1/3, Friday night. New table, 9 players. No previous history with any of the other players.

Hero ($300) is UTG with KK and raises to $15.
One caller by Villain (30yo Asian, unknown, $300) in the SB.

Flop ($33): K63r
Villain checks, Hero checks

Turn ($33): A, no flush draw
Villain checks, Hero bets $20, Villain calls

River ($73): 2
Villain bets $35, Hero raises to $100, Villain goes all in

Do you fold?

I am not folding, becuse i think villain will show up with a smaller set a decent portion of the time. That being said believe we get shown 4-5 for the stones here a reasonable amount of the time also, thats just how the reality works with loose passive 1-3 villains who pretty much NEVER give this kind of river action unless they have the mortal stones. Theyre not making a move, theyre not trying to get you to fold 2 pair, top pair or a set, theyre not doing anything that many people will tell themself, they just got a nutted hand and is excited to shovel money into the pot.

Let me say i am folding AK for top two here within 2 seconds of time, virtually instafolding to villains allin. But second set is just too strong on this board to fold with these stacksizes.

Snap call

this. check/check on flop so we're under-repped and villain plays smaller sets and probably some two pairs like this. Cooler if 45

Yeah, I don't like it any more than you, but in LLSNL you will get shown weaker hands that villain thinks is the nuts, lower sets, 2pair hands here often enough to make a call +EV given the odds. Also very small chance villain has just decided to go crazy with a bluff that makes no sense, it happens. But you will get shown the nuts here pretty often also

I snap called, considering it was easily plausible that they might have a lower set or AK or a lower aces up.

Of course they have 5-4 (unsuited, just to rub it in).

Interesting afterword: After blustering around for about an hour, this guy lost his $700 stack when he shoved with two pair on a three-to-a-suit board against a 75-year-old nit who of course had a flush. This nit busted out thereafter when he got the second best hand on a paired board when someone else had the nut full house.

There are 6 sets you beat. You lose to AA but that seems unlikely given preflop action. You beat 9 combos AK, 9 combos A2, and 9 combos A6, any of which villain could have. You lose to 16 combos 54, assuming villain plays 54o, which is more likely in the SB than in some other positions.

So it looks like we lose to somewhere between 4 and 20 combos, probably something like 10 on average. And we beat 32 combos of 2-pair and sets. You only need to be good 165/438 = 37.7%, and you certainly are, even if we heavily discount the two pair hands. You can't even consider folding here unless villain is SUPER passive. Like "I raise only with the nuts" OMC-level passive. Since you have no history and villain is not 90 years old, call, and don't even think about it too much.

And I'm not fond of the flop check. I think we should build a pot with top set, though on this flop checking is not terrible since villain is more likely than normal to fold.

At a new table with no history with anyone, I'd typically limp this preflop in EP. We have no idea what raise size we need to thin the field (desired, imo). Even if we do narrow the field to HU, we'll likely be OOP and have no clue who we're up against postflop in most likely an awkward SPR (not a good spot). If it limps around, whatever, play a high SPR pot with one pair (where we shouldn't get ourselves in any trouble). Otherwise, we setup a trivial spot with a limp/reraise and as an unknown and might even get action thanks to that.

SPR is about 8.5 on the flop, which means we're going to need 3 bets to go in to play for stacks (which is what we want to aim for). Even though the board is bone dry, I don't like our check back. I would probably go a 1/2 PSB of $15 which looks weak and stabby and cbetty and hope for the best. We want to start building a pot; we don't do that by checking.

By the turn, Villain either has something he's going to payoff with / chase or he doesn't on this horrible card. I PSB it and just pray he has something.

Just one hand beats us on the river. Did he really call 54 preflop, and not even semibluff it at all postflop (especially when we weakly checked back the flop, although I guess he may have thought we hit our A). Whatever, if he did, nice hand. Otherwise we beat all other lol slowplayed sets and two pairs and whatever. I would actually shove over his initial donk. As played, facing a 3bet on the river is admittedly kinda gross, but I still snap it off against an unknown.

GcluelessNLnoobG

Snap call. Villian likely has top two or a set under yours.

Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk

He prob has lol A2 or a set

I know you block a lot on flop, but if you check it's hard to get stacks in.

Sent from my SM-T580 using Tapatalk

Yep...even a small bet would help a lot to getting stacks in by the river due to the exponentially increasing nature of pot sizes. Betting $15 for instance will keep villain in with most of his range but would double the pot by the river, making it easy to get stacks in and also make decisions easier.

I saw the results but was going to post this no matter what they were:

I'm surprised at the number of "snap" calls. I can see how one can say this is a call, but I'm folding here AP.

Let's take it from the turn. The villain checked the flop and then checked the turn. That removes 66/33 from his range, unless he's playing it super oddly with two checks after the PFR showed no interest on the flop.

AP on the river, what possible hand does he have here that he is 3B shoving? 66/33 are the absolute bottom of his range, and as stated, I'm discounting them heavily given flop/turn action. I don't know where you guys play, but no villain I play with would 3B shove the river there with A6, A3, or A2. They are giving a crying call and saying "I know you have AK but I call."

When you call this river, you're just praying they badly misplayed 66/33.

We only need 37% equity to call. Most villains don't have 2 pair here but some do so we have to count some of these combos. As for the lower sets, it would not at all be unusual for a fish to check a set on a dry board. They love slowplaying. I mean, hero checked top set, then weakly bet on the turn. If we're losing to exactly 54, we lose to at most 16 combos, actually less because not all villains are calling 54o here (most are not I think). With the pot odds, even if they're playing 54o we need to beat 10 combos. We beat 6 combos just from lower sets. Add some random two pair hands (especially AK) and we are fine.

And that's assuming villains play 54o. If half of villains play 54o, and all play 54s, we lose to 10 combos. Now we need to beat 6 combos due to pot odds. It's an easy call. I think you're underestimating how much fish like to trap, and also their spazz element where they sometimes show up here with AQ or some random hand we don't expect. 100BB deep, a fish could easily think TPGK is good given the checked flop and weak turn bet. I'm not saying that's likely but some of our equity comes from hand combos we don't expect very often. AQ, AJ, and AT make 36 combos. If one in twelve fish will play these hands this way, that adds 3 combos we beat. We only need to beat 6 - 10, and the sets alone give us 6!

And villain is 30ish Asian, not 90ish white guy. If he's a 90ish white guy, sure, fold (though 90ish white guy would not call with 54o--he might have AA though).

Yeah, snap call might be a little too over-the-top. More like sigh snap call.

I mean, we just got 3bet on the river. This is damn nuttish most of the time against 99% of opponents.

Gnotfolding,butnotfistpumpingeitherG

It's the nuts 99% of time??? I know you're exaggerating, but seriously? You must play against the nittiest opponents of all time if you believe this is true. This is an easy call. EASY. And I'm not sighing about it, even though I'm aware I'm coolered sometimes. You think we're behind 99% of the time with second set on a board with one unlikely straight and one set that beats us?

I have a theory here. If you play like a super nit, your opponents will notice this. Then when you start piling in the money, they know you've got the goods or damn close, so it may well be in your games you're facing the nuts a ridiculous amount of the time, but for looser players it just doesn't work like that because your opponent knows you might get it in with much worse.

We're only 100BB deep and you think the third nuts is way behind. This is insane. I've seen people play like this with A2 as often as 54.

Unless you have a read that villain is a passive super nit (he isn't--he called pre with 54o), then do not fold.

I don't know what else to say. Take notice the next time you see a river bet, a raise, and then the original better 3bet. This is an *extremely* nuttish line for the majority of MUBSy low limit players. In fact, most second nut hands here will typically just call here, as they proudly read the board and state that there is a better hand out there; and, honestly, unless they are up against a horrible opponent who is capable of calling a 3bet on the river with a worse hand, I can't even argue that it's all that horrible a play.

But, and this is something I'm really beginning to notice in the differences between posters, it all boils down to our own experiences. If you're in a room where people are 3betting the river with bottom two, then obviously your thoughts on the matter are going to be different than mine (where most of my experiences show most regs are flatting the second nuts here).

ETA: Also, this has nothing to do with me being a nit or not as I'm not basing my response based on how opponents react to me in this spot. I'm stating how *everyone* at my typical table plays against *everyone* else (from the nits all the way up to the action players). Our experiences simply differ, imo.

Gbutstillnotfolding,atleastweagreeonthatG

Well sorry if I've mischaracterized you here, but I've seen many threads where most players are saying "easy call" or "shove" and you're like "maybe we should fold."

Maybe this hand and others are in fact a fold in your game. But I can't believe that represents poker players in general.

I think you're definitely right that it varies greatly depending where you're playing. It's not like online games where generally one move is either correct or not. Folding might be correct in locations A, B, C, and D, but calling is correct in locations E-Z. Only OP knows for sure what kind of room this is, but I'm not folding this in a million years. Players will show up with 66, 33, A2, AK, A3, and A6, all a decent amount of the time, and occasionally even 63. I've even seen players get it in with TP here.

Hero's line looks strong but not super strong. He checks behind on the flop, which eliminates sets by the same logic others have used towards villain, calls a small probe bet on the turn, then makes a decent raise over what looks like a pot stab on the river. More than anything it looks like the Ace helped OP. I just can't picture that many players who are afraid their 2 pair is no good because OP has slowplayed a set.

Let's just do an equity calculation. There are 6 combos 33 and 66 that a fish could easily play this way, slowplaying on the flop then calling on the vier and leading the turn. That's 6 combos. There are 3 combos AK, 9 combos A3, 9 combos A2, and 9 combos A6, and villain has these hands some of the time on a dry board. Let's say he 3-bets these hands 1/3 the time once the Ace arrives. Okay so that's 10 more combos for 16 total. And he 3-bets 63 1/9 the time (he's an unknown--could be a crazy LAG). That's 17 combos total. Let's add some maniac hands: AQ, AJ, AT, that the maniac thinks he's value-betting 1/18 times. That makes 19 combos total. Now let's add the rest of the one pair Aces, and suppose a lunatic value bets them 1/30 times. That's 2 more combos making 21 total. Notice we've completely avoided river bluffs, as maniacs sometimes do, and this is in fact not a terrible bluff card as it completes a straight and adds additional pressure supporting villain hit the Ace. But whatever, let's ignore that. We have 21 combos total we beat, and we lose to 16 combos of 54 and 3 combos of AA. It's not very likely he'd check AA on this flop, but let's count it. Also not likely he's calling every 54, but let's count it.

We're still fine.

More realistically, let's say he has AA 1/3 the time for 1 combo, and he calls 54s 3/4 the time and 54o 1/3 the time. This makes 8 combos we're behind and 21 we're ahead.

Note we only need be ahead so that P<(X)/(X+Y) where X is hands we beat, Y is hands we lose to, and P is pot odds. The pot odds are .243

We're beating X combos and losing to 8, with P = .243, so X > 2.56

For this model we only need to beat 2.56 COMBOS of hands. That's less than one set. And this model assumes we're beating 21 on average.

Now let's look at a more pessimistic case scenario. The same villain who called an UTG raise with 54o is going to play 2 pair more aggressively than we assume, but forget all that. This villain is crazy. He has 3 combos of AA and all 16 combos of 54. Now .243 < X/(X+16) gives X > 5.13 combos.

This is literally the most pessimistic scenario imaginable--villain only 3-bets with sets and the straight, and moreover, he plays all the straights (except 33 and 66 which maybe he folds sometimes because he's clairvoyant). We sill only need to beat 6.14 combos! That's an extra 4.14 combos of AK, A2, A3, and A6, and random spazz hands like AQ. Since there are so damn many of these combos he barely need to play them at all to get to 4.14 combos. Plus he can bluff once in a blue moon.

A more realistic, but still pessimistic assumption, is he plays all his sets and all his straights. We lose to 16 hands of 54. Now X > 5.13. If he even 3-bets the sets on the river most of the time and once in a blue moon 3-bets worse, we are good.

Where I play this is an easy call. If that's not true where you live, those are unusually passive games.

P.S. - if 3-betting AI on the river is "damn nuttish most of the time against 99% of players," you want to call anyway?

If he's exaggerating, it's by 1%, 2 at most. Droolers and drunks are the only people who will 3bet bluff shove the river in the games I play.

There's no way I could fold this hand, even though I'm almost completely certain we're beat.

Not folding here. Villain jams $1000 OK fine.

What time of the day are you playing? How big is the casino / cardroom? In most decently sized casinos in the evening or night, many players will 3-bet shove the river with A2 or AK. And they don't think it's a bluff, because in thse games they'll get called by AQ.

I've played at a casino full of OMCs during the day and there I'm maybe folding because these guys always have the nuts when they get aggressive (OTOH, they're never calling a raise OOP with 54o), but it really depends when and where you're playing.

I do think this hand was played badly though. Hero should bet at least something on the flop, and bet larger on the turn, which both gets value in and makes the river decision a million times easier.

From my experience not a lot of villains check twice with a set. OTF sure, they're looking to check call or check raise because they expect you to bet, especially heads up. Probably not on the turn though after the flop checks through. Given we are readless, you kind of just have to go with the community standard. In low limit live poker we really don't want to ever be calling 3! all ins on the river from random V's unless we have the nuts or near nuts.

Also in a spot like this 45 is pretty much the only hand that plays it this way. Readless against a random V it's a fold.

You've played in most decently sized casinos, have you?

Obviously not. I'm extrapolating based on a smaller sample, so maybe my statement isn't 100% accurate. Fair enough. But I can't believe 97-99% of villains have us beat here. That's insane, and if you guys play like this is true, you're going to be super exploitable. I can just river bluff any time a flush or straight gets there and you'll fold up to a set. Nice.

I think a villain might check/call a set here. Also two-pair hands and even crummy Aces like A2. Agreed the river looks like 54 more than any other hand, but there are fewer combinations of 54 than other plausible hands. Basically there are more than enough other plausible hands that we should call given the pot odds.

And we're 100BB deep, apparently worried about getting coolered flopping top set, yet we give a free card on the flop and bet merely 60% pot on the turn? That's the real problem with this hand, not whether to call the river shove. OP set himself up for a difficult decision. If he'd played the hand more aggressively, there's no difficult decision.

But whatever, call if you want. I've tried to explain why folding is ridiculous in typical games (which may not apply to OP, but he should specify if there are weird game conditions), but if you love making those hero folds go for it.

bet flop, i mean yeah youll get mostly folds, 95% of the time on that board youre either getting a fold, or you let them catch up and pass you. also this is a trivial river call.