Critique my thought process... (2 Viewers)

[RofoPoker]

Hi all. Wanted to get some thoughts on a hand I played this past weekend. Some background on me: I was a pretty frequent and reasonably successful (by my standards) fixed limit live player back in the Moneymaker era, but then life and bankroll (or lack thereof) got in the way for a while. I've recently picked the game back up in what is now called the "GTO era" and I'm trying to learn the new way of thinking in this game as well as adjust to no-limit. I have no aspirations about making a living with poker but as with anything I'm always looking to learn and improve even if me winning the World Series of Poker is as likely as me winning a World Series in Major League Baseball.

Here's the scene: $1/$3 NLHE, $500 max buy in. I've been here for about 3.5 hours now mostly just treading water, sitting at $535. Table had been super tight for the first 2 hours until turnover brought some fresh players, one of whom was a woman who'd come from a broken PLO game and sat down with $1700 and change. Let's call her Villain 1. She was to my immediate left and had 3-bet nearly every one of my opens (including the one I'm about to tell you about) but had something reasonable whenever she got to showdown. A few of the other players at the table knew her and gave her raises a lot of respect (although they could also have been deferential to her stack). Point being that my read on her was that she's a solid player.

Villain 2 in this scenario is a splashy player who didn't raise a lot preflop but was in nearly every hand and was very sticky with any piece of the board. His stack was swinging all over the place, as much as $800 to as low as $75. He'd already been felted once and bought back in for $300. Currently sitting at $280. Here we go...

Hero opens for $15 from UTG+1 with AcQc
Villain 1 (UTG+2) raises to $55
Villain 2 (CO) calls
Hero calls
Pot: $162 after $5 rake and $2 drop

My thoughts: $15 was my standard open and typical for the table. I think this is a pretty automatic call here even giving Villain 1 her due respect. Yeah she could very well have me dominated but she's also probably doing this with most pocket pairs 77+ and some suited connectors. Like I'd said earlier, she was 3-betting me a lot. Villain 2 could have anything but probably shoves with something premium, so I'm not worried about that.

Flop: 9c 3c 3h

Hero checks
Villains both check

Flopped the nut flush draw but I think checking to the preflop aggressor is probably standard here. Here's a question: had she (or Villain 2) bet, would anyone have check raised this? If it was a big bet, would you call? Playing flush draws well is something I struggle with. I'm never sure when to semibluff at it. In this situation I'm perfectly happy to have had it checked around but just wondering for future reference.

Also (and this is some foreshadowing): does the fact that Villain 1 checked here cap her range? Again this is my attempt to understand the GTO thought process.

Turn: 8c

Hero bets $100
Villains both call
Pot: $462

So the flush comes in and I lead for a little under 2/3 pot and both of them come along. What does everyone think about my leading here? Bet sizing okay?

I wasn't particularly surprised to get a call from Villain 2 who is probably calling with any 9 or any club, but I'm having trouble figuring what Villain 1 would have called with. My initial thought was something with the Kc until...

River: Kc

Hero checks
Villain 1 goes all-in
Villain 2 folds

Hero ?

Now I'm not sure why but I'm completely flummoxed. My initial reaction to the river was to check as if I was afraid of the fourth club which I guess got the reaction I wanted, but for some reason she was setting off alarm bells in my head that she had just rivered into Kings full or had been slow playing 99 all along. I not only had the nut flush but was also blocking the second nut flush and she didn't seem afraid of the four clubs out there.

Without giving away the result yet: Was the check a good idea? Would anyone else have been afraid of KK or 99 here? What bluffs does anyone think she might have had? Or is this a snap call for most of you?

My confession is that this is one of the biggest pots I've ever played, so that's where some of my hesitation was coming from. Financially I'm fine losing $500+ otherwise I wouldn't be there but it was still a heartpounder for me. All that tells me is I need to play more and get used to making these kinds of decisions.

 

[Tonysquander]

FH is a concern but I call. if she hit it, then she hit it. It happens. Think she has a pair of Jacks or 10s with a club.

 

[l33tf0b]

Would probably choose to 4bet pre to 175+. 4 bet smaller if u want to fold to 5 bet. Given player profile s… seems ok to stack off 150bb

As played GTO says range bet 1/3 if you’re aggressor. Check raise OOP and get it in with SPR 3. 2 overs and flush draw seems easy to stack off here.

Rec player 5/5/10 so I don’t know if this is the best line =P.

 

[MichaelBubly]

As played, you can never fold the river. Pretty gross if they somehow have KK or something, but they likely value jam worse and bluff often enough that this is just never a fold.

I don't mind flatting pre, but would definitely mix 4 bet to isolate.

 

[dmoney]

Briefly, I think ONLY KK makes sense as a hand for villain here. I think 99 and 88 would both raise the turn, and are both unlikely 3b hands for V1 UTG2. But I also can't think of a good bluff hand for V1.

I think I toss a single chip call and say "Kings are good." I expect to be right, but hope I am wrong.

 

[ChipMonster]

My suspicion is V1 had either pocket 3’s and waited for you to catch up or pocket Kings and hit on the river. The all in would definitely throw me off though but it’s probably meant to make you feel like it’s a bluff when you didn’t bet the river.

I just read something by Mike Caro basically saying that in these situations your call only needs to be right a portion of the time for you to still be ahead in the long run on these types of hands.

 

[RofoPoker]

I don't mind flatting pre, but would definitely mix 4 bet to isolate.

That's interesting and thanks for bringing it up. It's funny because I was listening to a Thinking Poker podcast on the way home that night in which they were discussing that newer players need to get comfortable playing in 4-bet pots, and the only way to do that is to do it. It was food for thought for me.

Obviously, I'd have 4-bet with AA or KK there without hesitation, but I'll admit I never even considered 4-betting AQs from OOP. Again, I guess these kinds of responses come with experience. As far as isolating, not sure that would have worked here due to V2's propensity to call damn near everything pre but I understand the logic.

So, you'd have considered a 4-bet pre (and then shoved the flop)? Just out of curiosity what do you do if V1 5-bet jams preflop?

 

[MichaelBubly]

That's interesting and thanks for bringing it up. It's funny because I was listening to a Thinking Poker podcast on the way home that night in which they were discussing that newer players need to get comfortable playing in 4-bet pots, and the only way to do that is to do it. It was food for thought for me.

Obviously, I'd have 4-bet with AA or KK there without hesitation, but I'll admit I never even considered 4-betting AQs from OOP. Again, I guess these kinds of responses come with experience. As far as isolating, not sure that would have worked here due to V2's propensity to call damn near everything pre but I understand the logic.

So, you'd have considered a 4-bet pre (and then shoved the flop)? Just out of curiosity what do you do if V1 5-bet jams preflop?

Fold to a 5-bet. C-Bet flop although mixing check probably isn’t terrible especially multiway. Probably shove turn if my very quick mental math maths. Or shove flop if you check and get raised.

AQs is more of a 4-bet bluff for lower stakes imo. Like you said, you’d 4-bet kings and aces so what are your bluffs.

 

[RofoPoker]

Thanks everyone for the input. Not to drag the suspense out but I did make the call. My brain was basically like "no effing way you can fold this."

Villain 1 turned over the (pleasantly) surprising AsKs and I took down the huge pot. I was actually stunned that she'd stuck around on the turn with that because I probably wouldn't have, and I guess she'd figured betting the river was the only way for her to win. In hindsight I guess the line I took worked out for me but I'm still not sure it was correct. One thing I've tried to take to heart here is that winning a hand doesn't always mean you played well, just as losing doesn't always mean you played poorly.

 

[Dbxela]

$125 in there with $520 behind I'm considering shoving with players as described. We're 3:1 when we're called by only AA and KK, so we're risking half our stack to win 125, getting about 1:2. I don't think they can call anywhere near 1/3 of the time between them, without improving our equity significantly.

 

[PokerSTLplayer]

Definitely raise on the flop with 4 to the nut flush. And then keep pounding the turn and river. If she filled up then it is what it is. Would have a hard time laying down the flush especially after a flop raise and firing a strong turn bet.

 

[CallingStation614]

First thing when reading how the hand played out that came to my mind:
I think the call preflop is fine in this situation. As some mentioned a 4bet would be okay, but I'd have acted the same in this situation and with how you described the villains.
First thing I'd have done differently would be to bet on the flop. In this situation I'd not prefer to check over to villain 1 given her action and you're on the nut flush draw. But that's just me.
The bet on the turn is pretty standard.
The all-in would throw me off as well. Kings full or quad 3's should've raised the turn. My guess is KK. But there's no way I fold. Unlucky.

 

[Legend5555]

My thoughts....

If we 4-bet, can we even fold? When if we 4 bet to say $150 and she jams, the pot will be like $725 with $370 for us to call. It's really hard to want to fold pre getting 2 to 1 unless we know it's always QQ+ and AK . Which in live poker is probably true. But still hard to want to fold. I'd like the 4 bet more of we were potentially isolating a fish. But this is UTG vs UTG+1, and UTG+1 is presumably not a total fish. Plus, 4 betting will likely cause is to lose the fish that overcalled. I think I like calling the most pre.

On flop, I don't see how we can check raise this board unless V1 bets and V2 calls/goes all in. At that point we are just playing for odds on our FD multiway. If V1 bets and V2 folks and we check raise, what are we repping in a 3-bet pot other than over pairs and FDs? I literally can't think of anything else on this board. We never have a 3, and we wouldn't check raise 99. And V1 has the monopoly on AA and KK, as we never have AA or KK. If we check jam, V1 always calls with 99+, and probably folds everything else. And the only better hand that folds is AK. So I'm not sure what jamming accomplishes other than getting it in flipping or having them fold AK. And we should be able to get them to fold AK by the river if the board doesn't improve.

On river, because we are blocking all the good flushes and most players don't try to bluff on 4 flush boards, I'd probably go for a block bet of like 20% pot or something. They are going to fold most everything, and maybe call with something like JJc, TTc if they check those on the flop. KK and the oddly played 99 are always jamming. So we only need to try and get value from a pretty small range here.

As was said before, the only hand that makes real sense is KK. But I also can't find any bluffs. But we are getting 2 to 1 with the nut flush. Cry call I guess.

 

[Taghkanic]

They let someone move from a PLO table to a 1/3 hold ’em table with her full $1,700 stack? (I assume the normal limit for 1/3 is something like $500.) Different game, usually different stakes…

 

[RofoPoker]

They let someone move from a PLO table to a 1/3 hold ’em table with her full $1,700 stack? (I assume the normal limit for 1/3 is something like $500.) Different game, usually different stakes…

Yeah I thought that was odd too but she asked the dealer when she sat down and he said it was okay (shrug).

 

[JustinInMN]

Hero opens for $15 from UTG+1 with AcQc
Villain 1 (UTG+2) raises to $55
Villain 2 (CO) calls
Hero calls
Pot: $162 after $5 rake and $2 drop

My thoughts: $15 was my standard open and typical for the table. I think this is a pretty automatic call here even giving Villain 1 her due respect. Yeah she could very well have me dominated but she's also probably doing this with most pocket pairs 77+ and some suited connectors. Like I'd said earlier, she was 3-betting me a lot. Villain 2 could have anything but probably shoves with something premium, so I'm not worried about that.

Flop: 9c 3c 3h

Hero checks
Villains both check

Flopped the nut flush draw but I think checking to the preflop aggressor is probably standard here. Here's a question: had she (or Villain 2) bet, would anyone have check raised this? If it was a big bet, would you call? Playing flush draws well is something I struggle with. I'm never sure when to semibluff at it. In this situation I'm perfectly happy to have had it checked around but just wondering for future reference.

Also (and this is some foreshadowing): does the fact that Villain 1 checked here cap her range? Again this is my attempt to understand the GTO thought process.

Turn: 8c

Hero bets $100
Villains both call
Pot: $462

So the flush comes in and I lead for a little under 2/3 pot and both of them come along. What does everyone think about my leading here? Bet sizing okay?

I like how you have played this exactly so far. I like the flat pre because position is bad, even if we think AQs rates well against villains' ranges here. The cold call from villain 2 screams middle strength to me. Probably a pair or a decent suited holding he can't fold. Maybe AK as well, though I would tend to 3 bet that with position against an aggressive villain 1 myself.

I do like the check here on this flop. We flopped really well short of hitting a pair and we don't want to get blown off this if we end up facing a raise and re-raise. I like to check this and re-evaluate when it comes back to me. I might 3-bet this all in if it goes bet-raise. I think check-call and check raise are really close, and it really depends on how sticky I think the villain would be after a check raise. Now you will notice that is not at all a GTO statement, that is an exploitive statement.

GTO is definitely worth studying and understanding it helps you make balanced decisions. The point of GTO is to defend yourself against observant players by balancing all of your betting lines with the right mix of bluffs, value bets/raises, calls, and folds. The best thing about GTO study is that it makes you think not just about one hand in one situation, but all the hands you can possibly have in a situation and how to balance this.

This thread is just about on a board. What is the top of your range on this board as played? Could you have 99 having raised and flatting a 3-bet pre? (I would say yes.) What are the other AQ hands you can have on this board. Are you continuing with any others. (maybe ?) Can you ever have AJ here, or are you just folding that to a 3-bet? Can you have TT here? (maybe, or is that going to be a 4-bet back, is JJ+ a 4-bet back? What about the mid pairs under nines?) What other "air" do you have given the preflop action? To truly employ GTO play, you need to build all possibilities in your head, and decide on a how frequently you should be taking each action and decide which hands in your range best fill those actions.

Now I think playing GTO is only necessary against observant opponents, I think in your average 1-3NL public cardroom game, much more is to be won playing exploitively. Meaning you should design your actions to target opponents weaknesses. (Do they fold too much, do they call too much?) Oddly, understanding GTO, makes it easier to understand the answers to those sorts of questions when you do want to play exploitively.

Back to the hand, I think check-check is a fine result on the flop.

I like that you are leading this on the turn after checking flop. You are probably going to get called somewhat widely, and I assume most players at this level are calling too much, so I am less worried about losing actions to folds unless their hands are utterly hopeless.

River: Kc

Hero checks
Villain 1 goes all-in
Villain 2 folds

Hero ?

This is weird here for sure. Given we can account for the , , , and , also given villain 3-bet pre, I really feel like JJ and TT are the only way they have a flush here, but even at that, I have a hard time believing overpairs are checking a 2-club board after 3-betting pre. It really feels like it's 99 or nothing. So my math is rough here, so it's $350 to win $800 here so villian needs to be bluffing just under 1/3 of the time for this to show a profit. Is the fact that it's just one combination enough to assume, they don't have it 2/3 of the time? Did villain really check this twice?

To get into another game theory concept, let's evaluate how "high" we are in our range here. I think the nut flush is probably the 3rd or 4th best hand I could have here in hero's shoes. I won't have 33 ever here. (Not opening that UTG+1.) I might have KK here, I don't always 4-bet that hand pre, and I might check flop with that. I surely have 99 here exactly as played. I might have 88 as well if I put that in my utg+1 open range, but that's probably about the bottom of that range, tbh. And then the next best possible hand is the a-hi flush. I also should evaluate what "air" I can get to this river with. Having bet the turn there probably isn't much, Maybe TT or JJ if I am not 4-betting those hands pre, hard for me to have too many a-hi misses on the turn that don't contain a club.

So while we do have an a-hi flush, it's pretty decidedly in the "middle" of our range. You certainly don't want to fold hands near the top of your range if you can help it, that's a sign of over-folding. And conversely calling the bottom of your range means you are probably calling too much.

But having considered all of this, I will probably put the chips in because I really believe 99 and 88 (assuming I could put villain on 3-betting these pre) is the only way.villian has us bear. And to be honest, if I think villain is only flatting these hands pre, then they are probably capped at a j-hi flush, so I have to call here.

Briefly, I think ONLY KK makes sense as a hand for villain here. I think 99 and 88 would both raise the turn, and are both unlikely 3b hands for V1 UTG2. But I also can't think of a good bluff hand for V1.

I think I toss a single chip call and say "Kings are good." I expect to be right, but hope I am wrong.

I really don't think KK makes sense here given villain checked the flop, other hands containing the make sense on the turn, but then we see on the river, so that's out. But I just don't see a player that 3-bet that pre checking the flop. It could happen I suppose, but not often enough to dissuade the call, or quell a surprised feeling if that's what I am shown.

 

[RofoPoker]

I like how you have played this exactly so far. I like the flat pre because position is bad, even if we think AQs rates well against villains' ranges here. The cold call from villain 2 screams middle strength to me. Probably a pair or a decent suited holding he can't fold. Maybe AK as well, though I would tend to 3 bet that with position against an aggressive villain 1 myself.

I do like the check here on this flop. We flopped really well short of hitting a pair and we don't want to get blown off this if we end up facing a raise and re-raise. I like to check this and re-evaluate when it comes back to me. I might 3-bet this all in if it goes bet-raise. I think check-call and check raise are really close, and it really depends on how sticky I think the villain would be after a check raise. Now you will notice that is not at all a GTO statement, that is an exploitive statement.

GTO is definitely worth studying and understanding it helps you make balanced decisions. The point of GTO is to defend yourself against observant players by balancing all of your betting lines with the right mix of bluffs, value bets/raises, calls, and folds. The best thing about GTO study is that it makes you think not just about one hand in one situation, but all the hands you can possibly have in a situation and how to balance this.

This thread is just about on a board. What is the top of your range on this board as played? Could you have 99 having raised and flatting a 3-bet pre? (I would say yes.) What are the other AQ hands you can have on this board. Are you continuing with any others. (maybe ?) Can you ever have AJ here, or are you just folding that to a 3-bet? Can you have TT here? (maybe, or is that going to be a 4-bet back, is JJ+ a 4-bet back? What about the mid pairs under nines?) What other "air" do you have given the preflop action? To truly employ GTO play, you need to build all possibilities in your head, and decide on a how frequently you should be taking each action and decide which hands in your range best fill those actions.

Now I think playing GTO is only necessary against observant opponents, I think in your average 1-3NL public cardroom game, much more is to be won playing exploitively. Meaning you should design your actions to target opponents weaknesses. (Do they fold too much, do they call too much?) Oddly, understanding GTO, makes it easier to understand the answers to those sorts of questions when you do want to play exploitively.

Back to the hand, I think check-check is a fine result on the flop.

I like that you are leading this on the turn after checking flop. You are probably going to get called somewhat widely, and I assume most players at this level are calling too much, so I am less worried about losing actions to folds unless their hands are utterly hopeless.



This is weird here for sure. Given we can account for the , , , and , also given villain 3-bet pre, I really feel like JJ and TT are the only way they have a flush here, but even at that, I have a hard time believing overpairs are checking a 2-club board after 3-betting pre. It really feels like it's 99 or nothing. So my math is rough here, so it's $350 to win $800 here so villian needs to be bluffing just under 1/3 of the time for this to show a profit. Is the fact that it's just one combination enough to assume, they don't have it 2/3 of the time? Did villain really check this twice?

To get into another game theory concept, let's evaluate how "high" we are in our range here. I think the nut flush is probably the 3rd or 4th best hand I could have here in hero's shoes. I won't have 33 ever here. (Not opening that UTG+1.) I might have KK here, I don't always 4-bet that hand pre, and I might check flop with that. I surely have 99 here exactly as played. I might have 88 as well if I put that in my utg+1 open range, but that's probably about the bottom of that range, tbh. And then the next best possible hand is the a-hi flush. I also should evaluate what "air" I can get to this river with. Having bet the turn there probably isn't much, Maybe TT or JJ if I am not 4-betting those hands pre, hard for me to have too many a-hi misses on the turn that don't contain a club.

So while we do have an a-hi flush, it's pretty decidedly in the "middle" of our range. You certainly don't want to fold hands near the top of your range if you can help it, that's a sign of over-folding. And conversely calling the bottom of your range means you are probably calling too much.

But having considered all of this, I will probably put the chips in because I really believe 99 and 88 (assuming I could put villain on 3-betting these pre) is the only way.villian has us bear. And to be honest, if I think villain is only flatting these hands pre, then they are probably capped at a j-hi flush, so I have to call here.


I really don't think KK makes sense here given villain checked the flop, other hands containing the make sense on the turn, but then we see on the river, so that's out. But I just don't see a player that 3-bet that pre checking the flop. It could happen I suppose, but not often enough to dissuade the call, or quell a surprised feeling if that's what I am shown.

Great analysis, thanks. Changing my thinking from "what do I have" to "what COULD I have" is something that I am still working on. I agree with you that I probably play 99 almost exactly the same way but I typically only think about things like that after the fact.

Are you at all surprised by V1 having AsKs? I was. I mean, happy to drag the pot of course but I didn't expect that. Makes me wonder if she'd have shoved had the river not been a K.