Hero (1500), 40's white male, rec player businessman look, playing aggressively. Basically never limping. 3bet 3-4(?) times in 2.5 hours. Ran it up to 1500 (max BI 500). May appear overly lag? But really working to be looser only in position. (TAG up front, LAG in the rear ) Unsure how much V is adjusting to H's aggression/looseness.

Villain (1200), 30ish, Asian male, could be pro or competent rec player. Also been aggressive, but tighter - an actual TAG? Not sure. (Didn't limp, raised mostly and often cbet.) Would guess 20% blind defense to a raise, but maybe wider to H's raises.

Folds to Hero with 45 OTB.

Hero bets 20 (typical late position open for H, adding 5 for every 1-2 limpers, but here there were no limpers).

V (SB) calls.
BB folds.

Flop (40) 467
V checks
H bets 30
Villain calls after a half second pause.

Turn (100) (467) J
V checks
H bets 75
V calls again after about the same pause.

River (250) (467J) 2
V checks
H bets 150

Comments on all actions welcome.

Seems fine. Basically a standard 3 barrel here. Same line one would take with JJ+ here (or even Jx)

I like preflop, flop, and turn. I'm only barreling the river against the weakest players. Versus a "pro/competent player" who is defending his blind from your wide BTN open, I don't think he gives you a lot of credit for a J. Based on your description I expect him to call with 7x, 88+ here.

i would check back the river, we beat ace high and missed s/d's but if we are trying to get pocket eights type hands to fold, its going to take a much bigger river bet.

He is not folding 88-TT

Interesting how many responses to a question about playing 4-5 suited from other players insist that the hand should be folded. But here the responses are all made with the understanding that OP is "doing the right thing".

But let's remind ourselves that OP here is experienced, knows what he is doing, and is playing aggressively (basically inviting Madame Variance into his parlor) in his own style. So I am OK with what would otherwise be a material inconsistency in this forum.

I actually think the river $150 is fine. It's true that 3-5 plays bigger than 1-2 (obviously) and 2-5. Despite OP's aggression from hand to hand, the $150 looks like a value bet from 99-TT-QQ-QJ-KJ even, with emphasis on the pocket pairs. If Villian is going to pay $150 to look up OP, he is probably going to also call a pot-sized bet of $250.

If OP is beat he can find out for $150 instead of $250.

What bet size would it take to fold out 88-99-TT? Probably more than $250 but OP has a better feel for that than we do. Seems unnecessarily risky to make a large overbet instead of the $150, all we beat is air. Yes, there is more fold equity percentage-wise in a $500 bet but when we are beat and called we lose 3x+ more.

Checking back costs less at first glance but what looks like a value bet might fold out K4-K6-K7 and similar small one-pair hands. And betting 150/250 = 60% of the pot means if we are successful 40% (roughly) of the time we are +EV.

While I am not that aggressive usually, if OP is playing aggressive then I like his sizing, YMMV, and others may disagree.

At first I loved the hand.
But I would take the same line with QQ here and expect to get called down by 88 - TT, and A7, 87 a healthy portion of the time that he has those. I think we only fold out 65 and 54 some of the time, but not often enough.

Check back the river I think.

Barrel flop and turn. Check back river.

I'm lost. The river bet has to be a bluff, right? That deuce doesn't look very scary to me. If we are assuming villain actually has something he s willing to call the turn with, why wouldn't he call the river?

Also, for clarification. You usually bet $20 otb? Or are you saying, you usually bet more, except here there weren't enough limpers here to justify a bigger bet?

If youre going to bluff here it probably needs to be $200 to get the folds you need. You need to decide if you want to make a big bluff and get him off his bigger hands (88-TT) or go small and get him off weaker 6x/7x hands. If your plan is to check back a blank turn, then dont bet the turn as big. 55 would have been enough.

over bet the turn, bet river

or

$75 on the turn, check back unimproved

/thread

It has a lot to do with:
1. the very clearly written hand-history, reads, etc.

2. being on the button. In a lot of posts someone says I'm in late position so I'm opening junk and they end up lost playing a hand out of position. Hero is not lost in this hand.

A couple comments about the hand:
1. Personally I'd usually size bets slightly smaller, but if this is your standard it looks good.
2. I wouldn't triple barrel this hand 100% of the time. I'd bet the flop the almost always, and then the turn 80%, and then the river about 60%.

Against most Villains the 2d is not a good card to continue when triple barreling and I would tend to usually check back; but betting is certainly not wrong.

Yes, river bet was a bluff. Get a fold from A4s, A6s, A7s (and off suit if V plays those). Also suited connectors with a higher pair, like 87s. Maybe even K4/6/7 if V plays those. And the 88-TT, as mentioned above. Bluffing all those.

Re the $20 bet, yes, I usually bet 30 UTG/UTG+1, 25 MP, 20 LP. Then add 5 for every 1.5 limpers. Could be higher depending on the table, but that's what I arrived at that night.

Lots of great comments here. Thanks.
Siculament (and others) nailed it.
V insta-called - made me wonder if he had a live tell - and showed 99.
I am still wondering if 185ish would have gotten a fold OTR, like did he have a bet sizing tell instead of a live tell. I do tend to go for mad value (75-90% pot with strong hands, and sometimes 2X with nuttish). Was this a standard "small bet is weak" read?
Or is it really that I just don't have that many Jacks in my range, and this ****er knows how to range?

Comments

1. If there's a positional gradient in your pfr size, and a positional gradient in your opening range, then there's a correlation between your hand strength and your pfr. This might have led villain to the correct conclusion, albeit for the wrong reason.
2. He doesn't have to be a 2+2'er to tell if you've open raising ATC from the button, although you gotta give the guy credit for having the patience and the gonads to call you down. You can fool some of the people some of the time, etc.
3. But I guess it has to be one or the other, not both.

No big deal, we all get caught with our hand in the cookie jar sometimes.

I personally think 54s is a cool kind of hand to have in your button range against one or more observant opponents.

Part of what makes OP think he's casting pearls before swine is that, villain probably thought he really WAS opening atc, while OP may well have been playing a brilliantly balanced opening range that should have scared the bejeebus out of villain with this board.

This is why you have to be careful with fancy stuff, because sometimes the brain-damaged response is ironically perfect

it was folded to OP on the button. Basically he is stealing the blinds for 20 dollars with a hand he wouldnt mind if both blinds called. I wouldnt really consider this getting fancy

Quick comment. Yes to both positional gradients, but in any given position with any given number of limpers, I do not change my bet size based on my hand. Your point is still valid and possible.

Agreed, we were referencing a discussion from a another thread.

There are a number of cool things about this hand history, part of which is its counterpoint value against a couple of other threads that came up recently.