7 handed 1/3 $342 effective

Hero is in the Hijack with AdQc
2 limpers Hero raises to $15 in HJ
Villain in the CO calls and folds around. Heads up to a flop
Flop: KQ10

Hero bets $20 and Villain min raises to $40.
Hero calls

Turn:9

Hero checks and villain bets $40. Hero then shoves for remaining villains stack of $247. Villain tanks and says I think you have a flush, but proceeds to call.

River: 10

Villain shows QQ

Was the shove on the turn a bad play? If so, what could have been done differently?

Thanks

Unless you think he is folding better hand on the turn you should just be calling.

Why did you ch/shove? In other words, how did you think he would react with his range specifically?

I don t think you have much fold equity on the turn since the villain is most likely a fish considering his min re-raise on the flop and the fact that he did not 3-bet your raise. and will not let go of two pair or better. Sometimes I see him calling with TPTK.

This is basically a somewhat lol "move up to where they respect your raises" line, but I would try this move against more thinking players. It's a little bit unfortunate that you ran into a set, but I'm 99% sure that he would've called K Q, K 10 in that spot as well. Considering this and also the fact that we'll run into straight type hands (A J, K J, Q J, J 10 ) and again, against this type of player, fold equity is 0 in this spot with these hands and by taking his min re-raise on the flop and the type of player into account, I would've opted for the low variance play and call the turn as well since he's giving me excellent odds to hit my hand.

All in all, not a bad play, just the wrong player to do it against that happened to have a hand that he'll not fold even if you'll put a gun to his head.

I felt his range was AA, KK, QQ, JJ,TT, KQ, or AK, but from previous hands played he would fold to aggression. My inclination was that he would lay down these hands when forced to put in his entire stack. Obviously not the case, but I do agree that it should have just been a call on the turn looking back.

Min raise on that flop screams made hand to me vs a pre flop raiser. Not only that but V offered you almost immediate odds to call and hit flush on the river so I think I might have called the turn bet.

At only 114 bb effective you are rarely getting any competent V to fold a made hand there.

I like it a lot. Think you normally get plenty of folds. We block the nuts, our Q is just sorta whatever in terms of blockers cause we want him to have 2 pair. But we block QJ too so not a big deal. We can credibly rep a flush and even a straight. Flatting on the turn is Ok, but we're not getting paid often at all when we hit. Well played. We need a fold like a 3rd of the time or something like that with all our outs. Not hard to get.

I would call with what you have there is no reason to play a huge hand there if it can be avoided. However, given what he had you were going to be calling down with 1 pair or folding there on the river depending on his bet size i'd say.

As the action is played out and described, I think check jamming the turn is quite a bad play in this situation. The min raise on the flop tells me one of two things:
1a) opponent has 2 pair +
1b) opponent has a pair + jack

Most likely 1A, occasionally 1b.

with Hero flatting the min-raise on the flop, you can rule out AJ, J9, KK, QQ from hero's range as hero is almost certainly 3-betting those hands. You most likely have 1 pair on the flop and some sort of draw (gutter straight draw, open ended straight draw, BDFD+gutter straight draw, NFD+Gutshot). You can almost rule out the NFD+Gutshot, as you'd probably be tempted to just get the $$ in now.

The Turn brings the 9d, which gives you decent equity to continue on in the hand depending on bet size.

When Villain continues this flop, the story being sold is that villain has a hand again that is 2 pair (most likely top 2 and doesn't know if he should check or bet), a set, or a straight (most likely a straight that was flopped).

Start of turn has $115, after villain's bet turn=$155, after hero shove turn= $402. Villain has to call $207 to win 609, so roughly a 1 in 3 to break even situation in the absolute worst case.

Combine all the following factors: decent odds if behind, great odds if ahead, and the fact the Villain has raise the flop and bet the turn. All of these factors leads me to believe that Hero has very little fold equity against your average 1/2 NL live casino poker player. Your average 1/2 NL player at a casino is not raising the flop, betting the turn and folding to a jam of around 100 bb's in this scenario.

Most players will make you show them their set is no good on the turn. Most players will make you show them that their straight is no good on this turn. The real hand that you are targeting to fold is 2 pair. That hand is a 50/50 as to whether it folds or not, but it's also the least likely of Villain's original range to bet the turn. A set or straight is betting at a higher frequency than 2 pair in Villain's shoes.

Estimated Call/Fold Equity (IMO) with hands that bet turn in Villains shoes:
Straight/Straight Flush (has this 40% of the time): 100% call / 0% fold
Set (has this 40% of the time): 97.5% call / 2.5% fold
Top 2 pair (20% of the time: 70% call / 30% fold

By the ranges and estimates I've constructed (out of 100 hands), Hero is getting called 93 times in this spot (40 times by a straight, 39 times by a set, 14 times by top 2 pair) and 7 folds (never folding a straight, 1 fold by a set, and 6 folds of top 2 pair).

In this scenario, obviously hero needs more Fold Equity from Villain than 7/100. Based on range of both H and V as well as available fold equity, hero Should only be shoving "straights or better" on the board.

You have roughly 26% equity vs the range of Villain in this situation (2 pair, straight, set, occasionally straight flush). Hero needs to call $40 to win $195. You're getting profitable odds to call the turn bet, not to mention an Implied odds should you hit. Calling the turn appears far and away the best option here.

Villain is not competent. Villain did not 3-bet Queens pre. Just min-raised a draw heavy board. Led on the turn when that 9 of diamonds brought every draw home. We can safely assume that villain is pretty much a button clicking monkey. I agree that this villain would've probably called two pair or even top pair sometimes in this spot. A competent player would have not. But a competent player would've 3-bet pre, chose to just flat or raise bigger on the flop and definitely not lead the turn.

This is 100% villain dependent for me. A solid, thinking player will likely fold a ton of hands that beat us here. Our hand kinda looks like a flush and we know he doesn't have the ace of diamonds.

But I also play with a lot of people who would snap this off with just top pair.

I like the move if we know we have FE



Sent from my SM-J727V using Tapatalk

After two limpers I'd typically raise more, and maybe even to like $30 if some of the stacks are $300; we're kinda ok with taking down pots preflop with this hand or otherwise setting up committing small SPRs with TP, imo. We play in different games if we get an early call and somehow go HU to only $15.

Any reads on Villain? Against aggro ones I probably check to call the flop; against straightforward ABC passive I probably bet/fold the flop. Absent of reads, I fold to the flop raise; we only have second pair and a low IO gutshot and this flop should smash a coldcallers range.

Weird bet by Villain on this turn which defeats all two pair hands, but two pairs have outs to fullhouses so I'm not convinced we're getting those to fold, and straights and flushes are never folding. We're getting almost 3:1 on the call, which is fairly close to the immediate odds we need to chase, especially if our gutshot is live (although our IO suck for all our outs); a call is probably pretty thin but probably not horrific.

Next time don't post results as it will influence responses.

GcluelessNLnoobG

You’re getting nearly 4:1 and you’re 3:1 to hit your flush or straight on the river. Thank the villain for giving you a +EV call and take your equity to the river. You don’t need implied odds when a +EV decision is staring you in the face.

Nothing is stopping you from betting something stupid small when you hit to juice your return like $40 or $50 into $190 on the river.

ETA: My bad, as Johnny states we're getting almost 4:1 (not almost 3:1) on our money to the turn bet.

GmathishardG

Shove could be profitable depending on a solid read of villain, which was not provided, and therefore I'll assume that you didn't have one. In that case, I'll take the guaranteed +EV result which is to call the turn bet.

OK, so V is a button clicking monkey. Would that kind of player fold any reasonable hand to your shove? I think not, so you still have zero FE and bloated the pot clearly behind after said V (monkey, competent, who knows) gave you almost 4-1 to call and make your hand. I still say that is a pretty big mistake.

FWIW, calling the turn bet isn't guaranteed EV since we do have RIO odds on the board pairing flush card plus probably have some RIO on the straight (and meanwhile our IO suck in both cases).

GcluelessRIO/IOnoobG

If the villain jams into us on the T then we fold. Not really a difficult decision or RIO-worthy.

You can’t just go around avoiding rivers because you don’t have the stone lock mortal nuts.

I'm simply pointing out that calling the turn is not "guaranteed" EV. Even if we just nut peddle to our 8 outs we're falling short a bet (which we're unlikely to make up).

GcluelessIO/RIOnoobG

11 outs to improve*

4:1 pot odds
3:1 hand odds

Not sure why we're going in circles here. We only have 8 outs to improve to an unbeatable hand (5:1), we're only getting 4:1, and while some of our other outs might be good they might not and they have poor IO (we're getting a worse hand to call a bet on a four-to-a-flush / 4-to-a-straight river?) and poor RIO (we're probably not bad enough to lose our stack but I also hardly think we're not going to lose a bet some of the time too).

Gturnis*very*thinG

We’re going in circles because you only play the nuts, constantly have MUBs and think of everything in all or nothing absolutes.

Well you're gonna simply have to hold my hand here a little bit more Johnny and explain to me how our turn call is straight up EV.

I've explained why it isn't.

Maybe try explaining to me why it is? Perhaps without bringing into play the fact I only play the nuts / constantly have MUBs / think in all-or-nothing absolutes (which is irrelevant in this pretty straightforward math spot).

Galmostdonewithyou,tobehonestG

Dude we have a gutshot nfd: 11 outs to the stone cold nuts, easy call, value donk lead river small when you hit.

I usually don´t agree with GG, and I also think a turn c/c is +EV, but in what world do you have 11 outs to the stone cold nuts

Under the very reasonable assumption that this line is never a flush draw turned flush, rather some idiot playing 2pair or a set terribly.