Hmmm, I wonder if 60 is too weak and too obvious of a blocker and it will get raised by hands that we beat.

Against a competent opponent, I agree we get shoved on as a bluff a portion of the time. The problem is, WE DON'T KNOW IF VILLAIN IS COMPETENT. I just don't see calling off here as profitable. With better reads, perhaps we can snap this off. We may be able to turn our hand into a bluff if we know villain is capable of folding the Kc. The issue is, we don't know so betting can't be correct unless it is super small.

Seriously dude....give it up. Just say you agree with me. It won't hurt. Some other people here may make fun of you, that's what they do. You'll get used to it. You'll also get used to being a great poker player.

Stick with me kid. You'll go places

There are certain things we agree on and certain things we disagree on. However if I'm thinking I should hitch my wagon to a trollish $1/2 grinder as my poker guide, I should just jump off a bridge and end it all.

Grunch.

Pre is fine. The flop cbet on this board texture is kinda meh given that you got called in two spots after raising to $40 pre-flop. I would definitely be check folding in this spot some % of the time, although I can't really fault you for firing out a cbet.

Come turn, I probably just check and hope to realize my equity against Tx, 8x and smaller PP's that check behind. You're basically firing blind here and could easily be up against a made flush. I like the turn bet way more if the turn is a non-club or if you hold either the A or K of clubs. Also, your sizing is pretty small to be inducing folds.

Come river, we're in a pretty dumb spot. We river a bluff catcher and Villain decides to put us to the test. I guess I would just sigh fold here. FWIW I don't really hate any of the decisions you made in this pot. The factors contributing to this being a tough spot IMO are the fact that we're OOP, we're read less, and we bloated the pot. I guess if you want to soul read bluff catch here, you can go ahead, but I think you would just be guessing. I think that it's fairly reasonable that he shows up here with AcTx, KcTx, or even just Tc.

But yeah, I would tend to save the double barrels for when we have better reads, the pot size is more manageable, and when we're in position.

I read the other responses... I feel that the pot is way to bloated to make any sort or value/blocking bet OTR.

For the most part I agree, but the OP seems pretty committed to his read that villain has a large range of non-clubs. Plus v is impatient, which leans towards the possibility of getting called by a 9.

Against most villains, I probably check/fold too. But....If we think that Villain has a lot of non-clubs in his range......enough that we may think about calling a shove (as the OP did), then I think it's better to set our own price for showdown, and lose the minimum when we're beat.

Well, I think we lose the minimum when we're beat by c/f'ing the river, although we may or may not get bluffed less of we make a blocking bet. Tough to tell without reads.

It's the word "impatient" makes me feel like V will have a bluff range if we check the river. And our hand does have value I don't want to lose.

I'm sure there is some math to be done where we can figure out the percentage of the villain's range that is not clubs, and calculate the perfect bet size to make a +EV bet/fold.

Off the top of my head, I feel like 130ish is probably the sweet spot where we look block-ish enough to get called by worse, but our bet is big enough to never induce a bluff raise.

There aren't any worse hands that will call river if we bet. There just isn't. If you're betting to try to get a crappy flush to fold, I get it and at least we are betting for the proper reason. But to be clear, if we are betting, we are bluffing, not betting for value. So if that's the case and we are betting river as a bluff, we can't be check-calling for value.

I don't agree that no worse hands will call. Our line looks like we are scared ****-less of a flush. A blocking bet may be interpreted exactly as what it is. But since we are at the absolute peak of our blocking bet range, we can get called by worse hands.

Or if the villain is flush or fold, then we lose the minimum to the flush, and don't have to show our cards when he mucks. Both fine results.

The fact that a worse club may fold (tiny chance, but not zero chance) is just gravy.

OP FWIW, I would have raised preflop as you did. I probably would have c-bet but if I did c-bet and get called, I'm giving up. The Q didn't didn't help and with it being the 3rd club, it's much more likely to help V. I think your biggest mistake is betting turn and AP, I'd fold river. Generally, it's gonna be wrong to try to bluff/push people off hands unless you know what kind of hands that they are capable of folding.

OP arbitrarily labeled this V as impatient. No offense OP, but this guy is simply an unknown. His fidgety-ness could be a lot of things. It could be a nicotine craving, or a symptom from a prednisone dose, or early onset Parkinson's. My point is we don't know **** about this guy, so assuming his calling range contains all these non-club hands is just ridiculous. I don't wish to engage in any derail with you, Idontworkhere, so this is the only post I'll make here. You're far too optimistic/sure about this blocker bet. Maybe he will call with lol AQ or some jazz, but probably he won't. Maybe if we held the 7c or something, I'd agree with a blocking bet. You just seem super confident about this marginal(losing) spot where, at 2-5 at least, there's just not much value. Now you've gone blue in the face arguing your point and I admire that, but dude c'mon! This is FPS on 'roids. Long term you are only leveling yourself with this bet at 2-5.

Garick, DeathCabfor Tootie, and TheNewProfessor have given helpful input.

Prove to me it's wrong to bet/fold here. I realize it "feels" weird given stack and pot sizes, but open your mind for a minute and think it through.

Assumptions
1) After the turn call, villain has at least pair+draw
2) Villain will call river bet with all 2 pair + hands
3) Villain will never raise as a bluff on the river

Pot is 567. We expect villain to call almost always. Any one pair hand he had on the turn jsut got there on the river. So for simplicity, let's just say he never folds. But in reality, he will some non-zero percent of the time, but that's gravy.

We bet 135 to win 700 (Pot + V's call). We only have to be good 19% of the time for the play to break even. We have the best possible non-flush hand, so we're beating every non-flush he would call with.

As an added benefit, we have a player who shows a lack of patience, and our bet looks like exactly what it is, a blocking bet without a flush.

Now, show me a villain's range that is >81% flushes, and I will publicly admit I'm wrong.

EDIT: Even as a break-even play this is +EV because of the inherent value in a) not showing our cards, and b) never getting bluffed off our hand on the river (as everyone who suggests check/calling would)

IDWH, what range do YOU give the villain that will call that is +EV for us?

I can't figure out how to specify suits in my odds calculator so I did this longhand on paper. Some combo counts might be a little off but I think it's good.

Villains potential range
AcKc, AKo (with club), QQ, JJ, 88, TT, KcJc, KJo (with club), KcTc, KTo (with club), Kc9c, QJ, JT, J9, T9, T8, and 97suited.

I count 83 combinations, only 34 of which hold a club.

As I mentioned above, villain needs a range >80% flushes for a bet/fold to not be profitable. Here his range isn't even 50% flushes, so even if my math is a little off, betting 135 on the river = printing money.

If villain shoves river if we check with all of those hands then we have the following

~250 to call 800 - we need 24% (fixed, thanks willy) equity. And using the range above, we beat 59% of villain's range. So check/folding is just....just awful.

Once again, I've been piled on for deviating from the TAG/ABC propaganda that passes for winning poker strategy around here. If you want to get better at poker, you're going to need to open your minds to some different lines of thinking.

The math is there. I've made you all better poker players today. You're welcome.

... 800:250 is 3.2:1, meaning we need 24% equity.

You can't just divide 250 by 800.

Thanks, I admit, doing it long hand I often screw it up.

that means my 135 into 700 is for 19% is wrong too. It should be 16, so villain needs a flush 84% of the time here for a bet/fold to be a spew. Still waiting for someone to show me that range.

So thanks willy, by fixing the math, I've enhanced my argument.



Willy helps me with math, I help the community with poker, finally some teamwork around here!

You're not c-betting T84cc 3-way after raising pre oop with AK? There's a big pot out there, and I think you take it down plenty; there are also some pretty decent turn cards for your hand. Are you just gonna check/fold the flop?

Think the flop is a clear c-bet.

I'm conflicted on the turn. I think it's a decent barreling card. We're readless, but villain's range is going to include a lot of Tx or worse. Yes, the Q is a straightening card and two-pair card if he has exactly J9 or QT, but there are also a bunch of other hands that are worse like AT, KT, JT, T9, 99, 8x, lower pocket pairs, etc). We might even be value betting against 76, 65. 97. We can also hit some decent river cards if he calls.

I'd check the river readless. His turn call can include a bunch of pair+draw hands. I don't think we can value bet the river, even with a very small blocking bet. I don't think we beat 50% of his calling range with any bet size. I also wouldn't assume he can fold any flush.

So I would check, and then I think it's a toss up between calling and folding. I'd probably just fold because I expect a random to more often check behind with a made hand, even when it won't often be good, rather than turn it into a bluff. And with this line and run-out, I expect him to have something better than no-pair. That said, I don't think calling is terrible either getting > 3:1.

3 way, OOP, board that smashes their ranges, no backdoor draw, not sure if our overs are good = c/f

How close to a c-bet do you think it is? Is it very close?

Like swap the T for a J; are you c-betting J84cc?

Thanks Willyoman,
Pretty much what you said the above post is what went thru my mind during the hand. I agree, against most opponents I'm never double barreling with that turn card. But, as the hand played out, the turn bet worked to my advantage as I was getting proper odds to call his river shove. In the short term, I was lucky with my read/feeling of this particular villain. In the long run, this is far from a profitable play against the majority of nits/straightforward players on most 2-5 tables.

Sent from my HTC6500LVW using 2+2 Forums

I am probably less likely to cbet J84 than T84.


Some percentage of the time you have to check/fold, some percentage you cbet. i tend to make the occasions that i check/fold far more frequent when I am out of position, as in this pot. Most villains, even the more perceptive ones, won't understand that an individual's barreling frequency changes based upon ones position. They might just analyze their hand, your bet, say 'golly he's followed through on a flop raise with another bet a lot, but this time i have a pair (or draw, or both) and (if he's above the curve) position, so i'll call and hope he checks so i can check.

Assumption 2 only holds up in a magical pretend universe of rainbows and cupcakes and villains who do exactly as we wish while complimenting us on our handsomeness.

There's a four flush and an obvious straight out there. Most 2/5 villains can find a gold with two pair there.

Related note: AK-Broadway on a four-flush board is nowhere close to the top of our blocking bet range. Any club below the Ac is the top of our blocking bet range.