[NL20-NL50] NL20 SH AA vs reg

    • SPeedFANat1c
      SPeedFANat1c
      Gold
      Joined: 04.01.2009 Posts: 5,069
      Grabbed by Holdem Manager
      NL Holdem $0.20(BB) Replayer
      SB ($9.38)
      Hero ($29.57)
      UTG ($16.06)
      CO ($11.91)
      BTN ($39.85)

      Dealt to Hero A:club: A:spade:

      fold, fold, BTN raises to $0.50, fold, Hero raises to $2, BTN calls $1.50

      FLOP ($4.10) K:spade: J:diamond: T:spade:

      Hero bets $2.60, BTN calls $2.60

      TURN ($9.30) K:spade: J:diamond: T:spade: A:diamond:

      Hero checks, BTN bets $5.40, Hero calls $5.40

      RIVER ($20.10) K:spade: J:diamond: T:spade: A:diamond: 4:spade:

      Hero checks, BTN bets $13.40, Hero folds

      BTN wins $19.10



      For such odds contginue on turn or not? (just checked turn aggresion, easy fold turn I guees :) ) At first I thouth he could use this scary card.
  • 25 replies
    • mkapt
      mkapt
      Bronze
      Joined: 31.03.2010 Posts: 4,228
      Are you checking his turn agression with just 150 hands? Lol, it´s a (huge) mistake, dude. You need at least 1k hands or so to have an accurate data about AF. Even more than that if we are talking about 3 bet pots.

      I can not understand your c/c turn. If you think it´s not worth to bet again, then you check/fold. That Ace was terrible for you.
    • veriz
      veriz
      Black
      Joined: 20.07.2008 Posts: 65,504
      Hello SPeedFANat1c,

      Preflop: We are deep, so raise it also bigger, $2,50.

      As played
      Postflop: Seems to be fine, we ain't getting value from a lot of hands on the turn and at the same time we don't want to Bet/Fold our hand. This guy ain't going to bluff much anyways if he doesn't have the hand.

      Best Regards.
    • SPeedFANat1c
      SPeedFANat1c
      Gold
      Joined: 04.01.2009 Posts: 5,069
      Postflop: Seems to be fine,

      despite betting the turn, right, like mkapt said I should not bet? The only probblem if I don't bet, he can easily represent straigt and bet and I fold my best hand if he has no straight. And if he has striaght, I till have outs to FH.
    • SPeedFANat1c
      SPeedFANat1c
      Gold
      Joined: 04.01.2009 Posts: 5,069
      Are you checking his turn agression with just 150 hands? Lol, it´s a (huge) mistake, dude.


      Of coure its not 100% correct, real AF could be 1 but I think thats maximum we can expect, not like AF 3. Or do you think its so inacurate that real turn AF could be 3?
    • veriz
      veriz
      Black
      Joined: 20.07.2008 Posts: 65,504
      Originally posted by SPeedFANat1c
      Postflop: Seems to be fine,

      despite betting the turn, right, like mkapt said I should not bet? The only probblem if I don't bet, he can easily represent straigt and bet and I fold my best hand if he has no straight. And if he has striaght, I till have outs to FH.
      Doubt that such a guy will bluff there much, nor turn his pair type of hands into bluff.
    • KillerFishes
      KillerFishes
      Bronze
      Joined: 11.07.2010 Posts: 2,313
      ch/c on the turn is terrible ...


      He's pot controling hands which we will take value from and betting only better. Easy b/f ott ...

      ch/c turn and ch/f river is like 100% donate for me
    • SPeedFANat1c
      SPeedFANat1c
      Gold
      Joined: 04.01.2009 Posts: 5,069
      Easy b/f


      what worse hands will call?
    • KillerFishes
      KillerFishes
      Bronze
      Joined: 11.07.2010 Posts: 2,313
      AJ,AK,98s,ATs? idk

      but ye obv he's folding a lot to 3bets so I don't mind ch/f ... My point is that it b/f or ch/f won't have much different EV.... However, the ch/c? It's just sooooooooo bad ....
    • veriz
      veriz
      Black
      Joined: 20.07.2008 Posts: 65,504
      Originally posted by KillerFishes
      AJ,AK,98s,ATs? idk

      but ye obv he's folding a lot to 3bets so I don't mind ch/f ... My point is that it b/f or ch/f won't have much different EV.... However, the ch/c? It's just sooooooooo bad ....
      Why would he EVER call with those hands there? He has to be retarded for that or just be blind to click on wrong button. And we have the A if you didn't see that. So you didn't point anything out which he is calling us. Anything else we have him beat so easy Check/Call while nothing worse Calls us and nothing worse will turn even hands into bluff. His showdown value hands will Check behind.

      Amazing...
    • SPeedFANat1c
      SPeedFANat1c
      Gold
      Joined: 04.01.2009 Posts: 5,069
      so easy Check/Call while


      wait, I thought also that c/c is bad :) or you meant c/f turn?
    • veriz
      veriz
      Black
      Joined: 20.07.2008 Posts: 65,504
      Originally posted by SPeedFANat1c
      so easy Check/Call while


      wait, I thought also that c/c is bad :) or you meant c/f turn?
      Well, did I say something about Check/Call being bad? :)
    • SPeedFANat1c
      SPeedFANat1c
      Gold
      Joined: 04.01.2009 Posts: 5,069
      Doubt that such a guy will bluff there much, nor turn his pair type of hands into bluff.


      you said he would not bluff, so I think then its bad to call.
    • veriz
      veriz
      Black
      Joined: 20.07.2008 Posts: 65,504
      Originally posted by SPeedFANat1c
      Doubt that such a guy will bluff there much, nor turn his pair type of hands into bluff.


      you said he would not bluff, so I think then its bad to call.
      Why would it be bad? We still have implied odds vs his hands and assuming he is Checking behind a lot of hands on the turn which are weaker. You are an interesting guy, posting a hand one way and then starting to argue different way. :D
    • SPeedFANat1c
      SPeedFANat1c
      Gold
      Joined: 04.01.2009 Posts: 5,069
      Why would it be bad? We still have implied odds vs his hands and assuming he is Checking behind a lot of hands on the turn which are weaker.


      Because we don't beat anything which he bets. But now put into equilator Qx his range on turn:


      Equity Win Tie
      MP2 25.76% 22.35% 3.41% AsAc
      MP3 74.24% 70.83% 3.41% Q2s+, Q2o+


      And yeah, even wihtout implied odds its not a big loos vs straigh, since we need ~25 % equity. Plius he might pay off if we hit river, so I now I agree, its ok to call turn :)
    • veriz
      veriz
      Black
      Joined: 20.07.2008 Posts: 65,504
      Originally posted by SPeedFANat1c
      Why would it be bad? We still have implied odds vs his hands and assuming he is Checking behind a lot of hands on the turn which are weaker.


      Because we don't beat anything which he bets. But now put into equilator Qx his range on turn:


      Equity Win Tie
      MP2 25.76% 22.35% 3.41% AsAc
      MP3 74.24% 70.83% 3.41% Q2s+, Q2o+


      And yeah, even wihtout implied odds its not a big loos vs straigh, since we need ~25 % equity. Plius he might pay off if we hit river, so I now I agree, its ok to call turn :)
      Hope you are joking... do you even understand ranges at all? This range which you put him on is kinda unreal, why would this guy ever have Q2o there???? :f_biggrin: At least get your facts correct.

      If you think your play is better then do it, I am not forcing you to play this way. You are free to use or not to use the evaluation forums. If you think my evaluations are bad then you don't have to use the forums.
    • SPeedFANat1c
      SPeedFANat1c
      Gold
      Joined: 04.01.2009 Posts: 5,069
      no, I didn't meant he has Q2, this I think does not change too much, I meant he has Qx, so I put all queens in his range :) I mean Q2+ or QT+ or QA is his range on turn - it does not change anything in the equity. But its definitely Qx I think :) other than straight he would not bet, as you said he would not bluff this turn.

      I didn't tell your evealuations are bad :)
    • veriz
      veriz
      Black
      Joined: 20.07.2008 Posts: 65,504
      Originally posted by SPeedFANat1c
      no, I didn't meant he has Q2, this I think does not change too much, I meant he has Qx, so I put all queens in his range :) I mean Q2+ or QT+ or QA is his range on turn - it does not change anything in the equity. But its definitely Qx I think :) other than straight he would not bet, as you said he would not bluff this turn.

      I didn't tell your evealuations are bad :)
      What's the reason then putting on a range if you put him on a wrong range? The equity DEFINITELY gets better for us and changes a lot if we fix the range. Neither it doesn't really have to do anything with the equity cause you totally removed those hands as for example worse sets/2pairs etc from his range.

      As I said, you are welcome not to use my evaluations. I am not going to try to get your thoughts different way so that you would believe in me. Especially when you even putting the opponent on a very wrong range.
    • SPeedFANat1c
      SPeedFANat1c
      Gold
      Joined: 04.01.2009 Posts: 5,069
      What's the reason then putting on a range if you put him on a wrong range? The equity DEFINITELY gets better for us and changes a lot if we fix the range. Neither it doesn't really have to do anything with the equity cause you totally removed those hands as for example worse sets/2pairs etc from his range.


      This guy ain't going to bluff much anyways if he doesn't have the hand.


      I removed sets and two pair because he would not bluff. I interpreted this - he is not betting sets or two pairs on this turn - if he is, then he is bluffing - turning his hand into a bluff. So I left only straigt in his range. But maybe you didn't mean that betting set or two pair is a bluff.
      And I just made experiments putting different Qx. If comparing Q2 and AQ in his turn range, equity differs by around 3%, so thats why I dind't care too much. I thought thats not big deal.

      Sorry if the discution got too long about this hand :)
    • veriz
      veriz
      Black
      Joined: 20.07.2008 Posts: 65,504
      Originally posted by SPeedFANat1c
      What's the reason then putting on a range if you put him on a wrong range? The equity DEFINITELY gets better for us and changes a lot if we fix the range. Neither it doesn't really have to do anything with the equity cause you totally removed those hands as for example worse sets/2pairs etc from his range.


      This guy ain't going to bluff much anyways if he doesn't have the hand.


      I removed sets and two pair because he would not bluff. I interpreted this - he is not betting sets or two pairs on this turn - if he is, then he is bluffing - turning his hand into a bluff. So I left only straigt in his range. But maybe you didn't mean that betting set or two pair is a bluff.
      And I just made experiments putting different Qx. If comparing Q2 and AQ in his turn range, equity differs by around 3%, so thats why I dind't care too much. I thought thats not big deal.

      Sorry if the discution got too long about this hand :)
      Why would he ever Check behind those hands? He might still need protection from FD or whatsoever hands, so he isn't really turning them into bluff. I would also Bet myself them and not Check behind, I can always do that on the river after I bet the turn myself.
    • 1
    • 2