NL200: Backdoor in to 2 pair in blind battle vs 2+2er
 

Villain is a taggy 2+2er. Haven't played with him in a while but he is pretty tight preflop and very aggro postflop, esp vs me it seems. Very capable of floating, making big bluffs, etc but not spewy. He prob views me as about the same.

This hand happened first, maybe one or two orbits before.

PokerStars No-Limit Hold'em, $2 BB (9 handed) internettexasholdem.com

BB ($200)
UTG ($210.30)
UTG+1 ($36.90)
MP1 ($84.50)
MP2 ($183.85)
MP3 ($132.05)
CO ($300)
Button ($76.50)
Hero ($246.30)

Preflop: Hero is SB with xx
<font color="#666666">7 folds</font>, <font color="#CC3333">Hero raises to $8</font>, BB calls $6.

Flop: ($16) 4[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img], Q[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img], A[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] <font color="#0000FF">(2 players)</font>
<font color="#CC3333">Hero bets $12</font>, BB calls $12.

Turn: ($40) K[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] <font color="#0000FF">(2 players)</font>
Hero checks, BB checks.

River: ($40) 4[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] <font color="#0000FF">(2 players)</font>
<font color="#CC3333">Hero bets $30</font>, BB folds.

Final Pot: $70

The hand in question:

PokerStars No-Limit Hold'em, $2 BB (9 handed) internettexasholdem.com

MP3 ($241.70)
CO ($201)
Button ($114)
Hero ($231.95)
BB ($212.65)
UTG ($207.90)
UTG+1 ($117.25)
MP1 ($17)
MP2 ($264.65)

Preflop: Hero is SB with 8[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img], A[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img].
<font color="#666666">7 folds</font>, <font color="#CC3333">Hero raises to $8</font>, BB calls $6.

Flop: ($16) 6[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img], 4[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img], K[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] <font color="#0000FF">(2 players)</font>
<font color="#CC3333">Hero bets $12</font>, BB calls $12.

Turn: ($40) 8[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] <font color="#0000FF">(2 players)</font>
Hero checks, BB checks.

River: ($40) A[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] <font color="#0000FF">(2 players)</font>
<font color="#CC3333">Hero bets $20</font>, <font color="#CC3333">BB raises to $54</font>, Hero calls or pushes?

Re: NL200: Back into 2 pair in blind battle vs 2+2er
 

I like to shove this since a worse aces up is probably most of his range. If this is vs. the_main you'll probably just value stack yourself though (or at least I always do).

Re: NL200: Back into 2 pair in blind battle vs 2+2er
 

Who is villain? I have a feeling I know who it is

Re: NL200: Back into 2 pair in blind battle vs 2+2er
 

[ QUOTE ]
Who is villain? I have a feeling I know who it is

[/ QUOTE ]

I woulda put it in the post if I felt like telling you.. dummy [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

And you didn't even reply to the hand...sheesh.

Re: NL200: Back into 2 pair in blind battle vs 2+2er
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Who is villain? I have a feeling I know who it is

[/ QUOTE ]

I woulda put it in the post if I felt like telling you.. dummy [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

And you didn't even reply to the hand...sheesh.

[/ QUOTE ]
Whats wrong with saying who villain is? I could give a better reply if I knew who the villain was.

As played Id just call. Im not sure what he checks the turn with that raises the river, maybe a worse aces up or Axdx trying to squeak out some value? Even with this being said I dont shove river since I doubt he calls with worse and theres a chance he slowplayed a set since its a BvB battle.

Edit: 57 is a possibility as well

Re: NL200: Back into 2 pair in blind battle vs 2+2er
 

I think he plays slightly differently vs me than he plays vs other people so I'd rather people just replied given the generic read.

Re: NL200: Back into 2 pair in blind battle vs 2+2er
 

minraise!

Re: NL200: Backdoor in to 2 pair in blind battle vs 2+2er
 

I would just call. That may be losing value but I think he only calls a shove with a better hand.

Re: NL200: Backdoor in to 2 pair in blind battle vs 2+2er
 

Ah crap. Call, and look at his set of sixes.

Re: NL200: Back into 2 pair in blind battle vs 2+2er
 

This is a bit over my limit..

I don't think he plays a set this passively. I suspect he wants some pot control while actually thinking his hand is best (most of the time)..

I'd probably raise on the river.

Re: NL200: Back into 2 pair in blind battle vs 2+2er
 

I personally like a raise here as opposed to a push, as tempting as it is. The biggest question to answer is what hands would call a push that you beat. I think hands that call a push have you beat, but you can likely get value from AdXd type hands that hit a pair on the river by just raising to ~100 (with the intent of calling a push, although you'd likely vomit first).

His line here just doesn't look too strong when he checks behind on the turn with a flush and straight draw there, unless he already had the straight and is just hoping to coax you into a river bet. That's why I don't see as much value in a push as I do a smallish raise. I think a smallish raise gets looked up by a AQ/AJ enough (mainly with your image) to make it a good play.

Re: NL200: Back into 2 pair in blind battle vs 2+2er
 

My read is that he would bet the turn with a set or straight vs me 100% of the time.

So when he raises the river I was pretty confident that he should really only have A4, A6, A8, AK, or air.

I guess it comes down to do you think it is reasonable for villain to call the push with A4, A6, or A8? What would you do with those hands in his spot?

If he calls with A4 and A6 even sometimes that is obv great. If he folds A8 that is awesome. If he has AK I am screwed.

All together that seems like +ev right?

Re: NL200: Back into 2 pair in blind battle vs 2+2er
 

[ QUOTE ]
My read is that he would bet the turn with a set or straight vs me 100% of the time.

So when he raises the river I was pretty confident that he should really only have A4, A6, A8, AK, or air.

I guess it comes down to do you think it is reasonable for villain to call the push with A4, A6, or A8? What would you do with those hands in his spot?

If he calls with A4 and A6 even sometimes that is obv great. If he folds A8 that is awesome. If he has AK I am screwed.

All together that seems like +ev right?

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a complicated read that you are selling. So, he would bet a set or a straight on the turn 100% of the time, but you think he would play AK as just call the preflop raise, just call the flop bet, check the turn?

Re: NL200: Back into 2 pair in blind battle vs 2+2er
 

[ QUOTE ]
This is a complicated read that you are selling. So, he would bet a set or a straight on the turn 100% of the time, but you think he would play AK as just call the preflop raise, just call the flop bet, check the turn?

[/ QUOTE ]

He would play AK like that sometimes but not all the time.

I am pretty confident in the other read though. 100% is a stretch obv but it is up there.

Re: NL200: Back into 2 pair in blind battle vs 2+2er
 

*Grunch somewhat*

Guys, he never has a set here. He is a regular. He is not slowplaying a set for two streets on a drawy board with two to a flush on it as well.

This is a lower two pair IMO 80% of the time, AK, 10% of the time(probably even less but without reads I don't know if the regular is aggro or a puss) with some surprise hands thrown in there like straights he hit etc, which are simply coolers. I value-town it and push and hope he thinks you are overbet shove bluffing lol.

Re: NL200: Back into 2 pair in blind battle vs 2+2er
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This is a complicated read that you are selling. So, he would bet a set or a straight on the turn 100% of the time, but you think he would play AK as just call the preflop raise, just call the flop bet, check the turn?

[/ QUOTE ]

I am pretty confident in the other read though. 100% is a stretch obv but it is up there.

[/ QUOTE ]


I agree with the read against most regs. Like you, I'd probably say I'm ahead 85-90% here. The question is, will he call a push with a weaker holding, whereas he's almost sure to call a smaller raise. If you raise to 100-110, I'd be shocked if he folded, unless his raise was a complete bluff. So, you're not getting his whole stack, but still getting a little over half of it. At this point though, its just a math question as to which is more profitable over the long haul.

Re: NL200: Back into 2 pair in blind battle vs 2+2er
 

You may be right.

Its funny that I didn't even consider raising less, just put him on a weaker 2 pr and instapushed.

I always think against competent opponents that the smallish raise would look stronger than a push.

Re: NL200: Back into 2 pair in blind battle vs 2+2er
 

Yea,

The probability of him calling a smaller two pair is dependent on the player really

(30%)($138) = 41.4
(50%)($50) = 25

On the river raise it's all according to how often he calls, but if you were to listen to David Sklansky he says push all the time :P

P.S. didn't look over anything or particularly remember if the ev calcs are right, just now starting to read the math of poker so give me a break and ignore any wrong numbers

Re: NL200: Back into 2 pair in blind battle vs 2+2er
 

Definitely player dependent, and sometimes the push looks weaker than a smaller raise. I mix it up myself, but figured I'd at least bring it up as an option. And even if you do the smallish raise and he folds, you've just opened up another play against said villain if you can bluff/raise river cheaply.

Re: NL200: Back into 2 pair in blind battle vs 2+2er
 

I think given the pot size on the river calling is best. you are risking to much, if you think that 50% of the time THAT YOU RAISE he will call you with a worse hand then its neutral. Im not sure how many two pairs hell lay down but your line is reflecting lots of strength (set or better). I doubt he thinks you are bluffing when you shove.

Re: NL200: Back into 2 pair in blind battle vs 2+2er
 

I agree that this is a worse two pair almost all of the time. If beat, I would expect to see a straight, not AK. If villain would bet a set 100% of the time on the turn, I don't see how he would play AK like this. He just calls with tptk why? To trap? Why trap with tptk if he is too scared to trap with a set? Or he played so slowly because he is worried about committing a lot of chips with one pair? Then why raise the river when there now are a whole host of hands that beat your unimproved one pair that you let get there cheaply?

I was not disagreeing with OP's read that villain would not check the set, but I just feel like this read also equally excludes AK.

I agree with a push as opposed to a smaller (but still large) raise. He most likely folds or calls to either rather than splits his decision.

Re: NL200: Back into 2 pair in blind battle vs 2+2er
 

[ QUOTE ]
I don't see how he would play AK like this. He just calls with tptk why? To trap? Why trap with tptk if he is too scared to trap with a set? Or he played so slowly because he is worried about committing a lot of chips with one pair?

[/ QUOTE ]

He would play AK that way mostly for pot control, partly to induce a bluff. If he had a set he wouldn't be worried about pot control, and would be more interested in building a big pot.

[ QUOTE ]
Then why raise the river when there now are a whole host of hands that beat your unimproved one pair that you let get there cheaply?

[/ QUOTE ]

Huh? If he had AK he improved to top 2 on the rvr...I don't follow.

Re: NL200: Back into 2 pair in blind battle vs 2+2er
 

[ QUOTE ]
if you think that 50% of the time THAT YOU RAISE he will call you with a worse hand then its neutral

[/ QUOTE ]

I may be misunderstanding what you are trying to say but as I read it this can't be right.

Re: NL200: Back into 2 pair in blind battle vs 2+2er
 

i was trying to communicate (poorly) something you already know. forget all the folds he makes, just think about the times you shove and he calls. does he call with a worse hand more than half the time? Im not sure he will, but its close.

Re: NL200: Back into 2 pair in blind battle vs 2+2er
 

Wouldnt villain 3 bet AK preflop here?

Re: NL200: Back into 2 pair in blind battle vs 2+2er
 

[ QUOTE ]
Wouldnt villain 3 bet AK preflop here?

[/ QUOTE ]

Sometimes, which is another reason I am discounting AK by the river. It is in his range but between all of the actions it is MUCH less likely than A4, A6, A8.

Re: NL200: Back into 2 pair in blind battle vs 2+2er
 

Okay, I must be high or something. River raise is consistent with ak two pair (which he has rather than one pair), regardless of how it got there.

Reading the post correctly, I agree that AK is possible, but as others stated, a lower probability than the other two pairs.

Sorry for the confusion.

Re: NL200: Back into 2 pair in blind battle vs 2+2er
 

Imo the only hand he could have here that is ahead of us is 57. I don't agree that he'd bet the turn with that most of the time as he usually has you drawing dead and knows you often check for pot contol, but may fire the river.

Re: NL200: Back into 2 pair in blind battle vs 2+2er
 

I'm surprised that no mentioned why I bet $30 in the first hand and $20 in the second.

Edit: IDK why either but its a leak - I should have bet $30 both times.