*G*

PF-->Standard

FLOP-->Dislike the donk. I'd usually c/r. If HU (like BB cbets and CO folds), I think just c/call would be fine too (I don't really want to get 3bet when he has AQ+ or KK+), unless you think he can consistently cbet/fold QQ. If you check and it's still 3way when it gets back to you, def c/r.

TURN-->Standard.

RIVER-->Don't like the 3bet (unless he's a total spaz). He's raising a four-flush board: probably not a ton of naked 5-9 in his range. It's probably more like K and T (and maybe a rare bluff)-->but the T (which should probably even be discounted) just calls your 3bet, the bluff folds, and the K 4bets you. You do the math on how much 3betting gains (or loses) you.

This seems to me to be a sensible way to look at the river. (Surely the 4th bet goes in bad for us, which makes that something to take into account when we're contemplating re-opening the action with a 3!)

FLOP-->Dislike the donk. I'd usually c/r. If HU (like BB cbets and CO folds), I think just c/call would be fine too (I don't really want to get 3bet when he has AQ+ or KK+), unless you think he can consistently cbet/fold QQ. If you check and it's still 3way when it gets back to you, def c/r.

I agree seem to be the general consensus around here.

RIVER-->Don't like the 3bet (unless he's a total spaz). He's raising a four-flush board: probably not a ton of naked 5-9 in his range. It's probably more like K and T (and maybe a rare bluff)-->but the T (which should probably even be discounted) just calls your 3bet, the bluff folds, and the K 4bets you. You do the math on how much 3betting gains (or loses) you.[/QUOTE]

Good point. He had been so loose and aggresive I thought he might a spaz.

check/raise flop.

as played 3-betting the river is spewy. we're holding the 3rd nuts and villains hand range looks a lot like KX when he takes this line.

Also, he doesn't have many worse spades. Perhaps just QT, JT with T or something like 99 and we might argue about whether he even chooses to raise these hands on the river.

No doubt I spewed. My biggest leak I sure. Learning to value bet and not spew has been a tough lesson for me.

Guys, if you buy hog's read, there's nothing wrong with going 4 bets on the river. If you don't say you don't, but saying, "You spewed on the river, he obv has a better spade," doesn't make it so.

I buy that Villain is 76/32 over the last 25 hands and is running hot .

Anyway, the Kxo part of his range sucks for us. Let's assume for a moment that Villain has Kxo and his river raise means he made a flush and his lack of earlier postflop action means he never had better than 2nd pair prior to the river. In that case, we lose to all 5 possible combos of K3o, and we lose to 3 of the 5 possible combos for each of the following: K6o, K7o, K8o, K9o, and KTo. And, finally, we lose to all 3 combos of KJo and all 3 combos of KQo. Overall, we beat 10 combos of Kxo that rivered a flush and lose to 26 combos of Kxo that rivered a flush. And that's before we take into account any hesitance Villain might have to raise the river with, say, Kc6s!

On the other hand, PPs that rivered a flush are also possible and consistent with the preflop, flop, and turn action. Of those, we lose to 3 combos and beat 15 combos.

All 3 combos of QxTs and all 3 combos of JxTs do go our way. And I suppose the rando preflop raise with 9s7c, followed by the rando 9-high, no-pair, no-draw flop peel cannot be fully ruled out.

But, if we're 3-betting the river, it seems to me that we're mostly hoping Villain has enough AxXs in his range to justify our play and make up for the fact that we don't appear to be doing so well (we're an approximate flip) versus a range that includes just Kxo with one spade, PPs with one spade, and QTo/JTo with one spade.

Just to give a sense of how many combos that potentially is, I'll add that we lose to Ax3s (3 combos), and we beat 15 combos (all together) of Ax6s thru AxTs. But I don't see how to get us to a 2:1 edge on the river (once we get raised) without adding in no-pair, no-draw undercard flop peels. Or we could start discounting the lower Kxo hands specifically because of preflop. Which might sound sensible, but Villain does appear to enjoy raising, and meanwhile it seems optimistic to me to discount K3o because of preflop but then assume Villain will raise any flush on the river.

BTW, I do think that of course it's possible for Villain to be maniacal enough that a river 3-bet is a good idea for us. For instance, maybe he's the type to bluff-raise with red 88, attempting to represent the flush, and then to call a 3-bet because, well, he has pocket 8's. Maybe he'll even cap those red 8's.

Also, maybe he loves making no-pair, no-draw undercard flop peels in capped pots on AKx. If so, it greatly increases his potential combos of rivered flushes.

But I hesitate to make these kinds of assumptions when all we have is a smallish sample stats read and the LAGginess of those stats is somewhat called into question by our further knowledge that Villain has been running hot.

A couple of points to answer Nick:

One, I don't need 2:1 in this case. Since we're working off the partial assumption that he's a nutbag his cap doesn't mean anything more than his raise so we don't care that we have to face the cap.

Two, I dunno when the last time you ran hot was but I can still remember mine. Running hot IS being a LAG. You'll cap rivered two-pair (or slowplay a set) on a flush board because you know you're going to win. Slowplay TPMK all the way to the river and then mess yourself when you river the 8-hi flush.

Third, it's .02/.04. Talking about Villans who can distinguish between the value of the K-hi flush and the T-hi flush seems a waste of time to me.

Last, I'm not saying the 3-bet is the best play in the world. My gut says that it's profitable when you take into account all the slowplayed two-pair/set hands he might have, and all the flopped-TP-rivered-middle-flush combos that he'll felt on the river because he's running hot, but I don't really have time to throw 'stove at it atm. It's certainly not spew, however.

I haven't played since Black Friday, so it was definitely over a year ago .

I think usually when I ran hot it was more a case of me hitting flops and making my draws and rivering opponents and my opponents missing their draws and making second bests that didn't improve (and missing the board on those occasions when I had A-high).

You make it sound like running hot is all about going on tilt and having the table adjust badly . And I guess that is a form of running hot, but I don't think it's one that I'm temperamentally suited for, so much.

For some players, this is true. I don't know about this Villain, but if it is the case that he's capping the same range that he's raising on the river, then our river 3-bet should be okay.

FWIW, based on the combos and some minimal handreading, we can determine that it's much easier for Villain to have the Ks than the Ts specifically. Also, FWIW, the stakes are .05/.10, not .02/.04, but I can't speak from any firsthand experience about the difference between the two, and in any case, you have a point that the stakes of the game are very low. I'm used to playing with guys who distinguish between the 2nd nuts and the 5th nuts on a four-flush board (especially in a freaking capped pot). But if Villain is treating the stakes like they're play money, then such concerns may not apply to him.

This FTW imo. I think it's a Bayesian vs Frequentist dilemma (I welcome correction if I have misapplied the theory).

This sounds like a bit of the old stake bias which took two forms:

1) 3B its only a couple of dimes.

2) He must suck since he is only playing .05/.10


I don't think the op's river 3bet is spew but I would be more inclined, with 3rd nut flush, to just b/c the river.

It's close, but it's not an assumption that he sucks more of a belief that he's less likely to be able to accurately evaluate his hand-value and we have a very strong hand. Usually the stakes-bias took the form of, "We can cap on a 4-flush board with our TPNK," not, "We can cap our 3rd-nut hand."

You are probably correct, but mostly its because I'm not bank rolled enough to play the higher stakes. Yet. Hopefully one day I won't suck as much.

I think Bill was referring to Villain