www.flopturnriver.com

Poker Forum

Over 1,246,000 Posts!

Already Registered? Username: Password: Remember Forgot Password
Tweet

Line check - turn semi bluff

LinkBack

Thread Tools

Display Modes

Erpel

04-20-2008, 12:06 PM Post subject: Line check - turn semi bluff

#1 (permalink)

Full House

Join Date: Mar 2008

Posts: 605

Fresh table. In the 11 hands I've been there I've done one PF raise that got me the blinds and one PF raise on the BTN that SB and BB both called, where they folded to my cbet. I may seem a bit aggro on that thin basis. No limps so I still seem somewhat tight.

Villain has done one PF raise (4bb) which won him the blinds beforehand. That's the only hand he's put money into before this one (folded blinds).

Table lost a couple of loose players very quickly and at this point it seems weak-tight, so I'm opening my UTG range to include all pocket pairs raised - for a short while anyway.

$0.05/$0.1 No Limit Holdem
6 players
Converted at weaktight.com

Stacks:
Hero ($11.10)
UTG+1 ($7.00)
CO ($9.70)
BTN ($8.60)
SB ($9.60)
BB ($9.30)

Pre-flop: ($0.15, 6 players) Hero is UTG

Hero raises to $0.4, 4 folds, BB calls $0.3

Flop:

($0.85, 2 players)
BB checks, Hero bets $0.6, BB raises to $1.3, Hero calls $0.7

Turn:

($3.45, 2 players)
BB checks, Hero bets $3

With his PF call I put him on a middle pair (JJ-55) or two broadways (ATs+, KQs, AJo+, KQo).

When I cbet and he near-min-raises me I think he's somewhat more likely to have a pocket pair (JJ-77), without really ruling out any of the broadways. To simulate some broadways played differently I'll take ATs, AJs, AJo, KQo and AQo out of his range for the PokerStove.

For my turn action I figure I am possibly behind a bigger pair, and possibly slightly ahead of two overcards. I figure I can represent an AA or KK type hand, leaving me 6 outs (4 times two, 5 times four) to a hand that will definitely win and decide to go for the semi bluff.

If my assumptions are anywhere near right PokerStove sez:

Code:

Board: 6d 6h 3c 2s
Dead:  

	equity 	win 	tie 	      pots won 	pots tied	
Hand 0: 	45.960%  	45.96% 	00.00% 	          1092 	        0.00   { 4d4s }
Hand 1: 	54.040%  	54.04% 	00.00% 	          1284 	        0.00   { JJ-77, AQs+, KQs, AKo }

I think I'm happy with my play here. Did I severely overplay my hand?

Edit note: Fixed PokerStove range (removed AQo)

Play for FREE and practice your game at...

Join the FTR Poker Forum to disable these banners and start posting!

Ash256

04-20-2008, 12:52 PM

#2 (permalink)

4-of-a-Kind

Join Date: Mar 2006

Location: UK

Posts: 1,760

Your foundations are reasonable but I think your ranges are off.

Look back at what you put him on and tell me why you put him on those hands? Imagine his flop c/r from his perspective - would you ever make that flop c/r with broadways?

Listen to my music

Erpel

04-20-2008, 12:58 PM

#3 (permalink)

Full House

Join Date: Mar 2008

Posts: 605

Hmm, I personally might, but I sometimes take the aggro thing way too far so that's not necessarily a good thing. I guess I'm having trouble interpreting a min-raise as serious strength. Especially if he's decided I'm just aggro and the cbet I could've made with air I could see it happening without him hitting the flop itself.

Would it be more realistic to leave only middle pairs in his range and call premium broadways an outside chance?

Erpel

04-20-2008, 01:16 PM

#4 (permalink)

Full House

Join Date: Mar 2008

Posts: 605

Ok, range comments. I'm raising from UTG, so if he's positionally aware he'll think I have something. Also he's in the BB and will be OOP for the rest of the hand, and I think he'd take that into account when deciding when to call.

Pocket pairs:
I have been a bit aggro, so I think he'd 3bet AA-QQ at least expecting me to call. Thus I rule those mainly out (but they could be in still in some proportion).

All pocket pairs work for implied odds, but I'm not sure he'd call with the very lowest pairs. Some people do (I do) as long as it's just for set value, but others are reluctant to do so. I think calling it mid pocket pair without the very bottom of pocket pairs is reasonable.

When it comes to the check-raise, I would remove the pairs lower than 66 from his range. 66 itself I'm not sure about. I reckon he might have raise a bit higher than min with it.

Broadways:
He may have 3bet something like AKs PF, but a lot of people at these levels only 3bet when they have AA-KK and I don't think it's unreasonable to put AKs and other premium broadways in his calling range. He's played only one hand in 11 before this, so he's likely to be tight. If also positionally aware he'll only be playing premium broadways. In the PF range I proposed AJo, KQo and ATs are probably questionable if he's really tight.

The broadways I suggested were 20 suited card combinations and 48 off-suit card combinations. For the check-raise I propose taking out 8 suited and 36 off-suit combinations - leaving me with 24 broadway combinations out of the 68 I started with - almost a third. So my suggestion (in the original post) is that he would check-raise with a third of the broadway hands that he'd have called the PF raise with. Is this really too high? Or is my initial PF range too big?

Ash256

04-20-2008, 01:37 PM

#5 (permalink)

4-of-a-Kind

Join Date: Mar 2006

Location: UK

Posts: 1,760

It's really really rare for BB to have broadways here after he check-minraises

Listen to my music

Erpel

04-20-2008, 02:08 PM

#6 (permalink)

Full House

Join Date: Mar 2008

Posts: 605

I'm not sure what makes broadways so unlikely on this flop. In the present situation both UTG and BB are not particularly loose - thus it's most likely on the flop that both have pocket pairs or broadways. Ace-rag suited hands and medium/low suited connectors are extremely unlikely for either player.

Thus, a 663 rainbow flop doesn't really hit anyone's ranges very hard. It only really hits the low pocket pair part of the range. Most likely the flop is a complete miss for both players. Premium broadways play in this situation for high-card showdown value imo. A cbet cannot be taken at face value as it is as likely to be two unpaired high cards as it is to be a pocket pair and most likely to have missed the flop entirely. That said, BB with unpaired broadways is not necessarily interested in playing a very big pot and might check-minraise to suggest strength and fold out some cbets with air and alternately hope for a free river card. I'm seeing those kinds of check-minraises too often on PokerStars since I made my account there two days ago. It's almost like it's the new cbet or something.

Edit note: Additionally there is the chance that the check-raise is not intended as a check-raise line. Maybe he just wants to check it through and when UTG bets into it he think that it's just a cbet with air and that he can't give it credit and reacts to the cbet rather than planning out a check-raise ahead of time.

Ash256

04-20-2008, 02:32 PM

#7 (permalink)

4-of-a-Kind

Join Date: Mar 2006

Location: UK

Posts: 1,760

So he check-minraises wanting a fold?

Generally from what I've seen they bet big when they want you to fold and bet small when they want you to call.

Listen to my music

Erpel

04-20-2008, 04:05 PM

#8 (permalink)

Full House

Join Date: Mar 2008

Posts: 605

Well, what I've seen is check-minraises getting folds (as well as calls of course). And tbh in this case I did also consider if I was just behind (a higher pair for instance) and should fold on the flop when he check-raised. I cannot speak to what his expectation is, but it seems not entirely unlikely that he considered a fold a possible result of his check-raise. You're right about people being generally honest about their bet sizing - small for when they want to be called (and are strong), large for when they don't want callers (and are weak) - but it's not impossible that others have made the same observation and adjusted.

I'm reading his check-raise to suggest that he doesn't believe my cbet signals strength - and that he is strong relative to the flop.

Robb

04-21-2008, 08:02 PM

#9 (permalink)

4-of-a-Kind

Join Date: Aug 2007

Posts: 3,072

Robb is an unknown quantity at this point

Quote:

Originally Posted by Erpel

it's not impossible that others have made the same observation and adjusted.

On 11 hands? The villains where I play don't adjust, even after hundreds of hands.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Erpel

I'm reading his check-raise to suggest that he doesn't believe my cbet signals strength - and that he is strong relative to the flop.

You're beat and need to fold unless you have a specific read on this villain min-raising with air. Also, your Stove analysis leaves out all the 6x hands he can have like A6, K6s, 76s, 86s, 56s, all of which I've seen various villains play at these stakes.

Board: 6d 6h 3c
Dead:

equity win tie pots won pots tied
Hand 0: 28.004% 27.92% 00.08% 26812 80.00 { 4d4s }
Hand 1: 71.996% 71.91% 00.08% 69058 80.00 { JJ-55, AQs+, A6s, KQs, K6s, 96s, 86s+, 76s, 65s, 54s, AKo, A6o, 76o, 65o }

I've sort of matched your Stove run and added the 6x hands and some other connectors. I still agree with Ash, however, that the broadway hands are not very likely. Your opponent is either way ahead or has more than 6 outs. Fold to flop raise. As played, check behind on turn, and plan to fold to more than 1/2 pot bet on river, imo.

My Operation and FTR Rethread: Stations are *sob* so hard to play against

GatorJH

04-21-2008, 08:22 PM

#10 (permalink)

4-of-a-Kind

Join Date: Aug 2004

Location: HotLanta

Posts: 3,179

Quote:

Originally Posted by Erpel

Premium broadways play in this situation for high-card showdown value imo. A cbet cannot be taken at face value as it is as likely to be two unpaired high cards as it is to be a pocket pair and most likely to have missed the flop entirely. That said, BB with unpaired broadways is not necessarily interested in playing a very big pot and.....

I see a c/c here more often than a c/r if villian thinks we are floating with air.

Poker is easy, it's winning at poker that's hard.

Latest Poker News
KoRnholio	05-26-2012, 03:08 PM Australia Legalized Online Poker coming up in next 6 to 12 Months
According to an email sent out by Mark Bryan, a gaming analyst at Merrill Lynch, the Australian government plans to legalize online poker sometime in the next six to 12 months. This move will coincide ... more at Poker Blogs »

« Previous Thread | Next Thread »

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads You may not post replies You may not post attachments You may not edit your posts BB code is On Smilies are On [IMG] code is On HTML code is Off Trackbacks are On Pingbacks are On Refbacks are On Forum Rules

All times are GMT. The time now is 08:43 PM.

Play Texas Holdem Online, Online Texas Holdem Strategy, & Poker Forum

This is not a gambling website.

Poker Forum

Over 1,246,000 Posts!

Poker Forum

Beginners Circle

Line check - turn semi bluff

Play for FREE and practice your game at...