River decision - I found it hard

The villain is a 22/13/1.0 guy who seems generally passive and who folds SB to steals 73% of the time.

PokerStars No-Limit Hold'em, $0.25 BB (6 handed) - Poker-Stars Converter Tool from FlopTurnRiver.com

UTG ($32.80)
MP ($25.35)
CO ($26.45)
Hero (Button) ($25.25)
SB ($33.30)
BB ($93.95)

Preflop: Hero is Button with 10, J
3 folds, Hero bets $0.75, SB calls $0.65, 1 fold

Flop: ($1.75) J, 9, Q (2 players)
SB checks, Hero bets $1.50, SB calls $1.50

Turn: ($4.75) K (2 players)
SB checks, Hero bets $3, SB calls $3

River: ($10.75) A (2 players)
SB bets $10.25, Hero ?

Preflop: Standard steal

Flop: pair+OESD with FD on board. While 27% (his calling %) includes a ton of broadways (pairs/two pair/sets) it also includes lots of suited aces and connectors. I think a semi-bluff here is the only possible move. Building pot in case we hit our straight, get value from unpaired hands (like Axs) that we beat with our pair and folding out some hands that may have some equity against us and picking up the dead money.

Turn: We complete our straight and pick up a flush draw (1 out to the straight flush). Two pair hands and sets we now want to get value from and AcXc and other flush draws we want to price out. Our straight is only a K-high straight, so a holding of AT still beats us.

River: Funny card. In a sense both a good and a horrible one. Having it be the Ac that completes the flush eliminates half or more of the possible flush combinations. We now have the A-high straight so anyone holding AT is now splitting with us.

BEFORE betting I put the opponents range at this:
99-QQ, KQ-K9, QJ-Q9, JT, T9

You could well argue that some two pair hands and sets (99, JJ, QQ, KK, KQ, KJ, K9, QJ, Q9) should be discounted as they may have folded the turn facing a 4-to-a-straight.

When a passive opponent chooses to make a bet here that is exactly pot sized ($0.50 off due to rake) it's not just any random hand. I have to at least emphasize KcTc (Royal Flush), Kc9c and Tc9c.

If he were to pick hands to bluff with TcXx hands seem quite obvious as he would have a blocker to the club flush.

The thing is. The exactly pot sized bet from a passive opponent is so uncharacteristic of him that it must denote a very narrow range. With such a narrow range a single combination that we still beat is almost enough to make a call mandatory - and a couple of combos that we split with likewise.

In retrospect I think I may have been wrong to bet my pair+OESD on the flop. If I improve, I might be improving to a second best hand so I might actually have a reverse implied odds hand here. It may have been better to check behind and pick up the aggression on a safe turn (or one that completes the straight)

So what do you think? What's his river betting range?

What's your equity on the river? 20% or so?

With someone so passive taking this line a fold is definitely not a mistake. What's his river aggression like?

Note for the river range I forgot listing AT, which I think is entirely likely. J9 should also probably be included. For Q9 and J9 (and to a lesser extent QT) you could argue that maybe only the suited version should be considered within his range.

If he has exactly KcTc, Kc9c, Tc9c our equity is 0%
If he can also have AsTc, AhTc, AdTc (as an example) our equity is 25%.

That's sort of the point. Because of the super narrow nature of the opponent range our equity varies wildly depending on which specific hands we put in his range.

If he has any hands in his range that we beat we almost have to call because there are so few combos that beat us. If he has even a decent amount of hands that we split with (twice as many as his flush combos) we also have to call.

One could argue that he might have more flush combos in his range, but keep in mind that he would need to have called both flop and turn with them. 7c6c for instance almost certainly folds either flop or turn. AcXc was a likely candidate but made invalid by the river. Aside from the 3 I consider near certain others up for consideration are these in perceived order of likelihood: 9c8c, Tc8c, Kc8c

Flush combos: KcTc, Kc9c, Tc9c (3)
Straight combos with flush blocker (where x denotes non-club): AxTc, KxTc, QxTc, JxTc, Tc9x (14 combos)
Straight combos with no flush blockers: AT, KT, QT, JT, TsTd, T9, T8s (31 combos)
Sets: QQ, JJ, 99 (7 combos)
Two pair: KQ, KJ, K9, QJ, Q9, J9 (45 combos)

Thing is - he has 3 super likely combos of flushes in his range, 3 discounted combos of flushes in his range and 97 or something similar combos of hands that are two-pair or better and of which the question is whether he ever bets any of them here. Only very few of them are needed for the call to be mandatory - do we think a passive player has enough combos of non-flush hands in his betting range that calling is mandatory?

River aggression is not too passive actually - now that you mention it. Bet river (which I think is a first in action so either first to act or after checks) is 2/7 (29%). River aggression frequency is 2/5 (40%) and river aggression factor is 2.0. But sample size is pathetic.

Rather less interesting situation if he's not super passive.

But even so, one thing is a river bet - another is a fully pot sized bet from a passive player. Bet size counts for something?

I can see checking behind the turn, but as played, bet the turn harder. As played, calling the river is kind of close. Really hard for him to have a flush. If there was a big fish at the table I wanted to stay with, I'd just go ahead and fold so I wouldn't end up deep with someone on my left.

Thanks for comments. Right, the turn bet is puny. Need to fix that. Was not a particularly fishy table and I was due to break 5 minutes after anyway.

And yeah, while it's hard for him to have a flush, it's also hard for him not to have it with that bet size and being passive. And the only thing we're really worried about is the flush. If it's not the flush we're up against we have the nuts and are splitting at worst.

With the 97 to 3 combo ratio it's the kind of situation where if you cornered the guy and asked him what hands he'd bet out with on the river he'd swear (and mean it) that he'd never bet out with any of the 97 combos and still - we'd have to allow him human error and only discount them severely - to the point where there's almost enough in his range that we have to consider calling.

I really wanted to fold, because when a passive guy bets out like that he's not weak - but since the range I worried about was so super narrow with him having arrived on the river with a hugely wide range I just couldn't logically justify folding to myself.

curious on the outcome of this hand...

Royal Flush

i mean i fold nearly 100% to someone with those stats who c/c 2 streets and then bets nearly full pot on a river that will almost always affect hero's range and hand strength.

put another way, it looks like hero has a straight alot in this spot after betting flop and turn on such a draw heavy board, if villain checks OOP then alot of the time hero decides not to vbet such a scary river, cos if hero has the lower part of his range (lowish str8s sets or 2 pairs) then he checks behind, and the villain loses alot of value.

all in all it looked value like on the river, these guys dont tend to c/c c/c donk on this texture vs someone who looks like they have a hand with air.

Originally Posted by Erpel

Royal Flush

I'm not that surprised. I was going to post that the one thing I was almost certain the villain had was the 10 of clubs. Didn't know what the other card was, but the 10 of clubs makes the whole line make sense.

had a feeling too... I think you played the hand well, and I'd be just as tempted to call on the river... it would almost feel imposible that he was holding the KTc.
There's so many hands you beat in his range until the river bet. But I have also seen these pot bets on rivers with a split pot or two-pair.
On the opposite side, I think villain played the hand very well too

Well i can't offer any valid advice on the hand as op already spilled the beans but i do have a question. If a loose passive player calls the flop and turn on a wet board then bets out on the river when draw completing card hits is it ever really that big of a mistake to fold

No, it's not.

As I read in a thread around here recently, at the micros assume everyone is passive until they prove otherwise.

The only reason this is not an automatic fold when the club lands and he bets full pot is that the club landing is the ace. He probably has like all 10 AcXc combos in his range and having it be the ace that lands kills off 2/3-3/4 of his possible flush combos. He's down to something like 3 combos and he doesn't need to bet anything else that often before the call is mandatory.

But folding to a passive guy betting out strongly when you hold a strong hand that is not the nuts is rarely a big mistake imo.