NL1000 Low Full House against TAG Regular

Having a play around with pokerstove and its getting really villian dependant.

Some people have a bluffing frequency of 0 here. In which case vs a pure value range we are like 20% so its a easy muck.

If we start adding 1-2 bluffs it leans towards a call. But in reality its hard for him to have many bluffs with this action as I dont think he c/c draws twice.

The only thing that makes me WTF is the fact he c/c flop.

At the same time, our river calling range is super narrow given positions.

Im a bit on the fence with this one but I think I would lean towards a fold

Originally posted by CallumN
In which case vs a pure value range we are like 20% so its a easy muck.

Thanks for the answer CallumN.

What hands do you consider the 20% of his value range that we beat?

I gave him 2 combos of 67s. I dont think he jams with 67 100% of the time considering we dont have much bare 5x in our range.

Like i say its villian dependant. As this is a really good/easy bluff with 78s for instance.

Just depends how good villian is

Why do you consider a 87s a good/easy bluff on the river?

Do you think that turning a straight into a bluff on the river might be a profitable play on the long run?

I suck on river bluffs...

Because with 78 we block 88.

So if we are considering folding 44 we also fold 5x/45s? (we also rarely have 45s)

So our river calling range is now left at 1 combo of 88 1 combo of 55 and 3 combos of QQ.

He risks 1001 to win 1248. So his bluff needs to work around 40% of the time

If we only have 5 value combos that we call with, It gets pretty easy to see that he only needs to find like 6 combos that we fold.

Could do that with just AA alone.

As to what he should do with 67, pffff think i just close my eyes and click the call button if i have played my hand this passively (as villian). Also we dont have any blockers with 67 and its close to the very top of our bluff catching range, It would be something to stove but im pretty sure its a profitable call, Maybe jam could be better, im not sure.

Blockers FTW (vs good players obv)

Thanks a lot CallumN, nice thoughts.

I never had thought about blockers post-flop.

FWIW I dont put this villain on 88 or QQ, surely these hands would be a 3 bet pre, certainly QQ is and 88 IMO would be 3 bet steal opportunity too good to miss.
I therefore narrow his range to either 67 or 54.
I think 54 for me would be a raise on the flop, given the action before but maybe not for everyone.
Its a really tough spot, I want to put villain on 67 and call and thats probably what I would do personally but other than 67 you are only really beating a missed flush or complete air and I think 54 or 88 shows up more often than 67 here.
All that said, i bite the bullet and call.
I should add that I am not a highly experienced cash player so my thought process is probably flawed lol

Originally posted by rhinoneil
88 IMO would be 3 bet steal opportunity too good to miss.

Thanks a lot for your thoughts rhinoneil.
I think that there are not many players that 3-bet with 88 to an open raiser from UTG2, and a caller from UTG3, specialy being UTG2 a super-nit-rock.

Originally posted by stealyourblinds

Originally posted by rhinoneil
88 IMO would be 3 bet steal opportunity too good to miss.

Thanks a lot for your thoughts rhinoneil.
I think that there are not many players that 3-bet with 88 to an open raiser from UTG2, and a caller from UTG3, specialy being UTG2 a super-nit-rock.

I agree with this.

First of all I'm sorry the answer took so long.
In fact I wrote a long post about week ago, wasn't sure, asked for opinions, reconsidered and now I'm gonna analyze again.

Firstly the problem I have is that I have a hard time estimating how much the 1k FR players observe and if they are confident enough to go with their reads.
When we look at the involved ranges I think they look like this:

UTG:
Rather strong given his stats, I understand that 11/6 is pretty tight even on FR tables.
All in all a very broadway-heavy range, possibly as strong as JJ+,AK (maybe that's too tight?) but even if we add some hands it doesn't change too much.

Hero:
Given UTG is so tight people can't squeeze light vs him so we could theoretically call a wide range here given we can move on lots of boards - we probably get him to fold every single overpair on Jhigh and lower boards.
However, our position is obviously pretty bad so I think our range is not too wide in terms of SCs, onegappers, Axs etc.

BB:
He is fairly loose for a FR table, and for him the same reasoning as for hero applies, except BB is closing the action and has the advantage of beig able to checkraise lots of flops when having lots of FEQ vs UTG and our weak
range that rarely hits.

Flop:
Given the preflop assumptions, UTG has either an overpair or AsKs with almost 100% frequency.
Our range can theoretically be quite wide because there are tons of scarecards we can rep on a later street.
Given those assumptions it doesn't make too much sense for
BB to checkraise sets, 54 and 76s here. Given this, it's a
good spot for him to bluff (unless we realize he doesn't
rep anything) and semibluff - if he f.e. has the FD he will
also have a hard time getting value if the flush hits.
So after his flopcall his range is very strong, and I think
we should at least consider checking the turn as I can't
see any hand that would give us 2 streets of value, even 76
should just c/c, c/f at best.

-> Correct me if my assumptions are too nitty here.

Therefore on the river as played imo we should bet pretty
small (200ish) as there's just not a single hand that can
call a big bet.

As played, given my train of thought it's a b/f imo.

When I get home I'll post the analysis I wrote last week,
it provides some calculations and looser assumptions -
under which this is a close call after we bet ♦.

Thank you very much for the very detailed analysis Bierbaer. I learned a lot from it.

Very interesting thought process justifying a check behind on the turn, I never had thought about that.

Folowing your thought line, after I bet the turn and get called from the BB and UTG folds, maybe the best action on the river would be to check behind?

Imo as I posted there is some value in a bet, but we have to make it small.

Ah I just remembered to post my 1st evaluation.
By now I like the 2nd one better, but this was my initial thought process, maybe it provides some additional benefits:

Since UTG is a nit, he's probably cbetting way too much here, but he probably checks some AQ type hand w/o backdoors.

After thinking back and forth I think we should not have a raisingrange in this spot because we can only rep AA and sets since we'd usually float FDs vs the nit because we don't want to get 3bet from his strong range.
So I agree with the flopcall.

When BB overcalls he can actually have some weaker hands that plan on picking up dead money created by UTG by cbetting too much and our floatingrange that could be slightly too loose.
Imo he should checkraise 76 and sets because vs our range he's not getting too much value (unless we spazz out and bluff off) and the nit is likely not folding overpairs vs a c/r (I might be underestimating NL1k nits with this though because he should fold an overpair IMO).

On the turn we bet as BB expected, but his problem is that the nit is left to act after him.
If he has a weak hand here he can only call it with the intention of running a sicko bluff.
When the nit checks he's probably giving up the vast majority of the time and when we bet it just matches the expectations, so technically the guy could still peel here somewhat lightly - even though he could argue for c/shoving draws with equity, he can as well check them with the plan of c/shoving the river vs our perceived loose bluffingrange.

On the river he reps pretty much QQ - but if he called as loose as 54s pre, he also has 65s and it makes perfect sense to play it this way.
If he can show up with 88 in this spot, he also has 54s, 76s and 44 in his range.

That leaves us with:
3 QQ combos, 3 88, 3 44, 1 54s, 2 65s, 4 76s.

=> A total of 11 thats beats us and 5 we beat.
So vs that we have 5/16 = 31.25% equity and we need 622 / 2570 = 24.2%.

This is even disregarding that he could sometimes pull this off with a busted draw.

Thank you very much for posting your other analysis Bierbaer, both have very interesting points imo, i learned a lot from both of them.

We cant atribute 44 to the possible hands of our oponent, because we have 44 and there is a 4 on the board, however that doesnt change much on the relation of odds that you showed.

I was prety much sure that he had 88 or 55, but after tanking for a while I talked myself into a curiosity call on the "justification" that he maybe would turn a straight into a bluff.

For my surprise he showed QQ...