3b pot triple barrel line check 200NL

Small site so no HEM/HUD. Villain is a reg I am playing against for the first time. No real history with him besides standard stuff that has not gotten past a flop or turn.

Blinds $1/$2 NL Hold'em - 6 Max - 2016/02/12 - 23:09:08
Seat 3 is the button
Total number of players: 6
Seat 1: Player ( $ 213.41 USD )
Seat 2: Villain ( $ 347.04 USD )
Seat 3: Player ( $ 107.40 USD )
Seat 4: Hero ( $ 251.46 USD )
Seat 5: Player ( $ 211.52 USD )
Seat 6: Player ( $ 273.82 USD )
Hero posts small blind [$ 1 USD]
Player posts big blind [$ 2 USD]
** Dealing down cards **
Dealt to Hero [ Td, Kd ]
Player folds
Player folds
Villain raises [$ 6 USD]
Player folds
Hero raises [$ 19 USD]
Player folds
Villain calls [$ 14 USD]

** Dealing Flop ** [ 6c, Qc, 2h ]
Hero bets [$ 25.20 USD]
Villain calls [$ 25.20 USD]

Flop: I either C/F or fire multiple times here. I expect to get called fairly lightly on the flop, especially if villain is thinking about floating to take the pot on the turn. Don't have a read on that though.


** Dealing Turn ** [ Tc ]
Hero bets [$ 46.20 USD]
Villain calls [$ 46.20 USD]

Turn: I now beat some of the bottom of his flop call range. Crushed by his turn call range. No reason to assume villain would call two barrels to bluff river.


** Dealing River ** [ 8c ]
Hero bets [$ 160.06 USD]
Villain...

River: I think shoving turns most of his range into a bluff catcher. Without history against villain, I would be surprised to see a light hero call here.


Opinions?

There are a lot of things to think about on this hand.


As played, I agree with this:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sup3rM4N

River: I think shoving turns most of his range into a bluff catcher. Without history against villain, I would be surprised to see a light hero call here.

---

That said, I might have made a different choice on the turn. Hitting second pair on the turn, we have showdown value. I might check the turn in the hopes of keeping the pot from getting too big.


Also, I've been told that I don't 3-bet enough and I guess hands like this are good examples of that. I wouldn't automatically 3-bet from the SB, I might just call the $6 pre-flop cutoff bet.

I'm kind of bummed no one else has chimed in on this yet...interested in hearing what other people think.

I read it but tbh I think this is beyond me. This is advanced bluffing at stakes way beyond mine. All I'd say is I tend to not take these kind of lines against unknowns, but I'd imagine we can respect the average unknown at these stakes more than the average unknown at my stakes. I find this hand interesting, but I haven't really got anything constructive to add.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eric

That said, I might have made a different choice on the turn. Hitting second pair on the turn, we have showdown value. I might check the turn in the hopes of keeping the pot from getting too big.

---

In general, I tend to b/f a lot more than c/c. I might c/c more as I get more history and reads on opponents. In this hand I might c/c if I had a read that villain tends to float 3b cbets light and tries to take away on the turn. But this puts us in a hard spot on the river on a wet board without more info. Is he the type to fire once after floating and give up? Would he fire again if a scare card comes on the river or would he check back with any kind of showdown value?

Or are we jamming some rivers as bluffs after c/c the turn? That would be interesting :p Can't remember the last time I took a line like that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eric

Also, I've been told that I don't 3-bet enough and I guess hands like this are good examples of that. I wouldn't automatically 3-bet from the SB, I might just call the $6 pre-flop cutoff bet.

---

I would flat this hand more from BB than SB and more against BU than CO. From SB I prefer 3bing if reg is on BB and flatting if fish is on BB.

Pretty much needs to fold 47% of his range.

If he's calling turn with JJ it's likely with a club. So 3 combos.
he's calling turn with all TTT (3 combos)
Let's assume pre he's only calling suited KQ, so that's 2 (KQss, KQhh)
Let's assume he calls all AQ pre - 12 combos. 3 of which have Ac.
Not everyone is 4b AK pre, so I think he peels all his AcKx on flop - 3 and all get to river.
I would assume at least 3 combos of Axcc calling pre and then flop.


I think if he gets to river with JJ, he's gonna stubborn call sometimes with his JJc, so maybe 1 out of 3 combos.
TTT will get to river but probably find a fold, so 0 out of 3.
I think all his KQss can fold, so call with 0 out of 2.
Calling with only AcQ, so 3 out of 12.
Calling with all of his AcK - so 3 out of 3.
Calling with all of his nut flush on turn, so 3 out of 3.

So overall, from his turn calling range, I would assume he's calling 10 out of 26, ie: folding 61%. Seems like a decent spot to bluff. If he's calling a ton of Axcc it would proably shift this to a must closer bluff, but he's an unknown so hard to know.

That being said he may also have some other stuff like QJs, QTs (two pairs) that will fold rivers.

Quote:

---

he's calling turn with all TTT (3 combos)

---

There's only one combo of TT from the turn onwards. You've given him 2 more combos of folds than you should have. Not that I think it's gonna be critical here, but I feel I should point it out.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

There's only one combo of TT from the turn onwards. You've given him 2 more combos of folds than you should have. Not that I think it's gonna be critical here, but I feel I should point it out.

---

Thanks! Didn't account for hero's Kd blocker.


Also with regards to your above post that this spot is above you. I wouldn't assume that. This really comes down to just thinking about bet sizing (relative to the pot) more often and what % ppl have to fold to make a spot profitable.

For example if you're betting on a board where you know a ton of hands will call two barrels but probably not a third, then maybe it's better to size flop/turns a bit smaller than normal to ensure the widest range is continuing on those streets before potting on the river (creating a spot where you know they have to continue with 50%, but based on your earlier sizing you are sure that won't be happening).

A lot of this comes down to having a plan for the hand based on the board texture, and sizing appropriately to make sure your plan.. well... goes according to plan!

God I miss poker.

I really liked griffey's analysis because it shows how you should be thinking and using pretty simple math while playing, which is something that almost every recreational player does not do and even a lot of seasoned pros don't do as well (I know I wasn't doing this enough when I was playing fulltime).

I really like the line - my main reason would be that I would think many villains would turn there hands into semi-bluffs with the AcX hands on the turn and just shove over us, so my main worry on the river would be being caught by the nut flushes that were just baiting us on the turn.

As far as Eric's comment about 3-betting pre - a lot of 3-betting comes down to who your opponents are. If you are still playing in the home games that I remember, then 3-betting light has very little value because it just bloats pots against opponents who won't fold. The big profit in those types of games is just letting them pay you off like literally every single time you hit your hand.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by griffey24

Thanks! Didn't account for hero's Kd blocker.


Also with regards to your above post that this spot is above you. I wouldn't assume that. This really comes down to just thinking about bet sizing (relative to the pot) more often and what % ppl have to fold to make a spot profitable.

For example if you're betting on a board where you know a ton of hands will call two barrels but probably not a third, then maybe it's better to size flop/turns a bit smaller than normal to ensure the widest range is continuing on those streets before potting on the river (creating a spot where you know they have to continue with 50%, but based on your earlier sizing you are sure that won't be happening).

A lot of this comes down to having a plan for the hand based on the board texture, and sizing appropriately to make sure your plan.. well... goes according to plan!

---

Thanks, this is an excellent post for me to think about. I guess at my stakes I'm not ever really planning to triple barrel, because I don't expect folds often enough from hands that I probably lay down to three streets of bets. But this is definitely food for thought for me, especially the part about planning the hand, and sizing appropriately. I tend to play hands street by street, it's only really the big value hands where I stop to plan how I'm getting the money in.

Cheers.

Pre: I think this is a very good candidate for flatting, but mixing in some 3!ing with it is fine too. My standard OOP sizing is bigger, but it's an interesting thought to make or SB 3! sizing on the smaller size because the objective is as much about squeezing out the BB with a wide, linear range as it is about valuing/bluffing effectively. So if you're being as linear as 3!ing KTs, then smaller sizing (probably even smaller than this) is a very interesting thought.

Flop: I'm actually running a similar spot through the solver as we speak, so anything I say is a bit of speculation, but ... I tend to think small sizing is gonna do us a lot of favors here. a) We have a big range advantage so we can have a super bet-heavy strategy, b) our obvious value range is mostly KQ+/KK+ (so there are only 3 bad overs) and otherwise we only have to worry about FDs, so betting bigger for protection isn't crucial, c) we can get stacks in with 1/3p, pot, pot, and d) we have all that split pair stuff that plays out a lot easier if they can bet a size that it's for value (especially true with a more mergey preflop strategy.

If we do have a segment of our strategy that bets 2/3p, then this is a good candidate for it because it's shit for barrelling and just wants to take it down OTF.

Turn: I think betting is pretty bad. This turn neutralized our range advantage a lot, so we're going to end up checking a fair bit and protecting that range with some nutty hands. Really don't see any reason to turn dry Tx into a bluff.

River: Well, now that you got here this way, shoving seems super standard. We're going to have very few combos of hands that bet the turn with a draw worse than a club and a made hand worse than Tx, and with how many nut combos we have here, I can't imagine this nudges us into overbluffing. If we're overbluffing here, it's probably more a problem with our turn strategy.