floping nuts in 3b pot, get raised. otf
Posted by JimmyGlass
Posted by
JimmyGlass
posted in
Low Stakes
floping nuts in 3b pot, get raised. otf
SB: $67.30 (Hero)
BB: $62.50
BN: $48.25
BB: $62.50
BN: $48.25
Preflop
($0.75)
(3 Players)
Hero was dealt
K
J
K
J
BN raises to $1.50, Hero raises to $5, BB folds, BN calls $3.50
BN raises to $1.50, Hero raises to $5, BB folds, BN calls $3.50
Flop
($10.75)
4
Q
A
(2 Players)
Hero bets $6.40,
BN raises to $14
atm V was unknown.
the spot for me is about a) he has flush and probably never folding - so we should think on gii right now (to avoid scary cards)
b) he has air and will\could continue his bluff on later streets. 3b otf then has no sense obv.
as we block diamonds, bluffs are bit more likely, but really confused how to play unknown here.
and how would you you play vs good aggro-reg? would you expect a turn barrel w\ air?
Loading 8 Comments...
My guess is that he has some piece of this as it's an odd board to bluff against someone who raised oop......I would stand on the raise button; just calling his raise is going to look strong as well so may as well get more money in with stone nuts.
Vs a good aggro reg I'd still raise....calling just looks too strong anyway...
It's impossible to appear weak here, and you're a bit handcuffed by being OOP. In such situations you can't go very wrong by playing straightforwardly, in my opinion. If he raise/folds low flushes, you can attack him with blocker semibluffs, so there are other ways to get paid.
"as we block diamonds, bluffs are bit more likely,"
You can also argue the opposite, since blocker bluffs would make a lot of sense. He can't have the nut or 2nd nut flush blockers, and his range could be weighted far away from bluffs because of that.
Obviously, very strange, given we have the K and J of diamonds.
So, hmmm, he likely either has a low flush or some kind of bluff/semibluff.
What's important here is that I don't think you'll get any turn + river bets from his range, only a turn bet. Then he'll often check down his low flushes, and give up on the 3rd barrel without a blocker (w/ his bluffs).
Because of that, I'd just go ahead and 3bet the flop and hope for the best. If (pretty much) best case scenario when you call is getting one more bet out of him, it'd be hard for raising to not outperform that.
In villain's shoes, would it make sense to play QQ this way? I think most people's standard is to call, but maybe he could use it to semibluff?
I agree with others than 3betting flop is the best way to get money. I don't expect him to bluff much with no blockers, so either a small flush going for value/protection/"find out where I'm at" (probably not advisable, but some people play this way), or some kind of semibluff like a set or two pair seems most likely. What do you guys think about 3bet sizing? My first thought was to click it back since we're repping polar on a lockdown board, but against a set we'd like to charge him more to see a turn. Against a small flush, I think it's really opponent dependent: some people we might want to put to a decision on the flop, some it might be better to string along with small bets.
I think it makes sense from some perspective to semibluff with AA or QQ here. Those are the only hands that can semibluff with decent equity. Certainly makes more sense to me than raising a small flush. How likely it is that AA or QQ makes it to this flop this way is another story. Either way, I like the 3-bet here too.
I don't think the sizing of the 3-bet matters all that much. The point (imo) is to get villain to put in more $$'s immediately with a hand that he apparently likes. The type of opponent who raises AA,QQ or smaller flushes here, also won't be folding either of those hands to any size 3-bet. And whether or not villain actually gets marginally ok odds to peel with some parts of his range, he's still putting that money in as a 5:1 dog to hit his boat on the turn. Meaning, any extra $$'s he puts in, we win 84% of it, and at best it's a 0 EV decision for him to call or fold.
hmmmmm....
why do u say jonna that size of 3-bet doesn't matter?
from perspective whether he calls us it's "almost" same we 3-bet full pot or 2/3 pot, but we must look little bit further i.e.
"What's optimal 3-bet size given stacks, when we want our opponent to call our turn bet (size matters) on non paired board when villain holds AA or QQ?"
Well even if we make it max, villain has odds to call to see two cards. So it's not like he's folding a set if we shove. If we make it $21.6-$23.4 he has odds to see just one card, and then he has odds to call any turn card. The value of just calling is pretty uncertain though, unless hero often stacks off on board pairing cards. Basically, any size we raise to, I think villain will want to see two cards if he has a set, and just stick it all in.
So against his sets I really don't think the raise size make a lot of difference. The raise size might make a difference against his bluffs and his lower flushes. Against those we'd want to raise as small as possible I guess. Although if he has only bluffs and smaller flushes I'm not sure we want to raise at all. I think Phil covered those parts of his range pretty well in his post.
In a 3 bet pot villain has to assume AAxx is a big part of heros range and would be kinda suicidal to try an outright bluff. I would say the most likely holding is a smaller flush. With a bit deeper stacks I would CIB and check turn. But given the stacks I think villains plan is to get it in on all non pairing turns. So call and call his turn AI. If board pairs on turn I would just donk shove. This is the line against unknowns. Against an aggro reg I would just get it in on the flop assuming an aggro reg would never fold a flush, at least given my own image.
Be the first to add a comment