$10NL FR with AA and semi scary board

$0.05/$0.1 No Limit Holdem
9 players
Converted at weaktight.com
Replay http://weaktight.com/r590748

Villain is a 26|6. I am wondering if my line is reasonable here or if this is a case where I should of stacked at the flop or turn do to the danger of the board?

Stacks:
UTG Hero ($11.65)
UTG+1 PowderDeamus ($9.70)
MP1 Zalfor ($11.00)
MP2 ShAd09 ($15.30)
MP3 thing93001 ($9.95)
CO I RENE I ($9.95)
BTN pitbullchile ($2.35)
SB nice&lucky ($7.25)
BB MagicFlash ($8.75)

Pre-flop: ($0.15, 9 players) Hero is UTG :ac: :ad:
Hero raises to $0.40 ($11.25), 5 folds, pitbullchile calls $0.40 ($1.95), 1 fold, MagicFlash calls $0.30 ($8.35)

Flop: :as: :qc: :ks: ($1.25, 3 players)
MagicFlash checks ($8.35), Hero bets $1.15 ($10.10), pitbullchile folds ($1.95), MagicFlash calls $1.15 ($7.20)

Turn: :4d: ($3.55, 2 players)
MagicFlash checks ($7.20), Hero bets $3.40 ($6.70), MagicFlash calls $3.40 ($3.80)

River: :ts: ($10.35, 2 players)
MagicFlash goes all-in $3.80 ($0), $3.80 to Hero ($6.70)?

i think we have to call here. villain can easily have lower sets and 2 pair. and 3.80 to win 10.35 is just too good to pass up on

I would have bet a little higher on the flop (say $1.5) to punish a possible flush or straight draw a little more. Otherwise, it looks fine. I'd call on the river. You're probably beat, but it's too small of an all in to scare me off.

love the first 3 streets

lol fck that river card man.

I'm not folding but think there might be good reason for it.

He's not jamming anything but the J (or the flush) into you, so you can fold but I don't think it's a huge mistake to call given pot odds.

Tough Tough spot here.

He could be very well jamming 2 pair or a lower set here trying to represent the flush or straight. Tough spot indeed, but we cant just think that he is jamming the nuts here because it could very well be indeed a bluff or worse hand than ours

at 10NL this is no bluff

but I think u gotta call anyway? oh the irony.

he almost never has a set/2pr after calling turn except for the unlikely AT.

River is really a spot where we probably should be folding even getting the extremely nice price of 3.5:1, however, I tend to call for my sanity, as if I folded and he somehow showed me a bluff I'd break my monitor, and then I couldn't keep on playing.

Bigspenda makes the best point I believe. The call is so much cheaper than a new monitor and the down time!

I ended up calling and he showed KQ.

shiiiiiiiiiiiip

looking at this from the other side , whats the villain likely to have put our hero on from the way they've played this hand. Is it likely its A rag or 99 and lower or flush draw. Would he think you'd have raised AA more pre flop, discount KK and QQ as he knows where 2 cards already are . If its the flush draw, why does he go all in on the river , so is he hoping you have Ace rag or 99 and lower ? But does 99 and lower fit in with hero's bets? It would seem foolhardy to be betting a mid/low pair with AKQ on the board which therefore implies he had hero on top pair and was hoping to extractas many of hero's chips as possible.
is this a valid interpretation?

this is a pretty sick river play for a 10nl opponent (putting you on QQ+,AK/AQ). So, I'm not going to give him credit for turning his 2pr in to a bluff and just assume he's a monkey slamming buttons.

lol I actually had that thought, "what a shitty play for value, but what an amazing play as a bluff!"

Before I got to the results post I thought that the turn play for villain would be odd with a flush or straight draw - even a QsJs (best drawing hand possible) I'm not sure would flat the turn bet. I'm pretty sure it shouldn't call tbh. Both flop and turn play for villain are consistent with "hating it, but have too much hand strength (absolute, not relative) to fold" - two pair kind of fits exactly in there.

River bet could very well be a reaction to him calling scared on the first two streets and now wanting to scare Hero on the river. He's probably not a good enough player that he's done hand range analysis for the hero and understand exactly how poorly off he is.

With regards to Hero's question - I think the line is fine. To stack off on the turn I think the line is probably to overbet the flop maybe as much as $2 and then overbet shoving the turn - but I don't think that's really a better line. While you'll get a lot more folds that way I think your equity is solid enough (even on this flop) that you are looking to maximise the opponents calling chances.

Code:

Board: As Qc Ks Dead: equity win tie pots won pots tied Hand 0: 65.129% 64.52% 00.60% 21719 203.50 { AcAd } Hand 1: 34.871% 34.27% 00.60% 11534 203.50 { AQs+, KQs, QsJs, QsTs, JTs, Ts9s, AQo+, KQo, JTo }

I've put in what I consider a likely range for the villain to continue against your aggression on the flop. I think it's basically the best case for villain equity wise. I included T9s because it has added equity with the straight draw, but none of the lower flush draws as they reduced the overall equity a bit.

Code:

Board: As Qc Ks 4d Dead: equity win tie pots won pots tied Hand 0: 61.430% 61.43% 00.00% 919 0.00 { AcAd } Hand 1: 38.570% 38.57% 00.00% 577 0.00 { AQs+, KQs, QsJs, QsTs, JTs, Ts9s, AQo+, KQo, JTo }

Let's say for the sake of argument that you overbet the pot on the flop and some of the weaker hands in the range fold out as a result. You could now be looking at this:

Code:

Board: As Qc Ks 4d Dead: equity win tie pots won pots tied Hand 0: 43.698% 43.70% 00.00% 423 0.00 { AcAd } Hand 1: 56.302% 56.30% 00.00% 545 0.00 { AQs+, JTs, AQo+, JTo }

Point being - the risk of overbetting is that you fold out the hands that beat you and only the hands with solid equity against you continue. In this hand I think you are strong enough to continue with any normal size bet, but overbetting isn't a great idea.

As played I think we can assume that all the hands from the flop range with two pair or better continue through flop and turn. The QsJs hands might fold the turn, and two of them are eliminated by Ts coming on the river. I'll leave QsJs in.

Code:

Board: As Qc Ks 4d Ts Dead: equity win tie pots won pots tied Hand 0: 53.571% 53.57% 00.00% 15 0.00 { AcAd } Hand 1: 46.429% 46.43% 00.00% 13 0.00 { AQs+, KQs, QsJs, JTs, AQo+, KQo, JTo }

From rough approximations I think we need 23% equity in the hand to call the river bet. If I eliminate hands from the above range to approximate here is one option:

Code:

Board: As Qc Ks 4d Ts Dead: equity win tie pots won pots tied Hand 0: 23.529% 23.53% 00.00% 4 0.00 { AcAd } Hand 1: 76.471% 76.47% 00.00% 13 0.00 { AQs+, QsJs, JTs, AKo, JTo }

So basically if he has a JT, QsJs, AK or AQs exactly we are about breakeven - any more hands in his range (of the two pair variety which I think is pretty likely) and we have to call.

We could go the other way... including more hands with straight and flush draws (that both got the wrong price especially on the turn to continue in the hand). I'm not going to do that exercise, but suffice it to say that if the opponent has played a straight or flush draw to this turn bet he's taken a -EV decision there which your river call does not justify - so by calling the river the villain has still taken the worst of it.

The only real argument here is if my estimate that a lot of two-pair hands continue is too generous to you. Some posters prior to me didn't think two-pair hands were possible at all - this is something I'd tend to disagree with especially at these limits where relative hand strength isn't well understood. Also your line could just as easily be TT or JJ playing for fold equity as a semi-bluff - a two pair hand doesn't need to assume that it's beaten.

Quote:

Originally Posted by bigspenda73

River is really a spot where we probably should be folding even getting the extremely nice price of 3.5:1, however, I tend to call for my sanity, as if I folded and he somehow showed me a bluff I'd break my monitor, and then I couldn't keep on playing.

This.

Nice call :)

After looking a bit at that river i might think he had 3 of a kind 10.

But ofc, I'm not sure, and i think i would do the call without any thinking, the hand is to good to fold.

If it shows up that he have the straight, then you must just learn by your mistake and bet more next time.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sabr1988

After looking a bit at that river i might think he had 3 of a kind 10.

Do me a favour, look a bit more then explain to me why it's reasonable for a pair of tens to call the flop bet and the turn bet.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sabr1988

But ofc, I'm not sure, and i think i would do the call without any thinking, the hand is to good to fold.

When you say the hand is too good to fold, is that because three of a kind is too good to fold? Is your three of a kind the same strength on this board as it is on a board of As Qc 7h 5d 2h? Explain the difference? What about As Qc Ks Ts Td? And why?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sabr1988

If it shows up that he have the straight, then you must just learn by your mistake and bet more next time.

When you learn by your mistake... what makes you think it's a mistake, and what is it that you think you are learning by it? This statement is an example of the worst kind of results oriented thinking.

Here's another exercise. I notice in my analysis post above that I made some mistakes - there is one huge glaring hand range mistake - tell me what it is. Then tell me how it affects my conclusions.

Argue for me please if you think more or fewer straight draws should be in the hand range, if more or fewer flush draws should be in the hand range and if more or fewer two-pair hands should be in the hand range for the villain?

against donks it's a mandatory call because they may just think omg AT is good here

Quote:

Originally Posted by Erpel

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sabr1988

After looking a bit at that river i might think he had 3 of a kind 10.

Do me a favour, look a bit more then explain to me why it's reasonable for a pair of tens to call the flop bet and the turn bet.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sabr1988

But ofc, I'm not sure, and i think i would do the call without any thinking, the hand is to good to fold.

When you say the hand is too good to fold, is that because three of a kind is too good to fold? Is your three of a kind the same strength on this board as it is on a board of As Qc 7h 5d 2h? Explain the difference? What about As Qc Ks Ts Td? And why?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sabr1988

If it shows up that he have the straight, then you must just learn by your mistake and bet more next time.

When you learn by your mistake... what makes you think it's a mistake, and what is it that you think you are learning by it? This statement is an example of the worst kind of results oriented thinking.

Here's another exercise. I notice in my analysis post above that I made some mistakes - there is one huge glaring hand range mistake - tell me what it is. Then tell me how it affects my conclusions.

Argue for me please if you think more or fewer straight draws should be in the hand range, if more or fewer flush draws should be in the hand range and if more or fewer two-pair hands should be in the hand range for the villain?

Well i have to say one thing, I'm not good at english at all, and the most things you write about i can figure out what they mean.

It was just a thought that he had TT, he kept calling and last when the T came he went AI, but ofc., it could also been JT or Jx, but, as i said, i would act.

And again, i cant understand good english, so i cant comment. If you were danish i would not have any problem. :)

BTW. iopq's comment, read that, and you may understand me.

Quote:

Originally Posted by bigspenda73

River is really a spot where we probably should be folding even getting the extremely nice price of 3.5:1, however, I tend to call for my sanity, as if I folded and he somehow showed me a bluff I'd break my monitor, and then I couldn't keep on playing.

I have this problem alot. Scary river and villian pushes. Is my flush spanked by a full house? Has my set gotten spanked by a flush? But I've got 3:1 odds.

Do you generally call or fold? I generally call and when I see the boat/flush I think "Why the hell did you call you idiot? You knew he had the cards" I've never had anyone show their bluff but they will show their flush/boat.

This past weekend I generally folded to this and was up 4 BIs. Yesterday I didn't so now I'm down 3 BIs. I think I continue with the former.

Quote:

Originally Posted by bigspenda73

this is a pretty sick river play for a 10nl opponent (putting you on QQ+,AK/AQ). So, I'm not going to give him credit for turning his 2pr in to a bluff and just assume he's a monkey slamming buttons.

Rather surprising results. I can't believe he would actually attempt a bluff for a little over 1/3 pot (ie expect you to fold a better hand, especially in the heat of the moment). His reasoning was probably more like "I'm confused.. the pot is so big.. meh I have 2 pair I'll just put the rest in and hope for the best."

yup, monkey slamming buttons

Quote:

Originally Posted by jackvance

He's not jamming anything but the J (or the flush) into you, so you can fold but I don't think it's a huge mistake to call given pot odds.

Quote:

Originally Posted by speedcake

at 10NL this is no bluff

Quote:

Originally Posted by bigspenda73

River is really a spot where we probably should be folding even getting the extremely nice price of 3.5:1

The comments from before results indicated a belief that folding was the correct play - this alone makes a bluff a possible play. The villain may have grasped intuitively (and for right or wrong reasons) that the Ts was a perfect card to bluff at. Sometimes people play on instincts and make correct choices more by mistake than anything else, but that doesn't mean that the result doesn't matter. I know most everyone concluded that regardless of folding perhaps being the right move - we HAVE to call - but just the way we seriously contemplated folding suggests that there is fold equity in the villain's shove.

Anyway - any straight or flush draw was -EV if calling the turn. No basic EV calculation that people at these limits are capable of would suggest that calling would be profitable.

At these limits you're much more likely to see people falling in love with absolute hand strength and ignoring relative hand strength - making two pair and lower sets all likely hands. I think AT and AJ are likely folding on the turn and KQ hands calling - you can tell me that it doesn't make sense from an equity point of view, but it would make sense to someone playing those limits - it's made! I still find it more likely to have a villain here married to a two pair or lower set hand and calling turn than calling turn on a draw since he doesn't have odds to do so.

Since we bet so hard we seem to want to price out drawing hands indicating we might have top pair + draw, two pair or set. The fact that villain could suspect us of having set doesn't prevent him from calling turn hoping we have a draw instead - on river villain can change opinion completely and decide we had a set and that we'll be scared by the river card that completes straights and flushes. Villains at these limits do not conduct proper hand range analyses and can change view completely about what you are holding from one street to the next. MUB etc.

I think we're alternately giving the villain too much and too little credit in this thread, and I think we're generally not succeeding in getting into his head. Even a monkey slamming buttons has some buttons he'll slam more than others.

Anyway, the error in the analysis bit I did earlier left out lower sets completely - that's 6 hand combinations. As the river analysis showed it takes 4 hand combinations only to offset the value of all JT hands (and QsJs) and make calling breakeven. With lower sets in the villain range (as I think they should be along with all the two-pair hands) this is even more a must-call.