[NL2-NL10] NL10: T9s cBet on wet board

    • Avatars91
      Avatars91
      Bronze
      Joined: 18.12.2009 Posts: 2,689
      Poker Stars $10.00 No Limit Hold'em - 6 players - View hand 1851491
      DeucesCracked Poker Videos Hand History Converter

      CO: $6.93 - VPIP: 29, PFR: 4, 3B: 0, AF: 1,0, Hands: 28
      BTN: $14.12 - VPIP: 18, PFR: 15, 3B: 4, AF: 2,4, Hands: 251
      SB: $7.80 - VPIP: 21, PFR: 21, 3B: 17, AF: 1,5, Hands: 14
      BB: $20.30 - VPIP: 29, PFR: 25, 3B: 11, AF: 3,0, Hands: 28
      Hero (UTG): $10.25 - VPIP: 23, PFR: 19, 3B: 5, AF: 4,4, Hands: 44651
      MP: $10.30 - VPIP: 40, PFR: 32, 3B: 0, AF: 6,0, Hands: 25

      Pre Flop: ($0.15) Hero is UTG with T :spade: 9 :spade:
      Hero raises to $0.40, MP calls $0.40, 4 folds

      Flop: ($0.95) K :heart: J :club: A :diamond: (2 players)
      Hero bets $0.70, MP raises to $1.85, Hero folds

      Since I can't be so sure yet that villain isn't opencalling with broadways or Ax type of hands from that position <> UTG raise, I guess that the cBet might not really be the best one. But if I knew that villain is a standard TAG regular, could I not assume that his range consists of many PPs and that I can represent a hit on that board with a UTG openraise, thus making the cBet a good move here?
  • 9 replies
    • Gerv
      Gerv
      Bronze
      Joined: 07.05.2008 Posts: 17,678
      Hey Avatars,

      I think the cBet is fine because we raise from UTG, so we should have a stronger range in general. Now this does not mean Villain can handrange but his range is superwide ranging from low PPs/SCs to broadways = more fold equity

      Best regards,
      Gerv
    • Avatars91
      Avatars91
      Bronze
      Joined: 18.12.2009 Posts: 2,689
      Would you classify this as a standard cBet or a close spot? Would giving up be fine as well?
    • Gerv
      Gerv
      Bronze
      Joined: 07.05.2008 Posts: 17,678
      Originally posted by Avatars91
      Would you classify this as a standard cBet or a close spot? Would giving up be fine as well?
      You fold all his PPs & hands that might bluff you out so I think you have well over 40% fold equity which is required to make a profitable continuation bet.

      Therefore giving up is not applicable here unless you know his range is exclusively broadways & Ax

      - Gerv
    • Avatars91
      Avatars91
      Bronze
      Joined: 18.12.2009 Posts: 2,689
      If we didn't have additional equity because of our GS, would you still recommend a cBet? E.g. with a medium SC or something?

      It's just that the flop still hits a rather large part of his range. Of course I would expect him to fold his small and medium PPs and SCs but I think that he is really rarely folding Jx and never Kx or Ax, thus the question becomes – which range is wider?
    • Gerv
      Gerv
      Bronze
      Joined: 07.05.2008 Posts: 17,678
      Originally posted by Avatars91
      If we didn't have additional equity because of our GS, would you still recommend a cBet? E.g. with a medium SC or something?

      It's just that the flop still hits a rather large part of his range. Of course I would expect him to fold his small and medium PPs and SCs but I think that he is really rarely folding Jx and never Kx or Ax, thus the question becomes – which range is wider?

      Ok so he:
      Ax: Does not fold
      Kx: Might call/might fold
      Jx: if combined with a GS, will call mostly but can also fold
      PPs: will fold
      Suited Connectors: will fold

      You have no showdown value so we need to bluff here and if you think it is profitable 2nd barreling to fold out Kx/Jx later on (Then you need to count how many combo's Ax there is versus Jx/Kx which I think is too deep to research for the stakes you are playing on)

      Best regards,
      Gerv
    • Avatars91
      Avatars91
      Bronze
      Joined: 18.12.2009 Posts: 2,689
      I am a bit confused right now actually, since I thought that generally this exactly the kind of a board that we would not want to cBet against loose opponents who have many face cards in their range and are generally also not folding all that often postflop.

      So just to be sure – unless I expect the opponent to call me down extremely loose here often, e.g. even with PPs maybe even, not to mention Jx and stronger, or unless I expect him to be extremely maniacal and raising a lot of flops, this board should always be cBet if I do not hit? Because I think that no opponent has broadways only in his preflop Cold calling range – everybody is calling with PPs and SCs as well.

      which I think is too deep to research for the stakes you are playing on


      Is it too deep because 1) Such analysis would for whichever reason simply not increase my EV on NL10 and would be therefore useless, or 2) The benefit of such analysis would be too small and I should be concentrating on other things?

      I am asking because I know that I will have to learn it one day anyway since I am serious about moving up. If it benefits my game, maybe it is still worth going through such analysis?
    • Gerv
      Gerv
      Bronze
      Joined: 07.05.2008 Posts: 17,678
      Originally posted by Avatars91
      I am a bit confused right now actually, since I thought that generally this exactly the kind of a board that we would not want to cBet against loose opponents who have many face cards in their range and are generally also not folding all that often postflop.

      So just to be sure – unless I expect the opponent to call me down extremely loose here often, e.g. even with PPs maybe even, not to mention Jx and stronger, or unless I expect him to be extremely maniacal and raising a lot of flops, this board should always be cBet if I do not hit? Because I think that no opponent has broadways only in his preflop Cold calling range – everybody is calling with PPs and SCs as well.
      Your cBet needs 40% fold equity if you bet 66% of the pot, even if his range is like 50% broadway cards then you still have the fold equity you need + you have 4 outs to a Queen which also adds up in your EV. it's not like you are stonecold bluffing

      [QUOTE]
      Is it too deep because 1) Such analysis would for whichever reason simply not increase my EV on NL10 and would be therefore useless, or 2) The benefit of such analysis would be too small and I should be concentrating on other things?

      I am asking because I know that I will have to learn it one day anyway since I am serious about moving up. If it benefits my game, maybe it is still worth going through such analysis?[/quote]
      There is simply too many variables you need to take into consideration. Even if you have one simulation, another player might do something completely different therefore obsoleting your first simulation.

      So it is a little bit of both ( 1) & 2) ) ;)

      - Gerv
    • Avatars91
      Avatars91
      Bronze
      Joined: 18.12.2009 Posts: 2,689
      If I had raised from BU and a regular had cold called from OOP with an assumed range of low-medium PPs and some stronger broadways like QJs, KJs+, KQ, maybe AJ–AQ, would this still be a good cBet? We still need 40% FE and I would imagine that we are still getting it, right?

      If that makes sense, then what do we do with our medium made 1pair hands on this board that we don't really have to protect that much, e.g. TT, Kx, Jx, weak Ax? Cbetting them is a waste because no worse is calling, so does it make sense to try and check them down til showdown? Possibly calling a turn bet but folding to any river bet, assuming that villain probably doesn't start all of a sudden bluffing or thin value-betting on the river that often.
    • Gerv
      Gerv
      Bronze
      Joined: 07.05.2008 Posts: 17,678
      Originally posted by Avatars91
      If I had raised from BU and a regular had cold called from OOP with an assumed range of low-medium PPs and some stronger broadways like QJs, KJs+, KQ, maybe AJ–AQ, would this still be a good cBet? We still need 40% FE and I would imagine that we are still getting it, right?
      Yep :)


      If that makes sense, then what do we do with our medium made 1pair hands on this board that we don't really have to protect that much, e.g. TT, Kx, Jx, weak Ax? Cbetting them is a waste because no worse is calling, so does it make sense to try and check them down til showdown? Possibly calling a turn bet but folding to any river bet, assuming that villain probably doesn't start all of a sudden bluffing or thin value-betting on the river that often.
      weak Ax I like the way you say ( 1street of value) but the others I am not really happy going into a guessing game by checking back & facing 2 bets

      You have to think how many streets of value you can extract & what the best possible line is

      - Gerv