AA River...

<CBATpoker> 14/6 5.3 3b
<CBATpoker> 1.3 AF, 7 on riv
<CBATpoker> 47% AFreq on riv

$0.10/$0.25 No Limit Holdem
PokerStars
9 Players
Hand Conversion Powered by weaktight.com

Stacks:
UTG ($36.65)
UTG+1 ($25.05)
MP1 ($34.60)
Hero ($31.45)
MP3 ($27.55)
CO ($33)
BTN ($25)
SB ($25)
BB ($14.90)

Pre-Flop: ($0.35, 9 players) Hero is MP2 A A
3 folds, Hero raises to $0.75, MP3 calls $0.75, 3 folds, BB calls $0.50

Flop: 8 Q 5 ($2.35, 3 players)
BB checks, Hero bets $1.75, MP3 calls $1.75, BB folds

Turn: 6 ($5.85, 2 players)
Hero bets $4, MP3 calls $4

River: 5 ($13.85, 2 players)
Hero bets $8, MP3 goes all-in $21.05, $13.05 to Hero ($16.95)?

In the future make sure we know the sample size for your stats.

From the cold, calculating machine-like standpoint there's: http://www.flopturnriver.com/pokerfo...ll-173396.html

From the more human-like standpoint, he's a tight fairly passive player who just shoved about 85bb after you showed a lot of strength on four streets.

Originally Posted by spoonitnow

In the future make sure we know the sample size for your stats.

From the cold, calculating machine-like standpoint there's: http://www.flopturnriver.com/pokerfo...ll-173396.html

From the more human-like standpoint, he's a tight fairly passive player who just shoved about 85bb after you showed a lot of strength on four streets.

Yeah that's how I felt. sample size is about 250 hands.

Is my bet sizing okay?

i think flop and turn are fine. once the river bricks all draws (that didnt already complete on the turn) i think betting just makes sure he jams better and folds worse. i doubt he even calls your river bet with AQ if he's half capable of performing range analysis. check/call would be better imo so he can spazz out with AsXs or whatever if he feels like it.

What's his fold to cbet%? I know everyone wants to fold but I don't know I feel like he is repping 3 combos of 888 and 1 of quads. I don't think he has ever has QQ here nor 666. He can definitely have flush draws in his range way more than his value hands and yes only some of the time he will shove here but meh.

What do you guys think is best: b/c, b/f, c/c, c/r, c/f?

I think c/r is interesting personally.

i personally wouldnt totally exclude QQ. alot of people dont 3bet it pre. and of any of the sets, its the one hes most likely to play passive postflop imo. you're right though, like 4-6 combos of AsXs (depending on how many FH's combos we choose to discount) and we have a +EV call. i just cant see him betting the river with a flush draw unless we check it to him. our line is super strong and i doubt 25nl players are going to expect to be able to bluff us on the river. especially tight passive ones.

The stats on this guy makes me think he doesn't have QQ. I do agree that most don't 3bet it but his 3bet% (over a small sample) is 5.3% and comparing it to his other stats make me feel like he's not a typical reg.; therefore, making him more capable of 3betting QQ in most cases imo.

But yeah def. agree with your other stuff which scares the shit out of me.

Originally Posted by rpm

i doubt he even calls your river bet with AQ if he's half capable of performing range analysis.

lol you just muck ur AQ facing this bet on the river do you?


add me to the c/c river bandwagon

Originally Posted by texa8

lol you just muck ur AQ facing this bet on the river do you?

yes.

i never expect a decent reg to be firing 4 2/3 pot barrels OOP with worse than KK here. call me a nit. MAYBE AQ some of the time, but that'd be the rock bottom of their range given this line imo, so we'd still be in pretty poor shape if we were looking at calling with it. if you were villain and a reg, as i assume CBAT is, takes this line against you, what is the range you would put them on? i'm not saying i'm right or wrong, i'm interested to know what you think because i believe its quite possible i am too much of a nit in these spots.

Originally Posted by rpm

i never expect a decent reg to be firing 4 2/3 pot barrels OOP with worse than KK here. call me a nit. MAYBE AQ some of the time, but that'd be the rock bottom of their range given this line imo, so we'd still be in pretty poor shape if we were looking at calling with it. if you were villain and a reg, as i assume CBAT is, takes this line against you, what is the range you would put them on? i'm not saying i'm right or wrong, i'm interested to know what you think because i believe its quite possible i am too much of a nit in these spots.

The thing is though is villain isn't us. Just because we fold or do any action doesn't mean he will too. We have to be villain and play villain's game in this spot which means we have to be worse than normal for a second.

Originally Posted by rpm

i never expect a decent reg to be firing 4 2/3 pot barrels OOP with worse than KK here. call me a nit. MAYBE AQ some of the time, but that'd be the rock bottom of their range given this line imo, so we'd still be in pretty poor shape if we were looking at calling with it. if you were villain and a reg, as i assume CBAT is, takes this line against you, what is the range you would put them on? i'm not saying i'm right or wrong, i'm interested to know what you think because i believe its quite possible i am too much of a nit in these spots.

look its probably fair enough lol...

if theres not a missed spade draw im more likely to fold.. it would also be nice to have some idea of villains (CBAT) barrelling abilities..

there is every chance im am too loose in these spots but i call a lot here (being villian on river with AQ).. and im not folding KK (but KK shouldnt exist as played).. if ive seen a villian barrell and/or play draws agressively i could call and show KQ here lol

so really it depends a lot on CBAT's image at the table.. probably seems hes not getting too frisky which leads me to my original position, that the river is a c/c

good point, kmind. it was asked if I would fold AQ here, which i would, but thats irrelevant because i wasnt in the hand. i c/c this river 100% anyway. if is calling range was, for certain,

we beat:
AQ (6), KQ (12),
we lose to:
56s (2), 55(1), 66(3), 88(3), 79s (4)

then i could see a vbet being in order. but when we check we can allow him to bet all of those "we lose to" hands (13 combos) and maybe (preferably) some of the "we beat" hands, plus like AJ,AT,A9,A8 spades etc. if we had the As it may be different because he has less FD's in his range, so maybe betting (if we keep the assumption he calls with the above range) is better than c/c because his betting range wouldnt be as weak (due to a lack of possible FD's).

by the way, ^^ is just speculative and hypothetical, because i dont want to listen to my missed lectures, i still believe villain does not call three streets with top pair here. i need to work now. if i make a post in the next three hours, someone shoot me.

ok my self-imposed 3 hour ban is over. i think i am thinking clearer about this hand now

all of this assumes that of villain's "continuing range" to our riverbets, he always shoves full houses and always smooths with one pair hands (the ones in his designated continuing range), and he never bluffs FDs if we lead into him. because of these assumptions, we obviously never call when shoved over.

if villains continuing range for our chosen betsize is AQ,KQ,56s,55,66,88,79s then we beat 18 combos and lose to 13. if he only bets the "we lose to" hands from my last post when we check to him, then he needs 14 combos of bricked FD's (roughly 52% of his range) in order for c/calling to be preferable to leading.

if villains continuing range is same as above, but we ADD the 6 combos of AQ to his vbet range, he only needs 8 combos of bricked FDs (30% of his range) for his betting range to be weaker than his calling range, which would thus make c/c > bet

if villain calls a river bet with the same range minus the 12 combos of KQ, then we only beat 6 combos and lose to 13. so betting becomes -EV. in which case we have to determine if villain bets enough hands we beat in order to call when we check to him, based on pot odds, equity etc etc. if villain happened to use the same betsizing, we need 8/29.85 = 0.26 = 26% equity, which requires between 4 and 5 combinations of missed FDs for a call to be +EV.

obviously thats all speculative - he may have 1 of 3 combos of QQ (if he 3bets it 66% of the time preflop), or he may never float the flop with 66 or 56s, or never call pre with 79s, or sometimes jam bricked FDs after we lead the river. he may or may not raise the flop or turn with sets. there are plenty of variables. but i think the analysis of each scenario is correct based on the assumptions provided about villain's range and how he will play it. if not please correct me so i can stop being a fish.

edit: when i say he needs x amount of air in his betting range to make this option>that one or whatever, im assuming he bets the same amount with the given range as CBAT chose to bet in the actual hand. in reality it probably wouldnt be the same, but probably close.

after spending 4 years trying to figure all that out and type it up in a slightly coherent manner, i've decided i think the last scenario closest resembles how i expect this guy to play his range (when lead into: call AQ, raise exclusively with full houses and 100% of the time. when checked to: vbet all FH's plus at least 5 combos of missed FD's when checked to (27% of his river bet range).

I know many people describe him as passive, but let's not forget that he's passive on any street other than the river.

I think the river stats are interesting.
<CBATpoker> 14/6 5.3 3b
<CBATpoker> 1.3 AF, 7 on riv
<CBATpoker> 47% AFreq on riv

With a 1.3 AF for all streets and 7 on the river you have to suspect he is someone who sometimes just shoves the river to get people to fold their medium strength hands. He could be full of shit. So, let's play the analysis game.

When he raises or 3bets before the flop, sometimes his opponents fold. Possibly sometimes when he bets or calls preflop he ends up folding to a raise. With a sample size of 250 hands, let's assume he has seen something like 25-30 flops. Remember, to get an AF of 7 on the river he needs to have either bet/raise 7 times and called once or bet/raised 14 times and called twice.

Having seen 25-30 flops he's probably taken about 50-60 post-flop non-fold actions. Most of those are checks - probably little more than half. To make it easier to do the math in my head I'll just assume 23 non-check, non-fold post-flop actions. That means 10 calls and 13 bets/raises. 7 of those bets/raises and 1 call have occurred on the river. So that's 9 calls and 6 bets/raises between the flop and the turn. With 47% aggression frequency on the river we have probably 15 non-fold actions of which 7 are bets/raises, 7 are checks and 1 is a call.

The question then is, do we think that his fairly frequent river aggression tends to follow lots of previous street betting? Well, it kind of can't. He'd need to have more calls on flop and turn for that to be the case. Of course the amount of flop and turn calls I put him on are an estimate but I still don't feel strongly that the river stats - notable though they are - to any great degree suggest that he's likely to be full of shit here.

Rather, I think he's the kind to float and see if his opponent continues his aggression, and then if he doesn't he often steals without hand equity on the river. Not relevant to this hand then.

i wouldn't read THAT much into his river AF. first off, unless the sample size like 1k hand+ than this AF is probably based off of like 15 hands that got to the river (7 of which he folded or checked through, 7 of which he bet or raised and one of which he called). you need a really big sample size for a street by street AF to mean THAT much.

also, and more importantly, his high river AF can mean one of two things that has NOTHING to do with turning medium strength hands into bluffs: 1) he only gets to the river with a very very strong range or 2) he's nitty when facing a 3rd barrel and hands that aren't good enough to bet/raise with, he's just going to fold when seeing a bet. he could have seen 3000 rivers and tried to check through to get to showdown, and when villain bet, he just folded unless he had the very very top of his range, in which case he was in bet/shove mode.

in other words, his river AF can be just as large of an indication that he's a nit and this is a snap fold than it can mean (the less likely possibility imo) that he's one of those 14/6's who turn medium strength hands into bluffs by shoving over river bets...do those type of players exist?