1/2. Hero was the effective stack with 300.

Hero saw K♠K♣ from UTG +1. Hero opened to 10, which is the norm at this table without straddle.

Given hero's low VPIP image, everyone folds until villain at the BB. He checked my stack depth, and called.

Villain just sat down at this table for 20-30 minutes. We saw him calling PF with K9s from MP before, and I played with him once before a few months ago, and remember him being slightly overly aggressive than average 1/2 players.

Flop came 6♠42

V checked, hero bet 8.
V check-raised to 30. Hero called.

Turn came 9.
V bet 75 into a pot of 80.
Hero had 260 left.

Shall I call, fold, raise? And what's our plan for the river?

Kings no Diamond, 100% let him blast off.

Even with the Diamond, like 75% we should just let him keep blasting.

Pretty much agree. Let him fire again OTR.

Agree with calling it down.

One nit. I would bet flop bigger. I get that 40% of pot is a reasonable size, but absolute at low stakes matter, so I'd go 15-20.

Let's say we call his turn bet of 75. Now we built the pot to 230 and hero had 185 left before the river.

I thought there's very small chance he's ahead with a set, two pairs, and a made straight. More likely than not he was holding 65dd, A3dd, 57dd, or even 45cc that sort of hand.

With the above assumption, scenario 1, if the river is any diamonds, any 3 or any 5, he's certainly going to jam, and we have to fold. Assuming our opponent has any random cards, there would be 11+4+4 = 19 of the 'very bad cards' we have to fold OTR.

Scenario 2 - if the river pairs any card on the flop, so 3 deuces, 3 fours, 2 sixes (6d already counted in scenario 1), and he jams, we may have to fold a lot of the time. These cards are not as bad as in scenario 1 but still put us in a tough spot. Villain could also catch up at the river, if a 7 or an Ace turns up, purely for simplicity I do not factor them in the calculation.

Scenario 3 we see the safe cards for us, such as Jh. So out of the 46 unknown cards, we only have 19 or fewer safe cards, that's 40%.

On the other hand, when we call v's CR on the flop, he pretty much knows we have an overpair. When we call his big turn bet, he pretty much knows we have a strong overpair, if not a set. Therefore if any 'safe cards' in scenario 3 arrives on the river, he may not fire again with his 65dd.

With these thoughts in mind, I wondered if calling his turn bet was the highest equity play, or we would consider raising right there.

check the flop. at this depth id only bet this vs a very passive straightforward player that wont put me in any difficult spots. even then checking might be best with the Kd because with the Kd there isnt a wide range of worse hands that a passive player can call a bet with.

I would click back the flop.

also as played OP id fold the turn. unless he's a maniac (which you would know better than us) he knows you have an overpair and hes gunning for your stack with his obvious geometric bet sizing (leaving a pot sized bet on the river). and at this SPR going broke with an overpair on this type of board is pretty bad.

I think he's the sort of player who would call PF with hands like 63dd, and if I raised the turn he would jam. Does this count as a maniac?

Just check back flop.

As played, the standard line would seem to be call flop, call turn, evaluate river. We'll have to fold or check back on any diamond or straight completing card. We probably can't bet most rivers for value, no matter the run-out.

I might make a case for 3B-folding flop, and blasting the turn on a high disconnected brick if he flat calls our flop raise. If we 3B flop to $65, and he 4B's, it's just an easy fold that will let us get away from our hand for less than we'll lose flatting turn and possibly the river when we're beat.

Otherwise, I might also argue to just fold flop. V has all the 2P, sets and straights in his range. He has the range and nut advantage, our hand has little chance to improve, and we'll hate many run-outs.

All his likely bluffs have a ton of equity against our hand, and we don't have good blockers to the any future nuts. We can't even be sure he'll continue to barrel off with his missed draws, reducing our implied odds.



Sent from my SM-G781U using Tapatalk

I like putting this hand into my flop check back range vs an aggressive opponent. If i was going to bet I'd go on the large side to 15. As played I cant fold flop or turn vs aggressive guy. Maybe fold river depending on what happens but there are a lot of draws he could be bluffing with so we may have to call a river jam if river is safe.

so you beat one hand that has great equity against you and could easily be drawing dead or have 2 outs. i still fold the turn. if he bluffed me good for him, i wont lose sleep at night. im not putting in 150 bb on this board with one pair without a great read.

Flop bet is way too small unless your plan was to induce, and it worked. 100% calling the turn and calling most rivers. Shipping the turn is also an option if he'll call with a draw.

If river is a diamond, we really need to think about calling.

If he's overly aggressive then he could have probably flopper top pair and possibly have a straight draw with his pair he can also have just a 4 and hope you have something like AK or any two big cards hoping to get you off so you don't see the river and suck out on him. I probably would've said eff it and blasted him with an all in on his raise. sometimes you just have to push back with these agressive players and really make think think twice next time they try to steal from you. There's a chance he has a flush draw there but aggressive players seem to call with a broader range. I say he has a pair and doesn't want to see a paint card.

KK is perfectly fine to cbet IP here. Results oriented people saying x back. Yea you have to have some check backs but betting is fine. I'd go way larger like 15-20. Once you bet so small and he x/r its a clear call down.

Thinking about this hand some more...

Most of the low-stakes population will only check-raise with thick value, or super-high-equity draws. They'll often just donk-lead for a smaller size with weak value or lower-equity draws.

For us to think this V is playing some 1P or even 1P + a draw hand this way, we have to be very confident in our read. In this instance, I don't see enough to make me feel anywhere near confident that this is anything other than thick value or a very high-equity draw.

Even though V has only been at the table 20-30 minutes, that may have been enough time for him to pick up on hero's low VPIP, discouraging him from getting out of line when hero opens from EP.

We should generally be checking back the flop more often. If we bet, we should be betting bigger, because we'll be betting infrequently.

Javanewt is correct that by down-betting the flop, we're inducing V to check-raise, and his range can have more semi-bluffs and weak-value. But I'm not sure how much more, given that we opened UTG1, and V can just check-call with a lot of the range we might think he'd check-raise here.

He has to consider that we might decide we're just going with our big over-pairs, dampening his enthusiasm to check-raise with those weaker hands. If he has hero pegged as a TAG, he should be even more reluctant to test her resolve with a strong starting hand.

Not sure how relevant his 3.5x raise size is. Maybe it means nothing, but I'd think he might go smaller with some of the weaker value hands and lower-equity bluffs in his range. When he takes a larger sizing, I'd view it as an indication that a large turn bet is coming, and weights his range more towards value and high-equity draws, away from weak value and worse draws.

Even if he's very aggro, if he's a thinking player, he may realize hero's small bet is inducing, and thus he's only going to check-raise with stronger hands that don't mind getting stacks in.

If we think we induced, 3B'ing the flop and folding to a 4B becomes an option. Otherwise, if we flat call, we have to think about how often he'll give up when his bluffs don't improve on the turn, versus continuing to barrel with both bluffs and thick value.

In this case, he barreled for almost full pot, on a total brick. I think this generally indicates strength more often than not, even with an aggressive V, who may be used to people calling his flop x/r's wide. Whether he's bluffing or has value, we should expect a big river bet, almost no matter what the runout is.

Let's say the river is a draw-completing card, and he checks to us. He's probably not folding 2P+ if we bet, the way this was played. He may be checking 2P+ to induce. If he flopped 2P+, he might just continue to bet, not believing we were chasing a draw that got there, and thinking we'll just check-back with our over-pairs. We're basically playing a guessing game on most run-outs.

We only have one clean out, the Kh. Even top set is still losing to his flopped straights, and his flopped sets / 2P may not barrel the river in that scenario. If I was V and flopped a set, I'm not betting the river if it's a Broadway card. I'm just going to check-call.

V's flatting range in the BB could be any two cards. Not that I think his PF call with K9s in MP is egregious, but it would seem to support the idea that he could easily have a straight, a set, or 2P, and hero's tight table image should dissuade us from being too optimistic that he's getting out of line.

It seems unlikely he'd take this line with weak value or a low-equity bluff. It feels like everyone is grasping for reasons to call because we have KK, but that looks like entitlement tilt.

All things considered, I'd have preferred a check-back or big c-bet to our small flop c-bet. Once we c-bet small, I'd have preferred a 3B-fold on the flop, or just an extremely exploitable fold. Now that V has barreled the river for full pot, I really think it becomes a fairly trivial fold, at this stack depth.

We'd be getting 2.25 to 1 to call off a river jam. It'll be hard to fold on most run-outs, once we've leveled ourselves into thinking he's taking this line with all his worse value and all his bluffs.

What you SHOULD do largely depends on your tolerance for risk. and YOUR strategy against players like this.

On the flop you have two choices, fold or call down what will be bets on all 3 streets. You'd basically calling him off in the hops that he has a completely bluff or something like 56.

Your decision point here was actually on the flop when he re-raised. You either have to call all the way down or fold. Anything else is just wasting money.

Players like this make money in a few ways.

1. They play garbage hands and hit something and get paid against premiums
2. They play garbage hands, bluff on scary boards and get KK to fold on the river after paying off 2 streets
3. They get good hands like everyone else but people are suspicious of them.

Theres definitely nothing wrong w cbetting it. Just against an aggressive villain i like to have it as a check back and call down. Against most villains i would just bet it for 15 though. Yes once he bets small and gets XR i think you have to at least call flop and turn.

Interesting discussion. I think flop sizing is something that completely messed up your hand. Because now he can easily have overcards + flush draw that aren't going anywhere. You showed weakness, and he might attack you or protect 77 type of hand. As played, I think you have only two options: 1) raise flop, 2) call his raise and jam turn, which I think might be better because a small flop bet--->raise seems suspicious, and he might recognize your strength.


Standard lines here that never gonna be really bad

1) Bet $15-20/fold flop - at 1/2 1/3 2/3 5/5 more common line

Main point - if his check/raise range (22,44,66, 64, 53 and 6x+fd type of hands) you just bet/fold the flop. If you think he is wider - you raise flop or call flop/raise turn.

You can also call the flop and fold to the turn. In some cases, that might be okay as well, depending on the opponent and situation. If you have reads that the guy might be a showdown monkey and make some weird bet sizing like 1/8 pot or checking down with a pair etc

2) Check flop, call turn/river