50nl zoom, what do we think? hand 2

[jgcblack]

http://www.boomplayer.com/en/poker-hands/Boom/5683591_C050D82A9D

what do we think of this?

I tanked the flop after he shoved.... really couldn't see anything that made sense for value..
I 'have' all the sets, two pairs, straights and suchlike... if I'm him I insta-snap fold AK.  I actually figured it was a blowup more than value.


thoughts?

[Honeybadger]

I 'have' all the sets, two pairs, straights and suchlike... if I'm him I insta-snap fold AK. 

How can you say you insta-snap fold in his shoes... but in YOUR shoes you called? You are facing even more repped strength than him.

[WotRTheChances]

Yeah i'm flatting the $3, or folding (flat seems best). Once you 3-bet the flop here your range is perceived by most as 44/55/23s/A4/A5 maybe 45 and basically nothing else. No-one ever really bluffs in this spot and you just look joke nutted. Clearly villain in the hand isn't the best, maybe you knew he might do something like this?

Generally 3-bet calling this flop is going to be not good. Like you said, he should probs be folding AK. So you're basically calling for a chop at best (barring villain brain-farts). He can have A4s, A5s, 44, 55 and perhaps 45s if he's opening that wide.

[Pinchop73]

the ol' check 3b 

[jgcblack]

Yeah i'm flatting the $3, or folding (flat seems best). Once you 3-bet the flop here your range is perceived by most as 44/55/23s/A4/A5 maybe 45 and basically nothing else. No-one ever really bluffs in this spot and you just look joke nutted. Clearly villain in the hand isn't the best, maybe you knew he might do something like this?

Generally 3-bet calling this flop is going to be not good. Like you said, he should probs be folding AK. So you're basically calling for a chop at best (barring villain brain-farts). He can have A4s, A5s, 44, 55 and perhaps 45s if he's opening that wide.

To be honest, I did it for value vs both... expecting to see a raise at most 5% of the time and of that, for most of it to be complete explosions.

My range is so joke strong, that then I stopped myself and realized for a second - its 50nl and I overthink things.  Let's look at combinations and then work from there.  In my head quickly I just came up with way too many explosions vs real hands and sigh/ close eyes/ minimize table and called.

Turns out I was winning.... but wtf?

[WotRTheChances]

Yeah i'm flatting the $3, or folding (flat seems best). Once you 3-bet the flop here your range is perceived by most as 44/55/23s/A4/A5 maybe 45 and basically nothing else. No-one ever really bluffs in this spot and you just look joke nutted. Clearly villain in the hand isn't the best, maybe you knew he might do something like this?

Generally 3-bet calling this flop is going to be not good. Like you said, he should probs be folding AK. So you're basically calling for a chop at best (barring villain brain-farts). He can have A4s, A5s, 44, 55 and perhaps 45s if he's opening that wide.

To be honest, I did it for value vs both... expecting to see a raise at most 5% of the time and of that, for most of it to be complete explosions.

My range is so joke strong, that then I stopped myself and realized for a second - its 50nl and I overthink things.  Let's look at combinations and then work from there.  In my head quickly I just came up with way too many explosions vs real hands and sigh/ close eyes/ minimize table and called.

Turns out I was winning.... but wtf?

But this is where you overthink things. In any situation in poker you can assign a villain a range which includes loads of 'explosions'. The basics of this hand is that it's a relatively dry board, ranges are narrow, his value range is pretty narrow, but he will just have that range very very often in a vacuum. What sort of bluffing/semi-bluffing hands does he have here? The answer is pretty much none. Strong reads aside, it's not close.

[GreekStein]

but wtf?

indeed

[AlexMartin]

id sqz pre, overrepping hand with this flop line (and sizing), given you have no bluffs i think ur pretty lucky to run into this to be honest, id expect this line to have a big negative expectation.  


(difference of opinion is what makes poker so great ofc)

[jgcblack]

id sqz pre, overrepping hand with this flop line (and sizing), given you have no bluffs i think ur pretty lucky to run into this to be honest, id expect this line to have a big negative expectation.  


(difference of opinion is what makes poker so great ofc)

No I think you're right Alex, that's why I put it up.  I  know what people mean when they say "his value range is narrow, but will have it.... a lot".

Only question to that is - what is his value range here??? (23s, 44, 55, A4s, A5s, AA)
Do we consider that the guy behind still has all options?

I'm not the biggest fan of squeezing pre, because people are too tight at these limits pre... I would rather call and cc, cc, cc down on Axxxx vs 89hh

[Honeybadger]

I would rather call and cc, cc, cc down on Axxxx vs 89hh

And yet, you didn't!

It's the lack of congruence in your thought processes that you need to patch up. For example, you assumed UTG would fold AK or worse to your flop 3bet... yet you still 3bet AK. How can this be logical?

[jgcblack]

I would rather call and cc, cc, cc down on Axxxx vs 89hh

Any yet, you didn't!

It's the lack of congruence in your thought processes that you need to patch up. For example, you assumed UTG would fold AK or worse to your flop 3bet... yet you still 3bet AK. How can this be logical?

Ok, well I didn't like calling after the small reraise.  Probably should have in retrospect.
I know its a silly thing to think but I feel like this hand is a loss, I'm just trying to work out why.

I effectively thought I would be playing the hand vs the UTG+1 villain after he minraised.  Then when the UTG shoved I could only see it as being a take off..... raising AA or 44 or 55 or 23 just seemed ridiculous with position on me....?

[WotRTheChances]

I would rather call and cc, cc, cc down on Axxxx vs 89hh

Any yet, you didn't!

It's the lack of congruence in your thought processes that you need to patch up. For example, you assumed UTG would fold AK or worse to your flop 3bet... yet you still 3bet AK. How can this be logical?

Ok, well I didn't like calling after the small reraise.  Probably should have in retrospect.
I know its a silly thing to think but I feel like this hand is a loss, I'm just trying to work out why.

I effectively thought I would be playing the hand vs the UTG+1 villain after he minraised.  Then when the UTG shoved I could only see it as being a take off..... raising AA or 44 or 55 or 23 just seemed ridiculous with position on me....?

Generally speaking though, what is someone going to do with that value range having been raised and 3-bet otf? Flatting seems really strong, jamming also seems strong, so piling here with his value range is fine given he expects to get called off almost always (its very rare people 3-bet bluff a flop like this). Hence it's even more optimistc to think villain in the hand will be 4-bet bluffing this flop (that's really all we beat, a bluff).

[Mondeoman]

I would rather call and cc, cc, cc down on Axxxx vs 89hh

Any yet, you didn't!

It's the lack of congruence in your thought processes that you need to patch up. For example, you assumed UTG would fold AK or worse to your flop 3bet... yet you still 3bet AK. How can this be logical?

That is by far the most useful advice you can take from this hand.  You say you would do one thing then in the actual hand you do the opposite, counter to all your assumptions.  You seem to be able to analyse a hand ok but then when your own logic is pointing you in one direction you ignore it and do something else. 

In reality i suspect often the thought process might actually be "I have AK on Axx, that's a strong hand I don't want to fold it even though i think i'm beat"
So you play the hand and then later try and retro fit your thought process/logic to try and justify your play which is why it doesn't make sense.

[pleno1]

we should probably do a fund to pay for moneoman and honeybadger to post more, they just nail every post.

[Mondeoman]

we should probably do a fund to pay for moneoman and honeybadger to post more, they just nail every post.

Sounds good, as long as it just involves me quoting stu's posts and basically saying yeah i agree.