Tu madre!
 

Villan is 19/14/4.20 over 270. Loves to free card or even bet/3bet a c/r for a free card just about anything with 6 outs or more. Especially HU.

Party Poker 5/10 Hold'em (8 handed) Hand History Converter Tool from FlopTurnRiver.com (Format: 2+2 Forums)

Preflop: Hero is BB with 7[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img], 4[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img].
<font color="#666666">4 folds</font>, <font color="#CC3333">CO raises</font>, <font color="#666666">2 folds</font>, Hero calls.

Flop: (4.40 SB) 9[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img], 6[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img], 4[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] <font color="#0000FF">(2 players)</font>
Hero checks, <font color="#CC3333">CO bets</font>, <font color="#CC3333">Hero raises</font>, <font color="#CC3333">CO 3-bets</font>, Hero calls.

Turn: (5.20 BB) 4[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] <font color="#0000FF">(2 players)</font>
<font color="#CC3333">Hero bets</font>, CO calls.

River: (7.20 BB) A[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] <font color="#0000FF">(2 players)</font>
<font color="#CC3333">Hero bets</font>, <font color="#CC3333">CO raises</font>, <font color="#CC3333">Hero 3-bets</font>

Haupt_234

Re: Tu madre!
 

play it the same. nh.

Re: Tu madre!
 

Nice hand. I probably would have led the flop but check raise was proably better.

Re: Tu madre!
 

The 4.2 agr. factor and your excellent reads obviously make this hand play very nice. But what if it was, say 2.2? If he was a typical TAG, how 'bout b/c flop, c/r turn, b/c river? And are you calling in the BB solely because of your opponent? These are poker novice questions, but I'd sincerely appreciate some feedback.

Re: Tu madre!
 

[ QUOTE ]
But what if it was, say 2.2? If he was a typical TAG, how 'bout b/c flop, c/r turn, b/c river?

[/ QUOTE ]

A typical TAG won't raise the flop and bet the turn with overs, for the most part. If a typical TAG is betting the turn after raising the flop, we are beat a ton of the time. C/ring the turn also sucks because giving a free card is horrific since we only hold bottom pair.



[ QUOTE ]
And are you calling in the BB solely because of your opponent?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think the PF call is ok with this type of opponent since he is very aggressive and, if you hit a hand, he will likely think you are stealing from him with his aggression factor and play back at you. This hand is a good example of that.

Haupt_234

Re: Tu madre!
 

[ QUOTE ]


A typical TAG won't raise the flop and bet the turn with overs, for the most part. If a typical TAG is betting the turn after raising the flop, we are beat a ton of the time. C/ring the turn also sucks because giving a free card is horrific since we only hold bottom pair.



[/ QUOTE ]

Oh yeah, the 'line' I wrote was circumstantial, not a pre-conceived plan. The turn c/r was IF he raised the flop, and because you made trips. I wasn't very clear, sorry.

Re: Tu madre!
 

I really like this hand, Haupt. The turn bet is perfect, since he loves to take freebies, and the river is totally standard.

I think PF is fine, since you know you can outplay him postflop if you hit, and you can C/F if you miss.

Re: Tu madre!
 

I'd fold preflop, but I know I'm too tight in blind steal situations! (I guess his attempt to steal numbers might sway me!)

The flop and turn I love.

The river, I'm not sure I like the 3bet. You've said yourself that Villain loves to use the bet or 3bet play for a free card. Given his flop and turn line here, it looks like that is something that he was trying to do. It looks like he is drawing, and he now knows it.

That being said, to him it looks like you hit trip 4's. Is he really raising this river with a worse hand often enough for Hero to 3bet it? If he was drawing to overcards, well that's the 6 outs that you specified earlier, but even on this board? After it looked like you hit trips? Maybe.

If he was drawing to two pair, that's less than 6 outs. And given that, it looks like the river helped him. If he had A9, with that aggression factor, I think he raises you on the turn again. I think at this point, one of the only hands that you beat after his river raise is A6 that just hit two pair. Even that's a stretch after his flop and turn action.

I really need to be convinced of the value in this river 3bet. Once he raises, I'd say Hero is losing to a flush more than 50% of the time.

Re: Tu madre!
 

[ QUOTE ]
I really need to be convinced of the value in this river 3bet. Once he raises, I'd say Hero is losing to a flush more than 50% of the time.

[/ QUOTE ]


There are 10.2 bb in the pot. He only has to be right less than 10% of the time to make this correct. This would only be a small mistake if any at all to three bet here.

Re: Tu madre!
 

The total pot size is irrelevant to the value of the 3-bet on the river.

The 3-bet can only gain 1 extra bet or two if villian caps with the losing hand so you are risking 1 BB to win 1BB which is why Sierra mentioned 50%

Im also not convinced the 3-bet is standard.

Re: Tu madre!
 

I don't see how pot size affects the decision to three bet or not at the river. Assuming you are not folding to a 4 bet, you've already won what's in the middle or you haven't. When faced with a river bet you wont fold to, you options are to either call or raise.

If you decide to call, then your EV is a simple pot odds decision and you only have to be right a small percentage of the time to be right.

The EV of a 3-bet is more complicated. Assuming no one folds, the money in the pot is already going to the person with the best hand. The value of a raise is determined by how often you have the best hand. Your value is determined by how often (ignoring ties)

1. a hand you can beat calls you (you gain an extra bet)
2. a hand that beats you calls you (you lose an extra bet)
3. a hand that you beat 4-bets you (you gain two extra bets)
4. a hand that beats you 4-bets you (you lose two extra bets)

But these don't all happen with the same frequency. I would argue you need to be a marginal amount better than 50% to make a 3-bet profitable. Why? Because #4 is probably going to happen more often than #2 and #1 is going to happen WAY more often than #3.

So unless you have a good read that you are ahead, just call. In this case if you read the guy for a draw and the draw gets there and he raises you, call or fold. Given your read, 3-betting with the intent of extracting more money means you are just dreaming.

At the river, the gap concept is much different. You need a much better hand to raise than you need to call.

Re: Tu madre!
 

[ QUOTE ]
The total pot size is irrelevant to the value of the 3-bet on the river.

The 3-bet can only gain 1 extra bet or two if villian caps with the losing hand so you are risking 1 BB to win 1BB which is why Sierra mentioned 50%

Im also not convinced the 3-bet is standard.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why is that? Don't we have to consider how often the 3 bet is from a worse hand? If we say its always a better hand then its a fold. If we say its always a worse hand then we cap it. So obviously somewhere in between we meet. We are ahead a percentage and behind a percentage. Whether we are ahead or behind there is still an EV(+ or -) for putting in that bet isn't there?

Are we arguablys saying that its 50% of the time?

Re: Tu madre!
 

Im not quite sure what you mean! All im saying is that the pot size is irrelevant because if you have the best hand you can already scoop the pot with a call. If you 3 bet you are doing so to try and gain an extra bet. In that case you do have to hold the best hand over 50% of the time for it to be a value bet.

fellfold explained it better!

Re: Tu madre!
 

I argue it's more than 50% if the time due to how much you lose when you get 4-bet by a better hand. The exact number depends on your opponent. In this particular situation, you'll get 4-bet by a [big] flush or a boat almost automatically. How often is a worse 3 of a kind (and there aren't many out there) or top two pair going to 4-bet this? Almost never.

Re: Tu madre!
 

I think the 3-bet on the river is a winner here because against THIS opponent, we can expect to be ahead a greater % of the time. To me, a 4.2 AF means that he is going to bluff raise to represent this flush a lot more than a less aggressive opponent or has paired his ace and is playing it super agro.

In a more general sense, I think fellfold is right about % of getting value from the 3-bet on the river, but against this opponent we are easily ahead more than 50% of the time so there is definite value in it.

Re: Tu madre!
 

Quick question Haupt.

What do we do if he caps the river? I know we puke, but is there any chance our hand is good?

I'm not advocating to 3-bet/folding the river, as that would be the kiss of death to your image, and this guy would start to piss all over you, but would he cap the river with anything less than the flush?

That's the only reason why 3-betting this turn could be incorrect (although I think it is correct, FWIW.)

Re: Tu madre!
 

When I first mentioned the 50%, I always use it as just a ballbark rounded off figure. It's true that the number really needs to be something like 55% or so - the others explained it better. Thanks!

[ QUOTE ]
I think the 3-bet on the river is a winner here because against THIS opponent, we can expect to be ahead a greater % of the time. To me, a 4.2 AF means that he is going to bluff raise to represent this flush a lot more than a less aggressive opponent or has paired his ace and is playing it super agro.

In a more general sense, I think fellfold is right about % of getting value from the 3-bet on the river, but against this opponent we are easily ahead more than 50% of the time so there is definite value in it.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'll believe that we can be ahead more than 50% of the time, but are we ahead more than 50% of the time that he calls our 3bet? That's the question.

Because of the fact that this guy is capable of bluffraising makes calling his raise a no brainer. But Hero can't use that reasoning alone to reraise. Imagine this scenario. Let's pretend that Villain either has the flush, or he is bluffraising. And let's say that he has the flush only 20% of the time, and 80% of the time he is bluffraising.

This means calling his raise is a no brainer - he's bluffing way too much. But Hero can't reraise - the only thing Villain is going to do is fold his bluff or punish us with a cap with his flush. Therefore 3betting never gains extra bets when Hero is ahead, and loses more bets when Hero is behind.

If this is the type of opponent who will bluffcap a significant portion of the time, then there's definitely value in the 3bet. Here's my problem with that. This guy is 4.2 in the aggression department. Yet he slowed down on the turn. Given the action and the read that OP gave us, this makes me believe one of two things: Villain now knows that he is behind to trip 4s, or Villain knows that he couldn't get his free card for his draw (possibly both). When Villain comes alive again on the river, either he is bluffing, or that river card helped him. If he's bluffing, the value of the 3bet isn't there (unless he'll bluffcap, as already mentioned) if he's not bluffing, I think the fact that Hero's hand is pretty well defined combined with the action Villain has taken so far leads me to believe that Villain is raising with a better hand more often than a worse hand.

Re: Tu madre!
 

[ QUOTE ]
What do we do if he caps the river? I know we puke, but is there any chance our hand is good?

[/ QUOTE ]

I would call the cap and not feel good about it, but I think once in a while he could play a rivered 2 pair like this given his high aggression factor and the fact that I didn't play my hand like a FD.

Haupt_234

Re: Tu madre!
 

[ QUOTE ]
The river, I'm not sure I like the 3bet. You've said yourself that Villain loves to use the bet or 3bet play for a free card. Given his flop and turn line here, it looks like that is something that he was trying to do. It looks like he is drawing, and he now knows it.

[/ QUOTE ]

He is an over aggressive tight player who uses the freecard play WAY too much. Why do you feel so strongly that he has made a flush, and that this one time, he had a FD on the flop when he tried to free card me?

This is why when the river comes, I still believe MHIG and, at most, he hit 2 pair. He might not even need 2 pair to make that river raise since he could have likely been on a draw with AK/AQ/AJ.

I was merely protecting my blind and likely had a weak holding, so why wouldn't he raise the river if he hit it?

Haupt_234

Re: Tu madre!
 

[ QUOTE ]
He is an over aggressive tight player who uses the freecard play WAY too much. Why do you feel so strongly that he has made a flush, and that this one time, he had a FD on the flop when he tried to free card me?

This is why when the river comes, I still believe MHIG and, at most, he hit 2 pair. He might not even need 2 pair to make that river raise since he could have likely been on a draw with AK/AQ/AJ.

I was merely protecting my blind and likely had a weak holding, so why wouldn't he raise the river if he hit it?

[/ QUOTE ]

It's not just the flop play, it's the flop and turn play combined that make me wonder. We obviously have enough to call his raise.

I'm just not sure that we have enough value to 3 bet. I doubt he hit two pair on the river, because I think he'd show more action on the turn with one pair.

I think the only hands you're getting value from with that 3bet are overplayed overcards - AX. So given the way that it was played, add in the fact that it looks like you hit trip 4s, how likely is he to have an AX hand compared to how likely he has the flush?

(Keeping in mind that with his AX hand, you'll most likely win one extra bet from him, while with his flush hands, he's winning 2 extra bets from you)

Re: Tu madre!
 

I don't like the preflop call. If you are playing against a very aggressive opponent I want a stronger hand.

1. You usually going to flop a very low pair, a flushdraw or absolutly nothing. Option:

a) You can't continue with noting
b) Continuing with a flushdraw HU sucks since the pot will be very small on the flop and it will happen quite often that you don't have pair outs.
c) A pair can be the best hand, but you can only flop very weak pairs.

2. He is going to bet/3bet with both stronger and weaker hands a lot, forcing you to continue with your hand. If he isn't a total maniac he could force you to pay him off more often when he has a better hand then when you have the best hand.

Why don't you tighten up a bit against a very aggressive opponent and make $$$ when you have a good hand?

Re: Tu madre!
 

[ QUOTE ]
(Keeping in mind that with his AX hand, you'll most likely win one extra bet from him, while with his flush hands, he's winning 2 extra bets from you)

[/ QUOTE ]

I guess the more I think about it, the more I realize that there's a good chance an opponent this aggressive may even take it to 4 bets with a worse hand often enough to sway this to a value 3bet. He truly is hyper-aggressive.

So I guess I'm not as against it as I originally thought. I'd put it close either way. The EV variance is probably very small, regardless of whether it is + or -.

(I wouldn't do it myself, but then again, we know that I'm weak on river value betting!)

Re: Tu madre!
 

[ QUOTE ]
Im not quite sure what you mean! All im saying is that the pot size is irrelevant because if you have the best hand you can already scoop the pot with a call. If you 3 bet you are doing so to try and gain an extra bet. In that case you do have to hold the best hand over 50% of the time for it to be a value bet.

fellfold explained it better!

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok. I understand now. Thanks.

Re: Tu madre!
 

[ QUOTE ]
Why don't you tighten up a bit against a ridiculously aggressive opponent and make $$$ when you have a good hand?

[/ QUOTE ]

FYP

An AF of 4.2 is a joke. Also, OP makes excellent post-flop decisions while villain makes a very poor one: bet, and bet some more. If the flop comes down AQT rainbow you get away for 1 SB. When it comes down rags you have a villain who's willing to put multiple bets in on multiple streets with nothing.

Ballsy, beautiful 3-bet. Hopefully he showed you ace-broadway.

Re: Tu madre!
 

[ QUOTE ]
I think the only hands you're getting value from with that 3bet are overplayed overcards - AX.

[/ QUOTE ]

Then there is a lot of value there given the read on villan.


[ QUOTE ]
So given the way that it was played, add in the fact that it looks like you hit trip 4s

[/ QUOTE ]

In no way did I play my hand like trip 4s until the river. If anything, my donk on the turn would look like an attempt to not give a free card out or because I didn't want to cap with top/middle pair. I really don't think I will get credit enough for trips, which is another reason why I donked.

[ QUOTE ]
how likely is he to have an AX hand compared to how likely he has the flush?

[/ QUOTE ]

I expect him to have Ax a lot more than a flush, since he is so aggressive. Also, keep in mind that even if he wasn't so aggressive, the possibility of a flush is devalued since it is a HU blind steal situation.

Haupt_234

Useless results
 

Useless results:

Villan folded to my sexy 3banggggg.

Haupt_234

Re: Useless results
 

[ QUOTE ]
Useless results:

Villan folded to my sexy 3banggggg.

Haupt_234

[/ QUOTE ]

No result is useless! Just more information that you can have at your disposal when playing this opponent! [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

This guy gets a "may like to bluff raise scare cards" note in my books.

Re: Useless results
 

[ QUOTE ]
Also, OP makes excellent post-flop decisions while villain makes a very poor one: bet, and bet some more. If the flop comes down AQT rainbow you get away for 1 SB. When it comes down rags you have a villain who's willing to put multiple bets in on multiple streets with nothing.

[/ QUOTE ]
How excellent is excellent? Why can't villain have K9/A9/A6/A4/TT/99/88/77 etc etc??

If the flop comes down AQT you have to fold, but who knows; villain is aggressive and could be stealing with a lot. That's also exactly the reason that a rainbow flop isn't really safe. I'm not sure if it's smart to defend with 74s against an very aggressive opponent.

Re: Useless results
 

[ QUOTE ]
Useless results:

Villan folded to my sexy 3banggggg.

Haupt_234

[/ QUOTE ]
So in this specific case your 3-bet was wrong. There is absolutely no point in raising an opponent who is either bluffing, or has a better hand; ie. he is on the two far ends of the spectrum. He will either fold a hand you'd beat, or reraise a hand that beats you: -EV on the raise.

But... I don't think that was the general case here. He might bluff on the flush scare card, in which case you should've just called. What makes this different from the above situation is that he likely has either top pair, or possibly top two pair. There are many hands he will call your 3-bet with that you beat. This is a good thing.

(Also, I don't agree with villain automatically being a "bad" player, and making bad moves. You don't know his hand, if he had K9 with the king of spades it's a perfectly sane play. That's just one of possible hands he could have. Let's not glorify haupt, with respect, he only had bottom pair with a weak kicker; that 4 on the turn was very very lucky.)

Re: Useless results
 

[ QUOTE ]
Let's not glorify haupt, with respect, he only had bottom pair with a weak kicker; that 4 on the turn was very very lucky.

[/ QUOTE ]

I am almost positive I had him on the flop, turn, and river. Yes, I had bottom pair with a weak kicker. But folding the flop would have been dumb and I think I played the hand best I could against this type of player (and I am usually not one to say this).

I still stand by my river 3bet, as well.

Haupt_234

Re: Useless results
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Let's not glorify haupt, with respect, he only had bottom pair with a weak kicker; that 4 on the turn was very very lucky.

[/ QUOTE ]

I am almost positive I had him on the flop, turn, and river. Yes, I had bottom pair with a weak kicker. But folding the flop would have been dumb and I think I played the hand best I could against this type of player (and I am usually not one to say this).

I still stand by my river 3bet, as well.

Haupt_234

[/ QUOTE ]
Oh, of course I would've raised the flop as well. Any pair is usually good here; enough to raise. I also think you played it well, I was just commenting on the fact that villain need not be a poor player to play his hand this way. I also think a river 3 bet was correct (tho I wouldn't have had the guts to do so probably). I explained a case where it would be incorrect, and then argued that your situation was not that case. Seen the fact he folded and didn't call the river you obviously had him beat at all times. Tho perhaps not on the flop; we'll never know... K9 seems plausible still.

Re: Useless results
 

[ QUOTE ]
K9 seems plausible still.


[/ QUOTE ]

I agree, but we will never know. [img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img]

Haupt_234