Hand Discussion #8: My Thoughts

The hero’s play doesn’t seem so bad to me.

Maybe it’s a leak, but against a weak player, I rarely try to bluff an opponent off top pair. I can easily see this hand as a situation in which you would have to fire on both the turn and the river to get him off A8. That’s a lot of risk for your weak made hand, which has some showdown value.

value bet the river for 3/4 pot, fold to raise

I think Anonymous’s comments on the futility of trying to bluff a weak player off their top pair
is quite correct. In order to bluff, you have to have some conviction that the other player is capable of laying down an over pair to the board (some thing like 9-9).

I think after the opponent called the Hero’s raise on the flop, the Hero lost that conviction. In which case, I would agree that Hero’s choice of play was fine. Essentially, checking it down…

But the Q of hearts on the river does set up a good bluffing opportunity.

Putting myself in the Opponent’s shoes, if I had top pair with A-kicker, and is faced with a very large raise when the third heart shows up on the river, I would fold more often than not…
But I would not always fold (and it would depend quite a bit on my perceptions of the opponent).

So from the Hero’s perspective, everything comes down to his read (is the opponent capable of laying down his medium pair… given the perception of the opponent regarding the Hero’s style…i.e. tight, loose, weak, strong, etc…).

I think the small turn bet is a piece of information screaming out to be used in favour of a large bet when the flush comes in. Perfect opportunity to bluff.

Tight players routinely fold TP on hands like this. I think the read that he is tight and straightforward is enough reason, along with his small bets, to believe that he will fold.

bob from aus,

Please include your reasoning when you post. What worse hands is your opponent going to call with here that makes this a value bet?

J-man,

If you were the villain how would you react if you bet out on the turn as he did and were met with a raise?

Now, say you call that. Are you calling the river?

Threads13,

Your question is a bit complicated. You ask, how would I react to a hypothetical turn raise by the Hero (if I was the Villain).

Well first, I do think that had the Hero raised sufficiently on the Turn, the Villain would have folded.

But if I was the villain… well, I think each time one acts, there has to be an overall plan, which includes an exit strategy.

I (villain) called the Hero’s (somewhat weak) raise on the flop with a medium hand that is fairly transparent.

The desired outcome for me (villain) is that the Hero does the C-bet, check, check route. I have a hand that is good enough for a showdown, but not strong enough to play a big pot with.

At the Turn, I have the opportunity to do the “CALL flop - RAISE turn” semi-bluff. But being the straight forward tight guy that I am, I don’t have to guts to try this on the well known player (Hero).

I’m afraid checking the turn will induce a big bet by the Hero. At this point, I’m feeling a bit queasy about my situation (a lot of money invested in a medium hand). All I know at this point is that I don’t want to see a big raise. I don’t really know if I would call. Calling a big raise on the turn was not considered in the plan (when I called the flop raise).

I have to do something, so I do what I did on the flop (bet $15). I’m desperate to check this down… And it works!!! The Hero does the call, then check. And I win the show down….

J-man,

All I am saying is that if you were the villain in this hand and you were raised on the turn you will have a hard time calling with just a weak TP hand, right?

So, what I am getting at is why is the turn bluff a bad idea just because our flop raise was called?

If you manage to call the turn bet with a weak hand that isn’t a flush draw you surely aren’t going to call a river bet without one, right?

Threads,

Yes. As I stated above, the villain called the flop bet with the hope that rest of the hand could be checked down.

Based on your read: “Tight players routinely fold TP on hands like this. I think the read that he is tight and straightforward is enough reason, along with his small bets, to believe that he will fold. ”

I agree that a turn bluff would have been the right thing to do (perhaps representing an overpair, but not a premium pair, who feels more confident after another low card comes on the turn).

The key is the read… Not everyone will fold under this situation. You have to go with your read.

Ed.

I like your articles however I feel you are portraying wrong advice given this example.

Yes, NLHE is all about position and using as a weapon against your opponents but in this example you are telling the readers to double barrel. Now from the information given I would say whether double barrelling here or checking with a chip (since a $15 bet was nothing compared to pot) is very marginal. You give extra info to say the player was tense and that you could tell he was scared of the raise, which screamed a raise. Yes I understand that, however you have not provided extra information to oter readers to say online this would not be a good double barrel bet.

Why is this a bad double barrel bet normally.

Well the flop is 8 4 2 with 2 hearts and you cbet. The villain in first position calls. The 2 comes on the turn and doesnt change the dynamics of the board at all. Essentially by dobule barrellinf what part of his range will fold from flop to turn. Well if he calls the flop and the turn doesnt chagne a thing, by betting the turn nearly his smae range will call. YOu really think flush draw or 99+ all folds to this double barrel?

I think you must make this article explicitly clear that double barreling was done here because we had a strong read that villain was weak adn we were behind his range, and that under normal circumstances this would be a check behind on turn (eve though this was a call Im classing this $15 beet by villain as a check), and a check behind on river

TRU

When I play online I put my “online” hat on.

And when I play in person I put my “live” hat on.

Playing in person can be a lot more fun than playing online. You can see people shaking (a sign of strength), turning beet red, sighing (to fake weakness), see people grabbing chips out of the corner of your eye preparing for a raise… it’s a lot of fun.

But playing “live” can also be sooo boring… especially if you are accustomed to seeing 100s of more hands an hour playing online.

Also, I have found that fold equity is much worse at the casinos. And as such you have to raise an insane amount to get anyone to fold. As a result of having to raise so much to get people to fold it borders on reckless… and that opens you up to only being called by made hands who dominate you. so the risk vs. reward calculation is tricky.

I’m not sure if this is true of all casinos… but it seems to be a common theme of 1-2 and 2-5 at the casinos I’ve been too.

Another mystery I face at the casino is the following scenario. (1-2 NL, table 10, I have 150BB) (this does not apply to online) I have AK on the button, there are like 5 limpers to me on the button. I raise to 12BB (trying to get some fold equity, a raise to 5BB would get NO folds hardly ever) I get like 4 callers!!

That means the pot is now 12×5 = 60BB!!!!

I have 138BB left. If someone bets the pot into me (and I hit top pair) I’m already screwed!!! I have a “good” hand not a great hand… and by facing this bet I am already at the commitment threshold if I call or raise it!!

This is great if you have a set, but terrible if you have AK and hit your top pair. Loose play collusion is a killer there.