[NL2-NL10] Nl2 KQs isolation bet ...

    • minihulk22
      minihulk22
      Global
      Joined: 05.09.2009 Posts: 140
      Hand converted with online PokerStrategy.com hand converter:

      Play hand

      $0.01/$0.02 No-Limit Hold'em (8 handed)

      Known players:
      CO:
      $4.66
      BU:
      $2.00
      SB:
      $2.37
      BB:
      $2.14
      UTG2:
      $1.71
      MP1:
      $0.86
      MP2 (Hero):
      $1.97
      MP3:
      $1.97


      Preflop: Hero is MP2 with K, Q.
      UTG2 calls $0.02, MP1 folds, Hero raises to $0.10, MP3 folds, CO calls $0.10, 3 folds, UTG2 calls $0.08.

      Flop: ($0.33) A, T, J (3 players)
      UTG2 checks, Hero bets $0.25, CO calls $0.25, UTG2 folds.

      Turn: ($0.83) 2 (2 players)
      Hero bets $0.60, CO calls $0.60.

      River: ($2.03) 8 (2 players)
      Hero bets $0.40, CO raises to $3.71, Hero calls $0.62(All-In).

      Final Pot: $6.76.


      First I've raise to isolate a villain w/ 38 vp ip / pr:31 .Second I 've made a block bet on the river , but I guess I have to broke here if he has a flush , after my bet I have to call at 10 -1 odds , even his raise shows pretty much that he has a flush I can't fold , also a vp ip of 30 / pr: 0 .
  • 5 replies
    • AmAsu
      AmAsu
      Basic
      Joined: 02.08.2010 Posts: 33
      The only play I would argue against is the bet on the river.

      It goes like this - if you check, will he check back with baby aces? Probably yes, so you're losing value by not making another bet IF he would call that bet of yours.

      The next q is would he call with a baby ace considering you kept on betting on such a flop? Well, maybe, given the stakes, but it depends on the villain, as anyone with a bit of logic knows you have it here (at least a pair of aces, that is).

      Then, would he bluff the river if you check? He could, as your check could very well be interpreted as fear and/or abandoning the pot, and the river is perfect for bluffing.

      Generally I don't like check/calling the river, but because of the stacks and the flop, I think it's ok here. It's better to let him bluff you when he doesn't have it because I think it compensates with the times when you're missing on some value from a baby ace.

      Bottom line - you're losing little value from baby aces but those pay you off rarely here anyway (so you're not losing that much anyway), you're gaining value (lots) when he's bluffing a perfect river for that (apparently) PLUS he might decide not to bet it all on the river when he actually has it, trying to get you to pay him - like betting 50 cents instead of all-in. I mean you're calling him anyways, but when he has it and he bets 50 cents you're losing less than when he has it and you bet into him, being forced to call his all-in because of the odds.
    • minihulk22
      minihulk22
      Global
      Joined: 05.09.2009 Posts: 140
      Originally posted by AmAsu
      The only play I would argue against is the bet on the river.

      It goes like this - if you check, will he check back with baby aces? Probably yes, so you're losing value by not making another bet IF he would call that bet of yours.

      The next q is would he call with a baby ace considering you kept on betting on such a flop? Well, maybe, given the stakes, but it depends on the villain, as anyone with a bit of logic knows you have it here (at least a pair of aces, that is).

      Then, would he bluff the river if you check? He could, as your check could very well be interpreted as fear and/or abandoning the pot, and the river is perfect for bluffing.

      Generally I don't like check/calling the river, but because of the stacks and the flop, I think it's ok here. It's better to let him bluff you when he doesn't have it because I think it compensates with the times when you're missing on some value from a baby ace.

      Bottom line - you're losing little value from baby aces but those pay you off rarely here anyway (so you're not losing that much anyway), you're gaining value (lots) when he's bluffing a perfect river for that (apparently) PLUS he might decide not to bet it all on the river when he actually has it, trying to get you to pay him - like betting 50 cents instead of all-in. I mean you're calling him anyways, but when he has it and he bets 50 cents you're losing less than when he has it and you bet into him, being forced to call his all-in because of the odds.
      ty v much for having patience to write this .
    • AmAsu
      AmAsu
      Basic
      Joined: 02.08.2010 Posts: 33
      you're very welcome :)
    • Duudalinja
      Duudalinja
      Bronze
      Joined: 21.12.2009 Posts: 1,030
      Given his stats I tend to say he may have worse Ax hands and ofc draws, so I tend to bet turn bigger. By the river you have 1/2 pot bet left (even less if you bet like 0.70$ on turn), so there's nothing much to do here, but bet. I tend to say betting is better as he may check behind hands against which we are ahead and bet better hands we are calling anyway given our odds.
    • MaestroOfZerg
      MaestroOfZerg
      Bronze
      Joined: 17.11.2008 Posts: 5,510
      Hi,

      Originally posted by Duudalinja
      Given his stats I tend to say he may have worse Ax hands and ofc draws, so I tend to bet turn bigger. By the river you have 1/2 pot bet left (even less if you bet like 0.70$ on turn), so there's nothing much to do here, but bet. I tend to say betting is better as he may check behind hands against which we are ahead and bet better hands we are calling anyway given our odds.
      Agreed overall, it's just tough for him to have called two streets with stuff that needs to bluff that river, so check/calling isn't a good option. Since villain can still have top pairs and call it off with those, the best play is to simply shove into him to get value from worse hands and accept that when he has the flush we'll lose, but it's profitable regardless.


      Hope it helps.