Villain is a competent pro TAG, online type player. Haven't really seen him take any weird lines as bluffs before.

Hero is viewed as a TAG, perhaps on the more passive end of the spectrum.

400 effective

Villain limps UTG+1, MP raises to 15, Hero calls on BTN with KJ, Villain calls.

Flop: AQT (pot=50) Villain leads for 25, MP calls. Hero raises to 75, Villain calls, MP folds.

Turn: 3 (pot = 225) Villain checks, Hero bets 150, Villain tank calls.

River: 7 (pot = 525) Villain instashoves for 160.

Timing on the river was incredibly fast. The second the river came down, Villain declared all-in in under 1 second.

I'm confused. Since Villain is an online type player, he should know that he doesn't have the IO to draw to a naked flush on the turn. He also doesn't have any natural bluffs on the river. What could he have here and do we have to call?

Yes you have to call. Obviously he might have the flush but you cant fold to that bet with that pot size. If he really stuck it in that fast I would think he has the flush less often. Most people need at least 2-3 seconds to process that it was a flush card.

You're getting 4:1 to call. Don't see how you can fold to this presumed "pro" unless he literally shows you both of his cards.

Standard call given odds and V actions.

Flop raise should be much larger given the bet-call of $25. I'd go $110 with all high rank card and FD on board. If called, AI on turn.

For that price you have to call. I think villain will have Ax♦️♦️ the most of The times but I can’t find a fold Button here. As others already say you should raise more on the flop and charge to the max combo draws, sets and 2 pairs. I would go 125 here. It set up a nice pot size Turn shove.
Last thing: don’t assume other players are pro if you are not 100% sure about it.
Playing 2/3 = probably not pro
Limp calling deep utg = probably not pro
Donking in 2 players on a Board that should have smashed their range = probably not pro
Taking such a dumb line = probably not pro

Gesendet von iPhone mit Tapatalk

call profitability while losing a small portion of the time.

Just to clarify, I am using "pro" literally. He plays poker 40+ hours per week as his day job -- mainly at the 2/3 (200-500 buyin) and 5/5 (uncapped) levels.

I will post results a bit later.

I fold preflop to the raise. It's tight. I'm a nit. Whatever. Yeah, we'll position, and it's for a decent price, but we're so often dominated by the raiser and otherwise it's likely only going to go 3ways with one of our two opponents being a pro (if he was a whale, maybe it's a different story).

I would raise a lot more on the flop. Half the deck is a scarecard, there's a decent chance there are some very good hands in the mix on this board, and the pot is already $100 when it gets to us. I'm looking to get this done by the turn, so I'd raise to $150 to setup a turn shove.

I'm fine with the turn as played.

I think we have to insta-call the river. We're getting good odds and this can easily be two-pair/etc. that was ready to also rep half the deck worth of scare cards.

GcluelessNLnoobG

Bigger otf, $100+ and shove turn. Bet sizing is a pretty big mistake somewhere if you end up with < 1/3 PSB otr.

1) You raised 50 into 125 on the Flop, yikes!! Don't you want to get it in right now and/or charge more to the flush draws? I assume you have more in your raising range than the nuts here?

2) See #1, leaves PSB for the Turn = Zero River decision if Turn non flush

3) AP, I think we need to call it off. V tank could be a set that thought they could bluff into you with the flush 'outs'. Usually any insta-action is weak, and would be surprising to see from a 'pro' as well.

4) Does this V/Player think Hero has an ability to fold here .. or is Hero a POW/station? It is intriguing the actions of a reg V here in this spot. GL

Yeah, I realize that flop sizing was a mistake. I should have made it like 125 to set up a shove on the turn.

Villain has seen me call down light against other bluffy players (nothing too crazy: just calling 3 barrels with bottom two pair on a wet board), but never against him (he is more solid). I think he was also at the table when I was remarking on how I have a history of calling this other player down light (this other player also tends to overbluff). So I think he should generally expect me to call here, which is what makes his line so strange. I can't see him making this play with any two pairs or sets (wouldn't he raise these earlier). His natural bluffs are pair+gutshots, but those would have folded turn

Not sure why you'd put him on a "naked flush" on the turn with insufficient IO - His range might include combos draws or perceived other outs, such as hands like AJ or J9 (for OESFD on flop) or KJ (OESFD on flop) or 89

So for the reason that I didn't think that V was limp-calling with AJ, and I think V would have raised the flop or turn with KJ , I put him exactly on two combos (9J and 89). Of course I called.

It so happens that his range was way wider than I expected. He flipped over K4. His play made sense, except perhaps the preflop action was very questionable on his part. Given what I know now, I still don't think I would be able to fold at the price I was laid.

I also think it would be foolish to generalize based on this one hand, and assume that Kx suited is a big part of his EP range. All players get lazy from time to time, especially when they're card dead. I don't see how this info should really change how I play against this guy in the future.

>villain is an online pro TAG
>limps UTG+1 w/ K4s

Might wanna work on your reads there.

This hand is anything but what a pro would do. When you tell us hes an "online pro type" that skews everyone advice because we assume hes "an online pro type" and that type guy would never have Kd4d here.

Yah this. It’s extremely unlikely any competent online pro (200NL+ grinder) would ever play a hand this ******ed. Seriously.

Okay, but I never said that he was an "online pro type". I guess I could have been more clear.

Competent pro: He's a winning grinder at the 2/3, 5/5, and 5/10 levels. This is simply a fact, not a "read" or an "opinion".

Online type player: He owns a copy of PIOsolver, does training sessions with an online pro, knows the basic math theory behind bluffing frequency and other GTO concepts. He's not an "online pro", so he probably frequently misapplies these concepts.

You never said he was an online pro type? How do you misapply "dont limp in EP with K4s"? That's not a TAG, a pro or an online play.

He's a professional (fact) and an online type player (thinks about range balancing, etc.). He has also limp-called with K4s to close the action at least once in his life. Let's not blow it out of proportion and pretend that this one action means that he must be a losing player. Have you ever limp-called with a suited ace before?

Of course I have. Nobody is saying that a good player cant limp K4s once in a while even though its -EV. What people are saying is that you gave us a read that hes a pro online type player which instantly gives us a certain mindset about him and helps us put him on a range.

If you said hes a very good player but sometimes mixes it up and shows up with some unexpected hands, it could totally change our opinions of the hand and the advice given could be different.

Knowing now what he had, Id say he played the hand terribly. If he plays like that very often, he wont be winning. Id much rather see him lead out and if he gets raised, he should be shoving all in on the flop. He could also check raise the flop. IMO, his line preflop, on the flop and on the turn is about the absolute worst ones.

I had never seen him show up with that sort of hand before.so why would I include any such information in my post?
I have seen him over limp with pocket aces before (he told me likes to randomize his play to protect his overcalling range). Other than that, I had only ever seen ABC play from him.

Fair enough. The main point is that you played the hand well. Folding the river is going to be pretty tough and you would need a seriously good read to fold.

Given this knowledge of his fallibilities, would it affect our decision to call on the river? I feel like if we are assuming he sometimes takes bad, passive lines with his draws, we have to give him more credit for a flush in this spot. But this error in his game does not make it more likely that he will take a spazzy line and donk with 2-pair on the river. These errors are categorically distinct.

So I guess my question is, given what we know now about this player, should we fold the river in this spot?

This is why listing accurate reads in threads is hard. People will assume that an "online pro type" will be playing a reasonable range at all times and never playing hands that are deemed to be massively -EV. People don't play "correctly" at all times in LLS, they just don't. I've been around many 1-2/2-5 players that beat the games consistently and play all kinds of funky hands from weird spots that make me scratch my head. A lot of these LLS games are so soft that it really doesn't matter, and there are some players that can get away with this because they have such a large edge elsewhere due to weak nature of a lot of the player fields. The only reads I really pay attention to in these threads are about players that are obvious OMC types, constant spew players, or players who have been caught running bluffs multiple times already.

OTTH. It's already been beaten to death by others, but you need to size up OTF. With a bet and a call in front of you on this type of board, there are a ton of hands that Vs can continue with. A diamond or a board pairing turn is bad for you, plus a K or J could kill your action or leave you chopping or possibly getting freerolled by someone with a redraw. I'm making $115-$125 and jamming clean turns. As played OTR, it's a sigh call. V could have plenty of flushes, but you're getting too good of a price to fold.

I stand by my #10 post ... This thread went pretty good so far. You have been receptive and non-combative with your responses.

Typically a thread like this will be filled with comments, like mine, that tell you to play the hand differently (on the Flop and Turn) so you can just 'stay out of jail in the first place' and then we don't have to answer your 'AP' question, which is essentially asking us how to get out of jail!

Let's just put the 'pro' discussion to the side for a second just a little bit and just say we have a 'competent' Player.
1) Competent Player makes loose, easy to fold, l/c from EP PF .... it happens
2) Hero give's CP a great deal to draw to one nut hand (a chop) and one 2nd nut hand. CP takes deal ... This will 'always' happen and looks pretty weak or pretty nutted, but CP is drawing to a 'better' nut in the flush draw.

3) CP tanks and makes 'interesting' call on Turn. CP is not priced in at just over 40% of the total pot invested, but still has a #1 and #2 hand to draw to .. it happens
4) CP hits the #2 hand and can now 'rely' on OP to make his suspect Turn call look better by paying him off! When you consider the 'extra' $160 that OP can be counted on calling off, our CP is investing $150 to win $685 on the Turn while he can safely fold out on the River and keep his 'extra' $160 to himself if he blanks out.

I'm giving lots of credit here to CP/V if, in fact, he was even sniffing this line of thought during the hand.

I've done it, still do it, at times when I think there's no way anyone is calling me here when I have the nuts, so I have to give them a deal ... You can't give good Players 'a deal' because they will take advantage of it and you stand to lose a lot more than the minimal calling chips they give up.

So yes, please stay out of jail by charging more for value in these spots and also realize you can eliminate these types of decisions from your poker life at the same time. GL