atomiktoaster
Full House
76d sounds too loose for hero's table image out of position. T9d is pretty plausible.
-
This site contains affiliate links. If you choose to make a purchase after clicking a link, Poker Chip Forum may receive a commission at no additional cost to you. Thank you for your support!
AJs in the blinds, Hero might be a donkey here (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter DrStrange
- Start date
76d sounds too loose for hero's table image out of position. T9d is pretty plausible.
Ben
Full House
We're not getting it all in here because we played this hand so passively - shoving is going to look like exactly what it is and he isn't calling unless he somehow had a flush draw as well. We're not going to induce a shove, and we don't want to give him the opportunity to check behind which he will do the majority of the time.
Bet $75 again, hope he calls with his pair of whatever, and take what you can get at this point.
Bet $75 again, hope he calls with his pair of whatever, and take what you can get at this point.
Ben
Full House
Why can't I delete a post???
fish72s
Flush
Basically you can make a good argument for any bet depending on what you think villain is likely to have an what he is capable of folding/calling/raising a certain bet. (Part of the problem is that our hand is nearly face up. If he's thinking, he can almost put us on exactly AJd.)
1) If we think villain stacks off with 2nd pair trying to pinch a bluff, (or if he has a flush too) then go big,
2) if he is competent enough to lay down a marginal hand for $200, then go $75 and take what we can get.
3) if he is tricky and capable of a sick (FPS) bluff, then go $25-$50 and try to get the whole $200 from a re-raise.
DrStrange would know best.
Ben is right that 2) is what villain should do and is the most likely bet to get use paid.
But 1) and 3) have the benefit of winning an extra $125 over 2) and DrStrange has indicated that villain can play his part in either case.
Basically, this is a good thread because there are plenty of valid alternative ways the hand could be played.
Although I'm not sure why "DrStrange might be a donkey" is in the title? Sure we could have got all the money in on the flop, but who knew the diamond was coming?
1) If we think villain stacks off with 2nd pair trying to pinch a bluff, (or if he has a flush too) then go big,
2) if he is competent enough to lay down a marginal hand for $200, then go $75 and take what we can get.
3) if he is tricky and capable of a sick (FPS) bluff, then go $25-$50 and try to get the whole $200 from a re-raise.
DrStrange would know best.
Ben is right that 2) is what villain should do and is the most likely bet to get use paid.
But 1) and 3) have the benefit of winning an extra $125 over 2) and DrStrange has indicated that villain can play his part in either case.
Basically, this is a good thread because there are plenty of valid alternative ways the hand could be played.
Although I'm not sure why "DrStrange might be a donkey" is in the title? Sure we could have got all the money in on the flop, but who knew the diamond was coming?
bergs
Royal Flush
Should've gotten it in on the turn. I was advocating jamming to make it look bluffy. If villain was bluffing on the turn raise, we're never getting paid anyway. I thought if Hero bet $75-100, it would look exactly like we were extracting value from a K-high or A-high flush. Jamming might be the only way villain actually calls a bet from us. Checking and hoping we get action is very, very villain dependent. I can see that line being taken but we have to be like 85% sure that villain is going to either try to value bet or bluff - and 2 pair hands aren't betting here with the flush getting made on the river (and I'm not even sure that sets won't check behind).
fish72s
Flush
I don't understand why everyone is so gung-ho to jam all the chips in with TPTK and a flush draw. Yeah we have a great hand, and I might jam it in there if we were in position and villain leads out for $50 on the turn.
But villain has bet the whole way and just re-raised us on the turn. Am I the only one giving him credit for better than one pair?
Sure, he may be bluffing/semi-bluffing because he read our $25 bet as weak. Or maybe he thinks his AJ or KJ is good. But otherwise we are putting an extra $200 at risk and drawing to 7-12 outs.
But villain has bet the whole way and just re-raised us on the turn. Am I the only one giving him credit for better than one pair?
Sure, he may be bluffing/semi-bluffing because he read our $25 bet as weak. Or maybe he thinks his AJ or KJ is good. But otherwise we are putting an extra $200 at risk and drawing to 7-12 outs.
bergs
Royal Flush
If I'm the villain....
Hero limps OOP pre - so we can rule out super premium hands like AK and TT through AA.
Hero check-calls flop on a board with 2 suits - so we can rule out hero having two pair or a set and trying to protect against a flush draw via giving villain improper odds to call
Hero bets weak on turn, which screams "I have a flush draw or a good jack" when the turn brings the Jc
Villain probably has us on one of two things - either exactly the hand we have (XJdd) or a total bluff with a busted straight draw. We have the Jd so logically the villain cannot. I assume villain has at least as much experience playing with hero as I do in reading his strat posts, and I'm just not putting him on a big pocket pair (flop limp), 2 pair or a set (no flop bet, weak turn raise), and slowplaying to trap us.
So now we're at the river. The question is "can we get max value?". We need to look at villain's range and the pot.
Villain's range - There is a chance that he was bluffing on the turn with the raise, in which case this exercise is moot because villain isn't even calling a $1 bet on the river. So let's assume he has a legitimate hand.Villain's likely holdings (and we can absolutely argue about this) are any flush, AJ, KJ, QJ, 99, TT, JJ (unlikely), QQ, or KK. Villain is LAG, but not sticky.
Pot - we have $150ish left and the pot is $300ish. If we rule out bluff raises on the turn from villain, we can assume he's going to call a $75 bet on the river 100% of the time (thanks Bart for the aggressive action theorem, because your other advice was rubbish). Let's assume villain calls a $150 jam 50% of the time with AJ and QQ, 100% of the time with any flush, KJ or JJ or KK, and 10% of the time with any other hand hoping Hero is bluffing.
Without sitting down and doing the math (which I couldn't do at the table, either), I think that's more than enough odds to justify jamming. If we were deeper, it's a much different conversation, but with these stack sizes, go for gold and don't leave $75 of value out there.
Chippy McChiperson
Straight Flush
Bergs, I think the pot is only $200 with about $200 behind. Does this change your thought process at all?
kirchhausen
Flush
If my math is right we have $179 behind and the pot is $202
Chippy McChiperson
Straight Flush
$204 behind
fish72s
Flush
I should have clarified. My last post was regarding the turn.
On the river, I agree that a shove can make sense if we assign apply the right coefficients in the equation. Is it worth doing the math with some estimates based on possible villains hands and actions?
On the river, I agree that a shove can make sense if we assign apply the right coefficients in the equation. Is it worth doing the math with some estimates based on possible villains hands and actions?
Ben
Full House
If we actually had air, this would be an awesome spot to jam as a bluff. Most 1/2 villains (Crazy and Alpha Male notwithstanding) just do not call off $200 shoves on the river after a bunch of prior action without the near-nuts. We have to give him a bet he can call - if he has a hand good enough to call a jam here, he probably jams over our bet anyway.
DrStrange
4 of a Kind
Hero might be a donkey, because there are good arguments that Hero's flop and/or turn plays were sub-optimal and Hero lucked out on the river. On the other hand some might find merit in Hero's line. I haven't said which point of view I would defend.
Just to set the record straight, MP raised to $6 preflop which Hero called. There was no limp by either player preflop.
Everyone at the table could call a $200+ bet with a one pair hand, often with confidence. MP is not going to be deterred or intimidated by a $200 bet from Hero.
One reason to by hyper aggressive with nut flush draws is it balances out when you are aggressing with overpairs or better. It is critical for there to be doubt in people's mind when you come out firing. The nut flush draw offers a cheap way to go. That hand is roughly 50/50 vs anything but sets. So it is an meta-game free roll with fold equity in the actual hand. That is a good deal in my book.
DrStrange
Just to set the record straight, MP raised to $6 preflop which Hero called. There was no limp by either player preflop.
Everyone at the table could call a $200+ bet with a one pair hand, often with confidence. MP is not going to be deterred or intimidated by a $200 bet from Hero.
One reason to by hyper aggressive with nut flush draws is it balances out when you are aggressing with overpairs or better. It is critical for there to be doubt in people's mind when you come out firing. The nut flush draw offers a cheap way to go. That hand is roughly 50/50 vs anything but sets. So it is an meta-game free roll with fold equity in the actual hand. That is a good deal in my book.
DrStrange
atomiktoaster
Full House
Honest question, is a $6 call viewed significantly differently than a limp by these villains? I guess Crazy folded rather than putting in the extra $4, but that seemed pretty out of character.
DrStrange
4 of a Kind
Yes calling $6 means more than calling $2, but only to a limited extent. In Hero's case, he is notorious about folding the small blind. For the rest of the table calling $5 is almost the same as calling $1 more.
DrStrange
DrStrange
bergs
Royal Flush
I'll chip in for Doc's, but not Chippy. Chippy has to outflip me for it. My airfare to BWI for Maryland LIVE! versus his avatar.
You're 51 days late, Jack.
Last edited:
AlPresidente
Pair
tapis
DrStrange
4 of a Kind
*** the end ***
Hero bets $175. {I thought that was all in , but Hero had bungled his chip count} Villain pauses for a moment or two and sigh-calls.
Hero tables his ace high flush, villain shows
.
Hero gets a really good result as things turned out. Hero passes up almost every chance to semi-bluff and gets credit for passively playing his draw. Hero had zero fold equity vs the flopped top set and actually might have avoided getting stacked by his weak line.
But . . . . I am still rating Hero's play as "donkey". Hero has a chunk of fold equity vs the bulk of MP's range and needs the balance that comes from betting his draws like made hands. I score it this way.
preflop = OK stacks are deep enough to play AJs as a suited ace. SPR is north of ten.
Flop = not OK Hero should lead sometimes, other times check raise but aggression is warranted somewhere on this street.
Turn lead = OK in concept, not OK in execution due to sizing. Hero's line up till here looks powerful - check/call flop followed by a bet leading the turn (brick) That is quite consistent with a set. However . . .
Turn call = not OK. Hero is often ahead here or drawing to 11 - 14 outs. Hero is pretending to have a set, but the story falls apart when he fails to raise. Villain's range includes draws and maybe even some one-pair hands where Hero is ahead (just not this time)
River bet = OK with demerits for not knowing his stack size.
In my after-action review I see this hand as evidence of tilt. Hero wasn't making some clever meta game play to cloud his range. Hero was trying to limit his losses as he tried to make his draw as cheaply as possible, Kudos to Lady Luck for bailing Hero out.
DrStrange
Hero bets $175. {I thought that was all in , but Hero had bungled his chip count} Villain pauses for a moment or two and sigh-calls.
Hero tables his ace high flush, villain shows
.Hero gets a really good result as things turned out. Hero passes up almost every chance to semi-bluff and gets credit for passively playing his draw. Hero had zero fold equity vs the flopped top set and actually might have avoided getting stacked by his weak line.
But . . . . I am still rating Hero's play as "donkey". Hero has a chunk of fold equity vs the bulk of MP's range and needs the balance that comes from betting his draws like made hands. I score it this way.
preflop = OK stacks are deep enough to play AJs as a suited ace. SPR is north of ten.
Flop = not OK Hero should lead sometimes, other times check raise but aggression is warranted somewhere on this street.
Turn lead = OK in concept, not OK in execution due to sizing. Hero's line up till here looks powerful - check/call flop followed by a bet leading the turn (brick) That is quite consistent with a set. However . . .
Turn call = not OK. Hero is often ahead here or drawing to 11 - 14 outs. Hero is pretending to have a set, but the story falls apart when he fails to raise. Villain's range includes draws and maybe even some one-pair hands where Hero is ahead (just not this time)
River bet = OK with demerits for not knowing his stack size.
In my after-action review I see this hand as evidence of tilt. Hero wasn't making some clever meta game play to cloud his range. Hero was trying to limit his losses as he tried to make his draw as cheaply as possible, Kudos to Lady Luck for bailing Hero out.
DrStrange
atomiktoaster
Full House
What the hell did villain think you had? 33 or 55? Kind of shocked you got the call given your table image. Next one of these threads I'm on the jam train with bergs.
DrStrange
4 of a Kind
I wasn't think call vs fold on the turn. I was thinking call vs raise. IMO Hero should have jammed rather than call.
Villain has seen Hero make a big bet river bluff in the last few hands and knows Hero's night has been rocky. This game over values one pair hands. Hero's turn bet clouds the issue. Sure we know the obvious answer is XJs but Hero might have other hands with a jack. If we get past hero's $15 flop call, KJ makes enough sense.
Here is what villain had to say, "I never know with you. Once a night there is a bluff, a hand played that shouldn't be played by your standards, a raise you normally wouldn't make. Problem is I don't know when you do it or why."
MP is getting 2-1 on the call. Its hard to lay down a set.
DrStrange
Villain has seen Hero make a big bet river bluff in the last few hands and knows Hero's night has been rocky. This game over values one pair hands. Hero's turn bet clouds the issue. Sure we know the obvious answer is XJs but Hero might have other hands with a jack. If we get past hero's $15 flop call, KJ makes enough sense.
Here is what villain had to say, "I never know with you. Once a night there is a bluff, a hand played that shouldn't be played by your standards, a raise you normally wouldn't make. Problem is I don't know when you do it or why."
MP is getting 2-1 on the call. Its hard to lay down a set.
DrStrange
atomiktoaster
Full House
So I'd guess Villain would have just called the $25-100 bet and not jammed. What's your take on how a check would have played out?
DrStrange
4 of a Kind
A check might induce a bet given how strong villain was. Villain has to call a check raise due to pot odds. So same result as if Hero just acts. But there is some chance MP would check behind - and not much reason to take the chance.
DrStrage
DrStrage
Create an account or login to comment
You must be a member in order to leave a comment
Create account
Create an account and join our community. It's easy!
Log in
Already have an account? Log in here.
