Zoom NL 100 - AA on a scary river after CC OTT
Posted by Gaby Foster
Posted by
Gaby Foster
posted in
Low Stakes
Zoom NL 100 - AA on a scary river after CC OTT
BN: $141.57
SB: $234.94
BB: $88.72
UTG: $259.75
HJ: $207.03
CO: $102.50 (Hero)
SB: $234.94
BB: $88.72
UTG: $259.75
HJ: $207.03
CO: $102.50 (Hero)
Preflop
($1.50)
(6 Players)
Hero was dealt
A
A
UTG folds, HJ folds, Hero raises to $3, BN calls $3, SB folds, BB folds
UTG folds, HJ folds, Hero raises to $3, BN calls $3, SB folds, BB folds
Flop
($7.50)
K
4
7
(2 Players)
Hero bets $4.50,
BN calls $4.50
Turn
($16.50)
K
4
7
Q
(2 Players)
Hero checks,
BN bets $10.55,
Hero calls $10.55
River
($37.60)
K
4
7
Q
T
(2 Players)
Hero checks,
BN bets $24.05,
Hero folds
Final Pot
BN
wins $35.91
1.3 k hands on villain who is a 23/17/8 reg and who has so far cold called 17%(!) from BTN.
I expected villain to float a ton on the flop (he only folds 35% to CBs) and thought that we're ahead of a huge part of his range OTT and planned to C/C pretty much all river cards.
Then the Th came on the river and life wasn't that fun anymore, it felt like everything had gotten there.
I was close to calling the river but I guess the board scared me a bit too much.
What do you guys think?
Loading 11 Comments...
Even though you know he flats and floats a lot, this board is way too draw heavy to c/c and he's going to continue with worse a lot. You also find out where you're at. If he raises you, it's not a difficult fold.
I'd like to know how thinly he value bets the river? Does he bet KJ? What about QT?
Tough to say whether he has a flush or not. Since he floats a lot, I don't expect him to raise his FDs very often.
I'd probably lean towards a fold because he has a lot of hands with showdown value that he won't turn into a bluff and you're going to be up against two pair or a flush pretty often. Tempted to call, though.
The biggest problem about this hand is that you gave him initiative and pretty much turned aces into a bluffcatcher. Bet the turn and check-decide on the river.
44/77 probably raise the flop despite his floaty style, so the only other hand you've got to be worried about is KQ, which he likely raises on the turn.
The queen OTT is a really bad card for his range. I expect him to have a lot of 54-87, 55-JJ, some flush draws, a couple of top pairs and then probably at least a few combos of random floats like JT with BDFD.
Some of the weaker hands in this range will probably raise the flop but there's still probably a bunch of them in his calling range. Out of all these combos KQ only makes up for 9 combos.
All these weaker hands will have a hard time calling a turn CB, but if we check he'll likely turn those into a bluff. A lot of these will probably continue bluffing OTR, especially on a river like this one.
He's also likely to bet a ton of the hands that he would have called a turn CB with like FDs, TPs etc. It's not that I'm afraid to get raised OTT (I dont think I'll get raised on the queen that much at all). It's that I want keep his range weak, by not making him fold all his weaker hands.
OTR you mention that I'm beat by QT, KQ, flushes. How many combos of QT can you see getting to the river? When I'm trying see all different kinds of hands that could have made it to the river with a high CC from the BTN and a low F2CB it feels like a whole bunch of them are weak hands that loves bluffing the turn + this riv.
In afterthought I think it would have been a great call OTR.
Am I too optimistic here or does my arguments make any sense?
If you're basically trying to trap him here, you can't fold.
Definitely disagree that he'll check back most draws on the turn. Still, he can draw for free.
Ït's better to get a fold than to trap yourself and pay off two streets. Bet/fold the turn.
In my opinion your arguments doesn't make much sense at all.
''If you're basically trying to trap him here, you can't fold.'' Yeah, as played I think my fold was bad and that we should call considering how weak his range is.
''Definitely disagree that he'll check back most draws on the turn. Still, he can draw for free.'' I also think we'll get value from a lot of his draw no matter if we C/C or bet. It's truethat he'll probably check behind and draw for free some of the time, but it's also true that he'll bet turn and bluff blank rivers some of the time too. It's very hard for me to say which most +EV against flush draws.There's so many more hands combos he could have than just flush draws or KQ though.
''Ït's better to get a fold than to trap yourself and pay off two streets. Bet/fold the turn.'' Why would we trap ourself by keeping his range weak? I'm just interested in which play is most +EV.
The more I think about this hand the more I like C/C OTT and C/C oTR. Seems like a great way to extract maximum value from this players wide range.
IMO, C/C turn was good and my fold on the river was horrible.
Would be interesting to hear what someone else is thinking.
I would bet the turn. He can have KTs,KJs and maybe even KJo and K9s. I would size it so that if it completely bricks I can potentially overbet jam and hopefully for less then 2x pot. Balancing this and remembering to pull the trigger as a bluff enough is tricky though. I think this would bring maximum leverage and profitability for your range as you can effectively an infinite amount of bluffs. This should put his loose peels and whatnot in a real pickle.
As played its pretty sick and I don t mind the fold. Obv your trapping but not a whole lot missed. This is generally a board that hits you harder then him so hard to say if he s floating mega wide on this particular flop. Also the sizing makes me think that he isnt bluffing or at least doesnt have very many bluffs in his range.
I agree with what's been said about betting the turn, but as played I would call river because I would expect him to value bet any king and turn anything else into a bluff because it looks a lot like you have AQ
I think you have to bet this river, as played. And a check-raise on the river (if you can believe it) is probably even better, by my thinking.
I don't like the turn check, but now that it's checked you are very much repping a cbet stab into the flop, and a hesitant continue on a wet turn. His turn bet is often a bluff or small-to-medium hand trying to take the pot down with a play into your repped weakness. Your call then repps a medium hand that is continuing or/and a draw.
Then AJ and flush draw gets there (although AJ without the flush probably check/calls), and there's less reason to put villain on made draw here since he bet the turn instead of checked behind. All in all, I think we get more equity from a river lead than we do from a check-call or a check-fold. And in fact, if we're daring, we may actually do better from a check-raise on the river, because he might show down with Kx and lose, or we may make more money off his river bluffs.
You are probably right that my thinking is muddled in my response, but I think you misunderstood part of what I was advocating.
I was arguing (rightly or wrongly) that if we check-raise here we are turning our hand into a bluff and aren't wanting to get called. We do have some showdown value if we check and get checked behind. So with a check, and then facing a raise, I think we have a bluff-catcher hand, but also have a lot of folding equity against low flushes and straights, because as played it really looks like we had a weak holding.
The flop bet looks like a standard cbet. The turn check looks like a giveup, to which villain bet with a float or a medium hand. Our call looks like a medium hand or a draw. That's why I said that a raise on the river may very well have a lot of folding equity, but we don't know if we want to turn our hand into a bluff yet, because it has some showdown equity. So a check may get a check behind with some hands we beat, some we don't. But also, the river is the ultimate scare card that a villain can use. A check-raise puts a ton of pressure on him on any hand but the nut flush. Even if he was trying to value bet with a straight or a low flush, our check-raise folds some of those out a percentage of the time.
So basically, it's a check hoping for showdown value, but once the river bet comes I think this is prime for turning our hand into a bluff that we can rep very well.
Again, it's likely that my thinking got muddled along the way, but I am wondering if when all the equity of each decision is compared, that we either check and showdown, or check and re-raise enough times to make it more equitable verses a check-call or check-fold.
Am I being a complete donk here, or do you see any validity to my line given that explanation?
secondhander, your line would be great if we block the nut flush having the Ah, without it the majority of his flushes will be the nut flush, and it all will depend how thin he will value bet/fold the river. It could very well still be good depending on what kind of player we are facing, but definitely in my opinion if we had the Ah checking with the intention of winning some % of the time when checked behind, and turning our hand into a bluff when he bets would be very good.
And yeah I wouldn't care one thing about people saying our hand would be too strong to turn into a bluff, blah blah balance, if at any point we can change a xF into a xR for higher EV we should do it, period. Remember you are playing poker for profit, profit comes from taking the highest EV plays in every spot, lets just stick to that. Same goes with the thinking of your range being capped therefor you should bluff catch, it is all a bunch of bullshit. You should bluff catch when your opponent bluffs often enough so you have a +EV call, it is true that certain players will bluff more when your range is capped, but that doesn't mean you should call because your range is capped, it means you should call because your opponent bluffs enough, the reason for him bluffing enough shouldn't even matter to you any way.
Having his BIP %, AF, and RB % would help a lot in this spot.
Your deviating a standard bet/folding strategy based on a low FCB % and a relatively high cold calling %, while after 1.3k hands these numbers aren't as definite that you should base your whole line on this.
Also you are missing a lot of information you need to have to make xCalling better than a bet/folding line.
A few pointers:
A low FCB% means nothing more than what it means how often someone folded to a CB so far, and your sample size is pretty low on this.
You need to know how he plays the turn, Bet in position % (BIP).
Next step you need to know how he will continue if he bluffs turn a lot, will he follow through on river?
Combination of AF/WWSF/RB% would help there.
As played definately fold the River, +EV calling here is so extremely situational and you really do not have the proof for the situation that is needed to do so (you even have very very little information, you based everything on stats that don't have a big enough sample size, and you seem to not even consider follow up information needed to proof your strategy).
Be the first to add a comment