^ He asked someone how to get to BBV and got bad directions and ended up here.

Did see results before posting, but this is what I was thinking while reading OP.

First off, I agree with everyone that pre is a raise from the BTN. If we limp, we're playing this as if we're trying to flop a big hand and that's it, and then we get confused when we just flop top pair and there's action in front of us, and whether or not we have reads, we aren't sure where we are at. Just kind of hate playing hands this way.

Based on OP description, I can agree that once V1 checks here, we don't really have to worry about him. If he had some sort of T or overpair, based on his description, he's definitely betting the river. Turn sizing was super weak too, he's so FOS with his line here. He will have nothing here 99%+ of the time.

With V2.. it depends. If you think he's competent, then he would definitely be capable of value betting any T here on the river that beats your T9.


However... there are a few things that tell me that V2 likely isn't all that competent as a player from your HH.


1.) He bought in for $100 at 1/2 (50bbs) and let himself get down to $50 and only added on thanks to a promotion. I think a good competent player likely doesn't let himself get this short at all, nor does he buy in this short. How many shortstackers at 1/2 have we seen turn out to actually be good? I've seen very few.


2.) He limped UTG. Stronger, more competent players are less likely to limp from UTG for sure.


3.) He c/called a small bet otf and then tiny bet ott. Is that consistent with a ten? Maybe the call on the flop, but calling a smaller bet on the turn? A competent player is raising this all day.


Also, if we think that he could have slowplayed a big pair, I think we are much more likely to hear about it on the turn after a really weak lead from V1 ott.


Finally, for him to have a full house, he would have had to have limp/call with 66 and 88 pre, and still continue otf with an overcard to his medium pair. I do think it's possible for him to do this, but I've seen plenty of passive players at 1/2 just dump underpairs at this point. Part of me tells me it's not too likely, but it's not impossible. The counterargument is that people generally like to peel lightly otf a lot, and I can't argue that. Sometimes, even passive players do that.


So combining all of those factors leads me to think V2 is not competent at all. If he bought in for $100, and we think he's not a competent, that tells me that he probably pays more attention to absolute bet sizing rather than sizing in relation to the pot. So when he bets $100, and we think he's paying attention to absolute bet sizing, is he REALLY playing a ten this way? I think it's far less likely.


I know a lot of posters argued that we don't have any reads that this guy would bluff the river here, but I think it's just as important that we don't have a read that he would value bet this size on the river with a ten w/ medium kicker. Combine that with the factors listed above, and I actually do think that this is polarized to some sort of weirdly slowplayed full house or missed draw.


So with those reads, I think the river is a call. Wouldn't be too surprised if we lost sometimes, and that's what happens in these tougher spots. Yet I think we're good here at least 50%, and that's obviously good enough to call here. If he turned up a better ten, I'd mark the guy as pretty competent and capable on value betting despite everything he had done previous to this hand. With that sizing too, he's capable of betting for thin value. If he somehow showed up with a big pair there, it happens I guess. The guy is passive according to OP, so it's entirely possible sometimes.


I still think it's far less likely he shows up with those two hands though compared to a full house and missed spades. Also think it's hard for him to occasionally continue on with 66 and 88 otf, so I still really like a call here.


However, I came up with these factors while reading OP. Let me say that without reads, this is a fold like other posters have said.

Agree with this. Be open to what everyone has to say if you're going to post on 2p2, and even if you disagree with them, I wouldn't recommend being hostile. If you feel you are being attacked on 2p2 and fire back, you're going to get hostile responses instead of insight on your hand history, and that derails your thread 100%. Obviously not what you want.

Even if you simply disagree with what some of the posts are saying, just leave it at that and move on to the next...

As a general statement, this is usually correct. We usually do not beat generic players who are double barreling here.

But based on description of V1 and looking at his sizing, does that statement really hold true here? What made hand is he betting smaller on the turn than he did on the flop with that we don't beat? Is he really betting JT+ smaller on the turn than he did on the flop? Makes no sense.

I feel V1 should rarely have anything here, let alone something that beats us. We can safely rule V1 out of the equation.

^ thanks, I was going to post something similar. Don't see how we can assume villain is both double barreling, and doing so with a made hand. If we knew this to be the case, then yes our TP is not worth a call. The flop bet does not scream made hand and looking over the player description should confirm that.

I posted this hand because it was a tough decision and I wanted some insight from other knowledgeable 2+2ers. I thought this hand would be worth discussing and could benefit from several different perspectives.

I think the point of the hand is that if you call 100% of the time occasionally you'll win a hand. Loose passive people don't lose 100% of the hands they play.

I embrace different perspectives. In fact one of the main reasons I post on 2p2 is to read other points of view. If people disagree and criticize thats fine, I welcome that...I wont get offended one bit. But that one poster was being a douche with the professor tino crap. Yes I should have ignored it.

Some shocking advice ITT. Particularly the people 'advising' to basically snap fold...without any real explanation or analysis...

and the ones saying V2 could 'easily' have JJ+ with his line...lol

SaintTino it sounds like you got this hand pretty figured out.
You did leave out some important info in your OP though, but still...

I think i read someone say fold flop...lol as if such a small weak bet and we have position

His hand looks more like a bluff then anything...the possibility of him having any sort of monster is slim, basically has to be a hand like A2 and i dont think he plays it this way...and at this level i dont expect a $100 bet from a hand like A10 or K10, though i would from a good player at higher stakes.

This. All day.

I don't rely much on body language and "gut feelings". While I do recognize that these things have a role in live poker, I still tend to make the majority of my decisions based on math, bet sizing, hand ranging, etc. In my original post I made no mention of V's body language, and while I do admit that I should have posted it, I can also say that his body language was not the tipping of the iceberg for me. At LLSNL it is so rare for Villians to make value bets on the river without near nut holdings. That is simply a fact, and I think that a lot of 2+2ers are missing that point. We can assume that if any random LLSNL V makes an aggressive move on the river that he either has a very strong hand or a bluff. Most V's at this level are passive/ stationy, so in this spot with a TPTK or TPGK type hand I am always expecting V to be in check/ call mode.

fold flop

just curious why no one has said 'the turn is a fold' yet.

Why would the turn be a fold?

why would the turn be a call?

For several reasons....most of which have already been discussed if you read through the thread from the beginning. But I am sincerely curious to know the argument for folding to this turn bet. Please elaborate

'we has top pair zomg' is a terrible reason to call. even worse, we have a crappy top pair that can't beat other top pairs.

we're investing money hoping we're against: spades, overs, or a pair smaller than ours. pairs bigger than ours we're crushed by. a spade will river ~20% of the time. middle pairs make it so that cards that might otherwise seem safe (for example, an eight) are no longer safe. overs make 12 non-spade river cards scary. and let's not rule out the possibility that the guy who bought in short and is freerolling limped with a deuce.

hypothetically, assuming we're good now, bad river cards include: 11 spades, 12 ace+paints, 11 cards from 6-9.

so we're just going to toss in a turn call doing nothing but hoping we're good, not having a clue if we're still good on 34 different river cards, and, as played, we were still compelled to throw in 100 more dollars on a river card that's one of those 34. sure, it's 20 bucks. but that 20 bucks led us to throw in 100 more simply because we constructed a mental scenario where it was conceivable we were best.

the turn call was the single worst decision in this hand, and it's not even close.

Interesting...

you say this:
but then previously said this:

you ask for this:
but previously said this:

so you can see why posters like me might get a little snarky when they took time out of their lives to offer you their insights....

You have not made a point here. All you've done is taken some of my words out of context and declined to recognize the progression of the conversation.

And no I don't understand why "posters like you would get a little snarky..." its unwarranted, unnecessary and rude. You act as if you went out of your way to offfer some earth shattering advice that i dumped on....but no, all you've done is waste your time trolling my thread looking for a childish argument.

I think we can just move on now...this is pointless

Thank you for the sound reasoning...that makes sense and I respect your point of view. You pointed out a few things that I did not recognize at the time but I think my thought process was legit. You mention V having a deuce but in an earlier post I mentioned that its unlikely because with a bare deuce Villain will play the flop and/or turn with more aggression. In addition to that, this villain will take a similar line with an over pair, especially JJ or QQ simply because there are quite a few turn cards that
Villain will not like.

Don't get it twisted, I am not spazzing here with a crappy top pair. I felt as though there were more bluffs in villains range than hands that he would bet for value on this river and I was in bluff catching mode.