Set of 4's faces some odd river aggression

[KeeKoLy]

Villain was 24/15/1.2 over 33 hands. Had not seen him sepecifically play anything a certain way as I was multi-tabling.

PokerStars No-Limit Hold'em, $0.02 BB (7 handed) - Poker-Stars Converter Tool from FlopTurnRiver.com

saw flop

CO ($4.64)
Button ($3.55)
SB ($3.64)
BB ($6.17)
UTG ($1.37)
MP1 ($1.03)
HERO (MP2) ($4.55)

Preflop: HERO is MP2 with 4, 4
2 folds, HERO bets $0.08, CO calls $0.08, 2 folds, BB calls $0.06

Flop: ($0.25) 6, 9, 4 (3 players)
BB checks, HERO bets $0.20, 1 fold, BB calls $0.20

Turn: ($0.65) 8 (2 players)
BB checks, HERO bets $0.65, BB calls $0.65

River: ($1.95) 5 (2 players)
BB bets $2.45, HERO????

[ATOTHEC101]

Played well now fold.

[JR9477]

I'm folding here as well. Looks like he was chasing a flush and hit it on the river.

[surviva316]

you say weird aggression, i say EASILY spotted draw chasing. in y huble opinion, before you start ulti-tabling then you need to be able to spot such obvious reads. you played it right, he played it wrong. fold and let hi feel like he's good for the session

[KeeKoLy]

you say weird aggression, i say EASILY spotted draw chasing. in y huble opinion, before you start ulti-tabling then you need to be able to spot such obvious reads. you played it right, he played it wrong. fold and let hi feel like he's good for the session

An obvious read? I understand this is 2NL, and people will chase without odds, but is this so obvious of a read? He called pot sized bets on two streets with a flush draw?

[Carroters]

Agree this is defo a fold on the river. Although we're mainly worried about a flush here, it isn't "obvious draw chasing" lol there are other sets in his range here that beat us aswell. Certain bad players at micros like to slow play for 2 streets then overbet the pot for value.

We should fold here, but not be thinking: "oh man what a chaser, how obvious, he always always has a flush here, I hate chasers."

We are folding because we are way behind his range for overbetting the pot on the river and don't have the equity we need to call. My point is we need to not think in terms of call + call + overbet on scare card = flush always.

PS the term "obvious draw chasing" really tilts me.

[Ragnar4]

call call, overbet on river when scarecard hits kinda depends on the opponent.

With an aggr of 1.3 I'm way less likely to call here than if opp had like a 4ish aggro.

Also, it depends on prior reads, One of the gals I was sitting with last night abused that strategy, and then had the gall to show me she bluffed me. Then I noticed she was consistently value-betting the river, for .5-.66 the pot when she had a hand of some value.

I started snapcalling her river shoves with bluff catchers, and took her to the cleaners for like 3 stacks before she accused me of being a cheater and storming off.

It was a beautiful read IMO.

[surviva316]

my b. i think i misrepresented my point. i was moreso responding to the title "odd aggression" because at this level this is actually very typical aggression. i didn't mean it how i said it because if there aren't straight possibilities on this board and we have 99 instead of 44 then we have an interesting decision (in other words it's not "obvious hit flush" situation).
as it stands though given the betting line (actually the lesser of the two factors in my read here) PLUS the soaking wet board it is a PROBABLE hit flush situation. add that to the slighter chances of him having a better set and it's a situation.
obviously i know that c/c'ing doesn't mean chasing draws ANYWHERE NEAR one hundred percent of the time but given the board and the overbet on the river we're not in a profitable situation

[bigspenda73]

you played it right, he played it wrong.

thanks Mr. Hellmuth, he played his hand perfectly if OP called.

[celtic123]

you say weird aggression, i say EASILY spotted draw chasing. in y huble opinion, before you start ulti-tabling then you need to be able to spot such obvious reads. you played it right, he played it wrong. fold and let hi feel like he's good for the session

I want to talk bout your M

[KeeKoLy]

So there is nobody here that calls this bet on the end? What is this were a hand at something like 10, 25 or 100NL?

[surviva316]

better put my flak jacket on
spenda: my comment wasn't meant as a "why poker godz? whyyyy?" just the opposite, it was meant as a "meh, shit happens, especially at these limits"

I want to talk bout your M

lol i noticed that after a few posts i've made so far. now i'm pasting "m's" in...kinda a pain in the a$$

[bigspenda73]

So there is nobody here that calls this bet on the end? What is this were a hand at something like 10, 25 or 100NL?

I might call this at a higher level b/c it'd be somewhat possible a thinking villain was turning a worse made hand into a bluff. However, at these levels your typical opponent will not have this play in his arsenal which seriously weights his range to flushes/straights.

[KeeKoLy]

So there is nobody here that calls this bet on the end? What is this were a hand at something like 10, 25 or 100NL?

I might call this at a higher level b/c it'd be somewhat possible a thinking villain was turning a worse made hand into a bluff. However, at these levels your typical opponent will not have this play in his arsenal which seriously weights his range to flushes/straights.

Ok, this is what I wanted to know really. Basically this is a fold at this level because losing this pot is not a big deal with so mouch dead money in subsequent pots. I.e. losing to a bluff at 2NL is not as severe as it might be at higher stakes.

[ArcadianRock]

Fold it. Three scenarios.

1. Flush draw (most likely)
2. Straight Draw (very likely)
3. Hit a set at the end (possible)

The first two are the most likely and like Spenda said...nobody is repping enough for it to be profitable to put a stopper on them.

I also see slow playing here a big hand. If you were putting on the aggression why would he even bother betting? I'm not saying he had a better hand than you, maybe he just had over cards, but that would explain why he didn't want you to check at the end after him and he just put the rest in.

[oskar]

straight draw got there, flush draw got there... opponent is overshoving a huge scarecard for anything but a draw... so I would assume his range is heavily poarized between bluffs and nut hands, and what would he be bluffing with?
Deep stacked is a little different. You can't just pump pot to deny them drawing odds. The implied odds are so good often, especially against nits that can't fold post, that drawing hands become very valueable.

If you're in the habit of betting pot with your nut hands and under pot with c-bets and 2nd pair type hands... well... don't do it.
Just saying because I see that pretty often.

[lytstephe]

IMHO...

Fold.

Tough, but hand well played and it was +EV. By now, a plain o' vanilla 7 beats you. And by the way the hand got played, he's VERY likely not bluffing. (almost nobody at this level bluffs at a 2street bettor.)