he's got some game in him given reads, so checking sucks. i'm going all in. i expect some value from strong Kx and AA.

it's completely reads dependent though. this is a spot where, in many cases, with the pot this big, i would have a read/gut feeling at the table that would tell me whether he is sandbagging or not.

based on villains descriptions I don't see anybody playing back at you here so I think leading is a mistake. one of them has to think that you are stealing but more importantly have it in them to play back at you and do something about it. V1 ain't gonna do nothing about it. Neither is V2. V3 is overplaying his over pairs and K if he had one but in this scenario it is unlikely he has either.

I think you are much more likely to get one of them to stab in LP (maybe with clubs) and then you can CR the sht out of them. Then you get one bet's worth of value.

Dunno, Villain 1 opened with a raise from the CO with a Taggish Villain 2 OTB, which means Villain 1's range is a little wider than some here are giving him credit for. I think there's at least a couple of better 7's in his range as well as a few more smaller club combos.

Feels like we're 50/50 to win here. Getting it all in can't be terrible, but a smallish b/c here feels right. If he just calls, we lose the minimum when we're beat and get small value when we're good.

Maybe I'm way off base about my 50/50 estimate, but I expect to see a small flush or Qc7, Ac7 often enough...

Tough spot. Going all-in feels like it turns this hand into a bluff - it's hard to imagine Kx calling or AA. I think you check here and see what happens. If he checks behind I think you are ahead (unless he has a small flush), but I think the hands you beat (88-QQ, AA) would have folded to an all-in. If he bets small behind it's an easy call, although I think you are behind. If he goes all-in behind it's an even tougher spot, but I think you have to call and just hope the added bluff you are inducing by checking on the river helps rebuild some of the equity.

IMO on the river getting called by worse (Kx, 76s, AA, 88-QQ) is highly unlikely. I also feel that those hands will check back and better 7x and sometimes small flushes may check back. This means it's -EV to bet or c/c.

c/f is the best play here.

donk b/c and go for c/r OTT or c/r flop.

love this thread - thanks for posting the hand BAE.

on the river....

I think b/f is marginally better than c/c which is better than c/f which is better than all in. But I'm prepared to be completely flamed for this.

I agree that an all in push isn't getting called by worse, but is there an amount that you can bet on the river which gets called by AK, AA, KxQc/KxJc and Kx10c and even qq-1010 if we think these are still in his range?

which I guess makes this a b/f for me of $80-100 - I just can't see a thinking player pushing all in with a worse hand than you on the river. Given your pot odds to call any push, Villain is only doing that for value

I'm not sure I can face c/f because we're getting bluffed off too many times when we're ahead, but if it's c/c we have to be prepared to call all in because IMO he's more likely to be pushing all his chips in with a bluff than the nuts.

Hero: Has been playing a mix of LAG / TAG depending on stack sizes @ the table. Hero has a winning image. Recently took down a 120bb pot with A9dd when I raised OTB over villain 3's limp, BB called, rest folded. Proceeded to stack off on a 9h5h5c board versus the BB who held AhQh. I held up to ship the pot.

Villain 1 ($360) CO: New to the table, moves from another table with $400. I have only seen him involved in 2 hands in 2 orbits. He called a $35 raise OTB and folded when the PFR'er cbet a J84 rainbow board. Other hand he overlimped in LP and saw a flop of KQx rainbow, he potted the flop when checked to, BB raised and he folded.

Villain 2 ($700) Button: Been at the table a few hours. Playing pretty TAG, understands position and flop cbetting textures. Have seen him make a play or two (at least I think), he has only shown down the effective nuts. Keeps giving me the "I know what you just did there look" when I've made a few plays such as check raising or double barreling in position.

Villain 3 ($1000) SB: Pretty aggro older guy, likes to overbet with big pairs and frequently overplayed his hands. He tripled up when he raised KK in EP, button and BB called. They saw a flop of TT5, he cbet pot, button shoved, BB overshoved, he called it off with KK and binked a K on the river to defeat the BBs QTdd.

Hero BB ($650) 78

K is the burn card (was flipped over during the deal).

Preflop ($7): 5 folds, Villain 1 raises to $20, Villain 2 calls, Villain 3 calls, Hero calls.

Flop ($72, post rake): K77
SB checks (Villain 3), Hero bets $45, Villain 1 calls, Villain 2 folds, Villain 3 folds.

Turn ($162, post rake): 2
Hero bets $100, Villain 1 calls.

River ($362, post rake): 4
Hero checks, Villain bets $195, Hero ??? (Pot $557, $195 to call, 2.8 to 1)

I dont think he can have absolute air or the lone Ac in this river spot. Our line looks a bit bluffy, so villain may be able to turn hands like KxJc/KxQc/KxAc/6x6c-AxAc into a bluff on the river.

I wish I had Pokerstove.. Even with A7/22 and the hands I put above in villains range I think we have to call.

This is going to sound stupid but what was V doing when the river peeled? Was he looking at us or the board?

With no read I think I call and reload. This may be a leak but that's why I'm here.

GS

Pretty easy fold. We don't have reads improving our odds to call.

I disagree. Villain is known to bluff at any weakness and I think he'd take this exact same line with so many worse hands than ours.

If we didn't want to play for stacks, the turn was our time to check/fold.

Call and expect to be good over 50% of the time.

This just means we are compounding a mistake. (Also we still had some equity on the turn to fill up.)

I said in my last post that I never expect villain to put money in on 2 streets here with a hand we beat, and I stand by that. Time to fold.

Even with the exposed king, our bluffy image, and a desire for him to bluff?

Where is this read coming from?

We have two hands on villain...

once we check, I think we have to call here.

Villain has 88-QQ and AA plus a King with a big club kicker enough to justify taking 2.8 to 1

True...I may have been taking this as too much of a read...

he potted the flop when checked to, BB raised and he folded

To me it sounded like he was competent enough to sense weakness from a check. Nobody is checking a boat or a flush on this river...So he could realistically be bluffing with the A knowing you simply aren't super strong.

I interpret the play as on the flop he has something like AKx or AAx. He knows you can bluff and the fact 2 kings and 2 7's have been exposed makes it that much more likely you're bluffing...so easy call to let you keep bluffing. The turn brings the club and you fire again. Again, easy call as he still MIGHT have the best hand with his 1 pair and even if he doesn't there's still the flush to river. When you check the river, you COULD have a naked 7 but more likely a king/air. If you bet the turn with a naked 7, why not the river? The all in is an easy bet at this point with aces or AK as from villains view it looks to be best here.

Try putting yourself in villains shoes with something like AK or AA.

Again, I could be WAY off the mark and reading too much from the posted reads. I think betting the turn committed us and we have to go with it.

We jam on the brakes at the river and he bombs it. Dunno, feels like he does this with enough hands that we beat to justify a call.

His previous 1 play of history attacking weakness was solely on a flop that no one showed interest in. I don't give it much credit TBH.

At this point, I'd categorize villain towards the 95% of the $1/2 and $2/5 populace of being showdown monkeys. I simply don't believe most of them are good enough to turn 88-QQ into a bluff on this river, nor do I believe most of them capable of jamming 40bb in @ the river on a 3 flush, paired board, with simply an overpair (AA) or TPTK.

That's my thought anyways...

I think a better line would have been to check/call turn, check/evaluate river against most opponents, although at the time, I wanted to be able to charge AKx and AAx to draw to the river. I also thought that KxQ might be in his range, but does he really open that hand in the CO when the K has been exposed and burned to the table?

Even if he pots the turn?

A full PSB OTT would definitely give me pause. Anything in the $100-125 range would make more sense to me. I would be happy to check call $125 here, my call should illustrate great strength, giving him great pause on a river brick.

So if he bets the river hard, you give him the proper credit and fold?

You said most of these guys were showdown monkeys and wouldn't turn 88-QQ into a bluff. I won't question that because it's your conclusion based on your experience, but if that's the case, you have to fold to a massive river bet, right? With that line of thought, I like our b/f OTT with a c/f OTR (based on bet size, of course).

I am a bit late to the party, but on the river, check/call seems like the absolute worst option. It seems insanely hard for this guy to show up with a bluff on the river. Basically, it would have to be a pure flop float with Acx or 88-QQ with a club that decides to turn that into a bluff.

There are only 2 kinds of players who would value bet AK or AA here. An absolute superstar, which we probably would have some idea of already even with limited observation time; or just a level 0 thinker who just says top pair I must bet. The superstar player might actually fold if you bet the river so it's possible check/call might be better against them, but the level 0 would call a river bet with AK or AA anyway.

I'm not sure whether I actually like bet/fold better than check/fold, but I know I would end up betting in game. Once you check though, I think a fold is mandatory, unless you can do some kind of LOLlivepro read and determine that he is betting $195 instead of $200 because it's more likely to get a fold or something.

Hmm. In the cutoff still...maybe. And if he's a level 1 drooler the fact that a king was exposed is irrelevant. He has AK or KQs and that's a good hand so he's still going to raise! And some players even like it because it hides their hand if/when they hit.

As for check calling then c/f...hmm. Maybe a small bet.

What about betting smaller on the turn and river and folding to a raise? Say continuing $50? If villain is as described (showdown monkey) You still lose the same when behind and aren't left in any rough decisions? I know stack was 70bb'ish but firing $50 3x streets would make him tell you directly you're behind without this guessing game on the river.

And thanks for these PAHWM! They're great in evaluating every street and have really helped my game. Analyzing here in detail really helps and carries over when sitting down at the table. Plus they're really fun!

Well, if villain is never able to turn 8x8c-AxAc, AcKx into a bluff, its an easy fold. We would have 0% equity and need 27%ish to call. The point is, given reads on villain and our image.. villain does seem capable of turning his hand into a bluff here some non-0% of the time.

He has a bit of a LAGGy image. We have a "LAG/TAG image" and have taken a line that villain can perceive as a possible bluff. air is 50% of our range on the flop, the turn is a great opportunity to continue our blffy story. A check on the river makes really completes our bluffy story. We have to be good about 27% of the time to make a call here. I think villain can show up here with 7x7c-axac, KxQc, KxAc, A7ss, A8c-AKc, KQc, KJc, JQc. If we discount half the range we beat, we give some credit to villain to turn his hand into a bluff. If we discount half the range we beat, does pokerstove still justify a call? (someone do it...)