This isn't an OMC or beginner. This is a TAG with LAG tendencies. Asian. (Stereotypes FTW). I can't fault a fold but a LAGgy Asian can pull this bluff off. MAWG? Probably nutted. But not here.

If V has only $230 left OTR with $160 in the pot, what amount are we BET/FOLDING here? Seems stupid to bet $100-$110 and fold to a min-raise all in right?

If you're going off of stereotypes, a loose Asian can show up here with a hand like Q3 or 75 without shocking me.

I can easily an Asian LAG showing up with either of those hands, or a busted straight draw. He checked his BB so his range is literally ATC.

Touchè. I agree.

Sent from my SPH-D710 using 2+2 Forums

GRUNCH

I level myself in these spots all the time. The thinking goes, "When we check river, he has to know we don't like our hand, so if he was betting for value then he would be $100-ish, but since he is blasting the pot with an overbet he must not want a call, and if he doesn't want a call then he is bluffing!!!!"

And so we call, and villain shows us a boat or flush...

The problem is that LLSNL villains don't think in terms of value. They think in terms of caveman level 1 poker. When they have a weak hand they check or bet weak, when they have a medium strength hand they bet medium bets, when they have a monster they bet big.

So in this spot, when he blasts the river, I tend to think he got there.

Now the other side of the leveling equation is that if V is terribad, then he can very well think that T9 is a MONSTER afterall, it's trips .

The fact that we hold the T is huge, that and the fact the 9 hits on the river reduces V's combo of flush draws to around 4. AJs, KJs, QJs, J8s

I guess the real question is, does this V have it in him to bluff here? And truth be told, most LLSNL players just don't bluff enough nor bluff all that well. So I'm fine puke folding here.

Only way I call is if this V had a habit of blasting rivers and I noticed he had been blasting rivers 50% or so of the time when he makes it to the river and action is checked to him. If that is the case, then I call here. But barring that, I fold.

Our turn sizing should have gotten rid of a lot of fledgling hands and after showing that much strength on turn, most villains don't bluff river. So for him to call the turn bet, I think he had a set, two pair, or big Jack which would mean Jx
'
uggh, sick spot, I think puke fold is fine.

i agree with the fold.

we are betting so hard on a limped pot and is getting called. yes he may have bluffs (missed draws) but this is these stakes, river overbets or even raises are the nuts!

I did finally settle on a fold. I tanked for a few minutes and people were grumbling about calling the clock. Calling on the river when I know I'm beat has been a leak of mine and I am always very curious about a river bet or raise. I asked villain to show, and he confirmed twice that I wanted to see it, and showed T 2.

I had the chips cut out and ready to push forward. It just "felt" like a bluff but I always "feel" like I'm getting bluffed. If I didn't have any puke in my mouth when I folded, I surely did after he showed.

On the plus side, I did not go on tilt. I retained my composure and ended up +$360 on the session after being in for $500. Every time I play I get a little bit better at controlling myself.

There is nothing wrong with making a big call based on live tells. However, please understand that even though this bet seems so FOS it's straight out of the older asian lag playbook. Page 65 I think. It says make huge overbet not only as bluff but also when confident you have best hand.


Well then, this was definitely a good fold. Villain really hadn't given you enough reason to bluff catch in this spot (which is essentially what this was).

Obviously, bet/folding $75 is an easy option. However, I don't see anything wrong with checking to induce a bluff, unfortunately 1.5x pot is hard to hero call.

I think its rare to find a villain that would value bet that big without having a boat (sometimes Ax) or a BLUFF. All flushes and sometimes str8 would make a PSB or less for value, if villain is competent. and ABC players would probably check behind J high flushes or worse.

Keep in mind that villain and hero have the same range. Hero actually has a bigger range since we have the T. Hero could have Tx or Jx and check the river, and sometimes hero could have a boat and check OTR.

Villain is ranging hero on a str8, Tx hands, I think Villain is betting so BIG because he wants our str8 or Tx to fold....and if he's level 2.5 then he wants you to call CALL! With that said.....

......I'm calling here and at the 2/5 tables.

I call especially with td in my hand. I just don't see him flatting flop w/ 2p or sets on flop 100% and what flush can he have that calls flop and doesn't raise preflop/turn... That being said I have seen people show up with weird hands that made nut flushes here that leave me talking to myself... He is repping a narrowish range imo and the rest of the hand would make it even harder for that story to be true.... Plus a lot missed/can be turned into a bluff

I think Villain is betting so BIG because he wants our str8 or T:x: to fold....and if he's level 2.5 then he wants you to call CALL! With that said.....



......I'm calling here and at the 2/5 tables.[/QUOTE]

How often do you think he is bluffing here?

Thats awsome and there was nothing wrong with the fold especially if you want to keep your varience low and like you said you can count overbet bluffs on one hand. (add into the mix a middle aged asian guy with LAG tendencies and this being 1/3 rather than 1/2 who bets after you check the river makes it a little more complex).

What you should take away from this hand is not that you folded the winner but that you checked the river. Yes the board did get scary but if he has a boat or possibly a flush he will raise you then you can just yawn and fold so theres nothing wrong with bet folding especially with a LAG MAAG behind you.

Because Villain can show up with Tx as a bluff, the correct play was to check/call. (Not because he was bluffing this time--but because once we put Tx in his river betting range, it comprises so much of it that we should be inducing the bluff.) We didn't have enough information at the time of the hand to make the call, since we didn't know Tx was possible, but now that we know it is, I'm confused why you'd say that this result shows we should not have checked the river. OP got half of the river action right. Yes, it's bad that he got the second half wrong and gave up on the pot he built, but by getting Villain to show his hand, he got information that may end up being worth a ton if he plays with Villain more.

I think making a blocker bet would give us more information about his hand if he raises and also keeps the pot under control. Checking would let him choose the betsize and if he overbet the pot 2 or 3x with the same hand, how are we going to find a call then.

He is much less likely to bluff raise if we value bet the river imo. I don't like checking into asian LAGy players as much as I can help it (especially if they will likely bluff the river on that type of board where so many hands beat us).

You're talking right past the point I'm making.

You seem to think that getting bluffed is a BAD thing, because we have to fold to it. I'm saying, once we have established that Villain has a bluffing range, because his value range is so small we should be HOPING he tries to bluff, and we should pick it off.

The reason I was originally against calling the bet here was not because Villain has a wide range of hands that beat us; it's because I didn't know if he had any bluffing range at all. But once I know he does, then almost surely there are enough bluffs compared to value in his betting range that we should be hoping Villain bets if we check to him.

This is why you don't complete with marginal hands. It's the absolute best case scenario for you and you're still having a bad time on the river. V could be value betting a flush. He could be value betting a worse hand than yours! You don't know, because you're out of position.

As played: why would V bluff? Your line is really strong - you lead out two streets in a row after completing. It's an insane spot for you to be bluffing, which means you've been value betting. Now, you check on the river: what hands were you betting for value? You'd probably take a similar line with J8, which V probably knows. When he bets for value, he could be betting a 9! Which you beat! Or a boat. Or a flush.

It's really difficult to know if you're behind or ahead here. You're ahead of some value bets, behind others, and you beat all bluffs. Not a good situation. Don't play marginal hands out of position! (especially passively)

As played I think this is a fold, too many boats and flushes in V's range.

Yes I do see both sides but he was described more as a competent tag than a lag (not including the stereotype).
if he was more of a LAG, a SLAG or someone who bluffs alot, it's a great spot to induce. He can represent a lot of hands and it would be a bluffer's dream to bluff that board but idk if he was described that way tho.

Just as note.. in my recently ramped up LLSNL play I have observed that:

- Most half-potish river bets are value bets
- Most over bets on the river are bluffs (and they typically follow this exact pattern - I value bet the flop and turn OOP and check the river when the scare card hits)
- Villains check behind most medium strength showdown value hands on the river

Without the nuts or near the nuts, I tend to fold to these river over-bets thinking that "I'll get them next time when I have the hand which will make their bluffs -EV" But I think this logic fails for the following reasons:
- I rarely make the nuts on the river when I was aggressively betting the flop & turn and a scare card hits the river
- When I do still have the nuts/near-nuts on the river (let's say we had flopped a set here instead of a straight), I generally value bet the river rather than checking it.

Conclusion: It looks like the correct way to play against villains like this is to:

- Make blocking bets OOP on the river when scare cards come to try to avoid inducing a bluff we cannot call.
- Check OOP on the river when a scare card comes that actually either makes our hand or doesn't hurt it.

He could've easily made a bloated bet with 89s or 99 or A9/K9/Q9 and hit the set and occasionally the full house. Depending on how loose he is he could bet more suited cards in his ranges, not all high since he limped all the way (AKs AQs AJs would've raised. If you haven't seen any of his bluffs then It's hard to call. Personally I'd call here, you got amazing pot equity and the chance he has suited cards depends on your reads but flush aside, 99 seems unlikely since that will have meant a PFR on the turn to isolate other flushes. The range is too broad to call but the money you can win is greater than the chance he turns higher suited cards or an 89 or very occasionally 99 if is tightish passive. Making calls like this will allow you to learn in the future and make more effective plays against this player especially if you're playing longish sessions w/ him.
P.S. If you;re playing an ABC live player most likely folks w/out much thought. The bet sizing is literal and they have no concept of sizing like online players w/more proven knowledge do.

What are all the boats and flushes in Villain's range? What boats can Villain have that would have checked the big blind and then called all the way down? What diamonds can Villain have that called the flop?

This is gold.

once I know a villain is sophisticated enough to bluff like this on scary boards, we can own his ass in later situations...

to me, that is a big component of this. What level is villain? Is he level 1, level 2, quasi-level 2 with tiny testicles? Level 2.5 with big ego?

that is definitely something I didn't quite mention in my earlier post that needs to be taken into account.

Poker is a game of incomplete information and sometimes we just don't have the required information to make the optimal play, but now that we do, we should be able to properly adjust to villain next time...