5/5, $500 eff

Villain in SB just sat down

Hero with QQ in MP opens to 25
BTN, SB call

Flop [$80]: 852
Checks to Hero, who bets 60
BTN folds
Villain raises to 200
I call

Turn [$480]: 7
Villain jams 280
Hero folds

Did I torch $130 by calling flop here? In the moment, I thought it was too weak to fold QQ to a single flop raise, even though the board was pretty dry, and maybe there was a chance villain was overplaying 99-JJ in addition to having a set here.

However, with the 7 on the turn, should I be expecting V to jam with any smaller overpair he'd continue with OTF? I feel like I played this poorly because I sort of convinced myself villain could have 99-JJ to call the (smallish) C/R, then change my mind after he jams turn. I feel like I need to either go with my read and call it off OTT or just fold flop.

Thoughts?

I fold the flop here as a default, and feeling pretty happy with it. Mostly due to what ive observed over many years now, i find that 99-JJ doesent go for this line very often. The check-raise to $200 is superstrong in my opinion.

You 5x raised pre, and fired $60 into $80 on the small dry flop- wich is signaling a big overpair,even to many drooler villains. My read is that he is supernutted (sets) when he does this, and is trying to get all the money in.

Take your coolers. Having a calling range of three combos (888, you really shouldn't be opening 55 or 22 outside of CO or BTN) out of a cbetting range of over 100 combos is just ridiculously unbelievably exploitable.

You can tweak your ranges from GTO based on population reads, but cmon man, folding this hand against an unknown is just way too weak.

Why is it "too weak" when this checkraise line+sizing indicates that we are beat a big percentage of the time drawing very thin against mostly a set or a funky 2 pair hand? Because we have an overpair and we get married to it?

Going broke here is not a cooler either, for that matter.

It's too weak because if you fold the 90th percentile of your range, it's enormously, massively, epically profitable for your opponent to be c/ring any two cards.

Villain doesn't even have to be bluffing or doing this with a weak hand ever. If his range is JJ and sets, you are +EV to stack off.

Sure, i am totally aware of that.

But your catastrophe description of we being exploited simply doesent happen that often due to incapable opponents of executing such adjustments. Those considerations is secondary to the fact that we are beat here a scary high percentage of the time.

But sure, stick it in and stackoff on autopilot here because youre scared of being "massively epically" exploited.

I will and I have, profitably. Folding against an unknown is not the same as folding against someone you have a read on. I used to be a huge nit and fold in these spots. Then I would see later that the guy is a spewtard or overvalues top pair and I probably made a terrible fold. Getting raised on a bone dry board like this is very uncommon from a standard 1/2 passive nit, because as you note, they tend to do it only with sets, which are rare, and even with sets, they mostly call to trap. Thus, if you get raised by an unknown on this board, the likelihood that the person is not a standard 1/2 passive nit increases dramatically. I can break this down with more numbers if you like.

Lol no, save yourself the work. This isnt about numbers,if you think so you have missed the point by a landslide. I can easily just put up a range we are ahead of and autostackoff here on autopilot because i haz the overpair. Its the easiest decision in the world for every pokerplayer. I have QQ+, lets get the money in because "folding is too weak".

If i get any confirmation later that the villain is a bad lag or in other ways deviate from the vast population tendencies, sure i readjust.

Also, i will say- it isnt without reason there have always been huge amount of threads on 2+2 where posters goes broke with big overpairs facing a flopraise or a flop check/raise. Those countless threads is happenning for a reason: its because people run into sets/nutted hands repeteadly and wants to know if they could have avoided to lose their stack. And i think its for sure avoidable in many cases.

LOL @ "this isn't about numbers."

OP anything about the SB? Like was he an OMC or was he a YAG? I think this could go either way, so before commenting I was curious if there was anything about SB's appearance that may given even a slight indication to how he/she plays.

This isn't really a fair point. There is a huge sampling bias towards people posting hands they lose. Overpair vs set is a common getting stacked situation. We rarely see people post when they called it off and the guy had a naked FD or whatever. Or like in this thread we see Hero folded and we really don't know whether we threw away the best hand.

I agree we should more often than not fold, particularly in passive games, but it is not a snap fold and comes down to our read on our opponent. If we have no precise read we can still draw conclusions based on population characteristics where we play and stereotypes of villain's appearance and behavior.

It's also optimistic to think we aren't being exploited in a 5/5 game. I exploit nits with x/r bluffs all the time. And I don't show my hand when they fold. So they tell themselves "good fold" and move on unaware what just happened. And some villains are so bad they aren't actively trying to exploit us but just going crazy with 99 or A8 thinking they have the best hand. The second point being we don't need intelligent opponents to exploit overfolding tendencies, just aggressive ones.

Good points, but i didnt mean in general that we cant be exploited in a decent 5/5 lineup. I had this kind of spot in mind as an example, when we 5x pre and bomb 60 into 80, i think very few villains is exploiting us by check-raising to 200 wich is close to half their remaining stack if starting stacks is 500. It just isnt happenning at a high frequenzy. You or another good player is capable of exploiting tendencies isnt surprising, but i cant imagine you have many bluffs (if any at all) in this spot either with this check-raise sizing.

Your best point is that aggro villains can accidently exploit us overfolding,without many of them really thinking its what they are indeed doing. Its just a natural benefit of the aggression they bring to the table. But until we get a read that villain is indeed an aggrotard or above average laggy player i prefer bet/folding this on the flop as a general default.

Here are the numbers that I mentioned earlier.

Split the 2/5 player pool into two groups.

Nitrocks - Players incapable of raising this flop with anything less than a set, not even an overpair.

Aggrotards - Players capable of raising this flop with less than a set.

Let us be charitable to the "fold" camp and assume that 80% of the 2/5 player pool consists of Nitrocks. Since Nitrocks only raise sets on this board, they are only raising at most 3% of their range - call it 2% because it's fair to assume a good deal of slowplaying sets on this board. And let's say an Aggrotard raises on average 12% of his range on this board.

Then, if you get raised on this board by an unknown, the likelihood of that unknown player being an Aggrotard is 60%.

(This is because of the two hundred Aggrotards in a pool of one thousand 500NL players, twenty-four of them will raise, where as of the eight hundred Nitrocks, only sixteen of them will raise - so 60% of the raises are coming from Aggrotards).

In other words, when you get raised on this flop, it is signicantly more likely you are up against an Aggrotard than a Nitrock. And so getting it in with QQ will be +EV, if you accept these assumptions as fairly reasonable.

Call flop, call turn imo.

I think you'll see as many 67 combos here as you will sets. The c/r on this dry of a flop is more indicative of a draw or hand we beat.

This is a classic c/c flop, c/r turn (or lead river if turn is checked behind) spot for most good players with a set.

Villain is also readless so they should be going for the most GTO line, and this raise with a set, if it's for value, is more an exploitative line. So I'd error on the side of thinking villain isn't very good and happily get money in with my overpair here.

Folding flop would be too nitty, but calling flop c/r gives you correct odds to call the turn shove. Against unknown villain you can’t be losing money. Its just too likely that your hand is good, and laggy villain will reload for more action.

Old middle eastern guy. He folded for half an orbit before this hand.

I was so close to calling the turn jam given that I only needed to be good 30% of the time, but I just didn't see this old dude pushing this hard with a naked OESD or one pair, considering my hand is pretty face up as a big pair here. I peeled flop because I figured if this particular villain was semi-bluffing, he might give up OTT once I call the raise. Him jamming turn made me think he's way more weighted towards sets - although I feel like the max value line would be to C/C flop, CRAI turn?

Part of the reason I peeled one off was that I recently got X/R bluffed off AA on TT6r flop by (a different) villain, and he showed a naked GS. I think a thinking 5/5 player can definitely exploit people like me who are bet/folding overpairs on a regular basis. Against the right villain profile, I may start stacking off in this situation in the future.

How old? IME Middle Eastern guys are usually pretty aggressive sometimes maniacs.

Folding for half an orbit is meaningless.

Haha love the title because it's so true that there are so many threads with this idea. I would just fall the flop without any other reads and I think you save a lot of money in the long run.

While I think I fold this is really good analysis. It is fair to say that most players won't raise without a set but when you look at the amount of times you are raised a disproportionate amount will be by the few aggrotards. Definitely something to chew on.