I appreciate that compliment. You're also one of the handful of guys here whose opinion i would trust if i needed a HH review.

Also, you have have best avatar. What's her name? Im going to marry her.

Until I have a solid history with a particular villain, my default assumptions are: (1) 1/2 players do not bet draws aggressively, (2) hero calls rarely pay off at 1/2, and (3) I make money by having other players call my big bets, not by calling other players' big bets. There simply is not enough bluffing or semi-bluffing at 1/2 to make it profitable to look up people in marginal spots. Yes, bluffy, aggressive opponents will steal pots from me once in a while but I am not making my money in 1/2 (or even 2/5, I am discovering) by outsmarting the few clever aggros. I am making my money by having bad players pay me off when I have the goods.

Which is all a long way of saying that I am folding AA here to pretty much any player given this action. The $290 that I do not put at risk here will be better invested when I have AA next time and some donk calls me down on three streets with TPNK.

What hands does villain call an overjam with that wouldn't bet if you check? Do you think he's checking behind 2x or 43 OTR when you've meekly c/c'd flop and turn? Do you think he is more likely to call a shove with 77-QQ than bet it himself, when there are no missed draws you could conceivably be bluffing? Just trying to figure out where our assumptions differ given that we've come to radically different conclusions, in that you think jam>smallerbet>crai and I think crai>smallerbet>jam

I learned this lesson the hard way (see my last created thread for details).

Basically, I was 350bb deep with AA OOP. I 4bet a villain, he called me, then I checked to him on all 3 streets on a Q high board and he checked behind with his KK all 3 times.

My rationale was "well, if he has KK or AQ here he will bet anyway after I meekly check every street and if he whiffed he might try to bluff."

I felt like an idiot. Never expect villains to bet for you.

I think a blanket statement like "never expect villains to bet for you" will cause you to end up taking some suboptimal lines. I worry that you may be being a bit results oriented with regards to the rigid lesson you've taken from that previous hand. Futhermore, I question the validity of using the analogy method of problem solving (psych major itt lolz) to transfer that hand's "solution" to this new hand when the analogy may not be valid, given that one hand concerns villain's tendency to bet 1pair 350bb deep in a 4bet pot and the other concerns a different villain's tendency to bet trips+ 90bb deep in a limped pot.

If vilains are competent and/or we have good reads on them, I feel comfortable making certain assumptions about their play. Whether we have enough information to label this villain as competent is an entirely different and very valid concern, however, and there may be other reasons that betting is better (heh) unrelated to his tendency to bet those particular hands when checked to.

I'm well aware that following blanket statements aren't optimal poker and that nothing is concrete.

I guess I should have phrased it "A majority of the time, you will be better off not expecting villains to bet for you in situations where villains have a wide calling range." In this case, that is 2x, 43, overpairs. Especially if it questionable that villains will go ahead and bet 2x with low kickers and overpairs.

It does depend, and I did note that the K was like the worst card in the deck for us (okay second worst)

I just see 77-TT hero calling a jam rather than betting a river for us. Like, I think they are both slim, but soooo many villains level themselves with big bets otr. If TT isn't hero calling he's not betting either...I think.

I could be completely off, remember I am tainted by playing in FL you guys wouldn't believe the stuff I get called with in my overbets/jams.

I do see a good argument for the $40 for a crying call.

Okay I see what you're saying. Sorry if I came off as condescending because that obviously wasn't my intention; it's hard not to come off as a humorless ******* when you're addicted to semicolons ime

We've pretty much pinpointed the assumptions that we disagree on here. There are essentially 2 parts of his range we have to worry about maximizing against, the PP part and the 2x/43 part. The PP part is probably a little bigger so that should be a larger concern of ours. I happen to think that both parts are more likely to bet than call a bet, but it's certainly arguable. Against 43/2x I don't think it matters that much because he's probably betting if we check and calling if we bet, so the EV of the two lines against that part of his range will be similar. So the more important question imo is how to maximize against PPs, which unfortunately is going to be pretty difficult to get value from regardless of our line. If we donk out on the river we pretty much have to convince him that we've suddenly decided to turn 6x into a bluff after c/cing 2 streets, which seems like a hard sell to me. Whereas if we check he could go for a thin value bet, although I admit he checks behind a lot. Ava is right that the K is a ****ty card for us in that respect.

I'm certainly interested in hearing more of your thoughts, but we may have reached the "agree to disagree" stage. Which sucks because I was hoping to be convinced since you generally seem better than me lol

eta: I think this is certainly better than shoving, and might be the optimal line.

Haha, I have that same problem when I post, so I know what you mean.

Anyway, your analysis is spot on and the bolded part is what it comes down to. I think we're better off assuming that our villains aren't going to be aggressive and make really thin value bets, though. It would really take an especially bad/good 1/2 player to bet an overpair or 2-bad kicker IMO.

But who knows? *shrug*

This paragraph has largely been my takeaway in evaluating this hand post-game. I was somehow blind to the part of villain's range that composes about 75% of it based on all the information we have by the river (77-TT). Realizing that I needed to make my decision based on that portion (the other 25% being EV neutral no matter what my decision) is a good lesson for me. Thanks again for your contributions, guys.

Here's a piece of information I didn't have until the hand was over. I wonder how it might affect the river decision whether to bet or fold. As soon as 2/5 opened up, villain was in the game, so I found out he was a 2/5 reg.

I'll offer my opinion on this too, but does that piece of information change anything for you? Does it reaffirm your current opinion?

It reaffirms my current opinion that crai is better than shoving, because the better he is the more likely he'll go for thin value, and the more likely he is to realize that you're very rarely bluffing when you jam. But maybe Ava's $40 suggestion is better than either, if he'd read it as a blocking bet with 6x. I'm not really sure.

FWIW I think the biggest takeaway you should get from this hand is that your passive flop and turn play put you in a bad spot OTR.

I wish I had more reads I could provide here:

Hero calls a 5xBB raise to $10 at $1/$2 with 77. Flop goes 7 way.

Flop is 752 with two spades, the 5 and 2. V1 checks, V2 bets $22. I raise to $60. 4 players still to act.

Does anyone like flatting here? Just seems like there are too many players left to act to be letting people stick around. The more I think about it I wish I had flatted (because obviously everyone folded).

I think a flat only induces more flatting and then you are hoping for no A34689 or spade on the turn as all those hit some OESD or FD.

Is the table one where you think there his a high chance someone raises behind your flat with a draw? In my experience in super-multiway pots that doesn't happen often unless someone has a lower set, in which case the hand will play itself.

no, only one guy was playing aggressively and he was SB in this hand. if he had an overpair he wasn't folding.

stack sizes for all 7 players? this is so important because obv the pfr has nothing...betting $22 into ~$70, lollivegames. If villain is the type to continue betting, you might wait to the turn to raise, but players will still over call the raise to $60 if they are deep enough with a FD.

Sometimes, I like to just ship it in these spots....even if its a ridiculous overbet. They want to put YOU on the FD and impress everyone with how sick their reads are, and hero you with some laughable hand. Plus, if they have a NFD, they think you are doing this with a lesser FD and lol "have you" but all in all the joke is on them.

..again stack sizes are important to give best lines.

bad memory = all i can say is stack sizes vary from typical $100 to about $480 for me. the guy who bet had about $100 behind.

Chip, you never said explicitly that the preflop raiser was V2. Could you specify whether that's the case? What position were you in, and what position was the PFR?

There are high cards in villains' ranges, suited or not. If not suited, after a bet and your call, plain old overcards are probably folding, so you don't have to fret over whether your raise is what caused them to fold. Raising is the only way to give straight draws and flush draws the wrong price to call.

[edit] ps if nobody has a flush draw but a flush card hits on the turn, you're not getting any more money from straight draws, and your ev against undersets and overpairs goes way down as well.

The raise is way too small. There already is $92 in the pot (minus rake). Betting $60 gives the original bettor direct odds to call with a FD and if there are any callers behind you, other FDs get close to the direct price they need.

On top of that, as others have pointed out, most of the deck is going to be a scare card so most of what you are getting paid needs to go in here. Flatting is just bad. Raise it to at least $100 and plan to shove a safe turn.

For me, stack sizes are crucial. Can we eventually play for stacks without a raise? If not, then I think we must raise. Otherwise, then I think we can *consider* slowplaying here. We do risk a scare card coming, but hopefully that risk will be balanced out by more people coming along behind us and possibly getting frisky.

But I doubt raising here could ever be considered bad.

ETA: Just noticed how lol small the donk bet was. Yeah, I'm pretty much always raising this unless I'm sure someone else is going to get out-of-line behind me.

GcluelessNLnoobG

Turn is a c/call. River evaluate unimproved, shoving if you hit the 2 or heart

Sent from my SPH-D710 using 2+2 Forums

preflop is a leak even 5 handed

flop w/e.... turn is w/e really.

No the raiser was not the BB who led into the field.

The raiser was in the HJ.

GG

There was so much in the pot pre that I think it's easy to get stacks in at some point if I just flat.

KJ dd

J94dd call $20 HU

Tx v goes ai $120-140

I had him covered and folded, he was older than I and kinda short stacked seeemed strong. He shows 99. Good fold either way, knowing or not? I'm a losing player.

I can't even tell what happened from your post. Post the actual hand, reads, and all streets of action.

if he really bet $120+ into $40, yeah, good fold.