Villain 1 - SB - losing fish. Bought in for less than table min but no one said anything because he is so bad. Very gambly. Have played with him once before but no notable history. He has run up a stack tonight.

Villain 2 - BB - another losing fish, but not as bad as V1. Not particularly important to the hand.

Hero - CO - splashing around a little more than usual due toa very soft and loose table but not anything wild. Covers by a lot.

We have A55J3

Effective stacks ~$1200.

Pre:
A few limps, we raise to $30. Both Vs call, one other calls.

Flop: $130 - 4 players
2 4 9
Checks around and we bet $90. Both Vs call, other folds.

Turn: $400 - 3 players
J
Checks to us and we bet $300. Only V1 calls.

River: $1000 - heads up
J
Villain snap shoves for about $800.

Hero goes into the tank.

So we brick our wrap on the wheel and river trips, top kicker.

It's a bad bet no matter what he has IMO (i.e. I think he should check his whole range on this card). I assume you just have to call due to being quite high in your range and blocking J9/J4/J2 (which I guess is what he had anyway). Still, you have to win only ~31% to show profit.

It's not likely Villain has a full house, but his shove would give me caution. I'd just call.

ProPokerTools 5-Card Omaha Hi/Lo Simulation

600,000 trials (Randomized)

board: 249JJ

Hand	Pot equity	Scoops	Wins Hi	Ties Hi	Wins Lo	Ties Lo
Ac5c5hJh3d	82.50%	490,695	490,695	8,558	0	0
*****	17.50%	100,747	100,747	8,558	0	0

Bummer. V1 might have
22XYZ,
44XYZ,
99XYZ,
J2XYZ,
J4XYZ, or
J9XYZ. But he also might have none of those.

Call. Meh.

Buzz

It might not always maximize our win rate, but in my opinion a steady winrate at this game isn't done through bluff catching. I don't often see people jamming $800 into someone who has shown a lot of initiative with a hand I beat. Not saying its impossible because a lot of people are beyond horrible at big o.

Is he so bad he would wait to raise a flopped set on that board? If not, a boat seems unlikely enough to make this a call getting better than 2-1. Given your description of the player, he could easily be on a busted low/straight draw and thinking, "Vince, he knows the only way he's going to win this pot is to bluff at it."

I definitely agree that he basically never has a set here. He is the type of player that would have gone nuts on the flop even with bottom set. If he had flopped a set I'm pretty sure he would have done something about it before the river... What I was worried about was 2p that rivered a boat.

the simulation shows that a single randomly dealt hand that went to showdown with hero (when hero holds that specific hand, and on that specific board) would have a full house 16.73% of the time.
interpreting that to mean its not likely that the villain in this hand has a full house isn't exactly logic.


if the game is a full table, so 8 players were dealt hands (randomly dealt hands), hero dealt his specific hand, and they all went to showdown on this specific board, 86.4% of the time there would be a full house at showdown.
46.6% just 1, 32.5% there would be 2, and 7% there would be 3.
(results arrived at by simulation)



if 8 opponents were dealt cards, as simulated accounting for card removal, 60% of the time atleast 1 opponent was dealt a hand that flopped a set. (its 43.5% 1 opponent, 15% 2 opponents, 1.5% 3 opponents)

as just 3 opponents choose to see the flop, its a question of whether they limp /call or fold pre with one of these hands.
And then of course play the hand rather passively with a flopped set.

with regard to turning 2 pair and rivering a full house, 61% of the time 1 of 8 randomly dealt hands has the necessary 2 card combination (j2,j4,j9), but again it needs to be within a hand that will limp/call preflop and then continue post flop ck/calling.

I don't think you can or should get away from this.

You block his potential straight draws which sucks but the only houses that would make sense are j2 or j4.

Annoying spot but I'd pay it off.

Agreed. What the simulation shows is how likely Villain was to have been dealt
22XYZ,
44XYZ,
99XYZ,
J2XYZ,
J4XYZ, , or
J9XYZ, .

And the truth (as shown by the simultation) is the villain was not likely (by about a 5 to 1 margin) to have been dealt any of those combinations.

But now we have the villain betting as though he was dealt one of those combinations.

So was he, or wasn't he? (I don't know, and neither do you).

Does he have a full house or is he either bluffing or simply stupid. (Again, I don't know, and neither do you).

That looks reasonable to me, and I know you're an expert in using ProPokerTools. So, OK, I believe you.

I believe you and thank you.

Again I believe you and thank you.

OK. It's pretty hard to tell what their other three cards might have been. And from the betting, it doesn't look like anyone has flopped a set. There's no jack on the flop, so nobody with a jack should be tempted to continue. Of course, you never know.

I'll concede that is possible.

Agreed.

I don't feel so sure that Villain doesn't have a full house to raise, but neither do I feel so sure Villain doesn't have a full house that I'd fold.

I agree with WINNINGSTEK and JMAnon on this one.

Buzz

You're the one who wrote, "Villain 1 - SB - losing fish. Bought in for less than table min but no one said anything because he is so bad. Very gambly."

Buzz

In an FL game, too often it's missed draw hoping you missed. However, he did bet $800.

Whether to call depends on what information you have on him when he makes very large bets ($800 is a massive bet from a suspect player even in a typical 5/10 NLHE game).

On the face of it, you should be good and therefore call. Instinct and feel says call. On the other hand, J9 is the sort of combo loose players have in their holdings!

Question is, would he really bet so big if he wanted to get paid off when you appear to have missed your low?

Do you mean that you sometimes like to fold when you think calling would be slightly +ev? Sure you can do that if you want to decrease variance, but I think the conversation should be about optimal play.

In the next sentence you seem to imply that you don't think he bluffs a lot in this spot. If you think you aren't beating any of his value bets then you probably don't win +31% of the time and should just fold.

Call - I think if Villain had J9 he is likely to shove the turn.
I expect to win maybe 40-50% of the time here

I guess what I meant is that you don't need to be making a ton of hero calls in order to win a lot in this game.

I don't think most people are making $800 bluffs in this spot. I know this player is bad, but up to this point I didn't have any reason to think he was completely suicidal

I wouldn't consider it a hero call. When checked to I think it's a rather clear bet. I also wouldn't consider a random bluff in his shoes to be suicidal.

I agree. I would be thinking that the J could have counterfeited a two-pair hand you were betting along with a low draw. A jack isn't a natural holding for you here, so you are probably folding a lot of the time to a river bluff.

Just want to post this table isn't quite accurate. This table has hero having a flush. It doesn't make too much difference, but it doesn't take into account those times V has AJ as well (while it also falsely assumes that V could have a lesser flush).

ProPokerTools 5-Card Omaha Hi/Lo Simulation

600,000 trials (Randomized)

board: 249JJ

Hand	Pot equity	Scoops	Wins Hi	Ties Hi	Wins Lo	Ties Lo
Ac5c5hJh3d	82.50%	490,695	490,695	8,558	0	0
*****	17.50%	100,747	100,747	8,558	0	0

I don't play much BO8 (only played twice) but I gotta agree with most here and say this sounds like a call on the river. It's a tough spot, but he's gambly and the turn and river Jacks missed just about every draw. I think he's just about as likely to have a J249 combo as he is a pure bluff or a lesser J. Just put the chips in and hope for the best.

You're right. Thank you.
I evidently typed a "C" instead of a "D" and somehow didn't notice my error.
I apologize for my error and will go back and replace my improper simulation result with yours.
It doesn't change my conclusion. I simply think Villain is unlikely to have made a full house. Further, this is a good spot for Villain, even if stupid or a poor player, to try a bluff.

I think Hero must have the courage to call here.

Buzz

thanks for the replies. good discussion.

To be completely clear, I don't think it's a good spot for villain to bluff, I just don't think it's "suicidal" at all. Hero wanting to fold a hand as strong as AJ here could serve as some kind of evidence?

It's not a good spot for him to bet because of the preceding play in the hand. He should be raising most of his strong made hands on the flop or on the turn. Meanwhile Hero has bet two previous streets so we can't exclude any of the strong made hands in the same fashion from Hero's range. Thus, Hero has way more full houses after this river card thus Hero should do most of the betting. I know that this is very basic to some people and very confusing to some others. "I has a good hand why shouldn't I bet?"

That is why in my first post I said villain should be checking his whole range (intending to bluff catch with appropriate hands). Because Hero has lots of incentive to bluff with his missed draws and his preceding play has bought him "bluffing rights", this "appropriate hands" very likely includes every jack, probably some overpairs too. This is why I think Hero's hand is a clear bet when checked to (he can get called by worse often enough). Villain chooses to bet it himself, so now Hero has the extra option of folding (compared to villain checking and Hero betting). So with Hero's actual hand I see it nothing more than that, an extra option.

I've read many HH's posted by OP/Hero in this hand and I'm pretty sure every villain, no matter weak or strong sees him as a nitty player, because he is nearly always choosing the most conservative route (i.e. he is a nit ). While someone's technical play in this game might be horribad (like for example the villain described in this hand), he/she probably can see that Hero is a good target for "desperation" bluffs, because they can see that he folds a lot. This is yet another reason why I think Hero's best action on the river is to call. Final answer.

Edit: didn't see OP's last post yet, so it didn't affect what I wrote.

Fair enough. As I think about it more, is seems to me a poor spot to try to bluff someone who is difficult to bluff, but a good spot to bluff someone who is susceptible to bluffs (such as agnostia... sorry agnostia).

Exactly!

You're more familiar with high stakes games than I am, but my experience in low stakes games is this is exactly the kind of situation in which players bluff. That is, the board pairs on the river with no low, straight, or flush possible, when there was an obvious draw for at least one of these. In this particular case, there was an immediate low draw (two low ranks on the flop) and after the turn, two straight draws... all of which missed on the river. I know opponents who routinely bluff in this situation.

I guess you're talking about Villain, but given that Villain is a weak player. isn't it possible he's not playing as he should?

Good point. A strong Villain shouldn't exclude the possibility Hero liked the river card (even though it seems likely Hero would not like this river card)... Villain does not know Hero has a jack, but from the betting might be wary of a flopped set.

Hero has done most of the betting up to this river. Do you mean Hero should raise Villain's river bet?

Interesting perspective.

Interesting perspective.

Interesting perspective. Thanks for sharing.

I don't understand. Perhaps we're not thinking about the same thing.

OK. I understand that.

Exactly!

I follow. But I think folding here is a poor choice. Villain, by betting, offers Hero a chance to make a mistake by folding... and Hero bites.

It's a chance for Hero to go wrong.

Exacty! And don't you think this is a good place for a bluff against a Hero who is likely to fold to a bluff? Do you see my point?

Exactly.

It didn't affect what I wrote either.

Buzz

great post.

and yes, i am a little bit of a nit ... but it works really well.

and you're right, "suicidal" may have been an exaggeration.

I can easily believe that and it's a good point.
I agree that it is very possible, even likely. Some of my comments were coming more from the angle on how I think villain should play, not how I think he plays and how Hero should react to that. So my approach was more of a theoretical one than a practical one as I think it's the correct approach to take if you want to improve your game.
No, there is no more money left to raise. I meant only what I literally said - as played (flop+turn), Hero is the player who should do most of the betting and villain should mostly be starting with a check.
I was talking about which hands villain should be calling after he checks and Hero bets.
As you know, I agree that calling is better than folding. The only slight disagreement I think we have is whether the bluff by villain is a decent one or a bad one. From what I gather, you think it's a decent one because
and while this has some truth in it, Hero has a very simple cure for it in this spot. Call with a hand you were going to value bet with anyway when checked to. Think about it, it leads to the same result as you betting and him calling, the difference is only that now he can have some bluffs, too. So it's actually more favorable for Hero than "villain checks, hero bets, villain calls". Of course, Hero happens to be pretty high in his range and has a hand he can comfortably call with. It would be more interesting if Hero had like A359T (pair of nines with an ace kicker), but that's another story.

Doug Polk talks about a spot in WSOP ME HU on one of his recent videos.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=90yy1_tBAtQ

I recommend everyone to watch it in full, but I think the important part starts from 9:50 onwards. Basically the point is that you don't need to play a lot of guessing games if you understand ranges and game theory well enough to simply call with optimal hands / frequencies in any spot, in any game.

I absolutely do see your point. Still, even after it worked, I think it's simply a bad play for the reasons I've presented.

Thanks. I'm happy to hear that, since I put quite a lot of work into that post.

It does, and it should! I didn't mean "nit" as in criticism per se, more of an observation. I think in games when you outmatch the opposition in technical skill by miles (like I think you do in the game you play) the correct way to play is rather nitty. They will pay you off anyway. But sometimes I think you take it too far and could improve your win rate by making more bold plays.

Thanks very much. Very clear to me now.

Buzz

Can't a terrible villain just decide "hey turn and river big card I bluff now he fold"?

And if he turned jacks up on this board, wouldn't he be apt to donk a fair amount of time to prevent you from checking behind your AT773 of the world and the like? (maybe not often, but can't be a "never" thing).

This may be the LHE player in me, but in general, you need a really sick read to fold to a bet when you have a hand that would probably be worth a value bet when checked to yourself.