FT200 I hit a miracle in a 3-bet pot but he slows down

[tannenj]

i check this river a lot.

and i agree with not getting it in on the flop. don't understand what some of you are thinking.

[Keyser.]

also this hand is funny b/c villain Nielso'ed the flop in a hand against Nielso. he's all like bam takka doze of ur own medicine, and Nielso's like awww [censored] nah i got Nielso'ed

[TianYuan]

[ QUOTE ]
his range for calling a river bet and his range for betting the river if checked to should be virtually identical here

[/ QUOTE ]
Don't you think he can talk himself into calling with worse hands than he would valuebet?

[soah]

our hand is very obviously some sort of pocket pair here and we've played it as if we want to just show it down, so a river bet is going to look like the better chunk of our range of pocket pairs... he calls with big pairs and folds his trash. If we check to him then it looks like we have a weakish pair and he bets his big pairs for value. There may be some slight variations in his range like he'd call with JJ but not bet it, and sometimes he'll bluff with something that can't call a bet... but in the end they should be pretty similar.

checking is sorta cute here in this specific spot because a reasonable bet from him will result in him getting sick odds to call our shove, but he'll probably fold to us if we open-shove and he won't raise if we bet a smaller amount, so I think checking gets us just a little bit more value in the long run

checking also has some nice metagame benefits... we don't want him to know that if he checks behind on the turn, we'll just play our hand face up on the river (betting strong hands, checking weak hands... and this is not a spot where we need to protect our ability to bluff, since we should always have showdown value here)

[loosbastard]

^^^

very nice post

[tannenj]

[ QUOTE ]
our hand is very obviously some sort of pocket pair here and we've played it as if we want to just show it down, so a river bet is going to look like the better chunk of our range of pocket pairs... he calls with big pairs and folds his trash. If we check to him then it looks like we have a weakish pair and he bets his big pairs for value. There may be some slight variations in his range like he'd call with JJ but not bet it, and sometimes he'll bluff with something that can't call a bet... but in the end they should be pretty similar.

checking is sorta cute here in this specific spot because a reasonable bet from him will result in him getting sick odds to call our shove, but he'll probably fold to us if we open-shove and he won't raise if we bet a smaller amount, so I think checking gets us just a little bit more value in the long run

checking also has some nice metagame benefits... we don't want him to know that if he checks behind on the turn, we'll just play our hand face up on the river (betting strong hands, checking weak hands... and this is not a spot where we need to protect our ability to bluff, since we should always have showdown value here)

[/ QUOTE ]

damn good. that's exactly why i check the river a lot. you should coach op!

[bilbo-san]

[ QUOTE ]
Really don't think trying to get all-in on the flop is good here with Nielso's image, although I'm afraid to say that because bilbo-san will likely reply with some snarky one-liner.

[/ QUOTE ]

OK, I know nothing about Nielsio's image but here's the thing. Against the typical 26/20 monkey who 3-bets this much, Nielsio should be calling 3-bets with a HUGE percentage of his UTG opening range, and he should be check-shoving the flop with a lot of hands.

For example, I check-shove a lot of hands here where I decide pre-flop that he's 3-betting way too much (6% is way too much, imho), and call with a marginal hand intending to check-shove if I get any reasonable piece.

So....if you are only check-shoving bluffs and sets, but check-calling with hands like this...that'd be kind of rediculous meta, even though I am one of those that thinks meta is a little over-rated.

Basically, against light 3-bettors, when I check-shove-bluff, it's because I know they are folding weak hands that beat me enough to make it profitable (like when I c/shove JTs here hoping he folds AK,AQ,AJ,KQ,QJ,other JT, etc. I am not expecting him to fold A PAIR or anything like that. Just the bottom of his range).

So, maybe it's just me. Villains see you c/shove often enough, than they start looking you up sick light. And, seriously, almost ALL of Nielsio's UTG range should be strong enough to c/shove profitably here if villain is 3-betting him light.

That's why I call *some* guys like this monkeys. A smart player would be thinking "[censored]" when Nielsio decides to call 3-bet preflop, but a lot of these guys c-bet 100% of there 3-betting range here.

[Bukem_]

[ QUOTE ]


That's why I call *some* guys like this monkeys. A smart player would be thinking "[censored]" when Nielsio decides to call 3-bet preflop, but a lot of these guys c-bet 100% of there 3-betting range here.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a large reason why I consider about 90% of the tags I play against monkeys.

[yad]

I like a smallish turn bet. maybe like 70-80. really no reason to ever not bet this turn imo.