Top two pair very deep vs nit - uh ohz
 

Villain is 16/9 and passive. I normally reraise preflop but there were a lot of terrible loose players behind me who I wanted to tag along and I think 3 betting just isolates me against a very strong range for UTG if he calls. Looking back I still like my flat call preflop. Anyways, we're deep and I chose to just flat call the flop, although raising would be ok. Turn brings top two but a flush draw got there. I bet out hoping to get a call from CO who was extremely bad, and I was planning on folding to a raise from UTG, however he just called. I honestly think the river is a check, but I want to see what other people think. I'll chime in my detailed thoughts on why I like a river check later on.

Party Poker
No Limit Hold'em Cash Game
$1/$2 Blinds
6 Players - (LegoPoker HH Converter)

SB: $198.00
BB: $94.00
UTG: $701.32
Hero (MP): $536.00
CO: $62.48
BTN: $136.98

Preflop: Hero is dealt K[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] A[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img] (6 Players)
<font color="red">UTG raises to $6.00</font>, Hero calls $6.00, CO calls $6.00, BTN folds, SB calls $5.00, BB folds

Flop: ($26) 7[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img] 6[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] A[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] (4 Players)
SB checks, <font color="red">UTG bets $20.00</font>, Hero calls $20.00, CO calls $20.00, SB folds

Turn: ($86) K[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] (3 Players)
UTG checks, <font color="red">Hero bets $65.00</font>, CO folds, UTG calls $65.00

River: ($216) 9[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] (2 Players)
UTG checks, Hero checks.

Re: Top two pair very deep vs nit - uh ohz
 

With as deep as you are I don't mind a check because if he shoves over your bet you're in a predicament (it's a pretty easy fold but it's a [censored] spot when you have good SD value), and I don't think he's calling a third shell with AQ (How far down the list of aces does 9% of hands include? Maybe AJ but I doubt he raises it UTG). I play it the same.

Re: Top two pair very deep vs nit - uh ohz
 

This is well played on every street IMO. I think this is often showdown whoring on his part with AA/KK, that doesn't want to get blown off his hand because of the potential flush. He could also have QQ with the Qh, but that's not paying off a river bet anways. The only hand you're potentially missing value against is AQ, but he may not even pay off with that, and the times he does won't make up for the times he has a better hand than you.

Re: Top two pair very deep vs nit - uh ohz
 

I think theres value in a smaller bet, id prob make it $110 fold to raise.

I think this guy probably isnt good enough to c/f AT AJ AQ.

Re: Top two pair very deep vs nit - uh ohz
 

You said he's passive so there's just about no chance he check raises the river with a worse hand, so you only have to decide if you're ahead of his range. Since the only things beating you are sets/flushes and he's done absolutely nothing the whole hand, there's a very good chance you're ahead.

Bet $110, get value from worse aces.

Re: Top two pair very deep vs nit - uh ohz
 

You can be confident that this guy will never turn a hand like AxQh into a bluff here, so bet/folding can't result in you folding a winner. A 16/9 raising UTG also never has a flush here since the Ah and Kh are both showing.

Only thing I'm worried about is him check/folding everything you beat and check/calling AK and sets. I don't know. Pretty thin. I guess I'd bet like 160 here and hope he makes a hero call with AQ. Nits don't like folding once they hit.

Re: Top two pair very deep vs nit - uh ohz
 

this is played perfectly. you might get another $10 of value on the turn but hardly worth worrying about

Re: Top two pair very deep vs nit - uh ohz
 

Those who don't want the free money he's giving you on the river, what range are you putting him on? With what sort of weighting?

IN CASE ANYBODY FORGETS: PASSIVE MEANS HE LIKES TO CALL

Re: Top two pair very deep vs nit - uh ohz
 

[ QUOTE ]

IN CASE ANYBODY FORGETS: PASSIVE MEANS HE LIKES TO CALL

[/ QUOTE ]

no. that is a separate characteristic. doesn't bet != likes to call

Re: Top two pair very deep vs nit - uh ohz
 

Nh.

Re: Top two pair very deep vs nit - uh ohz
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

IN CASE ANYBODY FORGETS: PASSIVE MEANS HE LIKES TO CALL

[/ QUOTE ]

no. that is a separate characteristic. doesn't bet != likes to call

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, it does. OP is undoubtedly going off his PT numbers with regards to the passive read. PT aggression is the ratio of calls to other actions. Anything but calling is aggressive. Low aggression = likes to call. Low aggression is completely unambiguous. The high aggression numbers are the ambiguous ones.

Re: Top two pair very deep vs nit - uh ohz
 

There is exactly one hand you can be afraid of in this spot: AsAd. Our passive guy isn't betting KK on this flop into 4 people and he's probably not raising 66/77 UTG.

Outside of that you have AQ/AJ - both would play the exact same way from a tight but stationy type guy, especially if their kicker was a heart. They'll pay off here sometimes, sometimes they won't. But checking here because you put your opponent on exactly AA is just seeing monsters under the bed, and refusing to accept money that's being handed to you.

If you're going to be so nitty about it, make it $50 on the river. He'll always call with his AJ/AQ then, and again - he's not going to bluff you on the river. But I think he calls $100 often enough with AQ to make it more profitable.

Re: Top two pair very deep vs nit - uh ohz
 

dire you're making a lot of assumptions in the passivity conclusion. A5 provided a pretty extensive list of reads so i'm going to (safely) assume that it's an exhaustive one

Re: Top two pair very deep vs nit - uh ohz
 

the real question regarding the villian is how light he calls down. my default here would be to bet 100 for value and fold to a raise, assuming he is almost never bluff raising or value raising a worse hand here.

however, i can see an argument for checking here also. the flop was multiway and this type of player is going to get scared and probably go into c/c mode even with a hand as strong as AA given that he is oop against two players, the flush got there, and you and him are both playing deep.

i would probably end up betting out 100 to get thin value from AQ or AJs, but i dont hate checking behind either.

Re: Top two pair very deep vs nit - uh ohz
 

I'd check the turn because I'd hate to get check-raised. I don't think any worse hands really call the turn because it looks like both you and the CO could be drawing. So I'd much rather check the turn and see how the CO acts and the UTG (if the CO bets.)

Re: Top two pair very deep vs nit - uh ohz
 

[ QUOTE ]
I'd check the turn because I'd hate to get check-raised. I don't think any worse hands really call the turn because it looks like both you and the CO could be drawing. So I'd much rather check the turn and see how the CO acts and the UTG (if the CO bets.)

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't like checking the turn at all. I feel like I can bet the turn and easily fold to a raise from UTG and CO is barely even a factor at this point, he can't really do anything to affect the outcome of the hand, except that UTG knows I'm never bluffing the turn with CO shortstack behind me, so if I get raised (which he really should only do with a flush, and a big one) it's a pretty easy fold I think. But my hand looks very much like a flush myself so it's not like he is going to c/r me with air or turn AQ into a bluff etc.

Re: Top two pair very deep vs nit - uh ohz
 

This looks perfect. I feel like this kind of player doesn't pay off with worse and is often looking for a showdown with a set. Betting is marginally ok since he never c/r'es with worse but I think you get called by better hands a lot more than you get called by weaker hands. You only beat AQ really. I doubt he even c-bets into 4 people with QQ/KK so for him to bet that flop he needs to have 66/77/AA/AK/AQ/AJ
since those are the only hands in his pf UTG raising range that would c-bet the flop into 4 people.

Re: Top two pair very deep vs nit - uh ohz
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'd check the turn because I'd hate to get check-raised. I don't think any worse hands really call the turn because it looks like both you and the CO could be drawing. So I'd much rather check the turn and see how the CO acts and the UTG (if the CO bets.)

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't like checking the turn at all. I feel like I can bet the turn and easily fold to a raise from UTG and CO is barely even a factor at this point, he can't really do anything to affect the outcome of the hand, except that UTG knows I'm never bluffing the turn with CO shortstack behind me, so if I get raised (which he really should only do with a flush, and a big one) it's a pretty easy fold I think. But my hand looks very much like a flush myself so it's not like he is going to c/r me with air or turn AQ into a bluff etc.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you made an argument for checking the turn. By betting the turn you're turning your hand into a bluff. I don't think any worse hand calls, do you?

So if your bet is not for value than it has to be a bet for protection against a lone heart coming. Which although a possibility, I think you have to be more worried about OP or the CO having a made flush.

And if in fact OP has a made flush then not getting a look at a free card on the river that could bust him when your this deep is very bad.

However, since it's much more likely that the CO has the made flush, betting might not be as bad as I make it out to be because it might work as a blocking bet and slow the CO down.

(I just reread the OP and saw the CO stack size. This makes things a little more awkward for my argument.)

* The only reason I could see the UTG calling your turn bet with a worse hand is because you didn't reraise preflop and so AK has to be at the top of your range preflop. But I think this is wishful thinking given that since you called preflop it's just as likely for you to have a made flush as a weak Ace.

Re: Top two pair very deep vs nit - uh ohz
 

after UTG calls turn and checks river, there's no way he's calling anything you beat, so a check behind is good

i like the turn bet for value, and as you said, fold to a raise

Re: Top two pair very deep vs nit - uh ohz
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'd check the turn because I'd hate to get check-raised. I don't think any worse hands really call the turn because it looks like both you and the CO could be drawing. So I'd much rather check the turn and see how the CO acts and the UTG (if the CO bets.)

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't like checking the turn at all. I feel like I can bet the turn and easily fold to a raise from UTG and CO is barely even a factor at this point, he can't really do anything to affect the outcome of the hand, except that UTG knows I'm never bluffing the turn with CO shortstack behind me, so if I get raised (which he really should only do with a flush, and a big one) it's a pretty easy fold I think. But my hand looks very much like a flush myself so it's not like he is going to c/r me with air or turn AQ into a bluff etc.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you made an argument for checking the turn. By betting the turn you're turning your hand into a bluff. I don't think any worse hand calls, do you?

So if your bet is not for value than it has to be a bet for protection against a lone heart coming. Which although a possibility, I think you have to be more worried about OP or the CO having a flush draw.

And if in fact OP has a made flush then not getting a look at a free card on the river that could bust him when your this deep is very bad.

However, since it's much more likely that the CO has the made flush, betting might not be as bad as I make it out to be because it might work as a blocking bet and slow the CO down.

(I just reread the OP and saw the CO stack size. This makes things a little more awkward for my argument.)

* The only reason I could see the UTG calling your turn bet with a worse hand is because you didn't reraise preflop and so AK has to be at the top of your range preflop. But I think this is wishful thinking given that since you called preflop it's just as likely for you to have a made flush as a weak Ace.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think UTG check-raises the turn about 0-1% of the time, because he is only going to do that with a flush and given his stats he should show up with two suited hearts next to never. But he could definitely have AQ/AJ with a heart or something that he might call the turn with, so I think there is definetely value in a turn bet. I really don't want to let a random pair + FD get there.

Re: Top two pair very deep vs nit - uh ohz
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'd check the turn because I'd hate to get check-raised. I don't think any worse hands really call the turn because it looks like both you and the CO could be drawing. So I'd much rather check the turn and see how the CO acts and the UTG (if the CO bets.)

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't like checking the turn at all. I feel like I can bet the turn and easily fold to a raise from UTG and CO is barely even a factor at this point, he can't really do anything to affect the outcome of the hand, except that UTG knows I'm never bluffing the turn with CO shortstack behind me, so if I get raised (which he really should only do with a flush, and a big one) it's a pretty easy fold I think. But my hand looks very much like a flush myself so it's not like he is going to c/r me with air or turn AQ into a bluff etc.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you made an argument for checking the turn. By betting the turn you're turning your hand into a bluff. I don't think any worse hand calls, do you?

So if your bet is not for value than it has to be a bet for protection against a lone heart coming. Which although a possibility, I think you have to be more worried about OP or the CO having a flush draw.

And if in fact OP has a made flush then not getting a look at a free card on the river that could bust him when your this deep is very bad.

However, since it's much more likely that the CO has the made flush, betting might not be as bad as I make it out to be because it might work as a blocking bet and slow the CO down.

(I just reread the OP and saw the CO stack size. This makes things a little more awkward for my argument.)

* The only reason I could see the UTG calling your turn bet with a worse hand is because you didn't reraise preflop and so AK has to be at the top of your range preflop. But I think this is wishful thinking given that since you called preflop it's just as likely for you to have a made flush as a weak Ace.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think UTG check-raises the turn about 0-1% of the time, because he is only going to do that with a flush and given his stats he should show up with two suited hearts next to never. But he could definitely have AQ/AJ with a heart or something that he might call the turn with, so I think there is definetely value in a turn bet. I really don't want to let a random pair + FD get there.

[/ QUOTE ]

good point.

Re: Top two pair very deep vs nit - uh ohz
 

Given your read, what about pushing the river to fold out the other AK?

Re: Top two pair very deep vs nit - uh ohz
 

Such an easy river bet

Results
 

Results are in white below:

<font color="white"> He had AxJh and MHIG.</font>

Re: Top two pair very deep vs nit - uh ohz
 

This is an honest, not a hopefully retarded post, but why is this hand interesting??

Read the first sentence.

Nh.

Re: Top two pair very deep vs nit - uh ohz
 

[ QUOTE ]
Such an easy river bet

[/ QUOTE ]

if you bet the river more often than not, you have a leak. Against this villain ... chill winston.

Re: Top two pair very deep vs nit - uh ohz
 

This seems like an incredibly easy valuebet on the river. He is affraid of the flush so that's why he is check-calling the turn. Same goes for the river. If you are check-raised then it's a super easy muck. He has AK AQ AJ AT A9 very very often here. If you bet $90 you are called often. I've skimmed over this thread but it doesn't make much sense to me for people saying check behind.

Re: Top two pair very deep vs nit - uh ohz
 

[ QUOTE ]
Such an easy river bet

[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed. Well not really easy but its pretty clear imo.

Re: Top two pair very deep vs nit - uh ohz
 

This hand is well played all the way and a river bet is extremely thin, definately not easy bet.

Think about it your hand is actually overrepresented if you bet the river. You play the hand like you have the flush and you only have 2pair. When you bet the turn into two players when the flush hits your hand looks really strong.

The only thing that favours a bet is if he goes to showdown to much, which you have no reason to believe. Passive doesnt mean loose if your preflop stats are thight. An AQ or AJ is an easy fold here if he is any good.

If he is really bad I would bet the river.

Re: Top two pair very deep vs nit - uh ohz
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Such an easy river bet

[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed. Well not really easy but its pretty clear imo.

[/ QUOTE ]

Let me put it this way, if you are villain, should I be betting the river against you? Pretend you have the opening range of a 16/9 UTG.

Re: Top two pair very deep vs nit - uh ohz
 

[ QUOTE ]
This seems like an incredibly easy valuebet on the river. He is affraid of the flush so that's why he is check-calling the turn. Same goes for the river. If you are check-raised then it's a super easy muck. He has AK AQ AJ AT A9 very very often here. If you bet $90 you are called often. I've skimmed over this thread but it doesn't make much sense to me for people saying check behind.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah he is check calling because he is afraid of a flush. But so what, he would play any set the same way.

Re: Top two pair very deep vs nit - uh ohz
 

[ QUOTE ]
Given your read, what about pushing the river to fold out the other AK?

[/ QUOTE ]

Honestly I never really thought of that, but I kind of think it's sexy here. It probably folds out all sets, and gets called by flushes which he should have pretty rarely I think.

Re: Top two pair very deep vs nit - uh ohz
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This seems like an incredibly easy valuebet on the river. He is affraid of the flush so that's why he is check-calling the turn. Same goes for the river. If you are check-raised then it's a super easy muck. He has AK AQ AJ AT A9 very very often here. If you bet $90 you are called often. I've skimmed over this thread but it doesn't make much sense to me for people saying check behind.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah he is check calling because he is afraid of a flush. But so what, he would play any set the same way.

[/ QUOTE ]

Quite possible yes, but the thing is: his range is much more weighted towards one or two pairs. So my evaluation here is that a bet is +EV, and it doesn't matter how deep you are in this spot because he'll never bluff.

Re: Top two pair very deep vs nit - uh ohz
 

[ QUOTE ]
Such an easy river bet

[/ QUOTE ]
Why. This kind of villain on this level is most likely folding AJ/AQ to a riverbet here. I think if we bet we are doing it as a bluff or to fold out splits, not for value.

Re: Top two pair very deep vs nit - uh ohz
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Such an easy river bet

[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed. Well not really easy but its pretty clear imo.

[/ QUOTE ]

Let me put it this way, if you are villain, should I be betting the river against you? Pretend you have the opening range of a 16/9 UTG.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not your random 16/9 Party 200NL player who I think calls with AJ/AQ way too much.

Re: Top two pair very deep vs nit - uh ohz
 

Interesting spot. Not as close as people are suggesting, though. It's a pretty clear check behind to me. Worth doing a bit of math to demonstrate that, I think.

We'll assume a best case scenario where villain does not have a flush. If we include flush possibilities, the math skews even further to a check, since he'll never be folding a flush, so if we can make a case for checking behind without a flush in his range, it's even more clearly a check if it is.

For a 16/9's opening range, things are pretty narrow by the time he gets to the river like this. AJ (8 combos), AQ (8), AK (4), 66 (3), 77 (3), KK (1), and AA (1), pretty much. I don't think villain's range is weighted strongly towards one end or the other beyond what the available hand combos provide.


Hero has a 64% equity against that range, so a check behind is clearly profitable. The question is whether betting is more profitable.

If we're betting for value, we need to know how often villain needs to call with hands we beat to make up for the times when he has a hand that beats us. There are 8 combos that beat us (sets) and 16 combos of hands that we beat (AQ/AJ), so villain has to call more than 50% of the time with AJ/AQ for a river bet to be profitable. I think that's a pretty optimistic percentage for any kind of reasonable bet.

Shoving as a bluff is interesting. In that case, we assume villain will fold AJ, AQ and AK, so we're left with figuring out how often he needs to fold a set for a shove to be profitable. When villain has AJ or AQ, shoving has the same EV as checking, so we can ignore those hands for this part. The pot is 216 and Hero has 445 behind, so we're betting 445 to win 216. If 'n' is the fraction of the time that villain folds a set, the EV of a shove is (we gain 1/2 the pot when villain folds AK, so we add that into the equation also):

((216n - (1-n)445) * 8) + (1/2 * 216 * 4) = EV

solving for zero, we get

n = 64.4%

So villain needs to fold a set more than 64% of the time to a river shove for our bluff to +EV. I find that extremely unlikely to be true on this board, as it would require him to call with AA and KK only.

Add in even a slight chance of a flush for villain, and the case becomes even stronger. A river check behind is the right play.

Re: Top two pair very deep vs nit - uh ohz
 

[ QUOTE ]
Interesting spot. Not as close as people are suggesting, though. It's a pretty clear check behind to me. Worth doing a bit of math to demonstrate that, I think.

We'll assume a best case scenario where villain does not have a flush. If we include flush possibilities, the math skews even further to a check, since he'll never be folding a flush, so if we can make a case for checking behind without a flush in his range, it's even more clearly a check if it is.

For a 16/9's opening range, things are pretty narrow by the time he gets to the river like this. AJ (8 combos), AQ (8), AK (4), 66 (3), 77 (3), KK (1), and AA (1), pretty much. I don't think villain's range is weighted strongly towards one end or the other beyond what the available hand combos provide.


Hero has a 64% equity against that range, so a check behind is clearly profitable. The question is whether betting is more profitable.

If we're betting for value, we need to know how often villain needs to call with hands we beat to make up for the times when he has a hand that beats us. There are 8 combos that beat us (sets) and 16 combos of hands that we beat (AQ/AJ), so villain has to call more than 50% of the time with AJ/AQ for a river bet to be profitable. I think that's a pretty optimistic percentage for any kind of reasonable bet.

Shoving as a bluff is interesting. In that case, we assume villain will fold AJ, AQ and AK, so we're left with figuring out how often he needs to fold a set for a shove to be profitable. When villain has AJ or AQ, shoving has the same EV as checking, so we can ignore those hands for this part. The pot is 216 and Hero has 445 behind, so we're betting 445 to win 216. If 'n' is the fraction of the time that villain folds a set, the EV of a shove is (we gain 1/2 the pot when villain folds AK, so we add that into the equation also):

((216n - (1-n)445) * 8) + (1/2 * 216 * 4) = EV

solving for zero, we get

n = 64.4%

So villain needs to fold a set more than 64% of the time to a river shove for our bluff to +EV. I find that extremely unlikely to be true on this board, as it would require him to call with AA and KK only.

Add in even a slight chance of a flush for villain, and the case becomes even stronger. A river check behind is the right play.

[/ QUOTE ]

You did a lot of nice math here, but I think you missed two key points.

1) Certain hands need to be discounted a lot more than others. If his stats were 16/13 I would give him credit for raising small pairs UTG, but at 16/9 I expect he limps 66 or 77 most of the time. There is very little chance he would fire close to pot on the flop with KK into three people, discounting KK. AxQh and AxJh are much more likely than the other AQ and AJ hands. Etc.

2) You can pick your bet size. We have zero fear of being check-raised as a bluff, so there is certainly some bet which will get AQ and AJ to call &gt;50% of the time (or whatever the actual percentage cutoff is when you do the discounting). If nothing else, min-betting should have higher EV than checking.

Overall though a nice job.

Re: Top two pair very deep vs nit - uh ohz
 

My spidey sense does the calculating for me and I trust it a lot. Easy riverbet.

Re: Top two pair very deep vs nit - uh ohz
 

I think you can 1/2 pot the river for value and very easily fold to a raise. I also think the chances of you being c/r-ed are very slim.

Re: Top two pair very deep vs nit - uh ohz
 

[ QUOTE ]
I think you can 1/2 pot the river for value and very easily fold to a raise. I also think the chances of you being c/r-ed are very slim.

[/ QUOTE ]
We wont be CR'ed, but I seriously belives he plays sets like this, and will make a crying call with them. While he will most likely fold AQ/AJ. Nits hate putting in 100BB's with bluffcathers.