AQo in the BB - multiple interesting decision points (4 Viewers)

[Moxie Mike]

Ok enough of the suspense already lol. Tell us what happened.

He's going to be like @Beakertwang and wait until the next election cycle is over before posting the results.

 

[MrCatPants]

Just read the other replies. Seems like the opinions are pretty split between calling and folding.

I think from an EV standpoint this decision is really close either way. I still lean towards a call but the cases that have been made for folding are strong arguments too.

Honestly @MrCatPants, I'd been wondering why you posted this until the river plot twist. I began to think to myself what does my wife see in you lol

she must miss me dearly

 

[MrCatPants]

Result?

I folded after a tank and had the same read and even same action @Windwalker mentioned earlier- I showed my fold accompanied with a "I don't know whether to say nice hand or nice bet, but either way I'm laying this down," to try to establish a tight table image for loosening up later.

I had listened to a bunch of Bart Hanson's CrushLivePoker call ins in the background before heading out to the game and it did probably influence me with as many of those river raise situations end up with the goods at these stakes. As much as I logically was like "What kind of hands with actual strength would take this line??????" and couldn't come up with any that weren't really poorly played given the action (e.g. sets on such a draw heavy board should be played faster, at least by the turn. 10/3 10/2 or q/3 q/2 seemed like the only ranges I could see behaving like this.

I did not find out what he had. That said, he played one more hand and then racked up and asked for a table change. Not to read too much into it, but made me think even more that he had it and didn't like the tight fold.

Table was also pretty evenly split on call vs. fold.

 

[raynmanas]

I did not find out what he had.

 

[Kain8]

 

[Legend5555]

View attachment 744874

Yet, you also won't be maximizing value enough either.

 

[Irish]

I did not find out what he had. That said, he played one more hand and then racked up and asked for a table change. Not to read too much into it, but made me think even more that he had it and didn't like the tight fold.

Table was also pretty evenly split on call vs. fold.

(j/k I probably fold here as well)

 

[warma]

I did not find out what he had.

Let this be a lesson to everyone.

Even though you *want* to fold, Doyle, both Phils, Negreanu, and Norman Chad (especially Norm) would *scream* fold- you absolutely positively must call for the benefit of PCF.

I would.

Because the learning value is totally in excess of any financial loss you could incur. Every time.

Plus, there’s a…. 0.0000000000001% chance you might actually win. Sooooo worth it.

 

[Jake14mw]

Uggghhh... @MrCatPants you did us dirty! This is like watching the movie Se7en and saying when he opened the box "I don't know what was in the box". It's like watching 6 seasons of Lost and having a finale that didn't explain everything!

Oh well, I still enjoyed all of the discussion, thanks for posting... I think!

 

[DrStrange]

Hey! this means we were all right!!

 

[Moxie Mike]

Hey! this means we were all right!!

Democracy prevails!

 

[JustinInMN]

Better to take a check / call(?) river line to maybe catch a bluff or misguided "value" bet and keep the bet sizing more in tune with Hero's hand strength. But that is easy to say this late in the hand.

I agree, I HATE this hand as a bet fold. Check call is certainly superior here.

That said, the turtle sweatshirt move after the raise is a data point that just doesn't strike me as the act of a bluffer with little history.

Absent that, I could see the river raise on a missed draw, especially if villain doesn't semi bluff draws then maybe he turns missed draws into bluffs.

So to me, it the act that tips this to a fold for me, not the raise itself. If I bet this hand, I think it's good enough to call a raise, I would rather take the bet fold line with jj.

 

[davislane]

I'm moving to America to play NLH knowing that ~50% of people will be folding top top on that board to a river raise.

If you decided to fold it then I wouldn't be showing anyone. You think you might be developing a tight image but what you are really showing people is that you can be bluffed easily IMO.

 

[Moxie Mike]

I'm moving to America to play NLH knowing that ~50% of people will be folding top top on that board to a river raise.

If you decided to fold it then I wouldn't be showing anyone. You think you might be developing a tight image but what you are really showing people is that you can be bluffed easily IMO.

Yeah man - there's a prevailing theory amongst solid players not to put a lot of money in with one-pair hands. Ironically, this makes them very easy to play against IMO.

Calling for meta-game reasons is always a trap in the sense that you're operating under the assumption that you'll be able to leverage the table image you're trying to cultivate profitably in future hands. In this case, the Villain in question asked for a table change - so I'm not sure if calling purely for this reason is +EV.

For me, if I'm at a table full of NITs I'll deliberately do some nonsensical shit just to throw them off. I don't want them to think I'm good*.... just unpredictable.

*Ask @davin @toynoob @doughboy63 @MrCatPants @BGinGA @Beakertwang or any of the old PCF regs... they'll tell you I'm not 'good'

@DrStrange

What you said.

I see a lot of that type of advice and I see it dispensed often enough to where there has to be some merit to it... but I wonder in an overarching sense what the EV is of checking OOP after aggression is displayed on all 3 previous betting rounds. It is certainly merited on scary rivers, but if there was ever a river that warrants firing 3rd barrel with a strong hand, it's this one. If HERO reasonably believed he was ahead on the turn, there's no reason to believe an offsuit deuce changed that.

What I'm getting at is this: after any river card (where you're strong) you're going to find yourself in one of 2 situations: You either want to maximize value or you want to limit losses. Philosophically, which do you think is the more profitable line in the long run?

But it begs the question: if an offsuit deuce can be a hazardous river card, then what isn't?

 

[davislane]

Yeah man - there's a prevailing theory amongst solid players not to put a lot of money in with one-pair hands. Ironically, this makes them very easy to play against IMO.

Calling for meta-game reasons is always a trap in the sense that you're operating under the assumption that you'll be able to leverage the table image you're trying to cultivate profitably in future hands. In this case, the Villain in question asked for a table change - so I'm not sure if calling purely for this reason is +EV.

For me, if I'm at a table full of NITs I'll deliberately do some nonsensical shit just to throw them off. I don't want them to think I'm good*.... just unpredictable.

*Ask @davin @toynoob @doughboy63 @MrCatPants @BGinGA @Beakertwang or any of the old PCF regs... they'll tell you I'm not 'good'

@DrStrange



I see a lot of that type of advice and I see it dispensed often enough to where there has to be some merit to it... but I wonder in an overarching sense what the EV is of checking OOP after aggression is displayed on all 3 previous betting rounds. It is certainly merited on scary rivers, but if there was ever a river that warrants firing 3rd barrel with a strong hand, it's this one. If HERO reasonably believed he was ahead on the turn, there's no reason to believe an offsuit deuce changed that.

What I'm getting at is this: after any river card (where you're strong) you're going to find yourself in one of 2 situations: You either want to maximize value or you want to limit losses. Philosophically, which do you think is the more profitable line in the long run?

But it begs the question: if an offsuit deuce can be a hazardous river card, then what isn't?

I wasn't advocating going broke either with a one-pair hand. If you are betting for thin value on that river and then folding to a raise on that board given the action on the 2 previous streets then you are better off check calling.

 

[Moxie Mike]

I wasn't advocating going broke either with a one-pair hand. If you are betting for thin value on that river and then folding to a raise then you are better off check calling.

I think you have to have a pretty opponent-specific read to check hoping they will bet in that spot. Personally, I don't think the opponent as described is capable of falling into the trap of betting a missed draw when checked to. It's just too suspicious. But betting $50 into a $200 pot reads rather weak... so I advocated a call on the river for all the reasons I laid out. EV wise - given the price being laid I think the difference is negligible.

 

[davislane]

I think you have to have a pretty opponent-specific read to check hoping they will bet in that spot. Personally, I don't think the opponent as described is capable of falling into the trap of betting a missed draw when checked to. It's just too suspicious. But betting $50 into a $200 pot reads rather weak... so I advocated a call on the river for all the reasons I laid out. EV wise - given the price being laid I think the difference is negligible.

I was making the suggestion to OP if that's how they are choosing to play then they are better off having a plan to check call instead of bet small & fold.

 

[MrCatPants]

I'm moving to America to play NLH knowing that ~50% of people will be folding top top on that board to a river raise.

If you decided to fold it then I wouldn't be showing anyone. You think you might be developing a tight image but what you are really showing people is that you can be bluffed easily IMO.

Most of these low stakes games in local card rooms are full of terrible play. Lots of sticky players that just want to get to showdown with second pair and a mediocre kicker.

River raises tend to be very rare at these stakes and are heavily underbluffed. As others have mentioned that is exploitable to a degree - but also a danger zone as again players tend to be super sticky...which makes it less profitable to bluff at rivers.

 

[MrCatPants]

I was making the suggestion to OP if that's how they are choosing to play then they are better off having a plan to check call instead of bet small & fold.

In retrospect I agree with this. I read I was trying to get a little more value from missed ace high draws or weak queens and didn't even contemplate that there "should" be any hands that would raise me until it happened.

 

[BGinGA]

I did not find out what he had.

I feel so.... unsatisfied.

Also, never show your cards unless required.

The best player I've ever met once told me that any metagame reason one might have for showing a hand is nullified by better players than you using it to their advantage. On the other hand, if you want to TELL them what you had, feel free to do so....and throw in a few lies for good measure.

But the optimal strategy is to show nothing and say nothing. Not knowing anything about how you play (beyond what is required to be divulged) is best.

And note that is exactly how villain played it.

 

[Moxie Mike]

Also, never show your cards unless required.

The best player I've ever met once told me that any metagame reason one might have for showing a hand is nullified by better players than you using it to their advantage.

But the optimal strategy is to show nothing and say nothing. Not knowing anything about how you play (beyond what is required to be divulged) is best.

I agree to a point. Tabling the hand you're mucking in this instance was probably -EV, since HERO really didn't get anything in return for information he gave away. But there are times where showing after uncalled bets is a good move.

I don't usually see the merit in tabling big laydowns. I understand the psychological need to have your peers thing you're good at the game - and it's akin to players seeking out games where people 'respect their raises'. There are times where a tight table image will come in handy - it lets you get away with a lot more shit! But in general, I'd prefer my opponents not know the level of thinking and analysis I'm capable of.

For example, say you're in late position with AA or KK and open with a standard raise only to win the blinds uncontested. Disappointing, right? I'll often go ahead and table my hand since I'm not really giving anything away. What are they going to use against me? He had a monster and raised? Shocker lol! But doing so has a psychological effect - basically it supports their confirmation bias that I only bet and raise with good hands. This is particularly useful when playing against common opponents.

Conversely, tabling a bluff can also be effective if my opponents are playing too tight and not calling my value bets. Getting value bets paid off is critical, since good hands don't really come along all that often. So if my opponents are making too many correct folds, then I've become too predictable. Stealing with impunity will help you keep your 'M' up, but you won't build a stack that way. So if they're not going to look me up here and there, I have to incentivize them to.

This all assumes you're playing against people who are just smart enough to be open to this type of psychological manipulation but not talented enough to put the information to it's proper use. Most low stakes players fit this description in some fashion or another.

 

[davislane]

I agree to a point. Tabling the hand you're mucking in this instance was probably -EV, since HERO really didn't get anything in return for information he gave away. But there are times where showing after uncalled bets is a good move.

I don't usually see the merit in tabling big laydowns. I understand the psychological need to have your peers thing you're good at the game - and it's akin to players seeking out games where people 'respect their raises'. There are times where a tight table image will come in handy - it lets you get away with a lot more shit! But in general, I'd prefer my opponents not know the level of thinking and analysis I'm capable of.

For example, say you're in late position with AA or KK and open with a standard raise only to win the blinds uncontested. Disappointing, right? I'll often go ahead and table my hand since I'm not really giving anything away. What are they going to use against me? He had a monster and raised? Shocker lol! But doing so has a psychological effect - basically it supports their confirmation bias that I only bet and raise with good hands. This is particularly useful when playing against common opponents.

Conversely, tabling a bluff can also be effective if my opponents are playing too tight and not calling my value bets. Getting value bets paid off is critical, since good hands don't really come along all that often. So if my opponents are making too many correct folds, then I've become too predictable. Stealing with impunity will help you keep your 'M' up, but you won't build a stack that way. So if they're not going to look me up here and there, I have to incentivize them to.

This all assumes you're playing against people who are just smart enough to be open to this type of psychological manipulation but not talented enough to put the information to it's proper use. Most low stakes players fit this description in some fashion or another.

The toughest kind of player to play against is the player you can never put a hand on. To become that kind of player you have to "give" away the least amount of information you can. You may be thinking you are constructing an image of being tight and being able to "get away" with more as you put it but an increase in your hand frequency will quickly negate that.

Whilst it is easy for everyone to give their opinion on the matter, a lot of opinions given are going to be stake/opponent dependant. Ultimately everyone has their own style and reasons for playing poker, so as long as you are happy with where you are at with your poker game who is anyone to tell you how you should have played your hand. If you are asking because you want to get better well then that's a totally different thing altogether.

 

[Moxie Mike]

The toughest kind of player to play against is the player you can never put a hand on. To become that kind of player you have to "give" away the least amount of information you can. You may be thinking you are constructing an image of being tight and being able to "get away" with more as you put it but an increase in your hand frequency will quickly negate that.

Let me give you a quick real world example of what I'm talking about.

Just this week, I played in an online league game where I wound up heads up with a total ABC type player. Not a bad player by any stretch, but not particularly tricky by any measure.

We entered heads up with 100 BBs in play with me having a 2-1 chip lead. We traded pots with him always folding to my value bets for about 20 minutes until we got into a hand where he raised pre and I called with 4-5o. I c/red him all in on a dry board and after he folded, I showed my hand (I had reason to believe he was weak). The next hand I stole the blinds with junk and showed. The following hand I raised his limp with junk and showed after he folded. Then I won a couple pots without showing.

I ground him down to 10 BBs and he open shoved on his button. It was at that point I knew he'd given up on 'playing poker'. In that hand, I couldn't call so I mucked without showing. But the next hand I was dealt AQo on my button and I limped, hoping to set a trap. Opponent predictably jammed and of course I called. AQo held up and I won the tournament.

The point is, I deliberately showed him garbo so many times in a row that it probably induced a preflop jam with a relatively weak hand (King Hi). Had I not done that, I think he'd have kept grinding hoping to flop strong and get his chips in good.

 

[upNdown]

Let me give you a quick real world example of what I'm talking about.

Just this week, I played in an online league game where I wound up heads up with a total ABC type player. Not a bad player by any stretch, but not particularly tricky by any measure.

We entered heads up with 100 BBs in play with me having a 2-1 chip lead. We traded pots with him always folding to my value bets for about 20 minutes until we got into a hand where he raised pre and I called with 4-5o. I c/red him all in on a dry board and after he folded, I showed my hand (I had reason to believe he was weak). The next hand I stole the blinds with junk and showed. The following hand I raised his limp with junk and showed after he folded. Then I won a couple pots without showing.

I ground him down to 10 BBs and he open shoved on his button. It was at that point I knew he'd given up on 'playing poker'. In that hand, I couldn't call so I mucked without showing. But the next hand I was dealt AQo on my button and I limped, hoping to set a trap. Opponent predictably jammed and of course I called. AQo held up and I won the tournament.

The point is, I deliberately showed him garbo so many times in a row that it probably induced a preflop jam with a relatively weak hand (King Hi). Had I not done that, I think he'd have kept grinding hoping to flop strong and get his chips in good.

Well played.
(But heads up with 10bb, getting them in with a K is getting them in good.)

 

[Zr1]

Maybe im in the minority but i check/call flop and turn like 95% of the time. Im trying to get to show down as cheap as possible. Hes not folding a flush draw or 2 pair etc so i want to keep it small. Flush draw doesnt come maybe he fires a bullet on the river. Our hand has good showdown value but i think its a mistake to be trying to play a big pot out of position

 

[Moxie Mike]

Maybe im in the minority but i check/call flop and turn like 95% of the time. Im trying to get to show down as cheap as possible. Hes not folding a flush draw or 2 pair etc so i want to keep it small. Flush draw doesnt come maybe he fires a bullet on the river. Our hand has good showdown value but i think its a mistake to be trying to play a big pot out of position

The idea of limiting losses in big-bet poker games is valid, but there are times where that logic is fallacious. This hand is one of those examples.

Pot control is an important concept but maximizing EV is what big-bet poker is all about. If your opponent makes multiple incorrect calls and swells the pot in the process so-be-it. You're still going to profit more in the long run.

In this situation, HERO is up against what is more or less a random hand given the straddle. The puts HERO way ahead of most of the Villain's range and he should be trying to extract maximum value while also protecting his hand. Villain will have a lot of hands he'll call with that HERO beats; smaller queens, many 10s FDs, SDs, etc. will all be willing to put chips in even if they might at a mathematical disadvantage.

Failing to bet your hand 'because they're calling anyway' is fundamentally bad poker. The sole purpose of betting isn't to induce folds. Betting is primarily to extract money from opponents with worse hands and to charge them unprofitable prices to chase their draws.

Think of it another way... in HERO's spot, he's very strong after the flop and turn. Why would he want to give free cards to someone who is possibly drawing? Advocating the he wait for a clean runout before placing a bet is not a strategy suited to big bet games.

 

[Zr1]

The idea of limiting losses in big-bet poker games is valid, but there are times where that logic is fallacious. This hand is one of those examples.

Pot control is an important concept but maximizing EV is what big-bet poker is all about. If your opponent makes multiple incorrect calls and swells the pot in the process so-be-it. You're still going to profit more in the long run.

In this situation, HERO is up against what is more or less a random hand given the straddle. The puts HERO way ahead of most of the Villain's range and he should be trying to extract maximum value while also protecting his hand. Villain will have a lot of hands he'll call with that HERO beats; smaller queens, many 10s FDs, SDs, etc. will all be willing to put chips in even if they might at a mathematical disadvantage.

Failing to bet your hand 'because they're calling anyway' is fundamentally bad poker. The sole purpose of betting isn't to induce folds. Betting is primarily to extract money from opponents with worse hands and to charge them unprofitable prices to chase their draws.

Think of it another way... in HERO's spot, he's very strong after the flop and turn. Why would he want to give free cards to someone who is possibly drawing? Advocating the he wait for a clean runout before placing a bet is not a strategy suited to big bet games.

Its not about limiting losses its about playing a big pot out of postion. If...big if cause we do t really know what he would have done if the other guy is going to keep value betting our hand why wouldnt we let him? If we bet and he has nothing he folds. No vaule..or we bet and he puts in a big raise and that sucks. We are out of postion. Playing big pots out of postion sucks. Also protecting our hand is BS. No flush draw is folding. Im not worried about protecting our hand as i agree with you we are usually way ahead of his range. We have good show down value and i want to get there with him building the pot.

 

[Legend5555]

Its not about limiting losses its about playing a big pot out of postion. If...big if cause we do t really know what he would have done if the other guy is going to keep value betting our hand why wouldnt we let him? If we bet and he has nothing he folds. No vaule..or we bet and he puts in a big raise and that sucks. We are out of postion. Playing big pots out of postion sucks. Also protecting our hand is BS. No flush draw is folding. Im not worried about protecting our hand as i agree with you we are usually way ahead of his range. We have good show down value and i want to get there with him building the pot.

Both lines have merit. And this is a spot where you should do a mix of both checking and betting theoretically. But exploitatively, we should think about how this villain plays if we know.

Saying villain had a random hand because of the straddle is not accurate unless we know villain defend a high amount of his straddles. In absence of that info, we should assume he isn't just playing sorry light here given the raise is from early position.

The better my opponent is, the more I'm going to want to play pot control as we can be put in some very tough spots with one pair. The worse my opponent is, the more I'll want to just bet for value.

And if opponent is never folding a flush draw and it's a weaker opponent that will almost never raise here with a draw, then I'm going to want to bet big for value. Good players won't fold a flush draw either, but they will play more hands in a similar manner to make your life miserable. So bloating pots OOP makes less sense.

Stack depth also matters. The deeper you are, the more defensive you have to play OOP especially against good players.

 

[JustinInMN]

Its not about limiting losses its about playing a big pot out of postion. If...big if cause we do t really know what he would have done if the other guy is going to keep value betting our hand why wouldnt we let him? If we bet and he has nothing he folds. No vaule..or we bet and he puts in a big raise and that sucks. We are out of postion. Playing big pots out of postion sucks. Also protecting our hand is BS. No flush draw is folding. Im not worried about protecting our hand as i agree with you we are usually way ahead of his range. We have good show down value and i want to get there with him building the pot.

Then fold AQ pre.

But if you catch one of the best flops you can and don't play for value, then fold it, only play AA and KK in these spots.

If you want to be less predictable than that then you can't wait for positions of sure comfort to play.

Often times profitable poker is 11 steps forward and 10 steps back in any random order. However you never get the 11 steps forward if you are too afraid of one step back let alone 10.

People are so afraid to be wrong even once they cost themselves opportunities to make the right plays, which also hurts profit.

 

[Windwalker]

But it begs the question: if an offsuit deuce can be a hazardous river card, then what isn't?

I’m one of the people that advocated for a fold. That said, I would not have personally played that hand the same way.

I believe that it is entirely possible given the bet sizes from the hero after the flop and after the turn, that the villain was calling with a weak queen or a middle pair. The only way to play top pair heads up out of position is to bet large enough to get weak kickers and second pairs out.