[Closed] nl100 SH KK deep vs reg

Yeah it's a really nasty situation. I think you can make a tuff and perhaps ''nitty'' fold on the turn if u decide to check.

=> Because : I think villain himself is also in murcky situation when he has a hand like JJ or even QQ. Because against what hands is he value-betting when he bets the turn with JJ or QQ ? Can he really expect you too check/call worse ? Does he really want to call a check/shove from you with JJ/QQ ?

So following that reasoning I feel a lot of strenght comming from his turn bet, the only thing he could potentially value-bet that we beat is QQ but I believe QQ will check a good amount of the time behind.

I believe this because we are pretty deep + it's a UTG vs BB 3bet situation where ranges are really tight for 3betting and calling 3bets. Ranges are tight and people are not going to be making moves w these positions.

I think if we follow this reasoning we can perhaps play check/fold on the turn ( because we expect JJ/QQ to check behind ) and bet river for value when he checks turn.

Also I doubt JJ/QQ will pay you off on all streets so if we can't get 3 streets of value out of inferior hands that could be another reason for checking turn.

Ofcourse this is all easier said than done and if I would be playing I might not be so disciplined to check/fold and decide to tripple barrel and put QQ to tuff decision. I guess it partially depends if you're image of villain and what your gut feeling is telling you

So I would tripple barrel or check/fold turn.

(The Q river is pretty horrible and everything beats u now. So after the Q river I would be done with the hand and play check/fold in all circumstances)

Thanks for your full and careful response
In fact, the Q didnt change matters in the actual hand, but I should have used it as an "additional" reason to fold - since our hand is dead as a dodo now ♦

Agree with Purity, bet the turn for value!
My plan is bet/bet/bet as well. He would 4bet AA preflop sometimes and raise sets on the flop most of the time so there's not too much we have to be afraid of, but QQ and JJ are perfectly in his range as well as some Tx and big draws.

As played once you check on the turn imo it should be in order to c/r. This is also not a bad plan, but without knowing that he bets his draws on the turn I'd rather bet myself.

Agree with Purity, bet the turn for value! My plan is bet/bet/bet as well. He would 4bet AA preflop sometimes and raise sets on the flop most of the time

Interesting. He had of course TT.
If we take the bet, bet, bet line, are you folding at any point to a raise?

If we are getting away from the hand in case he raises, that's a reason for him not to raise, I suppose. What I mean is, he doesn't need to raise on the flop to get all the money in if we have a hand that we are willing to go broke with (big over pair), so the only reason for raising is to protect against draws. Aside from the flush draw, I can't really have many draws on the flop, can I?

well, it seems like you are saying that I'm not making a mistake in going broke here, but the mistake was to go broke passively - is that right?

Is that because you don't think villain is ever bluffing when we check to him and he bets the turn (so we don't gain any more value from worse hands by checking, but we lose value from worse hands that check behind?)? Or is it because we hand over initiative to our opponent which is just wrong in general?

Ha, people - don´t be paranoid.

He is only calling 3bet IP when players are 150bb deep. He is doing it with all PPs, but even suited connectors, AQs, sometimes even AJs. Regarding AA he is mostly 4betting that 150bb deep, though he can elect to call sometimes (but not likely).

I like your bet on flop. It is not that high and may get calls from worse while not revealing your hand (on the other hand bet 22$ would look like clear overpair going for protection).

On the turn I either bet 45$ or check/shove. He still has many FDs - people and even regs like to bet FD on turn IP. They call C-bet, then see that you don´t follow in aggression and will almost always move on you with FD while they still have some equity.

If he has a set, just say "nh sir" and go for the next one.

Imo decision on turn whether bet (with intention to bet river) or check/shove depends on his aggressivity - if he is betting FDs on turn, just go for check/shove.

Don´t think about folding these hands on turn. You still see yourself ahead and the question is not IF but HOW you get the money in.

actually the most hardest spots for me aswell. Also 200bb deep with biggest raise (when sqzing for example). When villian have exactly call15 rule and Ip could call on set value.

If he has a set, just say "nh sir" and go for the next one.

Why we must play on stacks where in usual raised 100bb pot we're not doing it and playing bet\fold most of the times?
on turn we beat JJ,QQ. most of the strong draws just goin broke on flop with thinking "omg i have nearly flip vs any hand and pot is so large"

I see reasonings in ch\raise turn, but i also can see some in bet\folding it.

Originally posted by VzLOM
actually the most hardest spots for me aswell. Also 200bb deep with biggest raise (when sqzing for example). When villian have exactly call15 rule and Ip could call on set value.

If he has a set, just say "nh sir" and go for the next one.

Why we must play on stacks where in usual raised 100bb pot we're not doing it and playing bet\fold most of the times?
on turn we beat JJ,QQ. most of the strong draws just goin brode on flop with thinking (omg i have nearly flip vs any hand and pot is so large)

I see reasonings in ch\raise turn, but i also can see some in bet\folding it.

I may have been too extreme in my statement. I wanted to say mostly that check/folding is completely out of question. So it is either bet turn or check/shove turn.

Now thinking about scenario when he raises your turn bet, it is very tough, aggree with you. His range gets much thinner if he raises turn. In my experience it would be quite weird if he called FD on flop and then raised it on turn, so his turn raising range is mostly sets and overpairs. So you can surely bet/fold, agree with you. (That´s why check/shove may be better because his betting turn range after your check is much wider than his raising turn range. And I think his bet-turn range is actually even wider than his call-turn range).

Looking up, Bierbaer actually said sth similar. Now regarding the line bet turn and facing his raise on turn I would like to hear his opinion. Imo it is more fold than shove reraise.

I think bet/fold turn is clear on dry board. Here it is actually similar because FD would not probably raise on turn (with FD they either (i) raise flop or (ii) call flop & call turn in HU spot with us).

That´s why check/shove may be better because his betting turn range after your check is much wider than his raising turn range.

agree.

I think bet/fold turn is clear on dry board. Here it is actually similar because FD would not probably raise on turn

this. As you said it so weird line to play fd by calling flop and then raising turn esp while ip.

Originally posted by Tim64
well, it seems like you are saying that I'm not making a mistake in going broke here, but the mistake was to go broke passively - is that right?

Is that because you don't think villain is ever bluffing when we check to him and he bets the turn (so we don't gain any more value from worse hands by checking, but we lose value from worse hands that check behind

I think a general principle can be applied in this situation that is also applicable in a lot of other situations that occur quite often. So it's important you understand this.

Basically if you check => worse hands will check and ''only'' better will bet.
If you bet yourself => worse hands are being put in a tuff situation and are likely to call or fold.

If we take these 2 assumptions together than by checking we lose an incredible amount of money (if we are never check/folding). Because we are paying money to the better hands but we don't get value from hands that are worse.

If you do this 10000000x in your poker carreer than every single time you lose money to better hands you don't make money from worse.

On the other hand if you would bet/bet/bet and put QQ to tuff decision than your longterm EV will be alot better because you get money from QQ and lose money to AA and sets.

And if you check you lose money to AA/sets and lose value from QQ.

(This is offcourse a way of thinking in tricky situations etc.. Obviously if you have some reads your opponent's hand is weak or capable of bluffing than the above reasoning might not be the most profitable )

Yes, very helpful summary - thankyou

I think I may be getting to the bottom of something concerning whether or not to bet when it is our turn to do so and we have a good hand (but not the best possible hand i.e. nuts). Let me check:

statement a): "If no worse hand will call in a given situation then you should not bet, but rather check to induce bluffs/bets from worse hands".

statement b): "If worse hands will check behind when we do not bet, but better hands will bet (and we will be forced to call because of the strength of our hand) we should ourselves bet, since we lose the same amount against the better hands but have a chance of getting value from worse hands."

Now, if I have understood correctly (and leaving aside those special cases when we have reads on villain's tendances) what you are saying is that, if statement a) is does not apply for a given situation then statement b) applies. That is, if there are some worse hands that could call a bet (in our example QQ/JJ/ATs etc.) then we should bet to get value from such hands since we are going to lose value to the hands that beat us (AA, sets) anyway.

In contrast, if we have A :spade:Q and the board is A :diamond:Q :diamond:T :diamond:J we can assume that statement a) applies, no worse hands can possibly call us and therefore we should check (with the intention of calling a bet if our opponent is likely to bluff with worse hands or fold if not)

Do I have it right?

Originally posted by Tim64

Now, if I have understood correctly (and leaving aside those special cases when we have reads on villain's tendances) what you are saying is that, if statement a) is does not apply for a given situation then statement b) applies. That is, if there are some worse hands that could call a bet (in our example QQ/JJ/ATs etc.) then we should bet to get value from such hands since we are going to lose value to the hands that beat us (AA, sets) anyway.

Yeah that's pretty much it. In most situations where you don't really know what to do and if u are never planning on check/folding then choosing the bet/fold line is most likely superior to check/call.

But like I mentioned for example in this particular hand I just have such a strong feeling that villain is rarely bluffing and he also isn't betting JJ/QQ on the turn. So that's why I sometimes might be able to play check/fold ( if I decided to check)

or tripple barrel to put worse hands to a tuff decision ( what I most likely would do ) since we are paying off the better ones anway we also want to get value from the times we are ahead.

Originally posted by Tim64
If we take the bet, bet, bet line, are you folding at any point to a raise?
Edit: I'd probably fold to a turnraise because I can't see any bluffs in his range, he's probably scared with FDs and only calls for his implied odds (or even folds) because he doesn't expect us to fold KK+ which he thinks we have most of the time.

If we are getting away from the hand in case he raises, that's a reason for him not to raise, I suppose.
Yes, but imo he doesn't expect us to fold KK+.
What I mean is, he doesn't need to raise on the flop to get all the money in if we have a hand that we are willing to go broke with (big over pair), so the only reason for raising is to protect against draws. Aside from the flush draw, I can't really have many draws on the flop, can I?
No there aren't any other draws in your range except for A3s/A5s in case you were bluff3betting with them. But they are such a small part of your range (you rarely 3bet them preflop and they only have 4 outs anyway) that he can basically disregard them

well, it seems like you are saying that I'm not making a mistake in going broke here, but the mistake was to go broke passively - is that right?
Yes.

Is that because you don't think villain is ever bluffing when we check to him and he bets the turn (so we don't gain any more value from worse hands by checking, but we lose value from worse hands that check behind?)? Or is it because we hand over initiative to our opponent which is just wrong in general?
It's mostly because he will check back hands like small PPs, JJ and maybe even QQ as well as some draws - so we lose value. Giving up the initiative is not necessarily bad: if his range was wide on the turn we could definitely check to induce some bluffs, but given the preflop-positions his range consists mostly of valuehands, therefore the dead money we create by checking is not sufficient to justify it because the value we lose easily outweighs it.

Originally posted by Tim64
statement a): "If no worse hand will call in a given situation then you should not bet, but rather check to induce bluffs/bets from worse hands".

Most of the time, yes. There is one exception where the opponents range almost only consists of draws that are too weak to call a bet but would not bet themselves. In this scenario you should usually also bet because a check will not gain you anything (ofc some opponents might bluff the river) because he only gets a free card. So you bet to make the opponent fold his equity share and furthermore protect yourself from making mistakes on the river when you check again and he bets (either with busted or completed draws).

statement b): "If worse hands will check behind when we do not bet, but better hands will bet (and we will be forced to call because of the strength of our hand) we should ourselves bet, since we lose the same amount against the better hands but have a chance of getting value from worse hands."

Now, if I have understood correctly (and leaving aside those special cases when we have reads on villain's tendances) what you are saying is that, if statement a) is does not apply for a given situation then statement b) applies. That is, if there are some worse hands that could call a bet (in our example QQ/JJ/ATs etc.) then we should bet to get value from such hands since we are going to lose value to the hands that beat us (AA, sets) anyway.

In contrast, if we have A :spade:Q and the board is A :diamond:Q :diamond:T :diamond:J we can assume that statement a) applies, no worse hands can possibly call us and therefore we should check (with the intention of calling a bet if our opponent is likely to bluff with worse hands or fold if not)

Do I have it right?
The rest looks fine to me.

yep, and imo there are more situations where you bet even if you put your opponent on weaker hands that will surely fold. that is just for the reason that they are not going invest anything anywhere later in the hand unless they hit and suckout on you.

E.g. you open raise JJ from MP1 and got called by SB, who is passive weak opponent. Flop is AT6 and he checks. Now you should Cbet even if you would see his 55 cards face up and know he is going to fold it. The point is zero potential in extracting value, this player will only invest more if he hits his set.

(On the other hand, against aggressive opponent your best option is to check behind and let him bet his worse hands on turn. You call turn and are looking forward to his bluff on river).

Overall either bet/bet/bet or bet check/shove turn, then it doesn't get too tricky and also gives him a chance to bluff/semi-bluff.