NLHE Theory + Practice: Week 4

This week's section from page 58-75 will run from "The Hammer of future bets" and cover a lot about bluffing and bluff sizing.

At one point in the chapter, the author actually has a sort of disclaimer to state that this section is aimed at games where your opponents can actually lay down marginal hands. This is pretty damn neccessary and this cahpter is obviously in no way a gospel on how to successfuly bluff stations and the average 5NL whale, because most of the time this just isn't good.

So if we do bluff at the micros and against poor players, i.e in the games that most of you guys play how should we go about it. Well, in general we should target very weak ranges. Our c-bets are bluffs of a sort and we expect these to work a lot because our opponents are defending wide preflop and therefore just have nothing a large amount of the time on the flop, especially dryer boards that are harder to connect with. So bluffs can work in this way and thec-bet is a very primitive form of bluff in a spot where it takes close to 0 analysis to realise your opponents range is weak and fold equity is resultingly high.

Here are some of my thoughts about this section to kick things off.

This hammer of future bets which the author talks about here is basically his way of showing that fold equity may increase in some situations where you are reasonably deep, if you can threaten a large bet on the river by betting turn for instance. While stronger players may well fold more turns if they know you will bet the river with a lot of bluffs yet also havce a ton of made hands in your range too, weaker players will pay far less attention to this and gaining three streets shoulds be your primary goal. Therefore, I think his advice about checking some turns when deep with a strong hand because they are more likely to pay off a river (when there is no hammer of doom or w/e) is pretty rarely applicable and often very costly. Espeicially on drawy boards, when betting for value it's far better to bet the turn and not the river a lot of the times rather than the other way round for obvious reasons - assuming there is likely only 1 street of value left from villain's made hands.

Also, It's just a great idea to go for 3 streets in vs bad players online because as you know, so many retards call down pathetically light for no apparent reason. Going for that extra street of value is usually far more important than checking a turn, just in the off chance that they fear your river bet enough to fold the turn. Most live players have a serious problem extracting enough value from a passive villains range and I think the author with his advice in the final thoughts section here is compounding this error. At micros bet bet bet for value unless you have a good read telling you otherwise.

Anyway, sort of drifting off topic but just wanted to stress that this concept should never cause you to bluff recklessly vs stations when wielding the hammer nor should it cause you to miss a street of value by overestimating how often villain will fold due to fearing the hammer.

The main focus here is obviously bluffing and bluff sizing. So we'll do both analysis of what the author writes in this chapter, and I'd once again encourage y'all to post example hands including times you bluffed or felt you maybe should have on the turn and the river. Hands where we bluff raise c-bets and stuff are also very relevant.

I'll post a few relevant hands later in the week after I've got some volume in.

Gogogogogo.

I actually forgot i had this book. I might re read the section and follow along with you guis.

I've read this section and I wonder how much you can apply this topic to the lowest of stakes...however,
I tend to apply it to my decisions when I am against a tighter player or nit who is not likely to call down for 3 streets. In these cases, I may check the turn to possibly get more money from him on the river because like the book says, a bet on the flop and turn is scary to a player when they have to call and possibly call a much larger bet on the river. I like to use it as a means of manipulating their calling range...they may not call a 3/4 pot bet on the turn with further action to come but they may call it on the river with decent odds and the thinking that I may be weak after my turn check.

Just started reading the section. Be posting soon =). (Bumping cause of the 2 replies/86 views on a thread that should have way more.)

Originally Posted by xpaand

Just started reading the section. Be posting soon =). (Bumping cause of the 2 replies/86 views on a thread that should have way more.)

yeah c'mon people you must have something to say. Where is everyone that was all like "me me me me me me I'm in this is a great pwning idea!!!" in the sign up thread?

I'm still playing at the 2NL level and so far, my game is more about learning when to fold, winning the battle of mistakes and avoiding tilt. For me actually, bluffing is limited to c-bet and semi-bluff on draws with good success so far I must say. I've been bluffing 2 and 3 barrels a couple of times and the outcome: won good pots and had nightmare hands where villain was calling with second or low pair. But overall I try to avoid it. The hammer of futur bets is something I will keep in my sleeves for higher microstakes eventually. At what stake does bluffing two or three barrels in a row really comes in to play and may become a EV+ play ? Is it a play that comes relatively frequently, like 20% of hands where you see a flop ? More ? less? I'm curious to know about that.

i'll read the section and waste some forum space with my thoughts about it tomorrow.

One bit of information I found very applicable to the micros is the section on bluff-sizing, "Bluff just enough to get the job done." I run into a lot of weak-tight villains that refuse to give up any money on the flop unless they have a very strong hand, and you can take their preflop investments away from them with a reasonable cbet of 1/2 pot.

For a bluff that size, your villain only has to fold 1/3 of the time to make it profitable. But by definition, a weak-tight player will fold at least 2/3 of flops (and some will play even tighter), making the play very +EV against the right opponent.

In this situation, the villain is going to fold to any reasonable cbet with most of their hands, so make your cbet just large enough to be believable by the villain -- which I usually find to be 1/2 pot.

Alright, I had some trouble posting a hand, I'll figure it out later.

Basically this section said to me, "bluff enough to push villain off with most of his range, but not too much so that your risking a lot to win a little and not so much that you don't have enough to make a scary bet on the river (assuming that was your plan to begin with)

Originally Posted by NightGizmo

One bit of information I found very applicable to the micros is the section on bluff-sizing, "Bluff just enough to get the job done." I run into a lot of weak-tight villains that refuse to give up any money on the flop unless they have a very strong hand, and you can take their preflop investments away from them with a reasonable cbet of 1/2 pot.

For a bluff that size, your villain only has to fold 1/3 of the time to make it profitable. But by definition, a weak-tight player will fold at least 2/3 of flops (and some will play even tighter), making the play very +EV against the right opponent.

In this situation, the villain is going to fold to any reasonable cbet with most of their hands, so make your cbet just large enough to be believable by the villain -- which I usually find to be 1/2 pot.

Yah this is good and real important for micro limits. We don't need to balance our range vs most villains so we can simply c bet the minimum amount that enables us to get folds from his air or whatever weak hands he's folding on the flop, and bet more with our strong hands for value since a lot of the time these differecnes in bet sizes wont afffect his continuing range.

The same can be applied not just for c-bets but for bets later in the hand, no sense in betting pot when 2/3rds will achieve the same amount of folds, although, since you're usually trying to fold out a range with more stronger hands in it, you need to make sure you aren't offering irresistable odds to a station.

Ok here is the post I wanted to give so others and point and laugh at my line of thought.

Two questions about this section first though,

1.) At the bottom of page 59 he says that we had to risk 3000 to win 1000. I dont understand how this is so.


2.) Kind of a side note: Anyone know why he calls it, "the hammer"? I feel like im missing some sort of visual cue..



$0.01/$0.02 No Limit Holdem
PokerStars
8 Players
Hand Conversion Powered by weaktight.com

Stacks:
UTG vesper188 ($0.75)
UTG+1 coexistance ($2.10)
MP1 Goodvin S ($0.98)
MP2 Hero ($2.48)
CO Pfafenrot ($2.96)
BTN voltita ($4.71)
SB schmufu81 ($1.98)
BB corbaty ($3.26)

Pre-Flop: ($0.03, 8 players) Hero is MP2
3 folds, Hero calls $0.02, 3 folds, corbaty raises to $0.08, Hero calls $0.06

The table has been pretty weak/tight for the most part and looking back I should have opened, but that's beside the point for this thread. Villain is 13/13 over only 30 hands and has cbet 75% of the time. I called in position for set value expecting his range to be something like: {88+,KT+,Ax,QJ,JT}.


Flop: ($0.17, 2 players)
corbaty bets $0.12, Hero raises to $0.24, corbaty folds

As previously stated, the cbet was expected whether he hit on the flop or not. I figure he would call/re-raise a raise if he had a queen, queens beat, or maybe FD and would fold with anything else. So of the 24 possible hands I put him on, I'm guessing he would fold about 18 of them (75%). With this in mind I think my reraise, should have been around or slightly less than 75% pot (around $0.20). Because I obviously couldnt raise by that much, I went for .24 to win .29 which makes the decision overall unprofitable.

Originally Posted by fatguy'06

Ok here is the post I wanted to give so others and point and laugh at my line of thought.

Two questions about this section first though,

1.) At the bottom of page 59 he says that we had to risk 3000 to win 1000. I dont understand how this is so.


2.) Kind of a side note: Anyone know why he calls it, "the hammer"? I feel like im missing some sort of visual cue..



$0.01/$0.02 No Limit Holdem
PokerStars
8 Players
Hand Conversion Powered by weaktight.com

Stacks:
UTG vesper188 ($0.75)
UTG+1 coexistance ($2.10)
MP1 Goodvin S ($0.98)
MP2 Hero ($2.48)
CO Pfafenrot ($2.96)
BTN voltita ($4.71)
SB schmufu81 ($1.98)
BB corbaty ($3.26)

Pre-Flop: ($0.03, 8 players) Hero is MP2
3 folds, Hero calls $0.02, 3 folds, corbaty raises to $0.08, Hero calls $0.06

The table has been pretty weak/tight for the most part and looking back I should have opened, but that's beside the point for this thread. Villain is 13/13 over only 30 hands and has cbet 75% of the time. I called in position for set value expecting his range to be something like: {88+,KT+,Ax,QJ,JT}.


Flop: ($0.17, 2 players)
corbaty bets $0.12, Hero raises to $0.24, corbaty folds

As previously stated, the cbet was expected whether he hit on the flop or not. I figure he would call/re-raise a raise if he had a queen, queens beat, or maybe FD and would fold with anything else. So of the 24 possible hands I put him on, I'm guessing he would fold about 18 of them (75%). With this in mind I think my reraise, should have been around or slightly less than 75% pot (around $0.20). Because I obviously couldnt raise by that much, I went for .24 to win .29 which makes the decision overall unprofitable.

Does a min raise work all that more often than calling and betting the turn?

Does a min raise work all that more often than calling and betting the turn?

The turn bet may work just as often but I feel like I am not betting for value so it would be bad to easily allow him another street to try and hit. If next card came A, K, or a club I personally would be less inclined to bluff.

I don't really understand why we feel the need to bluff here. He very rarely folds a better hand and we're good against the 75% of his range that you're trying to fold out.

I'd much rather call here and evaluate the turn based on what you know of this player, and expect to be able to get to showdown a lot.

I know you are worried about scary looking cards coming off, but it's not a reason to stick more money in than we need to with a hand that only gets action when behind and never folds out better. If he's going to fold this much I'd call here with 77 and bluff raise a ton with hands that don't have like 70% equity vs his range.

Also it really sucks if he 3 bets this flop either with a draw or as a bluff that you're min sizing has induced. We are basically forced, readless, to fold and hence give up our 55% equity vs draws or more vs his air.

I.. didn't of it like that..

I get bluffing with worse hands, but you would raise much more than what I did?

Originally Posted by fatguy'06

I.. didn't of it like that..

I get bluffing with worse hands, but you would raise much more than what I did?

Min raises don't usually get people to fold; and don't build the pot effectively. Please refrain from using them.

considering the pot sizes I typically see, I dont see how I can refrain from a lot of min raising without over-betting though.

Originally Posted by fatguy'06

considering the pot sizes I typically see, I dont see how I can refrain from a lot of min raising without over-betting though.

Then plan your hand

Perhaps I am not explaining myself well enough. The example I gave was obviously a bad one, but then again no one else is giving any..

lets say I had air and most of his hands beat me, and then he would be folding about 75% of the time with better hands than me. He bet .12 making pot .29, so I would have to bet enough so that he would fold, but not too much for reasons I thought of earlier (unless of course those reasons are incorrect). This makes out to be less than a min raise considering the pot size. My hand was planned (perhaps not planned in the most profitable manner, but planned nonetheless). By my line of thought at the time it simply required to a min raise.

Originally Posted by fatguy'06

Perhaps I am not explaining myself well enough. The example I gave was obviously a bad one, but then again no one else is giving any..

lets say I had air and most of his hands beat me, and then he would be folding about 75% of the time with better hands than me. He bet .12 making pot .29, so I would have to bet enough so that he would fold, but not too much for reasons I thought of earlier (unless of course those reasons are incorrect). This makes out to be less than a min raise considering the pot size. My hand was planned (perhaps not planned in the most profitable manner, but planned nonetheless). By my line of thought at the time it simply required to a min raise.

about 3% of all minraises postlop that i've seen get the villlian to fold

Originally Posted by fatguy'06

I'm guessing he would fold about 18 of them (75%). With this in mind I think my reraise, should have been around or slightly less than 75% pot

Nope. Think of it this way, hes gonna be folding 75% of his hands to a bet right? Lets assume that other 25% of the time we lose. So if we ran this hand out 4 times...3 times we'd win the pot, and 1 time we'd lose our bet. So our bet could be as large as 3 times the pot for us to make a break even play.

In the hand in question, the pot was .29, so we could bet as much as .87 here and still be ok...assuming of course that our initial guess that he'd fold 75% of hands was on the mark.

Of course...our long term profit increases as our bet size decreases...so as said in the book we should bluff as much as needed to get the job done and no more. a bet of .87 here would be absolutely horrid since a minraise is apparently all that would be required.

All that...assuming we wanted to bluff the hand to begin with.

Originally Posted by fatguy'06

As previously stated, the cbet was expected whether he hit on the flop or not. I figure he would call/re-raise a raise if he had a queen, queens beat, or maybe FD and would fold with anything else. So of the 24 possible hands I put him on, I'm guessing he would fold about 18 of them (75%). With this in mind I think my reraise, should have been around or slightly less than 75% pot (around $0.20). Because I obviously couldnt raise by that much, I went for .24 to win .29 which makes the decision overall unprofitable.

Is your math right here? If you expect to have 75% fold equity and 0 equity if he continues (an oversimplification), then you can bet up to 3 times pot profitably as a bluff. Right?

75%(pot) - 25%(bet) > 0
3(pot) > bet

EDIT -- Never mind, I just read JKDS's post which says the same thing. Sorry.

yeah, that was the math correction I was looking for. I knew I was doing something wrong but couldn't quite figure it out. Thanks guys.

Okay I'll post a hand to keep things rolling on this topic.

Have a look at the hand first and then read my thoughts on it below.

Villain Description: A non spewtastic reg running 20/17, folding to 83% of 3 bet over 160 hands. I've 3 bet him once before this session to which he folded.

BB is a 30/24 somewhat loosish player, but one I haven't played very much with yet postflop. I assume he knows I'm light here a bunch preflop.

The Hand

No-Limit Hold'em, $1.00 BB (6 handed) - Hold'em Manager Converter Tool from FlopTurnRiver.com

CO ($100)
Button ($96.70)
Hero (SB) ($102.35)
BB ($113.10)
UTG ($149.65)
MP ($79)

Preflop: Hero is SB with 4, 5
2 folds, CO bets $3, 1 fold, Hero raises $10, BB calls $9.50, 1 fold

Flop: ($24) 4, 6, A (2 players)
Hero bets $13, BB calls $13

Turn: ($50) J (2 players)
Hero bets $31, 1 fold

Total pot: $50

Okay so our villain is fairly loosish looking, when he cold calls my 3 bet, I assume he has a range of some mediumish pairs like 88-QQ, AJs, AQ, KQ.

So we c-bet the flop here since it's awesome for our range and we hope to fold out stuff like 88, QJ, KQ, etc. i do however feel that he'll call with at least 99-JJ and AJs AQ and could perhaps float us lighter than this, expecting us to c bet our whole range. So our bet doesn't need to be any bigger than this for two reasons:

1. The range of hands we're looking to fold out here is pretty weak so we don't need to worry about further cutting odds.

2. We plan to fire twice here given that he'll call with weaker pocket pairs and float this board a fair bit.

Turn - When he calls, I make a rough range for him of 99-JJ AJs AQ, KcQx, KxQc - the last 2 hands to reprsent his floats (maybe QQ if he flats this, we don't know for sure - it would certainly be good in this spot to flat QQ vs me, anyone know why?)

So we bet 31/50, risking 31 to win 50, needing him to fold 31/(31+50) x 100 or 38.27% of the time to BE and anymore to show a profit on the bet. This obv assumes we never win when called and have 0 equity vs his continuing range - this of course isn't the case since I have some equity, so the EV of the bet is likely a bit better than what we determine it to be. At this point I expect him to fold everything but JJ, AJs and AQ.

So things he folds: 99-TT = 12 combos >>>>>>>>> 19 combos
KcQx = 4 combos
KxQc = 3 combos

Things he doesn't fold: JJ = 3 combos >>>>>>>>>>>. 18 combos
AQ = 12 combos
AJs = 3 combos

19/37 x 100 = 51.35%

So he folds more than what we need him to for the double barrel to be +EV if this range is correct.

Okay that's all swell, but could I bet even less and still expect to fold out the same amount of hands? Probably. The key is to work out how little I can bet before I start to fold out enough hands to decrease the EV of the play. I think around $25 or $26 is probably totally fine and will do the same job. So my mistake is my turn bet being too big, although +EV vs this range, not +EV enough since there was a better alternative.

Im confused about your version of calculating a good bluff size and JKDS/Gizomos. I feel like the way I did it before is similar to the way you did it, Carroters, where because you expect him to fold 51% of the time, your bluff size should be 51% or less of pot.

With JKDS's example, lets say he folds exactly 50% of the time, then for every 2 hands you win 1 and you lose 1. So you can bluff bet 1 full pot or less.

So the real questions is, what am I missing?


Also, why did you remove FD from his post-flop range? If you tag his as fairly loose but dont know much post flop would it be wrong to assume he was chasing unprofitably with KcQc?

Originally Posted by Carroters

Turn - When he calls, I make a rough range for him of 99-JJ AJs AQ, KcQx, KxQc - the last 2 hands to reprsent his floats (maybe QQ if he flats this, we don't know for sure - it would certainly be good in this spot to flat QQ vs me, anyone know why?)

Because if he 4bets with QQ, he can expect to fold out all hand that he beats and only get a call from AA/KK/AK, which is a range that has him crushed. By just calling, he ends up against a range that is much weaker against his QQ.

Yeah I could for sure include a few combos of flush draws but then i haven't included QQ which I think could sure be in there too, so it probably evens out. Besides I'm ahead of flush draws so assuming he lets me showdown my pair when he misses they could even make this more +EV.

These two examples you are confusing are essentially the same thing. Just use that formula I used to work out how often your bet size requires him to fold in order for it to be +EV (assuming you have no pot equity that is, obviously the more pot equity you have, the less fold equity you need so this number will be less than shown by the initial calculation) Then compare this with how often you think he does fold based on analysing his range and how he plays it. Tweak the 2 until you've got the lowest bet that folds out enough of his range to be the most +EV size.

You obviously don't do this at the tables or anything, you're doing these exercises to get a really good feel for how likely a bet is to be +EV. I didn't get my bet size exactly right because that's pretty hard and takes a ton of practice.

Originally Posted by NightGizmo

Because if he 4bets with QQ, he can expect to fold out all hand that he beats and only get a call from AA/KK/AK, which is a range that has him crushed. By just calling, he ends up against a range that is much weaker against his QQ.

Yeah pretty much. Since I haven't got a dynamic with this guy, he can't think I'm just going to felt JJ here or whatever. My range is fairly weak and he is doing awesomely IP vs it by flatting his QQ and can expect to profit postflop a good deal.

If he's smart he'll counter this by cold 4 bet bluffing the shit out of my 3 bet until I realise what he's doing and adjust, then he can start 4 bet/felting QQ.

Originally Posted by fatguy'06

Im confused about your version of calculating a good bluff size and JKDS/Gizomos. I feel like the way I did it before is similar to the way you did it, Carroters, where because you expect him to fold 51% of the time, your bluff size should be 51% or less of pot.

With JKDS's example, lets say he folds exactly 50% of the time, then for every 2 hands you win 1 and you lose 1. So you can bluff bet 1 full pot or less.

So the real questions is, what am I missing?

The break-even bluff size works out to be Pot*(% fold) / (% call). For ~50% calling range, that works out to be a PSB. In your example, you expected the villain to fold 75% of his hands, giving you a BE bluff size of 3 times pot.

But remember -- that's the break-even point. You still want your bet to be as small as possible that still gets the job done, to maximize the profitability of the bluff.

Originally Posted by Carroters

Yeah pretty much. Since I haven't got a dynamic with this guy, he can't think I'm just going to felt JJ here or whatever. My range is fairly weak and he is doing awesomely IP vs it by flatting his QQ and can expect to profit postflop a good deal.

If he's smart he'll counter this by cold 4 bet bluffing the shit out of my 3 bet until I realise what he's doing and adjust, then he can start 4 bet/felting QQ.

What would be your adjustment once you realize he's 4betting you light? Call his 4bet light, reraise him light, or tighten up your 3bet range?

My main adjstment to a known light cold 4 bettor would be to ship over a bunch of pairs that have good equity vs his stacking off range expecting to get enough folds to make this +EV. Hands like JJ TT I would also be unable to fold since they're doing really well vs a ton of random bluffs like Ax or whatever. 100bb deep I'd be much more inclioned to just shove these hands I was widening my range with instead of calling them oop.

A couple of basic questions in regard to Carroters hand exemple:

1. you didn't included AA and KK in your range on the flop because villain would have 4 bet preflop ?

2. you said that it's a good is awesome for our range. I figure that the flop hits only a small pourcentage of his range ?
88-QQ: 30 combos
AJs: 4 combos
AQ: 16 combos
KQ: 16 combos
for a total of 66 hands

The flop hits his range very well with AJs, AQ, so 20 hands out of 66, 30%.

Right ?

3. Does a stat like %of fold on turn in pokertracker would be reliable to estimate the present amount to bet for profitablility in this exemple?, assuming of course a decent sample of hands.

1. Yeah I assume most villains will be 4 betting AK, AA KK here. I'd expect AK to be a 4-bet from a std 100NL reg almost alwyas without some dynamic or reads that I'm a nit. AA/KK may sometimes flat thinknig that they often just fold out a ton of my range by 4 betting, but I think this is much less likely than them 4 betting.

2. On the flop we get to take down the pot enough for our c bet to be +EV. The flop obviously makes his AJs and AQ combos unlikely yo be foldoing at any point. Our c bet on the flop has the immediate implication of being able to fold out some hands that he doesn't choose to float with, like his lowest pps or some hands with little equity like KQ (which me are ahead of, but this doesn't mean we shouldn't try to make him fold them because c/c against his range as a whole is likely going to be bad and these hands have decent equity vs our measely pair anyways.) So even though the c-bet is good because directly it only requires him to fold just over a 3rd of the time, it's also good because it sets up what I consider to be a +EV turn bet too, by folding out the range I listed in my examples - the 51% of his continuing range that isn't Ax or better. It's better to think about what hands will continue on the flop instead of what hands "hit" the flop when making a c bet.

3. Yeah this could be helpful if you had a shitload of hands and a sample from 3 bet pots where ranges and therefore tendencies are usually different. Usually though, we wont have this good a sample or reliable a stat, so we need to be making a likely range for him and thinknig about how he's likely to play it. Our read of his range and how he plays it wont be perfect because our information is imperfect, but we can get pretty close usually by making good assumptions and educated guesses.

Okay guys this week has again not been great, but thanks to all who have contributed, even though it's obv for your own god damn good, not mine.

Does anyone have anymore example hands to generate more discussion on bluffing, bluff sizing etc? These threads aren't simply a cricitcal review of the book, but rather a way of using cocepts in the book to look at elements of poker in a broarder sense and improve your game a lot. So don't feel you need to relate each and every single point to exactly what the author says.

I'm not going to make a thread every single week on an exact date because to be honest, if I did that, we'd just skim over the surface of everything then drop it, and I don't wanna split focus on two topics at once too much, but rather have everyone invoilved thinking about one specific area in more detail until we move on. What I'll do is make a new thread when I feel the discussion on the previous one is trully dead. So, last call for this topic/section! If noone else comes forward to generate discussion through examples, question, thoughts or whatever the hell you want to say (honestly it doesn't matter how dumb it may sound), then we'll move on.

Cliffnotes - Post some shit. Make an effort if you want to learn, k thanks.

this part of the book is really important iirc.

hey, hadnt been on ftr in a while and spent the last couple of days catching up with this series of threads and the book. i am going to play a session right now and i will try and find some examples for this thread.

ok not sure if this hand has to do with this but here we go

main villain is 15/6, in my notes i have Chaser written down
mp is loose and passive and will also pay me off if he catches even a piece of the flop

Full Tilt No-Limit Hold'em, $0.05 BB (9 handed) - Full-Tilt Converter Tool from FlopTurnRiver.com

MP3 ($1.81)
CO ($3.01)
Button ($5.85)
SB ($10.13)
BB ($5.14)
UTG ($1.82)
Hero (UTG+1) ($4.08)
MP1 ($3.86)
MP2 ($3.32)

Preflop: Hero is UTG+1 with 7, 7
1 fold, Hero bets $0.17, MP1 calls $0.17, 2 folds, CO calls $0.17, 3 folds

instead of trying to highlight the hammer bet i wanted to highlight getting 3 streets of value at the micros. I have the MP with a pretty wide range here 22+a2s+k9+,jt,qj,aq+,a5+ and some sc's and suited one and two gappers. so basically wide as shit.....as for the co, i give him a range of 22+, aq+,ajs+,kq,jts,qj havent seen him 3b yet so idk if aa kk are something he would do that with or if he would just smooth them but i think its safe to take them out of his range (but leave in ak as ive seen him smooth with it before).

Flop: ($0.58) 7, 3, J (3 players)
Hero bets $0.35, 1 fold, CO calls $0.35

after the flop, i obviously am stoked cause i hit my set, the rest of the board is pretty harmless, aside from the FD. with 2 people and a FD on the board odds are someone has one, so i have to bet high and high enough that if mp calls then co still does not have the odds to call profitably. Which i do not think i did. I think i was too concerned about getting action on a fairly dry board. If mp had called, co would be risking .35 to win 1.35, really good odds, so i definitely messed that up. When mp calls i think his range becomes 33,jj, qq, ajs,ahkh,ahqh,khqh,jhth,and qhjh, enough combos to definitely gain some value from.

Turn: ($1.28) 10 (2 players)
Hero bets $0.85, CO calls $0.85

this would maybe be a bad card if the MP was still in the hand but this 10 does not help co's range whatsoever, so i throw in a 2/3 psb, probably should have gone for more but i wanted to set up a nice river bet for the rest of his stack, probably should have tried to get it all in here on the turn because he is not going to give me action with many missed flush draws and if it is a flush on the river i dont have to fold as i would still be beating 12 (qq, 33, ajs) combos of hands and losing to 8 (all the heart draws and jj)

River: ($2.98) Q (2 players)
Hero bets $1.68, CO calls $1.64 (All-In)

Harmless river, ahkh got back door straight on me but thats only one combo that was still in his range. I should have thrown out less of a bet, or maybe just checked hoping to induce his busted draw bluff. i got lucky and he hit his queen on the end and was willing to stack off with tp.

Total pot: $6.26 | Rake: $0.41



its funny because this is a hand that while i was playing it i thought i played correctly and did a good job of maximizing value, whereas really there were some things i definitely did wrong and bet sizing and pot control were big parts of it.

cant wait for next sectoin

Im confused, wheres the part where you bluff?

lol sorry i probably should have posted this in one of the previous chapters, i just read them all and didnt realize that i was off topic..my b.