3 bet pot, check back turn or double barrel?
Posted by plac730
Posted by
plac730
posted in
Mid Stakes
3 bet pot, check back turn or double barrel?
SB: $221.76
BB: $360.49
UTG: $248.20
HJ: $202.15
CO: $1181.44 (Hero)
UTG raises to $6, HJ folds, Hero raises to $21, BN folds, SB folds, BB folds, UTG calls $15
Wasn't sure about this turn spot. I think the hand up to the turn is fairly standard and uncontroversial. Who bet-calls the turn and who favors a check back?
Some arguments for bet-calling:
1. We still have some fold equity vs Axxx hands that peeled the flop and haven't hit two pair on the turn.
2. If he peeled a mediocre straight draw without a flush draw we should be able to fold those out
3. Our hand doesn't have much implied odds and there might even be reverse implied odds on a 9
Some arguments against bet-calling:
1. We have the Kh and Qh which tilts his hand combos away from draws and more towards Axxx hands.
2. We only have around 25% when shoved on and the SPR is still fairly high at 2. We would be getting the right odds to call his jam once we bet, but before betting we would need 40%.
Loading 14 Comments...
I prefer betting and I think your arguments supporting it are very sound.
villain stats?
Villain is basically an unknown, only 12 hands on him playing 42/42/0. All I can tell from that is that he isn't a loose passive fish.
I probably play the same. When we have good equity like this, I think it's generally best to be trying to push villains off their hands, especially given it's an A-high board and we 3-bet pre. We also have blockers to the straights which increase our fold equity a little.
My only concern with this play is that we won't really have a great river shove left (~$120 into $250) so can't really fire three times which I would want to do if I'm double-barrelling a hand like this. Combined with the fact our straight draw isn't a good one, and I wouldn't hate a check behind allowing us to simply realise our equity.
I think I still favour aggression against an unknown though. More fun to simply pound away until we know more.
Note: If we assumed we're never getting called - by which I mean either villain shoves or folds - we'd need roughly 40% fold equity to make this a profitable bet. This is about a worst case scenario for us with regards to outcomes (ie he can just call) and I think we can probably get him off a decent percentage of his flop calling range so betting is likely to be profitable. Whether it's better than checking back to see free rivers I'm not sure though.
1. he should have thought about stacksizes on the flop and bet around 26, chich should be his std sizing on an A-high flop anyway. Bbarreling around 60 on the turn should leave villain with about 145 with a 215-220 pot.
2. Why do you " favour aggression against an unknown"? I think id rather barrel against well defined range.
2) If I don't know someone, I like to try and acquire the image of someone who is going to make life difficult by firing away. In my experience this gets people to play more passive and fit/foldy against me which is something I thoroughly encourage.
1. Well I didnt count the blinds and thought its more like 60%, but after counting them in its more like 58%, not 50%, wchich in my case is close to std IP plus it helps develop the pot in a way that allows you to triple barrel.
2. I see your point and its hard to disagree with an overall idea, however given positions if we were against a reggy player with a well defined calling range preflop, barrelling the turn is IMO even better because as there is very little 68 in both ranges (more in ours) we rep well and because we block high flush draws his cc range on the flop should be very fd light and lean towards Axxx with high cards (maybe with bd equity or a GS) and a high end wraps so 5 seems like a safe card. Do you make any changes in asigning cc range in that spot against a std reg with no dynamics?
Against an unknown however I feel like its important to check the number of tables he's playing and make sure he's not very fishy, because I dont see big FE against a fish on that particular turn. Its hard to asign a range preflop, he might still not fold an Ace, he might have 2pair which hes never folding, there are sets in his range, we dont have SD value.
i like a smaller bet on the flop. we are IP and have a nutty draw that would want weaker draws to come in.
turn i think betting or check back really depends on how light is villain peeling flop.
And thats exactly why in a situation when u block big flushdraws and there is an Ace on the flop and villain's calling range is somewhat static you should not oversize your cbet.
First of all if you claim his calling range is not static please provide me with your thoughts on his range preflop. What kind of holding is he going to fold because of your bigger sizing? Secondly betting big looks stronger but I dont understand why should it be so great for my range if It does not increase my FE. If he's got a wrap or an ace with add. eq hes not folding on the flop no matter how big you make it. Cbetting big on drawy boards in 3bet pots is going to accomplish nothing once your opponent holds good enough eq to continue and is going to cost you if you 3bet frequently and therefore are forced to cbet air more often. Note that is this particular scenario it is very unlikely for you to get CRaised because most villains will be afraid of AA. If you start cbetting big on every wet flop 100bbs deep you get a CR every time villain has a good eq against your range so every time you hold air you lose more and every time you have good enough hand to stackoff you get the same result.
Well, unless you simply refuse to cbet air on wet flops and give up.
I dont see any problem with him calling my bet on the flop nor would I see it if I held AA. I still can barrel profitably on many turns. Betting arount 60% makes my turn bluffs cheaper plus I have position which makes it very hard for me to make a mistake when I have sd value.
I would expect that hands like QQT9 w/o the flush draw to fold to big bets, but call smaller ones given they don't have THAT many good turn cards and are OOP. If villain is calling hands like that, then the fact his calling range is static is kinda amazing for us (although would probably require a recalibration of our c-betting/checking ranges to exploit this).
"C-betting big on drawy boards in 3-bet pots is going to accomplish nothing once your opponent holds good enough eq to continue..."
It's going to gain us value given this is a board upon which our c-betting range in 3-bet pots should be strong. Just because this isn't one of the strongest hands we wanna bet doesn't necessarily mean we should be betting smaller with it. Equally, allowing ourselves to bet small with this by reducing the value we gain with our monsters seems like a mistake to me - I'd rather increase what I win with my good hands even if I have to make the sacrifice of putting extra money in with this. I would argue that if you reach a point where you are 3-betting so wide that your opponent has the stronger range on boards like this, you are 3-betting too wide.
"If you start c-betting big on every wet flop 100bbs deep, you get c/r every time villain has good eq against your range..."
At no point did I suggest I would be c-betting my air a ton on wet boards. There are many wet boards which suck for our 3-bet range and we should be checking a lot. It isn't as if villains can murder us when we do this because either we can check behind, often able to turn good equity, OR they have to lead a ton on the flops which suck for us meaning my air will be folding a lot as it is.
To me, it seems like your strategy for this hand is based heavily upon the fact that you want to be able to keep bluffing. To achieve this, you are allowing yourself smaller bets to increase your later street fold equity - a legitimate way of thinking in many situations. However, what I'm suggesting is that either you are going to give away a ton of info by playing your draws and made hands differently OR you are going to bet too small, costing you value with what should be a strong range and allowing villains to draw cheaply.
It's a check back. We're not deep enough to bet fold and have a hand we don't want to bet fold either. We're folding out all worse draws and getting it in almost every time he decided to go with the hand as big underdogs (he never check calling with his stack size - at least shouldn't be).
Be the first to add a comment