Nuts flush vs. Raise on paired river

You bet only half a pot OTR so I think villain can raise us with a lower flush sometimes.. Do you think villain can raise with AQ,KK or AA? He also could have OESD with 6 and he improved to set OTR? I think I might be temped to call this and take a note x))

Originally posted by la55i
You bet only half a pot OTR so I think villain can raise us with a lower flush sometimes.. Do you think villain can raise with AQ,KK or AA? He also could have OESD with 6 and he improved to set OTR? I think I might be temped to call this and take a note x))

How can anyone improve to a SET on the river (when the board pairs)? Anyway, it does depend quite a lot on villain. Look at his line, he flats pf, then bets flop but stalls with the turn which brings a flush. Now it is possible I have been playing too much PLO, where you always see this like flopset gets crushed on turn, he slows down, now the river fills him up and then he gets back into the action. Here the turncheck by villain who first bets quite large on the flop could mean many things, but not as many things if you know what he does on the river? Does he now stall on the turn because he LIKED or DISLIKED the flushing turn? You have nutflush, so he cannot check-raise you with that but if he would consider all flushes to be the nuts, he would raise you here with all remaining flushes of which you are ahead. You are also ahead of TRIPS but a check raise with trips here would be a huge overplay on this part, but if we were to fold our nutflush here a succesful overplay because it is so wacky! But I dont think he would check raise bare trips here. Then we look at the number of full house combos he could have, and realistically only setbased full houses come into consideration. Why? Because otherwise we are talking full houses based on a starting hand that is Q6 or 86 which are really not that likely. I presume he would have raised QQ so queens are not in his preflop calling range anymore. Then perhaps 88 or 66 are still in his range that beat you? If he would raise you here with any flush, you are beating far more combinations here then there are legitimate full house combinations, and vs an unknown I would actually take the risk here by approximately calling $5 to win a $20 pot, meaning you must have the best hand only 1 in 4 times and I would take that risk here as I think you will have the best hand here more than 1 in 4 times, and if you fold you wont find out either and now at least you can say ok I took a reasonable risk/rewards situation, I lost but at least now I know his line and his behavior. GL

It seems unlikely he can have a lower flush here, because you can see the A, Q and T :diamond:, so there's very few hands he could have called with PF (K♦ J♦? 9♦8♦?). Plus, why would he x/c the turn then x/r the river with a worse flush, when the river's made his hand worse? I believe this should be a fold.

I think we could bet the turn a bit bigger for value. Worse flushes are probably check/raising the turn, imo and two pairs and trips are probably just check/calling the river. I believe we can fold the river.

I would like to see bigger bet-sizes on the turn, and then on the river too, at which point we'd at least needed to call this. I think he can still have pair + decent draw type of hands ott.

Definitely bet bigger on turn and river.

Originally posted by FlyingDutchm1n

Spoiler

Originally posted by la55i
You bet only half a pot OTR so I think villain can raise us with a lower flush sometimes.. Do you think villain can raise with AQ,KK or AA? He also could have OESD with 6 and he improved to set OTR? I think I might be temped to call this and take a note x))

How can anyone improve to a SET on the river (when the board pairs)? Anyway, it does depend quite a lot on villain. Look at his line, he flats pf, then bets flop but stalls with the turn which brings a flush. Now it is possible I have been playing too much PLO, where you always see this like flopset gets crushed on turn, he slows down, now the river fills him up and then he gets back into the action. Here the turncheck by villain who first bets quite large on the flop could mean many things, but not as many things if you know what he does on the river? Does he now stall on the turn because he LIKED or DISLIKED the flushing turn? You have nutflush, so he cannot check-raise you with that but if he would consider all flushes to be the nuts, he would raise you here with all remaining flushes of which you are ahead. You are also ahead of TRIPS but a check raise with trips here would be a huge overplay on this part, but if we were to fold our nutflush here a succesful overplay because it is so wacky! But I dont think he would check raise bare trips here. Then we look at the number of full house combos he could have, and realistically only setbased full houses come into consideration. Why? Because otherwise we are talking full houses based on a starting hand that is Q6 or 86 which are really not that likely. I presume he would have raised QQ so queens are not in his preflop calling range anymore. Then perhaps 88 or 66 are still in his range that beat you? If he would raise you here with any flush, you are beating far more combinations here then there are legitimate full house combinations, and vs an unknown I would actually take the risk here by approximately calling $5 to win a $20 pot, meaning you must have the best hand only 1 in 4 times and I would take that risk here as I think you will have the best hand here more than 1 in 4 times, and if you fold you wont find out either and now at least you can say ok I took a reasonable risk/rewards situation, I lost but at least now I know his line and his behavior. GL

I'm terribly sorry that I accidentally used a wrong term when I used SET instead of using TRIPS. But I think you still got what I meant with SET here. I know that SET and TRIPS are different. But yeah, I meant that he might have improved to TRIPS. I know it would be huge overplay from villain to x/r with TRIPS but I guess it is possible. Especially when we are betting so small OTT and OTR.