What do you expect villains value range to be here?

AA, AK, AQ, AJs, A10s. I can't think of much else he takes this line with. I guess it could be a blocker with KK or QQ but doesn't seem that likely.

Where would you rate his bluff frequency with this line?

It can't be very high. OTF, the only hands he can put you on are pocket pairs, 8x hands, 44, floats, small straight draws. Since he raised a limper preflop and you flatted, you're most likely hands are pocket pairs. I guess he could have KQs and try to move you off a medium pair but how could he think you'd call the turn with a medium pocket pair? His bet sizing indicates a marginal value betting hand, most likely AK, AQ. [*]

What should my calling range be?

This is actually the toughest one for me. If you have a small suited ace then I think you should probably muck it. AQ or better you can beat some of the hands he's betting for value, but I'm tempted to call with AJ and all that money in the middle is well. I'm actually interested to hear what other players think about calling ranges here.


Can I profitably bluff shove here?

How much does he respect your game? I mean, marginal or not he does have almost half his stack in the middle. On the other hand, if he thinks the hand through, how could you not have an 8 or full house here when you check shove the end? How likely is he to make a bad call that turns out to be a winner?


What range should I shove for value?

I think just about any 8. You're talking about a tight player raising an EP limper pre-flop. If he has a bigger 8 than you, then you should go back to your notes and re-evaluate this opponents game. His most likely holdings are aces up or aces full. I think qualifying your kicker isn't neccessary here and will only cost you EV.

If you re-read my post, you will see that I agree with your simple inference.

So you posted a HH on 2+2 looking for validation on your float/bluff line but didn't feel it was necessary to share with us the HHs that lead you to your reads?

Anyway, we obviously disagree so there is little point in continuing this.

However, I have little doubt that if you post this to MHFR as is, that they will tell you that your line is spew.

If you're going to call me out for having a straw man argument then I'm going to point out the obvious that I'm not going into detail for someone who posted this originally.

You don't include AA or 44 in villain value range, but you do include 88 and 99. I don't think villain can have a monster here because of bet sizing, but I understand if someone thinks he could. I don't understand how someone thinks he could never have AA or 44 but could have 88 or 99 though. Also I find it strange that you think he is betting air for value as I am probably never calling with 7 high.

Bluff frequency 20%? How can you make this assumption with no HHs? Are you just pulling a number out of a hat? No consistency in your evaluation and you demand of more information.

Also if he is bluffing 20% of the time and has the value range you posted (minus air as a value range) AT is not a +EV call yet you suggest it.

You don't think I can profitable bluff shove this river vs a good villain? Fair enough. I disagree, but fair enough.

You also say I should shove A4 for value but not Ax. Why is A4 so special? This is 5 card poker, three pair is no good.


It wasn't my intention to be a dbag, but I'm not going to answer to someone who is thinking on this level. Maybe those were all typos, maybe Princess Azula is a much better player than me, but when that is the first thing you post in the thread I can't take you seriously and I'm not wasting my time giving a bunch of HHs for an opinion that isn't going to help me.

I just have to say, your leaps of logic in this post are as laughable as your leaps of logic in your hand.

I tell you:

Then you say:

What does your lack of HHs establishing villain fold TP and his 3-barrel range have to do with me being exploited by cbets?

I think my previous posts you indicate that I have some idea as to the thought process necessary to respond to cbets. But you'd have to read them correctly to get that.

Laughable I tell you, kidd tell these dudes your bankroll is solid for bluffs like this. End of story, enuff said.

JFC, I'm not including 44 in his value range b/c he is raising UTG+1. Obviously AT+ includes AA.

I meant ect. rather than air. I pretty sure I could go through your horrible posts and find a number of typos. But I'm not gonig to do that.

You're a $2-5 donkey. Most of my action is above $2-5 b/c I've taken enough BBs from fish like you to move up.

I tried to answer the silly questions in your OP, obviously I wasted my time.

Your line is horrible, you are a fish. If you don't believe me then post your HH to MHFR. They will mock you and laugh at you.

Very good point with how likely is he to make a bad call that turns out to be a winner. He views me as LAG so this could make him more likely to make a crying call with whatever he has. It's worth noting that I have not bluffed this session (though I have not been at the table very long - a few orbits).

Also, I never said the villain was tight, I don't know where you got that from.

So I point our the terrible logic and -EV in your first post and then all of a sudden I'm a fish? Haha gg, you win. You are too good for me and I can't think on your level. Feel free to take the last word after I post this because I'm done with this argument.

As far as the tight part, must've mis-read. You said solid, not tight which is different. I'm torn about whether it was a good play or if you got lucky, but it does expose a way to exploit the manner in which many decent players are betting they're hands these days. His range is very polarized and weighted excessively toward medium strenghth hands. Because of this, I think probably his bet sizing on the end was poor and his best line with most of his range is check behind.

One other thing that came to mind after reading this thread is a concept I think is often confused. ROT as is applies to bluffing is not such a bad thing. At the end of the day, whether calling bluffs or bluffing yourself, you have to ask yourself "Is it working for me?" Usually the answer is no, which is why most low to medium limit players say "Bluffing is -EV". But when it comes to watching a players bet sizing, betting patterns, physical mannerisms etc. and sniffing out weakness, results are the most important thing. The theory behind what you saw at that moment in time is of secondary importance in this application IMO. We can learn from the theory of analyzing ranges etc. but you cannot complete ignore whether you were right or wrong when it comes to predicting your opponents likely hand and action with that hand.

Lmao you are my idol azula. If I posted this I would be banned for life.

This is the fire I like to see in dudes.

I love it, that's an aHaaaa moment.

good thread.

I think calling the turn with 22, thinking you have the best hand here is spew against the average competent villain (floating to represent on the river has some merit, but calling because you're a favorite against his range simply has to be -EV unless you assume that villain has an extremely wide range). Again, he's raising a limper, not opening, UTG+1, and it's still 7-handed, not exactly short handed. What kind of preflop range do you think a competent villain has that would make calling any pair profitable on the turn?


I don't know how you can say betting will get villain get to showdown cheaper. While it may be true that you will bet full pot, as compared to him betting half pot, but come on, the way to get to a cheaper showdown is obviously by checking. Yes, checking will induce some bluffs, and that is actually a decent reason to check. Even a hand as weak as 99 should be in a way ahead way behind spot on the turn usually. I mean how often do you think hero will be floating the flop with two overs with neither one being an Ace, and even in that case 6 outs with one card to come is 6/42 = 1/7, not exactly with all that much equity that you MUST bet to for protection, although I usually prefer betting when strongly suspecting to be ahead. But I disagree that a hand as weak as 99 being a huge favorite against a calling range on the turn. Obviously if you're calling with any pair, 99 is a huge favorite, but I think that is spew in itself unless you have a crazy dynamic of trying to outplay each other with villain in a full ring game, albeit it being 7-handed.


With AJ, I'd frequently c-bet the flop. On the turn I would double barrel against most opponents; against aggressive opponents, I will bet some / check some (something like 65 bet / 35 check against most aggressive), but will check more often to opponents I view as capable of floating, mainly to try to induce bluffs -- I don't really try to balance all that much live without history, but if I had to guess it'll be 65/35 ratio). On the river, I'm frequently checking against all, but the most stationy players, intending to check and make a read and go with it.

I advocated bluff-shoving the river specifically because I thought villain was good. I think doing so against a non-winner is spew.

I agree that OP didn't give a quantitative example of why villain is capable of 3 barrelling with air, but at the same time he played with him for a full session before, and a general feeling that villain is a thinking player should be enough to imply that he's capable of 3-barreling with air if the right situation presented itself. While I think that this particular board is bad for villain to be 3-barrelling as a bluff (a board like 225 J K would be much better, mainly due to the order of the cards in the OP example with the Ace being on the turn rather than river), I think that assuming that villain is capable of 3-barreling air in general is a reasonable assumption, given that OP thinks he's a thinking and capable player based on a full previous session of play (I make educated-guess assumptions based on as little as 5 mins before seeing any hand go to showdown often correctly).

SURE IS NICE TO BE ON THE SIDELINES for once when it comes to a beef in the threads.

this would have been great hand to NG

Honestly, I thought about putting it up for NG, but I didn't really have any intention of posting what my hand was and I thought that would be very anti climatic. I really just wanted to hear what people thought about villains line and if I could profitably bluff shove the river. I almost PM'd my hand to CaliDonks my hand when he asked because I didn't want something dumb like this to go down. Oh well.

Silk:
UTG is a fish and villain is raising to ISO him. You don't think this makes his range much weaker UTG+1? I know if I have any non pair hand, or SC that flopped a gutshot I'd bet the flop and turn here. Villain is probably raising Qxs + SCs here trying to get into pots with the fish.

You line with AJ is strange. Betting with air and then shutting down when you catch up. I'm not saying it's bad but strange. If you check the turn I think you're missing value by not betting the river. Unless you have some sort of nit image which causes you to not have thin value bets paid off.

I think it goes without saying that I'm not bluffing some donk here who turbo calls with KK and says "Did you hit the A?" If villain isn't a good player then I'm not bluff. Yet again, he probably isn't cbetting the flop or barreling the turn with air.

Grunching this then planning to read through as it's getting some looks.

Super dry flop in heads up pot, he's cbetting 100% of his range, but he raised utg+1 so his range is still going to be pretty solid. I'd be calling here with a lot of pocket pairs and kq+

The turn is really bad for our range and really good for his. The only hands I'd be continuing on with are AJ+, random 8s we decided to play because we were hoping for a 3 way pot with the fish and pocket 4s. On the river he's never bluffing, I'd be looking to fold AJ and worse if you somehow got there with it, and consider hero folding AQ, but probably make a crying call.

A bluff shove is interesting. Villain has no 8s in his range, so his value betting on the river could only be AK,AQ AA, 99 or quads. 99 and quads are going to be incredibly rare for obvious reasons. I had a similar hand a month or so ago where I bluff shoved jacks on a similar board, but there were a few things that were different. There was a draw on the turn that he could've potentially had and double barreled with, and I was hoping to get him to fold a pair of kings, or possibly his QQ which would've been no good on river because of the king anyways.

I think that this could be a good shove if you have a tight image as you're obviously never raising an 8 or a fh anywhere before the river and I'd like it, the only problem is that your bluffing range should basically be AJ and nothing else so it'll rarely come up.

OK just read the rest of the thread. Azula pretty much wins here.

Preflop your call is not bad, certainly not good though. You need to expect the limper to be a huge fish if you ever want this call to be profitable.

Flop: Pretty horrible call. You've already stated that villain is pretty good, so he's going to be hard to outplay when you have 0 equity in the hand.

Turn: Really horrible call. This card hits his range way more than it does ours, and regardless we still have 0 equity.

River: Excellent play. I mean if you folded here it'd be horrible. I'm hoping your plan all along was to call the turn and then shove and river, if not then clearly your turn call is just total spew. I would not expect this work often, but given the villain at least you went with your read and pulled the trigger.

All in all my advice would go like this though: fold pre, fold flop, fold turn.

Fish is and I are both deep, I'm pretty much never folding pre unless my hand is complete rubbish.

Flop: Villain is pretty good, not awesome or spectacular. Good enough to hand read, good enough to know when I flat the flop and raise him on the turn or river his hand is nothing but a bluff catcher. Certainly I'd rather have a pair, but I'm going to end up turning those pairs into bluffs most of the time anyways. At least with JT I know I have to bluff and I'm never tempted to hero call.

Turn: Purely calling the turn to shove the river. I'm less likely to get looked up on the river imo. Once again, it would be nice to have that extra 5% equity here, but I still think I can make it profitable with the shove.

River: Is it not obvious that my turn call was to set up a river shove? I mean clearly I deserve more credit than trying to hit a J or T on the river or thinking J high is the best hand. Same goes for my flop call. This should be an obvious float to take the pot away on a later street. Never once did I think I had the best hand, but I did assume that villain could not have a monster with his bet sizing and could not call a shove.

My plan on the flop is to raise the turn or steal the pot if checked to. I'm likely to have two live over cards and a backdoor straight, but that equity doesn't add up to much. Clearly I'm not playing in hopes for a BDSD to come in.

When the A hits it's a bad card to do this and bluffs will get looked up far more often. If I raise the A turn and get called then I'm sitting there on the river with no FE because villain has 75% of his chips in the pot. If I smooth the A turn while planning on jamming the river I can now credibly rep an eight/FH. If I fold it just makes my flop float horrible. In reality I think the A is a good turn card for me because it helps villains range so much, we both know that, and I'm going to jam anyways. It's a spot where he wouldn't expect me to bluff which is why I thought bluffing would be so profitable.

I do play very lose preflop, but I also makes moves to make weaker hands more profitable, and it works for my style of play. I suppose the real question in this hand now is whether or not I played the hand in a +EV manner. To answer that there are a few questions...

How often does villain have a monster hand here?
How often does villain call with Ax?
How often does villain call with a pair <A?
How often is villain bluffing?

Overall I hate this hand.

preflop call is poor. You call j10 from a utg+1 raise to get involved in a 2-way or 3-way pot? Villain knows this is in your range, your hand Isn't disguised. Your deciding to get involved in a pot with a marginal hand against a good player who "He correctly views [you] as a LAG who frequently makes moves..". Not to mention.. half of Villains opening UTG+1 range has you dominated.

flop call is bad.

turn call is bad. Now Villain almost always has a hand. He is almost never bluffing. Why are you calling here? This is live low stakes holdem. There are so many places to put your money than this. A card could come that makes him call your river bluff all day.

If you make this move and your planning on moving allin on any river card your putting in $580 to win $680? If this plan works 46%+ of the time it is profitable. I dont think it works 46%+ of the time.

I think he will call you more than 46% of the time because he almost always has a hand and is getting between 3 and 2-1 odds (depending on river bet size) to call your shove.

I think he pays you off 75% with Aj+. Let's assume he holds AJ+ 50% of the time.

I think he hero calls with 10-kk 25% of the time. Let's assume he holds 1010-kk 35% of the time.

There is also a ~15% he holds AA, 99, 88, obv calling 100% here.

.5 ((.75 x -580) + (.25 x ~500))
.35 ((.25 x -580) + (.75 x ~500)
.15 (1 x -580)

= $-12 EV.

I think this turns +EV if you have a tight image.

Tyler

Very good post, but I believe that this is MOSTLY read and image dependent.......

Right about my range not being disguised. Villain most likely views my call as med to small pairs and SC.

You are severely overrating villains UTG+1 preflop fish ISO range. It could easily be Q2s when UTG limps. I also feel like his whole range is cbetting this flop and barreling the turn. To say villain is almost never bluffing here I just feel like is incorrect. If he does have a hand like 56s or KJ what do you think his line is? Cbet, check, check, muck? He's a little stronger than that. I'm sure some players would play the hand like that, but if it wasn't clear that villain wouldn't in the description I'll clarify that now.

Flop and turn call are terrible with no plan. I made a previous post explaining my reasoning on each street, but essentially I'm setting up a credible line to steal on the river. I feel like this river bet works well over half the time.

You are saying with the line villain took and his bet sizing that he has AA, 99, or 88 15% of the time? You honestly don think he would try to get more value out of such huge hands? I don't know any good players playing monster hands this passively when their opponent has shown so much interest in the pot. I don't even know many bad ones who would play a hand like aces full like that. You're entitled to your opinion though.

I expect to get hero called by TT-KK less than 5% of the time. Villain is a good player and calling here with TT-KK is just flat out spew. I'm rarely bluffing in this spot and he would have to soul read to get past this terribly -EV spot.

If he was going to hero call it would be with Ax which I'm undetermined how often he would call.

I think you're viewing this as sort of a Monsters Under The Bed mindset. "We're bluffing so we're going to be looked up often." If the situation was reversed and we didn't know my hand I imagine you would want to fold the river with TT-KK. Probably with AK. If you are stacking off with one pair on this board all the time it is without a doubt -EV.

Either way, as you put it the move is slightly -EV. Remove the monster hands from his range because of his bet sizing and all of a sudden it's +EV. Change the % of times I'm being hero called and it determines how +EV it is.

Re-reading some of my posts, it's obvious that I crossed the line.

While I stand by my points, I was out of line in calling OP a fish and a donkey.

So, KyddDynamite, I applogize.

To save the mods of this forum some work, I've asked to be self banned in ATF for a period of one week.

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/55.../index183.html

You're a little confused I think: banning people is the funnest part of being a mod.