Ok. This is a theoretical hand not one of mine. It comes from Harrington on hold'em.

Setting- early in a one table online tournament, buy-in undisclosed.

Stacks are 25 bbs effective.

Hero is in the Hi-jack with AQ spades. Utg folds, utg+1 limps. Utg+2 and MP fold. Pot is 2.5 bbs, no antes. Hero raises to 3.3 bbs. Folds back to Villain utg+1. He calls.

Flop comes 8s7s6c
Pot is 8.1 bbs

Villain checks.
Hero bets 6.6 bbs
Villain flats leaving him 15.6 bbs behind with a total pot of 21.3 bbs.

Turn is Jd

Villain checks. Hero fires same bet of 6.6 bbs. Villain calls. Total pot of 34.5 bbs. Leaves Villain 9 bbs behind.

River is 7d.

Both players check. Villain shows 9h6h to win with a pair of 6s.

----------------------------
Ok, that's the setup. Here are my questions and my line of thinking.
----------------------------

Harrington says the c bet should have been smaller (5.1 bbs) I kind of agree. Once the action listed was taken though, and the random Jd hits the turn, he recommends a check. Reasons listed are that villain doesn't believe you hit your hand etc etc.


My question is, the way I would play from the turn is simply put villain all in being as I have him covered. I have a decent amount of equity vs any random pair on that board with two overs and a nut flush draw. Best case scenario villain has like Ks9s for a combo draw and will call off drawing thin. I guess also, there is the possibility he calls off with his current hand being stubborn but I feel like taking action to win an artificially bloated pot is better than checking. If I check and hit my A Q or spade on the river, does he still really call of? Also there is the possibility I am repping the J and he knows he has to improve.

Am I out of touch with reality or is this book just that outdated? The stakes I play online, I am pretty sure the line I am discussing is not that uncommon. What are your thoughts? With a 21.3 bbs pot and villain having a 15.6 bbs stack left behind, although the SPR is good, it looks like it would be donking off a stack that someone could recover from. I think betting 6.6 bbs on the turn is the worst play and checking is the second worst play.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It is a little out of date. My concern is that putting him all in on the turn might encourage him to call all in with a pair on a draw board. Where he might fold a baby flush draw. It depends on the meta of course, but I try not to box in my opponent when they can only fight back and I want them to fold. Two overs and nfd is some good equity, but can be realized with a checkback as well as a risky shove. The game just started and there is plenty of time to shove these situations later.

Just my 2c


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Putting him all in on the turn is the standard line here. With that said I don't think it is the right play on this board, on the turn your range consists of mostly bluffs, spade and straight draws. You don't have too many value hands in your range (straights, over pairs, and a jack). Your range is lacking in a lot of value hands which makes calling off with any pair probably a profitable call. I might be wrong but your range seems very bluff heavy in this spot. And yes, betting to not put him all in is not a very good play here.

Taken from the flop, I would tend to bet lighter on the flop to be able to apply more pressure on the turn. Taken from the point of the turn as discussed in the book, I would put him in on the turn even if the slightest possibility he might fold. Still have outs vs only a pair. Thanks.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk