HH - A common scenario for me

This is a common spot for me.

$0.05/$0.1 No Limit Holdem
4 players
Converted at weaktight.com

Stacks:
CO Simosha ($8.50)
BTN JabbadaHUDD ($9.85)
SB mentitus ($7.00)
BB Hero ($14.80)

Pre-flop: ($0.15, 4 players) Hero is BB
2 folds, mentitus raises to $0.30, Hero raises to $0.95, mentitus calls $0.65

Flop: ($1.90, 2 players)
mentitus checks, Hero checks

Turn: ($1.90, 2 players)
mentitus checks, Hero bets $1.55, mentitus goes all-in $6.05, Hero calls $4.50

River: ($14, 2 players)

[Results Hidden]

Villain is 49.28/21.74/1.45 over 69 hands. At the time i think i only had 20 hands on him if that. I did have him down as a fish though. Wish i could access my stars notes for anything more detailed.

I keep getting called with crap by fish and i just can't believe they have certain cards in their range. In retrospect, in this spot for this many bb and against an unknown, i should be folding, and often do. My new nit/tag hybrid style i'm doing ok with.

So, what are you guys doing in this spot?

Shit! i forgot he called a 3bet?! so... what the fuck are we putting in his 3bet calling range here??

I check behind on the flop because i've been fearing c/r lately as they happen a fair amount, so if i can see a free card i'll take it. I put a weaker K in his range or fishy heart FD and called but i'm rusty on ranges so should i put: KK, 6x, AA, K6, K3s in his shoving range and then compare it to my holding?

I play the same way against a fish. Sucks he showed up with a 6, but come on now. You have TPTK in a 3bet pot, and villain is retarded. He could definitely do this with KQ, KJ, KT, and he sure has a few bluffs in his range. Also, I've seen fish spazz and make terribad plays with like TT-QQ here. Your beat here by AA, 6x.

I hope your checking the flop, not from fear of c/r, but because this is (1) not a great board for your range, and (2) he is calling a cbet with ALL better hands, and would only be folding worse hands to a bet. That is to say, he wouldn't fold any pocket pair, or 3x,6x. And all of the unpaired hands that he is likely to fold if you cbet, well you beat them.

Two things to think about.

1. After the 3bet preflop, you turned your cards pretty much face up with checking the flop (which is correct in this spot, I think), then firing the K on the turn. Whatever he has, he's fine playing against TPTK. But he's a fish. So...

2. Your range estimate is too narrow. If he's got the nuts, he's probably happy calling instead of shoving. A shove feels more dangerous than it is. He's probably got some combo draws as 'semi-bluffs' in that range. What hand could he have called the 3bet with that connect with this flop?

You're getting basically 2 to 1, so it's a call a lot of the time, even if we expect to lose a good bit at showdown.

This is the range I would put him on: 66, 33, KK, AA, A6, KT+, even K9s if his 3bet calling range is that big. A lot of fish also overvalue low pocket pairs PF by calling 3bets I find. I don't understand how anyone could call a 3bet like that PF with K6 or K3 but I guess if he's fishy enough, that's possible. If he's pot committed very easily, then I would also add K6 and K3 to the range.

I'm not sure exactly what the right play is there. I wouldn't think this was a bluff, unless he was shown to shove bluff previously and so the only hands in his range that you beat are weaker kings. I'm sure I would have done exactly what you did though and went to showdown with the fish.

dude he's 70BB deep
snap call

balls.

see i was thinking: gah, in retrospect, villain has a 6 a very approximate 75% of the time here. Other hands that beat me thrown in.

thing is, a lot of my losses thus far at 10 have been from hands like this where i'm called with weak hands that i don't suspect, and hit my strong hand but they've got me crushed and i think: shit, what (insert low card) is in their calling range???

answer: probably a lot! given the fact that they're showing very bad stats/play tendencies.

well... villain had 56o. Now, a lot of the time he's going to be folding the flop/turn, fine, but i'm having difficulty putting villain's on ranges in these spots where that one card kills me and i just can't put them on it.

Today i had AA and the flop came down J9T, two checks ahead of me, i bet pot, got raised (c/r) and i folded. So i'm starting to learn to just trust they're not bluffin/betting with crap. AT LEAST until i get a read.

If the flop is wet and i see agression i am getting more and more inclined to fold, i keep losing stacks by not doing so. Predicament.

It's absolutely true that villain could have a fair amount of 6x hands in his range {A6, 76, 65, 86, 64}. Although it's not correct to call a 3bet with those hands in this spot, they could very well do it. And since it's a mistake for villain to make these calls, you are already profiting by your preflop decision, because as we know the majority of the time your hand will hold up against theirs.

On the flop, I wouldn't be cbetting AK here, which against this bad of a player is like the only hand I wouldn't cbet. I'd obviously cbet all of my overpairs against this player (and probably against most). But against this player who likely calls a 3bet with all pps, and a ton of broadways, cbetting is likely incorrect with AK here. He isn't going to fold a pair, and the broadway hands that he does fold, we beat. So check it back, and pick off bluffs on the turn and river.

As far as the turn play. AK is at the VERY top of your range. I doubt you ever have a better hand in your range here. To add to that, villain is known to play badly. Of course it would be pretty bad to c/r all in with this much behind with KJ/KQ/KT/QQ/4x/Ax, etc, but villain doesn't know that, and could very well make that play. 6x is not the only hand he gets it in with here.

If this was a reg or someone respectable, then it would really look like AA, and you could maybe consider folding, but even then it would be close.

Originally Posted by wonderland

Today i had AA and the flop came down J9T, two checks ahead of me, i bet pot, got raised (c/r) and i folded. So i'm starting to learn to just trust they're not bluffin/betting with crap. AT LEAST until i get a read.

In the never-ending epic that is the "I win lottsa small pots with my aggressive coolness and then proceed to give it back by losing a couple of big pots", this is prolly one of the best and first lessons to learn. And I still ain't learned it. Funny thing is, we can smack villain around for like 20 orbits stealing his sh!t, running over his sh!t, all the time talking to ourselves going "that's how we roll against you weak tighties..."

... and then when stumptractor stands up and smacks us back with a big giant banner that says "I has a hand that's waaaay better than all the other not so waaaay better hands I've been folding to you all night".....

... awww, sh!t, he must be bluffing, right?

IMHO, barring reads to the opposite, the money you will lose going stack deep with meh hands (and TPTK is a meh hand in a lot of situations at the micros...) will be WAAAAAY more than what you'll lose by getting bluffed out of a few pots where he really is pulling your chain.

Originally Posted by XxStacksxX

If this was a reg or someone respectable, then it would really look like AA, and you could maybe consider folding, but even then it would be close.

^^this

Originally Posted by iopq

dude he's 70BB deep
snap call

^^not this

The problem with wide ranges is that you only see one hand out of a possible 100 or more combos in any give spot. As you learn to read the game, realize that you need to put that hand and similar ones into your thinking about that spot.

On this hand, you say he had 65o. Cool. So he could be shoving the OESD, an sc/combo/SD/FD or a naked FD. That's true of a lot of these feesh with those stats. They have wide open preflop ranges much of which they incorrectly call the 3bet with.

Bottom line: you played the hand correctly and will profit most of the times you play this line with this hand on this board.

70BB is like a read that someone's a bad player
also, if he's a good player he might shove a whiffed hand repping the king so it's call as well~

Originally Posted by iopq

70BB is like a read that someone's a bad player

maybe he's just learning the "SPR" and wants to make the "SPR" an integral part of his poker approach... so opts for 60-70bb BI as a way to simplify the basics esp in top-pair type decisions.

So I'm biased... I played 50K+ hands with a 60bb BI for exactly that reason and ran 8BB/100. Not fantastic, but I'm not sure I'd call it "bad"...

...SPR

Yeah even if it's a reg, I prob still call. A reg rarely has 6x in his range, especially considering he is calling the 3bet OOP. And he might fold 33, and we expect to be 4bet by AA some % of the time. So really the majority of the time the top of a regs range will be AK; however, we obviously also expect to get 4bet with that hand. So a check/shove on the turn from a reg would be a relatively bizarre line, and I don't think he could be repping much. So I'd def pick it off barring reads otherwise (VERY TIGHT, flats 3bet with AA bvb, etc.)

Originally Posted by sarbox68

Originally Posted by iopq

70BB is like a read that someone's a bad player

maybe he's just learning the "SPR" and wants to make the "SPR" an integral part of his poker approach... so opts for 60-70bb BI as a way to simplify the basics esp in top-pair type decisions.

So I'm biased... I played 50K+ hands with a 60bb BI for exactly that reason and ran 8BB/100. Not fantastic, but I'm not sure I'd call it "bad"...

...SPR

See, I told you 60BB stacks are bad players

Originally Posted by iopq

70BB is like a read that someone's a bad player
also, if he's a good player he might shove a whiffed hand repping the king so it's call as well~

wat?

Originally Posted by iopq

Originally Posted by sarbox68

Originally Posted by iopq

70BB is like a read that someone's a bad player

maybe he's just learning the "SPR" and wants to make the "SPR" an integral part of his poker approach... so opts for 60-70bb BI as a way to simplify the basics esp in top-pair type decisions.

So I'm biased... I played 50K+ hands with a 60bb BI for exactly that reason and ran 8BB/100. Not fantastic, but I'm not sure I'd call it "bad"...

...SPR

See, I told you 60BB stacks are bad players

Dude, you two posts away from getting beaten down by a transvestite two legged zebra.....

Originally Posted by sarbox68

Originally Posted by iopq

Originally Posted by sarbox68

Originally Posted by iopq

70BB is like a read that someone's a bad player

maybe he's just learning the "SPR" and wants to make the "SPR" an integral part of his poker approach... so opts for 60-70bb BI as a way to simplify the basics esp in top-pair type decisions.

So I'm biased... I played 50K+ hands with a 60bb BI for exactly that reason and ran 8BB/100. Not fantastic, but I'm not sure I'd call it "bad"...

...SPR

See, I told you 60BB stacks are bad players

Dude, you two posts away from getting beaten down by a transvestite two legged zebra.....

that's hot

Thanks stacks, very informative.

Cheers Robb, thing is, i do sometimes expect them to shove the draw but have found usually it aint an unmaid hand they shoving. It's only the odd time i go: wha?? OMG. Like tonight i had AA about ... like 5 times in an hour or something! but anywho, one of them i go it all in, almost full stacked against Q9 where all that had done was pair their 9. Minority case though.

sarbox68, i sort of agree with that sentiment, except i'm not bashing on nits then calling their shove, that i wouldn't do. If a nit shoves i reeeeally want to look hard at my decision. I'm talking about that loose idiot who can't possibly be THAT lose. I've had my big PP beated by 72o before. But yes, fold when we know they have it/it's a coin toss is where i'm at and if i were reeeal good at thin value, i'd be increasing a BB/100, but at the moment these calls are on unsure feet.

70BB is like a read that someone's a bad player

at 10nl $5 or less is the quota, usually $2 or an odd amount. I play 60bb.

Originally Posted by wonderland

I play 60bb.

BOOM! The half-stack read holds true once again!

I play full ring and I'm not particularly well versed with playing short handed, except for when I briefly start tables or join short ones. Without reads, I have a hard time calling that big of an overbet with just TPTK on a paired board. AA, A6, and 33 are the most likely candidates that have you beat and if villain is loose, there are many combinations of 6x that have you beat. Sure, it's possible Kx, 3x, or even something like TT-QQ could show up, but I'd prefer reads before I put the rest of my stack on the line

A big part of forming ranges is playing an opponent often enough to know their tendencies. Without that, I default to a common, average to good player, and most don't make huge over bets with cards you can beat. I'd probably fold.

Some other things to consider. AK is a nice hand, but that's way too big of a 3bet. Against unknown villains, AK is a hand that you don't want to bloat the pot up too big even if you DO hit your hand and especially if you don't.

The flop check is fine, although if you had a read you could take it down, definitely do.

On the turn, betting is generally good here, although, if the pot is that bloated, you might even consider another check. Remember TPTK is generally a hand you do NOT want to commit your stack with UNLESS you have a good read or reason to. Your bet is too large in my opinion. You're likely way ahead or way behind. If you're way ahead, he's likely not going to call a large bet. If you're way behind, he's definitely going to call or re-raise. I'd probably just bet $0.50, which is a little over 25% of the pot and would keep the pot small and extract value when you're ahead.

One last thought: I've heard more than one professional poker player say that IF you don't know how you're going to handle a check raise that you should NOT bet. That doesn't mean you can't bet and fold or bet and call or bet and re-raise, but you should have a plan. It sounds like you didn't have one, so if you find yourself lost again, you should probably just check here.

Jason, i like your approach here. I'd like to know what other people think, the consensus from rather good players seems to be to call, and yet i feel a fold here is good. Hate to not be harmonious with players who are a lot better than me :/

it comes down to... is TPTK good enough to play for 70bb given the player is a fish and can have us easily beat with 6x (K6s would not be out of his range here) AA, 33.

I think i did over bet (i've been betting full pot these days though to fend of the stations) but a check would be strange, no? checking bad a dry flop that i obviously missed, but then my card hits?

Now then.. 3betting? surely we 3bet AK?? what SHOULD have happened is that this idiot raises 56o, gets 3bet by me, notices i've hardly played a hand in like 20 hands, and drops his crap.

Originally Posted by Jason

A big part of forming ranges is playing an opponent often enough to know their tendencies. Without that, I default to a common, average to good player, and most don't make huge over bets with cards you can beat. I'd probably fold.

I disagree here. If you have played a fair amount of hands at any one particular stakes, and yet you do not have any reads or stats on an individual, it is a fair assumption to make that they are not a regular. Sure not all regulars are good, and not all unknowns are terrible. But regulars have at least shown that they are not bustoing (at least not quick). Unknowns on the other hand you simply have treat them as just that... A random. Someone you don't know anything of, other than they aren't a regular. Which usually means either (A) they just moved up, (B) they just moved down, (C) they are a fish. None of those go over well for assuming they are a good player.

Originally Posted by Jason

Some other things to consider. AK is a nice hand, but that's way too big of a 3bet. Against unknown villains, AK is a hand that you don't want to bloat the pot up too big even if you DO hit your hand and especially if you don't.

I disagree again. The 3bet isn't inheriently sized badly. Villain made it 3x, and hero made it 9.5x. The "standard" here is like 9x ($0.90). However, I will agree that a smaller 3bet isn't bad given villain's stack-size. So I'd maybe make it 8x, but 9x is still fine, and I probably auto-pilot 9x at the table.

And AK is definitely a hand you want to bloat the pot with preflop. AK gains it's value from getting allin preflop and seeing all 5 cards. Even against a range of solely QQ+, AK, our AK will have 40% equity. Given that much equity and even a little bit of fold equity preflop, we are going to show a profit 3betting AK and getting it in preflop.

Obviously it's not ideal to 3bet AK and miss the board. But, that doesn't mean our 3bet is any less profitable. We were faced with a decision preflop, and we made the most +EV decision at that time. Everything else we have to deal with when it comes. That isn't to say we shouldn't plan our hand, but obviously our plan involves trying to get as much money in preflop with AK as possible against a villain who is going to not only call a 3bet with tons of hands that are mistakes, but also play generally terrible postflop.

Originally Posted by Jason

On the turn, betting is generally good here, although, if the pot is that bloated, you might even consider another check.

Checking on the turn here is pretty bad imho. Villain's definitely not going to fold any 77-QQ hand to a single bet here, and at this point when he checks to us, those 77-QQ hands along with Kx, Ax hands are his most likely holdings. We are WAY ahead of his checking range, and should definitely be betting the turn for value.

Originally Posted by Jason

Remember TPTK is generally a hand you do NOT want to commit your stack with UNLESS you have a good read or reason to.

Saying you shouldn't commit your stack with TPTK is a blanket statement. I would write another paragraph saying how much I disagree with blanket statements, BUT you did follow it up with "unless you have reads", so I agree. However, I would say having TPTK in a 3bet pot against a 70bb likely fish, on a relatively non-scary board facing a pretty strange line, and a range that you are likely still ahead of, is good enough reason to commit your stack. Or shall I say 70bb of your stack.

Originally Posted by Jason

Your bet is too large in my opinion.

I agree. However, it shouldn't be as small as you are advising imo. Like I said, he just is not folding 77-QQ to a single street of betting. And this goes for most villains that would call a 3bet in this position. Especially on a card that most villains interpret as a scare card "all the time". So bet and get value. He is most definitely calling with worse. I'd bet something like $1.30ish. But I don't think villain's betsize is all that bad, and against this particular player it's prob okay to bet turn even larger like $1.65.

Last thing about Jason's posts... Yes you should always try to plan your hand. But just because you don't know how to respond to a check/raise doesn't mean you shouldn't bet when you are faced with a VERY CLEAR +EV bet. For one, you shouldn't expect to get check/raised in this spot very often. It's just a dryish board, and the majority of villain's will not play this way. You are going to get in tough spots in poker. Avoiding a +EV bet by checking just because a check/raise is going to put you in a marginal spot is going to be incorrect. That's playing defensively, and costing you value (aka money).

Originally Posted by wonderland

the consensus from rather good players seems to be to call, and yet i feel a fold here is good.

Does the fact that villain had you beat this time have anything to do with you believing a fold here is correct? If villain shows up with KQ here, do you laugh at his terrible play, and move on saying "I knew it was a call!"? I'm thinking you do. But I could be wrong.

Originally Posted by wonderland

it comes down to... is TPTK good enough to play for 70bb given the player is a fish and can have us easily beat with 6x (K6s would not be out of his range here) AA, 33.

I would say so.. If you can't put any random bluffs or crazy pp type hands in his range, then this is a fold. It's easily recognizable by doing a bit of pokerstoving, and comparing equity to pot odds. That is you need 32% equity to have a BE call here. If you put him on only {AA/33/76/65/86/A6/KQ/KJ/KT}, then it's a fold. However, against villains this bad, and even randoms that I don't know, I'm fairly certain that is not their only range. I've seen quite a few bad players do this with hands like 77-QQ, Flush Draws, and even bluffs with hands like QJ/AJ/AQ/J9, etc. So given that this villain we have stats telling us he isn't a very good player, I'm willing to call it off here.

Originally Posted by wonderland

Now then.. 3betting? surely we 3bet AK?? what SHOULD have happened is that this idiot raises 56o, gets 3bet by me, notices i've hardly played a hand in like 20 hands, and drops his crap.

Yeah this is what SHOULD have happened. If villain was to play correctly against you, and hence not make a mistake, which would lead to you not profiting in the long run, and leading to losses and further tilt on your end. Get over it. You lost this hand. And now you are cursing him for making a mistake against you preflop? Jeez, what do you want? Do you really want players to play correctly/perfectly against you? If so, I suggest you challenge durrrr/nutsinho/sauce/etc HU4ROLLZ. I'm sure you will have an edge, as they won't be making such terrible plays against you, and playing with ranges that are so unpredictable.

tl;dr...

/Thread

Thanks for your contributions stacks. Much appreciated.

Does the fact that villain had you beat this time have anything to do with you believing a fold here is correct? If villain shows up with KQ here, do you laugh at his terrible play, and move on saying "I knew it was a call!"? I'm thinking you do. But I could be wrong.

That's a very interesting point actually. I'll have to think about that, i'm really not sure. Good question to test one's thinking retrospectively. I often hear players say: i'm happy to shove here. Like on videos. And i think we have to say such a thing before we shove, rather than...umm... call? ok call *shrug*

And yes, of course i should be happy he calls with 56o. You're right, i forget that too often.

Originally Posted by XxStacksxX

Originally Posted by Jason

On the turn, betting is generally good here, although, if the pot is that bloated, you might even consider another check.

Checking on the turn here is pretty bad imho. Villain's definitely not going to fold any 77-QQ hand to a single bet here, and at this point when he checks to us, those 77-QQ hands along with Kx, Ax hands are his most likely holdings. We are WAY ahead of his checking range, and should definitely be betting the turn for value.

I was always a bit confused about the "Big hand, big pot; small hand, small pot," idea. See, what I thought was that it meant actual HANDS (pair, two pair, set, etc.). And based on THESE hands, I would choose to make the pot big/small/whatever.

I think that may be the confusion that others make as well. I never thought of it as "being ahead of villain's range." I always thought, "I may be ahead, but I still ONLY have a pair of aces...I can't be making a great big pot with this."

However, this way of thinking is wrong. As long as we are ahead of villain's range...we want to make the pot bigger, no matter what hand we hold.