Getting the max - Whats our line?

[dwayne110]

Raise....calling looks just as strong on that board and if he's bluff raising the turn he's likely to either fold to a bet / check behind on the river. If he has he's unlikely to fold to a small-ish raise, I'd make it around $20 given him the chance to hang himself with the shove.

[JustinSayne]

Honestly all the "raise" responses are tilting me.

The only reason I can find for raising is to avoid the 10-15% of the time that a 4th heart peals on the river. And even then thats not a bad thing since it will increase his bluffing frequency.

Absolutely no reason to raise here.

[Honeybadger]

Honestly all the "raise" responses are tilting me.

The only reason I can find for raising is to avoid the 10-15% of the time that a 4th heart peals on the river. And even then thats not a bad thing since it will increase his bluffing frequency.

Absolutely no reason to raise here.

Raising is perfectly fine, no idea why you would get tilted by this.

I'm not saying that slowplaying is bad, but it is much better if we are IP since villain does not have the option of checking back the river.

We have quite a good hand on this board, villain says he likes his hand too... so let's play a nice big pot.

[JustinSayne]

Please consider villians whole range when you make this statement.

If he had 0 bluffs in his range then go nuts, start piling more money

But its now 2013, lets keep our range as weak as possible and his range as wide as possible.

instead of hoping he "spazzes" with the bare Ah or something equally stupid that others have mentioned in this thread. Cause 50nl players definitely 4bet bluff jam turns.

[pleno1]

callum is definitely right..

[Honeybadger]

@ Callum. I hate all this "please think about villain's whole range" stuff, especially when not said as a preliminary to actually giving a guesstimate of villain's range. You tried that line on me once before when you said I was wrong not to want to 3bet TT on a KK8 flop or something like that. Keys called it a 'Dubai bluff' which I thought was quite funny.

Fwiw I did think about villain's entire range before I posted. I just came to a different conclusion to you, that's all.

On this board the vast majority of villain's bluff range is going to continue vs a small 3bet since he should be bluffing with equity and most players don't like folding hands with equity to a small bet, especially when IP. He might also shove some of these hands as a semi-bluff some percentage of the time.

Vs the nutted part of his value range it obviously doesn't matter too much what we do since the money goes in anyway on most rivers... Although it is better to raise turn vs this part of his range just in case a 4th flush card comes on river to sometimes lose us our action.

Vs the mid strength part of his value range a small 3bet works well too. One reason is that it prevents him using his position to get to showdown cheaply. For example, it prevents him succeeding with the free-showdown play (raising turn for protection/value, planning to check back a lot of rivers) with a medium strength hand.

By 3betting small on the turn we do indeed fail to maximise against villain's random zero equity bluffs that he might bet the river with (although he might still randomly jam some of these on the turn vs our 3bet... never completely discount spazz equity). But we maximise against all other parts of his range.

Finally, exactly what pure bluffs (i.e.non semi-bluffs) do you put in his range here? Given that he has called the flop bet, he would have to be turning a hand with showdown value into a bluff on the turn... which is not something I expect most 50NL guys to do very much.

Tbh I would expect a huge portion of villain's non-nutted raising range on this turn to be Ahx hands. It shouldn't be of course, but it likely will be - since almost everyone plays top pair plus flush draw hands completely ridonkulously. And 3betting is by far the best play vs this part of his range since he will often check back the river unimproved.

[Honeybadger]

Thinking about it some more... it seems to me that in practice villain's range on this turn is going to be far richer in mid-strength value hands that he is 'playing badly' than it is in pure bluffs. By mid-strength value hands I mean stuff like Ahx, two pair, sets, straights etc. Villain shouldn't be raising these on the turn, but he likely will. Obviously the way we punish him for having a depolarised raising range is to 3bet the turn. In fact, if we don't do this then we allow villain to make good his mistake by sometimes checking back the river.

Btw, I don't think villain should have a raising range on this turn. Do you agree with this?

[SuuPRlim]

this is obviously way more of a raise then  , should we have it, for obvious reasons. usually in these spots when we have the nuts we block other "nut or pretty nutted" hands but here we dont block any of them, and the is a very very legitimate hand for him given the action, these obviously are good reasons for raising.

clearly there is plenty of merit to just calling as well, but this physically cannot be a spot where one play is way superior to the other as aside from folding we're really gonna struggle to make a mistake here.

[JustinSayne]

Lazy posting by me.

I wont type up a indepth range for the guy but his range for raising the turn is actually very polarised. Its just flushes and "air" imo. Its obv clear that calling>raising vs this range.

He can have all sorts of floats that hes decided to raise turn with just cause we bet small and turn completed the primary. Even turning hands like 88 into a bluff on the turn vs our small sizing.

Overall its a way ahead way behind type situation accept where we either cooler the kid of just rely on him blowing up.

I agree that for the reasons stated above, we should not have a turn raising range. However in reality, people are bad and usually make rather face up bet sizings so we can just play our perceived range and not worry about our opponent going one level higher and realising what we are doing.

[pleno1]

can guarantee vs 50nl regs in 2013 that calling turn is going to be WAY superior to raising, purely based on how they play their rages in these spots.

[Honeybadger]

I agree that if villain's range is polarised then we should be calling rather than raising. However, I don't agree with your assumption that villain's range is going to be polarised. Clearly it should be... but thinking about what it should be is kind of pointless, especially as villain should not even have a raising range on this turn.

The important thing is to think about what villain's range is actually going to look like, not what it should look like. In practice you're going to see a lot of bad raises here from a depolarised range that includes everything from sets, straights, two pair and Ahx hands; raising for protection, for value and because they don't know what else to do - they see they have a 'nice hand', and so they raise. This is very clearly a terrible strategy, and it is essential that we fully punish such a terrible strategy. The way we do this is by 3betting the turn. If we don't 3bet then not only are we failing to punish, we run the risk of letting villain make a virtue out of a vice the (frequent) times he checks back the river having raised the turn.

[pleno1]

I agree that if villain's range is polarised then we should be calling rather than raising. However, I don't agree with your assumption that villain's range is going to be polarised. Clearly it should be... but thinking about what it should be is kind of pointless, especially as villain should not even have a raising range on this turn.

The important thing is to think about what villain's range is actually going to look like, not what it should look like.

Which is exactly what we are doing, Callum has probably played about 300k hands of NL50 in the last 2 months lol. These regs play super face up.

[Honeybadger]

So you are saying 50NL players do not raise the turn here with stuff like straights, sets, two pair and Ahx? My experience of how mediocre/bad players play is obviously different to yours. Tbh, I suspect you are simply wrong about this. I have seen plenty of guys raising depolarised in this sort of spot at 200NL and so I presume they are making the same mistakes at 50NL (unless 50NL regs are somehow much better than 200NL players).

Tbh, raising depolarised here as a 'free showdown play' (i.e. to check back the river) actually becomes a really good way for villain to play if hero is never going to 3bet the turn. Which is why we should 3bet IMO.

I guess it is just a question of us having different populations reads and different conceptions of the type of mistakes our opponents are making in certain spots.

[Honeybadger]

Anyway, that's me done on this thread. I can't compete with the "please think about his entire range" or the "how many hands of 50NL have you played in 2013?" or the "I can guarantee that calling is best due to my knowledge of how 50NL guys play" arguments.

[pleno1]

But its like an online MTT player saying "ah man you gotta 5b/call TT h/j vs btn" and Simon Deadman coming along and saying nah thats terrible. Because he understands how the game plays.

OP is playing 50nl and a guy who plays 50nl and a guy who stakes people/sweats/analyses hundreds of thousands of hands from villains at 50nl are saying that they understand the range. You would metaphorically be the "sick online MTT reg" who hasn't played many live tournaments.

I don't think anybody said:

"how many hands of 50NL have you played in 2013?"

It was just backing up that Callum has probably experienced these spots a lot and along with myself have a good grasp/understanding of how regs play at different stakes, it's not anything personal to you its just simply that people turn hands into bluffs and go bananas WAY more than they "thinly" value raise, even if villain in OP raised 2 pair/straight, generally the regs are very bad and have super unbalanced ranges.

edit: http://blondepoker.com/forum/index.php?topic=60194.msg1711273#msg1711273