2/4 bottom set. Just keep bettin'?

BenA · #1 08-29-2006, 12:54 AM

Villain is 18/8/.35 over 180 hands, but his play is far worse than his stats. He thinks a one card gutshot to the idiot end of a straight is a good draw (yes, I saw this happen), He pretty much never raises big hands post-flop. I watched him calldown with top set. I don't know what planet he is from, but it makes this hand interesting.

MP2, no real reads, but appears to be super loose passive from a couple of orbits. He posted in this hand because he missed his blinds earlier on a time out.

Hero is dealt 2 [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img]2 [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] in SB

4 folds, MP2 checks (poster), all fold to Hero who calls, Villain checks.

Flop (3 SB)

9 [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img]8 [img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img]2 [img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img]

Hero bets, Villain calls, MP2 calls.

Turn (3 BB) 7 [img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img]

Hero bets, Villain calls, MP2 folds.

River (5 BB) 10 [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img]

Hero bets, Villain calls.

Final pot 7 BB

Okay, when that 3rd diamond/straight card hits, I'm definitely not happy, but I want to bet for value. Is this correct with my set plus redraw to a boat? The other players seem to just be calling, so they could easily have hit a draw, but I really don't want it to get checked through with these passives.

When Villain just calls and the board on the river is now 4 to a straight, 3 to a flush... yikes. Do you guys b/f, c/c, or c/f. I really hate that last one. All comments appreciated.

JJH3984 · #2 08-29-2006, 01:04 AM

This hand is super standard. He is calling with so many hands you beat, its not even close. Also there is no reason that he'd have a straight, but he's an idiot so you never know. Having the river checked through is a disaster.

BenA · #3 08-29-2006, 01:05 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Having the river checked through is a disaster.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's what I was thinking. What would your line against a TAG be, though?

bernie · #4 08-29-2006, 01:49 AM

[ QUOTE ]
This hand is super standard. He is calling with so many hands you beat, its not even close. Also there is no reason that he'd have a straight, but he's an idiot so you never know. Having the river checked through is a disaster.

[/ QUOTE ]

'Disaster' is a pretty strong word here. I'd reserve that for situations that can cost you a pot, not just a bet.

b

Allday Everyday · #5 08-29-2006, 01:59 AM

I agree that you need to bet the flop, the turn (and call if raised), and bet the river. I'd consider calling the river raise too given that the villain is a bit weird. Probably not though given his extreme passivity and that he has called down with top set.

But I'm more concerned with preflop. You're up against a poster who checked when he saw his cards and the BB. I'd steal against the BB, does the poster's presence make a steal wrong?

Of course 22 would be better against players with the capacity to fold before the river, but it should still show a small profit? Particularly if you can get it heads up preflop...

I don't see how I could just call preflop. I'd raise. Is this wrong?

BenA · #6 08-29-2006, 02:05 AM

[ QUOTE ]
But I'm more concerned with preflop. You're up against a poster who checked when he saw his cards and the BB. I'd steal against the BB, does the poster's presence make a steal wrong?

I don't see how I could just call preflop. I'd raise. Is this wrong?

[/ QUOTE ]

Well... Against 2 posters, both seemingly loose in differing degrees, OOP with the worst made hand possible, I suppose a case could be made. But really, a call from even one of these presents me with a big post-flop difficulty, since I now only have fold equity but if that falls through, I have showdown value only against A-high. If I was on the button, I'd certainly try to steal, but I think its my position through the hand that makes this suck, IMHO. Its debatable.

Allday Everyday · #7 08-29-2006, 02:15 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Well... Against 2 posters, both seemingly loose in differing degrees, OOP with the worst made hand possible, I suppose a case could be made. But really, a call from even one of these presents me with a big post-flop difficulty, since I now only have fold equity but if that falls through, I have showdown value only against A-high. If I was on the button, I'd certainly try to steal, but I think its my position through the hand that makes this suck, IMHO. Its debatable.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yep, good points. Fair enough. Against these players you do seem to be devoid of fold equity (FE is important when you have 22) and of course you're OOP. Yep, very close decision I think. If you can get it heads-up preflop each time the steal would be profitable. But you can't do that here...

But would this then make the preflop call incorrect for the same reasons raising is? You have the same post-flop problems. Well, there would be more money in the pot if you stole - and there would be a few other slight differences...Just a thought. I'm typing out loud here.

BenA · #8 08-29-2006, 02:19 AM

[ QUOTE ]
But would this make the preflop call incorrect for the same reasons raising is? You have the same post-flop problems. Well, there would be more money in the pot if you stole...Just a thought.

[/ QUOTE ]

Completing in the SB getting 5:1 against two random hands is not bad at all. You pay the bare minimum for set value. A raise costs 1.5 bets to win 2.5. Yes the pot would be bigger for your set if you had tried to steal, but then again, just completing is a better disguise and you may get more action and implied odds, where if you find yourself HU with a caller, hit a set and bet out, they could fold and I'm not sure you've made up for the other times when trying to steal opponents who are so loose they won't fold anyways.

JJH3984 · #9 08-29-2006, 02:20 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This hand is super standard. He is calling with so many hands you beat, its not even close. Also there is no reason that he'd have a straight, but he's an idiot so you never know. Having the river checked through is a disaster.

[/ QUOTE ]

'Disaster' is a pretty strong word here. I'd reserve that for situations that can cost you a pot, not just a bet.

b

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe not, but if you consistantly don't bet in this kind of spot, it is disasterous. Against a TAG I bet/call pretty much all day.

bernie · #10 08-29-2006, 02:47 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This hand is super standard. He is calling with so many hands you beat, its not even close. Also there is no reason that he'd have a straight, but he's an idiot so you never know. Having the river checked through is a disaster.

[/ QUOTE ]

'Disaster' is a pretty strong word here. I'd reserve that for situations that can cost you a pot, not just a bet.

b

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe not, but if you consistantly don't bet in this kind of spot, it is disasterous. Against a TAG I bet/call pretty much all day.

[/ QUOTE ]

Against a TAG I might be more inclined to check call as he would be more likely to bet with a lesser hand than call a bet. And usually anything he's raising with has you beat unless you have shown a penchant for folding to a raise in this spot. TAGs generally aren't calling this all the way without having something on the end with this board. Actually, a TAG you'd likely have heard from sooner in the hand if he had anything.

Against a calling station, with a wide range of hands, I would bet all day long.

b