200NL AK 3b pot oop, river decision?

[bilbo-san]

[ QUOTE ]
You misinterpreted what I wrote. I didn't mean that I would make that play in order to avoid a decision, its just that had you bet the turn, given what had occured in the hand thus far, villian may have folded and as a byproduct the river decision is avoided. But the turn bet was not in itself purely a way of avoiding a confrontation later. You check. then call the flop. A king comes which is possibly quite the scare card to villian if he has a hand like 10's or QQ's or what not.. and now he has the decision to make. If he has AJ he might be turned off by a formidable turn bet here. Just my thoughts anyways. . .

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, judging by this post, He didn't misinterpret you at all, and you are still wrong for the same reasons.

You don't WANT him to fold if the K is a scare card for him. Getting villain to fold QQ or TT is on the turn is [censored] terrible, and you make it sound like it's a good thing.

[bilbo-san]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think a fold is good here. If villain was an aggro donk I'd probably call as some idiot could have 88 here and turn their hand into a bluff on the river.

[/ QUOTE ]

fwiw turning 88 into a bluff here one river isnt bad.

[/ QUOTE ]

The only better hand that an average player folds is TT, which makes it a terrible bluff.

[wdead]

dude there are like a million hands we beat here. 88, 99, 1010, 67, etc. I cant see how you guys possibly fold this. Villain never puts on AK and is prob value betting worse or bluffing something

[SharkSandwich]

I still don't see any logic from those who say fold here. Just throwing out "you have to beat here", "he wouldn't bet worse", "it's often a set". How about coming out with some that the action suggests?

What damn set? The only credible one is a rivered QQ.
And that and QJ are the only hands you should have to worry about.

And yes, bluffing with the underpair for half of the pot here is great given the number of people who seem to think this is a clear fold with a hand as strong as AK, with very little beating it. It's not even as if villain bets the full pot on the river and we have to think it over some. He's made it easy.

Again, throwing out "you're beat" when the action dictates that very few hands are ahead of you is just bad thinking. Not least when villains river action follows hero considerably underrepresenting his hand...

[DirteAA]

I'll try not to be results oriented as I attempt to explain this. But in retrospect I feel my thought process should have been something similar to this.

I said in the OP that most of what villain had seen from me was very nitty; probably 16/12 range. So I think for him to call my 3-bet he has to hold a pretty strong hand. It isn't as though I gave him really good odds to call the 3-bet either (w/ hands like 44, 55). I made a larger than pot sized bet.

Since my image is so tight I think we can narrow down his calling range PF and on the flop. Don't you agree?

He isn't calling PF w/ AJ and I doubt AQ. I also doubt he is calling PF w/ anything less than 88, but I won't rule out other pps.

Then on the flop I don't think he can make the call w/ AK, 88-TT; given my image I don't think he makes that call. I honestly believe he needs 44, 55 (discounting the small pps), JJ or QQ to simply smooth call this flop. I know it sounds way too tight a range to give him but given my image don't you think we can narrow it down pretty well right there?

So I hit tptk on the turn and feel pretty good about it b/c now I am mostly worried about JJ. But he checks through the turn and bam the river Q. So honestly I doubt he is getting to the turn w/ a hand that doesn't have me beat on the river. Doesn't that make sense?

Now the odds are really good on the river but when we take into account my image and the actions + cards on each street do you really think he is going to bluff TT or less here? If I did c-bet w/ AK, AQ then I just got there and I think he would make a larger bet to push me off my hand.

So considering how tight he had seen me playing (unless he has datamined hands on me) I really think his PF and flop calling ranges go way down. Even if he called PF w/ any pp I really don't think he is calling the flop w/ anything other than 44, 55.

[SharkSandwich]

Dirte, what you're saying first of all is you didn't call, so we won't ever know what he had? Is that right?

Secondly I think you're overestimating image. You can't count on it, and opponents to react on it, at this level. Many opponents aren't observant enough, are too busy playing lots of tables, or just don't care.

There's a lot of opponents who call your PF raise with an underpair, and call the expected flop continuation bet, like wise with a suited connector containing a Jack. Because they're happy to be ahead of AK. Which is what you have.

When the Turn hits he realises the hand he was ahead (AK) he is now behind. He's happy to check.

When the River hits and you still check his thoughts could well be "damn?! he got nothing?!". And there comes the bluff. It seems you've given up on the pot.

And to say "he'd bluff a bigger amount" is fine. Except you can't just fold to small bets because they aren't bluffs, and call big bets because they might be. That's saying you're not willing to put a bit in to win the pot, but you'll put a lot in.

You think he checks JJ/55/44 on the Turn? I don't. You're only behind QQ and QJ. He could have either. If he has neither you're good.

[Isura]

Betting the river is so much better than check/call

[DirteAA]

[ QUOTE ]
Dirte, what you're saying first of all is you didn't call, so we won't ever know what he had? Is that right?

Secondly I think you're overestimating image. You can't count on it, and opponents to react on it, at this level. Many opponents aren't observant enough, are too busy playing lots of tables, or just don't care.

There's a lot of opponents who call your PF raise with an underpair, and call the expected flop continuation bet, like wise with a suited connector containing a Jack. Because they're happy to be ahead of AK. Which is what you have.

When the Turn hits he realises the hand he was ahead (AK) he is now behind. He's happy to check.

When the River hits and you still check his thoughts could well be "damn?! he got nothing?!". And there comes the bluff. It seems you've given up on the pot.

And to say "he'd bluff a bigger amount" is fine. Except you can't just fold to small bets because they aren't bluffs, and call big bets because they might be. That's saying you're not willing to put a bit in to win the pot, but you'll put a lot in.

You think he checks JJ/55/44 on the Turn? I don't. You're only behind QQ and QJ. He could have either. If he has neither you're good.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, I did call. And that is why I am worried about being results oriented. But in retrospect I feel like I should have considered my image. But maybe you're right. I feel like this particular player pays as much attention to the games as I do, plus we were on 2 or 3 tables together. So he could easily see that I had been playing tight, but I could be wrong.

fwiw, he had JJ for a sneakily played top set.

But no, I wouldn't necessarily call a larger bet. The reason I called the river was b/c he bet so small; which gave me good odds b/c his range probably doesn't have me worse than 3:1.

Isura, why is betting the river better than c/c? Don't we fold out all hands we have beat and only get called, and probably raise, by all hands that have us beat? Plus, if we bet river and he raises we're committed to get all in and we are never ahead. Right?

[willw9]

[ QUOTE ]
Betting the river is so much better than check/call

[/ QUOTE ]

elaborate please?

[jk3a]

Let's make a couple of assumptions.
1. Opponent didn't float the flop. This should be pretty obvious because of the turn check.
2. Opponent rarely has a set. Again, because of the turn check.
3. Opponent would check down AJo/AJs/JTs on the river

Given these assumptions, let's assign a reasonable range to get to the river this way and then bet. {66-TT, QJs, QQ}

66-TT = 30 combos, QJs = 2 combos, QQ = 3 combos.

Let's say he only bluffs with 66-TT 50% of the time. He "should" have 66-TT ~85% of the time based on combos. Let's do an EV calc:

-65*15% + 201*85%*50% = $75

If my assumptions were true, folding is obv. a giant mistake. Let's skew them a bit and do another EV calc. Let's say he would check two pair/ or a set on the turn ~25% of the time. Let's also say that he would only bluff with 66-TT 30% of the time.

44/55/JJ/KK = 10 combos; KJs = 2 combos. 66-TT = 30; QJs = 2; QQ=3

-65*11% + -65*25%*50% + 201*64%*30% = $23


I think calling is clearly +EV. Someone please check these calcs. for me. Manipulate the assumptions as you like, but I think one would be hard pressed to prove to me that calling is -EV.