QJs Line Check (facing min river raise) - Live Low-stakes No Limit Poker Forum - Live Poker Low-stakes NL

Nitty by Nature · 07-06-2012, 06:25 PM

Playing QJ gives me a lot of trouble - I typically avoid playing it, unless i'm opening on the button or CO. This hand occurred at 2-5NL, fairly loose passive.

Hero has been sitting for an hour or so, and hasn't played many big pots. Only pot I showed down was when I took a stab at the pot when checked around to me on the button on a JJ25 board with A4 and rivered my gutshot when the 3 came.

V is an old guy - just say down, haven't played with him before.

Preflop ($30): 4 limpers (including V in LP) to Hero in SB who holds Q

J

. I decide to call and not raise, as I don't think I'd thin the field with a raise and don't want to play this hand OOP. BB checks ($30).

Flop: Q

7

3

.

Hero checks in SB, and it gets checked around. Was it too weak to check the flop?

Turn: J

Hero leads for $20, get called by a weak passive player in MP and villain in LP. (pot is now $90).

River: 8

.
Hero: bet 40$. Is check call a better line here to induce a bluff from missed flush draws?

MP folds, Villain min-raises to $80. Hero??? What percentage of the time does V, an unknown random old guy, have 9 10 or a set? Is he ever value-raising a worse two pair?

IKON THE HOLOGRAM · 07-06-2012, 06:52 PM

Why would you check the flop in what you describe as a loose passive game?

I'd just pot the turn as there are a **** load of draws. maybe 25 but 20 is too small.

I'd fold the river and not really worry about it as played. You beat J8, 78, and stone cold bluffs.

crackleback · 07-06-2012, 07:05 PM

b/f flop
bet turn 2/3 pot is OK but I think bit more is better.

As played I am never folding top 2 here getting 5.25-1 to a min raise $40 bet at 2-5. Call, you only need to be right like 15% of the time. I don't care if I'm beat the majority of the time.

Your hand is way under repped and Yeah Q8 J8 78 and missed flush or straight draws(definitely) may raise you. Think how good that play is if they get you to fold any decent hand. Miss flush draw, bet $80 to win $130 and anything less than a set folds?!? Really? I will min raise river every time I miss then if consensus here is to fold.

Degenfish · 07-06-2012, 08:27 PM

It is absolutely too weak to check this flop. In a limped pot you have the best hand often against passive opponents and you want to start getting value from it -- worse queens, A7-type hands, hearts all call you here.

Turn bet is fine imo, but river you should be checking to induce a bluff (edit: provided you had bet the previous two streets; having checked flop you should just be value betting), which would be worth more if you had bet flop. River bluff-raises are super rare at live 500NL and lower, and you're in an awkward spot here because you bet less than half pot for value, so you're pissed off at yourself no matter what happens -- if he calls and you're good, you wish you'd gotten more value; if he calls and beats you, you wish you'd check/called depending on his sizing; if he snapfolds, you wish you'd checked to induce, etc. As played, you're never beaten often enough to make this a good fold.

I'm not saying you should be bombing all three streets here, but if you bet the river bigger you do a better job of defining their ranges if they raise and get more manies when you're good.

StaYSMacKed · 07-06-2012, 09:05 PM

I'd 100% lead this flop and fold to any resistance. Turn bet is fine and on river I'd prob just bet/fold this given the way the hand was played. Don't be fooled by our hand strength here. This is either 9T or a bluff, therefore the strength of our hand here is irrelevant. Given the way the hand played out, I doubt he has hearts here that he's turning into a bluff now with a min raise on river.

Rusty Bumwaters · 07-06-2012, 09:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nitty by Nature

Playing QJ gives me a lot of trouble - I typically avoid playing it, unless i'm opening on the button or CO. This hand occurred at 2-5NL, fairly loose passive.

Hero has been sitting for an hour or so, and hasn't played many big pots. Only pot I showed down was when I took a stab at the pot when checked around to me on the button on a JJ25 board with A4 and rivered my gutshot when the 3 came.

V is an old guy - just say down, haven't played with him before.

Preflop ($30): 4 limpers (including V in LP) to Hero in SB who holds Q

J

. I decide to call and not raise, as I don't think I'd thin the field with a raise and don't want to play this hand OOP. BB checks ($30).

I would call here too oop. If we were otb I would make a pot-sweetening raise b/c I want to play a bigger pot ip with a hand that figures to play well multiway. I don't want to raise large and thin the field with this hand b/c doing do would isolate hands that dominate us and reduce our explicit and implicit drawing odds.

Flop: Q

7

3

.

This is a tough, but common spot oop. We're in the blinds and flopped top pair, good kicker, but there are a lot of limpers to contend with and there's a fd on board. Let's look at some of the merits of betting or checking

In favor of betting:
1. We don't give worse hands a free card (fds, gutshots, lower pairs, timid tpwk that checks)
2. To get value from tpwk, mp, fds, and frisky gutshots and btm pairs
3. We can't c/f this flop so we'd rather bet since our opponent's calling ranges will be wider than their betting ranges
4. (As a counter to #1 below) Our opponents aren't likely to bluff a heart even when we have bet and now check a heart b/c passive villains tend to check their missed draws and weak made hands

In favor of checking:
1. We can easily be bluffed when a heart hits and we have to c/f
2. With so many limpers we may already be beat by AQ, KQ, Q7, Q3s, 73s, 77, 33
3. When we c/c we can represent a fd so when the heart comes off our villain is unlikely to continue betting unless he was semi-bluffing hearts or has 2 pair+

I think betting is better overall. #s 3&4 in favor of betting are the biggest reasons why I think betting is better. Our plan is to bet for value and c/f any heart or overcard since we assume our passive opponents won't be bluffing often enough to justify a call.

I like a bet of $15-$20. In fact, I would bet only $15 b/c
1. I want to induce calls from lower pairs and tpwk
2. I want to lose less when we c/f a heart or overcard
3. I want to lose less when we get raised and must fold

For the same reasons I would plan on betting smaller ott also. The river is so far away at this point that I don't think we can plan for bet sizing yet. We may get multiple callers, we may just get 1, we don't know which villain(s) we're going to be up against yet, we don't know which cards will come, etc.

Hero checks in SB, and it gets checked around. Was it too weak to check the flop?

Turn: J

Now we definitely have to bet for value, the only question is how much. We want to bet the maximum that will get called by worse. Since the flop checked through we can assume top pair is less likely to be out there, so we're mostly getting called by draws. There are some oesds possible now. Also, if someone checked the flop with top pair he may now feel he has underrepped his hand and will be willing to call a bigger bet. I like $23

Hero leads for $20, get called by a weak passive player in MP and villain in LP. (pot is now $90).

River: 8

.

This is a good card, the only hand that got there was T9. Right now we need to think about which hands we beat that are in villain's ranges:
1. Top pair: AQ, KQ, QT, Q9, Q8...and perhaps some weaker top pairs that limped pf b/c they were suited. Given one villain is passive and the other is an old man we can assume there are a decent number of these hands in their range
2. Lower 2 pair: Q7, Q8, J7, J8, maybe a limped J3s, Q3s
3. Unimproved middle pair Jx
4. Unimproved fds and sds

Hands we don't beat in villain's ranges:
1. Sets that slowplayed the flop: 77, 33
2. T9

Now the question is which is more profitable: check/calling, bet/calling, or bet/folding? That is going to depend on how villains play the hands listed above and the likelihood that they hold each hand. We can assume both villains are passive since we have that read on one of them and the other is an old man who limped. Let's list the hands above in order of likelihood and describe how a passive villain would play each (a) When we check, (b) When we bet...

1. I think the most likely hand they could have is a missed draw. Our bet was only $20, and since bad/passive players like to chase any draw and tend to think in terms of the absolute size of the bet instead of the size of the bet relative to the pot, they could easily justify "seeing another card for $20" with a gutshot. Since they are capable of limping practically any 2 suited cards, there are a significant number of flush draw combos in their range.
(a) When we check they will almost always check these hands back. Thus, we cannot induce a bluff and will not make anymore money against these hands whether we check or
(b) when we bet
2. TPWK, MP. I grouped these two hands together because they are similar in strength and will play similarly otr. We can lower the likelihood of being up against tp somewhat since the flop was checked, but not too much since villains are passive. Both of these hands would call the turn thinking they might be good since the flop was checked through. Also, both hands are a little less likely since we are blocking with QJ.
(a) When we check passive players are most likely to check back. With tpwk they may put in a small bet thinking they underrepped their hand otf and "top pair is good for more than $20."
(b) When we bet we are somewhat likely to get called...perhaps more often than not. Again, this is because the flop checked through, which is generally considered to indicate that no one has top pair. That should make their tpwk or mp good.
3. Next I'll put lower 2 pair. These were either slowplayed otf or hit ott or otr. Hitting 2 pair ott or otr is a very real possibility since the turn was free and any tp or mp is calling ott.
(a) If we check these hands almost certainly bet. Since villains are passive there is no guarantee they bet big. The pot is $90, so they may bet anywhere from $20, thinking "I need to bet something that is sure to bet paid" all the way up to about $80,thinking "wow, finally 2 pair! Now I can bet a lot..." I would say a small to medium size bet is more likley, maybe $40.
(b) If we bet we are probably just getting called, though we may get raised. I think the likelihood of us getting raised depends on the size of our bet. The smaller we bet the more likely we are to get raised b/c we look weak the line we have taken and villain may think "this hand is worth more."
4. Sets and T9. I grouped these hands together b/c they both beat us and both will play similarly otr. Slowplaying a set otf is a common play, particularly from passive villains. In this case it is slightly less likely given the fd otf and that 1 villain is in lp. T9 would be in line to play this way thus far.
(a) If we check these hands will certainly bet, and likely bet at least a little larger than the 2 pair hands b/c these hands are better than 2 pair and everybody knows you're supposed to bet an amount that matches the strength of your hand, it's practically poker 101. There's no guarantee they'll bet bigger, but something in the neighborhood of $30-$100. Occasionally we'll see a shove, particularly with the nuts.
(b) If we bet we are getting raised by T9 virtually always and by 77/33 maybe 70% of the time.
5. The reasons I put TPGK last are that there are only 16 combos of them and it would be unusual to check the flop with these hands even for a passive villain. Compare that to 21 combos of sets/T9 or 13 combos of lower 2 pair (fewer combos of 2 pair, but make more sense given the line)
(a) If we check these hands bet ~80% of the time and they bet smallish to medium, say $25-$50.
(b) If we bet these hands almost certainly call and will be willing to call up to even $80-$90

So what do we do? I don't like check/calling b/c
1. We miss value b/c our opponents calling ranges are wider than their betting ranges
2. We miss value b/c our opponents will tend to bet smallish amounts when we are ahead
3. We lose more when we are beat since our opponents tend to bet larger with the hands that beat us
4. We lose the same amount by bet/folding as we do check/calling when we are beat.

Thus I like bet/folding and doing so for an amount large enough to discourage a raise from 2 pair and maximize value from lower 2 pair/TPGK/and stubborn TPWK/MP hands. I think $65 will do the trick.

Hero: bet 40$. Is check call a better line here to induce a bluff from missed flush draws?

MP folds, Villain min-raises to $80. Hero??? What percentage of the time does V, an unknown random old guy, have 9 10 or a set? Is he ever value-raising a worse two pair?

The min-raise is almost certainly 2 pair+, particularly since a slowplay with AQ otf is unlikely and a minraise otr indicates a strong value hand. I would still include a couple of combos of AQ since the minraise does make sense if villain thinks he underrepped his hand and it is worth more money, though he can't get much more for it.

The fact that we only bet $40 could have induced a raise from a smaller 2 pair, again particularly since we didn't bet the flop and everyone's hand is underrepped. We can eliminate a few combos of worse 2 pairs since sometimes a passive villain is just going to flat and we should assume an old man who limps is passive until proven otherwise.

Slowplayed sets are still quite possible, and T9 is in his wheelhouse. I'm tempted to discount a couple combos of T9 since villain will sometimes raise more with the nuts, but our weak bet otr may lead him to think he can't get much more out of us.

We are getting 5.25:1. Let's give him a range of
1. 7 worse 2 pair combos, assuming he just calls 3/13 times and doesn't make it to the river 3/13 times (maybe folds 73s or Q3s pre, folds J8 ott, etc.)
2. All 16 combos of T9
3. 5 combos of sets, assuming he bets flop 1/6 times
4. 1 combo of AQ that was underplayed pf and otf
5. 1 combo of a bizzaro bluff or other weirdly played hand we can beat

Thats a ratio of 21:9 or 7:3. That is much better than 5.25:1, which indicates that we should definitely call. In fact, we would have to assume villain takes this line with only 3 combos of the above hands we beat for this to be a fold...4 combos is break even

.

canoodles · 07-06-2012, 10:23 PM

Rusty Bumwaters ladies and gentlemen

Nitty by Nature · 07-06-2012, 11:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Degenfish

you're in an awkward spot here because you bet less than half pot for value, so you're pissed off at yourself no matter what happens -- if he calls and you're good, you wish you'd gotten more value; if he calls and beats you, you wish you'd check/called depending on his sizing; if he snapfolds, you wish you'd checked to induce, etc. As played, you're never beaten often enough to make this a good fold.
.

A relevant factor I left out was that V had about $130 when I made the bet - I wanted to bet $40 for value and fold to a shove.

What does V's raise sizing on the river mean considering his stack size?
Results:

Spoiler:

I called, V had T9 for a straight.

Nitty by Nature · 07-06-2012, 11:06 PM

Great post, Sir/Madame Bumwaters! Very helpful.

eldiesel · 07-06-2012, 11:36 PM

OTF, if the table is truly loose-passive I lead out. If you think one of the limpers loves taking the initiative (4 out of 5 villains checking their hands off still makes this loose-passive) I might c/c the flop and lead most turns. It'll confuse a lot of people + they know it looks weak to fold as soon as someone else take the lead and they'll call down just to avoid looking like they got run over.

OTT, AP, def bet, I would have for as big as a full PSB.

No sets can take this line of checking the flop through and flatting the turn, except for maybe 88, which I don't even see happening. Your hand is underrepped a little and any 2pair probably looks like the nuts to villain. OTR, call all day.

Degenfish · 07-06-2012, 11:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nitty by Nature

A relevant factor I left out was that V had about $130 when I made the bet - I wanted to bet $40 for value and fold to a shove.

What does V's raise sizing on the river mean considering his stack size?

In the interests of full disclosure I read the spoiler before posting this, but when he's that shallow and raises less than all-in it's like he's screaming for a call. This naturally swings you closer to a fold but you're still in a crummy spot because open shoving river or shoving over his raise you never get called by worse, even with top two, and it's still hard to fold getting these odds.

You avoid these spots by getting enough money in on the flop and turn, even with a naked TP in spots like this, that your decisions (if any) on the river are trivial. Now, I'm not advocating taking lines with the express purpose of making hands easier to play, but one of the more pleasant side effects of constantly thinking about how to maximize value is that hands become easier to play on their own.

Another way to stay out of situations like this is to modulate your sizing -- either bet/fold smaller amounts to where the shoves offer you terrible odds, or bet/call larger amounts to where villain's shove offers you odds too good to pass on. Of course this requires you to have good reads and is exploitable, but if you find someone at live 500NL who's paying enough attention and knows how to exploit this you shouldn't be playing pots (or even sitting down) with him anyway.

crackleback · 07-07-2012, 02:26 PM

Rusty, great analysis and very thorough!

Only thing I differ with is that sets just don't get to river like that without raising turn, like almost ever on a board that wet, so we can discount them quite a bit.

Also I think you forgot 7,8 as another combo that is still there and may raise a small river bet. This makes odds to call even more compelling than they were already as you so elegantly showed.

OP, I realize we call expecting to lose majority of the time but we only need to win 1 in 6.25 times to be correct so we can't get results oriented here. Call and pay the man.

Rusty Bumwaters · 07-07-2012, 06:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by crackleback

Rusty, great analysis and very thorough!

Only thing I differ with is that sets just don't get to river like that without raising turn, like almost ever on a board that wet, so we can discount them quite a bit.

Also I think you forgot 7,8 as another combo that is still there and may raise a small river bet. This makes odds to call even more compelling than they were already as you so elegantly showed.

OP, I realize we call expecting to lose majority of the time but we only need to win 1 in 6.25 times to be correct so we can't get results oriented here. Call and pay the man.

Yeah I didn't consider that sets will raise turn a good percentage of the time now that they've got in their mandatory 1 street of slowplay

87 I thought about but left it out thinking it would not call turn. Not impossible to see 87 here, and it's going to depend on a more precise read of villain.

Thanks to those who complimented my post. I think I learned a lot more from 1 in depth post than 20 "call flop, lead turn" posts. Writing everything out forces you to think about your thought process and work out little details you weren't aware of. It also helps me recognize little spots where I'm contradicting myself, and also can help when people point out things I've overlooked as you did crackle

One thing I learned from this post alone is that when there is the possibility of betting on a future street (i.e. we're not otr and no one is going ai) then the math becomes too complicated. Listing the hands in our opponent's range in order of likelihood and the reasons in favor of each play we can make is as much depth as I think we can go into in that spot. I think of it as a "strategical" analysis as opposed to a "mathematical" analysis (though there's obviously overlap between the two). When it is push/fold, call/fold vs a shove, or debating a river call, the situation is simple enough to do some math to get a better idea of what's going on.