in short: villian is unknown. on the river, i think it makes sense for me to have broadway. i have two aces in my hand. villian's sizing looks like blocking bets.

again, I fail to convert NL hands, so i'll type it nicely for you:

blinds are 5 and 10 cents. I open raise to 40c from UTG with A82A, folds to SB who calls, BB folds.
I start this hand with 10$ (100bb) and villian covers me.

Flop (2 players, 0.90$ in the pot, 9.60$ behind): KJ9
villian checks, I check behind

I don't think i'm ahead of villian's calling range, if raised, i'd have to fold some equity, and I didn't think villian's folding range has so much equity.
I didn't mind seeing a diamond on the turn or a pairing 9 or J.
I decided to value-check the flop and "play poker" on the turn.
In general, my shorthanded c-betting frequency isn't very high, maybe around 65% of the time.

Turn: 7
villian bets 0.40$, hero calls

I value-called the turn with a good draw and decent showdown hand.
standard, I suppose...

River (1.70$ in the pot, 9.20$ behind): Q
villian bets 0.40$, hero raises to 1.75$

if villian folds 50% of the time, it's +ev. i'm obviously polarized to nuts or bluffs. in theory, my bluffs should be selective, so i guess it makes sense for me to pick hands that have blockers to bluff raise with for balancing purposes, among other things...

do you like it? would you choose a different raise size? would you play earlier streets differently? please enrich me, i'm a NL noob...

I'd like it more if he wasn't a complete unknown, but it seems good...I'm pretty sure he hates you raising the river, it's just a matter of whether he does an "f- it" call or not.

You missed the flop (clearly). But Villain probably missed the flop too. At least it's rather unlikely Villain has flopped a king high straight. We can calculate or simulate to find the probability four random cards would contain a queen plus a ten. I'll simulate (using Wilson). Result: Villain with four random cards flops the straight 8.3%. So it's basically about 11 to 1 that Villain has not flopped the straight. But if allowed to continue to showdown, Villain (with four random cards) will end up with trips or better approximately 40%. And Villain's chances of making a straight by the river roughly double.

Meanwhile, if Villain has flopped the straight, Villain probably doesn't want Hero drawing to possibly make a heart flush. So if Villain does have the straight, Villain should probably be betting this flop in an attempt to shake Hero out of the pot.

What all the above means to me is Villain is unlikely to have flopped the straight and we should want to get rid of Villain after this flop. I'd be willing to take the 1 to 11 risk (1 in 12) that Villain hasn't flopped the straight.

Shove here planning to collect the 90¢ already in the pot.

Hero still has a chance, albeit not a good one, if Villain happens to have flopped the straight and was hoping to trap Hero.

I think that's a mistake, a major mistake.

Buzz

The river raise is not very credible given your check behind flop and call turn.

Better off to pot bet the flop to see where you are: if he raises you can fold cheaply (assuming you do not want to come over him). If he calls he probably won't min-bet the turn: he will fire or check and you can fold or fire yourself.

I would pot bet the flop, pot bet again on the turn if he checks, and he will be gone before the river. If he comes over you, you obviously fold.

Buzz,

about your logic:

1) villian's flop check - i'm the preflop raiser, i'm expected to c-bet. therefore, villian is expected to check and there's no reasons to conclude that villian would probably bet a straight.

2) villian's likelihood of holding a straight - villian could also have sets, top two pair, big draws, etc. all should call a shove and have me in rough shape.

3) getting rid of villian - it can be achived with a much smaller bet.

4) metagame - you didn't discuss the fact that shoving is noticeable and exploitable.

You know Villain better than I do. Moreover you know what Villain actually held. But for what it's worth, if I were sitting in Villain's shoes, I would not expect you to continuation bet and I would bet a straight if I flopped one - and for the reason stated.

I'll be surprised if Villain has flopped the straight.

Again, you know Villain better than I do and you already know Villain's hand. Just as a crude approximation considering the cards Hero can see, Villain will flop a straight about 5/3 as often as a set.

If Villain really thinks Hero has a straight, then if Villain has a set he has almost 40% pot equity. If Hero shoves, Villain has to put up $9.60 to possibly win $10.50. Villain's getting 1050/960= almost 1.1 to 1 pot odds and hand odds are 3/2 or 1.5 to 1 against him.

That's a bad bet (unfavorable odds) for Villain.

Since calling a shove with only a set is a bad bet for Villain, calling with two pairs is also a bad bet for Villain. (Indeed I think you know that calling with two pairs is even worse).

What if Villain has a set plus the nut heart draw? Well... in that case Villain would be ahead. But that's a monster under the bed hand. I seriously doubt Villain has both a set and the nut heart draw.

What if Villain has flopped the straight? Well... in that case Hero is way behind. But I don't think Villain has the straight.

Perhaps. I'd want to make sure Villain had unfavorable odds to continue if with only a set or two pairs.

You seem to want to play this hand like pot limit. Indeed you seem to be playing it like pot limit. But you told us it's no-limit. And if it's really no-limit you can use no-limit tactics and take away Villain's implied pot odds.

I admit if Villain has flopped the straight or a set plus the nut flush draw, I'm going to take it on the chin.


I'd shove here with a flopped straight too.

I know shoving with air or the nuts (polarized shoving) is popular in no-limit Texas hold 'em, but I'm not an advocate of polarized shoving in no-limit Omaha-8. And in this case Hero has less than the nuts at this point in the hand but more than air.

On second glance, I still favor shoving after Villain checks this flop. I don't want Villain drawing.

Buzz

No, I don't. I know nothing about him. Which is the case with many of my zoom opponents. it's just hard to keep track. I try, but it's hard...
have you heard about zoom? it's like rush poker.

But we don't use tactics based on how we'd react to them. We use tactics based on how villian would react to them.
Indeed, very many opponents semi-automatically check to the player with the initiative from the previous street.

How could he think that? based on the preflop action? QT isn't very popular. based on the flop action? players would bet this flop with all sorts of things.
opponents who face a bet on this flop don't immediately think that they're up against a straight. they have no reason to. Very few would fold a set here. again, they don't really have a reason to.

...only if hero has a straight. no reason to assume such a thing.

It's not a bad call. Again, no reason for villian to assume hero has a straight. Some not very knowladgeable players would say: "I read you for a straight..." while there's no logic behind that claim. Poker isn't magic. You don't just look at a guy and know his four cards.

But villian would have favorable odds to continue with a set unless he can see hero has a straight. there's no way for him to know that. all he can and should know is that a set is ahead of a range of hands an opponent will bet the flop with.

but in NLHE, it's still very unusual for a guy to shove over 10x the pot. the risk is huge and the reward is very small.

Yes.

I see.

Agreed.

OK. But I think at least some opponents would bet a flopped straight... and since Villain didn't bet this flop, that makes a flopped straight more unlikely than random. Also the two cards needed for the flopped straight, a queen and a ten, are not a favorite two-card combination. It's not impossible for Villain to have flopped a straight. I just think it's less likely than random, given (1) the possibility Villain might bet it instead of checking it and (2) the two cards needed (queen-ten) are not a favored two-card combination (like ace-deuce, ace-ace, ace-trey, etc.).

If Hero shoves, Villain should be concerned about the possibility Hero has flopped the best possible hand, a straight. He probably doesn't figure the odds but he might have a feeling about some bets being too expensive. Thus Hero has fold equity, and the more Hero bets, the more fold equity Hero has.

In addition, by shoving, Hero takes away implied pot odds, which are a consideration (for me, at least) when calling a bet to draw. And even if Villain has no idea whether he has favorable or unfavorable odds, if Villain continues with unfavorable odds, then Villain is making an odds mistake. And if Hero has the straight, that has to be good for Hero. (I realize Hero doesn't have it - but Villain can't know that, should be concerned, and I think will be concerned).

If you are sure very few opponents would be capable of folding a set here, then you're right about Hero's bet having no fold equity. But it's even more unlikely Villain has flopped a set than he has flopped the straight. More likely Villain has flopped a pair or two. I went through the reasoning for Villain flopping a set because if Villain doesn't have favorable odds to continue to an all-in push from Hero when Villain has flopped a set, then Villain certainly doesn't have favorable odds to continue to an all-in push from Hero when Villain has flopped two pairs or one pair.

What would be in your mind if Villain had shoved instead of checking? Would you want to continue with your pair of aces plus the back door diamond draw? (I think you'd quietly fold, momentarily hating this no-limit game).

Maybe no reason to assume it, but certainly a reason to fear it.

It's a bad call if Hero has a straight.

Again I don't think Villain will assume Hero has a straight as much as Villain will fear Hero has a straight or some better fit with this flop.

It would take courage to call a $9.60 bet into a 90¢ pot after this particular flop if holding only two pairs. Does Villain have the courage? I'd put him to the test.

Agreed.

No?

Agreed.

Probably.

I don't think Villain flopped a set. I'd be willing to gamble that he didn't. (Odds are close to twenty to one he didn't).

OK.

Not in my experience.

Nonetheless...

Buzz

I bet flop. This is zoom. When you can fold your sb and see another hand instantly, the ranges for him calling your raise generally tighten up. This flop does not hit his preflop calling range that well. Equally, you can be betting many hands that raise pre and can represent hitting that flop enough to warrant a bet akj2 hearts, aa2*hearts, akk2 and other decent pair and flush draw combos. If he raises you can fold, you are not giving up much equity at all. If he calls then you can play poker on the turn. You seem too afraid of being bluff raised off a marginal hand on the flop at this level?

As to river. I fancy messing with his head with a river AI shove if you are going to pull this fancy move.

Shoving the flop is very bad here IMO, you're risking $9 to pick up 90c . It's pretty much a stone bluff as most of the hands you're beating fold anyway.

we're risking 9.60$, to be exact...

it IS a stone bluff. What bothers me about the move is that it's completely unbalanced.

Buzz said he'd shove a straight as well.
O.K, assuming we make a play that tends to blow villian off anything he might call us with instead of value betting him to death. villian might even shove on us if we make a normal sized bet with a straight there, which is great, but whatever...

the thing is that even if that's true, we're still going to have a straight there a tiny amount of the time. what else might we open shove there for value? top set, stuff like set+draw... that's pretty much it. when we shove, we're still way way more likely not to have a value hand than to have one.

for example: we don't open shove bare A29K there, because that move essentially turns our hand (top+bottom) into a bluff. villian doesn't just call there with bare J9 or flush draw...
if we made a normal sized bet, however, things would be different, as now villian would have called with worse hands, allowing us to collect value.

now, how do I know we're completely unbalaced? well, our hand has no feature of a hand that makes for a good bluffing hand. we have no information on villian that would give us a reason to assume he folds more than he should (and with information, we can simply bet much smaller).

the second point about our opponent should be quite clear.
what do I mean by the first? well - blockers.
when we take such a huge risk, we might as well buy insurance against villian's likelihood of having a hand:

having the A, even unsuited, would help. we have two aces, but none of them is the A. villian called a preflop raise from a very unfavorable position - the SB. he's very likely to have an A in his hand, half of those remaining aces is the A.

better to have AK, rather than two AA. AA beat (and dominate) AK, but the range that villian calls this rediculous shove beats either combo anyway (back to the problems of shoving...)
on the other hand, having a king blocks villian's likelihood of having a common combo and a major threat - KK.

having two queens or two tens - blocking the nut straight makes it hard for villian to find a call often enough.

even a single queen or a single ten would help.

i'd much rather shove with a hand like A25Q,
blocking some good hands villian would probably call us with and knowing we have equity when picked off.

when we shove the AA28, no heart, we basically say - i'd shove anything in this spot, i'm completely unbalaced, my range is very weak...

as a side note - hero's AA DO have decent showdown value. it's not clear if villian even attempts to make a move from OOP. we might be able to take it down cheaply, with say a 70% pot sized flop bet, trying to check it down on turn and river. this sizing might actually allow us to collect some value from top pairs, draws, etc.

I don't know what a "stone bluff" is. I'm guessing you mean "stone cold bluff," a form of bluff where a player has no chance of winning the hand other than by getting other players to fold.

But it's not a "stone cold bluff," because Hero does have a chance of winning if called. (Run a simulation if you don't believe me). Even if you give Villain a flopped straight (QT**), which I don't think he has, Hero has some chance of winning. If you combine the probability Villain doesn't have the straight with the probability Hero wins even if he does, I think you have favorable odds.

I know I'd hate to be on the other end without a flopped straight, the receiving end of a shove by Hero here. Sometimes the play to make is the play you'd hate to see if you were in the other guy's shoes.

One straight (king high) is possible on the flop, Villain checks the flop, and you're afraid (more or less) Villain has the straight. I guess you'll eventually tell us if he does or not. But in the absence of that information, I wouldn't think Villain has the straight.

I'm not, in general, an advocate of getting my money in early. But in this particular case I think shoving is Hero's best play. Moreover I think it's a mistake not to shove here in a no-limit game.

In making this decision I approximated (then checked with a simulation) the probability four random cards would have a queen and a ten, approximated (then checked with another simulation) the probability Hero would win even if Villain did have the straight - and then I combined those probabilities. I think Hero has favorable odds to shove, assuming Villain folds without the flopped straight.

Exactly. What do you do if he does?

I think it depends on how you have played other hands.

We've been through this before, you and I, what to call such a move. I don't want to call betting anything but the nuts a bluff. Frankly, I think immediately after this flop, if a winner were to be called on the basis of a showdown without the turn and river, two pairs, kings over nines (top and bottom two), would win. I would not think if Hero held K9** one opponent would have top two, a set, or the straight.

Not impossible, just unlikely. Meh.

We're back to the black or white of bluffing or not bluffing. I think there are shades of grey.

You do have a good point about not knowing Villain. But neither does Villain know us.

If you insist on black and white calling the shove either a bluff or not, I agree it would be better for Hero to have a blocker or two to reduce the probability Villain had flopped the straight.

I'd certainly rather have the A. Well... more than that I'd rather have the flopped straight. But we don't, and that's the way it often is.

Good point.

Better to have a lot of things... the flopped straight with a heart re-draw, for example... but we have what we have.

I disagree.

Hero has no draw to a straight or heart flush - but Villain might have such a draw. I don't really want Villain drawing.

Meh. You posted a hand, I thought I saw where you could have played it better, I posted my thoughts and now I've defended my position in three more separate and extensive posts.

Right or wrong, if I had been playing the hand, and with the information you provided, I would have shoved after SB checked this flop.

Buzz

pointless walls of text ITT