Vs Nick Hicks.

[Rexas]

Ok, so we're playing 1/1, and the double straddle is on, making us effectively utg +1. We are playing about 1k and cover the table, primary villain Nick Hicks is playing around 800, and other villain is playing about 80.

Utg limps, we look down at  , and overlimp. Nick calls from the BB, straddle calls, button calls.

Flop comes    . Nick leads for 15, called by utg, and we call.

Turn comes the  . Nick checks, utg checks, we check.

River comes something like the  , completing the flush draw. Nick checks, utg checks, we bet 48. Nick check raises to 190, utg folds.

AHH LIHIUGHIUGIH What do we do?

In terms of player history, Nick has been very active in the game, playing perhaps 1/3 of the pots and many of these with the betting lead. Earlier in the game, Nick made an all in bluff for £200+ on the river, when we checked to him with the nut flush. I'm not entirely sure how we would have been perceived, We had been playing a fair few pots at the start of the game but hadn't show down anything but legitimate hands. I am known to be a little crazy at times, not sure whether Nick will know this, or expect us to value bet too light here, even though we would.

 

[Tal]

At the risk of a daft question, what are the chances he has A8 or less here and is looking to get weak flushes to fold? Could he have picked up weakness (rightly or wrongly) from your bet on the river, making him decide to check raise?

You aren't repping the hand you have, are you? Looks a weaker flush than you have at best - to me, anyway.

Such an odd spot for a check raise but it puts marginal leads under immense pressure. Think I call, although I'm only beating a bluff.

[lucky_scrote]

You can narrow his range somewhat when he donks the flop multi-way. KQ K8 44 K4 flush draws. It has to be a fairly narrow range with so many people behind him on a board that is likely to get a bit of action.

By the river, you look at his donking range and it's hard to see how he can't have it as the hands you beat are ones he is turning into a bluff and that would either be insanely awesome or just make no sense at all. Fold.

[BorntoBubble]

I would be expecting to see k8/44 here a lot of the time. I'm folding

[Tal]

My problem with saying he has 44/K8 is that he checks the turn. He will be expecting (rather, I would be expecting) to be up against at least one flush draw, so I want to bet the turn to build the pot. If it comes a blank on the end, I'd rather the pot was bigger, in order to encourage a bluff.

Possible he's checking the turn to raise, but there won't be many hands leading after calling the flop.

I am probably underthinking again.

[SuuPRlim]

I'd raise the flop this deep.

River, mmm prolly call, prolly lose.

[cambridgealex]

Trivial iso pre

[Bully87]

FWIW I dont remember the board being paired.

If it was it's a fold for sure.

[cambridgealex]

FWIW I dont remember the board being paired.

If it was it's a fold for sure.

Trivial fold iyo?

[Bully87]

FWIW I dont remember the board being paired.

If it was it's a fold for sure.

Trivial fold iyo?

Not cut and dry Al no.
I could be wrong about the board, perhaps Nick can confirm.
I dont go batshit cray from 48 to 190 with the actual hand Nick had on a paired board.

[AlexMartin]

Trivial iso pre

surely this?

[WotRTheChances]

yeh not isoing pre here is pretty bad. Like if you're not raising JQs pre, what are you raising??

[rfgqqabc]

Nick definitely has a ballistic gear imo. Only reason not to iso is we accidentally put calling chips in somehow. I call i think.

[NoCardDSC]

Agree with isoing pre. Calling river as played i think.

[SuuPRlim]

no reiterate my point, I think raising the flop is significantly better than calling.