Opponent is a reg that plays up to $3/$6, solid and wasn't really out of line.



How often am I chopping this pot? Seemed like I created a really gross river spot by being conservative on the flop and turn. I don't think my hand is one of those which I don't want to bet/call and bloat a pot on the flop and thought check/calling made the most sense.

On the river, is leading out the better option then check/calling? I see A2 make up a significant part of his range when he bets flop, so there's really no value in check/raising.

Well you either lose $120, or win $19. So assuming you never scoop, you would need to be chopping over 85% of the time. Even if he plays every A2xx like this, you still don't have enough equity (since he only needs 1 card to beat you)

the button limp is worthy of some abuse imo.

What hands do we afraid of? A26x or A2xx when xx = any kind of full house.
I am not familiar with this limit but is it possible that a solid player openlimps on the button with A26x?

You're absolutely right. I think in this specific situation, we had a really bad player in MP who was willing to get it in for his entire stack with any 4 cards. We were fairly passive against each other and all waiting for him to stack off.

He was limping like 40-50% of his hands. I saw AKQ4 from UTG and I would assume a lot of low only hands that do well multiway.

When he bet flop and checks turn, its very possible he has an A2 with a made full house. Its one of these spots in NL (never in PL cause you can't get your entire stack in) where you can check the turn in the position and hope your opponent improves on the river and quarter them. A3xx and 23xx does counterfeit him once in a while, but he expects to make more in the longrun if I have exactly A2 and he has a hand like A299 or A255.

Yeah would he limp any A2 OTB? If he turned a FH w/o having A2 I would expect him to bet turn to protect against your (obvious) A2. Could he be playing A(3,4 or 5)9x like this? Quity tricky hand...

Based on the lack of info regarding Villain, table dynamics and history it is impossible to tell what to do here IMO.


Edit: ahhh if he is passive and limping a lot I would fold to his river raise. He could well have been limping OTB w hands like A2(3,4 or 5)9, A2(44 or 55) like you say yourself.

Double edit: I would actually also shove A26x if I was Villain.

So you never scoop him and never quarter him and you need to call 120bb shove on the river. Is this spot really so difficult?

So given that, why would you consider calling the river?

Winner

BTN SN start with a G?

fish start with an x?

I posted this not as a medium to share a bad beat or anything. In fact, I folded and just moved on, hoping to pick up a +EV spot against the fish later on. Too bad he would get stacked by the reg who i folded to in the above hand and move his remaining stacks in the $10 NLO8 ZOOM tables.

I posted this hand to get some assurance on the fold. There could have been arguments that A2 is not part of his BTN limping range and we could've had a debate going. Guess there isn't much to debate except preflop which could have been played better (and the flop + turn plays change).

I guess another potential debatable spot could be the decision to check vs betting on the turn since we can rep 9xxx a lot by betting turn and possibly fold out A3 combos.

Yeep. You were involved in this hand btw, so you shouldn't have any trouble digging it in from your database.

Nope, his name does end in 69 tho, not sure that narrows down the search too much.

You're chopping and winning $19 (half of what was in the pot before the round started plus the $12 you already contributed this betting round) as often as Villain
(1) also has a wheel,
(2) has a full house without a nut low, or
(3) has a six high straight without a nut low.

You're getting quartered and losing an additional $56 as often as Villain
(4) has a full house plus a nut low, or
(5) has a six high straight with a nut low.

If you win $19 three times for every $56 you lose, you roughly break even.

So the question becomes, "Does Villain have (1), (2), and (3) more than three times as often as Villain has (4) and (5)?"

Villain doesn't figure to have gotten dealt cards that Hero beat for high and also tie Hero for low more than three times as often as Villain gets dealt cards that would split evenly with Hero. And Villain figures to bet this way with (1), (2), (3), (4), or (5). Thus Hero probably has favorable odds to call Villain's all-in bet. Plus, although the possibility seems remote for this scenario, there's always the chance Villain is bluffing, in which case Hero wins $242..

I think Hero should call this bet. (Sorry... I realize that's not what you wanted as a reply).

Buzz