Aria 5/10nl, 9-Handed.

Villain in the hand is a young Asian player, probably a pro. He seems pretty solid although he's been losing because the fish in the game keeps rivering straights and flushes against him. Villain has made some big (losing) calls against the fish.

The other player is Moohaha. He's not drinking and playing ok.

I've been super card dead so I've been tight, but people generally assume I'm a capable internet player and play accordingly.

I have just under 3k and they both cover.

Preflop
I open to 30 in MP with T 9 . Villian makes it 100 OTB, Moohaha calls from the SB, I call.

Flop (310): 8 3 8
Checks around.

Turn (310): 5
Moohaha bets 250, I raise to 700, Villain calls, Moohaha folds.

River (1960): K
I...

I have just over a pot bet left.

(Also, I have little interest in discussing the turn raise. I have years of history with Moohaha and he will fold the vast vast majority of the time here to me).

Bet flop, bomb turn.

You rep kind of thin but I guess that depends on your image like if you take non-standard lines and can value bet something like KQ here, but I also think that villain usually has some missed draws here, or 8x+ that is never folding especially if you say he's folding in this spot a lot (Kinda limits his range to things like A5 67 8x+ 66+? I don't know.) I think betting something like $900 OTR is better than shoving.

He cold called a turn raise? I'm done with it.

I guess villian is repping an overpair, I would bet 1200 on the river. Hopefully he just thinks you wiffed on a flop c/r, and king is a solid card to bet if he has qq.

To break it down, based on his cold-call on the turn a lot of his range is def QQ+ that checked the flop back for pot control/disguise purposes. He'd fire any small FD on the flop, so his turn flat polarizes him to decently strong made hands and maybe a few big FD's, and a lot of the latter do hit the K on the river. IMO he's never folding to a 900ish bet and he's not folding often enough to a jam. Don't have enough room to check-jam either (plus it's probably not advised against an asian who's been clicking call the whole night) so I'd probably just give it up.

I don't really like leading flop all that much, it's just such a great spot to c/r if villain cbets since Moohaha has a 99 or JJ type hand a ton to cold-call from the SB that'll feel super uncomfortable when we do c/r and get through villain, giving us a good chance to take the pot down without seeing a turn whereas leading makes it so that we get into a ton of tricky turn spots while just holding T-high. Also we turn a ton of straight draws so we'll often pick up more equity if it does happen to get checked through.

this

by betting the river, you would be repping a super narrow range (8x, 55, 33, AKcc). a check back then cold call of the turn raise is alarming by the villian. trying to move a guy off of an overpair when he's been losing to the spot is a bad idea with Ten high. he checked back QQ so that he could call down cheaply.

I think you need to give up here. He should expect you to raise the turn with all reasonable draws and maybe other air or even stuff like JJ, and the draws all bricked. Against good regs you of course need to mix in some big bluffs sometimes but against a guy who is stuck and likes calling I think you're mostly just going to get shrug-called because he knows he induced action by checking the flop. Save the big bluffs for the times when your line is more credible and/or you know the guy can make folds against you.

Fink, arent you in a better position to decide then us? I think all his high flush draws either stuff or fold turn. Is he capable of calling turn/ then folding river? Most peopl dont. Seems like lighting money on fire, although in real time it sounds better. So yah give up i guess

He's betting all his flush draws on the flop. I can't see him ever folding here and it wouldn't surprise me if he shows up with quadsssssss

Ok thanks for the comments everyone.

I did indeed give up because I figured he had something like QQ that he checked back; I thought for a while and then c/f to his ~1100 bet.

I think a c/rai could have some merit if I was deeper.

... Isn't that true of every thread, ever? The poster always has more information, but that doesn't mean they can't still learn something.

his hand looks nutted aka bladed

An interesting dynamic always evolves when you find yourself in the middle of the betting sequence on a present and/or future street. It can become difficult to play as the variables at hand will contain a bit less clarity as they become increasingly more in flux. And the reason this is the case is because you are the unstable variable in play, altering both opponents motives, actions, and priorities based on their assumptions of your actions. Leveraging one player against another is pivotal in navigating multiway pots, with the man in the middle often becoming the guinea pig as he is most susceptible to manipulation.

Being caught in the middle can happen in an assortment of ways, and our vulnerabilities change in accordance. In some cases we can be the preflop aggressor getting calls from a late position player as well as an early position player. The obvious pro/difference to this scenario is that we are the ones with initiative, and can generally alleviate/neutralize some of the problems associated with our relative position since our actions will result in more predictable counteractions from our opponents allowing us to make more correct plays moving forward (it's why playing in OUR pots is so important).

In this case, we find ourselves in the middle because we are closing the action facing enticing odds with a hand presumed to have worthy enough implied odds. The lack of initiative will alter our approach (which line to take), our perceived range as well as our opponent/s (especially given the 3bet aspect of the pot), and our ability to conceivably hand read on a similar scale had we otherwise been last aggressor. This last point is in direct correlation to having our opponents react to us rather then have us react to them.*

*Though similar to the point made earlier, they do differ [slightly] in respect to the former speaks of being able to better read our opponents actions/ranges based on ours, where the latter refers more to us having to react to our opponents actions as they pertain to each other. Not being the focal point in the hand magnifies our vulnerable state as we lose the clarification of both points (how they react to us AND each other).

Once we find ourselves in the position of being in the middle, it is of utmost importance that we maintain a bit of foresight into our possible developments. Though always important, sometimes simpler/more familiar spots can lack the necessity (or at least the high priority) to think past level one or two since the predictability of the situation can be more precise. In multiway pots c-bets become harder (for some), the deceptiveness rises (in many), and the aggression can come from multiple players across multiple street creating uncertainty throughout.

To counter the additional confusion that will reside in this setting we need to devise a plan for when and how we plan on semi-bluffing or outright bluffing. Though board texture always plays a major role in our decision making process for such queries, it too is amplified with the heightened role of uncertainty. I'll avoid discussing when we flop a made hand since a)it didn't happen here, b)it is a much easier situation to evaluate, and c)it deals with completely different concepts in relation to our goals and how to achieve them.

In this hand it just seems like it was played by the seat of your pants and you concocted your line of choice as the moment presented itself. I imagine you saw the flush draw and probably figured you would either c/c or c/r the flop and proceed accordingly (dependent on the SBs action, the size of the bet, etc..). Once it gets checked through, your turn raise was meant to exploit the SBs leak of making those type bets (bets where everyone shows weakness on a prior street triggering an auto bet by him), and in doing so didn't fully take into consideration how that play will be perceived from the player behind you, who in fact still technically holds strongest (even if in an absolute sense).

Beyond that, we have to take into consideration that not all draws are created equal, with draws on a paired board adding an even greater/more profound dimension needing to be accounted for. Any serious aggression past this flop will usually be quite polarizing (though this term gets overused/misused way too often it seems apropos here), which will usually diminish our implied odds as we face a considerable upfront cost by either relying too heavily on FE (representing a small/er range), or being played back at making us pay max to draw (essentially erasing implied odds and making our decision be based off primarily pot odds). In these times we often find ourselves manufacturing odds giving us the false sense of good/sound play when in reality we just manipulated ourselves.

If I felt I wanted to semibluff this hand, I would make that decision on the flop and bet right there. I understand the want to c/r the BTN but with the unpredictability of the SBs actions as well as the fact that the BTN has a perceived strong range (he did 3bet after all), and I'm not so sure that is our best course of action. I can't imagine the BTN lays down so easily with an overpair, and the amount of 8x hands in our range should be limited (if not for real, at least in his eyes). Going for a c/r the times the SB does come along to a BTN c-bet seems quite risky (if not suicidal depending on the opponent), so the idea of making a play for this pot past the flop seems less enthralling.

Betting the flop makes your opponents have to react to you rather then leverage you against each other. And beyond giving the appearance of charging others to draw against your hand (as you may feel holding an 8x hand would want to do), you enable yourself to be able to barrel and/or structure your bets accordingly in order to maximize the FE you come to yearn for later (in the line you chose). It also allows for you to possibly/likely buy a free card the times you want to see 5 cards to draw without spending too much to do so (if you choose to go the passive route).

The times I do choose to check/evaluate the flop (fine), it would be with full intentions of having the turn card be my guiding force as to whether or not I wanted to continue with a delayed semibluff plan and/or attempt to exploit my opponents known leak. The 5d really only fills 55 as an additional hand that you can conceivable wake up to so the BTN really isn't going to alter your range too dramatically and often times be able to come up with the correct conclusion that your air/semibluff range out ways your lock hand range to the point of having to make that call. Now, once he makes that call under those assumptions he will be hard pressed to change his mind on a river non club.

Had the BTN bet the flop and you choosing to just call, then I would like your turn raise (or bet had it gone to HU) much more as now you better represent the hand you'd like and your turn bet coupled with a pot sized river shove would seem premeditated and well executed for soliciting the max out of your opponent with well designed bet sizing being at the core of your play. Instead, that quality needed (and highlighted by the other line), is now actually a detriment to the goals you wish to achieve.

The ability to bluff this pot is available but it isn't in the form of a guaranteed line to take that will achieve it, but rather a set of circumstances which needed to be filled/play out depending on the lines taking by all in order to accomplish your desires. Sometimes the play just needs to set itself up just right in order to be executed and no amount of finesse or tinkering will affect your desired will. We often refer to this as zigging when we should be zagging and vice versa...

Which is exactly what happened here on the turn. The opportunity presented itself to me via the SB making an extremely exploitable bet, and I attempted a bluff that I (probably) would not have previously tried if the hand hadn't played out exactly that way up until that point.

You're correct that my intentions on the flop were not to play the turn in this way; I was simply reacting to what I thought (and still think) was a profitable bluff situation that appeared on the turn. Like I said, my read on the SB is based on years of history. I would estimate his fold percentage to my turn raise at 80-90%. (He said he had 77 and was going to fold).

I think villain has 88 or 33. It's really hard for me to put him on anything else.

Even if you think villain cold-called your turn bet with just two-pair, I would STILL give up. If he only has two-pair here, then his play demonstrates that he thinks you're weak, and if his read is good enough to cold-call the turn, it's probably also good enough to call the river.

Betting the river reps a really narrow value range, doesn't it? Do you even bet T8 in this spot? Assuming villain somehow shows up with a "weak" hand here, I think he'll still lean strongly towards calling.

But with the presence of the BTN, it alters the "normal" dynamic of your ability to exploit the SB in this fashion. And the reason is because you probably take a different approach with a made hand (QQ+) given 3 people in the hand. Either you would have 4bet preflop, or bet the flop, or call the turn looking to draw the BTN in, or maybe even just minraise the turn. At least that's how I would approach it since anything larger creates that polarization effect which ultimately works against you.

Had the BTN not been in the hand then you need not worry about the polarization effect because now your play is designed around specifically exploiting a leak in the SB that needs not worry about consequences of continuing, because if he does call you are obviously done with the hand (in terms of bluffing).

A minraise not only helps mimic the [relative] nuts here but sets up an opportunity for you to follow through with your bluff in the times the BTN does come along since the river bet will be bigger, deterring the possible hero call he had in mind while not straying from a believable story of how you'd play an 8x. Finesse is needed for the SB, brute force is best used for the BTN. To complete this bluff you must be able to incorporate both to properly manipulate each of your opponents and your turn bet [sizing] doesn't allow you to accomplish that as best you can.

I did go into possible scenarios where you can bluff this pot in my first post but they were accounting for certain actions to have taken place because of the tricky 3way dynamic that exists and the need to both tell a believable story to both opponents, while avoiding their use of your presence as leverage against one another/you. Relying on an opportunity to just present itself (as was deemed the case here by you) was the main argument for my diatribe since too many facets exist for this to be seen as anything but fools gold most of the time.

To be fair, I'm not exactly against your turn play but just understand that your play is a one shot deal and any thoughts of continuing with the charade would result in nothing more then a donation. The reason for my long post and alternate ways to bluff this hand is because your original intent on posting this hand was wondering if a river shove was profitable, making me think you wanted to devise a plan to be able to bluff this pot on multiple streets if need be. Your line not only doesn't accomplish this but the, "fly by the seat of your pants/reacting to the play as it comes to you" approach resonates throughout, and when dealing with a multiway pot while devising an elaborate bluff (one that consists of more than one barrel/street), more care needs to be put into it. Thus my offerings of contrived ways to go about executing a multi street bluff here.


BoardAthiest- You are seeing monsters. You are also contradicting yourself. Sure he could have the nuts but discounting other made hands from his range is fantastically absurd. And, "Assuming villain somehow shows up with a "weak" hand here, I think he'll still lean strongly towards calling"....wouldn't that be a green light to bet your T8/8x?

nevermind :/ missed the reply above. ha, misclick on my part

I would shove for sure. He almost certainly has a JJ-like hand, as I believe the larger overpairs would usually bet the flop. You are the player most likely to have trips, and also you could shove a king for value so he probably will have trouble putting you on air.

What exactly is it you do when you're not playing poker or moderating the forum? ie. Do you have a job in writing/journalism/sophistry/public speaking?

Wait, there's more then just moderating this forum???

Nah I usually just think about the situation for a bit, let it resonate, and then put my thoughts down as they come. I type like I speak in person, thus my posts tend to be quite verbose and tangential.

But maybe I should take a writing course though.....or shorten my posts .

Jloc is the man. Great well thought out post.

Bored Atheist - Not shoving 8x on the river is crazy talk
Renton - Shoving on the river is crazy talk

irony defined

I probably do this too.