Villain is in his early 20s. I’ve never seen before, but he gives off a distinct air of “I used to play on the internet and I wasn’t too bad at it.” He just joined the table 10 hands ago, and when he sat down he asked what was the maximum buy-in. The dealer told him $1000, but I corrected that he was actually allowed to match the biggest stack at the table, which was mine at about $3500. He chose to buy in for $1500, and I don’t think he played a hand in that first orbit.
Hero is 30, probably gives off that same internet aura. Believe I’d been involved in a pot or two since Villain was at the table but nothing noteworthy other than that he probably wouldn’t assume I’m a nit.
Game is $5/$5 no-limit. Action folded to me in the CO, and I open to $20 with J9o. Villain calls in SB, everyone else folds.
Flop 9d 7s 2s ($40 in pot). Villain checks, Hero bets $30, Villain calls.
Turn 2h ($99 in pot). Villain checks, Hero bets $75, Villain calls.
River Qd ($249 in pot). Villain checks, Hero?
Post your thoughts and comments here, and I’ll be back on Friday with my own.
Its easy to put our opponent on a range of spades, weak 9 or weak 7. We beat two of his possible holding and most likely chop with the one we beat. So in my opinion there is no real value in betting this river. The check is the right play. In my opinion.
It sounds like you’re saying Hero is very likely either to be ahead or chopping, so why is there no value in betting?
I think his range includes what is listed above, spades, weak 9 or weak 7, and also small pocket pairs {33-66,88) that he might call with as well. if he calls with all of it except the spades, then you are getting value from maybe half his range? So betting doesnt seem terrible to me.
Checking is valid mainly from the perspective of, do we want to open up a potential check-raise bluff from a player who seems capable of it?
I think it is worth betting because the chance of a check raise bluff is smaller than the chance he calls with a worse hand, but its pretty close…..
FWIW, the chance of a c/r bluff needs to be much smaller than the chance he calls with a worse hand. The c/r bluff costs Hero the $250 pot + the bet, whereas a call from a worse hand wins Hero only the size of the bet.
That is a point I hadn’t considered…would that affect how to size a bet on the river if you decided to make one?
Don’t worry about c/r from a live player in a 5/5 game unless proven otherwise. I’m betting somewhat large ~200-225 because that’s what I expect 88/66/55 to find most suspicious. We probably can’t narrow his range quite as much as other players based on the turn card as, based on your description of him, he is likely to recognize that as an excellent barreling card for you. That said, by the turn I think his range has a lot of pocket pairs and lower 9s than you. TT, a pot controlled overpair, or a set (now fullhouse) c/r are the only parts of his range that you are behind on the river. I think he has enough lower pocket pairs to merit a value bet.
Once villain flats from the SB, we can at least start to
think that villain may not be as savvy as we might think,
but he may have a plan as well.
When villain flats the SB it makes me think that he has
some kind of speculative hand (SCs) that he thinks he can leverage
his 300bb stack at some point, or a hand that is not good enough
to 3bet, but is going to call down a lot (mid PPs).
If he’s close to being as good as we think he might be capable
of, his range would not only include spades, but straight draws
and possibly overs (not many because he probably 3bets a lot of them)
that he intends to rep spades with.
If we have some reason to believe that he is staying in with 7x,
then he is likely still holding his 55-88 or whatever his smallest
PP is the he will flat from the SB.
Given depth of stacks, had villain decided to put real pressure on us
it is likely that we would have already seen some aggressive action by now.
Our range should be very wide at this point in the hand, and top pair on the
turn is nearing the top of our range.
The Q is a card that we are likely going to be barreling a lot, and because he
looks like he has a weakish hand that is likely to try to snap us off, combined
withthe fact that we are often bluffing this card and are nearing the top of our
range, I think that makes this a mandatory value bet.
Something in the $150-$175 range should allow him to look us up with all of
his showdown hands. Although we might value cut ourselves a fair amount, I think
that we are going to get looked up a lot more by worse hands.
As far as him making a move on the river, I think that a Q is a card that he might
either lead to rep, or lead because he has it and is scared of us checking back.
Another piece of info to consider is that he is barely an orbit into his session,
and most payers are going to get settled into their session before making big moves.
Overall, given villains line, I think the two scenarios that are going to make
up an overwhelming majority in this spot are we bet and villain folds, or we bet
and villain calls with a worse hand, both of which are great for us.
There just aren’t that many hands that beat us, and not betting because someone
might make a move is a horrible reason not to bet.
Nice post, but I’m not sure about the last sentence. There certainly exist cases where I would bet, either for value or as a bluff, against a player who never c/r bluff but not against a player capable of making a move. Those are just somewhat thin cases where the 10% or whatever risk of a good player bluff-raising a hand that a weaker player would just fold is enough to shift it from a profitable to unprofitable bet.
Fair point. I should have said “in most cases”
I don’t think you’re getting called by worse here by value betting your 2nd pair, crap kicker. The only thing a bet may accomplish is pushing him off the better 9x hand and draws. You’re 10 hands in against this guy; you don’t have a read on his range, game, etc. Check behind.
As a note, though, showing down here lets him see that you’re “loose” by opening J9o. You may or may not want this hand to go to showdown because of that – and you need to take that into account in later hands when he will perhaps adjust to call you lighter or 3bet you lighter.
The reality is you have all but 10 hands on the villain, other than the read that he gives an air of Internet playa. It is somewhat unlikely he’s calling 3 streets with an underpaid when you’ve repped extreme strength. I think in most cases, a bet at this point turns your hand into a bluff.
Having small samples on an opponent is no reason to deviate from good play. Moreover, often you can get quite a lot of information in ten hands.
I don’t think the play of betting is read-dependent. Against the combination of all players I might be up against in this game, I would happily bet. That this opponent might be somewhat more likely than most to pay it off with worse is a bonus. Look at the hand from Villain’s perspective–would you really want to fold 66 to a river bet? If I didn’t know that the bettor was Andrew, I think I’d happily pay off $150 with 66. (Actually my decision would depend on a lot of things, but I’ve paid off more times than I can count in that spot, and I think it’s often the right thing to do. Lots of people won’t go three streets even with AA, and lots of people have a hard time stopping bluffing once they’ve started.)
The biggest issue I have with all of the responses are that they are hinging on:
a. Him being a supposed internet player – I make that “read” all the time and 9 times out of 10, am wrong.
b. Him reading us as an internet player and being capable of showing down nut no pairs, middle pairs, etc. With that statement taken into account, he could very well be a scared TT, etc. We can’t make the assumption that he’s going to call 3 streets with 88 or worse; he’s seen 10 hands of us with (and observed “nothing noteworthy other than that he probably wouldn’t assume I’m a nit.”)
Most likely, in this case, he’s on a flush draw, which is why I opt not to push the hand to a 3rd barrel. I simply don’t see him (after a small sample size) getting crafty and believing that his A high or 3rd pair or a worse 9x is showing down the winner because he doesn’t necessarily have a read on you. It’s possible that he holds 98, T9, but it seems far more likely he’s on a better hand than that if he makes the call. Most of the time, when you bet, he’ll fold. But when he does call, he’s likely bettering your hand. That is why I check through.
I really like this post. I think it’s exactly right to worry about over-confidence in a read and to wonder how the right play changes if the read is wrong. That’s why I’ve tried to argue elsewhere in this thread that the play is still to bet even if the Villain isn’t “Internettish.” Actually, it might be even better if Villain is worse/less aggressive.
I do still disagree with your claim that Villain is probably on a flush draw. I don’t think he check-calls the turn very often with a naked flush draw, and he could easily have played the flop (or even preflop) differently too with any flush draw. (The better his flush draw is–either because of high-card power or because it’s a combo draw–the more likely he is either to 3-bet preflop or raise the flop.)
Why do you say he’s most likely on a flush draw? (not necessarily disagreeing with you, just want to flesh out the reasoning)
It matters how much money you have–I’m going to assume you cover him or close. It’s unlikely that stacks get in play here, but if this guy is any good it will have a significant effect on his flop checkraising (or donking) range.
I don’t think such a guy is checking three times to checkraise the river. Even “Internet heroes” rarely do this, especially against relative unknowns, especially on draw-heavy boards. So if he has better than you it’s almost never because he has a monster.
I do think such people would often 3-bet JJ and (especially) KK and AA before the flop. His likeliest hands that beat you are TT, A9, K9, and Q9. Some of those might be 3-bet before the flop, raised on the turn, folded before the flop, or checkraised on the flop. Those are 28 combos, which we can discount to 16 or 20 or so.
The obvious thing to say here is that this is a draw-heavy board where the bottom card paired on the turn. He could easily have gotten sticky on the flop and turn with any pair of any kind or even Ace-high. It’s also very important that the Q doesn’t hit any flopped straight draws, even overcard gutters.
It’s easy to find anywhere form 30 to 55 combos of hands that you beat. I think you’re 2:1 or better to have the best hand once he checks to you, and I think that he’s fairly likely to call a bet; given that everything whiffed and that a lot of these guys are in pot-control mindsets such that they think you don’t represent too much value, he might have a hard time folding anything. I would bet here: enough to represent a bluff but not too much to make him feel ridiculous for calling with 44. Sorry not to be more specific: this often depends a lot on very specific stuff (my sense of his attitude toward bet-sizing, his view of what constitutes masculinity, etc.).
Although I don’t ultimately prefer this option, against some opponents I would make a big bet, trying to really force them into an “well, is he bluffing?” decision. He ought to call with enough of his 40 or 50 or whatever combos to make it worth your while, and in that mode he will also sometimes fold better. This is a bad idea if you think you can frequently get a call out of 76/55/44/etc., but if you think you can’t do that then this sort of two-way bet is worth considering (though again I wouldn’t frequently do it).
I have to say I’m curious: I think the hand reads like a standard “value-bet this river!” example, which makes me think you might have some clever reason for checking behind or betting $13 or something. Eagerly awaiting your analysis.
Read carefully! I do give my stack size in the OP. 🙂
Ha! I even checked twice to see if I was missing something. Pardon me.
Not at all. I do seem to omit important details more often than not in these posts.
This post would have been better if I hadn’t counted a few hands we’re chopping with as hands we’re ahead of. Oops!
That said, I think that he checkraises a 9-no-kicker so infrequently that betting is quite a bit better than not betting. But it’s not as good as it would be if we weren’t chopping. I don’t think it changes the analysis very much, but I’d have to run the numbers again…
I second Nathan — I say just check back. We surely get value from some of his range some of the time, but I feel that the amount we lose from being c/r-bluffed outweighs that.
When we get him to call with a hand we beat we win around 175$ extra, while getting c/r-bluffed costs us 175 plus the pot, so 400 in total. So, in contradiction to Nathan, even if villain c/r-bluffs half as often as he’s be calling with worse, a value bet is already -EV. This doesn’t even count the times that we get called by better.
We expect to get value from 12 combos or so, so if he checkraise-bluffs 6 combos, we’re already losing money.
Pretty sure Andrew doesn’t think Villain is k/r-bluffing six combos. I don’t either. I think that “people don’t checkraise bluff the river” is one of Andrew’s stock examples of how real-life poker differs from game-theoretic exercises.
It’s interesting that you don’t seem too worried about getting check-called by better–that’s what I’m concerned with here. Though you’re surely right to at least be thinking about the chances of being bluff-raised. I admit I’d be confused if he raised but would fold confusedly instead of calling confusedly.
Hi Nate,
About your last point: I am assuming that we are bet/folding, but despite the fact that we fold confusedly, we are still losing those 175$ or whatever.
Except that: I rarely play live, so I’ll have to defer to your experience. Andrew did say he thinks the player is an internet player, and as such could certainly be checkraise-bluffing, either with a total miss, or by turning a middle-strength hand like 7x or a pair of tens into a bluff.
Since I didn’t believe the value bet is profitable even if we never get called by better, I didn’t mention it. Obviously, being called by better makes the bet even worse. But I do think that if we were somehow guaranteed to never be checkraised, then a value bet on the river here would be marginally +EV, plus would be good for us metagame-wise.
Thanks for clarifying! I understand better now.
I think that even Internet guys rarely take the check/check/checkraise-bluff line. And we don’t even know for sure about this guy’s Internet past. Moreover, the social dynamics of a live game can deter this sort of thing.
Another important point is that it’s not so easy for him to get to the river with a bluffing hand. Check-calling twice with a pure draw would be poor and un-Internet-ish, and if he doesn’t have a pure draw he has something with calling value. So he would have to be turning a value hand / bluff-catcher into a check-raise river bluff. This is uncommon. (I suppose he could have a very big draw that warrants check-calling even the turn, but there aren’t many combinations of this, and one-gappers will sometimes/often fold preflop OOP, depending on the guy.)
> Check-calling twice with a pure draw would be poor and un-Internet-ish, and if he doesn’t have a pure draw he has something with calling value
That’s a great point that I didn’t really consider enough. His range probably contains few pure flushdraws. Seeing as that is the case, it reduces the frequency that we’re getting c/r-bluffed, and I’m beginning to warm up to a value bet. I guess once this spot gets more marginal, the meta-game implications start to make more of a difference, and for meta-game we definitely want to be betting here (both to make our betting range more balanced on this river, and to hopefully tilt villain).
So overall I’d say I’m fine with a bet, given that Andrew’s Spidey-sense says it’s okay. But it’s pretty close IMO.
I’m writing this without reading anyone else’s post so as to not influence my first thoughts.
Simply put, I feel like his river check is indicative of a fear YOU have hit the flush, not the other way around. His line feels like something like A10, 7s or 8s, hands that he might play by flat calling out of position – while an internet player might be induced to 3bet a pair in the SB, he’s probably read enough articles to know better at a live table.
I think it is a clear value bet to represent the flush.
The flush didn’t come in.
I’m really interested in seeing Andrew’s analysis, because this strikes me as a pretty straightforward situation, so I assume I’m missing something. But here’s how I see it:
First, if we get check-raised, that’s pretty much an automatic fold (right?). And if we bet, I wouldn’t think there’s anything more than a negligible chance that we can push Villain off of A9/K9/Q9 or better regardless of sizing, so there’s no sense turning our hand into a bluff.
So that means that the calculation is simply weighing (a) how likely Villain calls with worse versus (b) how often we get check-raised, either with trips/2P or a bluff (obviously, it doesn’t matter which). This balance also strikes me as highly interrelated; that is, the less you bet, the more likely you are to get a call from a medium-strength hand, but the more tempting you make it for Villain to c/r bluff with the same hand.
So it may be too passive, but I say check behind. If I’m good, I think I’m pretty happy with two streets of value from my relatively crappy hand in the cutoff, and if I’m beat, I’ve gotten away as cheaply as possible.
Hero can rep QQ(q),99(9), KQ, AQ all of which would/could 3 barrel.
On the other hand do we really expect to see a lot of 2’s in Villain range.
I don’t think villain is check raising here without exactly 777.
I don’t think this is a spot for a big bet(overbet) to look like a bluff.
Villain will just fold too often thinking I might be good but maybe he hit a Q.
I bet 167. And hopefully V goes that’s a weird size and calls with a lower pair.
I don’t follow your reasoning. You list a bunch of good hands Hero could have, say that Villain could put Hero on a Q, but then say that you want to value bet and hope to get called by a lower pair?
Basically ya. Since we shouldn’t be worried about a check-raise I think we can value bet light/thin. Yes we won’t get called a lot. Though in order to get called we should make it tempting (small). But ya after I wrote the post I thought to myself maybe villain was calling with Qs & some flush draw…so that might make it too close. There might still be super thin value in betting small but I’m not good enough to say in this spot. not too mention meta game (showing j9 here) that I won’t even try to discuss (wait for the answer).
I think that Villain shouldn’t have too many flush draws with a Q in them (or hands with a Q in them at all)–a $75 bet into <$100 should drive most of those away, except perhaps exactly AQ of trump.
Of course people make bad calls with flush draws all the time, but many of those people also make bad calls with other things also, so that the part of his range that we're ahead of also increases. The exception here will be the sort of opponent who will pay almost any price with a good-looking draw but who will not do the same with a bad pair and who is not suspicious enough to call very much on the river. I don't think there are many of these types running around, and I certainly don't think the villain here is one of them.
I think given the action it’s unlikely he had us beat but i’d be surprised if villain called our bet on the river after we showed so much strength. So yeah i’m eager to hear from Andrew with his analysis….
I agree with the hand reading done by Nathan and Nate. I don’t see villain having a monster.
I think we are ahead. In isolation, I like a bet in the same proportion as the flop and turn, say $190.
But like The Poker Meister, I am also interested in what approach we should take for the metagame. Where is this in Andrew’s range? Do we want to demonstrate that we will bet for thin value on the river? Do we want to check back our showdown hands and only bet bluffs and monsters?
Against a good player, I think we want to demonstrate that we can bet for value on the river. Many reasons for this: e.g., good players realize that if you don’t play the river well, they don’t have to give up as frequently early in the hand. Turning your opponent’s unprofitable continuations into profitable continuations is a bad thing. (This is also, of course, a reason why betting this river is theoretically correct, not just a reason why it will have certain good effects against good players.)
I also think that this bet has good metagame consequences against other kinds of opponents, but there are too many kinds of opponents to chart this all out. But when you put money into the pot with hands that they wouldn’t have, and especially when you do this correctly, this inspires a lot of fear and curiosity and contempt and confusion–most of which cause people to play worse against you.
Hi Russ, thanks for the comment. I’m going to be rude and answer each of your questions with a question:
1. Where do you think it should be in relation to my range?
2. Why wouldn’t we want to demonstrate that?
3. What would be the reason for playing that way?
Is this that Socratic method I’ve heard about? We engineers never had to deal with that answer a question with a question bullshit.
a) I don’t know what villain thinks of your range, but I think you open a wide range in the CO. You certainly can have lots of Qx, 99, 77, and A2s, but I guess that is only a small portion of your overall opening range. So I am thinking when you get to the river, you rarely have a monster and you have a lot of busted draws. I disagreed at first, but now I see what TJ meant when he said your top pair on the turn was near the top of your range.
b) I think the reason we want to bet for thin value on the river is to balance how often we may be bluffing our missed draws. Given what I wrote above, where I assume hero has lots of missed draws in his range, it is important to bet with our middle pair. Plus what Nate said.
c) checking back our showdown range helps us avoid a check-raise where we have to fold our equiity. Betting the polarized range helps us confuse good hand readers.
So, now that I’ve had to answer my own questions like a scolded schoolboy, I still think we should bet for value. Villain may well put us on a busted draw and call. If he folds, we get to avoid revealing our hand. If Villain check-raises, I doubt he has a monster. I try to make the call/fold decision based on other reads and his raise size. As a nit, I likely fold to the check raise.
Please, no more homework. Reading the great comments at this blog already pushes my mental capacity.
I enjoy this What’s your play !
First reasoning was, he would only call with hands that would beat me, Qx is in his range etc.
Second reasoning is : if he actually played online he can even call 3 Streets with AK as a bluff-catch.
Third reasoning is : if he actually played online he might and I say might, nothing more, raise you as a bluff on the river even though I’m pretty sure he would only call with any value hand, Q included and only raise with the thin top of his value range. But I can’t discount the fact that he would raise with a missed FD.
Fourth reasoning is : you give the same feeling so basically he would be wary of raising you as a bluff as you can call a lot lighter than actual live players. The aim of bluffing is to get someone to fold, if the guy is an internet maniac – which he doesn’t know yet – you don’t want to bluff “thin”.
So :
– He would go to showdown with a lot of lesser hands than yours.
– As you are an online player yourself, you have more chances of catching a check-raise bluff with TP or even second pair, he should be less inclined to check-raise.
– I can’t understand why people are so scared of being check-raised ? Even a ballsy online player would not do that without a strong range against an unknown opponent with a big stack. A strong range is quite rare here as the action unfolded.
– It’s a thin value bet which is good for our image. We will be able to value two pair or better exactly the same way with a higher chance of being check-raised as a bluff later on.
– You are defining what is the bottom of his calling range if he does call. People can think that it’s quite expensive but I only see the actual 1500$ left and a small chance of making him upset if he has something like 9T.
I would bet around 170. It’s as neutral as a pile of chips thrown on the middle can be. I would not bet larger, perhaps triggering his “check-raise as a bluff” gland since a lot of good players can see larger bets as weak.
It’s so hard to put him on a value hand that’s better than you here based on his passive action. No draws got there and the hand combinations that hit this board hard aren’t really in a SB defense calling range. Especially not a triple barrel SB defense calling range..
I doubt he double floated you with a naked Queen. If he called you oop with Q9 then you’ll probably get raised if you bet this river which allows you to make a correct fold. In fact I’d guess that his double float check/raise river bluff line is probably non existent.
I’d bet river and be surprised if a hand that check/calls beat me. This board is such that either villain is slow playing a monster or has a worse hand. A9 or K9 might have a hard time calling 3 streets so with a bet on the river you might get the only 2 most plausible hands I can think of to fold.
$100-150 should ought to get the job done. I don’t expect many calls and it makes the times he check/raises us cheaper to get away from.
If you think A9 and K9 will fold, then it’s hard to see why this is a valuebet. (Unless you think that all one-pair hands will call X% of the time without much sensitivity to their absolute strength, in which case there might be enough such hands to make this worth betting.)
You are probably right that it’s probably not technically a value bet but my gut is telling me to bet the river to realize the equity I’ve already put into the pot. (This could be thinking incorrectly) Am I leveraging fold equity more than the strength of my hand here? Probably. Will this set up an opportunity to bet 3 streets with the nuts and him call with something much weaker later in the session? Maybe!
It feels a little thin to me – I’m not sure 50% of his calling range is going to be worse hands.
I do think there are a lot of worse hands that can get here: given that we’re in a stealy spot and the board is pretty innocuous I would expect him to expect my range to be relatively weak for firing flop and turn.
So the ratio of worse to better is pretty good I think, but I also think that the probability of getting called by worse is low, and by better pretty high.
I guess it depends where he will expect your point of honesty to be – maybe you internet wizards never get honest, and so he’ll call you down with any pair and Ace high because he’ll expect you to be firing three shells with your whole range.
If you think he can’t call with many bluffcatchers, then he’s probably a mistake by getting to the river with a wide range.
That makes me think, among other things, that I might have his range wrong on the river! Perhaps he’s making good disciplined folds on earlier streets such that betting a naked nine is actually not so good after all. With few reads I would still happily bet, but this has me thinking a little more.
I guess it depends a lot on how we expect villain (implicitly?) expects us to structure the hand. It’s ok to get to the river with a wide range but fold a lot there provided you expect your opponent to bet the flop and turn wide but tighten up on the river.
Andrew linked on twitter to an article by David Sklansky in the week that lays out just how powerful it is to get the betting/bluffing waterfall right across multiple streets. If we’re doing that well, then holding a bluffcatcher is just a world of pain.
On the other hand, the idea of the point of honesty is that villain may well be expecting us to bet all our crap on the flop, and maybe turn, but that at some point we give up and only bet ‘honestly’ – i.e. for value. In which case, it makes a lot of sense to call bluffcatchers up to the point of honesty, and then fold them. It’s just a question of guessing right which street is the one to give up on.
On the river we can imagine 13 combos of hands that will DEFINITELY call you if they played that way: AsQs, KsQs, QsJs, QsTs, TT, Ah9h, As9s, Ac9c.
That means you need at least 14 combos to call you that you beat. Maybe a few more considering that he might check-raise bluff (though I wouldn’t be worried about this given your read and his line in this hand).
You tie with T9s/98s, so disregard those. He might call you with 88/66/55, that’s 18 combos. I only counted three combos of 7x that got to the river, so that’s 21. But he won’t always call you with those hands so it’s pretty thin.
I think the estimation of 30-55 combos of candidate check-calling hands THAT YOU BEAT is way too high. You’re counting on him to call you down with 44 and 33, which he may have dumped on the flop or on the turn, AND he might fold those on the river.
A lot of his combos on the river have no showdown value (unless Hero went apeshit), or they have VERY marginal showdown value in the face of Hero’s bet-bet-bet line. Hero’s perceived value range is fairly wide (maybe A9x+), and Villain might assume Hero’s bluffing frequency might be somewhat diminished because of the brick turn. Villain’s hand is face-up, but we don’t know yet if that will impel him to call with his bluff-catchers.
As soon as you know more about his play this bet can become far from thin, but until then, it’s pretty close. I wouldn’t hate either way, though.
I think we should probably value bet. We look like we could have a good number of missed draws and pure air balls because of which villain is probably going to end up considering a check-call with pretty much most of his range that gets to the river, and wants to call, rather than leading with some hands. (On other run outs he might lead hands like A9 more often hoping to get called by slightly worse, say.) This means that some of the time we lose to A9s-type hands or overpairs that get to the river this way (these hands pretty much always call) and some of the time we win against T9-type hands and underpairs to the 9 (these hands call less frequently), which in turn means bet sizing is important. I would choose a small bet size to increase the chance of getting called by the weaker hands in villain’s range. I think a small bet is also consistent with what our range looks like, more air heavy. And, I think a small bet size also fits with the notion that we could be betting small to get villain off a better missed draw.
In game, I would probably check thinking it would be difficult to get called by worse when worse hands folding doesn’t matter. I would also think, given the lack of history, we don’t have a dynamic yet to be called particularly light. But, I think a bet like this, as well as for value, is good for protecting our bluffing range in future hands and good also for starting a dynamic with this player (if we think we can adjust better than villain).
I’d be curious to know if you would 3 barrel AK (non As) here? (online?live?)
As long as we’re being curious: Why is Hero playing 700 bb deep? Is this the biggest game they offer?
From Andrew’s descriptions of this game it sounds as if pots often get bloated before the flop–or, at least, that he figures to make more money by making good decisions for deep money than he does by taking advantage of playing a shorter stack.
Yes.
I think this is a pretty standard value bet against this opponent. Given his probable internet-player background he is likely to have gotten to river with worse hand (mid pairs,9T,98). His better hands (TT+, A9,K9) while possible, are unlikely given his passive play so far, both pre- and post-flop.
So given that live c-raise bluffs on river are very rare, and given player specific considerations (this is his own first orbit, Andrew’s large stack and villain’s own unwillingness to buy in for $3500 – he is clearly looking to target other stacks at the table, not Andrew’s) I think we can almost completely discount the possibility of a bluff c-raise
So how likely is he to show better hand vs worse hand if he calls? I think not very likely. I’d estimate something like 30% only, which makes this a clear value bet.
But there is another consideration which would sway me to value-bet this even if i thought his chance of showing a better hand at showdown was as high as 55-60%. I think there is a lot of meta-game value that comes from showing a willingness to 3-barrel with vulnerable holding and also from an ability to take the pot without showdown if he folds a worse hand. If he holds something like 78,76,A5s and he folds it, I think quite a lot of value is gained by winning this pot without showing our hand.
I bet ~130 on river
As many others, i’m very curious to read Andrew’s analysis…
I’d be willing to bet Andrew didn’t think this WYP would generate so much conversation. I’m pretty surprised myself. I guess it really shows the philosophical / polarizing views of where to draw the line on thin value betting.
You would win that bet! I’m glad to see it, though, and it may have some effect on which hands I choose to post in future WYPs. The spots that seem most interesting to me aren’t always the most interesting to others 🙂
I think you should post some WYP’s that you think are standard spots that might not be for other players (or that other players have problems with).
In general, what % of hands that you are involved with do you considered standard spots vs. tough/interesting/thought provoking?
Queen is a blank, can we bet small (~100) to get à crying call from 7x, and Maybe lower pocket pairs?
Spades missed, so I would call à check-raise (since we can induce by betting small) most of the time.
It’s a bit odd to me that a young good player would choose his first hand to tangle with you (specifically) out of position when he has position on you for most hands. So either he’s not that good, is using this hand to feel you out, has some specific trick play in mind, or just happens to have one of the hands that he calls cut-off 4x raises from the SB. His line up to the river looks to me like either slow playing (77, 99, or 97) or he has a good draw (e.g. Ts9s, Ts8s, 9s8s). The check on the river makes me lean towards the latter. So I think we should value bet targeting hands like T9 and 98. At this point he isn’t calling with the draw so I don’t think we can make it as large a % of the pot as our previous bets. I bet $135. The only thing that gives me pause is could he be capable of either a) check a full house on the river hoping he can win a much larger pot with a check-raise, or b) check-raise air (e.g. Ts8s) as a bluff. If he is capable of doing both (in a balanced fashion? – not sure if balance makes sense with no history), then we’re going to have to call. But if we only think he’s capable of one, then we better figure out which one it is before we bet. I could see both as a possibility (maybe he’ll interpret the small bet as weakness and decide to pounce when he originally was planning on giving up), so in theory I am betting $135 and calling his raise, but live I’m probably seeing monsters under the bed and checking behind.
I totally missed that the Q counterfeited our pair vs T9 and 98, but I feel better that many others missed it as well. Makes me wonder if this is something most of us wouldn’t have missed live – I’m guessing no, so this is probably a type of board where players make mistakes.
I didn’t think of pocket pairs like 88 and 66,55 – I think he has enough of those hands that I stand by my original value bet of $135. I also don’t think that hands like A, K, or Q with a 9 or likely given the action so far, so I’m not as concerned with him calling worse (or it to be a high enough % of the time to make a value bet bad).
Yeah, I hadn’t noticed that our kicker doesn’t play. That makes me like a value bet even less, but it makes me start to wonder about betting big to try to get villain off a chop…
I guess the maths of that are kind of bad – we’re betting to win only half the pot, against a fairly narrow range of hands.
The guy is much more likely to have a pocket pair up to 10s or a flush draw IMO than a flopped pair, and a possibility he floated and hit the Q. I guess the main choices are either bet folding or check calling to let him have a stab if he missed a flush. The latter might be preferred depending on your read at the time.
We’re in position
Hi,
When I try to put villain on a hand range, it is difficult to imagine hands that can beat hero or draws because villain did not check raise. It seems that villain has a hand that wants a showdown for cheap. So we can imagine villain with 9x, 7x or 88. On the video with andre coimbra, Andrew said that on chopped pot when he bets a lot of players fold, so I think that hero can bet 2/3 pot.
I think that villain can actually get to the river with a lot of missed draws given how deep we are, especially nut flush draws (8 combos). There are few combo’s that I think he would x/r for value 99(1), 77(3), 22(1) maybe A2(2) = 7. The problem for me is the contradiction, between the read that I don’t think many people are going to x/r bluff here, and the fact that there are relatively a lot of combos to bluff in proportion to hands to value x/r. Let’s say we bet $150, and he raises to $500, then if he is bluffing just 2 combo’s then we have to fold.
I’m not confident that he will have called two streets with pocket pairs less than 7, especially if he has seen Andrew be agressive, if he has called two streets already then I think he will call our river bet. If say 75% of the time he does call down with those pocket pairs then, 88,66-33 30×75% ~23 combos, A7(3), so 26 combo’s that call that we beat. combo’s we lose to A9(3), AQ(1), JJ-TT(50%)(6). so the EV of the value bet over x’ing to $150 is (26-10)*150= 2400/c and the cost of being x/r bluffed is ($150+$250)*2 = 800/c.
I think it is an ok spot for a thin value bet, but I wouldn’t want to actually make it too small, because we might induce a x/r bluff and I don’t think the calling range is that sensitive to the bet size. so I think maybe $130 and fold to a raise.
at some casinos, if you check the river, HE, being first to act on river, has to show first. And I am new enough to NLHE that I sometimes ask the dealer to show both hands but I doubt Andrew and Nate would (or most of the posters TBH)if this is not the case.
The info may be worth something?
But, I would be reluctant to value bet here. I think Dana has a good point about his first hand being OOP to a steal. I would expect ‘trickery’ here, and having not yet seen it, would think he is folding to a v-bet often, and thus the money made would not be worth the risk of his raising, or value of info from checking back.
The flat from the SB, combined with 2 check/calls OOP, might be just enough to convince me that he might not be the good internet player that we think he might be, which would push me even more toward a thin value bet.
As far as trying to get him off of a chop, that’s fine because it is a freeroll if we knew he had a 9, but then we are turning our hand into a bluff, likely betting much larger, which in turn is going to strengthen his calling range.
Basically I do think his calling range will be somewhat elastic in respect to our sizing.
I think you have to treat villain as an unknown with only 10 hands and no history. I don’t believe aura’s count for much. Many players misrepresent their skill with their attitude.
http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/26/psychology/most-players-think-theyre-better-than-they-actually-heres-y-i-do-677405/
I agree with WHICH, check it to see his hand and gain information by viewing his cards, esp since he is sitting two seats to the left.
I would bet big that river card, we are ahead more often then not. He calls on draw or even on high card in that flop texture.