blonde poker forum

Pretty sure I'm getting berated for this but here goes:

History: played a big pot vs red the orbit before where i runner runnered a flush and got paid otr.

The hand: Tom opens the co and I flat AQdd on the button.  Sb also calls.

Flop KT4 with 4 diamonds,  Tom cbets 1k we do a float and sb folds.

Turn is 8d and red checks, we bet 1650 and red raises to 4050 with 15k behind.

We???

 ;all-in;

Fold the little doggy range is small at this point its kk tt ak aa

Take the pink hoody off and jam.

call

Tomsom's view of villain

(https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-RWF3QQVhcvk/UfPq6kIwuKI/AAAAAAAAMO4/DLkJIdfsDXs/s512/IMG_3840.JPG)

Check back turn

As played sigh call and fold unimproved

why?

Tomsom is eight feet tall.

Because I think I have a really good handle of red dogs game and I don't really want him to raise when we bet

Not sure exactly what the pot was after the preflop action, but assuming it was about 1500 preflop hero now has to call 2400 into a pot of 9200. Even if the two pairing flush cards are no good (i.e. villain has a set) then hero still has 10 clean outs. We need 20% equity for a break even call vs a set and we actually have 22% equity. Plus of course we have implied odds on top of this.

As regards checking back the turn... if you are Guy and have some sort of ninja read that villain is very often going to utilise the stack-a-donk move on the turn (i.e. betting flop then check-raising the turn) then by all means check back. You get to realise your equity cheaply, plus you can bluff the river if Tom checks again - it looks like you are pot controlling a mid-strength made hand when you check back the turn (KJ, AT etc) so betting the river for 'thin value' is perfectly credible.

But usually I'd just bet the turn. Villain cannot have a really wide value check-raising range because this would lead to him 'overplaying' his mid-strength hands. So you are not going to get check-raised especially often. And you don't have to necessarily fold when you do get check-raised.

Difficult to go for a default line here as we don't know stacks


But assuming deep, I have not problem checking turn here vs any even remotely tight villain. Realising your equity in live poker is massively under rated. People don't fold early in mtts. Only hand we beat is qj, so bet turn, bet river works so infrequently that I'm happy to just get there when I have a hand with a tonne of equity against villains on the tighter side this early. 

Sorry to keep following the same pattern as usual, but I disagree with lots of what you say here Guy.

1. 'But assuming deep'... it is actually a much easier bet when deep than if stacks were rather shallower. Shallower stacks allow villain to c/r his mid-strength value hands as well as his nutted hands, since he is risking less the few times he runs into a nutted part of our range. With deep stacks like here, villain can still c/r his nutted hands but we still have plenty of chips left to play on the river which benefits our hand greatly. And villain cannot really reasonably c/r his mid-strength hands (AA/AK/KQ etc) since he would be overplaying them.

2. 'vs an even remotely tight villain'... we have more fold equity vs a tight villain than against a loose one.

3. 'People don't fold early in mtts'... Huge generalisation. Usually true I accept, but Tom is not a generic loose cally wally.

4. 'Only hand we beat is qj' .... we do beat some air that he cbet on the flop. But this is not the relevant point. We can make him fold some of his weaker made hands on the turn.

5. 'so bet turn, bet river works so infrequently'... we do not necessarily have to bet the river just because we bet the turn.

I understand the call turn we are getting just under pot odds but dont think we have the implied odds as if we hit flush we dont likely get much called ok straight maybe as its well disguised but by check calling turn we pretty much say we have a draw

Flush is backdoor so we have a reasonable chance of getting paid. We are not definitely marked with a draw once we bet/call the turn. We can have KQ and perhaps AK, plus we can have a set of Ts or set of 4s. But if villain does always puts us on a straight draw then we can bluff any Ace or 9 on the river as well as value betting when we hit a flush or the gutter.

I don't really have time to respond mate, but im afraid in practice your theory doesn't stand up in live poker

1. When deep, there is no chance villain folds a decent King here (KT+), (lets assume they are just calling turn and not c/r) unless we go wild on the river, and there is no point going wild in this tourney this early.  Playing ABC formulaic stuff, and getting paid is by far the best way to go, especially (and this isn't aimed at Tom) against recs in general.

2. You don't have fold equity, they have a pair. Ironically they are going to be more inclined to fold in an inflated pot when the scare card comes (the D, the J is gonna be really clean here)

3. It really isn't a generalisation

4. The problem with your range comment is that "some" villains will be checking 66-99 on that board so Im not sure I agree

5. betting turn and giving up on river is not a line I prefer in live poker for reasons stated above about folding tendencies

edit: I would add that so many villains go into c/c mode when OOP in these spots with an absolute tonne of their range, even ridiculously weak parts of it.

Oh Guy... I play a TON of live poker. I know how it works.

1. We are not really trying to get villain to fold a King. He may do of course (never say there is "no chance"), but we are actually trying to get him to fold the parts of his range that are weaker than top pair. And the times he c/c with TP then we have pretty damn good equity (if our Ace is an out then we have 15 outs) so it is not the absolute end of the world.

2. See above point. Villain does not always "have a pair". And even when villain does have a pair it is often going to be less than top pair - and he is going to fold it a decent % of the time. You really think Tom is always check-calling the turn with, say, JT or 99 here? And if he does then we have 17-18 outs vs those hands, so it not utterly terrible.

Also, you can't have it both ways. If "they are going to be more inclined to fold the river in an inflated pot when a scare card comes" then we have profitable bluffing opportunities on any 9, J or Q (and Ace but we hit the Ace so now beat many TP hands). On the other hand, if "you don't have fold equity, they have a pair" then we have implied odds the times we get 'unlucky' to find him with a hand that he does not fold on the turn.

3. Look up the word generalisation in the dictionary. It might be a (mainly) true generalisation. But it is definitely a generalisation.

4. If villain is not usually cbetting 99-66 (or air) on this flop then I agree we have less fold equity on the turn. But it is unrealistic to say we don't have any fold equity.

5. Why? This makes no sense at all, and is just dogmatic painting-by-numbers thinking. If the turn bet is profitable because our fold equity+pot equity+implied odds = profitable bet, then we can bet the turn profitably even if we never, ever bluff the river. Not necessarily saying it would be bad to bluff the river if villain c/c turn, just saying that a turn bet can still be profitable even when you have no intention of ever bluffing the river.

Stu

Not got time to type loads today/tomorrow, so no doubt others will take over.

I can only put it this way (and it could of course he a "hero" thing), I've played both ways, and my results have got exponentially better playing my revised way.

I also think that there is merit to both sides of this argument, so to say that you totally disagree with what I say is pretty unfair, as it infers that only your way is right, and you without doubt held in greater regard than I am in PHA, but to flat out say its "my way" or "my way" is not good for PHA IMO

Guy I did not say I totally disagreed with you. In fact I agreed that checking back was a reasonable alternative, and in fact gave some strengths of this line to support it!

I just picked up on one later paragraph that you wrote because it seemed to me to contain several complete misunderstandings/inaccuracies (which I highlighted in points 1-5).

You know me now pal, and thus know that I don't just critique others' posts for the sake of it. Everything I type on Blonde PHA is intended to be helpful.

Of course its helpful, and you know I think a lot of your stuff (see my sig if in doubt), but I just think small ball with non made hands rather than hoping villain will fold or trying to make him fold in the first few levels of a live MTT, may be theoretically better, but just isn't THAT much better (if at all) in practice. And for the chips you lose when called (2 streets), along with image issues (and lots of things not discussed ITT) you are far better playing small ball and getting paid, this early.

You not think bet calling turn smells like akdd or kqdd yeah tt or 44 are also possible as is qjdd but I dont think many hands bet call turn and bluff bets river unless scare card comes

I am neither agreeing nor disagreeing with any of this. I was literally just picking up on a few inaccuracies/logical mistakes in one paragraph that you wrote. Pedantic on my part perhaps.

Well hero's range to bet/call turn is going to include some draws, some mid-strength made hands, and some very strong made hands.

No idea what villain will perceive hero's range to be of course, only Tom would know that.

But we are getting the direct odds to call against a set, and much better than this vs less than a set, plus we have implied odds to a greater or lesser extent. So it is an easy call IMO.

Ill try a simplified version

When Tom raises the turn we have 3 options  Fold , Call , Raise /Jam

Ive not got the stack sizes but seems we are priced in to at least call the turn to hit our Flush or gutshot.

Against other players I definitely like the turn jam with river outs but with Tom I would just call ,obv if we hit our flush and the board pairs  at the same time then thats a whole new problem.

Not advanced poker but thats my play.

call

i assume we cover yeah? and this+1.

also, fold pre!

You seem to be talking about a spot that isn't really like the one posted. We are not playing some random recreational player who is rofling about and loving the game. We are playing Mr. Red Dog.

Call turn and bink the nuts. I really really really really dislike jamming.

lol @fold pre

 ;booder;

Never folding this pre in a 6-max comp on the BTN to a CO raise.

Lol

:P

 ;laxie;