No, it's almost never a draw

tight player playing back at LAG villain for the first time all night is not always a draw. In fact, it's almost always a nutted hand. This is like the law of aggressive play at a tight table. They roll over and we print money because they only play back at us when they have it.

Results:

over/under on how much money posting those results will cost oh-nahhhhh in 2014: $2,376

grunch: fold

this is a tough spot. and tough to put villain on a range with the dynamic you have going. i'm not sure how much i'd call. maybe a min-raise. a turn check-raise is usually super strong in 1-2. against a "not terrible" player i'd give it more credit than it's actual monetary value. i'd expect villain to have better than 1-pair. it's tough with all that money in the middle and tptk... in game i may actually make a begrudging call... but i think fold is the right choice here.

Lol... yea i mean... we are never ever good with tptk when someone calls flop and shoves turn on a wet board...

Thought this exact thing last night, because I agree with you that this line appears to be a drawing hand. I lost twice with this theory last night in 200BB+ pots where opponent had me pipped once and turned two pair the other time

He is saying don't apply some blanket formula to a specific betting line lol

Easy fold, Villain weak bet donks when he has top pair great kicker. He is never shoving turn here with the "well this is the one" talk light. Expect minimum of two pair here. These weak tight players will just call with their draws, and rarely check shove unless they have it.

What do you mean?

The oh-nahhh theory is good, though it's not 100% as he noted. V made a good play, OP made a good call.

Lolol he said "most of the time" not "all of the time" lolok

"lolok" my bad, calm your tits

Theyre calm.. very calm. Although i wish they were excited.

I really think i play softer games than the majority of posters on this forum.

i'm adding the oh-nahhh theory to my arsenal, but think i'm going to apply it only to players that i think would bluff or semi-bluff. baluga theory probably holds for passive players even with the c/c, c/r line.

I would say less than 10% of 1/2 villains are going to be ch/c flop ch/r turn with a draw. In fact, turn raises in general are going to be draws very very rarely at 1/2 NL.

Applying that "theory" without very, very, strict rules is going to be lighting money on fire over the long haul.

Bet/folding the turn a lot with thinnish value hands is probably the number one thing that most LLSNL players could do to increase their win rate over the long run. It's easy to level yourself into calling turn raises on drawy boards, but you are going to be wrong a lot of the time.

anyone who wants to prop bet me about who has a higher hourly in 2014 at 2/5 is more than welcome to pm me

haters gunna hate

my theory FTW

thanks for coming out haters

so happy you called OP....and like I said it's not 100%... but it is just something to consider, there are obv always other factors in the game that should change your decision

GG everyone this thread was fun lol

Amazingly good post. Listen listen everybody!

The line of call preflop, then check/call the flop, and check/raise a large amount of the turn from a player "playing pretty tight and straightforward" is much better than TPGK the vast majority of the time. His range is most likely top 2-pair and sets. I suspect he would not typically take this line with draws, even big draws like pair+flush draw or open ended straight flush draw. With draws, I would expect him to either c/r the flop, or c/c the turn if he c/c's the flop, after all, he is pretty "pretty tight and straightforward."

I think this is a clear fold to the c/r based on the information in the OP.

Alternatively, you might have checked behind on the turn to ensure hands like AJ or TT that might have floated your cb on the flop, but would fold to a 2nd barrel, will then stick around to call a value bet on the river, or perhaps make a bluff at a missed draw on the river that you can safely call with TPGK in position.

i mean if it's against a 70 year old lady year but if it's vs a dude who has any gamble in them whatsoever it's worth considering.... that's all I'm saying yo

i'll edit my theory... it has to be vs gambly dudes, and hero and villain had a rivalry going... this is the perfect spot to use my theory.... also it has to be a spot where it doesn't make sense for him to not c/r flop with a hand he wants to go with, we have to know the dude is gambly, have to feel it in the moment etc, but try it.... and to all you guys citing the baluga theorem, I'm aware of it... and I'm pretty sure that if someone showed him this thread he would be open to considering it... everything has exceptions and the game evolves people

Oh-nahh, your theory directly contradicts the baluga theorem.

:grunch:


Sick sick sick.

I really don't expect this to be a bluff. Would he do this with AQ thinking he has the best hand ... yes.

But I expect to get shown a ******edly played AA/KK somewhat often, and a set of 44's very often. 22 and JJ are a little less likely.

I think I just fold here and needle him a little to see if he shows.

I might call off about another $100, but not $240.

haters gunna hate

Oh-Nahhh, not hating, just discussing


Do you think this villain takes the same line if the turn is a 3h instead of the 2h?