Getting value from TPGK OOP

I’m not sure I am best extracting value from hands like TPGK, especially when OOP. Since this is a type of situation that comes up fairly often, I want to see what others think of my play. Let me give an example:

5NL Bovada, 9 players: Hero has $5.00, Button $5.36.

Preflop: Hero is 3 off the button with AcQd
3 folds, Hero bets $0.20, 2 folds, Button calls $0.20, 2 folds

Flop: ($0.47) Ah 8d 5c
Hero bets $0.30, Button calls $0.30

Turn: ($1.07) 2s
Hero checks, Button bets $0.55, Hero calls $0.55

River ($2.10) 7s
Hero bets $0.80, Button calls $0.80

I don’t have a HUD, so I can’t give stats. Villain seems fairly passive (I haven’t seen him 3bet preflop or raise postflop yet) but otherwise decent (he plays a reasonable number of hands, doesn’t open limp, has a fold button, etc.). I doubt he will stack off with less than TP-J kicker on a dry board.

I would expect his range on the flop to be something like this:
22+ (with QQ-AA discounted but not removed), Axs, A9o+, K8s+, KTo+, Q9s+, QJo+, 76s+, 97s+.

I bet the flop for value. I think he’ll continue with midpair or better, or decent draws (55, 88+, Ax, K8s, 76s-98s, T8s), which gives me about 69% equity against his continuing range.

I check/call the turn because I worry that a bet/bet/bet line will narrow his range too much (to eventually something like 55, 88, A2s, A5s, A8s, AJ+, which I only have 34% equity against; or, even if he raises his sets, 42% equity). If I thought he would stack off with TPNK, I would definitely be bet/bet/shoving. If the board were wetter, I would bet the turn to charge his draws, but 76 is his only obvious draw here. By checking I am trying to get more money from hands like 99-QQ, 8x, and weak Aces—especially since, from his perspective, I might bet the flop and check the turn with lots of broadways. Does my reasoning make sense, or am I missing something?

On the river, I bet $0.80 to get calls from weaker Aces and pocket pairs like TT-JJ that he might be too stubborn to fold to such a small bet. Should I be betting more here? Am I missing out on value?

Are there better lines to extract value?

I think your logic is fairly sound up until betting smaller on the river.

What type of hands would you do this with? Unless it's something that you'd do with different type of hands then it starts screaming to players who are paying attention exactly what you have, a good but not great hand. In which case good players will start bluffing you more often putting you in difficult spots.

I think you should be betting around 60% on the river and he won't fold out much of his range that he'd call your bet with and he'd probably be less inclined to try and bluff at it.

To me your line actually makes me think you have a stronger hand than you do. x/c on the turn and then leading out with a small bet makes me think you want a call. Assuming I had no real history with you and how you play apart from you looking like you have a rough idea what you're doing.

Originally Posted by ImSavy

I think you should be betting around 60% on the river and he won't fold out much of his range that he'd call your bet with and he'd probably be less inclined to try and bluff at it.

That makes sense, and I often bet these type of hands for 60-80% pot. However, to be honest, I am not very good at judging a villain's threshold to call the river. If I bet pot, I doubt he'd call with less than TP-decent kicker, but I'm not sure at what betting amount he would fold, say, A9 or A4 or TT.

And is bet / check/call / bet the best line here? How would you play the hand?

Originally Posted by Malbrack

And is bet / check/call / bet the best line here? How would you play the hand?

vs passive/weak players this is a bet/bet/bet. c/c on the turn is a disaster vs passive players because you miss so much value, and there aren't many worse hands they'll be betting. A lot of weak/passive players will either check an Ax or bet tiny.

I have absolutely no idea what the best line is tbh.

Against someone who I don't have any real reads on I would tend to just bet all 3 streets around 60-70% of the pot with TPGK. If I thought he was passive I'd probably fold to a raise on the turn or river. If he raises the flop I'd probably call but it'd put me in a spot I wasn't 100% on what to do and I'd probably spew a bit.

I'm not 100% sure I like the check/call part of the line tbqh. I'm not sure what exactly it does to help us put villain on a range / put him off our hand strength if we are just going to lead out on the next street if he bets. It just gives him the chance of checking behind telling us nothing as he can do this with the top and bottom of his range and we miss out on value of most of the hands we have beat and if he bets the only thing which this might get more value from is a hand he may try and turn into a bluff to try and push us off the bet if he thought we were just c-betting. Otherwise, once again we know nothing extra about his range.

And if he has hit a set or whatever then we lose even more value than we would betting and folding to a raise on the turn than check/calling and then leading out on the river in which case he should raise with a better hand than TPGK.

At least with betting every street (assuming he just calls) we can be fairly sure there is a lot in his range that we beat (at these stakes people call with a lot of rubbish) and we also have some fold equity.

However, what I say isn't necessarily going to be right. Someone much better will probably come in and say something else in which case they're probably right :P (i.e the post above, although he agreed with me )

Originally Posted by d0zer

vs passive/weak players this is a bet/bet/bet. c/c on the turn is a disaster vs passive players because you miss so much value, and there aren't many worse hands they'll be betting. A lot of weak/passive players will either check an Ax or bet tiny.

If the villain will station down with like A8-AJ or worse in his range, then I see how bet/bet/bet is great. But what about a villain who calls your third bet with a range that you only have 34% equity against? Or do you think I am over-emphasizing how much a third bet narrows a villain's range?

Bet/fold every street against a player you describe as passive on this board. Your line would be a reasonable option against a lag however with a low fold to flop cbet and high fold to turn cbet (i.e. villain floats often).

I think your flop calling range is too wide at FR for a player you perceive to be decent. On the flop, villain's calling range is pretty much {55,88-JJ,AT-AQ} and capped at AT-AQ if we don't get raised on the turn, meaning the river is a mandatory value bet.

Re sizing: I'd bet in the region of half pot on such a dry flop (and I'd do this with my entire range) but increase the sizing on turn and river for value as I don't think villain's river calling range in particular is elastic on this board. Our sizing wouldn't then be so large that we'll get ourselves committed by the turn with a medium strength hand.

Thanks for the replies, guys. This gives me food for thought.

I used to take a bet/bet/bet line with all TPGK-type hands against almost all villains, but I kept getting owned by sets and two-pair hands. At the time I wrote it off as running into the top end of ranges (and against a lot of villains, this is true). As I got better, I started classifying villains according to how weak they call down two or three large-ish bets. I would still bet/bet/bet if I thought the villain had a fair amount of weaker TPs or worse in his calling range, but I started checking one of the streets if I thought the villain was the type to only call three bets with TPGK or better. This adjustment seems to be working (at least better than indiscriminately betting); however, as you guys are pointing out, I think I have over-adjusted to the point of missing out on value.

Bean Counter, I get your point that I put the villain on too wide of a range (fair enough; I'm still really bad at this sort of thing, especially since I don't have a HUD for stats), but how can you be so confident that he always raises his sets and never shows up with A8s or A5s?

Originally Posted by Malbrack

If the villain will station down with like A8-AJ or worse in his range, then I see how bet/bet/bet is great. But what about a villain who calls your third bet with a range that you only have 34% equity against? Or do you think I am over-emphasizing how much a third bet narrows a villain's range?

If this was a reg who won't pay off 3 streets then you'll only get 1-2, but then I'd still bet turn and maybe c/f river depending on stuff. It's hard to know with your reads, it doesn't sound like you actually know very much about this villain.

Here's some info about this villain that I'd use if I had no HUD and had been paying attention. If he's not open limping, are his bet sizes reasonable on all streets? Is he opening more from BU/CO than EP? rough cold call preflop frequency etc.

There's really not that much that beats you, there is an OESD on board so just bet turn.

Originally Posted by Malbrack

Bean Counter, I get your point that I put the villain on too wide of a range (fair enough; I'm still really bad at this sort of thing, especially since I don't have a HUD for stats), but how can you be so confident that he always raises his sets and never shows up with A8s or A5s?

I can't be 100% confident any villain will raise flop or turn with a set and not wait until the river, but they nearly always will raise before the river @5nl (even on a board as dry as this). That's good enough for me.

Villain would have to be a fish to flat A8s or A5s on the btn and an even bigger fish to not raise flopped 2pr by the turn. If your perception is villain is decent, then I just don't see these holdings in villain's range all that often.

It sounds to me like you really need to get into bet/folding against the passive fish oop. Whilst you've ran into a few hands before, hands like this need to be your bread and butter at the micros and there are enough combos that we beat that will call you down on 3 streets in this situation.