|
|
I like completing the SB rather than raising it. You'll be OOP all of the hand and you're only really looking to continue if you flop big.
As played I'm not sure what I think about the flop lead. This is the kind of flop I'd cbet every time I miss it simply because people have 2x so rarely and they have no Q often enough that I can safely bet and see folds and have the bet be profitable on fold equity alone.
Having actually hit the flop you could make an argument for playing it more slowly. The big glaring flaw with that thinking of course is that if that line is consistently followed you become very readable to an observant opponent, but the question is whether these opponents are observant.
You could debate whether being OOP makes a difference here. Being OOP should pretty much always make a difference. In this case I think having hit the Q, even with a weak kicker, you are quite likely to have the best hand. The question becomes if you want to build a pot aggressively (assuming your opponents hold something strong enough to call your bets) or if you want to give free cards to allow an opponent to improve to a second-best hand so he is more likely to pay you off.
I would tend to agree that both aces and kings are scary cards for you, and it's tempting on that basis to bet and take down the pot while you're still good. However, similarly you could argue that if you bet the flop the hands most likely to come along are made pairs, flush draws and of course - the unpaired A or K. I wouldn't necessarily say most Ax and Kx hands will continue in the hand to a bet, but it's probably a non-trivial portion of both villains continuation range.
This suggests that you will need to shut down and be prepared to fold if an A or K or heart comes on a later street and you are met with a lot of aggression. Facing the prospect of folding your top pair hand to aggression on a later street it's natural to ask yourself if you should then bet in the first place. I think yes - you've identified the later street cards (A and K and hearts) that will cause you to slow down, and when you assess the chance of them coming as opposed to the chance of them not coming you see that while you're likely to be ahead now, you are also ahead on the majority of turn cards. Betting flop is good - it's for value as worse hands will call. It's also partly for protection against the draws (both flush and overcard)
So you're pretty happy about your hand on the flop and want to build a big pot - OOP means you can do this either through betting out or through check/raising. If you'd pegged one of your opponents as likely to take a stab at good bluffing spots I'd be inclined to check/raise, otherwise leading out is optimal. There are still pretty many bad cards if you include all the turn cards, so I wouldn't much like a check/call.
On the turn your hand improves. Now flush cards are no longer a worry. In fact, I'd say you are so strong on the turn that you should be prepared to commit to the pot and be ready to stack off. It's true that A and K coming on the river or some other card hitting a pocket pair will beat you, but your equity against any reasonable calling range is well above 50%. You want to get the money in. The reason your equity is good against any reasonable calling range is Zeebo's theorem - noone ever folds a full house. This means even 33 will call any bet.
Ok, let's recap the ranges. We don't care about the flush draws anymore, if they decide to continue in the hand it's just gravy, but they probably shouldn't. Pocket pairs lower than QQ will probably continue regardless (let's assume some weak tight folds and maybe 50% calls). These are quite unlikely to improve, and if they do we have to stack off to them on the river anyway. Hands like KQ and AQ beat us and we stack off to them every time. Hands like Ax and Kx are still drawing hands, and we don't want them drawing for free to beat us. I think on the turn we need to continue building a pot. Even hands like AK with 6 outs we WANT to call as the majority of the time we make money from them.
I don't think the bet size is the right one for the turn. If we bet instead $1.5 we'll get more or less the same amount of calls, but in both cases if the opponents should fail to improve on the river they will fold to any river bet. The unfortunate thing about a $1.5 bet size is that if we make that size bet and an A comes on the river and UTG shoves into us we have to call. We could still fold to MP, but not to UTG. So generally speaking if one of 40 cards come on the river we make $1 extra - if one of the 6 cards come we lose $1.5 or $3. I know pairs sometimes improve to trips and that, but just eyeballing the situation it has to be better EV to bet bigger on the turn if we assume that we won't get too many weaker hands folding.
On the river as played, you have definitely allowed Ax hands to stay and while the bet could obviously be a bluff I don't dislike the fold. I think fold is probably safest if villain is an unknown or if he's a nit who only puts money in when he has something. Any reads on him? Or stats? The only thing prompting me to consider a call is that he's the shorter stack and you're closing the action - the other larger stack can't complicate matters anymore as he's already folded. Counting out the rake he needs to be bluffing around 31% of the time for you to have to call. Some villains will be bluffing more than 31% of the time - some aggro monkeys just fire automatically at scary looking cards and would do so here even with 33.
|
full house spot
, J
, Q
(3 players)
(3 players)
Reply With Quote
Originally Posted by dev
