Classic mistake illustrated to learn from

BB in this hand is a Laggish 28/18, who gets quite aggressive postflop (25% donkbet and 20% raise cbet).

No-Limit Hold'em, $0.50 BB (6 handed) - Hold'em Manager Converter Tool from FlopTurnRiver.com

BB ($37.35)
UTG ($20.45)
MP ($29.65)
Hero (CO) ($47.90)
Button ($49.25)
SB ($49.50)

Preflop: Hero is CO with Qhttp://www.flopturnriver.com/phpBB2/...iles/heart.gif, Qhttp://www.flopturnriver.com/phpBB2/...iles/spade.gif
UTG calls $0.50, MP calls $0.50, Hero bets $2.75, 2 folds, BB calls $2.25, 1 fold, MP calls $2.25

Flop: ($9) 7http://www.flopturnriver.com/phpBB2/...es/diamond.gif, 7http://www.flopturnriver.com/phpBB2/...miles/club.gif, 9http://www.flopturnriver.com/phpBB2/...iles/heart.gif (3 players)
BB bets $9, 1 fold, Hero calls $9

Turn: ($27) 2http://www.flopturnriver.com/phpBB2/...iles/spade.gif (2 players)
BB bets $25.60 (All-In), Hero calls $25.60

River: ($78.20) 8http://www.flopturnriver.com/phpBB2/...iles/heart.gif (2 players, 1 all-in)

Total pot: $78.20

Results:
BB had 10http://www.flopturnriver.com/phpBB2/...iles/spade.gif, 10http://www.flopturnriver.com/phpBB2/...miles/club.gif (two pair, tens and sevens).
Hero had Qhttp://www.flopturnriver.com/phpBB2/...iles/heart.gif, Qhttp://www.flopturnriver.com/phpBB2/...iles/spade.gif (two pair, Queens and sevens).
Outcome: Hero won $75.20



The mistake? Sure his TT looks kinda good as an overpair, but when he donks pot like that, the only possible hands that call him which he beats are some kind of 9X hands, and thats not always going to happen. So is he bluffing or value betting? Hard to call it value betting when only better hands call, but hard to call it a bluff when he has decent showdown value?

Its a classic case of "my hand seems good, I'll bet!" without giving any real thought to value, and what kinds of hands call.

nice hand

can I have my money back now?

this is also why we stack off with AA on a lot of low card flops. sure, we pay off sets but poor players will get it in with overpairs that are still below our AA

Well, the conventional wisdom is that in a 3bet pot you can sometimes check when you would otherwise bet for pot control and sometimes bet smaller and accomplish the same folds without risking more chips. Bet size can also generally be smaller on a dry flop. The flop is paired and rainbow (which is dry) and connected around medium cards which is wet in a raised pot, but semi-dry in a 3bet pot (people unlikely to 3bet or call 3bets with T8)

In other words - coming into the flop I would expect any bet to be around 1/2 pot or so. The straightforward interpretation of a full pot size bet is that he wants us to fold. If he felt good about his hand and wanted to extract value he'd almost certainly have chosen a different bet size (because he wants us to call and the flop is unlikely to have improved our hand). The question I then ask myself is - given that he wants me to fold, do I feel good about the strength of my hand?

I know I didn't actually say the words hand range in the above, but it ties in closely with ranges. What range of hands is he betting small with (hands that want to get called - strong hands betting for value) - what range of hands is he betting big with (AK, TT, JJ type hands that are strong but vulnerable and would prefer to see the fold and not be put to the test).

It's really poor thinking on villain's part. If this is how he plays 3bet pots he would be better off folding TT preflop to a 3bet. I'm not much better myself. I think given opponents situation here I'd probably plan to bet/fold, check/fold, check/fold with the bet on the flop being 1/2 PSB. Check/call with TT in a 3bet pot seems suicidal. With TT we have showdown value but can't bet for value very often.

This isnt a 3-bet pot, its a large PF raise after 2 limpers.

Beautifully played (by you).

If he is LAGgish, he will 3bet you with KK or AA maybe AK. If he isn't LAGgish, he should also be doing this, but there isn't always a guarantee for that. So the only hand that beats you here is 99. If he did have 99, he would most likely be checking or 1/2 betting this flop like Erpel said. He overbets for the fold and you call both overbets.

NH mate.

Just to clarify he played the flop alright, it was the turn where he...sucked right?

Awesome post.

To make sure I understand this.

When deciding to bet we should ask ourselves a few questions. The main ones being:
- Will worse hands call this bet?
- Will better hands fold to this bet?

If the answer is yes to either.. its usually best to bet. If the answer is no to both.. why the f@#$ would we bet?

Once we decide to bet, we then have to choose the bet sizing.. whatever size we think gets the most value through calls we want and fold equity we think we have when we want them to go away.

Other related questions are:
Do we have showdown value?
Will betting get the most value overall or will checking underep and get us more value on later streets? (Can we likely induce a bluff?)

Am I missing anything?

close outlaw. In this example, there are worse hands that call the bet, the problem is the ratio of worse hands that continue compared to better hands

to do some range analysis to help illustrate, lets say BJ raised with the following range
{A9s+, KJ+, 55+}
maybe thats accurate...who knows.
on the flop, what hands here call a psb on such a dry flop?
{A9, TT+, 77, 99}
A9 is a worse hand, but the rest are not. So he bets, and gets a single worse hand to call but also forces BJ to continue with only the top of his range, which royally fucks villain. He misses value from all those worse hands that BJ just folds and makes it so that a large majority of his calling range is better hands.

There is an arguement to bet the flop, there may be more combos in BJ's range that fold than continue and it may be +EV depending on bet size, (i didnt actually calculate it). The problem is that this turns TT into a bluff, IE, those hands that call beat TT. However, those that fold were worse than TT...so the hand had a good chunk of equity that turned to shit once he bet the hand because BJ's cbet range is much widerthan his calling range. im explaining this horribly but thats the jist

Yeah, its kind of hard to explain JKDS. It goes beyond "do I bet or not" and more "where is my value in this hand?". Lets turn it around and look at how I played it for example. I'm probably ahead here, but if I'm not I'm probably crushed drawing to 2 outs at best. Now lots of people would just jam the flop "because I'm probably ahead". Now Erpel reckoned the flop was wet, I disagree. Chances of him having any draw better than a gutshot is really small. So his range is 99, some 7X, maybe 9X, TT+ and air. Remembering I have reads and history that suggest a fairly high likelyhood of air. Its possible he has AA/KK and is spazzing out on a flop he doesnt like, that happens. Anyway, like I say, a lot of people raise/jam flop because they like their hand in my position, but all that does is fold his air. Possibly I get called by TT/JJ or 9X, but most of his calling range beats me. My 'value' comes from calling and giving him a chance to continue with his air as well as the hands I'd have gotten in against anyway. There may even be a chance he'd fold TT/JJ/9X to a shove but will bet them again. So the play of calling gives me the chance to get in against a wider (weaker) range than raising does.

Only reason to bet here would be protection, but a PSB donk 4-way is a pretty poor way to do that. Even if I have two overcards, thats only 6 outs, so around 25% chance of improving, and thats only part of my range, not to mention he acts first. The limp/caller (I didnt give stats on him) is like 60/5. He can turn up with a 7X hand here which makes leading a possible disaster, whereas with position I have the advantage of seeing him fold and knowing I only have a LAG I've seen bluff a lot in the hand.

Having an intention behind your bets (other than, "I hit!") is one of the harder concepts for people to learn I think. When I finally had the "I'm only getting called if I'm beat" epiphany it did wonders for my game. Good post OP

good post bjs. I think the point to learn from it is that when vbetting, you need to be greater than 50% against his CALLING range for your bet to be +EV. Being more than a 50% favourite against villain's range before you bet is not enough to make betting ok if they're folding all the hands you beat when you bet!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by badgers

good post bjs. I think the point to learn from it is that when vbetting, you need to be greater than 50% against his CALLING range for your bet to be +EV. Being more than a 50% favourite against villain's range before you bet is not enough to make betting ok if they're folding all the hands you beat when you bet!

---

Even further is if the villain is likely to raise with his continuing range we need even more equity.

What are you doing if turn is 6,8,9,T or J and he plays the same way?

I cant think of a card that would make me fold v's this guy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Illfavor

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by badgers

good post bjs. I think the point to learn from it is that when vbetting, you need to be greater than 50% against his CALLING range for your bet to be +EV. Being more than a 50% favourite against villain's range before you bet is not enough to make betting ok if they're folding all the hands you beat when you bet!

---

Even further is if the villain is likely to raise with his continuing range we need even more equity.

---

i dunno if this is true unless we expect villain to raise with hands worse than ours for value. If villain only raises the top of his range (which is obv normal) then we still only need 50% unless he's going to be bluff raising etc.etc. poker is complicated..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by badgers

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Illfavor

Even further is if the villain is likely to raise with his continuing range we need even more equity.

---

i dunno if this is true unless we expect villain to raise with hands worse than ours for value. If villain only raises the top of his range (which is obv normal) then we still only need 50% unless he's going to be bluff raising etc.etc. poker is complicated..

---

I should have clarified, as what I said was only for situations *when we'll be folding to a raise from his continuing range, and that range is still substantial. I think that makes more sense. It doesn't really relate in this case b/c we're stacking off against this guy on the flop, but it can in other cases I suppose.

fantastic thread.

if roles were reversed, what would be the correct way to play the pocket 10s?

check/call the flop, or check/raise to find out where you are (assuming no reads beyond competent villains)?

i vote check/raise because it yields more information, but I'm a fish so I would like a better players' take.

again, great thread.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mormannorman

fantastic thread.

if roles were reversed, what would be the correct way to play the pocket 10s?

check/call the flop, or check/raise to find out where you are (assuming no reads beyond competent villains)?

i vote check/raise because it yields more information, but I'm a fish so I would like a better players' take.

again, great thread.

---

Check raising here isn't a good play as it costs you a lot of money over the long run, and forces your opponent and yourself to be pot committed. When you're out of position, you really want to try to avoid playing big pots with marginal hands.

Better lines in this situation may be:
Bet, c/c, c/c or c/f
c/c, bet, c/c or c/f

Realize that if we c/c, bet turn here, you risk about the same amount of chips as a check raise, but you get to see an extra card, and two overcards would likely fold to this bet and you'd extract the same amount of information.

I love it when players do this. You don't have to do anything at all and you stack them. As Layne Flack says, "Why do they pushing, when the donkey does the pulling?"

At no point do I bet (or raise) in this hand if I'm villain (unless I hit a T).

I probably c/c flop and likely c/f turn depending on reads. We want to get to showdown cheaply.