QQ in the bb (1 Viewer)

[ChaosRock]

I doubt at 2/5 a good LAG ever thinks he has fold equity here. His range is heavily weighted towards small pocket pairs, he is not calling with missed pocket pairs on the flop in such a large pot, and he isn't turning his hand into a bluff on the turn. Your range is strong, and easily hits the Ace often enough that he is never 3b jamming with a hand that doesn't beat AQ/AK.

Just curious: you believe a good LAG would not jam the hypothetical Hero's turn bet without the goods because of lack of fold equity (or very rarely at least). How much more likely (or less likely) you think it is vilain bluff shoving the river after Hero check/ call turn and check river? Assuming river is a blank...

 

[ushallnotraise]

You played the hand like you have exactly what you have. You're repping TT-KK right now and it's pretty apparent. I think check/raise is a terrible line. You're essentially going "I hope I'm beat but I have no idea". Check/call is probably a bad line as well because you know you're going to have to check/call the river for the rest of your stack in almost every situation. Sure villain could be bluffing here, but you're not calling for value, you're just calling hoping you're right. You don't have a solid read, as played his range is super wide and you have no idea where you are in the hand.

By giving up the betting lead you put yourself in a really bad spot. I think I find a fold here as played.

 

[Adam Crowley]

Sure villain could be bluffing here, but you're not calling for value, you're just calling hoping you're right.

I disagree. Based on how villain has played other hands this line should give you a fairly solid approximation of his range. I don't think check calling is the best line, but I think we are calling for value based on the information we have. In fact, betting theory dictates that checking is the best play. You don't get value from worse and you never get better to fold. Given villains style of play (floating light to take hands away on later streets), the board texture, and the range of hands villain has, you have to decide if villain ever has worse than QQ here.

This comes down to just how good you think that villain is. Personally I can't see a good player ever getting out of line in this spot, but I would assume, given the way he has played his hand to this point, he is a LAG that gets out of line in this spot fairly often.

edit: I prefer bet folding turn, simply because it makes our hand easier to play. Villain is never floating twice with air in such a large pot (unless he is Asian)

 

[stocky]

By giving up the betting lead you put yourself in a really bad spot. I think I find a fold here as played.

100% agree. Wanted confirmation that that's where I really screwed the hand.

 

[AWenger]

100% agree. Wanted confirmation that that's where I really screwed the hand.

Results? (Reading into this^^, it would seem you folded on the turn. Did villain show)

 

[mipevi]

Shove. Now!

 

[stocky]

Results? (Reading into this^^, it would seem you folded on the turn. Did villain show)

I was more implying that by checking the turn I put myself in an ugly situation against a solid LAG that is probably always betting a scare card like this when checked to. If I bet turn and villain jams it's a clearer indication of his range Ax turned two pair or even sets.

Results.

I talk myself into him floating with an A. I can see him calling A2-A9 pre and flop. I tank fold and he flashes 24 at me. NH. GG.

I folded as I wasn't happy with the situation I put myself in. I don't like check/calling as he isn't slowing down on the river IMO. I screwed bet sizing against the only villain who probably understands bet sizing. I decided to target the weaker players at the table instead of trying to tangle against a better player.

Hero ended up cashing out over $900 on a $300 buyin after value betting 3 streets with bottom pair against two calling stations both chasing the flush draw.

 

[mummel]

Well I don't know. He bluffed with a pair of 2s vs an A on the table. WTF.... Would never see that coming.

 

[AWenger]

I put myself in an ugly situation against a solid LAG that is probably always betting a scare card like this when checked to

On the flip side, consider that it was almost also a very juicy situation where you trapped a solid LAG to bluff $325 into a pot drawing really slim.

I tend to be a TAG, and I've had those situations against a LAG, where I've successfully checked OOP to allow them the chance to bluff, and then subsequently called (or shoved on) their bluff. One such player once responded by saying something like (using the board above as an example): 'how can you call (or shove) there'...'I know you have 2 queens, you've gotta think I have the Ace. you made a bad call (or shove)' When really, my read was: I put him on almost any hand that would bluff (an Ace) or another scare card when I check.

Either way, good to hear you ended up +600 on 300 buy-in. That's a great session, esp. if playing at slightly higher stakes than you're used to.

I also can't say I've ever value bet bottom pair on 3 streets!

 

[Adam Crowley]

This is why checking is actually the better option. But its not great when you are out of your depth. If you were playing .25/.50 you would check call vs this player 100% of the time and from a theory point of view its really clearly correct. But when you are playing outside your comfort zone you generally better making your decisions easier.

You made the correct decision by checking and then made a worse mistake then betting by folding.

 

[bergs]

I bet $60 pre, $200 on flop, check turn and jam if bet into. I don't think villain has an ace here unless it's AK. 22-TT way more likely, particularly at lower stakes NLHE.

I've been accused of being laggy and I've made villain's move where I float on the flop with some sort of very unexpected draw and then jam turn to steal when a scare card comes out. Yeah, it's not a good day when I do this and the other guy shows me top set, but it gets JJ-KK to fold way more often in the long run then it should.

 

[bergs]

Just saw results - wow, this guy is a maniac. 34 actually makes a ton of sense there, as does any sort of double belly buster, but bottom pair no kicker is "I'm never leaving this table" status.

 

[QuiQuog]

Ouch, that hurts. I hate when they show the bluff after taking a large chunk. It's demoralizing. So, does this hand lend itself to using outs and odds to determine whether a call would have been a good play? What would have been the mathematically correct play to make on the turn?

 

[DrStrange]

Hero was pot committed on the flop.

 

[Adam Crowley]

So, does this hand lend itself to using outs and odds to determine whether a call would have been a good play? What would have been the mathematically correct play to make on the turn?

Every hand is about outs and odds. You use all of the information to approximate the range of cards your opponent would take the previous action with.

The simple way to look at a hand is to take your exact hand and work out how much equity you have against your opponents range. Compare that to the pot odds you are getting and decide your most profitable action.

The correct method is to solve each spot usjng your whole range of hands. But this requires a higher understanding of poker and isn't neccesary in a game like this

Edit: when I go on my computer later I will do the math on this hand and post it as an example

 

[ushallnotraise]

Hero was pot committed on the flop.

Hero put in $185, there was $475 in pot and Hero had $665 behind. No way he is pot committed on flop.

 

[mummel]

Hero put in $185, there was $475 in pot and Hero had $665 behind. No way he is pot committed on flop.

These $ amounts are giving me heartburn. We play $25 buy-ins LMAO!