I don't think it's terrible to check the flop but I never would. I'd probably check back the turn almost 100% of the time, though, as I don't think QQ as an OP on a J-high board after I 3b an UTG raise is a 3-street value hand unless it's a super sticky player and I look totally FOS.

I think the river is almost 100% a call though the way the hand played out. Most of the time this is just a player turning a hand with little to no SDV into a bluff. I'm not folding here with the line he took.

I guess his thought process was that you bet the turn with AQ-AK or 88-99 and that you were going to check back the river, but donk betting there still makes no sense with TT/JJ/KK+ since, once he calls your turn bet, you have to bet those hands again on the river unless he has a strong read on you that you've been really hesitating to double barrel your bluffs all day.

That is really the point.

If there is 4 bet preflop SPR is usually going to be less then 5 post you are often stuck stacking off with an over pair post flop. You can't automatically credit villain for a better hand on the first bet because they can still be betting AK or a worse pair. But calling that bet will be something like half your stack. You can give up sometimes but mostly your committed.

In a 3 bet pot where SPR is still in that 5-10 range neither player will want to bet a single pair. Their hand is too good to give up easily but they don't want to get pot committed either. So they end up checking more and trying to get to showdown cheap until they are fairly sure their one pair is the best hand.

I dont know. Something about the way he put the bet out looked very confidant, but I didnt mention that because in general I think I have to call here based on the way I played the hand. I wanted to see if people agreed with that and obviously most do.

3 streets on one pair

I really hope you have a day job, you'll need it

That's a perfect explanation of why nobody is going to have insane implied odds against me in a 3 bet pot.

Im not crazy about my river fold. I think I should've called even though I was right this time....but here's something for everyone to consider about "ranges". People talk about hand ranges, but what about "line ranges"?

I play a good portion of my hands differently than most people do. Most people here hate the lines I take in just about any hand I post. Some times I get more value than a standard line would get. Sometimes I get less value. Sometimes I bluff out a worse hand when people think a raise is terrible. Sometimes I fold the best hand and people think it was an easy call. That's my "range" of total hands played.

So, if my total win rate is very high and my total variance (StnDev) is low, then clearly my "range" of non standard lines is working out in my favor above and beyond standard lines. Believe it or not I do know what standard lines look like as I used to play that way. The key is to get better and better at limiting the times I get less value and maximizing the times I get extra value. That's something Ive gotten better and better at and why my win rate is at an all time high the past 1000+ hours.

So whether or not you like the way I played this hand and whether or not I should've called the river this time, you should really consider this concept if you are serious about poker...as opposed to the tired old "you suck at poker because you don't play exactly like I do" schtick.

For the life of me I cant figure out why certain people continually refuse to adjust and play the same old tired lines. Then they complain about how poker is getting tougher every year. Its kind of sad actually.

No

Is every post you make a thinly-veiled brag about how good you are at poker?

Because beating some $2/5 fish does not make you good at poker. You make it sound like people not having "implied odds" vs you in 3-bet pots is a brag, but it really isn't. It just shows you don't really understand nearly as much about ranges as you think you do.

You seem to be confusing the concepts of "profits" and "win rates."

I don't see anything in his description to suggest he's opening wide from UTG


I don't think it's strong enough of a read to say "He's from Europe, and I'm from Europe so I don't think he's a nit".

If he's as solid as Mike suggested, I don't think he's opening any two suited broadways from UTG, calling a 3bet from OOP and calling down 3 street with little equity.

The pot is already bloated for a one pair hand, I would be ecstatic if I can get two streets of value and win the pot.

Mike's a winning player. Since when is telling the truth bragging.
Better a braggart than overmodest.

sounds like someone's jealous

talk nice to Mike maybe he'll take you on as a student

You have no idea who I am you should not make such silly assumptions.

FWIW I used to be a cocky $2/5 "crusher" about 6 years ago. I used to think I was the **** when I knew nothing compared to what I know now. Now I actually know that I know nothing.

If you don't think you can get 3 streets of value with a strong overpair because he is going to be folding everything worse all the time. Start bluffing more m8 and just runover the table until someone catches on to what you are doing, and then you stack someone with QQ on a JTxxx board when they are holding their 88 for 200+ bbs.

IMO maximizing your winrate at lowstakes is about value betting thin because you almost never get check-raised bluffed OTR and people will not check-raise for thinnish value either. On a J74 board followed by a T and then any kind of brick I am betting 3 streets with QQ and I do not consider it thin at all.

I was responding specifically to the hand in question that OP posted. His villain didn't sound like the type who would call us down with 88.

That's all good info but we shouldn't play every hand with a generalization. We can do a lot better by playing the player instead of thinking since we're only playing "low stakes", we can always do this or always do that. We're playing against one specific player who appears solid with a $1K stack. I don't think he's calling us down with hands we beat for 3 streets in a 3bet pot based on the information at hand.

The flaw here is that even if you think you are unlikely to get 3 streets of value, it doesn't necesarily mean that you should start checking back flops. There are many reasons to bet the flop even if you think you don't have a 3-street hand:

1) The board is better for your range than your opponent's range. You should generally always bet in this case because your bluffs will make money.

2) The board may get progressively worse, which favors betting earlier in the hand, as certain cards can make it even harder to get value. This is especially true in position where you can check back on later streets on unfavorable run-outs.

3) Checking "caps" your range and may allow a competent villain to turn hands into bluffs on later streets. This rarely happens at low stakes but as you move up it becomes more of an issue.

4) Your hand may improve to a 3-street hand even if it currently isn't one, or you may get extremely favorable run-outs to continue betting.

I laughed irl.

You bluff more to get called for two streets by 88 on this board for 80 bigs. Not to get three streets for 200bb. You’d have to look like a complete irrational maniac to get 3 streets of value in this 3b hand vs 88.

Based on how he played his KK he does not seem solid. And him being solid gives him even less hands that have you beat, as apparently he 'shouldn't have' JTs or 89s according to all the nits on this thread as they shouldn't be opened from EP even with a 200bb stack. So really you are afraid of JJ, TT, maybe 77 (idk if the nits consider a 'solid player' to fold this UTG or fold to a 3x 3bet when playing 200bbs deep).

And you aren't ever going to find out if he ends up hero-calling if you don't ever bet your hand.

Another note is that you will be much easier to play against, as your 3 barrels will consist of only nuts or air which will become obvious to other regulars.

Only street that was played well in this hand was preflop.

+1

I def agree we should cbet here.


He was deep, maybe he didn't wanna risk a 5bet jam since he had 200 BB's. When an UTG +1 3bets an UTG raise, QQ was pretty much at the bottom of his range. Or maybe he wanted to keep his range wide instead of folding him out. I wouldn't say he's not solid because he flatted.

This hand was nit on nit (non) violence basically.

How does the bolded above make you much easier to play against. One of my favorite lines when OOP especially against guys like you is to take a X/c, X/c line and then donk a polarizing bet on the river. I will do this with floats and nutted hands. How is that easy to play against? Same for b, b, polarizing bet on river.

I think this is what V was trying to do on the flop was to X/c but Mike disappointed him by checking back. Still doesn't mean he is a terrible player.

Very surprising. I discounted both AA and KK given he didn't 4! you pre like most players would. Not a chance I would fold to his river bet and I may even raise/fold so u saved way more than me.

I also would bet that flop simply because he has more AK in his range than AA/KK (just combinatorically 16:12, and at least some of the time he would 4! AA/KK so say it falls to 16:8) and it seems unwise to give him a free look. If he raises the flop, then you can re-evaluate. Also, he may call with AK on that flop feeling he has some "nut no pair" SD value so you get value from that holding as well (AQ/AJ some of the time too).

In general I lean towards Cbetting this flop as well, however I can see some good reasons to go for a check too. Basically I think it is close and both options are viable.


1. I think most would put hero on a range of QQ+ AK here, and villain on about TT+ AK. Maybe discount some AA from villains range, though a lot of good reg vs reg players wont 4bet here.

So you aren't wrong, but our range is only a bit better than his since JJ has less combos with a J on the flop.

2. Sure, an A, K, or maybe T coming could harm us but the vast majority of turns change nothing. The real problem is do we want to start setting up 3 streets of action/open ourselves up to an uncomfortable flop c/r or is it better to pot control/induce vs villains range.

3. This is the meat of the issue here, capping our range. Most people might only checkback the AK part of their range on this flop, especially vs a non regular. And if villain thinks that then we could check our whole range here and try to induce a bluff from villains AK. Checking might also make it more likely we get 1 street of hero call action from his TT or worse pairs with villain putting us on AK.


4. The chance of hitting a Q wouldn't be enough to sway a check to a bet. And I think this slim chance is counterweighted by the times villain c/r us on the flop with KK/AA and we don't get to see the turn.


All that said I would personally still usually bet this flop, mainly for equity protection against AK. I wouldn't expect to induce villain to bluff his AK often enough for me to give the free card.

I'm fine with betting most of my range and then kinda shutting down. I think we can comfortably fold to a c/r too.


Hehe, I'm totally sitting here arguing with myself about flop bet or check. I still can't decide. In game I would reach for some tells and metagame considerations to choose.

I'd prefer to bet vs straightforward non laggy postflop players, and check vs tricky laggy types.

If you think a guy's 3bet defend range is so tight that you can't even value bet an overpair for 1/3 PSB then maybe you shouldn't 3bet an UTG open.

Young euro is opening all pairs at a 2/5 action table where most stacks are presumably 200+ BB. Opening and defending something like 99 or 77 to a 3bet is completely standard.

Surprised to see most posts have the V ranged very tight.

Young guy who never limps, $1k deep, is not going to bet-call JTs/98s/54s vs. a narrow 3bet range. I recognize he’s UTG, still an aggressive pre-flop raising range likely includes ½ dozen or so of those combos, imho.