Tough hand vs percieved flairmonkey

[muckthenuts]

Roughly an hour into a £1-2 live game. Villain is a 20 something European guy playing a very unique flairy style. He's playing lots of hands involving much postflop aggression with plenty of betting and check raising and we have one bit of history where he opens the cutoff for £6 and i defend T8s from the BB. Flop comes QT3 and we go check check. I lead an 8 turn and he quickly reaches for chips and raises me, i flat. 8 river i check, he fires again for £33 and folds pretty fast to my raise. We're about an hour in and lots of his moves have worked out for him vs others and he has a big stack after having bought in for £150 (max £250).

Eff stacks £285

Folds to me on the button and i open   to £7. Villain in BB raises to £20, I call.

Flop  

Villain checks quite quickly. I decide to fade the invariable check raise and tap the table as well. While i'd prefer not to give another card i feel like it's a little odd he isn't firing on this texture and that i'm just gonna get raised often enough by this guy that it'll make the hand much tougher to play. Thoughts?

Turn  

Villain checks again and this time i reach and bet £25. Villain raises me up to £80...after thinking a little while i call.

River  

Villain quickly bets £135. What do you do?

The toughest thing about my decision is that though villain has certainly shown himself to be flairy i don't really have much indication of how thinking he actually is. Like whether he's aware of my range, his range, knows what good scare cards are, realises i v rarely have a 5 here so knows he could bet an A for value here etc. i don't really know the answer to any of these questions. He might be sick good (would have thought he'd buyin for the max though) or just some aggrotard rolling his face on a live keyboard. From a hand reading perspective he isn't repping much though right? Would be interested to hear others thoughts on this hand.

[youthnkzR]

I've typed out several different responses do far and had to delete them every time... Very strange hand.. Will be interesting to hear what more accomplished cash game players (than myself) think... Just fold IMO. Gonna take a shot in the dark and say he has KK.

[SuuPRlim]

Flop pretty stnd imo

Turn, once you check the flop I'd check back again and give yourself a pretty easy river decision decision. Your range is capped when you bet the turn and he'll know this + can still think he can rep AK, KK, AA etc + might  start semi-bluffing with loads of stuff.

I think bet/calling the turn vs this guy is actually pretty exploitable, you're now heading to the river with a pretty face up capped range vs a very tricky opponent, he might even be able to really value own you with some hands.

now you've got a horrid spot. You need to be right ~40% of the time here to flick it in, problem is theoretically you might be in a spot where none of your range can call. I'm trying to think of what hands you can get to the river with here you are able to call with   Xs obv one, 44 another, 56s ofc but what else do you have? This is the problem with bet calling a pretty capped turn range as you give your oppo a pretty unexploitable bluff. Where he needs you to fold like 65%~ of the time and you barely have a hand you can call with 10% of the time.

I don't see how you can call with 88 here I think you'll defo be good sometimes but it would be a pretty bad call.

[FrenchieBeni]

Fold pf vs this villain?
I like checking back the turn again w/o too much read/info on villain's thought process.
Play polarized betting ranges vs such opponents b4 having more solid reads.

i fold now as played.

[DMorgan]

Really don't like the turn bet - I think its pretty obvious to him that if you had anything better than thin value you would for sure bet the flop so he can just coffin you on the turn when you bet.

As played I think its a fold - ace high semi bluffs got there too and I don't think its inconceivable that he does this with Kx for value since there are just so few aces you can have with this line so I think its a fold.

[Honeybadger]

Really don't like the turn bet - I think its pretty obvious to him that if you had anything better than thin value you would for sure bet the flop so he can just coffin you on the turn when you bet.

Lil'Dave also mentioned about your range being capped when you check back the flop/bet the turn, and said this is a problem because villain can own you etc. But this is fuzzy thinking imo. Because when villain checks both the flop and the turn his hand is even more face up than yours as a non-monster hand. For example, he never has AA, KK or AK etc. If it is obvious to villain that "if you had anything better than thin value you would for sure bet the flop", well... it should be just as obvious to you when villain checks both flop and turn that he can't have anything other than thin value.

If I am betting this turn I am not bet-folding vs this villain. His range is capped and he is not repping much at all with a turn c/r. Plus he has previous for making these spazzy moves repping thin ranges etc. So either checking back turn or bet-calling is fine with me. Bet-folding not fine though.

I guess the plan would be to call on almost every river card. I also guess that this particular river would be one of the few cards on which we at least thinking about folding.

[skolsuper]

Really don't like the turn bet - I think its pretty obvious to him that if you had anything better than thin value you would for sure bet the flop so he can just coffin you on the turn when you bet.

Lil'Dave also mentioned about your range being capped when you check back the flop/bet the turn, and said this is a problem because villain can own you etc. But this is fuzzy thinking imo. Because when villain checks both the flop and the turn his hand is even more face up than yours as a non-monster hand. For example, he never has AA, KK or AK etc. If it is obvious to villain that "if you had anything better than thin value you would for sure bet the flop", well... it should be just as obvious to you when villain checks both flop and turn that he can't have anything other than thin value.

If I am betting this turn I am not bet-folding vs this villain. His range is capped and he is not repping much at all with a turn c/r. Plus he has previous for making these spazzy moves repping thin ranges etc. So either checking back turn or bet-calling is fine with me. Bet-folding not fine though.

I guess the plan would be to call on almost every river card. I also guess that this particular river would be one of the few cards on which we at least thinking about folding.

Am trying to incorporate the check flop, check-raise turn line as it is so awesome. Follow it up with a river overbet and who knows what the fuck is going on.

[Honeybadger]

Really don't like the turn bet - I think its pretty obvious to him that if you had anything better than thin value you would for sure bet the flop so he can just coffin you on the turn when you bet.

Lil'Dave also mentioned about your range being capped when you check back the flop/bet the turn, and said this is a problem because villain can own you etc. But this is fuzzy thinking imo. Because when villain checks both the flop and the turn his hand is even more face up than yours as a non-monster hand. For example, he never has AA, KK or AK etc. If it is obvious to villain that "if you had anything better than thin value you would for sure bet the flop", well... it should be just as obvious to you when villain checks both flop and turn that he can't have anything other than thin value.

If I am betting this turn I am not bet-folding vs this villain. His range is capped and he is not repping much at all with a turn c/r. Plus he has previous for making these spazzy moves repping thin ranges etc. So either checking back turn or bet-calling is fine with me. Bet-folding not fine though.

I guess the plan would be to call on almost every river card. I also guess that this particular river would be one of the few cards on which we at least thinking about folding.

Am trying to incorporate the check flop, check-raise turn line as it is so awesome. Follow it up with a river overbet and who knows what the fuck is going on.

I'd argue that there are more important things to be working on than what is usually going to be a FPS line, but if you have all of those things down perfect then go for it!

If the argument is that villain really can have a monster hand after checking twice... well you could choose to make the same sort of argument for hero after he checks back the flop. Maybe hero has been working on stengthening his check-back-flop-with-big-hands-in-3bet-pots-as-PFC ranges...??!  

N.B. There are some really cool spots to check flop/c-r turn, but these usually come up in other dynamics rather than as the PF 3bettor. I'm not saying these spots don't exist in 3bet pots as the last aggressor, more saying that they are relatively unimportant so focus on the other stuff first.

[skolsuper]

Really don't like the turn bet - I think its pretty obvious to him that if you had anything better than thin value you would for sure bet the flop so he can just coffin you on the turn when you bet.

Lil'Dave also mentioned about your range being capped when you check back the flop/bet the turn, and said this is a problem because villain can own you etc. But this is fuzzy thinking imo. Because when villain checks both the flop and the turn his hand is even more face up than yours as a non-monster hand. For example, he never has AA, KK or AK etc. If it is obvious to villain that "if you had anything better than thin value you would for sure bet the flop", well... it should be just as obvious to you when villain checks both flop and turn that he can't have anything other than thin value.

If I am betting this turn I am not bet-folding vs this villain. His range is capped and he is not repping much at all with a turn c/r. Plus he has previous for making these spazzy moves repping thin ranges etc. So either checking back turn or bet-calling is fine with me. Bet-folding not fine though.

I guess the plan would be to call on almost every river card. I also guess that this particular river would be one of the few cards on which we at least thinking about folding.

Am trying to incorporate the check flop, check-raise turn line as it is so awesome. Follow it up with a river overbet and who knows what the fuck is going on.

I'd argue that there are more important things to be working on than what is usually going to be a FPS line, but if you have all of those things down perfect then go for it!

If the argument is that villain really can have a monster hand after checking twice... well you could choose to make the same sort of argument for hero after he checks back the flop. Maybe hero has been working on stengthening his check-back-flop-with-big-hands-in-3bet-pots-as-PFC ranges...??!  

N.B. There are some really cool spots to check flop/c-r turn, but these usually come up in other dynamics rather than as the PF 3bettor. I'm not saying these spots don't exist in 3bet pots as the last aggressor, more saying that they are relatively unimportant so focus on the other stuff first.

Yes I do have everything else in order ty

didn't notice it was a 3b pot tho so yeah maybe save that line for another time

[SuuPRlim]

I don't think I agree that the villian has a more capped, or weaker range than us OTT.

Don't see too many reasons why he can't have AA/KK/AK - ths is quite a sweeping generalization but a lot of the "air" would c-bet a king high board being traditionally excellent flops for pre-flop 3bettors, so his range to check for "value/pot control" almost certainly would NOT c/r the turn so it's a range quite nicely balanced between air (which isn't THAT much) and big value hands (AA/AK/KK, maybe some other K*s) - saying that a "tricky" villain would never chk a K23r flop with those hands is defo wrong imo, if he's good he's never going to chk the flop with KK then lead the turn with it imo.

I think 88 is a slam dunk chk/back here OTT, protect some equity yes but really is very little value betting without trying to induce something (?) I think the interesting side of this discussion is what we do with  or  .

 

[Honeybadger]

I don't think I agree that the villian has a more capped, or weaker range than us OTT.

The main point I was making is that it was illogical for you and Dan to say "hero's range is capped once he checks the flop, so he can get owned by villain if he bets the turn" unless you also accept that villain's range is also capped (because he has checked both the flop and the turn). Of course, we can never rule anything out completely. Villain may have decided to get ultra-tricky (button-clicky) by checking twice with the nuts... however unlikely and bad this would be. But by the same logic, hero may also check back the flop with the nuts too (however unlikely, however bad). I was just pointing out the woolly thinking.

Don't see too many reasons why he can't have AA/KK/AK - ths is quite a sweeping generalization but a lot of the "air" would c-bet a king high board being traditionally excellent flops for pre-flop 3bettors, so his range to check for "value/pot control" almost certainly would NOT c/r the turn so it's a range quite nicely balanced between air (which isn't THAT much) and big value hands (AA/AK/KK, maybe some other K*s) - saying that a "tricky" villain would never chk a K23r flop with those hands is defo wrong imo, if he's good he's never going to chk the flop with KK then lead the turn with it imo.

Dave, you appear to be inferring that it is reasonable/good for villain to take this weird and awkward 'out of tempo' line with his good hands (balanced presumably by bluffs). I don't want to get into this in too much detail here, but basically this is completely wrong. I guarantee you that pretty much every player you will ever meet who is taking these sort of lines is just clicking buttons randomly. Unless there is some insane adjustment being made between two highly skilled players, or some hugely skillful use of live tells that allows one player to sense that another is weak or strong and so take a radical exploitative line... there is simply no need for anyone to be ever taking these sort of lines. When players do this all they are doing is clicking buttons. And clicking them badly.

I think 88 is a slam dunk chk/back here OTT, protect some equity yes but really is very little value betting without trying to induce something (?)

I actually agree that this is often a good check back on the turn for hero. But it is far from a 'slam-dunk' check back, especially vs a villain like this who has history of getting out of line and spazzy. There are a lot of arguments in favour of betting smallish - partly for protection, but mainly to induce.

I think the interesting side of this discussion is what we do with  or  .

I don't think this is especially interesting tbh. It is a very, very, very clear and obvious bet.

[SuuPRlim]

I don't think I agree that the villian has a more capped, or weaker range than us OTT.

The main point I was making is that it was illogical for you and Dan to say "hero's range is capped once he checks the flop, so he can get owned by villain if he bets the turn" unless you also accept that villain's range is also capped (because he has checked both the flop and the turn). Of course, we can never rule anything out completely. Villain may have decided to get ultra-tricky (button-clicky) by checking twice with the nuts... however unlikely and bad this would be. But by the same logic, hero may also check back the flop with the nuts too (however unlikely, however bad). I was just pointing out the woolly thinking.

Mmmm, not sure it's that illogical, safe to say that he checks KK way way more than we chk 33 or 22? I think That's pretty accurate, although no-1 should be checking any of there hands imo. Don't understand how thinking "well he knows the best hand I have here is KJ~ and I guess it's defo still possible for him to have AA-KK-AK, despite the fact that would be bad" is Woolly? Seems like a pretty rational thought to me.  I think he'll assume we never check 22 or 33 (maybe we'll check AK once in a blue moon) and i think he'll be pretty much spot on in assuming that.

Don't see too many reasons why he can't have AA/KK/AK - ths is quite a sweeping generalization but a lot of the "air" would c-bet a king high board being traditionally excellent flops for pre-flop 3bettors, so his range to check for "value/pot control" almost certainly would NOT c/r the turn so it's a range quite nicely balanced between air (which isn't THAT much) and big value hands (AA/AK/KK, maybe some other K*s) - saying that a "tricky" villain would never chk a K23r flop with those hands is defo wrong imo, if he's good he's never going to chk the flop with KK then lead the turn with it imo.

Dave, you appear to be inferring that it is reasonable/good for villain to take this weird and awkward 'out of tempo' line with his good hands (balanced presumably by bluffs). I don't want to get into this in too much detail here, but basically this is completely wrong. I guarantee you that pretty much every player you will ever meet who is taking these sort of lines is just clicking buttons randomly. Unless there is some insane adjustment being made between two highly skilled players, or some hugely skillful use of live tells that allows one player to sense that another is weak or strong and so take a radical exploitative line... there is simply no need for anyone to be ever taking these sort of lines. When players do this all they are doing is clicking buttons. And clicking them badly.

Yeh, I hate checking KK/AA/AK here, speshly on this board, where we'd want to Cbet nearly every sinlge time - It's kind of annoying to have AQ here, so why anyone would want to tilt themselves with the top of their range, rep a showdown hand that want's to bluff catch when they could easily rep a range with a bunch a "no-hands" in it is beside me, this doesn't detract from the facts tho. He's 3bet pf, chked K23r, chked 4 and now tried to raise, it's going to have to be a value hand some of the time and I think it's going to be AK/AA/KK or maybe him trying to get the "owners" on us with K8s or something IDK, but my experience of these types is that they are well aware of the fact people don't like to fold vs them (prolly with decent reason) so they always try to set scenarios up where they look FOS and those are the spots that they always show up with value in my experience.

That doesn't really conquer the argument from a strategic point of view, but that's what I've seen loads from playing vs these overly FPS guys. Plainly put, from my experience playing (which is admittedly less than yours) I'd be pretty confident saying that if you think this type of villain can never have AA/AK/KK OTT then you're wrong, which is why I don't like betting the turn that much, even though as it happens it's actually the only way really to get value form the hand, but you'll be getting value owned most of the time you bet-call, bet-folding vs this guy succks, = check and make life easy till you have some ninja read. Dont bet as stnd.

I think 88 is a slam dunk chk/back here OTT, protect some equity yes but really is very little value betting without trying to induce something (?)

I actually agree that this is often a good check back on the turn for hero. But it is far from a 'slam-dunk' check back, especially vs a villain like this who has history of getting out of line and spazzy. There are a lot of arguments in favour of betting smallish - partly for protection, but mainly to induce.

Thing is though villain is described as aggro, flairy and it's safe to assume he is way capable of getting out of line, but we haven't seen any cards from him yet, except one spot where we caught him bluffing, "flairy" isn't a read, we don't really know anything about his game with any detail, certainly not enough to try induce a spazz from him here, or to try value-bet vs something. Just the worlds easiest chk-back for me, we miss very little value, we avoid the nightmare of being raised, the only downside is we'll get bluffed on a couple of rivers, Ace/Queen rivers mostly I guess. Once we concrete some of our reads up then betting small jumps up the rankings.

I think the interesting side of this discussion is what we do with  or  .

I don't think this is especially interesting tbh. It is a very, very, very clear and obvious bet.

Yes, obvious bet, it's how we respond to the c/r, might even wanna completely contradict everything I've said and click it back/call now haha......Also I think we should bet the flop with this hands as well.

Anyway Stu - as played...fold the river?

[Whollyflush]

Agree with most turn is a check, when c/r i think its a pretty easy fold with limited info. Most likely has AK/KK/AA when he takes this line than an airball. Wouldn't worry about capped ranges playing a £1/2 live game.

[Honeybadger]

Wouldn't worry about capped ranges playing a £1/2 live game.

This is a silly thing to say. You might as well say "I wouldn't worry about hand reading in a £1/2 live game".

[Honeybadger]

Just addressing Lil'Dave's last post, plus a few other points too maybe...

First, there are a whole host of reasons why checking good hands twice here as the PF 3bettor is not only unnecessary and FPS, but is just plain bad. It is not even a question of 'being tricky', it really is just bad. One major reason for this is that the 'alternative' line of simply betting the flop, and barrelling the turn works so much better - both when we are betting for value and as a bluff.

Second, Dave I don't think you have quite grasped what I am saying about the woolly thinking. The main point I am making is that villain is pretty much just as unlikely to have a nutted hand as hero... and hence you can't say that hero can be exploited due to his capped range if villain's range is also capped. If you have a spot where (because of how the hand has been played) Player A can almost never have, say, a flush on ... well Player B might be able to exploit this by applying a ton of pressure on the turn and river. But if Player B can also almost never have a flush either (because of how the hand was played)... well in this case Player B can no longer apply the same pressure.

Tbh this sort of thinking can still work out well against weak players. We can think "Oh, he is very obviously weak here because of his bet sizing/because he checked the flop/because of some physical mannerism etc... so I will raise and he will have to fold" and then think no further, make the bluff, he folds and all is good. However, if playing against competent players this does not necessarily work - you can notice all the weakness you like, but if you cannot credibly rep anything yourself then your opponent will also notice the same weakness in your line and is likely to call you when you bluff him.

To phrase it a little better: against weak players you only need to focus on reading their hands, whereas against better players you have to also read your own hand. You see this all the time... half decent players trying to push their opponent out of a hand using brute force in a spot where they are repping very little. It works against weaker players, it doesn't work against thinking players who understand hand ranges and relative hand strength.

This is a spot where villain is repping incredibly thin when he check-raises (even though he can also have turned a straight). Now sometimes vs nits or straightforward players it doesn't matter that they are not repping much - they just always have it when they do this, no matter how unlikely this should be, so we can happily fold to the turn c/r. However, this guy is not a nit and is definitely not 'straightforward' according to the read given by OP. He also has previous for making presumed spazzy moves (the OP gives one hh example). When spazzy villains make unusual moves in spots where logically it looks likely they don't have a hand... they don't end up turning over the nutter butters all that often! It is a HUGE weakness of these type of players that they make these silly moves when they cannot rep much. We exploit them by calling them.

Tbh, if I am betting this turn (and I might often check back personally), the main reason I would be doing it vs this particular villain is to induce a random, spazzy and ego-driven raise (i.e. I am betting for value; not to get called by a worse hand, but to get raised by a worse hand). If we don't intend to call a turn check-raise then we shouldn't bet the turn, since there would be very little value to our bet and it would be almost 100% a protection bet.

Finally, villain will sometimes turn up with a set here, or a straight, or some other nutted hand. This does not mean much at all. All that it really means is that you were 'coolered', given the way the hand was played and the knowledge that you had about villain at the time.