400NL: Over pair, ugly flop, semi-deep.
 

villain is 36/19/1.75 after about 150 hands. No real history or reads.

Party Poker No-Limit Hold'em, $4 BB (5 handed) Hand History converter Courtesy of PokerZion.com

Button ($0)
<font color="#C00000">SB ($662.10)</font>
<font color="#C00000">Hero ($619.88)</font>
UTG ($378)
MP ($537.42)

Preflop: Hero is BB with Q[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img], Q[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img].
<font color="#666666">2 folds</font>, <font color="#CC3333">MP raises to $16</font>, SB calls $14, <font color="#CC3333">Hero raises to $75</font>, MP folds, SB calls $59.

Flop: ($166) 8[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img], 7[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img], T[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] <font color="#0000FF">(2 players)</font>
SB checks, <font color="#CC3333">Hero bets $154</font>, <font color="#CC3333">SB raises to $308</font>, Hero ????

Re: 400NL: Over pair, ugly flop, semi-deep.
 

[ QUOTE ]
Hero snap looked up

[/ QUOTE ]

Re: 400NL: Over pair, ugly flop, semi-deep.
 

push

Re: 400NL: Over pair, ugly flop, semi-deep.
 

Fold and bet way less on the flop.

Re: 400NL: Over pair, ugly flop, semi-deep.
 

[ QUOTE ]
Fold and bet way less on the flop.

[/ QUOTE ]

If I'm going to bet way less, why wouldn't I just check?

Re: 400NL: Over pair, ugly flop, semi-deep.
 

checking this flop is good sometimes, as played id fold with no maniacal postflop reads. I dont c how betting less is the same as checking the flop - when u bet less u expect his calling range to be wider and allow urself to get away from the hand more easily if he shows a lot of strength.

Re: 400NL: Over pair, ugly flop, semi-deep.
 

Well, my thinking was that i was betting to protect my hand on a drawy board. If I bet way less, this goal is not accomplished.

I guess betting smaller will get called by a wider range, just being more for value. But, I also get shoved on lighter.

So, I don't think betting smaller makes it easier to fold or to shove.

Re: 400NL: Over pair, ugly flop, semi-deep.
 

[ QUOTE ]
Well, my thinking was that i was betting to protect my hand on a drawy board. If I bet way less, this goal is not accomplished.

I guess betting smaller will get called by a wider range, just being more for value. But, I also get shoved on lighter.

So, I don't think betting smaller makes it easier to fold or to shove.

[/ QUOTE ]

in fact betting smaller makes it less likely u get shoved on IMO because when u bet big ur essentially putting him to a decision for all his chips so he might just decide to felt tp or go with a draw etc. However, when u bet smaller, it seems like he still has some playing to do and doesnt have to decide whether or not to go with the hand right then and there, its not like hes gonna bluff shove this board for his stack just cause ur bet was a bit weaker.

Re: 400NL: Over pair, ugly flop, semi-deep.
 

Even if u dont buy my smaller bet argument for tighter shoving (i think it could go either way), the flop looks like a b/f, hopefully he just calls and u get it in on the turn (which does happen quite a bit) but if he shoves on this board I dont think u can call without reads stating hes maniacal post-flop.

Re: 400NL: Over pair, ugly flop, semi-deep.
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Fold and bet way less on the flop.

[/ QUOTE ]

If I'm going to bet way less, why wouldn't I just check?

[/ QUOTE ]

The same reason why you bet now? You're committing yourself to the pot. Bet 100, get him to peel with worse (and believe me, a guy like this probably has lots of random stuff that will see a turn).

By betting less, we also entice him to call instead of raising his draw, we don't inflate the pot as much, we get more value out of hands, and we can move away easily from scare cards.

Or you can check. but potting is the worst option if you're not prepared to stick it in now.

Re: 400NL: Over pair, ugly flop, semi-deep.
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Fold and bet way less on the flop.

[/ QUOTE ]

If I'm going to bet way less, why wouldn't I just check?

[/ QUOTE ]

The same reason why you bet now? You're committing yourself to the pot. Bet 100, get him to peel with worse (and believe me, a guy like this probably has lots of random stuff that will see a turn).

By betting less, we also entice him to call instead of raising his draw, we don't inflate the pot as much, we get more value out of hands, and we can move away easily from scare cards.

Or you can check. but potting is the worst option if you're not prepared to stick it in now.

[/ QUOTE ]

well said

Re: 400NL: Over pair, ugly flop, semi-deep.
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Well, my thinking was that i was betting to protect my hand on a drawy board. If I bet way less, this goal is not accomplished.

I guess betting smaller will get called by a wider range, just being more for value. But, I also get shoved on lighter.

So, I don't think betting smaller makes it easier to fold or to shove.

[/ QUOTE ]

in fact betting smaller makes it less likely u get shoved on IMO because when u bet big ur essentially putting him to a decision for all his chips so he might just decide to felt tp or go with a draw etc. However, when u bet smaller, it seems like he still has some playing to do and doesnt have to decide whether or not to go with the hand right then and there, its not like hes gonna bluff shove this board for his stack just cause ur bet was a bit weaker.

[/ QUOTE ]

okay if you bet small villain i don't see why the villain would change his mind and call. If he has a draw and you were on a squeeze he wants to protect his hand and he is going to raise you regardless of what you bet. I dont see any point in betting small.

Imo you should decide on the flop what the villain's range is here i.e. what does he flat to a button open and then flat again to what looks like a squeeze? I would probably check this flop back just because it hits his range of midpairs and suited connectors so hard. In addition you have the Q of hearts, so a heart hitting really isnt too bad and since he is oop you can just call when he donks out on the turn and go for pot control. But if you are going to bet, there are way too many draws out there to fold to a raise. as played i would shove.

Re: 400NL: Over pair, ugly flop, semi-deep.
 

What do you guys think a reasonable hand range is for his min raise?

Re: 400NL: Over pair, ugly flop, semi-deep.
 

aween

Re: 400NL: Over pair, ugly flop, semi-deep.
 

How fast he minraised might affect my decision but I think we're [censored] here.. but the pot is so big it's close. I probably fold.

Re: 400NL: Over pair, ugly flop, semi-deep.
 

[ QUOTE ]
aween

[/ QUOTE ]

which god should we pray to that he has 99?

Re: 400NL: Over pair, ugly flop, semi-deep.
 

What are MPs stats? That will affect the villains range that he sees the flop with.

Against a range of JJ-77 QhQd is a slight dog.

Edit: Not saying I'd call. I'd probably fold as that assumes he's doing that with any of those hands and there are more combinations of 99 and JJ than of all the sets combined so..

Bayesian theory I think it's called?

Re: 400NL: Over pair, ugly flop, semi-deep.
 

[ QUOTE ]
What are MPs stats? That will affect the villains range that he sees the flop with.

Against a range of JJ-88 QhQd is a slight favorite.

[/ QUOTE ]

If he's calling all of those he's calling 77.

And he's not playing JJ and 99 the same way all the time, either. I would not expect a minraise with such hands as that nearly as often as he's minraising a set.

Given all this there's still a chance the pot is too big.

Re: 400NL: Over pair, ugly flop, semi-deep.
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
aween

[/ QUOTE ]

which god should we pray to that he has 99?

[/ QUOTE ]
You're a glass-is-half-empty type of guy, huh?

Re: 400NL: Over pair, ugly flop, semi-deep.
 

[ QUOTE ]
What are MPs stats? That will affect the villains range that he sees the flop with.


[/ QUOTE ]

17/15 after about 50 hands.

Re: 400NL: Over pair, ugly flop, semi-deep.
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What are MPs stats? That will affect the villains range that he sees the flop with.


[/ QUOTE ]

17/15 after about 50 hands.

[/ QUOTE ]

For what it's worth, I think that adds more weight towards JJ - but otherwise not too too important.

I still haven't really said what I'd do. FWIW, I think the minraise represents a lot more strength than a shove and fold but I also like betting less on the flop.

Re: 400NL: Over pair, ugly flop, semi-deep.
 

If villain's range is TT-77, I have ~34% equity.

If I shove and assume he's always calling, I need 31% equity.

If I had bet 100 on the flop, I'd need ~35% equity.

Re: 400NL: Over pair, ugly flop, semi-deep.
 

Shoving is overkill, I like a flop check.

Re: 400NL: Over pair, ugly flop, semi-deep.
 

[ QUOTE ]

You're a glass-is-half-empty type of guy, huh?

[/ QUOTE ]

Heh, something like that. I've only ever seen tags call/call one type of hand pre here, and it ain't pretty for our equity.

Re: 400NL: Over pair, ugly flop, semi-deep.
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

You're a glass-is-half-empty type of guy, huh?

[/ QUOTE ]

Heh, something like that. I've only ever seen tags call/call one type of hand pre here, and it ain't pretty for our equity.

[/ QUOTE ]

villain is 36/19/1.75.

that vpip combined with AF = fishy

Re: 400NL: Over pair, ugly flop, semi-deep.
 

In any case, I don't think it looks all that great for us. Shoving doesn't suck but you know what I'd do.

Re: 400NL: Over pair, ugly flop, semi-deep.
 

Results: I shove, villain has KJhh and I win flip.