Foxwoods last week at the 5/10 in a straddled pot: I've got a tight image and a stack of 3100. Loose fish limps UTG. I'm in middle position with K/10 hearts and want to isolate the fish, who has like 3K in front. I make it 100 to go. Button, a solid, good hand-reading LAG and regular in the game flats with 4K stack. Everyone folds and fish flats.
Flop (335) is A/Q/3 with one heart and two spades. Loose fish leads into it for 175. He's not folding much of anything and I can stack him with a lot of turns. I can also get a good read on him by the river and pick up a lot of pots unimproved, I flat. Button also flats.
Turn (860) is offsuit four. Fish checks. I check. Button bets 400. Fish folds. I raise to 1000 since I think villain bets this super light and will give me massive respect (I can have A/Q or a set here often and don't have many bluffs in my perceived range at all - I believe that villain believes I would check strong holdings on this turn, expecting him to bet), but may just peel one with a lot of one pair holdings and spade draws and allow me to bluff river. I don't think he ever stands up to a river shove such that even if this is unprofitable in isolation, it's highly profitable with a follow up river shove. And I don't think he ever puts me in on the turn w/o a monster.
Not really. You're basically trying to sell that you took a weird line with a set/twopair (with flatting a wet flop like that). Looks like an overplay for A4s, which is the most credible hand to put you on.
Hopefully your tight image worked out well for you, or he called the turn with a weaker draw.
You might have to worry about 4Xss/hh type hands more, depending on the suit of the last four.
Your flop play rationale seems to omit a key variable...the good hand reading BTNs presence. You already conceded the fact that the UTG is not folding much, i.e you need to hit to win, so I would imagine that if I wanted to continue to battle for this pot, it would be in my best interest to clear the BTN out (or catch a read that he is not continuing). His mere presence in this hand should deter you from pushing an already thin proposition (that of chasing to hit with little hope of bluffing).
Also, to be clear you are not stacking him with a lot of turn cards. You are possibly stacking him with 4 turn cards. And even one of those are tainted (the Js) where you either might not get any further bets or worse yet, run into spades and stack yourself. He did after all lead into you, the preflop raiser after being a limper so spades is definitely a legitimate portion of his range.
If you want to continue past this flop a minraise seems more appropriate. On this board, being the preflop raiser, it will emit strength and fold the BTN (rid the good LAG AND gain position...hey 2 for 1!). The times the BTN doesn't just go away, you can be pretty sure you are beat and can act accordingly (folding if reraised and/or not continuing to bluff the turn). What you don't want to happen is for you to lose sight of your initial objective (battling the UTG) and get caught up playing the hand in a fashion far less desirable (having to battle the BTN).
Your goal is not to win the pot right there (as you said yourself, the UTG isn't folding much right there), but rather grab initiative on this board and be better able to represent hands that can continue strongly with moving forward. By just calling, you're basically trying to hit and extract. And since you're chasing a 4 outer that proposition seems inferior to other options....especially if position isn't a guarantee yet. Being already in a contentious spot (squeezed in a 3bet pot and decent stacks with the better player having position), I'd much prefer to bring a bit more clarity to this situation earlier than later.
As played, you can see how the plan you conjured up on the flop is for naught since you end up having to battle with the good hand reading BTN, OOP, and in no mans land since you never helped yourself define his strength. And because of this, you find yourself tussling with the wrong guy, often in an unprofitable situation.
Beyond what resulted from your flop play, I don't agree with many of your assumptions on what you can best represent, what you think the BTN can have here, and how he can play his hand or react to your line. Calling on that flop given who led out (a fish BTN who is not folding much on that street) and what took place preflop, combined with checking the turn does not result in me thinking you likely have a big hand you are slowplaying with. Typically, on a 2 broadway, 2tone flop, slowplaying won't be the norm. And when you add in the variables you faced in order to get there, it seems even less likely (3bet, 3way, led into, etc..).
I don't doubt the BTN can be betting the turn with a wider range but you also have to reasonably give him a range that got there in the first place. The hands that bet lightly here constitute hands that probably have a decent amount of equity in the first place (spades) and may not be so eager to bet fold them. The hands that tend to be toward the bottom of his range like pair plus gutters, mid pairs/second pairs, and weaker Ax hands could very well check this turn in fear of your exact thinking and risk getting blown off their hand. And given that you "slowplayed" your hand, you allow him to see a river/showdown at a reasonable price.
Throughout your dissection of the BTNs turn thinking, you neglect to take into consideration him betting the turn in order to get a free river. There is after all another betting round, and if he checks back the turn he may think he will have to face a larger than preferred bet on the river (cause that's how you'd play both a missed opportunity slowplay as well as a bluff). His justification for a turn bet may be to buy himself a free river. I mention this only to refute what you think he would do with certain portions of his range.
Whether or not your river shove shows a profit right there and now should be moot when analyzing the hand as a whole since you shouldn't end up in that spot to begin with. This hand seems like a classic case of forgotten priorities (get the fish!) and playing on the fly by the seat of your pants battling a tough player OOP who has already shown interest in a hand where you have the worst likely hand you could have to get to that point.
All good thoughts. Glad I'm getting some thoughtful replies.
I really don't like minraising the flop against the fish b/c he won't necessarily interpret it as uber strength and he can come over the top with a naked ace or a big draw. You are right though about me only really stacking him with 3 outs. I just know that he's betting a lot of middle pairs, gut shots and flush draws on this flop so I can't bring myself to fold. He'll fold middle pair to a turn bet. He's also betting a lot of his aces - and he's almost never folding those. Folding the flop is a fine play but I think calling shows more of a profit here. I don't expect the button to come in all that often, with my preflop raise and a flat on the flop on that board.
I definitely check the turn here, with some frequency, when I have A/Q or better, since I know button is betting so widely. Whether he knows/thinks this or not is a different story.
With a turn check raise of that size (unlikely to be spades or combo draw) and a river shove, there really aren't many nonsense hands in my range at the river - at least in villain's mind. It's pretty tough for him to call me down here. I think he's folding the turn at least 1/2 the time and folding the river about 85%+.
All good thoughts. Glad I'm getting some thoughtful replies.
I really don't like minraising the flop against the fish b/c he won't necessarily interpret it as uber strength and he can come over the top with a naked ace or a big draw. You are right though about me only really stacking him with 3 outs. I just know that he's betting a lot of middle pairs, gut shots and flush draws on this flop so I can't bring myself to fold. He'll fold middle pair to a turn bet. He's also betting a lot of his aces - and he's almost never folding those. Folding the flop is a fine play but I think calling shows more of a profit here. I don't expect the button to come in all that often, with my preflop raise and a flat on the flop on that board.
I definitely check the turn here, with some frequency, when I have A/Q or better, since I know button is betting so widely. Whether he knows/thinks this or not is a different story.
With a turn check raise of that size (unlikely to be spades or combo draw) and a river shove, there really aren't many nonsense hands in my range at the river - at least in villain's mind. It's pretty tough for him to call me down here. I think he's folding the turn at least 1/2 the time and folding the river about 85%+.
The bold is the crux of whether or not your bluff is credible. A good hand-reading LAG just isn't going to give you credit for 2 pair+ after you flat that flop and check along that turn. He would expect that you would almost always want to build a pot/protect your hand/get it heads up with UTG.
Everything else (him folding 85%+ on the river, etc) is just wasted energy imo.
Really? You raised preflop, then raised his flop bet on this board and you fear he is going to 3bet you? If that's the case then your description of 'fish' doesn't seem suitable. He seems like a much tougher opponent to me. Weak players wouldn't take that line for fear they are running into a monster. Even with the flush draw present, there are too many realistic hands you could have that dominate him. And don't forget the lingering BTN that could be trapping [in his eyes].
The fact that you assign him a range of such weak holdings ("I just know that he's betting a lot of middle pairs, gut shots and flush draws on this flop") should make a raise that much more enticing to you. He'll call and peel to hit and fold to any turn heat when he misses since now you mean business by betting again. Again, your goal with your flop raise is not to fold him out (he ain't folding anyhow). It's to fold the BTN out and have more control and less instability moving forward. Your assumption that the BTN won't call along, closing the action, seems random and unfounded, and can even be argued the opposite. The fact that he did come along this time should represent why you don't even want to take that chance.
Again, I'm curious where you think the BTN stands when he calls a raise preflop, calls a flop bet not made by the initial raiser, and then has the turn checked to him having to be wary of you trapping (as you have said you would do with this line)? Also, one question I forgot to ask in my first post was what cards were the spades? That makes a big difference when dealing with flush draws on A high boards.
Whether or not your river shove shows a profit right there and now should be moot when analyzing the hand as a whole since you shouldn't end up in that spot to begin with.
Pretty much this. BTW good post jloc agree with all of it, although I dont think I have written anything that long since my last paper in college. Just kidding though good to see people spend time to really break down a hand with thorough analysis.
Chubbz in order for this play to be anywhere near profitable you need to have the nittiest of nitty images and even then it might not work, because the check raise on the turn there doesn't make sense.
Foxwoods last week at the 5/10 in a straddled pot: I've got a tight image and a stack of 3100. Loose fish limps UTG. I'm in middle position with K/10 hearts and want to isolate the fish, who has like 3K in front. I make it 100 to go. Button, a solid, good hand-reading LAG and regular in the game flats with 4K stack. Everyone folds and fish flats.
Flop (335) is A/Q/3 with one heart and two spades. Loose fish leads into it for 175. He's not folding much of anything and I can stack him with a lot of turns. I can also get a good read on him by the river and pick up a lot of pots unimproved, I flat. Button also flats.
Turn (860) is offsuit four. Fish checks. I check. Button bets 400. Fish folds. I raise to 1000 since I think villain bets this super light and will give me massive respect (I can have A/Q or a set here often and don't have many bluffs in my perceived range at all - I believe that villain believes I would check strong holdings on this turn, expecting him to bet), but may just peel one with a lot of one pair holdings and spade draws and allow me to bluff river. I don't think he ever stands up to a river shove such that even if this is unprofitable in isolation, it's highly profitable with a follow up river shove. And I don't think he ever puts me in on the turn w/o a monster.
River (2860) is another four. I shove for 1800.
Thoughts?
I think here lies your answer which is "no". Too many questionable items to villain for him to believe us. Bad river card.
This is occasionally a good line to take to mix it up when you do have a monster. But the fact that its strength lies in how confusing it is, is precisely what makes taking it as a bluff so suicidal.
He's good, so he would take the free card (or bet way bigger) with a naked fd against these two imo. And he most likely would not float the flop 3-way. So... Ax+.
I don't like it because I disagree with OP's assessment that the Button will bet with a lot of air / Ace-rag on the turn; also I think most of Button's range for calling the turn calls that safe river.. I think BTN checks through the turn with a spade draw a lot. Unless he was planning on setting up a big bluff on the river, thinking the fish calls the $400 bet on the turn super wide, then I don't see the point of the $400 turn bet with a draw.
FWIW, Chubbz I think you have the perfect image (for a few reasons) to pull this off against another good reg in the Foxwoods game.
I think it is credible because Chubbz knows his opponent way better than us. May be villain was thinking, "Nuts or air? Darn it I fold." Or he is the kind that would think, "Ar... I put you on AK. I fold."
Thanks for all the replies - very thoughtful answers.
There's always more to write about the players' tendencies and history, and my posts are long enough that I omit much of what I observe/have experienced. The limping fish had very particular errors, like massively overvaluing top pair decent kicker, playing ATC preflop, and leading flop with a huge range only to fold on later streets. This is why I wanted to isolate him and why I wasn't ready to give it up even though the good LAG was behind me. So in a vacuum I like jloc's posts quite a bit (I always do - he's clearly one of the most insightful posters on this forum), but here it's a special situation against a special type of fish. In this case, I really can't see myself folding or raising the flop.
Another thing that's tough to represent in my post is my image. I play so painstakingly tight and solid for hours on end, very often buying in short and chipping away with solid value. I've played with the button a million times before, and while he's seen me run a few big bluffs, he's seen a lot more tricky lines with monsters from me that lead to huge stackings.
To answer jloc's question, the ace on the flop was the non-heart.
I think button calls the flop with just about any draw, including a gut shot. He probably doesn't float it with air but can easily call with any pair. After all, the fish might have an ace in which case implied odds for him are huge. After the fish checks the turn (very unlikely to have ace at this point), I think button bets 400 with lots of his draws and weak one-pair hands because the UTG guy's range is crazy wide and he folds his 2nd/3rd pairs and gut shots, all of which he'd bet the flop with. And I think with my image button expects me to fold lots of my range, even mediocre aces (A/J perhaps), because he has position and he considers me to be a bit risk averse or weak. The sizing doesn't mean much to me b/c the button may think that the absolute value of the bet is quite important to UTG and to me (although I guess he should know me better than that.....but, again, he may perceive me as weak).
The raise on the turn is small enough that I think it leads to a call from lots of holdings. He is a good, winning LAG but like lots of LAGs he can get a little cocky and stubborn, especially in position and when he's against a "weaker opponent". Flush draws, medium to strong aces and A/3, A/4 are all in his range. If he had a set, I think he'd put the money in on the turn.
On the river, I'm definitely polarized (he's definitely not thinking I have A/J or A/K), but I think in his mind, there are so few bluffs in my range that he pretty much has to fold. The sizing seemed perfect to me, which is why I went for it.
He folded the river after about 12-15 seconds of thought, and the whole table began guessing whether I had a set of queens or aces.
After I played the hand, I had some doubts about whether that play was more profitable than the standard check/fold on the turn, and I'm still not sure. TBH, I think many of the comments here are on point, and it was not the most credible bluff in the world. I probably should find better spots to pull this off - but in the end my image was sufficient to lock up the fold even in a less than optimal bluffing spot.
The point wasn't that this bluff is never credible, especially since live poker has so many added variables and gameflow considerations that occasionally a nonstandard line can prove a successful one. However, the point of this sub-forum is to assess the standard lines for a situation and the standard perceptions of a particular line, and as far as that goes the general conclusion is that this line in the long run isn't really printing money as a bluff.
Live I'll do all kinds of non-standard stuff like check a set two or three times on super drawy boards, or changing my mind last minute and not following through with a third bullet despite getting a very good card to bluff and good line to take in a vacuum. But it'd always be because of some external consideration that leads me to do it, rather than being my default logic or rationalization.
