Hand was played fine vs. unknowns. I play with a lot of guys who would limp KK here and are scared of the 8 on the turn. Who knows what's going through this guy's head -- look what he showed up with. Tough to raise the flop or turn w/ HJ in the hand when we don't know him, either. Would be really gross to have to raise/fold and would also be gross to bet someone off a worse hand.

I can get behind a small raise on the river, but that's about it.

Just so I'm clear...we're not raising the flop donk with TPTK, because we're worried our unknown opponent slow-played KK by limp-calling a 3B from OOP pre, but has now decided to donk-lead for 40% pot, rather than donk lead bigger for value and protection, when he's unblocking top pair on this wet board, and instead of going for a check-raise?

If our opponent is a complete unknown, that's an oddly specific read. Does that sort of thing happen a lot in the games people here play? Because I just haven't seen much of that within the population, other than from nitty OMC's.

I'd be more concerned about 66/88 or 2P on the flop, but not often enough to keep me from raising when V donk-bets 40% pot. If we're giving him KK, why not AA, or QQ, or JJ, or 22, or 66, or every 8x combo possible?

Are we just never raising TPTK in spots like this, because an unknown opponent can show up with any two cards, not just weird 2P, but also a baker's dozen of big PP's that almost never get played this way?

That seems like MUBS to me.

docvail, you do know we are not heads up, correct?

Yes, I do. Thought I made that clear in previous posts, where I mentioned V2 flatting the donk bet.

Sent from my SM-G781U using Tapatalk

In the post above, you mention only one opponent, so definitely not clear.

And letting someone bet with a worse hand instead of getting them to fold by raising seems like a pretty good plan, especially when there are two opponents and you have no idea how they play

I mentioned one opponent in response to the suggestion one guy could have KK. Did I misunderstand the suggestion? Was it actually that they BOTH might have KK?

Not serious with that question, obviously (hopefully it's obvious).

In previous posts, I gave my reasoning for raising, to include the observation that we have another opponent in MP who is flat calling the whole way. I don't agree that either opponent's line is consistent with having us beat. In my opinion the likelihood we're beat decreases on each subsequent street, when it becomes more and more apparent we're up against weak value and / or a draw.

I disagree with you and others who view this scenario as a binary one wherein we either flat call and win, or raise and they fold. If we flat call, they may improve to a better hand and we lose. If we raise, they might call, and we win more.

Raising builds the pot we might win, and denies equity. It forces our opponents to figure out a response, and increases the likelihood they'll make a mistake. Raising strengthens our range. Raising may also lose us less than calling the whole way, if we size our raise right, and plan to raise-fold to a re-raise. I think raising when we have a skill edge and are IP is +EV.

When we have no idea how someone plays, we should rely on experience, population reads, and logic. If we raise and one of our opponents has us beat, I'd think we'd figure that out pretty quickly. Nothing about the way our opponents played this hand comports to how the general population would play hands that beat ours.

I don't understand why we'd abandon our population reads and take such a defensive posture simply because our V's are unknown to us. The point of having population reads is for exactly that scenario.

Just my $0.02.



Sent from my SM-G781U using Tapatalk

So, population reads tell you they are weak, and population reads tell us that weak hands will fold to a raise here, yet you want to raise? You also admit we might be behind, yet you still want to raise because "we'll find out quickly"? None of it really computes, but raise away into two complete unknowns hoping you are ahead and they will call with worse.

Actually, now that I think about it, what worse are they calling with? A weak Q?

Flop raise. AQ too good here.

KQ,QJ,QT. bunch of T9 type of hands, flushdraws.

as played Call-Call

My experience and population reads tell me V1 has some weak showdown value, and WANTS to get to showdown, which is why he's betting. So yes, while he may be weak, he may call. This is why my instant reaction on reading OP was that I'd raise flop, and if not, I'd raise turn, and if not, I would absolutely jam river.

Likewise, I think V2 either has some weak showdown value, and will call because he also wants to get to showdown, or he's on a draw, and is happy to chase it, especially getting such a good price when V1 bets and we don't raise.

Just to quantify that price - when V1 bets $30 into $72, and V2 calls, he's getting 12.5 to 1 implied odds when we over-call. Do we really want to let opponents chase draws that cheaply, or do we want to raise, decreasing the SPR, and give them a worse price?

If we raise 2.5x, and V1 calls, V2 will still be getting a good price to come along (10:1 implied odds, with about a 20% chance of drilling a flush on the turn).

My population read isn't that weak hands fold. My read is that the weak players within the population don't like folding, especially not after they've put money into the pot, and not when they're getting a good price to continue. MAYBE V1 folds A6 to our $75 flop raise, but he'd be getting 4.6 to 1 pot odds, and 10:1 implied odds, with a 10% chance of spiking another 6 or an ace on the turn. A lot of weak players will peel there.

I'm not suggesting either V is going to be doing these numbers in their head. But most weak V's intuitively understand implied odds just well enough to make them think they're always getting the right price to call / chase when an opponent is betting small. Doubtful either V is folding flop for another $45.

I think many weak players will level themselves into calling by telling themselves we're bluffing, especially on this wet board, and that we'd simply call with a hand like the one we have, because that's what they'd do. So we can simply bet / raise for value.

If we raise small and they fold, that's also fine. Sometimes opponents will fold when we bet or raise, even if we raise small. What we lose when we have value, we make up when we're bluffing. We bet or raise with value, because that's how we get money into the pot. Not betting or raising because an opponent might fold a worse hand is what doesn't compute for me. Thinking we're ahead is one of the reasons we might raise, isn't it?

If V1 bet 2/3 pot or full pot, and V2 called, okay, fine, we don't need to raise. But V1 bet 40% pot, then went same-bet, same-bet. If we think we're ahead, we should raise. And we shouldn't be worried about folding out a worse hand when an opponent is doing the betting, and another is calling. It's not like we're check-raising, or jamming flop or turn, or betting huge when they both check to us on a dry, high-card board that favors our range.

If our hand was less vulnerable on the flop, I could get behind flat calling. But our hand is probably as strong as it's going to get on the flop, and there are a lot of runouts we're not going to like, when we're multi-way, and one of our opponents might be playing any two cards. We should be okay folding out some worse hands that could catch up. That's part of the game.

At this point, it seems kind of obvious most people here disagree with me, and we're just arguing in circles or talking past each other. I think we could have raised here, and we lost value by not doing so. I explained my reasoning multiple times, in increasing detail.

All anyone has offered in response is "they're never calling with worse," "they're never folding a chop," and "they could be slow-playing a monster," but without explaining why we think those things, other than "unknown V's," when I would think we're up against unknown V's more often than not. I might have detailed reads on 5% of the local player pool. The rest are unknown to me, yet I somehow manage with general population reads.

Despite my asking several times, no one seems willing to explain why or what better hands would be played the way our opponents played here, more often than 1 in 100 times. It's just a bunch of hand-waving.

Yeah, maybe 1% of the time, this is somehow the one combo of QQ, or KK, or the case 8. But 99% of the time, it's a worse 1P that can't find a fold and a busted draw that was almost turned into a bluff.

Possible opponent donking range:

QQ+, AQ, KQ, QJ, QT, Q9s, JT, 88, 66, flush draws (T9s+, Q9s+, J9s+, K9s+, A2s+).

We can raise to $80.

If he jams, we fold.

If he calls, what hands will continue?

All flush draws (T9s+, Q9s+, J9s+, K9s+, A2s+), 88, 66, QT+, Q9s+, QQ+. Against that range, you are 51% favorite. Against V2, you are probably even more fav.

If you think he will fold Q9s, QT, etc., and only continue with QJ+ draws, you are a 44% favorite.

Calling/raising flop are both close. Raising is probably better because it usually indicates that the opponent is weak and have bottom of that range.

If we raise and he calls the flop, what is our plan? Checking the turn and calling a safe river, or value betting if he checks on the river.

Calling the flop and raising the turn is much worse. That way, you 100% force him to fold QJ, KQ, and only continue with better hands.

If you somehow called the flop, you just call down and evaluate the situation on later streets.

If specific reads/tells or bet sizing indicate he is strong, you call. If they indicate weakness, you raise.

In this particular spot, it smells weak.

If he is polarized, both calling and raising are fine. Like I mentioned before, you are 44-51% against his overall range. It's close.

Flop should have been raised. Turn should have been raised.