villain unknown, probably not great due to his stack and open size



I see very few 4x in his preflop range but find it equally hard to put him on bluffs or worse for value. I also think it's a pure turn decision. Calling now to fold rivers doesn't seem to make sense at all. Do you still think he has QQ combined with some spazzes often enough to still gii here? Should we consider folding at least a hand like AA here?

He always has a 4 here, although I never find the fold button. As you said he is probably not very good, there are probably more 4s in his UTG opening range than you would expect. You're blocking the other Ks, there's really not much else he should have. But I obv don't fault you if you called down.

.

Bet turn smaller

Sent from my SM-A310F using Tapatalk

Call turn and re-Eval river. Could he have AAxx? To find out you can click it back min raise and see what he does. All 4's reraise and AAx flats. That way you don't have to worry about a big river bet


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Agreed. Call and revaluate rivers. It's opponent dependent but by default I think you have to call smallish bets on rivers. You're so nutted

Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk

What is there to reevaluate on the river? He has less than 1/2p left if I just call and I expect him to shove river close to everytime, even with his AA, QQ or random spazzes, should he have those. At least we have far too little info to assume he doesn't. At the same token I think assuming he always flats AA to a reclick and only gets it in with 4x only is another way too specific and narrow read to strictly follow vs a total unknown. I've seen enough ridiculous desperation bluffs or random button clicks in similar situations.

raising for info I like it great advice keep it up, proud of you.

Lets go around this again.

Villain has half his stack in after turn x raise. He either has a 4 or AA. QQ is not check calling/ check raising turn with a K on turn.

We're not ever folding to the min raise i assume? So heres your options

You shove he calls with a 4 and AA
You call, you pretty much call any river and he has a 4 or AA
You min click and only a 4 shoves - that bet costs you $1.25 and still keeps AA in and allows you to get away.

The action does dictate that he has a 4.

how would you play it out of interest?

I agree that I wouldn't expect him to frequently x/r QQ on this turn but you realize the K turn is actually good for QQ and should incentivice him to raise with QQ more as it blocks KK. You also realize QQ is not beat by AK?!

I've gotten your point the first time already and now you just repeat it without going more into the relevant part: why and how you feel like your super specific assumptions should hold for a total unknown where we actually don't have the slightest grasp about how he plays this or really any other spot we can draw any conclusions from. You argue as if you've seen a huge sample on this guy and can be absolutely sure he doesn't diverge in any direction of your very narrow expectations.

How many hands have you played vs this player? What was his vpip and pfr % ?

Chen. Not sure why you're not satisfied with the comments from Lucas. He's telling you, from experience, that villain either has a 4 or AA in this situation and that by minraising back you will most likely get your answer. Now, if you played this hand through to the river and villain shows up with air then chalk it up to he's just a spazz! But most here think he's got a 4 or AA, including me.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yup. Precisely. Totally agree

Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk

That settles it.

I understood his post a little differently. At least a lot of stuff you seem to have gotten from it seems implied at best and/or you're partly mixing it with your own views and experience. His statement might be well eloborated in terms of how his play works but not in how he motivates it.

I totally agree that villain is heavily weighted towards 4x and strongly thinking about how to get away from this hand as cheaply as possible probably the play. I just have strong doubts that we are capable of pinning villain's range down to single hand combinations and predicting his play with each one of those over the course of multiple actions. Especially if villain turns out to be a rec which in general come up in all sorts of diversified playing styles I think the risk of putting in more money on a wrong assumption is too high and we should probably decide already facing his initial raise whether we wanna call it off or fold.

I mean, I'm just trying to come up with strong reasoning by also defending my own opinions and experiences. Don't feel offended just because I don't blindly accept your advice without putting it to the test.

When in doubt, nit it up IMO

Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk

I offense taken, Chen


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

He has a 4 and minraises to get you confused and get some action.

this forum awakens me always and makes me believe that theres a future for poker

This.

I think betting turn smaller is certainly correct in theory or vs a great player but sizing it up vs the average NL5 unknown/purposed fish probably the exploitative and more +ev line. I don't think he'll call much if anything wider than a boat but I don't expect him to ever fold a boat to any sizing really. Thus, I'm solely trying to maximize value vs his lower boats which I think he has quite a few of in his EP range (weaker players overvalue pairs). I could probably even pot it twice and have him call down with TT very frequently to always. In fact I think it will be pretty hard to find a spot where a weaker player is less elasic to sizing than this one.

No offense* ****ing auto correct! LOL


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk