most people aren't flatting AA out of position. So now we have to figure out how to extract the most value out of his range. I don't think we can get three streets of value and be good at showdown very often, maybe AQ specifically (At least the stakes and player pool I am playing at. Your villian and 5/10 could be different). If he has a lot of air with broadway/broadway type hands we will have to induce a bluff at some point (probably only putting one bet in). If he has a lot of pairs or Ax that's not AK/AQ he has a bluff catcher.
With that being said I like your line if you are cbeting your entire range, villain is aware, and likes to c/r flops. Maybe also checking back to induce a bet on the turn. If he has a lot of pairs I wouldn't mind checking back the flop and betting turn and river large. Making it look like a bluff to villain. Stabbing with your air hands, hoping to take it down when checked to twice. And you can balance this with checking back some Ax and nutted hands too.
Should we view villains x/raising range as completly polarized between air or a 7 or does he have some Ax in his range, as possibly dominated hands get in trouble if the pot grow too big too early.
Interesting hand. Given ur 3b range, i think dividing your flop range into a checking and betting range.
Your AK/AQ combos want to bet larger because they are the near nuts here. I do not think he has many 7xs combos given 87s/76s seem like if he opens them, he would fold to a 3bet OOP given they are at the bottom of his opening range. And theres only .5 combos of A7s (1 combo but i discount it), .25 combo of slow played AA (1 combo but pretty discounted), and 1 combo of 77.
On the other side of things, you have 88-KK given ur linear, that definitely want to be checking! these hands gain very little at all from betting, other then protection but i dont see them being called by worse. I think ur AK/AQ combos suffer too much to bet ur range for protection on one of the driest boards ever. You can easily protect this range with the obvious checking hand (AA) as well as ur ATs/AJs type hands (that can't get 3 streets anyway), as well as ur occasional small Axs type hands.
As far as this hand is concerned, i think he mostly spaz raised flop and has given up. You have the board locked up versus give up hands and i would probably just check and let him maybe do something dumb on river. If he ever raises AQ here for thin/wierd value, then ur missing out by checking. But then again, u dont have many bluffs to do this. If he is polar and will just c/f his ~0% equity bluffs or jam on you with a 7x hand he somehow has, then obviously check is the play and try to catch up with a flush.
Weird hand
But what if he raise with Ax to try to get cheap showdown?
GScire I think that line is very optimistic considering Villain is out of position. Once he raises then checks to Hero twice Hero will still be able to put in a small value bet. Had Villain been in position it might be a good play. Even a hand as strong as AK/AQ wont feel that comfortable to a raise OOP and will probably check to raiser twice.
Be the first to add a comment