Howdy y'all?!

Here is an interesting hand that I played a few days ago; would love to hear some of y'all's thoughts.

Game is a limp-cally $1/2, full of "regs". We've been sitting for about an hour and have not been involved a ton, as we are still feeling everyone out. Viewed by the regs as one of the better players around, and our winning image is reinforced by V2's comments as soon as we sit down...

"Oh no, not you again. I'm only going to play premiums against you this time".

Thanks for the free advertising..

V1 ($400): 40's foreign black donk; switches between aggro-donk (where he opens almost every pot and bets 90% of flops) and tight-passive (where he hardly opens at all, but will limp-call a ton pre and check/call a ton post). Weird, I know. Tonight, he seems to be in tight-passive mode so far, so we are expecting a pretty straight forward approach post.

V2 ($550): 20's action seeker; opens and calls very wide IP and generally calls 3!'s with about 75% of his opening range. Has been very active as expected during our time at the table. Doesn't get overly creative post, but is capable of throwing in the occasional bluff.

Hero ($290): 30s competent & aggressive. Have not been involved a ton yet, other than two hands where we 3b/cbet V2 and were shown very little resistance post. No showdowns yet.

History: We've played a handful of sessions with both villains and are +$ on both by a long shot. We are very confident in our reads on villains and their leaks/tendencies and how to exploit.

OTTH!

UTG calls $2
+1 folds
MP (V1) calls $2
MP +1 folds
HJ folds
CO (V2) raises to $15
BTN folds
Hero in SB looks at AK and 3b's to $40

... folds to V1 who calls, folds to V2 who calls.

Once both Vs calls our reads on them are as follows:

V1: He's cold calling, so probably pretty snug. 88-JJ, AJ+, hardly if ever QQ+ because he would 4b pre, even in his tight-passive mode.

V2: He's being given a pretty good price, and has great IO vs. V1, so probably very wide; 22-JJ, 78s+, J10o+, and AJ+. Would not at all be surprised to see a hand like 89s here.

Flop ($126):

9 7 2

Hero bets $50

I decide to bet small fully expecting to get called by basically all of V1s range. I would be very surprised to see a raise out of him with anything but 99, and would not at all put it past him to peel a card with AJ+. I am expecting to get called by any and all of V2s unpaired hands that have in any way connected with the flop, as well as 88. I would expect raises from the obvious 22,77,99 & 79, but also a discounted TT/JJ. Secondly, I am underbetting purposely to leave myself with some fold equity should I choose to excercise my option to bluff-shove this flop, or a turn.

V1 calls
V2 folds

Turn ($226):

A

Hero....?

Yes, I know I should 3b more preflop.

Thoughts on flop/turn appreciated.

Thanks in advance mon freires.

so.. about half of his range (88/TT/JJ) is way way behind and scared of the A. and the other half (AJ/AQ) is also way behind, but loves the A on the turn.

you have less than a pot sized bet left.

assume he will fold 88/TT/JJ to a turn barrel. assume he will call with AJ/AQ. also assume he will bet with AJ/AQ if checked to. seems like you are getting money in vs. AJ/AQ no matter how you play it.. so, what's the best play to get some money from 88/TT/JJ? check/call turn! if turn checks through, put out a small value/inducing bet on river to get a curiosity call after you checked the A.

Id bet more on flop and shove every turn, once you decide to Cbet this board, you're committed anyway with $200 left imo.

If you're cbetting small expecting them to call everything, you're really just bloating the pot when you're behind.


As played, Easy ship turn

from my limited experience, a $50 bet is pretty large for 1/2 brains. the fact that its merely 40% pot doesn't mean anything whatsoever to the players im used to. b/c of that, im unsure what a larger bluff would accomplish here?

before, i gave my opinion on how to best play the turn, as played. now i will offer my opinion on the flop... check! you missed, MW, OOP. move along. you assign your chances of a successful bluff attempt at 0% and then you bluffed.

Bet larger on flop and shove the turn. Or bet smaller and be prepared to barrel a lot of turn and rivers.

Flop is a pretty clear bet.

OP's assumptions are that we have 0% fold equity and are getting called by better far more than 50% of the time. so, why is flop a clear bet?

Multi-street bluffs. 66 may be a better hand right now, but it isn't a hand that can call down profitably without improvement.

Why?

High amount of equity + a lot of good turn cards we can continue to bluff on. We do get some folds on the flop.

If he's likely to bluff if checked to I like a check here and let him hang himself. But since you said he is playing passive and expect him to play straightforward post I like a bet here.

I might go on the smaller side, like 90ish to keep his 9x and all other pairs in. If he peeled with AT+ he is never folding. I actually don't mind a bet of 75-80 here to keep most of his 1 pair hands in and make him feel committed on the river to call a shove.

Not much doing on that board so I'm not concerned about draws, we should either be way ahead or way behind here.

Bet 75-90 setting up an easy river stuff. If we get raised OTT I'm committed against this described V I think he can stuff it with worse than AK

Also I like a bigger flop bet which gives us an easy turn shove on any heart, K or A

Some major logical fallacies going on here:

1) You are perplexed at an opponent who open raises 90% and then switches to limping 90%. There is nothing interesting about this at all, and is entirely consistent with donk play 101. He probably has a big ego and thinks he can play absolutely any hand regardless of position, so he just randomly switches between being aggro/passive dependent upon what he thinks his image is.

2) You are OOP against a fancy player in the CO whom you expect to be calling a lot. You should be 3betting the **** out of him with AKs. Make it $60.

3) You hit a terrible flop and cbet expecting to get called and are happy about it? Since you are bluffing here your goal is to make them fold, not call. Just jam flop assuming $200 effective stacks. With an open raise to $15 and a 3bet to $60 or even $45 in your case this is more like a 2/5 game instead of 1/2, which makes a $200 buyin less than 50BB's effectively.

Thanks for the input everyone.

I am surprised at how many of you think that betting/shoving is "optimal" here.

Secondly, I was just trying to illustrate that taking unconventional lines is not necessarily all that bad, and actually could/would have worked in my favor this time given my stack size. Please read on..

I know that our SPR is essentially 1:1 after betting the flop, but I do not see how we are "committed" after putting in $90 of our $290 with no pair. So if he shoves flop, we shrug call because we're committed?

Secondly, why would we give him an opportunity to fold? Yes, the A is our gin card and we can safely assume that we have the nuts since A9 is not in his range here, like ever & 99 raises the flop; so he has TT-JJ or AJ+. But does that mean that we should shove every time we think we have the nuts? Rather, I am interested in getting the most value out of this hand, and I very much doubt that shoving is our optimal line against that range.

My thoughts exactly and I would agree 100%.

This however I can not fully agree with. Although I said that I am expecting to get called almost 100% of the time on the flop, I do not think that my bluff success rate is 0%, because...

We have a good image, and a PSB left. If I felt like I had 0% chance of winning this hand, I would probably c/f flop. I know that I will almost never win this hand on the flop. But, I would like to leave myself the option of winning it on the turn. Damn A ruined my plan

As I said, I am well aware that I "should" 3b more preflop. But why? Yes, to ensure we get heads up and get the most value out of our 3b-cally V2 blah blah blah. But does that mean that we should be 3b the **** out of every value hand no matter what the circumstance is? No matter our image and our stack sizes?

I said in a post somewhere a few pages ago that getting into Auto-Pilot mode was a negative trait in my (and I think judging by the responses a lot of other people's) poker game. So, I force myself to think []x. I experiment. I try underbetting. Overbetting. I try taking weird unconventional lines. Not just for the hell of it, but to achieve a deeper understanding of the game.

Lately, I've been experimenting with 3b's in relation to stack sizes, and voila... a perfect example of why under 3b and underbetting postflop can work in our favor.


Let's assume that I do 3b to $60. Both V's call.

Flop: ($186)

9 7 2

Are we checking? Ha-ha. But seriously though...

So we bet. What do we bet? Let's say we bet "conventionally" ... $100-125

V1 calls. Pot is now $386-$436

How much does that leave us with? $80-$130.

What is our fold equity now? I think you guys can figure that one out.

I said earlier that purposely under 3b/underbetting the flop could/would have worked out in my favor. The only comment needed is a comparison of our expected fold equity on a blank turn had I 3b to $60 vs. the line that I took. How often can we expect a fold for $130 after being called for $100 on the flop? What about for $200 after being called for $50 on the flop?

I am not saying that not 3b to 3x+ is optimal in any given situation. However, we should take everything into account, including not only our stack size, but also our image, our hand as well as our hand plan.

If I had QQ+ here, I think I would have played it a little differently given my image and my stack size...

You're looking at things the wrong way. Dont just start randomly making actions at the table to mix up your play. You can still change playstyles based upon observations and expected results from your opponents. 3betting someone to the max I think they will call has nothing to do with following some preset value strategy, it has to do with me making as much money as possible with the hand. Given his description I think he'll call $60 just the same as he'll call $45, so why wouldnt I bet 60? Why should I bet less just to be different when the end result is the same and he calls? All I have really done is given him a slight advantage by giving him better odds to call.

So you set yourself up with an opportunity to underbet on the flop because you just wanted to try it out. The problem with this is you arent taking into consideration what's going to happen, which is most likely that someone is going to call. Why would you ever want someone to call you when you have nothing? I might underbet with AA, or a flopped set or something, but Ace high? Thats pointless. Even if the underbet scared my opponent into thinking I had a monster, I'm still laying a good price for a draw to get there, which he'll be even more correct to call me with since he thinks I have the nuts and he can crack me. Dont ever give someone proper odds to do anything no matter what.

You're right about having no fold equity on the turn if we cbet, which is why we might as well just shove flop. We 3bet huge out of position, we are representing a strong hand, and then we go allin on the flop. Every bit of our story is credible, "we have AA. Anyone who wants to come along for the ride is welcome to call. If you have a set oh well, ya got me, I'm not a mind reader." If they think you're bluffing well you still have outs. Would I do this for $1000? Of course not. But in a 1/2 game where the average preflop raise is starting at $15 then your stack size leaves you considerably less room to maneuver postflop. Getting it allin when you have any decent amount of equity is fine.

Thank you for the detailed response.

You are absolutely right that this specific villain (and generally speaking this villain type) will definitely call a 4x 3b with the same frequency as he would a 3x 3b, so I fully understand why doing so will yield a higher EV.

Although I did say that I've been experimenting with 3b's in relation to stack sizes, don't get me wrong that this hand was me putting my big toe in to get a feel for the water. Prior to this hand I had done it, successfully and not-so, several times over to have enough of an idea of what it is I was trying to accomplish.

I think that part of the reason why I started experimenting with it in the first place is that I'm not in exactly in love with 3bing huge and then trying to bob-and-weave postflop with (inevitably missed) A-hi. There's just too many times where I 3b, cbet and find myself in no man's land with little equity with one card to come, and not enough monies to generate enough FE to make shoving profitable.

Having said that, I do agree that 3bing huge, assuming 100x-150x stacks, and openshoving whiffed flops is probably the better play, as we undoubtedly win a much much larger % of the time. But, would we realistically ever do this with a say 2:1 or 3:1 SPR if we actually had AA? I am not so sure that I would. Secondly, should I even be asking myself that since most of our villains at this level won't even be thinking enough to pick up on that?

It's ok to 3bet and then check/fold the flop. But you'd be surprised how often people will fold to your cbet. Thats the power of initiative. Unless they're some total mindless calling station I'll still cbet. If they call, well thats where the equity comes into play. You did not whiff this flop. You have overcards and a backdoor flush. Clearly we arent excited about this flop, but generally speaking all anyone is going to have here is a weak pair, and any hand that makes a pair on a board like this had a different goal entirely. Lets say someone was playing 89s, well sure they hit the 9 but that wasnt what they were after, they wanted to hit a big draw. Well 89 does not make a big draw here, so chances are they actually fold the best hand because getting it allin with a pair of 9's wasnt the intention. And if they do get it in, your equity comes into play. You have a 25% chance of winning the hand, which makes shoving actually a breakeven play even if they call! At least if all they have is 1 pair, which comprises the bulk of anyone's range.

Remember, the goal isnt to just bomb any flop and pray to take it down, we're doing it in spots where it's unlikely your opponent hit much and his motivation for sticking around is low. He put in $60 pre and probably missed, is he really going to put in the other $140 on the off-chance you might be bluffing?

If you want to 3b AK, I think you have to accept that you are betting for fold equity when you miss, and that sometimes you are going to do some damage to yourself.

With that said, I love your cbet sizing, because it makes the turn so much more workable under all scenario's.

At this point, you are likely ahead and if you aren't you are getting stacked no matter what. I think given pot size, the right play here is actually to check and give him a chance to try and take the pot away, planning to bet 100 on the river if he checks turn back.

If you don't think he has the bet in him on the turn, then just bet 100 and try to get committed.

Shoving ott. Can't check ott. Against a guy playing tight/passive I think our chances of checking to induce ott are smaller than shoving and getting him to sigh-call with an overpair to the flop. Also, deeper we have some options, but with less than a PSB ott we don't have a ton of options. Betting the amount you did otf, the plan should have been to shove any hearts/A/K ott because of the < PSB you left yourself.

Shove turn.

But how is this an unconventional line for AKs as described in title?

You have AKs in SB, 3 bet it pre, and c-bet flop...nothing unconventional about that

Well said.

Although 3b and then c/f has it's merits on the wettest of boards that absolutely smash our opponents ranges, I really rarely take that into consideration preflop, because it's such a rare scenario and it really only comes into play against a very specific type of villain. Rather, most boards are going to be pretty dry, so the Auto-Pilot inside of me is preparing to bet basically 75% of the time, because as you said our initiative alone will win us the pot a surprising amount of the time.

Again, I do agree that at 100x under 3b and under cbetting is not nearly as effective as 3b huge and shoving dry flops (I mean, it's not even remotely close) because like you also said, it's a pretty big parlay for our average villain to put $60 in preflop and then $140 in on the flop on the off-chance that we "might" be bluffing. The reality is that most of the time, they will have a medium strength hand that just simply can not or rather should not be able to withstand that sort of heat.

At 150x however, it's a little different..

Although the probability with which we bets TT-JJ is (arguably) lesser than that of which he sigh-calls with it, the probability with which he sigh-calls with it can not possibly be greater than that of which he either A) bets with it or B) calls with it on the river. Does that make any sense?

Actually, I would think that the probability with which he sigh-calls on the river has to be greater than that of which he does so on the turn (due to our sign of weakness on the turn) making our turn check optimal in that we are giving him an opportunity to (incorrectly) bet TT-JJ, even if he only does so an extremely minute % of the time. Does that make any sense?

If we don't ever want a villain to fold, and shoving gives him a chance to do so, then why would we shove???

It's unconventional in that rather than doing the standard sized 3b & cbet to maximize fold equity from better hands on the flop, I purposely under 3b and underbet the flop, with the intention of maximizing fold equity on the turn.

Results:

Turn ($286) A

Hero checks
V bets $80
Hero calls

River ($446) 3

Hero bets $120
Villain calls and shows TT

Results aside, I still feel that if we know our villain's range is capped at TT-JJ and AJ+ betting this turn is suicidal because we are giving him a chance to make the correct play against us. Even if he (correctly) folds only 1% of the time, it's still a mistake to bet.

If V were a guy who always played tight-passive then I'd really like the check ott, lead otr. With someone who plays LAG a lot though, I think he talks himself into the hero call ott often enough. And in his tight-passive mode I'd think he's betting the turn almost never, although I was incorrect about that.

We want to win the most money, not prevent folds. If V calls a $2 bet 100% of the time or calls a $500 bet 1% of the time, we make more money when does the latter and folds 99% of the time.

I like the way you played the hand. The small flop bet is good, because the board isn't very coordinated.

On the turn, I like checking the turn if the villain is decent, because he probably realizes he can't beat most of our hands, so you can make more money by playing deceptively. I guess you could check the river against aggressive opponents, but I would bet like you did most of the time.