[NL20-NL50] [Sh] Nl25 99

    • livethelife7
      livethelife7
      Bronze
      Joined: 10.02.2009 Posts: 1,093
      Hand converted with online PokerStrategy.com hand converter:

      Hand afspelen

      $0.1/$0.25 No-Limit Hold'em (5 handed)

      Known players:
      BU (Hero):
      $26.21
      SB:
      $4.87
      BB:
      $11.03
      MP3:
      $62.84
      CO:
      $25.00


      Preflop: Hero is BU with 9, 9.
      MP3 raises to $0.75, CO folds, Hero calls $0.75, 2 folds, BB folds.

      Flop: ($1.85) K, 5, 2 (2 players)
      MP3 checks, Hero bets $1.00, MP3 calls $1.00.

      Turn: ($3.85) 6 (2 players)
      MP3 checks, Hero bets $2.75, MP3 calls $2.75.

      River: ($9.35) 6 (2 players)
      MP3 checks, Hero bets $6.25


      Villian is unknown, seems reg.

      Thought he would cbet Kx, so I was thinking I could take the pot down on flop. Maybe better to ch back flop?

      As played I was clueless at turn, which means I didn't plan my hand, and just start barreling with the only thing going through my mind was to fold 88-QQ.
  • 15 replies
    • yougotfelted51
      yougotfelted51
      Bronze
      Joined: 04.02.2010 Posts: 1,276
      as played check back river, everything calling the turn that we beat wont call a bet, and everything that beats us probably will.
    • Farmarchist
      Farmarchist
      Bronze
      Joined: 27.12.2010 Posts: 14,640
      Hey,

      Bet flop = good
      I prefer checking back turns whilst also FD completes. Don't know if we have much FE. It's only to make him fold TT/JJ/QQ and sometimes he'd call again (especially if he has a club with it).

      If you bet the turn I like the riverbet

      F
    • veriz
      veriz
      Black
      Joined: 20.07.2008 Posts: 65,504
      Hello livethelife7,

      Don't really like your Bet on the river, he is most likely also calling the river and has enough of Kx hands which are turned into bluff. Your main goal is to make some PPs to fold by betting the turn.

      Best Regards.
    • Farmarchist
      Farmarchist
      Bronze
      Joined: 27.12.2010 Posts: 14,640
      Originally posted by veriz
      Hello livethelife7,

      Don't really like your Bet on the river, he is most likely also calling the river and has enough of Kx hands which are turned into bluff. Your main goal is to make some PPs to fold by betting the turn.

      Best Regards.
      I don't really get it :(

      Turn: Why do we bet? Do you see some worse hands calling? Or do you think bluffing is more profitable than trying to check it down?

      River: As played we can rep a lot of hands and there is a big chance he folds Kx (He will mostly have weaker Kx).
    • veriz
      veriz
      Black
      Joined: 20.07.2008 Posts: 65,504
      Turn: Why do we bet? Do you see some worse hands calling? Or do you think bluffing is more profitable than trying to check it down?

      What's there so difficult to get? :P We might even make better hands to fold and clearly could even get value from just 1card FD as Ace high floats. :)

      River: As played we can rep a lot of hands and there is a big chance he folds Kx (He will mostly have weaker Kx).

      Don't really see how he could fold the Kx there whilst we also have full of bluffing range, at least I wouldn't if I am turning my hand into bluff-catcher. :) I'd snap-call it off and say thanks for the money.
    • Avatars91
      Avatars91
      Bronze
      Joined: 18.12.2009 Posts: 2,689
      I suppose checking back the flop and trying to check our showdown value hand down is too weak?
    • veriz
      veriz
      Black
      Joined: 20.07.2008 Posts: 65,504
      Originally posted by Avatars91
      I suppose checking back the flop and trying to check our showdown value hand down is too weak?
      Depends against what kind of player, though it's also possible. Myself I'd prefer just Betting and most likely could even do it for value. Building up also more aggressive image, but that's just me. :D
    • Avatars91
      Avatars91
      Bronze
      Joined: 18.12.2009 Posts: 2,689
      1) Are there really that many Acx combos that villain may have on the turn after check/calling the flop as PFA?
      2) Say we have 33 here instead of 99. Does it change anything much in this scenario?
    • veriz
      veriz
      Black
      Joined: 20.07.2008 Posts: 65,504
      Originally posted by Avatars91
      1) Are there really that many Acx combos that villain may have on the turn after check/calling the flop as PFA?
      2) Say we have 33 here instead of 99. Does it change anything much in this scenario?
      Why would we talk about A:cX combos on the turn only? :P Wouldn't really make sense. :( 33 is obviously less-likely for a value-bet as you may figure but it would be rather turning hand into bluff, isn't it? ;)
    • Avatars91
      Avatars91
      Bronze
      Joined: 18.12.2009 Posts: 2,689
      So basically we bet the flop assuming that we often take the pot down right now + most likely have the best hand anyway + we protect from overcards + we get a free river card + maybe we even sometimes get value from worse, right?

      Sounds pretty reasonable.

      But what I am concerned about is our bet on this turn.
      Can we really bet the turn not being sure whether or not villain a) is capable of folding his better pairs on the turn b) has many weaker hands in his range on the turn that we can get value from + protect + avoid a bluff from?

      Because from what I see we are pretty much vs an unknown fullstack in this spot. I would be surprised to see him play many weaker pairs by check/calling on this flop, let alone see him play Ax this way, given that he seems to be a reg, according to OP.
      Even if there are weaker pairs in his check/calling range on the flop, do we really have to fear that villain may suddenly turn them in a bluff on the river? Betting vs them on the turn for value is extremely thin anyway (and he may often even fold these hands) + it wouldn't make sense for him to induce bluffs on the flop with a bluffcatcher and then turn it into a bluff. It just sounds illogical. I just find it difficult to see much value on the turn unless we know that he is a very bad reg or is in fact not even a reg :(

      If this reasoning is valid and sound, then the purpose of the bet on the turn is solely to force stronger pairs out, is it not? But can we ever assume that an unknown reg is folding his TT-QQ in this spot to 2 barrels?
      The bet on the flop is +EV on its own, can it hurt to just check back the turn vs villain's bluffcatcher range, the stronger part of which we may not even be able to force out of the pot? Unless we 3barrel, which is spew vs an NL25 unknown reg anyway.
    • veriz
      veriz
      Black
      Joined: 20.07.2008 Posts: 65,504
      Can we really bet the turn not being sure whether or not villain a) is capable of folding his better pairs on the turn b) has many weaker hands in his range on the turn that we can get value from + protect + avoid a bluff from?

      How the heck are you going to find out then if you don't even test the waters? Nor we can't put him on only those PPs which have us beat, he may as well have just pure Ace high floats in his range as well.

      The bet on the flop is +EV on its own, can it hurt to just check back the turn vs villain's bluffcatcher range, the stronger part of which we may not even be able to force out of the pot? Unless we 3barrel, which is spew vs an NL25 unknown reg anyway.

      Why ain't we able to force him fold his PPs? Most likely only PPs which continue on the turn are those which also have the in it. Anything else clearly folds. You are being too much result oriented here.
    • Avatars91
      Avatars91
      Bronze
      Joined: 18.12.2009 Posts: 2,689
      Nor we can't put him on only those PPs which have us beat, he may as well have just pure Ace high floats in his range as well.


      He may have Ax, but that seems like a pretty unusual line to be taken by a fullstacked guy that OP defines as most likely being a reg. It is not impossible, of course, but is it not rather unlikely?

      If it is indeed rarely the case that we may expect such a line with Ax from anyone that somewhat matches this opponent's parameters, it makes sense to check the turn because we likely get a free showdown vs his bluffcatcher range anyway. And if he can have weaker pairs in his check/calling range on the flop, why not just take the likely free showdown instead of turning our showdown value hand into a bluff, not even knowing if we can make villain fold better hands with just 1 additional barrel?

      Certainly, if villain can call with Ax on the flop in this spot, I'd be surprised if he couldn't call on the turn again with a better pair. Though from my rather limited experience ch/c with A high from a guy that looks like a reg is a very unusual and rare line. I am not even sure I have ever seen it from anyone that seems like a player that has any clue about the game.

      And what information do we gain if we bet on the turn and he folds? We don't know if he folded QQ or 55. We don't even know what he called the flop with. Whereas if we check, we most likely see a showdown and gain information about his check/calling range as PFA on the flop. And if he bets we can lay our hand down assuming that he is most likely valuebetting weak Kx for thin value (because I still consider Ax as a rather unlikely holding).

      The assumptions I make are taken from my little experience on NL25 @ Stars and WPT/Partypoker, and both of these sites are said to be rather more reg-infested than the rest. Thus I maybe am seriously exaggerating the competency of the overall NL25 reg field :f_frown:

      If that seems to be true, then just say so and the case is closed :) don't want to upset you with silly questions, after all.
    • veriz
      veriz
      Black
      Joined: 20.07.2008 Posts: 65,504
      He may have Ax, but that seems like a pretty unusual line to be taken by a fullstacked guy that OP defines as most likely being a reg. It is not impossible, of course, but is it not rather unlikely?

      We spoke about PPs, which are main part of his Check/Calling range. I pointed out that "HE MAY ALSO HAVE" but now always will have. There is a huge difference. So where is the question?

      not even knowing if we can make villain fold better hands with just 1 additional barrel?

      Why would you Bet the flop then? :) He is not folding any better PPs anyways.

      And what information do we gain if we bet on the turn and he folds?

      Go again back to the hand, then think it through as many times you going to need and then you clearly in the end should understand that there is actually a lot information gained even if we don't see his hand. I don't really even need to see his hand to make those assumptions of him.

      If you 3bet against some player, do you know what he folds? No you don't, though you make notes and assumptions of it. So what's the difference? You didn't see the hand either... clearly no logic in it.
    • Avatars91
      Avatars91
      Bronze
      Joined: 18.12.2009 Posts: 2,689
      So to summarize:

      We basically bet the flop + turn because our opponent's line seems weak and we want to test how likely he is to give up a likely mediocre hand vs pressure + we want to know what kind of hands he plays like that (if we get to showdown) + we may even sometimes gain some thin value + we protect our hand + this line makes our hand easier to play + we build up an aggressive image?

      Or am I missing something?
    • veriz
      veriz
      Black
      Joined: 20.07.2008 Posts: 65,504
      Originally posted by Avatars91
      So to summarize:

      We basically bet the flop + turn because our opponent's line seems weak and we want to test how likely he is to give up a likely mediocre hand vs pressure + we want to know what kind of hands he plays like that (if we get to showdown) + we may even sometimes gain some thin value + we protect our hand + this line makes our hand easier to play + we build up an aggressive image?

      Or am I missing something?
      Wasn't that hard. :f_biggrin: