Line check vs complete unknown

I just arrive at the table. The way this guy played the hand + his stack size gave me good reason to believe he is a complete donk.

Do you guys like checking back the turn here to induce weaker hands to get bluffy on the river?

This hand was kind of akward based on the effective stack.

PokerStars No-Limit Hold'em, $0.10 BB (9 handed) - Poker-Stars Converter Tool from FlopTurnRiver.com

Button ($10)
SB ($4.65)
BB ($13.85)
UTG ($3.65)
UTG+1 ($5)
MP1 ($4.90)
MP2 ($11.95)
Hero (MP3) ($10)
CO ($6.60)

Preflop: Hero is MP3 with Qhttp://www.flopturnriver.com/phpBB2/...es/diamond.gif, Ahttp://www.flopturnriver.com/phpBB2/...iles/spade.gif
1 fold, UTG+1 (poster) checks, 2 folds, Hero bets $0.50, 1 fold, Button calls $0.50, SB calls $0.45, 2 folds

Flop: ($1.70) Jhttp://www.flopturnriver.com/phpBB2/...iles/spade.gif, Ahttp://www.flopturnriver.com/phpBB2/...iles/heart.gif, 10http://www.flopturnriver.com/phpBB2/...es/diamond.gif (3 players)
SB bets $0.30, Hero raises to $1.20, 1 fold, SB calls $0.90

Turn: ($4.10) 7http://www.flopturnriver.com/phpBB2/...es/diamond.gif (2 players)
SB checks, Hero bets $3, SB calls $2.95 (All-In)

River: ($10) 10http://www.flopturnriver.com/phpBB2/...miles/club.gif (2 players, 1 all-in)

Total pot: $10 | Rake: $0.45

Any thoughts on a range assignment here to this unknown?

Edit: about that flop raise......

I mean if the guy has 2 pair that's tough but I don't think you can do a pretty accurate range of what someone has based off of no hands played before. I think you played this fine.

My biggest concern is my raise on the flop since looking back I'm not sure exactly why I chose to raise other than the fact his bet was small. I mean, I've got a great hand here, but this flop connects with alot of what a villain would generally call a raise with.

I don't have any reads on what his donk bet means so I'm confused on whether its best just to get it in or let him do the betting for me.

After the flop, the stack to pot ratio is 2.44 against the short stacked villain - this is the ideal number for your hand heads up plus position and when you hit your hand, you should be trying to get the money in (versus the short stack, not the button), which you did, unless you have a read to the contrary to not do so, which you didn't. I think you played it great. Why check the turn and allow villain to catch up by hitting a flush, trips, or something else? Why call the flop and allow villain to get away with a small, scared blocking bet?

Had this hand gone down against the lone, larger stack on the button, then, yes, I think a smaller raise or call on the flop would be wise to control the pot size as your SPR would only be about 8. But, "as is", I don't see how you can get away from it unless you had kept the pot smaller pre-flop, which would have not been optimal to begin with unless you have some better reads.

Yeah I would have played this hand completely different vs a big stack.

I've just read PNL section 1 so I, looks like I better get to the part regarding SPR so I'll be less indecisive next time.

Thanks for the input guys

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Micro2Macro

Edit: about that flop raise......

---

I think the hand is played fine, except the flop raise is a bit small. I would raise to $1.75.

The guy overcalled in the SB then led 1/4 pot on that flop... throw the complex stuff out the window and just get the money in. WP.

Yeah, I think the weak lead is pretty indicative. Of what I can only speculate!

Typically weak leads seem to be associated with thinking along the lines of "setting a price" for the next street. Since JT, AJ, AT is certainly in his range, even for a weak lead he does have some value hands backing his range. But the range can easily contain KQ, 98, J9, J8, T9, T8, KJ, KT, QJ etc without him getting out of line with air.

A reasoning for raising should be at least pricing out the draws, so that they make a mistake by calling. The raise size doesn't do that. He needs to call $0.90 more into a pot of $3.2 - he almost doesn't need any implied odds if he has a straight draw that's how cheap a price you give him. For that reason the raise size should be bigger, nearer PSB. For reference the PSB raise is 0.3 * 3 + 1.7 = $2.60 (raise $2.3 TO $2.6). The interim pot from the call is $2.3, so you are actually betting $0.9 into $2.3. A raise to about $1.85 should be fine as that's a $1.55 raise into $2.3 - about 2/3 pot. Unless you are deliberately shooting for a different pot size. But I wouldn't raise to anything below $1.5 here to make sure I at least price out the draws in his range somewhat.

It turns out that the pot size is perfect for getting SB all-in on the turn but if BTN had called and SB folded it would be awkward. I think on this flop with it being rainbow, you having TPGK and a draw to the nut straight eventhough the opponent may have some two-pair hands in his range you are still 100% committed and just looking for ways to get the money in the middle against as wide a range as possible.

Slowplaying a slippery slope, but the main drawback to slowplaying is that it can be awkward to put all the money in the middle in an elegant way by the river (without massive overbetting). Due to the small stack sizes here a case could be made for checking behind on the turn if you think the villain will bet the weaker part of his range on the river or call with a bigger part of his range on the river. You're shoving the river regardless. This argument is contingent on the ifs of course. If he's more likely to call a bet on the turn because there is still a card to come and he still has outs, then the turn is the right street to put the money in the middle. The river could come a perfect diamond flush card and you can see him immediately go all-in. You still call though. You were committed before and due to the large part of his range you are still ahead of that hasn't changed. He can easily be bluffing or think his A7 or KK is good.

The real argument against slowplaying is normally that by slowplaying bigger hands you make the betting of smaller hands (bluffs) less believable and less effective - if your opponent is observant. Odds are, he's not. Odds are - you can make adjustments based on what you think your opponents know about you thus far.

Edited for nonsense