5NL - Aces facing a check raise on turn

Should I be folding these here? I think the fact I'm asking it's pretty obvious they got busted so I wont bother withholding the result. Had aces cracked 4 times in last session, and now 100 odd hands into the next session I'm down another BI because of them.

Starting to doubt myself here. Down 6 buy ins today. Should I be folding these at 5nl? or playing them differently? Thanks!

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

UTG+1 ($5.66)
MP1 ($6.87)
MP2 ($5.95)
Hero (MP3) ($5)
CO ($8.54)
Button ($7.51)
SB ($7.36)
BB ($15.12)
UTG ($6.78)

Preflop: Hero is MP3 with A, A
4 folds, Hero bets $0.20, 3 folds, BB calls $0.15

Flop: ($0.42) J, 5, 10 (2 players)
BB checks, Hero bets $0.40, BB calls $0.40

Turn: ($1.22) K (2 players)
BB checks, Hero bets $1, BB raises to $5, Hero calls $3.40 (All-In)

River: ($10.02) 6 (2 players, 1 all-in)

Total pot: $10.02 | Rake: $0.45

Results:
BB had J, K (two pair, Kings and Jacks).
Hero mucked A, A (one pair, Aces).
Outcome: BB won $9.57

Oh that's a tough one. There's no way that I would have folded that on the turn. But whether it's a sound call mathematically, I'll leave it to others to respond .

Question for slev: is c/c flop, c/r turn usually worse than 1 pair?

I have noticed with the last few hands you have posted that you always bet the pot on the flop, even on really dry boards. Do you also bet pot on your cbets?

Maybe try dialing this back to 2/3 pot.

My default line without reads at the moment with non-3bet flops and overpairs in position is 2/3 pot on flop, check behind turn and call or value bet if checked to. Probably loses some value with calling stations, but gains by picking up bluffs on the river and not stacking off when behind.

@Demon oh thanks yeah I always bet heavy trying to 'build a pot' when I think I have the best of it, I got this from spendas videos over at GS I've probabally mis interpreted his advice or something, thanks I'll change to 2/3 on dry flops and see how that goes. Thank you!

@Micro yeah at 2nl it's often TP or some kind of retarded draw I might need to start folding more now I'm moved up to 5nl though it seems, thanks dude.

np, if some loose aggro donk does it though i might just call it off since you'll see some crazy shit at showdown often vs a player like that.

If villain is pretty straightforward, you have to ask yourself "why didn't that king slow him down?".

If you put him on a Jx hand like AJ,KJ,QJ,JT -- AJ and QJ are probably going to be scared of that king. More aggressive players may raise their straight draw here with a hand like QJ, but passive or weak players probably won't.

I don't mind stacking off here vs more aggressive opponents, but players who are generally more passive postflop I'm pitching these aces here when c/r'd on the turn.

The old motto "turn raises usually mean something big" exists for good reason. One pair hands often can't stand up to turn raises without decent reads.

when checked raised on the turn with that turn card
i would have thought KT, KT, JJ, AQ.
and d0zer has a bad ass point
"why didnt that king slow him down"

First, when posting a hand for analysis, leave the results out so that they don't skew people's viewpoints. It's a lot easier to see that you lost the pot and for us to go "Well, that's a snap fold!" than if you were to leave out the result so we can analyze it.

As everyone mentioned above, being check-raised when we're in position, or being raised when we're out of position usually indicates a very strong holding. Obviously it depends on the villian and the flop texture, but you're likely to be behind if you only hold a pair. There is a theorem that specifically addresses this situation:, google the "Baluga Theorem". (I tried to provide a link just now but FTR hates me because I have less than 10 posts).

To sum it up, villians at these levels aren't sophisticated enough to semi-bluff draws or get tricky. If you're being played back on the turn and you have one pair, you can safely fold if you're not pot committed to the hand.

Originally Posted by kleitches

First, when posting a hand for analysis, leave the results out so that they don't skew people's viewpoints.

Originally Posted by Slevin

I think the fact I'm asking it's pretty obvious they got busted so I wont bother withholding the result.

Originally Posted by kleitches

As everyone mentioned above, being check-raised when we're in position, or being raised when we're out of position usually indicates a very strong holding. Obviously it depends on the villian and the flop texture, but you're likely to be behind if you only hold a pair. There is a theorem that specifically addresses this situation:, google the "Baluga Theorem". (I tried to provide a link just now but FTR hates me because I have less than 10 posts).

To sum it up, villians at these levels aren't sophisticated enough to semi-bluff draws or get tricky. If you're being played back on the turn and you have one pair, you can safely fold if you're not pot committed to the hand.

Thanks!

Originally Posted by clvacva

when checked raised on the turn with that turn card
i would have thought KT, KT, JJ, AQ.
and d0zer has a bad ass point
"why didnt that king slow him down"

Thanks - good point, I'm going to start edging on the side of caution from now, If theres a draw out there that's come in and I'm getting played at I'll fold. Always been cautious of getting run over in the past but I'm going to start folding more and see how that works out I think. Thanks =)

Originally Posted by d0zer

If villain is pretty straightforward, you have to ask yourself "why didn't that king slow him down?".

If you put him on a Jx hand like AJ,KJ,QJ,JT -- AJ and QJ are probably going to be scared of that king. More aggressive players may raise their straight draw here with a hand like QJ, but passive or weak players probably won't.

I don't mind stacking off here vs more aggressive opponents, but players who are generally more passive postflop I'm pitching these aces here when c/r'd on the turn.

The old motto "turn raises usually mean something big" exists for good reason. One pair hands often can't stand up to turn raises without decent reads.

That's great had never heard that motto before I'll make sure I remember it, thanks Dozer!

Originally Posted by Micro2Macro

Question for slev: is c/c flop, c/r turn usually worse than 1 pair?

sometimes

Originally Posted by iopq

Originally Posted by Micro2Macro

Question for slev: is c/c flop, c/r turn usually worse than 1 pair?

sometimes

To continue in a similar vein the abhorrent part of the post is not the results it's the lack of reads.

Against an unknown I think it's a fold, even at 5nl. I have stacked off way too light recently with an overpair or TPTK so this is pretty present to me also.

The question is not whether it's a fold though. The question is whether you know your villain well enough to say with authority that it is +EV to call. If you don't know his playing tendencies you have to give him credit. If he's an aggro monkey go ahead and snap call.

One thing I tend to do too much right now is call too much when I don't know where I stand. In the best case, it's a close decision and if it's a close decision the EV between calling and folding is not significantly different so there's no harm in taking the variance reducing fold and not go on tilt. There are many rules of thumb that apply to this kind of of situation. There's the one about raises on turns normally signifying monsters, there's when in doubt fold and right now I'm finding more usefulness in this one: Do not put money in the middle if I cannot clearly argue why it is +EV to do so.

Originally Posted by Erpel

Originally Posted by iopq

Originally Posted by Micro2Macro

Question for slev: is c/c flop, c/r turn usually worse than 1 pair?

sometimes

To continue in a similar vein the abhorrent part of the post is not the results it's the lack of reads.

ding ding ding we have a winrar

Originally Posted by LuckySlevin

That's great had never heard that motto before I'll make sure I remember it, thanks Dozer!

It would help your game far more to start paying very close attention to how certain villains play certain hands. Take note of what passive check/call lines usually mean, what turn or river raises usually represent.

Put players on a range preflop, have that range in mind as postflop develops, then limit that range with villain's actions and the changing board texture. This is what handreading is all about and it's one of the biggest things separating mediocre taggfish-bots from actually solid players.

Solid players are using every bit of information they can. The more they can narrow a villain's range, the more they can confidently make great folds, or great thin value bets.

Slev , I an honestly admit , 5NL check raises mean you are usually beaten and I've been stupid enough to call enough of them to find out.

Originally Posted by iopq

Originally Posted by Micro2Macro

Question for slev: is c/c flop, c/r turn usually worse than 1 pair?

sometimes

Based on having no reads, what would you do here IOPQ?

That's what I thought.

Without reads this is an easy call imo unless you think you can discard KQ, AK.
There's close to 0 chance I lay this down against anyone but the nittiest.

And slevin, you should know better than to post results by now.

Micro... every second thread you're trying to talk people into making retarded laydowns without giving any reason.
I'm not big on posting pokerstove shit, because everyone can and should do it for themselves, but...

equity win tie pots won pots tied
Hand 0: 56.619% 56.14% 00.48% 1408 12.00 { AcAd }
Hand 1: 43.381% 42.90% 00.48% 1076 12.00 { JJ-TT, 55, AKs, KJs+, JTs, AKo, KJo+, JTo, 98o }

Remove the retarded semi-bluff (89o), and this is still an easy call. - But I don't like to ever make a range without adding some stupid play... could be the JsQs or even 88, because it's bound to show up sometimes, especially at these stakes.

Originally Posted by oskar

Without reads this is an easy call imo unless you think you can discard KQ, AK.
There's close to 0 chance I lay this down against anyone but the nittiest.

And slevin, you should know better than to post results by now.

Micro... every second thread you're trying to talk people into making retarded laydowns without giving any reason.
I'm not big on posting pokerstove shit, because everyone can and should do it for themselves, but...

equity win tie pots won pots tied
Hand 0: 56.619% 56.14% 00.48% 1408 12.00 { AcAd }
Hand 1: 43.381% 42.90% 00.48% 1076 12.00 { JJ-TT, 55, AKs, KJs+, JTs, AKo, KJo+, JTo, 98o }

Remove the retarded semi-bluff (89o), and this is still an easy call.

How is this a retarded laydown? In general, if you're facing an unknown, you're not going to be getting check/raised into too lightly. If you see the same guy c/r'ing often then its probably safe to say a pair is good.

Anyway your range is also kind of fucked (like usual). How is AK showing up here more often than KQ which you failed to include?

We do have decent equity though, but I was saying: how often is worse than 2 pair c/ring us. I never said its a insta-fold since I didn't run the ranges through stove, and I stand corrected that this is a call.

If you don't agree with the range, then please correct it... unless you're saying that getting it in with more than 40% equity is bad here... I think there's a nobel price in there somewhere for you if you can prove that.

See my post about standing corrected about the call: I didn't run the stuff through stove I just asked how often are we seeing worse than 2 pair here so slev could think about how true that statement is.

I see that we can suck out with equity even against a tight range so you're correct about calling.

Ok, then let's turn this into something useful.

- How much equity do you need to make this a call?

K lemmie know if I mess this up:

There's $1.22 in pot on the turn, we bet $1, villain raises and now we have $3.40 to call, plus he put in $1 to our bet. So total pot = 1.22+1+1+3.40=6.62 with 3.40 to call therefore we need more than EDIT: screwed up the equity calc first time i think it's actually 33%.

Can you double check the maths to make sure its good?




If we assume villain is only shoving 2pair+ and KQ then here's what Pokerstove shoots out:

Text results appended to pokerstove.txt

1,716 games 0.001 secs 1,716,000 games/sec

Board: Jd 5s Tc Ks
Dead:

equity win tie pots won pots tied
Hand 0: 40.793% 40.79% 00.00% 700 0.00 { AcAd }
Hand 1: 59.207% 59.21% 00.00% 1016 0.00 { JJ-TT, 55, KJs+, JTs, KJo+, JTo }


If we assume his range is bluffier then we would of course have even more equity, either way we're good.

This is without KQ, obviously (didn't see it listed in the stove range posted):

Code:

Board: Jd 5s Tc Ks
Dead:  

	equity 	win 	tie 	      pots won 	pots tied	
Hand 0: 	18.182%  	17.40% 	00.78% 	           268 	       12.00   { AcAd }
Hand 1: 	81.818%  	81.04% 	00.78% 	          1248 	       12.00   { JJ-TT, 55, AQs, KJs, JTs, AQo, KJo, JTo }

With KQ we get up to 34% equity. Imo, we can't rule out KK (not included above) because people are bad and we can't rule in KQ completely either. The problem with the stove ranges is that they're not weighted. Let's say there are 12 combos of KQ. Does he check/raise the turn with KQ? Yeah, sure. Some of the time. All the time? No. Since he's an unknown we have to consider the typical villain at these limits. The typical villain manages to both overvalue (when it comes to calling) and undervalue (when it comes to betting/raising) draws.

The bet is effectively $3.4 into a pot of $3.22 (less rake of $0.50 or so when the pot is assembled). We need to win 3.4 / (3.4+3.4+2.72) = 35% of the time to be breakeven.

Depending on the how this particular villain plays we may be as low as 10% equity (only made straight and sets check/raising), somewhere in between at 35% equity or maybe as high as 50% equity. But we don't know. That's why my previous post and some of the others focuses on the absence of reads as a key here. You simply cannot put together a reasonable range for villain here. Well, you can - but the conservative range contains only rare KQ hands and only two pairs hands SOME OF THE TIME. But I'll ignore that for now.

You could try to even out those situations, throw in a bit of trash here and there and argue your way to a point where I have to admit that you may have 35% equity or thereabouts. Ok. Now fold.

I hate to quote myself (I lie, I love to quote myself) but I have to repeat this: Do not put money in the middle if I cannot clearly argue why it is +EV to do so.

In this situation our reasonable ranges for our villain suggests we have somewhere in between 10% and 50% equity and we can't really tell because we don't know him. If you put the money in here, you are GAMBLING. You don't KNOW your edge, so you don't know if you have any. Stop putting money in.

If you can build a strong case that you have 35% equity here (which I doubt) you get exactly the same in terms of EV from folding and calling. $0. Do you want your bankroll to be hit hard by random fluctuations, or would you like some kind of influence on how it moves? If you are tilted by bankroll growth or negative growth it's probably best to take the variance reducing fold on that basis alone.

So you have the choice between a low variance play (that may prove when you get better reads to be more correct) or a high variance play with the same EV. There are reasons for picking the higher variance play when you move up to better opposition because it will help your image etc etc. At the microstakes this won't be the case and at the microstakes players are generally so weak tight that you simply do not have 35% equity and calling is actually both -EV and very swongy.

Originally Posted by LuckySlevin

Should I be folding these here? I think the fact I'm asking it's pretty obvious they got busted so I wont bother withholding the result. Had aces cracked 4 times in last session, and now 100 odd hands into the next session I'm down another BI because of them.

Starting to doubt myself here. Down 6 buy ins today. Should I be folding these at 5nl? or playing them differently? Thanks!

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

UTG+1 ($5.66)
MP1 ($6.87)
MP2 ($5.95)
Hero (MP3) ($5)
CO ($8.54)
Button ($7.51)
SB ($7.36)
BB ($15.12)
UTG ($6.78)

Preflop: Hero is MP3 with A, A
4 folds, Hero bets $0.20, 3 folds, BB calls $0.15

Flop: ($0.42) J, 5, 10 (2 players)
BB checks, Hero bets $0.40, BB calls $0.40

Turn: ($1.22) K (2 players)
BB checks, Hero bets $1, BB raises to $5, Hero calls $3.40 (All-In)

River: ($10.02) 6 (2 players, 1 all-in)

Total pot: $10.02 | Rake: $0.45

Results:
BB had J, K (two pair, Kings and Jacks).
Hero mucked A, A (one pair, Aces).
Outcome: BB won $9.57

With no stats or reads this is an easy fold for me.. this is almost always 2 pair+ Lay down your 1 pair and move on.

You have to get off that mentality of "my aces got cracked" They will lose 2/10 times. Some days they win 10 straight, the next lose 4 straight.. but in the end after a million hands.. its an 80%+ winner when played properly.

I think you are getting married to a lot more than just aces from the way you talk. At micros play pot control and value bet your bigger hands but only get your whole stack in when you think you are a big favorite. If you live by this you will breeze through to 25NL and maybe beyond (I dunno, never been to 25NL lol)

Here's a drill.. check through your hand histories on PT/HEM and filter it to show only hands you called on the turn or river and see how your bottom line looks... if its not a huge winner.. you need to rethink things.

One last thing. Poker is a game of ebbing and flowing.. Sometimes the money flows in, sometimes it ebbs out.. you just want to make the ebbing a bit smaller than the flowing and be patient enough to let it happen... calling all ins on the turn against an unk opp at micros with only 1 pair is the work of the tilt monster.

Now go forth and play boring winning poker and leave your exciting losing days behind.

O

Originally Posted by Micro2Macro

Can you double check the maths to make sure its good?

It's 33.9%, so yeah...
I always screw these up though, but if you just look at pot size and bet size you should immediately see that it's just slightly less than 34%, no calculation needed.

Erpel - BRM takes care of variance. It shouldn't be part of your decision making.

Originally Posted by Micro2Macro

Originally Posted by iopq

Originally Posted by Micro2Macro

Question for slev: is c/c flop, c/r turn usually worse than 1 pair?

sometimes

Based on having no reads, what would you do here IOPQ?

That's what I thought.

with no reads I have a marginal situation where calling is as good as folding
when villain shows up with AK nobody ever posts the hand

Originally Posted by iopq

Originally Posted by Micro2Macro

Originally Posted by iopq

Originally Posted by Micro2Macro

Question for slev: is c/c flop, c/r turn usually worse than 1 pair?

sometimes

Based on having no reads, what would you do here IOPQ?

That's what I thought.

with no reads I have a marginal situation where calling is as good as folding
when villain shows up with AK nobody ever posts the hand

Maybe you should read the rest of the post and see how we ran the equity we have against the range and discovered this. We already solved this problem, so why is it that you insist on getting the last word in?

I don't see you posting any hands for check-up so don't even start about people not posting the hand when AK shows up. As humans we are usually more concerned about what we did wrong when the outcome of our actions were not what we expected. This is the beginners circle, some people just haven't fully gotten around this yet and will continue to post hands only when they have lost them - and this is still good enough for improvement because most of the time, something was done wrong anyway.