5/10 3bet Pot river - thin value or not?
Posted by opn_mindet
Posted by
opn_mindet
posted in
High Stakes
5/10 3bet Pot river - thin value or not?
Hi, i am a bit unsure regards following spots. Its one of the spots where we have most likely the best hand but its questionable if we get called by worse enough to make a value bet.Villain is a reg but i think he is coming from 6max.He doesn´t open butons super wide and seems more passsiv on flop while his aggression is raising towards river. In 3bet pots (his 3bet is 17%) he is cbetting only 35% so far (ion srp´s like 45%) and is c/f half the time so far (600 sample). He can attack capped ranges tho like 3betting turns when you chkB flops and rep turned trips or when you chkB paired flops.Seems like his whole game is really showdown bound at least on flop and turn... i altho have seen some light calls on river in smaller pots.My image is in line/probably tag/tight not to creative/bluffy i guess.
His 1/2 make sence on this flop as i see most people do it on monoton flops- not sure about turn tho (could be a flush still, occ. a boat) .On river i feel i have the best hands most of the time. Assuming i flat all flushes and sets, 2pairs that turn a boat on flop i have 40% boats+ on river and given i am not betting all my flushes on river i am not afraid of b/f to much on river nor is my range capped.I still struggle with betting river unless i bet really small (unsure how to react to a cR). I don´t think its a good spots for villain to go for a cr for value on river and i´d be suprise to see him showing up with different opinion. On the flip side i´d don´t think i get called by 3rd nutflush often enough to make hbetting +ev.So he might c/c with a nut flush sometimes, rarely with a straight (which i think would be pretty bad against me.Do you guys see any other factors to bet or do you disagress with my assumptions?
Loading 8 Comments...
I think game dynamic matters alot in these type of spots, meaning if villain has seen you playing tough on monotone boards its a clear vb. I don't think he ever has NF because he should be betting that. Only thing that would make me check back a hand so high in my range is if villain had a crazy x/r frequency because i cant bet/call with no blockerz
To me its seems like most villains in this spot will have a really polarized checking range(boat+ (check-raise) or hands weaker than a flush(check-fold)). So VS that range a value bet with a king high flush will loose its function atleast in a vacum (only fold out worse, and get action from better kinda thing).
Gametheory wise I think we want to have a bluffing range here especially since I feel most regs theese days are check-folding the river a ton in this spot, but its hard for us to attack it (by overbluffing) since there is extremely hard for us to have a ton of "bluffs" by the river, as played. We have a ton of showdownable hands given our line, which is arguments for that we don't need to be valuebetting thinly since we aren't really bluffing alot in this spot and our villains range should be very polarized.
Game theory sidetrack:
We don't have many bluffs on the river, agreed. Would it make sense to introduce some more by peeling light with the NF blocker on the flop and turn? Say, the Ac + a thin draw like T9, with a plan of bluffing at some point when we don't improve and Villain stops betting. We'll be able to defend more flops and turns, we have a little bit of equity from the draw, and we expect some good bluffing opportunities later.
Floating more flops/turns just in order to have more bluffs on the river might sound a little silly, but the NF blocker is a special case. I wouldn't mind peeling light if I have a little equity from the sidecards to add some value, in addition to the future bluffing opportunities.
From a theoretical standpoint I don't think it makes too much sense to add in -EV floats in order to have a wider bluffing range to cover certain runouts (I mean basically it's either +EV to float with those hands given villains frequencies or not and until we don't know that I'd assume they should be folded). I mean basically we are saying that villain is playing a strategy where he is folding a lot of rivers after checking, however that doesn't necessarily mean we should start floating significantly wider on earlier streets just to get into that profitable spot on the river, it might just mean that we should be bluffing with a bigger segment of our worst hands that we get to the river with, rather than increasing the range we get there with, no ? Criticism on my thought process is more than welcome, I'm really just throwing my logic out there and wondering if it's correct !
Agreed, we should not make -EV plays when we know them to be so. What triggered my curiosity was Oddsen's statement about not having bluffs in a spot where players tend to c/f a lot.
The question is then, can we make more money overall by getting to the river with a wider range, some of which are blocker floats planning to bluff when he checks? I don't think this particular Villain is the best candidate, given his tight c-bet stats, but I'm curious about the concept. Widening our defense range in position on hard-to-hit-boards is generally a good thing.
Yes, you are totally right Zen, we should peel lighter than two pair+ (elsewise we are overfolding this board a ton). And peeling {NF blocker, pair+club blocker, pair+oesd...}(combination between card removal and equity) is a good way to start. And you can kinda build / remove more hands to this range based on how we view villains CBet-strategy... and we should obviosuly pick the hands with least SDvalue+most blocker "value" to bluff when we arrive to the river with not good enough SD hands.
And would you choose to float more top p type hands maybe with a straight draw, or more NF blocker with middle pair or even nothing type hands. It would be excessive to be floating all of them, and we would be betting too high a % on the river when checked to.
It seems on the higher boards like QJx the value of floating the NF blocker goes up. Since many high flush cards are on board the opponent with combinatorically have more low flushes. Also since he 3b and is high card heavy, the showdown of the top P or overpair or 2p type hands goes down because he can definitely be barreling one of those himself as a bluff.
The converse is true on low boards. As even if we have the NF blocked, many K, Q, J flushes are still possible. And you rep more thin value than NF heavy. He could sit there with K high flush often thinking you're value betting Q high and call for that reason. Then 2p, overpair type hands have alot more SDV.
Thanks for the input guys...haven´t seen it yet - so sorry for the delay.
I agree with first statement made by you oddsen: I don´t get to the river that light here (at least perceived) so we don´t need to be bluffing/vbetting (too) thin here.
At zen fish: regards your "Widening our defense range in position on hard-to-hit-boards is generally a good thing. " - i like that idea but think i hesistate to often to pull the trigger. In this spot the NF blocker is really good candidate for making some stabs later on esp. if backed up with some equity and if my image is good/tight.
I also think low paired boards fall into the category too were double floating is a viable option i probably should implement this more and more into my game (in these spots people rarely bet twcie to cc river).
Be the first to add a comment