blonde poker forum

think this is super interesting btw.

you think he ever folds better?

i am not sure he calls much worse either

i think i check call and fml if he turns up with aces or full house

think this is super interesting btw.

Is it super interesting because of the missed 3bet pre or the missed flop check-raise?

As played I would check river, let villain go for thin value or we might even induce a bluff, don't think there's much he would call a shove with that he wouldn't check back.

Wow, I think 3betting is bad and calling is absolutely the only option, not only do we do v good vs the fish range, but the reg will be iso raising really wide here so we do well too, + hand plays well in a multi way pot.

On the paired board and vs turn sizing, I think I look ridicuously strong actually, so don't see us getting barrelled on the river as a bluff very often.

It's weird because people I've spoken too, have said such a variety of different responses.

- shove river as bluff
- shove river as value
- c/f river

Pre, if it had gone reg open, fish flat then call > 3b, but vs fish limp, reg iso 3b >> call AINEC, can explain why when I'm not on phone, or stu will probably be able to figure out what I mean. Basically you have to act before the fish if the reg cbets the flop, which has implications both in turning your hand face up to the reg most of the time and making the fish's play correct by giving him schooling odds. In this hand he probably played perfectly after the limp.

Shoving river as a bluff is genuinely absurd and I don't know why it's even being mentioned, unless I misread the board.

Originally posted by Desultory
My opinion:

Recreational limper utg+1 might not be completely airy. it could be a range of any suited type hands, or a tighter range like sc's, low pockets type stuff.

Assuming ExB is a standard reg, ExB will likely be isolating with his normal button range. I think KQo is a call pre 100% here to keep recreational player in and we dominated buttons range.

Donking(leading) flop is possible and I will donk completely dependant on button cbet range. If its like 75%+ then its more likely a check to get value from complete air betting on a dry board. If its <60% cbet then a donk is better so you don't lose a bet on a street when your miles ahead vs both ranges. In between those ranges is debatable and you can basically mix plays depending on how you feel at the time, whether you look loose at the table or not etc. (bet the looser you look obv)


After checking and facing the bet from button, if the recreational player is wider with his limps as mentioned above then I think raising is fine. In this scenario I think recreational players cold calls raise with TP+ and fd's and his range is about 1/3 pocket pairs that probably fold to raise and therefore you lose a bet by raising but 2/3 range gain from raising. BUT if recreational player is less wide, then majority/entiity of his range will be pocket pairs so calling is better.
Button will have air most of the time but you still dominate him when he calls raise as well.

After calling and hitting turn. I think checking makes more sense button will barrel draws expecting many folds from midpocks. Vs really really unbarrely regs who check back draws; leading turn could be better as you get another bet in vs recreational players Qx hands and flush draws again dependnt on recreational players initial range.

You can checkraise this turn as well. If you are not a raisy type of guy then calling is better as he will expect you to have KQ everytime with the occasional JcTc when you raise, but if you have aggro stats raising to get value from his Top pairs that will call turn is probably better. At this point I'm semi ignoring the recreational player who may come along with a raise as well with his flop flush draw and maybe not call another bet on turn with most of his queens facing a bet and call. It depends how bad he is. At 500NL i think some rec players are good enough to fold Q here.
The worse he is, the more I'm inclined to call again. The more barrely the button is the more you should call.

8hearts is an ok hand to barrel and try to get you off QJ and AQ possibly. But I think most players give up on their bluffs here.
Therefore you may be facing a bet from purely a value range. If he is barrely, check call, because barrely players don't think @he might not have AQ here and therefore i'm not folding much out', they just barrel because they dont think and the faster the games are the less people think.
If he isn't barrely, leading river allows you to possibly rep quite a lot of missed flop flush draws, and button has more TP's than rivered flushes. He is nearly always checking back top pairs.
I think leading river is better as played. I think check raising river is not great unless you have history with the guy and he thinks you are super aggro.

*************************
"Thoughts on his river reaction vs a bet? (I wish I had switcherood it  )

I've spoken to some very good players about this hand. I've heard."

- Will fold AA vs river bet  [I VERY MUCH DOUBT THIS UNLESS YOU ARE SUPER NITTY AND TIGHT PSOT FLOP? PLAYERS STRUGGLE FOLDING ANYTHING ESPECIALLY AA, WHEN YOU POTENTIALLY CAN HAVE MISSED FLOP FD's]
- Will call AQ vs river bet [YEP, DEFINITELY POSSIBLE]
- Will call AK ott vs c/jam [POSSIBLE, ESPECIALLY THE HIGHER THE LIMITS, BUT BOTH OF YOU WILL NEED HISTORY FOR THIS TO BE LIKELY. HE WILL HAVE TO EXPECT YOU TO BE VERY CALLY AND VERY AGGRO]
- Will call all Kx vs river bet. [DEFINITELY POSSIBLE]

Ii realise we can get called by worse. I was just wondering if Pat thought he ever gets him to fold AK

Shoving river as a bluff is genuinely absurd and I don't know why it's even being mentioned, unless I misread the board.

this should just go check check and you win most of the time right?

in zoom i dont think we win this more than 25-33% of time only hand we beat is AK

Hmmm... even if this is true, AK still composes a fairly large part of his value range for barrelling the turn.

However, I don't think it is true really. Villain has KJ, KT (and likely AQ) in his value betting range on the turn (sizing notwithstanding). Plus he also has a plethora of draws which he will barrel at least some of the time despite it being threeway on the turn.

IMO it will go ch-ch on the river a lot and KQ will win most of those times. This is based on Pleno's read that his range will be interpreted as super strong once he calls on the turn and thus villain will give up with pretty much all his missed draws.

If we want to have a calling range here (obv we do) then I think protecting it w/ KQ/AQ seems like a good strategy, especially as they will heavily dominate the fishes range. I would actually flat JJ here close to 100% and most likely QQ, so my value range is pretty thin, so don't need to have that many 3bet bluffs to be balanced, so I'd rather 3b bluff KJo and flat KQo.

Yeah, I get it ofc. I don't completely agree with you, however. Mainly the bit I disagree about is the 'AINEC' part. I believe this sort of preflop spot (and it is a spot which comes up all the time obv) is pretty close, and can be played either way. I agree with your reasoning and I personally prefer to 3bet KQ offsuit (I would often flat if it was suited), but it is still profitable to flat and there is never going to be that much in it. For example, if the limper was a SUPER WEAK PLAYER who makes huge postflop errors then flatting would definitely be best since you want to do everything possible to ensure he is in the pot. It doesn't matter that you are allowing him to make a 'correct' over-call after you flat if he will make massive mistakes after the flop.

I understand James. We do have the option of taking initiative. I.E if the turn was not a King, I would donk the turn close to 100% of the time.

If we want to have a calling range here (obv we do) then I think protecting it w/ KQ/AQ seems like a good strategy, especially as they will heavily dominate the fishes range. I would actually flat JJ here close to 100% and most likely QQ, so my value range is pretty thin, so don't need to have that many 3bet bluffs to be balanced, so I'd rather 3b bluff KJo and flat KQo.

I'm not 3b bluffing KQo, I think vs a button range of 35%+ we have a v profitable and GTO 3b/5b semi-bluff (so the 3b is for the 'value' from the 5b)

... and you can mop up the fish value another time. In a way, you're doing it here, because the fish has indirectly caused this super-profitable spot, but this way you protect the fish from losing all that EV to the reg and thus improve your future equity too.

James, your last post ITT is completely brilliant. I loved two parts in particular:

The explanation that the 3bet is for 'value' since you are intending to 5bet semi-bluff... I have never seen it phrased in that way before. Brilliant.

This is a really deep insight, and I love this way of thinking about poker... seeing it from a bird's eye view etc. Love the idea that you in some ways are getting value from the limper since his limp caused this spot to exist. Also love the idea that you are 'protecting' him. Both these points are counterbalancing arguments to the suggestion that we should play in ways that keep weak players in the pot, rather than force them out.

That said, I still don't 100% agree with you in a couple of things (no big deal, just different philosophies I reckon).

I believe you are over-stating the case a little, and that the EV of flatting is not TOO different to the EV of 3betting. I almost always 3bet in this spot personally and your analysis has helped me understand more clearly exactly why I am doing this. But I certainly don't think it is a losing play to flat here. And sometimes it might be the clearly best play if the limper is a VERY weak player and thus you should be doing everything possible to keep him in the pot. It does not matter so much if your hand sometimes becomes face-up to the other reg if the presence of the limper in the pot makes this a 'protected pot'. I agree that in the hand in question it has partly worked out that way, but this won't always be the case. I guess what I am saying is that often 'correct' (i.e. GTO) play vs the regulars can be ignored in order to satisfy more pragmatic requirements such as trying to win the easy money from the bad players.

The other thing I disagree on from a practical point of view is the distinction you make between 3betting an iso after a weak player has limped, and 3betting after a reg has opened and a weak player has call the raise. Tbh, the second situation (reg opens, weak player calls) is actually an amazing spot to have a HEAVILY EXTENDED value range, which may include hands like KQo. You are indeed 'bluffing' against the reg, but not vs the weak player. The nut result is that the reg folds and then the weak player calls. Obviously this is mainly something you do when in position though.

Despite some small disagreements, I really enjoyed reading your excellent post. It clarified certain points in my mind, and made me think about a couple of things in a different way.

Loving some of the analysis in this thread and I'm finding it really interesting despite it being a few levels above my normal thinking.

One question for you guys: How far can you push this sort of thing in the limited time available to make your decision in an online cash game?

In particular Keys' point about the 3b to set up the 5b semi bluff. Would you have time to come up with that plan in game?

This is 500 zoom, there are like 30 players, and reg villain will be 4betting light, although he doesn't need to for our 3/5 to be GTO

James, your last post ITT is completely brilliant. I loved two parts in particular:

The explanation that the 3bet is for 'value' since you are intending to 5bet semi-bluff... I have never seen it phrased in that way before. Brilliant.

@ Pleno
Yes I know it is a standard 3b/5b spot and I know the theory behind this etc. I was just meaning that I really liked the exact way James had described it.

@ Keith
I just liked the whole concept of protecting the weak player, regardless of whether it is applicable in zoom (although it sort of still is in some ways).
Also, it is the blocker effects of KQ that make it a good candidate to 5bet, not its equity against a calling range, as you well know. Blocker effects become much more important vs narrower ranges, such as vs a reg's 4betting range.

@Matt
These sort of spots come up all the time and you don't have to work them out in game because you have done the maths and range construction at home.

Why?

Lol. I clearly used the wrong personal pronoun. Should have used 'one', or perhaps the royal 'we'.

What's  gto mean?

Now lets give him one or two more speculative hands, just to get to a probable range in terms of equity.

 Equity Win Tie 
MP2  44.27%  42.45%  1.83% KQo
MP3  55.73%  53.90%  1.83% QQ-99, AdAc, KhKc, AQs-ATs, KTs+, QTs+, JTs, T9s, 98s, AdKd, AsKs, AQo, AdKh, AdKs, AdKc, AsKd

Now, I know that we have initiative which is important, however he will have position and will have an equally eprceived strong range, in fact, even against our perceived strong range his hand still plays well.

I just don't think its an euto 3bet for value spot where villain will be defending a bunch of Q7s kind of flairy hands and will actually be very strong, and in reality, I don't need many 3bet bluffs as my 3bet PURE (not merged) value range is very narrow and thus would prefer to protect my calling range with KQo and 3bet/fold K9o or even KJo, which could also fall into my calling range too.