PLO 3/6, semi deep, river

[TheBjerre]

btw i fold river.. without any better reads

[ColdDecker333]

I call without reads always. When you have 3 diamonds, this is almost always naked ace bluff and you get great pot odds. I put villain on a set + naked ace or a low-end straight + naked ace.

[wazz]

I like the way you played this. Sometimes I raise the flop to 'find out where you are' (more just to get some more $ in where we have a perceived edge). I love the turn raise. On the river, given we've raised the turn, we almost have to call readless.

[mixmastermattyk]

[ QUOTE ]
I call without reads always. When you have 3 diamonds, this is almost always naked ace bluff and you get great pot odds. I put villain on a set + naked ace or a low-end straight + naked ace.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure of your logic of why this is almost always a naked ace bluff. Is it a math thing? If so could you please explain it to me - I feel kind of stupid. [img]/images/graemlins/blush.gif[/img]

I love the turn raise, although I'm not sure about the river. What specific hands is villain calling that turn raise and then pushing river with? The most obvious hands that come to mind are something like NFD + maybe 2 pair or something or naked ace + set. The bare straight is also an option if opponent isn't going to three-bet that with the risk of being freerolled in a 400BB pot, which seems very possible.

I guess if we don't have any reads, I think it largely comes down to what the 'standard' range of an unknown calling the turn raise is.

[ColdDecker333]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I call without reads always. When you have 3 diamonds, this is almost always naked ace bluff and you get great pot odds. I put villain on a set + naked ace or a low-end straight + naked ace.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure of your logic of why this is almost always a naked ace bluff. Is it a math thing? If so could you please explain it to me - I feel kind of stupid. [img]/images/graemlins/blush.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

We get something like 1:2.7 or so on our money, so the call should be righ only ~30% of the time to be profitable. We have 3 diamonds in our hand and there is three in the board. Also villain could be valuebetting worse diamonds, we have Jd. Call without reads. We have enough left on the river for villain to think that big bet puts our hand to the muck. If we had less than $400 left, I´d consider folding way more often.

Also if this flop would have been seen 3-ways, I´d consider folding much more often.

[sc000t]

I don't mind the flop call. I think that since HERO is willing to rep other hands and bluff/semi bluff various turns and/or rivers then calling this flop is more than fine. If HERO wasn't planning on bluffing at all and just wanted to play his hand for what it was then I can see folding the flop.

Turn raise is nice and makes it very hard for opponent to call with many hands. Even if he calls (which he did) we still have outs and are deep enough to bluff again on river if need be. Unfortunately HERO actually hits his flush but it looks like the opponent hit a larger one so the river is a fold imo. I really doubt the opponent calls this turn raise to turn any sort of non flush hand into a bluff, so think the river is a pretty easy and standard fold.

[chinaski101]

You played it well preflop/flop/turn. You have to raise turn once youve called the flop.
Which site was this on? This is something i usually take into consideration.

Vs a competent player i do think its a pretty easy fold, but since hes unknown makes it a little more difficult. He should only be showing up here with set/3 pair and a high flush draw to make the turn call.
However, since we dont know how he would play lower flushes/missed houses, etc a call isn't so bad. Im would also rule out the bare A, unless with a set. Not many people are going to call so much just to bluff the river when a diamond does appear. I also assume unknowns don't bluff the naked A.

Still think i just lean towards folding due to the instant push.

[AlexKP]

I tankede down and called, he showed to my surprsie a naked QJxx... Hmm

[mixmastermattyk]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I call without reads always. When you have 3 diamonds, this is almost always naked ace bluff and you get great pot odds. I put villain on a set + naked ace or a low-end straight + naked ace.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure of your logic of why this is almost always a naked ace bluff. Is it a math thing? If so could you please explain it to me - I feel kind of stupid. [img]/images/graemlins/blush.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

We get something like 1:2.7 or so on our money, so the call should be righ only ~30% of the time to be profitable. We have 3 diamonds in our hand and there is three in the board. Also villain could be valuebetting worse diamonds, we have Jd. Call without reads. We have enough left on the river for villain to think that big bet puts our hand to the muck. If we had less than $400 left, I´d consider folding way more often.

Also if this flop would have been seen 3-ways, I´d consider folding much more often.

[/ QUOTE ]

I obviously understand the question of pot-odds, but was asking if there was maths to prove that "When you have 3 diamonds, this is almost always naked ace bluff" or is it just the fact that we have three diamonds and there are three diamonds on the board? Obviously that makes it less likely that he has any diamonds, but why is it almost always a naked ace bluff compared to the nut flush?

[ColdDecker333]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I call without reads always. When you have 3 diamonds, this is almost always naked ace bluff and you get great pot odds. I put villain on a set + naked ace or a low-end straight + naked ace.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure of your logic of why this is almost always a naked ace bluff. Is it a math thing? If so could you please explain it to me - I feel kind of stupid. [img]/images/graemlins/blush.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

We get something like 1:2.7 or so on our money, so the call should be righ only ~30% of the time to be profitable. We have 3 diamonds in our hand and there is three in the board. Also villain could be valuebetting worse diamonds, we have Jd. Call without reads. We have enough left on the river for villain to think that big bet puts our hand to the muck. If we had less than $400 left, I´d consider folding way more often.

Also if this flop would have been seen 3-ways, I´d consider folding much more often.

[/ QUOTE ]

I obviously understand the question of pot-odds, but was asking if there was maths to prove that "When you have 3 diamonds, this is almost always naked ace bluff" or is it just the fact that we have three diamonds and there are three diamonds on the board? Obviously that makes it less likely that he has any diamonds, but why is it almost always a naked ace bluff compared to the nut flush?

[/ QUOTE ]

You just said it yourself - there´s already 6 diamonds out there, and this is HU situation post-flop, so mathematically it is not very likely that villain has two diamonds. If he is willing to bet that river big, it´s usually Ad as a bluff, this time it was air.