Tough spot - hit set, but two possible draws

Villain is 95/68/38 over 23 hands. No other reads, but his stats say a lot really. His range is so wide, that nothing is out of the ordinary.

PokerStars No-Limit Hold'em, $0.02 BB (6 handed) - Poker-Stars Converter Tool from FlopTurnRiver.com

BB ($2.53)
Hero (UTG) ($3.66)
MP ($3.28)
CO ($4.79)
Button ($4.26)
SB ($4.22)

Preflop: Hero is UTG with ,
Hero bets $0.08, 2 folds, Button raises to $0.14, 2 folds, Hero calls $0.06

Flop: ($0.31) , , (2 players)
Hero bets $0.28, Button calls $0.28

Turn: ($0.87) (2 players)
Hero checks, Button bets $1, Hero folds

Total pot: $0.87 | Rake: $0

With a guy like this you could make an argument for getting all in preflop, though I'd want to have seen favorable table history, over and above stats.

I don't fold this turn. I'd call, and re-evalute the river. If he has you beat, he's going all in on 95% of rivers, and you're just shy of the implied odds to fill-up, so if he's bluffing, like ever, it's a call. I think he can be bluffing a lot here, and I think he can value betting a good deal of weaker hands.

i'd c/r flop, assuming that he like always bets this board.

as played, my first instinct is to lead out (i'll have to play with stove to see our equity against his continuing range, but he's continuing with A LOT of mid pair+gssd, bottom pair+FD, two pairs etc.).

as played, i'd call 'cause even if he's never bluffing, that means we're getting sick implied odds for when we fill up

With him reraising pre I like a c/r on flop. As played though I'd think of leading turn simply cause he is going to bet it I think most times. I'm calling here on turn and they think about river. I think a maniac bets here to often with less then we have.

I don't think the implied odds for filling up are sick. If we were only relying on filling up, our implied odds are just shy of break even.

lemme reword what i said. in the case that he sometimes has bluffs in his range, we are continuing with the best hand + have equity against hands that beat us.

in the case that he NEVER has bluffs in his range, we have sick implied odds because he's always stacking off when we hit

Originally Posted by surviva316

in the case that he NEVER has bluffs in his range, we have sick implied odds because he's always stacking off when we hit

I agree that he's always (or at least 99% of always) stacking off, but let's assume we *must* make at least a full house on the river to win the showdown.

On the turn, stacks are $3.24. Hero checks, and villain bets, and hero must call $1 to win $1.87 immediately, with a chance to win $2.24 - $0.32 rake on the river. Those are implied odds of 1 to 3.79, and the odds of filling up are commonly 1 to 4, which is just to much.

Let's also not forget, we don't win every time we fill up, and get all in, and we don't get all in every time we fill up.

We win a load of other ways, so it's fine, but I don't think implied fill up odds are quite enough. Maybe I'm calculating rake wrong. It's just an academic point.

The lack of ranges in this thread is depressing.

Originally Posted by spoonitnow

The lack of ranges in this thread is depressing.

yeah i never did actually get around to that stoving i said i would do on whether or not to lead out turn. oh well.