PAHWM - 10nl Blitz 77 UTG facing Button 3-bet (1 Viewer)

[Senzrock]

This is among the non-set boards that should be good for you, you are behind overpairs, and ahead of all non-pair hands, yet still vulnerable to redraws. I think the benefits of raising outweigh the risks, especially if you think this large 3-bet pre is often "light."

So I am going to reclaim the initiative and raise to 40BB or so. This will really force villain to think how much he wants to chase a pair draw. I don't mind picking up this hand here, our hand is middling enough were it's hard to get called by less anyway, yet the pot it big enough where it's worth trying to pick this up without a contest. Especially if we think villains have a lot of air here. I will probably give villain credit for a hand if he finds a 3-bet, and I will re-evaluate the turn if villain calls.

To see the future. I am raising the flop to either win now or set up a check-behind on the river if villain continues. If villain calls and checks the turn again, I am probably going to bet 50 BB into anything that isn't an AKQ, otherwise I likely check behind. I am surely going to check most rivers behind since this hand can't get called by worse unimproved, and being called on two streets probably means he's also stationing.

If villain takes the initiative back by either betting the turn or river out of flow, I will have a tough decision.

Another way to look at this is decide to station now, and only fold against scary runouts. This is probably a lower variance approach, but it's conferring a lot of benefit of position to the villain as he is setting his own price to draw if he doesn't have it. So he is giving himself the chance to win by betting or by improving.

But I think raising the flop now instead of floating through the final two streets is good. In Blitz, I don't think you can put a flop 3-bettor on a bluff without the history Blitz doesn't provide, and surely you are far from top of your own range here, this isn't a spot you have to go overboard defending.

Several challenges with this approach I think. First, it sounds like you are suggesting putting a *lot* of big blinds into the pot, out of position, basically just trying to gamble that villain doesn't have a big pair. I think this is something that we should shy away from whenever possible. We want to check-call in spots where our hand interacts well with the board, but our opponent still holds a range advantage (he should have all overpairs in range, we should not). What would you do once we raise 40 bbs on this flop (basically pot committing ourselves to be honest, because there will then be over 100bbs in the pot with a similar amount behind)? Will you be folding to a raise? Why do we need to raise the flop? I think a lot of players actually raise the flop because they get uncomfortable with making decisions on future streets, either consciously or subconsciously. This is something we should try to protect against. If we are noticing ourselves "making moves" based on a pure guessing game, why are we taking those actions? Why do we want to "take it down right here" if we are against AQ? Because he has 6 outs against us? That's just 24%. If we are uncomfortable continuing in hands where we could have as much as a 75/25 advantage, I would say that we are probably playing stakes that are too high for us.

Spots like this are really important, because we see them often in cash games. Justin you yourself go on to mention:

In Blitz, I don't think you can put a flop 3-bettor on a bluff without the history Blitz doesn't provide, and surely you are far from top of your own range here, this isn't a spot you have to go overboard defending.

If we "can't put the 3-bettor on a bluff" (which I agree with BTW given the action and the game type), then why are we raising the flop? Again, I think flop raise is a mistake here, and it is a play that I think it is a play that a *ton* of low stakes players make. I think we should reevaluate. If 3bettor is not bluffing, then we are literally lighting money on fire. We can't raise 40bbs and then fold once that much is in the middle. We are basically hoping at that point, that we have guessed correctly, and that the 24% hand folds. I think we should always be calling here, and reevaluating the turn. If villain fires turn big again, and assuming we don't improve, I think we can let the hand go given that we have no indication that he is bluffing. But maybe he checks behind. Maybe we do improve. All kinds of interesting spots can still develop. No need to play the guessing game (hope and praying) at this point. Finally, in terms of trying to play balanced, what would you have done if we did hit the flop hard with a set? Are you check-raising here? I assume not? If we are not check-raising our strongest hands, then we should not be check-raising our middling hands that have showdown. We (attempt) to balance out our entire range on boards like these.

Let me know what you think @JustinInMN

 

[Eriks]

Several challenges with this approach I think. First, it sounds like you are suggesting putting a *lot* of big blinds into the pot, out of position, basically just trying to gamble that villain doesn't have a big pair. I think this is something that we should shy away from whenever possible. We want to check-call in spots where our hand interacts well with the board, but our opponent still holds a range advantage (he should have all overpairs in range, we should not). What would you do once we raise 40 bbs on this flop (basically pot committing ourselves to be honest, because there will then be over 100bbs in the pot with a similar amount behind)? Will you be folding to a raise? Why do we need to raise the flop? I think a lot of players actually raise the flop because they get uncomfortable with making decisions on future streets, either consciously or subconsciously. This is something we should try to protect against. If we are noticing ourselves "making moves" based on a pure guessing game, why are we taking those actions? Why do we want to "take it down right here" if we are against AQ? Because he has 6 outs against us? That's just 24%. If we are uncomfortable continuing in hands where we could have as much as a 75/25 advantage, I would say that we are probably playing stakes that are too high for us.

Spots like this are really important, because we see them often in cash games. Justin you yourself go on to mention:

If we "can't put the 3-bettor on a bluff" (which I agree with BTW given the action and the game type), then why are we raising the flop? Again, I think flop raise is a mistake here, and it is a play that I think it is a play that a *ton* of low stakes players make. I think we should reevaluate. If 3bettor is not bluffing, then we are literally lighting money on fire. We can't raise 40bbs and then fold once that much is in the middle. We are basically hoping at that point, that we have guessed correctly, and that the 24% hand folds. I think we should always be calling here, and reevaluating the turn. If villain fires turn big again, and assuming we don't improve, I think we can let the hand go given that we have no indication that he is bluffing. But maybe he checks behind. Maybe we do improve. All kinds of interesting spots can still develop. No need to play the guessing game (hope and praying) at this point. Finally, in terms of trying to play balanced, what would you have done if we did hit the flop hard with a set? Are you check-raising here? I assume not? If we are not check-raising our strongest hands, then we should not be check-raising our middling hands that have showdown. We (attempt) to balance out our entire range on boards like these.

Let me know what you think @JustinInMN

+1

It’s not about taking down hands. It’s about taking the most profitable lines given our and villan’s ranges. By raising we’re letting villain play perfectly against us. A bet or raise is generally either for value or is a bluff (protection=for value i.e. worse hands can call). Sometimes there is merit to turning a made hand into a bluff, specifically when you suspect your actual hand is beat but your range on that board is strong and you think you might get villain to lay down a better hand.

This is not one of those spots though imo. Villain is unlikely to fold a better hand if we raise the flop. And he is unlikely to call with worse. Yes, by only calling we’re letting him draw to 6 outs but given the price, it’s worth it. We keep the pot small for the times we’re beat and we keep all the bluffs in his range.

 

[Legend5555]

Part 5

Anticlimactic ending.

Hero jams.
Villain tanks and folds.

The biggest points of interest in this hand to me are preflop and turn.

Preflop, like I said, it's close to a fold I think given the large raise size. And I'm OOP, which makes getting my set money a little harder. Though, the large raise also means it will be slightly easier to get an overpair to commit if I do make a set. So.. shrug and call.

On flop, I'm just never playing this in any way other than a check call. Better is never folding given the stack depth and missed broadways are just folding a lot without the backdoor FD. I guess in theory, we might be able to bluff out 99 and maybe TT. But that's basically it. This flop while probably slightly favoring me, probably doesn't do so by much since I raised from the LJ. But I'm not just going to give up on a pair plus backdoor.

Turn is where things got interesting. I don't normally do a lot of turn leading, as it is hard to balance. But this type of turn I feel like it's going to get checked back A LOT by the 3 bettors entire range. I have lead with bluffs in spots like this before where the card interacts a bit better with my range. But also I feel like sometimes you can just go for an exploit and not worry too much about balance. I want to be able to pay for stacks in the river, so I want some money to do in here. Still I decided to bet to set up a less than pot sized river jam. I'm basically never worried about being beat on this turn. So I just have to target overpairs and FDs.

River plays itself. If he folded an overpair I'd be shocked since the FD missed and it's hard for me to have a straight. He'd basically have to put me on my exact hand to fold an overpair here unless he's folding really tight with TT or JJ thinking I could have QQ. So seems to me like he had a FD that thought couldn't get a fold by jamming turn. At least, that's how I interpret this one.

 

[JustinInMN]

Thank you for your comments @Senzrock, I have a few rebuttals, but I appreciate some of your points as well.

Several challenges with this approach I think. First, it sounds like you are suggesting putting a *lot* of big blinds into the pot, out of position, basically just trying to gamble that villain doesn't have a big pair.

So I think it's possible I got my wires crossed on position here since the hero also has a thread where he was 3-bet after opening from the button.

What would you do once we raise 40 bbs on this flop (basically pot committing ourselves to be honest, because there will then be over 100bbs in the pot with a similar amount behind)? Will you be folding to a raise? Why do we need to raise the flop?

I think I was clear in my post, that yes, if we take the raise course we are planning to fold to a 3-bet. With no reads, it's just hard to put the average player on being willing to do this too often without above average strength, and again, we have a good flop here short of flopping a set. I think we find out now and pass instead of check-call-guess two more streets (although the remaining two streets are really no guess given the actual runout .)

But I do see that being out of position, there may be more room for check call. I think the reasons to raise are valid, but obviously much tougher to accomplish out of poisition.

Why do we want to "take it down right here" if we are against AQ? Because he has 6 outs against us? That's just 24%.

Because this was 3-bet pot pre. In truth I am usually against most "thin the field" approaches to strategy, but sometimes pots reach a certain size where it's okay to just pick it up if an aggressive action will do it. Holding a likely winner that is still vulnerable seems a good spot to take such an action. (Though again with no reads, it comes down to how much of villain's range is pairs vs no pairs, even though I do agree villain is the only player that should have JJ+ here, hero is surely more likely to be the player that could have 88.) If we get villain to pass on his 24% equity, that's still a win. If we get villain to overpay to chase his 24% equity, that's also a win. (Though a win that requires variance survival to realize . ) If villain has an unpaired hand, we can put him in a lose-lose situation with aggression, if he has a pair, then we're beat and we spent one raise to find out, not 3 calls. (though in defense of the latter argument, we may win more money by going for the three calls and hoping to dodge, but in a sense, that actually becomes the higher variance play, and may not be as profitable as it appears if villain has some "give up" to stop betting for us.)

The turn lead is interesting, as long as we are balancing that lead with some other not nutted hands like 65ss. If you are never leading here with hands like that (which I would recommend doing btw as tight players could fold hands like TT/JJ to turn leads on scary boards), if you are never leading with those hands then just check full range and look to jam in stack depth seems appropriate.

I will point out "balance" is a GTO concept that just does not apply in an anonymous fast-fold game. (Which is what I assume "blitz" to be, but I play online so little anymore, so maybe I am wrong about that.)

So given I may have made an error on position on the flop, I can see check-call may have more merit because leading out of flow has it's challenges.

But in general, I think all the reasons I put into preferring the raise merit consideration.

 

[Zajac]

Part 5

Anticlimactic ending.

Hero jams.
Villain tanks and folds.

The biggest points of interest in this hand to me are preflop and turn.

Preflop, like I said, it's close to a fold I think given the large raise size. And I'm OOP, which makes getting my set money a little harder. Though, the large raise also means it will be slightly easier to get an overpair to commit if I do make a set. So.. shrug and call.

On flop, I'm just never playing this in any way other than a check call. Better is never folding given the stack depth and missed broadways are just folding a lot without the backdoor FD. I guess in theory, we might be able to bluff out 99 and maybe TT. But that's basically it. This flop while probably slightly favoring me, probably doesn't do so by much since I raised from the LJ. But I'm not just going to give up on a pair plus backdoor.

Turn is where things got interesting. I don't normally do a lot of turn leading, as it is hard to balance. But this type of turn I feel like it's going to get checked back A LOT by the 3 bettors entire range. I have lead with bluffs in spots like this before where the card interacts a bit better with my range. But also I feel like sometimes you can just go for an exploit and not worry too much about balance. I want to be able to pay for stacks in the river, so I want some money to do in here. Still I decided to bet to set up a less than pot sized river jam. I'm basically never worried about being beat on this turn. So I just have to target overpairs and FDs.

River plays itself. If he folded an overpair I'd be shocked since the FD missed and it's hard for me to have a straight. He'd basically have to put me on my exact hand to fold an overpair here unless he's folding really tight with TT or JJ thinking I could have QQ. So seems to me like he had a FD that thought couldn't get a fold by jamming turn. At least, that's how I interpret this one.

Back door flush draw? Maybe he had 99 and pays off the turn jam with over pair and OESD…once the river pairs the board and you fire it seems stronger than check jam on turn…he could put you on AA and betting 2 pair since a 3 is not in his range…I just think chances of getting called were better on turn vs river

 

[Legend5555]

Back door flush draw? Maybe he had 99 and pays off the turn jam with over pair and OESD…once the river pairs the board and you fire it seems stronger than check jam on turn…he could put you on AA and betting 2 pair since a 3 is not in his range…I just think chances of getting called were better on turn vs river

I'm not saying every Broadway with BDFD will call a raise on the flop, but if it was going to call it would need the BDFD. Put me on AA from OOP without a 4bet pre? Unlikely. Neither of us should have 2 pair here basically ever. If I jam turn, I'm just letting non-paired hands off the hook for no reason. If I go for a check jam, I think I just don't get it enough as he will check back this turn a lot.

 

[CrazyEddie]

But also I feel like sometimes you can just go for an exploit and not worry too much about balance.

Especially here, in Blitz. You never have to worry about balance - like, at all - in a game where you can't be tracked. If you think you have a read on the pool's tendencies and can find exploits to use against those tendencies, use them 100% of the time.

Of course, it's good practice to think about balance even here so that you still play balanced out of habit when it does matter, in other games.

 

[Legend5555]

Especially here, in Blitz. You never have to worry about balance - like, at all - in a game where you can't be tracked. If you think you have a read on the pool's tendencies and can find exploits to use against those tendencies, use them 100% of the time.

Of course, it's good practice to think about balance even here so that you still play balanced out of habit when it does matter, in other games.

You can be tracked on ACR, it's not anonymous like Bovada.

 

[Senzrock]

Especially here, in Blitz. You never have to worry about balance - like, at all - in a game where you can't be tracked. If you think you have a read on the pool's tendencies and can find exploits to use against those tendencies, use them 100% of the time.

Of course, it's good practice to think about balance even here so that you still play balanced out of habit when it does matter, in other games.

This is the same subject that @JustinInMN and I were discussing earlier. Do we need to be balanced here in general? I argued it is good to strive for balance, with you and Justin coming down on the other side given this specific game. Aside from the fact that yo ucan be tracked, as @Legend5555 points out, I still think we would do well to play a balanced strategy when possible. I am the first to point out that no one plays GTO (and that relatively few people actually understand the concept), but striving for a balanced strategy really helps our play in the long term as @CrazyEddie points out. I like incorporating an exploitative style (especially in live play), which means deviating from a more balanced approach, but this to me is a spot where we do not deviate unless we have a really strong read that player often is bluffing the flop (and, again, we do agree that there is no way to know if villain is often bluffing here, so our default must be to give him credit for a hand when he 3bets big pre and continues on the flop). I agree with @Legend5555 and @Eriks that this flop is just always a call. Even throwing GTO/balance out of the window, we want to be calling with 77 and we want to be calling with 88 (top set).

Interesting hand for sure on the earlier streets, and I like the turn lead, but yeah like we discussed it is hard to balance our turn leading range. I think strong players do a good job of balancing that leading range and find some good hands to lead turn and shove river - allowing villain to (hopefully) overfold on the river to us when we have a one pair+draw type of holding.

 

[Zajac]

I'm not saying every Broadway with BDFD will call a raise on the flop, but if it was going to call it would need the BDFD. Put me on AA from OOP without a 4bet pre? Unlikely. Neither of us should have 2 pair here basically ever. If I jam turn, I'm just letting non-paired hands off the hook for no reason. If I go for a check jam, I think I just don't get it enough as he will check back this turn a lot.

I don’t think he puts you on AA only…just there are other hands besides your exact hand he could put you on…not gonna get paid on every boat…but 99 calls turn more than river IMO

 

[Senzrock]

I don’t think he puts you on AA only…just there are other hands besides your exact hand he could put you on…not gonna get paid on every boat…but 99 calls turn more than river IMO

I agree that a hand like 99 is more likely. BDFD shouldn't tank on the river at all right? Don't see him folding a higher over pair very often. Interesting spot for villain if he does have like the JJ.

 

[Legend5555]

I agree that a hand like 99 is more likely. BDFD shouldn't tank on the river at all right? Don't see him folding a higher over pair very often. Interesting spot for villain if he does have like the JJ.

Tanking in blitz doesn't always mean much though because clocks are short and if they are playing 4 tables of blitz, they have other decisions going on.