200PS: When one hand beats you

[TimberBee]

[ QUOTE ]
Value bet. Also, why are you checking the flop?

[/ QUOTE ]

This is the worst response I have ever seen in the history of 2+2. Please read through the OP, k thx bye

[sc000t]

Ok, let me rephrase.

I don't like the flop check. You'd need a ton of hands and a sick read imo to KNOW that the last player to act is going to bet this flop in a LIMPED pot. If you do have that sort of read, then cudos, it didn't work.

I think you need to value bet here. I'd bet about $100-110 here. Having the 4 in hand helps your cause.


If you take the c/c line, will you call a full psb? I'd think anyone checking here is calling most if not all bets.

I also think you should valuebet, because given the turn action, I'm not sure how many bluffs you catch, even if he missed a bunch of draws and has no showdown value, I think you get rivers with worse showdown hands AND air checking behind.

I'd just lead out for $100 and if he shoves probably fold. You'll never get bluffed here in this spot and hands you beat that have showdown value, wouldn't turn them into bluffs. It would be a little over $150 if he shoved and if hes a regular, hes not shoving with anything other than 45xx imo.

[iggymcfly]

There's really only two hands that make sense here: 22xx and 456 with diamonds. If you check, you don't have to worry about a lower set betting, so I think you can check/fold pretty comfortably, and if you bet, 222 will almost certainly call one more bet.

The problem is that I think the wrap is much more likely than the lower set here. All in all, I think the best play is to check/fold here. The check behind flop/raise turn actually defines villain's hand really well here to the point that we're almost sure that if villain's drawing, he has 45 in his hand since his draw had to improve on the turn for him to wait for that street to raise. Thus, there's no reasonable hand villain can bluff with, and villain will very rarely value-bet worse than what we have.

Maybe if he bets 1/3 pot and you get suspicious he might have 88 or something, you can look him up, but I think most of the time, check/folding is the correct play here. (Note: This in no way means, you're giving up on the hand. Villain will check behind fairly often. It's just that when he bets, you're beat.)

Oh, BTW, if you do decide to lead, a smidge under half-pot is the right amount. You're not really repping a bluff at all given your line, you're just looking for a stubborn call from something like 222 that knows they're beat and wants to see your hand to make sure.

[FireStorm]

Check/fold? You can't be serious? How many hands can Villain actually play this way that have 45xx in them? Put it this way, if you're Villain here, do you put Hero on JJxx or better, considering the flop check? You wouldn't call a river bet with other sets? Seems silly to me.

[Aisthesis]

Quite a few. I think it depends somewhat on propensities to raise wraps UTG, and he's got to be suited.

My real problem with the check-fold line is that I think you're inviting a bluff short-handed. I really like a 1/3-1/2 pot "blocker" bet, at least if you're not the type of player who just always pots the river. I think there's call equity from some losers and it forces villain to have the nuts in order to raise. I do think he has it a lot of the time.

I'm assuming villain to be more or less solid but with some typical short-handed gameyness as well.

[iggymcfly]

[ QUOTE ]
How many hands can Villain actually play this way that don't have 45xx in them? Put it this way, if you're Villain here, do you put Hero on JJxx or better, considering the flop check? You wouldn't call a river bet with other sets? Seems silly to me.

[/ QUOTE ]

Seriously, the only hand that makes sense here that we beat is 22. This is a combo draw that improved on the turn (likely by turning a wrap) more than half the time. Do you think 88 or 33 checks behind on this flop in an unraised pot? I never see that. Sometimes, people get retardedly stupid with top set, but never with middle set or bottom set.

And if I'm villain, I put hero on a set about 90% of the time. With the 3-bet on the turn, it seems obvious that hero has a huge hand and just whiffed a C/R on the flop. When does someone ever 3-bet full pot on the turn fairly deep with two pair or a combo draw?

I'm not saying villain won't call with 22 on the river; a lot of players are bad, but if I'm villain, I fold that to the turn 3-bet. A combo draw with 45 seems almost obvious to me, I'm surprised you think it's unlikely.

[thisnamedoesntfi]

I think many replies here are clouded by knowing villain had 45.

Also if you watch his videos, he checks the flop a lot, even after raising. :P

[iggymcfly]

[ QUOTE ]
I think many replies here are clouded by knowing villain had 45.

Also if you watch his videos, he checks the flop a lot, even after raising. :P

[/ QUOTE ]

How would I know that. It doesn't say so anywhere in the post? I guess I could've inferred it was likely from the title, but I wasn't even thinking about that when I looked at the hand. Just that the action on previous streets made it a likely holding. Even if the flush came instead of the straight, I think you'd have a better chance of being good here.

[34TheTruth34]

[ QUOTE ]
The problem is that I think the wrap is much more likely than the lower set here.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'll take it one step further: if villain is a reasonablly competent player, he can never have a set here after calling the turn raise.

Mathematically, he can't have JJ obv., he would have bet 88 on the flop when it was checked to him last to act, and he can't call a pot-sized 3-bet on the turn with 22 or 33.