2/5 NL

Hero (covers): Young 20s white regular in business attire.

Villain ($565): Mid/Late 20s Asian kid. Regular but I think he usually plays smaller, not sure tbh, haven't seen him in awhile. No relevant history with Hero. Very quiet and on the passive side - just joined the table, on maybe his second orbit.

Villain limps UTG+1
Hero raises AK $25 in the CO
BB calls
Villain calls


Pot $75
Flop: AK4
Checks to Hero, I bet $50, BB folds, Villain calls.

Pot $175
Turn: J
Villain checks, Hero bets $115, Villain calls.

Pot $405
River Q
Villain checks, Hero tanks for 20-30 seconds and shoves for $375 eff.


Thoughts on villains range when we get to the river:

Hands we lose to:
44 (3 combos): I expect villain to raise this on the flop or turn very close to 100% of the time with the wetness of the board/strength of my betting and at a much higher frequency than his 2-pair combos since it is ahead of AK.

ATs/ATo (2-8 combos): Definitely possible. Probably doesn't lead river either (maybe at a small frequency). This was the main hand I was worried about losing to. I would be surprised if villain limp/called ATo from EP but probably can't totally exclude that from his range also.

KTs (2 combos): Seems pretty unlikely and is balanced out by his KQs combos anyway.

Flushes; JTss, T9ss, T8ss, 98ss, 87ss, 97ss, 76ss, 75ss, 45ss (9 combos): Not sure how many suited connectors/one-gappers he is really limp/calling in EP with but this seems like a reasonable middle-ground. However, I would expect him to lead the river with this flushes at a VERY high frequency on this board due to the fact that vs 99.99% of the LLSNL population this river is going to go check/check. Villain has no reason to believe I will bet thinly and if he is really calling down with a flush draw, almost all average LLSNL opponents will lead the river when they make their flush and have less than a PSB left. Therefore I significantly discounted flushes in his range once he checked the river. Having the Ks blocker here is also nice.


Hands we beat:
AJ/AQ (12 combos): This can be discounted if we expect him to open these for a raise in EP but I see a lot of more passive players limp/calling these in EP. I also think he plays postflop exactly this way with these hands.

KJs (1 combo): possibly KJo if we include some of the other offsuit combos in his range.
KQs (2 combos): same as above.

---

So what I thought his river range looked like:
ATs: 2 combos
Flushes: 0-4 combos
AJ/AQ: 6-12 combos
KJs: 1 combo

So we are ahead of 6-13 combos and behind 2-6 combos

Why I think we get called by worse:
1. It will appear we are extremely polarized here in a spot where it is very unlikely we have a straight/flush, especially with our PSB shove. Although it is pretty much impossible for us to have bluffs in this spot, villain again sees 99.99% of LLSNL opponents check behind 2p/sets on the river here so I will appear polarized even when I am not.

2. LLSNL players don't like folding 2-pair in big pots, especially to young 20 white kids.


So really the crux of the hand is how villain's range changes when he checks the river/if we believe he calls off with 2-pair here. I believed that checking removed many if not all flushes from his range, but I spoke to another poker friend who thought this spot was too thin. AK is the stone bottom hand I would go for value with here, and I really thought there was way more combos of AJ/AQ/KJ than flushes/AT in villain's range that my bet would get called by worse >50% of the time. Interested to hear others thoughts.

I don't like it on account of the fact that villain usually plays a lower game and is therefore going to be less willing to bluffcatch lightly here, and the bet is too close to pot-sized OTR.

If the shove was for around ~50-70% pot I'd like it more but at the end of the day any thinking opponent is going to realise that pretty much anything we've been betting here has made either a flush, set or 2pair and I dunno if he calls worse enough to justify betting when he could possibly have checked some hands we beat (even if he should be jamming flushes himself).

Interesting situation, I agree with your assesment on his starting range. He continues to check/call your bets, so I'm thinking his range could AT, AJ, KQ with one of the cards a spade. He could also have started with low SCs like 8s7s or 7s6s and pps.

So by the time the river comes, he hits his straight with AT, but is afraid of the flush on the board or he has the flush, but with smaller cards. That would explain his check on the river. He wants to see a cheap showdown.

If that is true, then your shove may move him to fold the winning hand. By shoving, you are only offering him a little over even money to call.

At the same time, he has already invested 33% of his stack to get this far. Would he fold out now if he hit his hand?

As played, you have to bet large enough to scare him off if he has you beat. With the size of the pot, all in seems like the logical choice.

I am betting for value here, not as a bluff.

I give the villain way more range that you do. I think there's way more than 6 winning combos he could have gotten to the river with like that (limp-call, check-call, check-call, check).

Why aren't you considering any sets other than 4's? When I play in richer blinds than I'm used to I've been known to tighten up, limp premium, slow play sets, and check-call with non-nuts. JJ-AA are plausible, especially JJ. I don't think your flop bet of $50 into $75 was enough to scare off a loose JJ/QQ, the non-spade turn was even more interesting for JJ/QQ, and then he rivered a scare card instead of a boat and checks one more time. KK/AA would have been happily check-calling everything hoping you do all the work, thinking his deceptive preflop limp paid off big time.

I don't see any thin value here, I see value being turned into a bluff where you have no idea where his hand is.

I agree with willperkins, like the shove, but not for thin value.

If villain is passive enough to limp call JJ/QQ I highly doubt he continues on an AKX board when I bet 2/3 pot. He also would then have to choose to not check/raise the turn when he turns a set.

I expect him to open AA/KK pre, and if he does limp preflop it's most likely to limp/rr, plus we heavily block these, plus it's extremely unlikely he plays postflop that way with a set so AA/KK are pretty much irrelevant.

People are putting a little too much into the read that I think he plays smaller, I should have worded it differently - I have definitely seen him at 2/5 plenty of times, I just felt like I have also seen him at lower stakes before back when I played more 1/2 (again, I may be wrong, I haven't seen him around in a bit/may be confusing him with another reg)

When called, we have to be good more than 50% of the time in order for this to be a profitable value bet. Based on the range of all broadway hands and some suited connectors that got there, we have 43% equity. If you give him half of the total offsuit broadway hands, we have almost 47% equity. If you give him 1/3 of the non-straight broadway hands (i.e. QJ/KQ, etc) we've only got 22% equity. Because let's face it, he's folding a majority of his worse two pair hands. But for argument's sake, I decided to leave some of those combos in.

Based on these numbers, the river shove is too thin. Check back.

Can you post the range you used?

Vs a rage of {AJ, AQ, AcTc, AdTd, JsTs, Ts9s, 9s8s, 8s7s, 9s7s, 7s6s, 7s5s, 4s5s} we have 57.14% equity

^ This obviously assume he shows up to river and calls river with all AJ/AQ combos as played, but on the other end also assumes he checks all his straight/flush combos on the river which I don't think is true. Both could/should probably be discounted in some way.

You gotta include QJ/KJ/KQ imo

AT+, KT+, QT+, JT+, Ts9s 9s8s, 8s7s, 7s6s, 6s5s

QJ/KJ/KQ I beat though.
You're including every KTo, QTo, JTo combo?

No, I gave him 1/2 of all them.

I understand you beat worse two pair - I'm assuming that's what you're targeting.

You have to discount some combos of two pairs in his river calling range.

Do you think it's realistic for him to have that many KT/QT/JT combos that limp/call pre, call flop, call turn? Seems like way too many to me but genuinely curious

I agree (and said so in my post) but can't we also discount flush combos as he should lead a reasonable % of them?

A lot of those combos turn additional equity. Lots of players will continue on with what they consider draws to the nuts.

I wonder who that friend was he sounds pretty smart

I think when constructing his range you need to be careful not to transpose how you would play a range vs. how a random reg plays what you perceive to be his range in that spot vs. his actual range, especially when you admit:

So we have to make some assumptions about how he plays preflop...

If he is passive as you say and the type to limp all combos of AQ/AJ then we can't draw a line in the sand and say he only limps ATs but not ATo as the relative hand strength vs. AJ is nearly the same (can both make strong two pairs or Broadway).

If he is the passive type to limp hands as strong as AQ then there is also a strong chance he is the type to limp pairs as strong as JJ (and maybe even QQ). I agree I have seen a trend of non-nit types limping stuff like AQ/JJ in EP and it always throws me for a loop when I see it at showdown.

If he is passive and bad to limp the previously mentioned hands, where is his cutoff on Broadways? We might as well include the 12-16 combos each of KQ, KJ, KT, QJ, QT and JT and a slew of SC/SG hands that call a flop bet.

So on a flop of: A K 4

His flop x/c continuing range should look like: 44 (3) AK (4), AQ (8), AJ (8), AT (8), KQ (4), KJ (8), KT (8), QQ (6), JJ (6), TT (6),
QJ (15), QJ, QT, JT, J9, T9, T8, 98, 97, 87, 86, 76, 75 and 65, QT (15), JT (16)

That is 69 combos of sets/pairs vs. 59 combos of draws.

Now you would raise 44 in this spot, but does that mean villain would? The flop is somewhat wet, but villain only has to be worried about a handful of gutters and flush draws which don't make up a large portion of your range. If villain were to raise 44 here, he isolates himself against your AA, KK, AK, KQ and QJ which is only 17 combos of your likely 150-250+ combo c-bet range.

So it's far more likely villain doesn't have a value x/r range on this flop. His entire value range is x/c and since he is passive (and presumable weak/bad) he will x/c his draws as well. We can ignore his x/r bluff range because it is possibly non-existent and not really relevant to the hand.

Now we move to a turn of: A K 4 J

V x, you bet 2/3 PSB. Do you double barrel bluffs/draws here? I think you do. Your bet really doesn't define your range. You still have plenty of value hands and plenty of semi-bluffs. Passive villains generally aren't in the business of raising strong but-nowhere-close-to-nutted hands. I still don't think villain has much of a raising range here besides his QT combos, especially if he thinks you are going to fire on the river again. Stacks are sufficiently shallow that you will either shove the river or he can x/r AI.

His turn x/c continuing range should look like: JJ (3), 44 (3) AK (4), AJ (6), KJ (6), AQ (8), AT (8), KQ (4), KT (8), QQ (6), QJ (11), JT (12), TT (6)
QJ, JT, J9, T9, T8, 98, 97, 87, 86, 76, 75 and 65

That is 88 combos of sets/two pairs/pairs + gutters vs. 9 combos of naked flush draws. Obviously he has a lot of 3rd and 4th pair hands like QJ, TT etc. but those coincide with your bluff combos. If you have a hand like KQ, you are generally not going to double barrel this turn because he has too many combos that beat you. So your bets become more polarized to two pair+/air, which also gives him less incentive to raise his two-pair+ (excluding Broadway) since you fold so much of your range. The weakest of his pair+gutter hands he can call and play River Chicken with you as you should have a very low river bluff % here and on various runouts he can fold his bottom pairs because you are so polarized to mainly weak flushes, big sets, strong two pair and then a handful of air (not this specific river).

I am certainly guilty of this myself, but when we construct ranges for villain's we often range them way too tight, with too few marginal calls/floats and only the suited combos. Fact of the matter is most villains are bad and show up considerably wider. How often do you find yourself saying "How do you show up with that hand here?" I think showing up with unexpected hands is a big source of profit and something I need to work better at incorporating. It's certainly a part of the game that can't be overlooked.

Everything up until now mainly shows he has tons and tons of combos, some of which beat us and some that do not. We really have no idea how he plays his non-nut hands on the river and once again we can't transpose our mindset onto villain.

Now on the river: A K 4 J Q

This card cuts down on a lot of combos, but it also weakens a lot of his hands that have us beat. It moves them into a "too weak to bet, but too strong to fold" range. Since you said yourself to me via text that you would fold to a river shove, villain has little incentive to shove anything on this river, especially if he thinks you have any bluffs remaining or simply overvalue two-pair/sets on scary runouts. The front door flush is simply too obvious a hand to have that l/c pre, x/c flop, x/c turn, ship river (which makes it a great bluff card for his 9 QJ combos).

It's my argument that he has no river value lead range here because your calling range is too narrow. The only hands he could conceivably shove here are KJ and KT (which you block), and JT or J9 and he would be targeting your AA/KK/baby flushes.

That leaves a very large x/c range of:

T9, T8, 98, 97, 87, 86, 76, 75 and 65 (9), AT (8), KT (8), TT (6), JT (11), QQ (3), JJ (3), 44 (3), AK (4), AQ (6) AJ (6), KJ (6), KQ (4), QJ (9)

86 total combos, 31 of which you beat (and I'm including all two-pair here) and 55 of which beat you (64%). I'm having him call with every two-pair combo which is also not realistic.

I think you are guilty of ranging him too narrow, and I of ranging him too wide (though I do think reasonable for a virtually unknown passive reg that bounces between 1/2 and 2/5 and probably plays more conservative in bigger games) so the true range is probably somewhere in between. However, I still think we would find we are not ahead of 50% of his calling range when we jam river.

B/f small or check back

Idk I just find it hard to believe this guy limp/calls KTo/QTo/JTo combos in EP and then calls a 2/3 flop bet with naked gutters on a 2 flush board/continutes calling turn with 2nd/3rd pair+GS (and also doesn't check/jam his QT combos that smash the turn?)

I'm fine giving him some T combos but your range has way too many imo

I dunno dude, you were there so you know better. I know that a lot of the villains I play against tend to be loose/passive and aren't thinking beyond their own hand.

I think getting value here is optimistic and turning our hand into a bluff is unnecessary because we have significant SDV/any straight or flush is not folding

Sorry - I am not trying to sound combative; I really appreciate the analysis/input.

I am obviously going to think my ranging is more correct; the reason I posed the hand was because johnnyBuz disagreed with my river shove, I wanted to hear others' input and attempt to defend my logic/stance, and I thought it was an interesting spot.

& I totally agree turning AK into a bluff here would be awful (clearly) lol.

I also wouldn't classify villain as loose/passive, maybe that is where some of the disconnect is coming in.

I think it's a check back or tiny bet. Your bet being +EV has to depend on villain calling KQ and AQ quite often. Villain can have QT JT (if he calls KT why can't he call QT JT?) Think entirely removing 44 probably not correct but heavily discounting it is okay.

Villain probably doesn't limp AQ preflop either, or AJ.

Kind of person who limps AQ AJ might not flat 44, but it seems like a disconnect to assume they'd limp AQ AJ all the time, but also NEVER flat 44.

Think your ranges are pretty biased to prove your point.

Maybe not loose, but you said passive. I think most players at $2/5 would default to too loose. Hence why I put more combos in his range.

This is a very interesting hand to be sure. I'm a big believer in going for thin value but my gut at first glance (and subsequent ranging) tell me the river is too thin.

What would your range look like with proper weightings? I agreed before we can/should discount some 2p combos, my logic is just that I also think we can (heavily) discount flush, straight, and set combos as well with how he played certain streets. Maybe you're right and I am just being biased though

I obviously disagree with a lot of stuff in villains range as we have already discussed, but great analysis to defend your side. This last point is probably the truth though, I will have to point villain out to you next time and see if that changes your thoughts at all.