Playing all streets w/ AA OOP vs fairly innocuous board/action?
Posted by devwil
Posted by
devwil
posted in
Low Stakes
Playing all streets w/ AA OOP vs fairly innocuous board/action?
Blinds: $0.25/$0.50 (6 Players)
MP: $10.75
CO: $52.42
BN: $46.75
SB: $65.88 (Hero)
BB: $62.90
UTG: $37.34
CO: $52.42
BN: $46.75
SB: $65.88 (Hero)
BB: $62.90
UTG: $37.34
CO seemed TAG-ish over a small sample.
Preflop
($0.75)
Hero is SB with
A
A
5
T
, , , , , , ,
Standard 3bet with AA. Could flat this combo, but I've most been reserving that for when neither ace is suited.
Flop
($16.50)
2
3
5
,
I think this is a pretty standard "bet small on dry flop in 3bet pot" spot. Additionally, I block the wheel and CO shouldn't have 64 or straight draws super often.
Turn
($28.00)
2
3
5
J
,
JJ is in their range, but I think I'm getting value from QQ/KK (maybe even Jx) too often to check. Plus, I don't think I should be check/calling a big bet, so this is almost a blocker bet. I'm not sure how misguided my play on this turn is, though. (Also: we're rainbow on the turn with very few straight possibilities for either of our ranges, so I don't need to bet big for protection.)
River
($46.00)
2
3
5
J
7
Pretty identical thought process to the turn, for me. It's basically a blocker bet. The 7d really shouldn't improve their hand very often, but I'm prepared to fold to a raise after betting this amount.
Awkward hand for me, and I'm not sure about my street-by-street play here. Feedback appreciated!
Loading 6 Comments...
Just a question regarding the flop.
What would you do if your villain makes a raise here? Would you be happy to call? Or would you be happier to call a bet if you just check and let the villain do the betting?
What are the actual objectives you want to achieve with your bet? What kind of hands do you expect to call and what kind of hand do you expect your villain to call?
If your opponent has just overcards, he is drawing for runner runner two pairs and against these you don't really need a lot of protection. He can also have an overpair and then he has 2 outs for set.
And if your villain has a pair, do you expect him to fold for 1/3 pot size bet? Villain has 2 outs for trips and 9 outs for two pairs. So against your bet he is having so lucrative odds, that most players won't fold a pair there in position.
Also most cards won't really change the situation in turn. Against his range you are either really ahead or then you are really behind. I don't give any specific opinions how to play the hand especially in turn or river. I just want to recommend to think his actions i flop more considering how different parts of his range would react to your betting.
Re: objectives: I do want calls, because I think I'm usually ahead and—as I mention in my turn comments—getting value from worse overpairs. But I also think that, with smaller sizings, I get more calls from worse and lose less when behind. And as I believe we agree on, I don't need much protection.
I think that I need to fold to a raise on any street, though. While it's not an overwhelming portion of villain's range, by the river there's no reason they can't have me beat with JJ, 64, 75, or even A4. Maybe other sets, but not super often. (Maybe J7? There are certainly J7 combos in rundowns CO would play like this preflop, but even in the face of my small cbet it's a weird choice to call flop with.)
And they don't have many bluffs in their range on any street unless they just want to be tough with an overpair on the flop, in which case... I think I have to fold the best hand sometimes due to a lack of visibility out of position.
All that said, I think I forfeit too much value vs QQ & KK by not betting... so it's maybe a sizing question, overall?
MegaGrinder If we check on flop to let him bluff with those hands and "catch up" to a worse value hands, what's often gonna happen is either:
a) he triple barrels and we face a tough decision with 1p, or
b) he turns some equity and checks back
In short, by checking on flop we don't risk giving only 1 card for free but often times 2, sometimes for free, other times for the price he sets. And even though the board and the equity distribution won't change much from flop to turn, it can still change a lot from flop to river. About 10% of the time a non-heart backdoor flush will complete, among many things.
This is not to say that I think we have a mandatory flop bet, to me it seems pretty close and I'm fine with either play, but if you go for a flop check because flop-to-turn equity transition is not big, you also need to think about what happens if he bets flop and barrels through or checks back turn, as well as checking back flop right away.
Just how I would see this hand in position is following.
This hand most likely did not hit the opponent. He can have A4, but most likely not. A4 is just a piece from his range. Sets are even more rare so this is the spot, where his c-bet range is weak. Maybe it is not very weak against my average calling range, but it might be too weak to call a raise. This is where I smell a good spot to bluff. Let's say I would have called with JT87 with one backdoor. Instead of folding I could easily raise that hand in that spot.
I don't say that other players in PLO 25 or PLO 50 or PLO 100 will see the flop in a similar way, but best players at these limits are also tough. By frequently c-betting these like you do, you at least create an imbalance in your range, where your overall range becomes weak.
Basically what I didn't like with your bet, is that it would be very vulnerable against bluff raise in a spot, where bluff raises will be quite frequent at least when you climb up in stakes. It still can be the best play at PLO 50 against your opponent but thinking about being balanced cannot do too much harm especially when we still can deviate from balanced play to exploit passive villains by purpose!
I like the flop bet. I think given your equity advantage hand vs. range (as MegaGrinder showed us) and range vs. range on this flop, you should be doing a lot of betting.
I like the turn bet too, for the same reasons, and I like your sizing choices for the situation.
There aren't many PLO river spots where value betting 1 pair makes sense, but I do believe this is one of them. If you don't VB this hand, at least sometimes, you end up checking the river quite a bit, I suspect, in a situation where your range vs. range equity is still pretty good. It's a unique spot - it's rare that preflop ranges miss this board by this much AND that the turn and river don't complete any draws.
Well played, imo, and thanks for sharing a cool hand!
I must disagree here with Phil Galfond about the best line when it comes to flop bet. To disagree with him feels weird and really challenge my self confidence. But I cannot get rid of my thinking, so I try to explain why I can see a better line in my opinion.
I try to write a lot of details so these arguments can be corrected if necessary.
I see well what you want to achieve with betting and that there are worse hands which will pay often enough. But I think that instead of trying to extract the maximum value from hands like KK99 we should try to maximize the value against his complete range. This includes also other parts than these paired hands
From his range, the big part are hands which miss the flop completely. And this is the part of his range that flop-bet won't extract the maximum value. This part also could easily try to bluff at least once if we check the flop.
If the opponent pot-controls his pair of kings, we still have two rounds to extract value by betting ourselves. By betting only turn and river if checked behind at flop, we can get almost the same EV against this kind of hands.
But if he has nothing at flop there are two ways how we can get more money.
1. He tries to bluff (which we can call at least twice)
2. He can get a pair and decides to float to our turn bet
(3.) We can prevent him bluff-raising for instaprofit and making us to fold (This one is not that clear, as he can still 3-barrel bluff, where we just cannot call
With the equity breakdown card by card I wanted to show that regardless of turn cards, the range-vs-range equity remains pretty much as it is. Therefore we don't need protection, because turn-cards won't really change the situation. That is very unique spot, where we can check and let the villain improve a little to get more value.
The value we can miss by checking is from hands like QQJJ if K comes (And we can also loose to hands which will get sets (But we expected these hands to call anyway, so against turned or rivered sets, we would lose anyway)
Increased value against his air compensate the reduced value against his made hands by choosing more passive line. This is how I see it, but I am happily corrected if that is not the case.
Be the first to add a comment