Do we ever reraise without nuts
Posted by Aleksandra ZenFish
Posted by
Aleksandra ZenFish
posted in
Low Stakes
Do we ever reraise without nuts
BN: shashoualex: $18.93
SB: BLAGODARU: $10
BB: NikosZwg: $26.10
UTG: Raymer400: $68.92
HJ: KozaPL: $11.20
CO: toppovisky: $10.47
SB: BLAGODARU: $10
BB: NikosZwg: $26.10
UTG: Raymer400: $68.92
HJ: KozaPL: $11.20
CO: toppovisky: $10.47
Preflop
($0.15)
(6 Players)
shashoualex was dealt
T
A
5
J
Raymer400 folds, KozaPL raises to $0.30, toppovisky folds, shashoualex calls $0.30, BLAGODARU calls $0.25, NikosZwg folds
Raymer400 folds, KozaPL raises to $0.30, toppovisky folds, shashoualex calls $0.30, BLAGODARU calls $0.25, NikosZwg folds
Flop
($1.00)
T
T
A
(3 Players)
BLAGODARU checks,
KozaPL bets $0.30,
shashoualex calls $0.30,
BLAGODARU folds
Turn
($1.60)
T
T
A
3
(2 Players)
KozaPL bets $1.10,
shashoualex calls $1.10
River
($3.80)
T
T
A
3
5
(2 Players)
KozaPL bets $2.70,
shashoualex raises to $8.90,
KozaPL raises to $9.50, and is all in,
shashoualex calls $0.60
Final Pot
KozaPL has
A
J
A
J
KozaPL
wins $21.77
I know its suppose to rereraise only with nuts, but i started to think gaining value of my good hands that are not nutnuts, and this seemed like good spot
Was i right to reraise? Or i simply nvr do reraise without total nuts?
Loading 27 Comments...
Just not sure what you are expecting to call when you raise on the river - someone with A24 would much likelier check/call on that board I'd've thought..
1) When he leads flop with 30% pot bet (and opening pre <> full pot size on micros) I would put him to c-bet and floating and merit for that would be his tricky bet sizing. If I knew him and he always c-bets, it would be even harder for me to put him to AA...
On the other hand if he doesn't float and plays tightly - I (maybe) wouldn't re raise him on river. Maybe....
2) I beat T3, T5, 33, 55,24, AKQJ TX: X not in {3,5,A} , chop vs AT and lose only vs AA. Now this and 3) would determine my bad decision...
3) When he doesn't float in 1) with 33,55,AK24,T3,T5 holding AA and bets smallish to trap me, I expect him to c-r me on river. Why?
Because if I do have 33,55,AK24,T3,T5, AT in his eyes , when he checks river, I might easily value bet mentioned hands. Then he shoves and maximizes his profit. Better for him comparing when he value bets river and I call. If I don't have any of these hands I am not calling his river value bet neither.....
Now 2) and 3) would lead to my mistake.....
The other question would be:
If he c-r me on river - what would I do?
I don't know.....
That said, the best play against someone decent is probably to just call on all three streets. It's such a static board, only 3 cards change the nuts. If your opponent is betting a bare 10, then you should let him continue. And if you're up against AAxx you want to reduce the damage.
In general though, I would very rarely fail to get 100bbs in with your hand and just calling down seems pretty horrible.
Or better yet, let's switch the tables. You're in the opponent's seat with KQT3 and you're facing a turn or river raise. Do you ever continue in that spot?
The only situation I could possibly imagine continuing on is if I somehow had a hand like KKQT, and turn or river was a K. At least then you're ahead of *some* of the value raising range. But on the board in question, there are really only two hands that will raise, AT and AA, and the OP is holding the loser of those two. It's the 2nd nuts but it's still essentially just a bluff catcher. And this is a board that I don't really see a lot of bluffs on.
Against the typical player pool at PLO10 I'm also getting stacked here. They do the weirdest things sometimes. But assuming a good opponent, could you please elaborate?
I think people get bogged down far too frequently in how to play a hand versus good opponents/players who think like they do when very few people actually play against anyone remotely good and giving villains credit for thought processes beyond the most simplistic will often result in losing value. Honestly, I work under the assumption that every low-stakes villain is a moron until I see evidence to the contrary because, in the vast majority of cases, this will be true (or at least they will play like morons even if outside of poker they are perfectly intelligent). Those times I make plays which cost me a little versus someone I later find out isn't awful are more than made up for by the extra value I gain from all the idiots I accurately categorize early.
For specifically how I would play this hand and what I would be hoping to achieve, I want some information on villain (is he loose/passive, spazzy button presser, or nit?). Literally any stats we have on him/any hand we've seen him play can be valuable in deciding our best line. However, as a general rule I would have raised earlier in the hand - most probably the flop - to give villain the greatest chance of doing something stupid like sticking around w/ a random A (I would be STUNNED if a 10PLO villain could fold a T here). Note that villain bet tiny as well which is always something we should consider (and should write down for next time we play him). Once we have some info on villain, maybe we can look for other options.
As Jonna102 said : If your opponent is betting a bare 10, then you should let him continue. And if you're up against AAxx you want to reduce the damage ~ is what i usually do, but im trying to introduce some changes and imporvement in play lines
http://www.highstakesdb.com/view-hand-history.aspx?GameID=1260363
Hand is nothing like one in OP.
As I wrote it's related to topic of this thread.
The topic of thread is: " Do we ever reraise without nuts"....
edit: in both hands players not having nuts had plan on river to put as much money in pot as they can/have. Their final action was re raise (having plan for it or not). I am not talking about positions and players' moves on every street and hand in general...
For example, on a KT245 run out I think it's often totally fine to raise A3 on the river. Depending on previous action etc obviously. Or when I hit a backdoor Q or J high flush, I'm certainly considering raising (or c/r thin for value) although it's not automatic obviously.
On this board though, I think if you're raising this board you do it earlier in the hand. (to possibly get value from a naked T for example, on the river I don't think you get called by naked trips too often)
In this instance raising with your specific hand is not a good spot. You called twice on a paired rainbow board and it seems that it is difficult to get called by a worse hand, raising will cause worse hands to fold, and chops and AAxx to call/raise. If you wanted to extract value from worse hands you should've started raising earlier.
1) Villain's range gets progressively stronger as he keeps betting
2) On this dry board Villain's stack-off range should be very narrow from the get-go. Our hand, good as it is, becomes more and more a bluffcatcher when Villain keeps betting.
I like Hero's flop + turn line here. As played, I would call the river. We could raise earlier to extract value from trips, but calling as a slowplay also has merit. Worse hands need to spike a 2-outer or runner-runner bigger house to draw out, and we don't have to think about protecting our hand. It's a very WA/WB scenario where we don't gain anything when he folds worse (since worse hands have close to zero equity anyway, and we gain more from keeping them in, as long as they keep putting money in the pot)
I'd consider two things on the flop:
1) Extracting maximum value here and now
2) Protecting my calling range
First, if we're beat, we're beat. After the c-bet we don't expect this to happen often (but we'll have to update this probability later in the hand when Villain keeps betting). The hands we shape our plan against are the hands we're ahead of, and our main concern is to maximize value against those. Avoiding to stack off the rare times we're beat would of course be nice too. A call-down line could be the best line that achieves both, but it depends on Villain.
There's only one T out there, and lots of top pair/mediocre draws/air. Calling flop + turn certainly maximizes value from anything that isn't trips+ and will extract value from trips/lower boats as well (although not necessarily maximize it). I'd use what info I had about Villain's tendencies before choosing my line. The less likely he has a worse hand that can stand a raise, the more important it becomes to maximize value from the hands that can't.
Calling here also works as a balancing play that protects our calling range. If I choose to call the flop, I'm probably planning to keep calling if Villain continues to bet big, and balance would be an important part of it.
Then basically the same logic on the turn. We're WA/WB and there's nothing to protect against. We could raise for value vs trips/underfulls, but calling continues to extract value from all his worse hands, saves vs better hands, and balances our range, so calling is fine.
The river is where it gets interesting. When Villain has bet three streets (starting out with a c-bet 2nd to act in a multiway pot), I don't expect to be ahead of a thinking opponent's river b/c range (we need to be > 50% against his b/c hands to raise for value). Note that the likelihood of him having a bluffcatcher himself goes down when he bets (some of these hands should c/c).
I am therefore content to call the last bet as well, when I have chosen to get to the river this way. Note that this has nothing to do with our equity vs his betting range. We could be ~90% vs the betting range, but still not enough of a favorite vs his bet-calling range to raise for value. (his b/c range obv. depends on our sizing)
It could very well be that we missed out on value from trips/underfulls by slowplaying previous streets, but it's too late to fix that problem on the river when he doesn't slow down (if the assumption about his b/c range holds). Some of the hands we want value from might not be in his betting range anymore, and if they are, they might not be in his b/c range.
This is $10 PLO. Are you really considering just calling villain's river lead with the 2nd nuts when most 10 PLO villains have just enough brainpower to keep their body breathing and pumping blood? I raise here always, don't think twice about it and if he has AA then so be it. What hands will he call with? Let him figure it out. Chances are, he'll find a lot of reasons.
I'll quote the above:
"I think people get bogged down far too frequently in how to play a hand versus good opponents/players who think like they do when very few people actually play against anyone remotely good and giving villains credit for thought processes beyond the most simplistic will often result in losing value."
Thinking "oh, he won't call a raise with worse" is a trap that loses you money. At these stakes, he will indeed call you with a naked T, any fullhouse smaller than yours, the 24 (don't laugh), etc . It's good to understand this concept and apply the logic in a bigger game in a situation that warrants it, but here I think you're just losing value against allllllllllll the random junk this player pool will show up with on the river.
He had the one hand that beat you. That happens. It doesn't mean your play was wrong.
While simple thinking works at the micro stakes, it doesn't mean spots like this aren't worth thinking through. The one thing I don't see people in this thread paying enough attention to is the "filtering effect" of having Villain bet three times.
The call-down line may be sub-optimal overall, but now we're discussing what to do on the river. Once we have gotten to the river this way, Villain's bet-call range has gotten very strong. It's important to realize that many of the hands you think will pay off at the river won't make it there via a bet-bet-bet line.
The most obvious of those being the underfulls and the straight. For example, how many 42xx combos does he have that:
1) Raises pre (presumably as part of a somewhat tight open range)
2) C-bets flop multiway
3) Bets turn
4) Bets river
5) Doesn't beat us (AA42, the most likely 42xx hand in his openrange, will)
6) Pays off a raise
This six-step parlay ends up close to zero, and the same goes for 55/33 (especially 55, since we block it, and most 55 wouldn't bet flop + turn). The key to this river decision is how he plays his trips. If he will bet some unimproved trips three times and pay off a raise, then a raise is good. If he won't, it isn't.
A quick estimate:
We're 47% against 25%6h:(AA,AT,T5,T3,55,33,42), which is everything straight-or-better from a 25% openaise. Note that this range overestimates the number of straight and low house combos, since it's unreasonable that all of them get to the river via his bet-bet-bet line (although this will be compensated for if he sometimes slowplays the nuts). But we can start there.
So assuming he bets all his AAxx/ATxx for value, he has to bet-call all straights and lower houses + some trips for us to raise. Note that getting paid off by all lower houses isn't enough. If he bet-calls all houses and check-calls (or bet-folds) straights and trips, our equity vs his bet-call range drops to 38% and we lose quite a bit.
NB! There's a huge open-range effect at work here. If we rerun the calculation with a 50% open, we'll be 62% vs all his houses, and we don't need him to bet-call straights and trips at all. But he opened from HJ, and I doubt an unknown $10PLO player is opening wider than ~25% from there.
As far as playing this hand versus someone better than the assumed drooler we were actually against, I feel like not raising the flop, whilst certainly protecting our calling range, results in us becoming completely incapable of bluffing. Ever. With a value range as narrow as AA** and TT**, we just cannot have that many bluffs and ever be balanced (or even close). With that in mind, we are basically gifting these sorts of boards to our opponents which, given how dry they are, seems upsetting. That or we are simply going to get into spots where we are bluff-catching really wide and almost turning this hand into a big A w/ blockers (although obv we beat some value-bets which AK etc. wouldn't).
Then we can choose whether or not to continue with that strategy on the turn. Once we get to the river like that, we evaluate our hand strength vs his b/c range as best we can.
1) The asymmetry of the flop ranges. Who has the strongest range on this board?
2) Keep in mind that we're not doing all the defense vs his flop strategy after he bets. We also contest some pots after he checks.
Folding a lot to his c-bets doesn't necessarily mean we're letting him run over us. How much we can attack Villain on this A T T flop depends on his tendencies and his opening range (which determines his flop range). We can expect to win the lion's share of these pots by contesting them when Villain is a weak player with a wide and weak range. If he bets a lot, we can bluffraise and float a lot. If he checks a lot, we can steal a lot.
With a wide and weak opening range OOP on a A T T board and an unwillingness to re-re-bluff and bluffcatch deep into the hand (which we can assume most micro players aren't comfortable doing) he is forced to let us do one of those things to him.
However, against a tight open we don't have a God-given right to contest most pots on a A T T board, even if Villain isn't a strong player. A tight openrange starts out with a lot more strong hands on this board than we have. A strong range is entitled to bet a lot vs a weak range, particularly if the weak range is unlikely to improve. In such scenarios the weak range simply has to yield.
A flop strategy of "defending enough vs c-bets to prevent Villain from bluffing profitably with any four cards" (we defend 50% of our range when he pots, 2/3 of it when he half-pots, etc) can be seen as a first approximation to a GTO strategy, but isn't GTO.
This pot-odds based 1-street-in-isolation defense strategy goes out the window when the bettor starts out with a superior flop range. Dry/heavy boards like ATT and AKx are like that, where a tight open will start out with many more of the hands that matter than a flatting range will, and the hands that don't matter rarely improve.
As an example of extreme range asymmetry, consider a wide BTN (100 bb) open range that flats wide vs a 3B from a tight player in the blinds. Defending "enough" (as in the % of our total flop range corresponding to the pot-odds Villain is getting on a steal) on a A T T board would be insane. The BTN range is full of air, the 3B range isn't (but there are other boards where the BTN can defend much more).
/strategy ramble
One is to fold preflop. I'm not a huge fan of the preflop call in this hand. A better option might be to 3bet this hand (and fold to a 4bet), but it isn't really a great hand to 3bet either. Especially with the frequency of overcalls in 3bet pots that you see at PLO10. This hand is not really all that great, and it's not necessary to play this hand to be a winner at PLO10.
Another is to raise the flop. That would be a much better way to get value from trips drawing to a 2nd best hand. It also allows us to consider folding to a flop 3bet. Raising the turn has a similar effect.
Both these options give us the chance to gain information that might allow us to fold the hand. It's still a tough fold to make, in games where people go pot crazy with underfulls all the time. But still, we'd have much more indication that we're beat if we played it more aggressively earlier on.
And again, I wouldn't fault anyone for folding this hand preflop even if it seems a little bit nitty.
Be the first to add a comment