[Closed] 99 set, turn betsizing

I think u should not be c/r this flop except if u have a really aggro style( u should always write ur stats and history with vilain when u post a hand so we can approximatly guess ur perceived range)

Because when u c/r this flop, u only rep AJ,99 or strong draws( KQs)
( which is good) but the problem is that u can't rep any bluff when u call a MP player( 17% open) in SB because u should not be calling stuff like QT,KT,T8, 65s 45s,etc

And if u call theses, u should n't because except if u have soul reads on this guy, u can't play theses profitably vs a 17% open range and the BB to play.( chance to get squeezed)
( A 17% range consists of smth like A5s+,KT+,AT+,QJs,22+)
So, except if u turn low pairs into bluff and he knows it, then u can c/r

When u c/c, u rep stuff like AT,AQ,KQ,TT, maybe low pairs, so u allow him to barrel what is kind of a weak range

Then, depending on turn cards, u can c/r if u think he will perceive that as bluffy or maybe even c/r river and rep poor hands turned into bluff

feel free to argue with me

Hey beardsell,

thanks for the input. I agree that c/c would be better cause my percieved range c/r range is strong. Would you consider c/r low pairs on this Flop since we have so much FE? On the other hand this villain just cbets 50%. So maybe we should not c/r bluff him to much.

His wts is 36% so c/r flop, bet T, bet R is std line vs. this villain imo. And what comes to betsizing on T, bet big enough to set up stacks for R.

Originally posted by farbenstaedter
Hey beardsell,

thanks for the input. I agree that c/c would be better cause my percieved range c/r range is strong. Would you consider c/r low pairs on this Flop since we have so much FE? On the other hand this villain just cbets 50%. So maybe we should not c/r bluff him to much.

well yeah, what i said apply to good regs of Nl 400 that are capable of bet/folding hands like AK on that flop but like sheventshenko pointed out, this guy has 36% wts on 2.6k hands which is insanely huge so id go with c/r, bet, get it in

He will probably think u have some kind of draws of bluffs there even though u have none and will be calling down, AK,AQ,AJ, etc

on the other note, I guess u could be c/r low pairs vs good players if u want to balance hands like 99 on this kind of board but I think in this spot, c/c 99 is better,( which means no c/r range),
it makes ur c/c range way stronger because he will sometimes try to barrel u of hands like TT,AQ,ATs so it will make him less inclined to bluff u out

Originally posted by farbenstaedter
Hey beardsell,

thanks for the input. I agree that c/c would be better cause my percieved range c/r range is strong.

hi farbenstaedter,

Against this guy, I'd either bet-bet-bet vs passive player or CR-bet vs aggro player. Never c/c on this flop.

Cheers,
Michal

Originally posted by sapheal

Originally posted by farbenstaedter
Hey beardsell,

thanks for the input. I agree that c/c would be better cause my percieved range c/r range is strong.

hi farbenstaedter,

Against this guy, I'd either bet-bet-bet vs passive player or CR-bet vs aggro player. Never c/c on this flop.

Cheers,
Michal

Beardsell, I hate you ♦ Just to let you know (DeluxeSamy)

@Sapheal: what don't you like from beardsell point of view? I guess that the main point here is that there are draws but honestly I think that a 17% of range and in this flop, he can only have KQs as a very strong draw. Sooometimes a FD but not very often IMO and thereforem I don't think we need a raise to protect our hand.

So, why wouldn't you c/c here?

Samy

Samy,

Thank you for pointing that out. This is clear that we're playing OOP, and mistakenly I thought we do have initiative. My mistake ;-)

Our calling range includes small pp (not often) + medium pp + AJ/AQ vs UTG PFR and because there are two high cards on the flop we won't be playing back with 88 very often (unless CR bluff). Therefore, he shouldnt 2nd barrel bluff here. Because of the fact that villain is passive, I think that the chosen like is nice, because villain is going to cb T w/ medium strength hands. Still, vs high wtsd player, i prefer to raise F for value and potentially exploit his weakness to take his entire stack.

Turn bet sizing I'd do 158-165$.

Michal

Originally posted by sapheal
Samy,

Thank you for pointing that out. This is clear that we're playing OOP, and mistakenly I thought we do have initiative. My mistake ;-)

Our calling range includes small pp (not often) + medium pp + AJ/AQ vs UTG PFR and because there are two high cards on the flop we won't be playing back with 88 very often (unless CR bluff). Therefore, he shouldnt 2nd barrel bluff here. Because of the fact that villain is passive, I think that the chosen like is nice, because villain is going to cb T w/ medium strength hands. Still, vs high wtsd player, i prefer to raise F for value and potentially exploit his weakness to take his entire stack.

Turn bet sizing I'd do 158-165$.

Michal

I think 158-165$ is too much because we are obviously committed and we are never going to bluff the river or give up (almost never). The pot would be around 500$ and we have only 50% of this remaining. I prefer to bet something like 120-125$ so that I can still bluff sometimes or get called by worse (mixing calling range). Basically, if I bet 158$ I only expect AJ to call here. So I don't think this is good.

What do you think?

Samy

Originally posted by samy4ever

I think 158-165$ is too much because we are obviously committed and we are never going to bluff the river or give up (almost never). The pot would be around 500$ and we have only 50% of this remaining. I prefer to bet something like 120-125$ so that I can still bluff sometimes or get called by worse (mixing calling range). Basically, if I bet 158$ I only expect AJ to call here. So I don't think this is good.

Samy

Samy,

Against this player, I don't even start to think about balancing my range. I would bet this big (or bigger) because I want to get paid and I exactly know that if he raises then I'm beat. This is the reasoning why I prefer my sizing to yours here.

Cheers,
Michal

Originally posted by sapheal

Originally posted by samy4ever

I think 158-165$ is too much because we are obviously committed and we are never going to bluff the river or give up (almost never). The pot would be around 500$ and we have only 50% of this remaining. I prefer to bet something like 120-125$ so that I can still bluff sometimes or get called by worse (mixing calling range). Basically, if I bet 158$ I only expect AJ to call here. So I don't think this is good.

Samy

Samy,

Against this player, I don't even start to think about balancing my range. I would bet this big (or bigger) because I want to get paid and I exactly know that if he raises then I'm beat. This is the reasoning why I prefer my sizing to yours here.

Cheers,
Michal

U r saying that you bet/FOLD on the turn after betting 160$? Did I get it right? I can't see this happening.

Samy

Samy, connected this response with a response to another hand (there was a bet on the river in the other hand..) . On turn, I'm never folding on this board. On this board vs this players for me it is impossible. I agree here that more of a suckbet will be better, because of the reasons you gave. The thing is that we want to be able to bluff and as well as turn calling range from this opponent may include sometimes weak Ax and maybe to a smaller bet even KQ/QJ sometimes. I totally agree.

Sorry, have been going through so many analyses recently.

BTW, the same applies to spots where we can easily rep strong but not monster strong thin vbet on the turn. There we bet to encourage call from weaker part of the range of turncallers. Then also your reasoning applies. Ofc, another thing is that not always we're able to bluff +ev river in this spots, but yes, the sizing pretty default, i guess.

will try to get back to our discussions as soon as i find time, and will respond to all questions. btw, i'd be great if you could participate to more hand evaluations discussions ;-)

cheers,
michal