2-5 at Winstar.

Hero has $500, early in the session, everyone else covers except villain, with $350ish. Hero has only played one pot where I raised OTB with 44, cbet the flop, got called, and faced a huge donk OTT I had to fold to. Lost about $100 in that hand, reloaded just a couple hands before this one. Table might think I'm tilty, as I took my time folding in that hand, but I wasn't bothered by it, just trying to set an image.

Villain is middle aged asian male. Good but not scary-good, have played him before. Have seen him make moves, have seen him play squeaky, hard to get a read on him, can be very dynamic.

Standard open raise is running between $15-25.

Hero opens from MP with TT for $20.
Villain calls OTB.
SB calls.
BB calls.

Pot: $80

Flop: T84

SB and BB check.
Hero checks.
Villain bets $40.
SB/BB fold.
Hero calls $40.

Pot: $160

Turn: 5

Hero checks.

Villain bets $75, has a little over 1/3 of his stack in the pot now.

Pot now $235, villain has $215 left.

Hero???

All comments appreciated

Why are you c/c flop? why why why?

I don't like the flop flat either really, but it can be okay against certain opponents/certain dynamics. It poses the obvious inherent problems like we let a scare card come which either freezes villain or makes us lose, but I think the biggest problem with these specific stack sizes is that if villain checks the turn, our life is awkward because we need the turn and river to get stacks in. If he bets every turn card always, then it's not so bad because we can shove over turn and get some more of his money in when he's bluffing, and get the money in when he has a continuing hand, which IMO should've been your only plan if you flatted this flop. Shove turn. I also think that as long as you don't have a complete nit image, you can unexploitably raise a flop this draw-heavy and not risk villain mucking KK because you "only have sets".

Please please please explain why you check this flop

I dont understand why every LLSNL thread where someone flops a set they check the flop....this board is so wet im betting first or raising at least when he bets....when someone check raises me on the flop it more often than not sets off warning bells in my head

betting the flop with a set is my standard 98% of the time...

bet the flop. not sure why you checked it. raise when it gets to you now on the flop..

turn get it in. you only lose to 67.

I checked OTF here for a few reasons:

1. SB/BB are pretty straightforward, they would donk a hit, and check a miss or a draw.

2. I'm the PF raiser, so if I cbet here, I'm repping an OP. I don't wanna look that strong.

3. Button villain is good enough to take a stab when everyone checks this flop with ATC. I'd like to see him bet, ideally get SB/BB to call with some kind of bluff catcher hand, and then put in a value raise or let them bury themselves for one more street. I'm willing to risk someone turning a flush or lucky straight to get a little more value.

On the turn, when I am heads up against button, I want to see him bet again. My flat on the flop could easily look like overs, a flush draw, gutshot straight draw, or a middle pair, which would make villain confident enough to bet the turn again with ATC. An overpair never check/calls the flop bet, and I think villain knows this, so he has to put me on a hand weaker than an overpair. I'd also like to see him commit himself before I drop the hammer.

So basically, if villain has nothing, I lose him by betting. If he does have a hand, I own him already anyhow, and I can let him commit himself before I shove.


Here's results:



I posted this though because I wanted to hear reasons for different lines - I'm not married to my approach

It's my standard most of the time too. I like to lead with big hands whenever I feel like I'm likely to get action, which is most of the time. The reasons I state above are why I deviated.

Only problem with this is that any good player is going to know if you get aggro OTT or w/e you probably flopped loltopset... If you c/called the flop I am putting you on 2 hands: top set or overcards and I will know by the turn which one it is. My radar is definitly on when u c/call here. Sure congrats, this time it worked and you got a bet from the other player. But you loose money in the long run checking top set on a drawy board, especially at lowstakes.

I see your point. So, considering how this hand went down, after I already decided to check/call the flop, possibly incorrectly, would I have been better off check/calling the turn when he bets 75, and continuing with the deception, if as you say, his radar is likely to be on?

Yes. If you are going to check the flop, might as well go in calldown mode. Perhaps if river is a nice blank I go for a big bet, looking polarized for his bluff catchers (which is prolly all he would have)

Just read the OP, nothing else. Wow.... bet the flop, it's a huge mistake to check here. This is pretty basic - wet board, many players, you have the nuts on a board where the nuts can easily change on later streets... I would bet $70-$80. I stopped reading after you c/c because I think it's such a big and fundamental mistake that nothing later in the hand can offset it in terms of helping you improve your game. Beginners slowplay too much - don't be afraid of people folding, just bet for value, they will find plenty of reasons to call.

grunch

I really dislike the line you have taken and prefer a more agressive line of bet/bet/bet. As played, this is read dependent and the main question is how likely it is that villain shoves river if checked to...if the answer is likely then c/c river, if its not likely then lead river but that probably folds out the majority of villains range since it is an incredibly strong line to take.

This makes no sense to me.

If he has nothing, he's not interested in the hand anyway. Betting or not betting will not change his nothing hand (unless he catches up a lot).

If he does have something, you should be building the pot by betting.

This is called greed and its the main reason people get left with nothing in front of them but felt.

+1

To hope for villain to take a stab OTB is silly because he isn't even going to cooperate enough of the time. That is greed, as superman says, and silly given the board. Salesman, we are only trying to help you plug this leak. Its obvious you are a solid player but being tricky is how you can loose all your chips without even making villain make a poor call OTF.

Absolutely not true. This hand is a perfect example. By checking, we got our opponent to bet twice with what was probably complete air.

Here's another way to look at this - how strong do we have to be in order to let our opponents take the lead?

Please don't take my debating this as me not being grateful for the input; I really appreciate the help in plugging what might be a leak. But I have to hash it out and really believe in the explanations before I can feel confident changing my line.

I know you guys have lots of experience, probably more than me in most cases, and that's why I post this stuff. The last several posts I have made here have been about hands I won with, so take that as a sign that I am looking to improve and learn, even when short term results make me feel like I did it right.

I'm on a heater lately, and it's easy to feel like I'm a poker genius right now, but I know I'm not. I'm grateful and humbled by everyone's input, even if I am not yet 100% convinced

the idea of c/calling vs a villain who plays straightforward vs bets, but stabs vs checks can create some good value. this is wrong board to do it on though.

you should have a fair number of semibluffs on this board, and hand will play out a lot better when you are the one who is sizing the flop bet on this texture flop.

oh, and don't have a perceived cbetting range that is overpairs+.

He hit the nail on the head, this is the WRONG board to check through imo. Just think of all the ranges villain can raise with on this board. Here is a list of hands he raises with:
JJ, J9 big hearts smaller sets, etc. Just remember building the pot is important since scare cards may come when we have a cooler spot with smaller sets. I assume ur image is tight, so villain may try to blow you off the hand with overs and a FD, etc. Especially if he thinks you can fold an overpair.

Well, say that you bet and your bluff-happy opponent decides to float you and bluff raise you on the turn. Think about how much money you're getting then.

When you have a monster, you want to win a big pot. You're better off winning a couple tiny pots and stacking somebody once than you are if you win 3 medium pots.

Is it starting to make sense on the value ur missing long term salesman?

It's starting too, yes. Y'all are successfully beating this into me, I'm just a stubborn bastard sometimes.

This is why I love 2+2 though. You guys are relentless. And you've all already helped me plug several holes, and my bankroll thanks you for it.

At least I'm not calling 4 bet shoves with 88 anymore for implied odds. He can be taught, folks.

I'll echo others sentiments about checking the flop. I'm never checking this flop for the following reasons - which many others have enumerated, but just wanted to add my $0.02.

1) We have a great hand, time to build the pot. Need to get 3 streets of betting here. If it checks thru OTF, we've just lost a street.

2) We have top set. Thus it is unlikely that any villain has top pair or an overpair (as an overpair would probably have re-raised PF (though not always). Thus it will be hard for villain to have something to bet with. 80% of the time they check this. If the flop was A 10 rag or K 10 rag, it is much more likely to connect with them and they may bet their top pair (although I'm still not checking those flops either). This flop, we have to bet because it is less likely to connect with them to give them top pair.

3) If this flop does connect with them hard for a made hand (i.e. flopped under set or 2 pair, etc), checking here gets less $ in the pot. If we check, they will bet, and we can call or check-raise and get stacks in. But if we bet, they will likely raise us and we can get stacks in. Thus, if they have a strong made hand, stacks are going in regardless, so I would rather bet OTF for all of the other scenarios (where they have a weaker hand).

4) If they have one-pair, they will likely call a c-bet by us since we "raised, and must have AK and must have missed this board." If we check and call, they start to think we don't have AK, or if an A/K/Q comes on turn then we get no more $. Thus c-betting and check-calling probably are pretty similar in terms of how much money we get (we probably get a tiny, tiny bit more by check calling - but it doesn't make up for the times that the flop checks through)

5) This is a super drawy board. Mega-drawy. If we let it check through, and a 9 comes on turn, we're screwed - mostly because we have no idea where we stand in relation to others ranges. If they lead OTT, do they have the nuts or one pair or a draw? How do we play?

6)As others have said check-calling a flop bet and coming out aggro on the turn (or check raising on turn) look super aggressive and get villain to lay down most hands - they might even lay down a set! (prob not) By bet/bet/bet, our range of possible hands remains wide.

In summary, I think that if we play this hand 10 times against a variety of villains, we get more money by bet/bet/bet than by checking and letting them bet for us. In this case, you may have gotten more money by checking - but who knows - perhaps bet/bet/bet would have gotten you even more!

im not a fan of the c/c line either but i understand your reasons.

i have been thinking alot about stupid stuff like a c/minr in that spot vs that shortstack. the thing is WE all think that is so stupid and our hand is faceup and screaming otu top set. and villain might even think so too..but they arent folding because they arent as good as us. ive seen it happen time and time again, NEVER worry about turning your hand face up against worse opponents then yourself. just a thought