Who played this really badly, hero or villain!? (2 Viewers)

[12thMan]

I'm betting 4444.

 

[AdamAAAA]

I bet 1,700 and villain calls.

Turn:

Board now reads: [][]

It's checked to me a second time. 6,975 in the pot. What's the play?

What I was thinking on the flop: I struggle to range this guy, I've watched him play a lot (he was sitting next to me) and he has a real 'I'll chuck it in and see what I catch' sort of player. 1,700 was on the lower side than what is suggested here, any problem with the lower bet? I figured he could maybe have an 8 or maybe even drawing to a straight. I probably should have bet more as it's hard to see my hand improving, but he has a lot of draws in his range.

I bet 4,000 and villain calls.

River:

Board now reads: [][][]

With the pot at 14,975 villain leads out with a bet just over half pot of 8,000. The pot is now 22,975 and the first time the villain has shown any aggression in this hand. He's won several pots with his opponent folding so he hasn't gone to showdown enough for me to have an accurate read on the type of cards he's played.

It might not be an accurate read, but at this point, the villain was quite animated when the final card came. He was out of his seat checking the board twice, and looked at his cards before leading out. I sank into my chair trying to decide if he'd been holding a suited combo chasing a straight draw this whole time and his straight draw turned flush on the river or of he was bluffing. If he was bluffing, surely he'd put me all in and not leave me with about 4,000 behind. He had me covered quite comfortably.

I went into the tank for about 2 minutes and all I could put him on was QJ or 97 and that he'd been chasing down an open ender. I didn't think he could be on a flush, or it was unlikely at least. Moreover, I discounted sets as I thought he might have raised me before now.

I called and villain showed to take the pot.

I guess I'm wondering if there's anything I could have done to avoid this spot. I could have bet a lot more, I know that now. Should I not have been so quick to discount the flush? I would only have put this in his range if he had exactly QcJc or 9c7c.

For what it's worth, I'm still on a steep learning curve, but happy to have my play critiqued to help me if I'm in this spot in future.

Thanks for the replies so far.

 

[Chippy McChiperson]

Bet more on the flop, which leads to a bigger bet on the turn. He may have still called, but would have had to pay a lot more to see it.

 

[Kain8]

Bet more on the flop, which leads to a bigger bet on the turn. He may have still called, but would have had to pay a lot more to see it.

+1 on this. You now know how far this player will go with the slimmest of draws. He called half pot bets with no hope of winning unless he went runner runner on you. Next time, bomb him with larger bets with even just top pair and you should profit off him quite nicely.

 

[Thomacetti]

Well, you can talk all the strategy you want...if someone hits runner runner flush playing like that not much you can do.

Even a broken clock is right twice a day

 

[jbutler]

Yeah I would take zero lessons from the results of this hand. The river is a call very nearly 100% of the time. Just read the posts ITT re: bet sizing. That's about the only thing you can learn from this.

 

[MoscowRadio]

To answer the question in the OP, Villain was the one who played this hand awfully. He floated with no pair, no draw, and about 7% equity. The only lesson to take from this is to have bet more post-flop.

 

[Chicken Rob]

Yeah I would take zero lessons from the results of this hand. The river is a call very nearly 100% of the time. Just read the posts ITT re: bet sizing. That's about the only thing you can learn from this.

The other thing you can learn in this thread, is that in addition to QcJc and 9c7c, you might add Jc9c to his range. A small oversight to be sure, but you're missing this combo in your range calculations.

 

[jemfernandez]

I think the bet sizing is fine vs this player who you said likes to call often and win the pot with aggression on later streets without showdown, plus it's still sized to get in all in on the river. You want to keep him in the pot as much as possible with his entire range which includes many marginal hands, making a big bet and making him fold would be a disaster in the long term and would only make him call with hands that have great equity vs you or hands that have you beat. Villain could also have a hand like , in addition to the hands that you put him on which were also calling.

Edit: Also, what did your gut tell you when he led out like that on the river?

 

[bergs]

Villain is a village idiot. You played it fine.

 

[Adam Crowley]

I think there is an argument for a fold on the river. I think your read is spot on, first thing I thought was that if villain was bluffing he would have shoved all in.

I think a set is more likely then a flush, and villain is leading because it is more likely you will check behind a large % of the hands you were betting flop and turn with.

it is really player dependandt but I don't think a player like this would turn his missed straight draws into a bluff often enough. He may value bet a worse 2 pair here but there is not that many combos of two pair hands in villains range.

Over all I think betting more flop and turn is beneficial. I would also increase my IP pre flop opening size vs this villain after seeing this hand at anything over 25bb deep

 

[DrStrange]

I would need a rock solid, played together for years kind of read on Villain to fold the river. Do not even think about taking that as part of the session from this hand. In a hold'em setting, Hero can not prosper fearing every runner-runner river card that falls. Folding to one bet whenever a scare card falls leads to a serious exposure of being exploited.

Do learn about bet sizing issues, though it is notable that current tournament strategy is replete with less than half pot sized bets.

 

[MacGrad]

After thinking about it for a bit, Villain did not play this as badly as people are claiming.

Let's ignore the pre-flop bet: most people will play when, at most, there will be three people in the hand.

The flop bet, as previously mentioned, was way too low -- calling $1700 in a $5275 pot is slightly under 33% of the pot and, for a LAG villain with an overcard to the board, he probably has enough gamble to try to hit the ace. -EV by the numbers, but it appears that Villain usually attempts to maximize fold equity on later streets, and the underbet allows him to try to hit his ace for relatively cheap. If a blank to his hand hits on the turn, he's out of this hand.

Turn gives him a flush draw, plus the potential to the overcard. Hero's betting on the flop has probably eliminated an ace and, depending on how he has acted prior, has probably eliminated other pairs like QQ and JJ (would hero normally bet QQ and JJ with a King on board?) and TT (would Hero bet out with a set?). Villain can probably put Hero on a King (KQ, KJ, K9) with a lower possibility of KT, AT, QJ, or QT. Therefore, to the Villain, he probably thinks he's got 11 outs -- 8 clubs, and the other 3 aces. He'll be wary of the because it will likely give Hero trips (in actuality, a FH), but his flush will only be beat by the Full House; for argument's sake, let's make the worth 1/4 out, so Villain has 11.25 outs.

Hero bets 4000... Villain is calling $4000 to win $10975 (2.74:1), and he believes his odds are anywhere between 2.91:1 to 3:1 to have the best hand. Marginally -EV... but fully within the realm of a respectable call.

As a result, the way the hand was played, I'd almost say Hero played it worse as his bet sizing priced Villain in.

 

[Adam Crowley]

Not saying I'm right @DrStrange, but I got the impression from reading this thread alone that villain plays with his hands fairly straight up.

When I think through the situation, if villain decides to turn his hand into a bluff on the river he would shove a major % of the time. He really only has missed straight draws that are worth turning into a bluff. Given his straightforward play I think it is reasonable to suggest that he is not creative enough and does not have enough information on hero to make a bluff here plus ev. Hero has represented some strength in the hand, his bet sizing lends itself to getting value and not scaring away an opponent. Villain would be somewhat aware that his line has been quite passive and a bluff would look really suspicious. Add to that he would go for max fold equity and put hero all in.

What's left? Strong one pair hands villain should go for cheap showdown.

There are not many combos of hands villain would value bet that we best. While villains preflop call is on the loose side for sure. hands that make 2p with the 4 and 2 are ruled out. So villain has to have KT, K8 and T8 of which we block.

We have no clubs in our hand so we don't block flush combos. The only hands that make sense to run a bluff are AcQ, AcJ and maybe Ac8.

Everything else beats us. So given the information it is not too hard to find a fold here. Also it's a tournament and a borderline call makes it a little easier to fold given that we are essentially out after making it.

of course if villain is such a maniac that he could show up with ATC here then it's a snap.

 

[DrStrange]

Hero doesn't know anything about villain's hand ranges:

" The villain in this hand is one who seems to love a raise and love to call. He rarely goes to showdown either winning through big bets or folding hands. "

Given what Hero has seen, I would not want to guess Villain's style beyond not a rock and likely not TAG. He could be a calling station on a heater. He could be a LAGtard. Villain even could be quite skilled as a LAG. Hero just doesn't know. Villain's play seems polarized but we can't even know that for sure.

Hero is getting close to 3-1 on the call with top two pair. Maybe villain is bluffing, maybe he binked top and bottom pair, maybe he slow played a flopped set, maybe he is over playing/slow playing pocket aces or maybe he played two clubs and caught a runner-runner flush. Thing is hero doesn't have to be right very often for the call to be proper.

Let's not forget Hero's table image here. I am going to make all sorts of inferences about Hero if he folds here - either he is easily bluffed or Hero has a lot of air in his range. Folding isn't a disaster for the table image, but Hero might get more pressure than he likes.

I would much rather be sitting on a folded hand and let someone else pay to see how villain plays, it just didn't work out that way. -=- DrStrange

 

[bergs]

After thinking about it for a bit, Villain did not play this as badly as people are claiming.

Let's ignore the pre-flop bet: most people will play when, at most, there will be three people in the hand.

The flop bet, as previously mentioned, was way too low -- calling $1700 in a $5275 pot is slightly under 33% of the pot and, for a LAG villain with an overcard to the board, he probably has enough gamble to try to hit the ace. -EV by the numbers, but it appears that Villain usually attempts to maximize fold equity on later streets, and the underbet allows him to try to hit his ace for relatively cheap. If a blank to his hand hits on the turn, he's out of this hand.

Turn gives him a flush draw, plus the potential to the overcard. Hero's betting on the flop has probably eliminated an ace and, depending on how he has acted prior, has probably eliminated other pairs like QQ and JJ (would hero normally bet QQ and JJ with a King on board?) and TT (would Hero bet out with a set?). Villain can probably put Hero on a King (KQ, KJ, K9) with a lower possibility of KT, AT, QJ, or QT. Therefore, to the Villain, he probably thinks he's got 11 outs -- 8 clubs, and the other 3 aces. He'll be wary of the because it will likely give Hero trips (in actuality, a FH), but his flush will only be beat by the Full House; for argument's sake, let's make the worth 1/4 out, so Villain has 11.25 outs.

Hero bets 4000... Villain is calling $4000 to win $10975 (2.74:1), and he believes his odds are anywhere between 2.91:1 to 3:1 to have the best hand. Marginally -EV... but fully within the realm of a respectable call.

As a result, the way the hand was played, I'd almost say Hero played it worse as his bet sizing priced Villain in.

He's calling off a lot of his stack on the flop and if he does this with this quality of hand regularly he won't go deep in tournaments frequently.

 

[MacGrad]

He's calling off a lot of his stack on the flop and if he does this with this quality of hand regularly he won't go deep in tournaments frequently.

Where do you see this? I reread the OP, and don't see V's stack size mentioned.

 

[Adam Crowley]

Where do you see this? I reread the OP, and don't see V's stack size mentioned.

It kind of doesn't matter. The call on the flop is pretty terrible and there for a large amount of his stack to risk here (though less because of small bet size). If he was IP I think it's a totally different story but let say an A spikes turn and you check call again and the river is a blank and villain checks and hero shoves. Your in a pretty bad spot. It's a run out that hero could 3 barrel with a large range and you just have to fold anyway. Running clubs trips or two pair are the only hands you can call and if you do pair your ace hero can just as well have made broadway.

 

[Adam Crowley]

@DrStrange

I take my read from the fact that he plays quickly, so doesn't really think about his hands at all and has been playing fit or fold style. I just don't expect someone that appears to not think a little about every hand to bet 8k as a bluff here.

I do agree with you though. If I know little or nothing about my opponent I'm calling every time. It's hard to make 2 pair and the line doesn't make sense.

 

[MacGrad]

It kind of doesn't matter. The call on the flop is pretty terrible and there for a large amount of his stack to risk here (though less because of small bet size). If he was IP I think it's a totally different story but let say an A spikes turn and you check call again and the river is a blank and villain checks and hero shoves. Your in a pretty bad spot. It's a run out that hero could 3 barrel with a large range and you just have to fold anyway. Running clubs trips or two pair are the only hands you can call and if you do pair your ace hero can just as well have made broadway.

It does matter -- you can't say that the call is for a large amount of his stack without knowing what his stack size is.

Based on the betting, Villain has to have started the hand with AT LEAST 15,100, and I'm guessing he had at least 20K to 22K. Why? OP mentions that his river bet was 8000 -- not all-in, and OP states that the Villain had him covered comfortably. So how much can we reasonably guesstimate Villain would leave himself if he's not pushing all-in: 2000? 5000?

Even if we went with the minimum 15100, calling the flop bet cost the Villain only 12% of his stack (1700 of 13700) -- I would hardly call this "a large amount of his stack". From there, you can't make any other assumption about the turn / river -- if an Ace spikes the turn, does Hero bet 4000, bet another amount, or does Villain lead out? And if you're calling a flop call of < 12% of your stack a "terrible call", then Hero's call on the river is even worse.

So I still maintain my opinion that Hero played the hand worse than Villain:

* Villain calls with a reasonable hand pre-flop (suited Ace 3-handed or heads-up)
* Villain calls a flop bet that is less than 12% (and is very likely less than 10%) of his stack
* Villain makes a slightly -EV call on the turn
* Villain hits and bets about half the pot on river

* Hero makes a reasonable bet pre-flop
* Hero underbets the flop (33% of pot)
* Hero underbets and prices in the Villain on the turn
* Hero misjudges Villain's range (bluffs only) and calls river bet

 

[thorwilliam]

It does matter -- you can't say that the call is for a large amount of his stack without knowing what his stack size is.

Based on the betting, Villain has to have started the hand with AT LEAST 15,100, and I'm guessing he had at least 20K to 22K. Why? OP mentions that his river bet was 8000 -- not all-in, and OP states that the Villain had him covered comfortably. So how much can we reasonably guesstimate Villain would leave himself if he's not pushing all-in: 2000? 5000?

Even if we went with the minimum 15100, calling the flop bet cost the Villain only 12% of his stack (1700 of 13700) -- I would hardly call this "a large amount of his stack". From there, you can't make any other assumption about the turn / river -- if an Ace spikes the turn, does Hero bet 4000, bet another amount, or does Villain lead out? And if you're calling a flop call of < 12% of your stack a "terrible call", then Hero's call on the river is even worse.

So I still maintain my opinion that Hero played the hand worse than Villain:

* Villain calls with a reasonable hand pre-flop (suited Ace 3-handed or heads-up)
* Villain calls a flop bet that is less than 12% (and is very likely less than 10%) of his stack
* Villain makes a slightly -EV call on the turn
* Villain hits and bets about half the pot on river

* Hero makes a reasonable bet pre-flop
* Hero underbets the flop (33% of pot)
* Hero underbets and prices in the Villain on the turn
* Hero misjudges Villain's range (bluffs only) and calls river bet

Hero is the effective stack with 18k,
so villains stack is above 18k.

I think Hero played the hand fine. I think the only mistake in the hand was villains flop call. I don't mind calling a flop bet with ace high and backdoor nfd on some flops, but with two broadway cards on the flop its just too loose. We cannot say anything about villains range when leading the river based on this one hand except it includes the nuts. I think you did a smart thing trying to break down and analyze the hand, but your conclusion is way off. On the river we are close to the top of our range and has to call. NH.

 

[AdamAAAA]

I think the bet sizing is fine vs this player who you said likes to call often and win the pot with aggression on later streets without showdown, plus it's still sized to get in all in on the river. You want to keep him in the pot as much as possible with his entire range which includes many marginal hands, making a big bet and making him fold would be a disaster in the long term and would only make him call with hands that have great equity vs you or hands that have you beat. Villain could also have a hand like , in addition to the hands that you put him on which were also calling.

Edit: Also, what did your gut tell you when he led out like that on the river?

My gut was confused. As said I thought it was a missed straight and a bluff. But he'd have put me all in I would have thought. I tried to run through the combos he could have (I missed one, thanks @Chicken Rob), and couldn't come up with much. I didn't think he has a set and I discounted the flush as the flop was a rainbow. If he checks he loses an opportunity to bluff me, so I figured he had a weaker holding.

I considered a fold, but I had top two and couldn't put him on a better hand. I don't think this player slow plays. I've played with him a couple of times but rarely seen him showdown hands. I'm still working on my strategy, so I'm new to trying to figure this all out, so please do correct any of this thinking that might be wrong.

I would need a rock solid, played together for years kind of read on Villain to fold the river. Do not even think about taking that as part of the session from this hand. In a hold'em setting, Hero can not prosper fearing every runner-runner river card that falls. Folding to one bet whenever a scare card falls leads to a serious exposure of being exploited.

Do learn about bet sizing issues, though it is notable that current tournament strategy is replete with less than half pot sized bets.

With hindsight, I think my bets should probably have been bigger. At the time I was thinking, 'hey, I hit top two, I'm so ahead I better not scare him away.' Then when the perceived brick came on the turn (I know this was now wrong thinking), I thought I shouldn't scare him, I'm probably still way ahead. I bet what I thought was about the limit he'd call with as I didn't think he could improve much.

I'm quite observant at a table and don't really talk or play on my phone. Bets are all over the place, from overbets to min-raises with no apparent reason for them. I try to keep fairly balanced with my bet sizing, but it's something I'm still working on.

It does matter -- you can't say that the call is for a large amount of his stack without knowing what his stack size is.

Based on the betting, Villain has to have started the hand with AT LEAST 15,100, and I'm guessing he had at least 20K to 22K. Why? OP mentions that his river bet was 8000 -- not all-in, and OP states that the Villain had him covered comfortably. So how much can we reasonably guesstimate Villain would leave himself if he's not pushing all-in: 2000? 5000?

Even if we went with the minimum 15100, calling the flop bet cost the Villain only 12% of his stack (1700 of 13700) -- I would hardly call this "a large amount of his stack". From there, you can't make any other assumption about the turn / river -- if an Ace spikes the turn, does Hero bet 4000, bet another amount, or does Villain lead out? And if you're calling a flop call of < 12% of your stack a "terrible call", then Hero's call on the river is even worse.

So I still maintain my opinion that Hero played the hand worse than Villain:

* Villain calls with a reasonable hand pre-flop (suited Ace 3-handed or heads-up)
* Villain calls a flop bet that is less than 12% (and is very likely less than 10%) of his stack
* Villain makes a slightly -EV call on the turn
* Villain hits and bets about half the pot on river

* Hero makes a reasonable bet pre-flop
* Hero underbets the flop (33% of pot)
* Hero underbets and prices in the Villain on the turn
* Hero misjudges Villain's range (bluffs only) and calls river bet

Villain had about 30k behind I think. He had a lot more. I entered about an hour into play so he'd obviously picked up a few chips by the time I joined his table.

 

[joker80]

I can find a fold on that river bet. Villian could have a lot of x clubs hands that would play the same way. I think it would be a pretty sophisticated player to lead out on a river with the flush showing with a missed straight

 

[XBobdog]

The other thing you need to consider when sizing your post flop bet is what the other player thinks of you.

I continue bet, 2 player pots, 95% of the time, made hand or not. Lots of the guys I play with know this. They will call my continuation, looking for a check on the turn that they can raise, or improvement of their hand. Especially if it is reasonably priced.

You were in an obvious steal position, small continuation bet. I can see why the Villian called. You could have made both of those bets with air. Then he got real lucky with the runner/runner.