Hand Information
(9 handed).
Hand History converter courtesy of pokerhandreplays.com

Table Information
Seat: 1 seat 1 ($78) Small Blind
Villian: 2 seat 2 ($372) Big Blind
Seat: 3 seat 3 ($95)
Seat: 4 seat 4 ($125)
Seat: 5 seat 5 ($235)
Seat: 6 seat 6 ($186)
Seat: 7 seat 7 ($96)
Hero: ($396)
Seat: 9 seat 9 ($525) Dealer
Dealt to Hero
**

Preflop (Pot:3)
seat 3****FOLD
seat 4****FOLD
seat 5****RAISE $6
seat 6****FOLD
seat 7****FOLD
Hero****RAISE $20
seat 9****FOLD
seat 1****FOLD
Villian****CALL
seat 5****CALL

Flop(Pot: $49)
***

Villian****CHECK
seat 5****CHECK
Hero****BET $25
seat 2****CALL
seat 5****FOLD

Turn(Pot: $99)
****

Villian****CHECK
Hero****BET $55
Villian****CALL

River(Pot: $209)
*****

Villian****CHECK
Hero****BET $100
Villian****ALL-IN
Hero****FOLD
Showdown:
Villian MUCKS

Villian**wins the pot: $579



Villian is the only other player that I can honestly peg at the table as competent. I'm not sure I am good here, and I don't like to put my whole stack in with just a pair.against people who have proven competent My question is was my fold correct? was my bet sizing to small? At this point I have a winning image and probably bit nitty.

I would bet $55 again on river because your opponent either has Qx or a set and he's not calling 100 when AK got there but he might call $55 ("in for a penny, in for a pound"). Also, you lose less when you get c/r in this spot.

I think folding here is fine. The absolute worst hand he should have in this spot is KQ and unless he is getting tricky/fancy with 65, you're going to be beat 99 times out of 100.

I'm immensely impressed that you have the entire table's stack sizes down to the dollar.

I'm just curious what you thought the villain's calling range was on the river that you beat after he called you on the flop and turn.

The stack sizes are approximate but I am pretty sure they are closer to correct than not. Villain and mine are correct I am sure.

I thought his line was possible with AQ,set, missed straight draw, maybe AK, but with my image and how he has played with AK I am pretty sure he would fold the turn in less it was AK of hearts at that point.

So I was betting out, hoping he had AQ and would pay me off, or missed his straight and would just fold. though perhaps with the backdoor flush getting there a check on the river would have been more correct.

Preflop looks fine. Flop I would $30 with two villains. Turn looks fine. Check back river, a competent villain shouldn't be paying you off with worse. Villain gets away from AQ on river, KQ beats you now, worse QX folds on turn or river. Villain could easily have a set and just be letting you bet on such a dry board. It's also possible villain has a Q high flush draw on turn and hit a monster on river. A villain who is chasing you down with a gutshot draw on such a dry board isn't competent.

It's a check call on the river for me against a competent V. Hes not going to be calling with AQ or QJ on that river unless he's a fish!! Our line looks so strong 3b pre bet bet bet.

As I was trying to range V before reading responses, I just couldn't come up with anything I thought a competent V would likely play this way.

I mention this because I'd like to get better at hand reading and this seems like a time when I might be able to expose my errors for some feedback.

To get this out of the way, there are always zebras (less rare than unicorns): V played a hand unusually for balance or because he thought we were exploitable or because he was distracted and clicked the wrong button or whatever.

Other than that though...

I would have thought V's 3b cold calling range was heavy with the pocket pairs, maybe some SCs, but stacks are only about 20x the call and he's OOP. Would AK flat or RR? I can see the flat IP, but OOP seems like asking for trouble. AQs? KQs? I'm assuming we can discount offsuit big cards entirely.

To continue on the flop, he either hit a set or TPGK+ (if we think he can play AQs and KQs). There are 9 sets, 1 AQs, and 3 KQs.

The flush draw isn't necessarily a huge factor, though I think we're more likely to have one than V. We can have AKs, AQs, KQs, maybe even QJs and QTs, maybe^2 other SCs if V thinks we might 3b them.

I think at least some sets might lead out on the turn, fearing we'll check it through; or raise after we bet, fearing that we'll check it through on the river, along with the small possibility we do actually have a flush draw.

Then on the river, V decided we were more likely to fire again than to call his bet, or that we had a big enough hand we were willing to stack off to a sizable c/r on the river (but not call a 30% larger bet directly).

V had opportunities to lead on the turn or river and an opportunity to raise the turn, but chose not to, instead waiting until the point (I think) we're least likely to call because he looks the strongest.

I can imagine a really good V turning a Q into a bluff here. His original intent was to see a showdown but when we bet for the third time, he put us on either a set or something like KK+. There are more KK+ than sets and they're likely to fold to a c/r here (indeed, as is generally being advocated ITT).

Thoughts?

One of the key mantras of low stakes is "They are not playing back at me". It should be repeated as necessary. If villain is actually good enough and/or aggressive enough to turn QX into a bluff on a board where your more likely to have a flush then villain, they wouldn't be playing 1/2 or they would obviously be maniac aggressive.

Villain is obviously doing something unusual here because the credible flush draws and KQ shouldn't be calling preflop OOP in a 3 bet pot while the sets are probably going to raise or lead at some point. For most villains, the least unlikely option is that villain slow played a set the whole way and figure your more likely on AQ/over pair then a flush and might pay off on the river. The board is dry enough that isn't a bad line until they check/raise river and a lot of low stakes players trap too often in that situation.

thank you all for the replies, I talked with Villian after the session and he said he had AQ of hearts. I have no reason to think he was lying. I do think the river should have been a check/call or a check/fold depending on size and what the pot is laying me. Thanks for the input.

Isn't this highly exploitable? If I was villain I would bluff raise a little bet like this a lot against a TAG who takes bet/fold lines.

I actually don´t see AQ folding to a 1/2 pot bet. And bad players pay me off with QJ,QT,Q9 sometimes.

Edit: If Villian is competent I hate hate hate your line. Bet more or check.

No one exploits at 1/2.

I'm just not a fan of betting this river at all. That's a pretty bad card; KK, AQhh, QJhh and 65hh all got there, and that makes up a big chunk of what a competent villain is going to have after calling the other streets.

It might be exploitable, but that doesn't mean that LLSNL villains are going to exploit us I agree with betting smaller on the river here, I think Qx finds a fold pretty easily vs. $100 but probably calls if you bet around 1/3 pot.

That's what I'd tell you if you asked me. And I'd have a lot of reasons for lying to you especially if you told me you had aces first.

This sounds like something people who get exploited think...

Anyways, the river bet is pretty bad and seems like it can be easily exploited just by villain calling with strong hands and folding hands that are worse than TP.