5NL FR- AKs in the HJ vs UTG+1 donk - 140bb deep

[daviddem]

edit: sorry I am CO, not HJ - if a mod could change the title?

Opp is 45 / 5 / 2.0AF over 21 hands.

I feel the small donk bet on the flop is more often than not begging for a cheap card with a draw or weak ace, plus I want to iso him so I think a raise is in order? Probably have to fold if he reraises though.

More potential draws on the turn and his range stays the same after he checks. 2/3rd PSB b/f seems right?

The river is really where my question is. After he called the turn and checked the river, I feel his range consists of busted draws, flushes and weak aces. His 2.0 AF tells me he is not completely passive, so I would think he would have raised two pairs or a set before the river.

So here is what I have for his call-a-shove range (basically all his heart flush combos which he would possibly have called the flop raise with, plus his TPTK/TPGK hands, plus A5):
AJs+,Ah9h,Ah8h,Ah6h,A5s,Ah3h,Ah2h,KhQh,KhJh,KhTh,Q hJh,QhTh,JhTh,Th9h,9h8h,AJo+,A5o

Against this range, I have 48% equity. I guess it is also questionable whether he calls a shove with TPGK on a 3-flush board and after having been barreled into twice already. However it is probably also questionable whether he would check the river when he hits a flush, but I would not exclude it.

Looks like a check behind to me. I don't feel that stacking off 140bb deep with just a pair is correct here?


Full Tilt No-Limit Hold'em, $0.05 BB (6 handed) - Full Tilt Converter Tool from FlopTurnRiver.com

saw flop

Hero (CO) ($9.26)
Button ($2.62)
SB ($4.95)
BB ($5.14)
UTG ($5)
MP ($7.10)

Preflop: Hero is CO with A, K
1 fold, MP calls $0.05, Hero bets $0.25, Button calls $0.25, 2 folds, MP calls $0.20

Flop: ($0.82) A, 10, 7 (3 players)
MP bets $0.15, Hero raises to $0.90, 1 fold, MP calls $0.75

Turn: ($2.62) 4 (2 players)
MP checks, Hero bets $1.70, MP calls $1.70

River: ($6.02) 5 (2 players)
MP checks

Hero?

[Mr. Bucket]

Checking river seems like a huge loss of value for two reasons.

1. As you said some non 0% of the time he will lead his flushes. For this reason his flush combos should be discounted. Ie. lets say a villain that we have this amount of information on would lead his flushes 30% of the time. If this were the case to find the proper amount of equity we have against his range we would multiply the number of combos of flushes by .7 (100%-30%).

2. I see know reason why weaker aces would not be in his calling range. Even if this villain would fold A4 some percent of the time, you don't have information to tell you he would every time. Also you obviously see him having these hands in his range because you included A5 in his shove calling range.


Finally i feel you cannot take sets and 2 pairs out of his range because lol sample for AF. Still, its going to be a shove due to all the A2-AT combos you left out of his calling range.

[daven]

bet turn bigger, he has a spade draw heaps with this flop-turn line, and he won't be folding his Ax either. All Ax are in his range on the river, including all the 2pr options.

[daviddem]

Checking river seems like a huge loss of value for two reasons.

1. As you said some non 0% of the time he will lead his flushes. For this reason his flush combos should be discounted. Ie. lets say a villain that we have this amount of information on would lead his flushes 30% of the time. If this were the case to find the proper amount of equity we have against his range we would multiply the number of combos of flushes by .7 (100%-30%).

2. I see know reason why weaker aces would not be in his calling range. Even if this villain would fold A4 some percent of the time, you don't have information to tell you he would every time. Also you obviously see him having these hands in his range because you included A5 in his shove calling range.


Finally i feel you cannot take sets and 2 pairs out of his range because lol sample for AF. Still, its going to be a shove due to all the A2-AT combos you left out of his calling range.

Just to be clear, I put A5 in his range because the 5 came on the river, so he wouldn't have had an opportunity to raise his two pairs before that (OK, you could argue that he would sometimes lead out the river with two pairs).

Still not sure he calls a shove without having a flush because if I shove, I have one 100% of the time, don't I? I mean altogether it would be really retarded from him to stack off here with A2 following the action and on this board.

But you're probably right that I am being too conservative. As you said he leads his flushes a non zero % of the time, and he may well be unable to fold TPGK.

So here is a calling range with all the Ax and two pairs and flopped sets. Even without discounting the flushes, I get 57% equity, obv. more if I discount them:
AA,TT,77,A2s+,KhQh,KhJh,KhTh,QhJh,QhTh,JhTh,Th9h,9 h8h,A2o+

[Mr. Bucket]

Just a little more talk about weighting ranges:

Also warning sizing is terribad by me in this hand
Villain is fish 35/0 over 20
PokerStars No-Limit Hold'em, $0.10 BB (5 handed) - PokerStars Converter Tool from FlopTurnRiver.com

SB ($15.14)
BB ($9.62)
UTG ($54.34)
Hero (MP) ($24.18)
Button ($10.42)

Preflop: Hero is MP with K, A
1 fold, Hero bets $0.40, 1 fold, SB calls $0.35, BB calls $0.30

Flop: ($1.30) 4, K, 5 (3 players)
SB checks, BB bets $0.30, Hero raises to $1.40, 1 fold, BB calls $1.10

Turn: ($4.10) 5 (2 players)
BB checks, Hero bets $2.50, BB calls $2.50

River: ($9.10) J (2 players)
BB bets $5.30 (All-In), Hero?


K so in this hand we get to the river and in reevaluation we may need to construct a range here for our villain. Here he can probably have a flush, a FH, a king, or some other random combo. Thing is when we weight each portion of his range we need to realise he's probably playing this way very often when he has a flush/FH (well jj atleast) , but he's playing kings this way much less frequently. This makes the math alot trickier, but for evaluating this kind of spot accurately, we need to take out combos of like kx due to the unlikelyhood that he plays it this way.

Picking how many combos to take out is where things start getting really really fuzzy. One method is to if for example we assumed villain played a king this way 10% of the time we would take out 90% of the kings in his range. Problem with this is it skews our range because we would next need to multiply the % he plays other hands in his range like this times their number of combos.

Basically best we can do is make educated approximations and get as close to the true equity of our decisions as we can.

[daviddem]

Just a little more talk about weighting ranges:

Also warning sizing is terribad by me in this hand
Villain is fish 35/0 over 20
PokerStars No-Limit Hold'em, $0.10 BB (5 handed) - PokerStars Converter Tool from FlopTurnRiver.com

SB ($15.14)
BB ($9.62)
UTG ($54.34)
Hero (MP) ($24.18)
Button ($10.42)

Preflop: Hero is MP with K, A
1 fold, Hero bets $0.40, 1 fold, SB calls $0.35, BB calls $0.30

Flop: ($1.30) 4, K, 5 (3 players)
SB checks, BB bets $0.30, Hero raises to $1.40, 1 fold, BB calls $1.10

Turn: ($4.10) 5 (2 players)
BB checks, Hero bets $2.50, BB calls $2.50

River: ($9.10) J (2 players)
BB bets $5.30 (All-In), Hero?


K so in this hand we get to the river and in reevaluation we may need to construct a range here for our villain. Here he can probably have a flush, a FH, a king, or some other random combo. Thing is when we weight each portion of his range we need to realise he's probably playing this way very often when he has a flush/FH (well jj atleast) , but he's playing kings this way much less frequently. This makes the math alot trickier, but for evaluating this kind of spot accurately, we need to take out combos of like kx due to the unlikelyhood that he plays it this way.

Picking how many combos to take out is where things start getting really really fuzzy. One method is to if for example we assumed villain played a king this way 10% of the time we would take out 90% of the kings in his range. Problem with this is it skews our range because we would next need to multiply the % he plays other hands in his range like this times their number of combos.

Basically best we can do is make educated approximations and get as close to the true equity of our decisions as we can.

Not sure what you mean here. If he plays a naked K like this only 10% of the time, just assign him 10% of all the Kx combos in Pokerstove, no? Yes it skews the range, but that is what you want to do, right?

[Mr. Bucket]

The problem is he isn't playing the other parts of his range this way 100% of the time. For example, maybe he c/c's JJ like 50% of the time. If we take out 90% of the kx combos and leave all the JJ combos then the range we are evaluating our equity against is weighted more heavily towards JJ than it should be.

The problem is it would take so much time and there would be so much guess work in estimating what percent of the time villains play different parts of their range the way they did that in reality what we should do in this spot is take some (not 90%) of the kx combos out of his range and call it a day.

Basically we are cutting hairs at this point.


"If he plays a naked K like this only 10% of the time, just assign him 10% of all the Kx combos in Pokerstove, no?"