Aces straddled on button (1 Viewer)

[Chippy McChiperson]

Scene: My regular Thursday night $1/$2 game filled with LAGs, TAGs, and calling stations.

The scenario: I button straddle to $5, 4 limpers, I look down and see two black aces. I raise to $35, solid LAG calls, two passive calling stations call, then a solid TAG calls. Flop is Q93 rainbow, it checks around to me. I bet $75, early position LAG raises to $225, everyone folds. LAG has $316 behind, I cover by about $600. LAG can have any two cards pre, but normally doesn't go crazy post-flop unless he has a monster (or a monster draw). The question is, can I ever justify not shoving here? Also, how would you have played the hand differently up to this point (two calling stations had about $400 and late position TAG had about $600 to start the hand).

 

[Anthony Martino]

Alright I'm assuming the four limpers represent the four callers and that the blinds have bailed. If that's the case we have:

$35 x 5 = $175 + $3 for the blinds = $178 in the pot.

Relatively dry flop except for someone holding TJ for the open-ender. Checked to Hero and you fire $75 (seems a bit too small) and the LAG raises to $225 leaving himself $316 behind.

This means the pot is now $178 + $75 + $225 = $478

Villian has almost committed half of the chips in his stack at this point to the hand. Now, you say he is "LAG" but he limp-called pre, yes? You also say he doesn't go crazy after the flop unless he has a monster or a monster draw (not sure this is exactly describing my perception of a LAG player).

Would this villain make this play with a one-pair hand such as Qx? From your description it doesn't sound like it. Your weakish bet could have invited him to checkraise with a draw such as TJ here. Then again, he could also have flopped two pair with Q9 s00ted or he could have setted up.

Whatever the case, I don't expect we have fold equity in this spot. If this villain will make this play with one pair hands in addition to draws and sets then I think it's a snap shove, given his range is wide enough that we're ahead enough of the time.

 

[DrStrange]

Preflop seems fine. (SPR 7+ vs this villain - that is going to make for a difficult post flop.)

Flop bet seems too small - $75 is less than half pot on a good flop for Hero's hand.

Now Hero is check raised, (half pot sizing). Now what? Based on Hero's villain description - Hero needs to fold. With additional villain data I could change my mind but getting check raised by someone who's range for that play is "monster hand / monster draw" means Hero is toast.

DrStrange

 

[Socraticd]

Now what? Based on Hero's villain description - Hero needs to fold. With additional villain data I could change my mind but getting check raised by someone who's range for that play is "monster hand / monster draw" means Hero is toast.

DrStrange

This. End of the day we're playing a game of incorporating historical info against current play conditions, right? So if we figure he's only like 20% or something to have a hand that'll call with worse, and the rest of that 80% has us either crushed or fading a lot of outs, you're now putting in $441 more if you jam, to be in a way ahead/way behind scenario with one pair, and even in the ahead cases you're probably still a LITTLE thin, equity-wise (i'm too crunched at work to play with pokerstove right now).

For players comfortable with higher variance play, this might be fine, but to me it feels tough to call even if folding feels exploitable. Tough spot.

 

[DrStrange]

Hero is going to risk an additional $446 to win $1,220 so he needs 37% equity to proceed. I don't see a "monster" draw possible on that flop - an eight out open ender is the best draw which is hardly a monster. Hero rates villain plays any two cards so lets range him 93/Q3/Q9 plus sets.

Hero is 25-75 vs the two pair hands and 9 - 91 vs the sets. There are 27 possible two pair hands and 9 possible set hands giving hero a blended 21% equity vs the "monster" range.

If we give Hero a 75 equity vs other villain hands, he will need to find villain with such hands a little less than a third of the time to break even at 37% equity. I can't do that vs a monster fit/fold villain.

This is not a matter of high variance, it is Hero has negative equity if he commits more money to the pot.

DrStrange

 

[Chippy McChiperson]

I will say I eliminated 99 and QQ from his range as he would have raised or three bet pre with those hands.

 

[Socraticd]

Hero is going to risk an additional $446 to win $1,220 so he needs 37% equity to proceed. I don't see a "monster" draw possible on that flop - an eight out open ender is the best draw which is hardly a monster. Hero rates villain plays any two cards so lets range him 93/Q3/Q9 plus sets.

Hero is 25-75 vs the two pair hands and 9 - 91 vs the sets. There are 27 possible two pair hands and 9 possible set hands giving hero a blended 21% equity vs the "monster" range.

If we give Hero a 75 equity vs other villain hands, he will need to find villain with such hands a little less than a third of the time to break even at 37% equity. I can't do that vs a monster fit/fold villain.

This is not a matter of high variance, it is Hero has negative equity if he commits more money to the pot.

DrStrange

Yeah, drawn out more explicitly it's quite clear. It's been a number of years since I've done a lot of analysis of hands like this, and my gut was just saying "way ahead/way behind, and not a lot of hands behind are calling"

What i have trouble with, logically, in these scenarios is figuring in what i'm putting at risk to take the pot down right now. Essentially the above analysis assumes the villain calls, which the read says only happens when we're more likely to be way behind and thus defines the range for your calculations.

 

[Forty4]

I'll play a lot of garbage hands. But with the straddle and then the raise I really can't see the 9-3 and Q-3 is a very slim possibility. I can see Q-9 or the 3-3. Chippy said the other two set's were eliminated and I would think he knows best. Can you put him on A-Q? Would he make a similar play with top pair top kicker? Given you would probably make the button raise (on your straddle) with almost any two cards given the number of limpers? I don't know your style but that would seem to be a pretty profitable play to mix in every now and then, and something you can totally do with J-J or 10-10. So could he be putting you on a hand like that? I think we need to consider what he thinks you might hold with your current line as well.

Also, please note that I've had A-A twice in the last two times I've played at the casino and been busted by Q-9 and Q-10, both made straights. I got my money in ahead and came out behind. Sorry for the slight derail.

 

[Anthony Martino]

Why is no one shocked that EVERYONE has a $35 hand preflop here? Also, how can I get an invite to this game?

Chippy, based on our recent post Villian essentially has to have Q9 or 33 here (also including your observations from the OP) as you are ruling out 99 and QQ. Has this villain ever made this sort of play without a real monster (such as TPGK, open-ended draws cause he's gambly, etc)?

 

[Socraticd]

Why is no one shocked that EVERYONE has a $35 hand preflop here? Also, how can I get an invite to this game?

sounds like a lot of 1/2 tables i'd play at foxwwods, honestly... lol

 

[Chippy McChiperson]

Why is no one shocked that EVERYONE has a $35 hand preflop here? Also, how can I get an invite to this game?

Chippy, based on our recent post Villian essentially has to have Q9 or 33 here (also including your observations from the OP) as you are ruling out 99 and QQ. Has this villain ever made this sort of play without a real monster (such as TPGK, open-ended draws cause he's gambly, etc)?

He'll make this play with overcards+flush draws pairs+ flush draws or combo straight/flush draws, certainly, but this is a rainbow board.

 

[Anthony Martino]

He'll make this play with overcards+flush draws pairs+ flush draws or combo straight/flush draws, certainly, but this is a rainbow board.

Alright, so if we're ruling out straight draw semi-bluffs (given the rainbow nature of the flop and his penchant for doing this with flush draws) and we are also discounting 99 and QQ, then you're narrowing his range to Q9 and 33 essentially? You haven't mentioned that he'd do this with a hand like KQ (i.e. TPGK and backdoor straight draw) so I'm assuming that's being ruled out as well?

 

[Chippy McChiperson]

Alright, so if we're ruling out straight draw semi-bluffs (given the rainbow nature of the flop and his penchant for doing this with flush draws) and we are also discounting 99 and QQ, then you're narrowing his range to Q9 and 33 essentially? You haven't mentioned that he'd do this with a hand like KQ (i.e. TPGK and backdoor straight draw) so I'm assuming that's being ruled out as well?

I'm not sure if he is doing that with KQ or AQ. If I knew that wasn't in his range here its an obvious fold.

 

[Anthony Martino]

I'm not sure if he is doing that with KQ or AQ. If I knew that wasn't in his range here its an obvious fold.

Further complicating things is that Hero bet pretty weak on the flop. The LAG may just be seizing on this bet to take the pot away with a large check-raise, figuring no one can call it. Again, hard to say since I don't have history with this villain.

 

[DrStrange]

If we put hands like KQ in villain's range we also have to decide if he stacks off 300bb with TP/GK or folds to Hero's shove. We know he isn't folding two pair / sets.

As noted throughout the thread, the decision pivots on the villain read. If villain over values one pair, then Hero might find it worthwhile to proceed. If villain really is playing only Q9 and 33 then Hero likely is best off pitching the hand.

DrStrange

 

[Ben]

It's a fold. He's not limp-calling AQ and he's not raising the flop with worse. Even if he has JT, C/R committing himself against a polarized range (yours) when he's being offered really nice odds to call/float would be pretty stoopid (not that that ever stopped anybody...) He's not just bluffing with air. His range is pretty much exactly Q9 sooted and 33 (even if you throw in some JT it's still a fold.)

 

[Meddler2]

Villain has KQ.

 

[onerand]

Feels too deep to call. Your hand is equivalent to AQ.

 

[bergs]

I'd make this move with JT and a backdoor flush draw. I'd make it with KK, and Q9. I wouldn't make it with AQ. I don't think I'd do it with Q3.

We can rule out 99 or QQ because of the pre flop action based on what Chippy said previously.

I'm calling. If he has Q9 or 33, so be it. I think he has KK or JT.

 

[DrStrange]

So . . . we can rule out QQ and 99 due to preflop passive play but leave KK in the range ? ? ? ?

I totally agree with Bergs. If it was him at the table rather than villain I would be all over this. But Hero describes villain this way - - - - "normally doesn't go crazy post-flop unless he has a monster (or a monster draw)." Which doesn't sound remotely like Bergs.

So vs Bergs it is a snap call from me. Vs the "normally doesn't go crazy post-flop unless he has a monster (or a monster draw)" villain, I fold.

DrStrange

 

[bergs]

So . . . we can rule out QQ and 99 due to preflop passive play but leave KK in the range ? ? ? ?

I totally agree with Bergs. If it was him at the table rather than villain I would be all over this. But Hero describes villain this way - - - - "normally doesn't go crazy post-flop unless he has a monster (or a monster draw)." Which doesn't sound remotely like Bergs.

So vs Bergs it is a snap call from me. Vs the "normally doesn't go crazy post-flop unless he has a monster (or a monster draw)" villain, I fold.

DrStrange

Sorry, yeah, KK is out too. Brainfart.

What monster can we put him on if QQ 99 AA AK and KK are all out? Jacks? Q9? Q3 for a $35 raise (if so, we have outs but nice hand, nice hand). Tens? I don't understand what people are ranging him on that are advocating a fold.

 

[DrStrange]

We are acting based on the detailed villain read rather than the short hand labels offered early in the original post. If the villain read was different, Hero would be priced into a call.

While villain is listed as LAG in the short hand descriptions, Hero's more detailed read sounds a lot like a hyper loose, passive calling station who plays any two cards but only raises/jams with the near nut hand. "villain normally doesn't go crazy post-flop unless he has a monster (or a monster draw)"

I'm expecting a set and I wouldn't be shocked to see QQ thinking that Hero might have gotten "hyper-loose" conflated with "aggressive" preflop. In order of likelihood: 33=Q9 > 99 > Q3/Q9/JT with QQ as an outlier. But as with any hand - sometimes villains do really unexpected things.

DrStrange

 

[Chippy McChiperson]

Villain is a very skilled LAG, playing and raising with any two cards preflop. He is pretty aggressive post flop too, but that usually includes c-betting not necessarily donk betting or check raising. When I say he normally doesn't go crazy post flop, by going crazy I mean he doesn't normally check raise without some very big hands. He is certainly not passive, but he is very loose pre and could have called the preflop raise with any two cards.

 

[Luk_nuts]

When I say he normally doesn't go crazy post flop, by going crazy I mean he doesn't normally check raise without some very big hands

Well, this makes it a must fold, IMHO.

 

[krafticus]

So, you must going to leaving this hanging there??

 

[Chippy McChiperson]

I shoved, villain pretty much snapped. I showed Aces and he flipped up 93hh. 3 on the turn to boat him up, and no ace on the river. I still cashed out for $750/$300, but wasn't pleased with that hand. The alarm bells were going off in my head when I got check raised, and even though I thought he couldn't have either of the top two sets, and probably not the third, I thought afterwards would he have really check raised with AQ or KQ?? Maybe with JT, but I feel like I am getting check called with big queens most of the time in that spot.

 

[Socraticd]

End of the day, I guess the question I have is this: When we have what we think is a really good read on a villain, and they do something that is very in line with that read, why wouldn't we go with it and pick better spots?

To be more direct, what was your thought process that coming over the top for stacks was a good idea? From almost everything you said and described, this was a must-fold hand with THIS villain.

 

[Anthony Martino]

If you have villians calling $35 pre with 93 s00ted you'll make that stack back up in no time!

 

[Chippy McChiperson]

End of the day, I guess the question I have is this: When we have what we think is a really good read on a villain, and they do something that is very in line with that read, why wouldn't we go with it and pick better spots?

To be more direct, what was your thought process that coming over the top for stacks was a good idea? From almost everything you said and described, this was a must-fold hand with THIS villain.

At the time, I thought that big queens were certainly in his range here, although alarm bells were going off that he could have two pair like I said. After the hand was over, and I had time to think about it more, I thought maybe he wouldn't have played his big queens that way. Obviously if I knew he had two pair or a set and that was his whole range I'm folding. I have folded aces post flop in my life before, although some might find that hard to believe.

 

[Socraticd]

At the time, I thought that big queens were certainly in his range here, although alarm bells were going off that he could have two pair like I said. After the hand was over, and I had time to think about it more, I thought maybe he wouldn't have played his big queens that way. Obviously if I knew he had two pair or a set and that was his whole range I'm folding. I have folded aces post flop in my life before, although some might find that hard to believe.

Yeah I was just curious because your descriptions essentially paint a picture more akin to "he always has two pair/sets there"