Entire hand now:

Relevant reads: I just table changed to this table maybe 2 orbits ago because I didn't recognize anyone, and if I don't recognize any regs it's likely to be a good table.

UTG+1 seems to be a typical loose player who plays too many hands; stack $305.

SB seems to be a competent TAG just based on his pre-flop action, bet-sizing, and overall demeanor; stack of $3K+.

Hero has a stack of $1.1K; mid 20's Asian guy in a suit, probably looks like a confident businessman.

UTG+1 limps. Folds to SB who raises to $35. Hero calls $30 with AK. UTG+1 calls $30.

Flop J87 (pot $105)

SB checks. Hero checks. UTG+1 checks.

Turn K (pot $105)

SB bets $65. Hero calls $65. UTG+1 calls $65.

River J (pot $300)

SB checks. Hero checks. UTG+1 bets $205 all-in. SB calls $205.

Hero raises to $805.

Results:

Maximum value with a generally under repped hand.

I said he was too loose, I never used the words "loose passive."

His stack size alone is a decent indication that he might bluff all-in.

Don't agree with the assumption.

I actually thought I was chopping with SB a lot, and UTG+1 has a busted draw nearly always. In that scenario, betting wins nothing since UTG+1 folds and SB calls. If SB has AK, we lose nothing when UTG+1 doesn't bluff since it's still a chop. The only value to be had is from UTG+1 putting more money into the pot. And there's potentially a huge pay off to getting SB to call and then blowing him off a chop.

Betting is good if UTG+1 doesn't bluff, and SB calls me with KQ. But weighing all these possibilities checking is right here.

I don't think the shove is bad but I wouldn't expect a compotent player to fold AK with the given action and wouldn't expect a call from KQ. On the super rare and off chance he has AA we just made a huge mistake.

Still think a value bet on the river is best. The limper will have a draw more often than a K but most villains won't bluff shove the river here when they can't credibly rep trips and we haven't seen anything from him to makes us think he would spew like that. And SB has a K like 90% of the time here and a good % of that is KQ. Worst case scenario is if limper has a K and sb has KQ and the limper decides to check back his K.

You're giving a random loose player down to his last $300 way too much credit.

as-played, once the short stack shoves obv it's correct to squeeze SB out by raising. but your stance on how to play this hand really comes down to how much of UTG+1's range you think he checks back. you were at the table. if you had the read that he'll bluff busted draws often enough then you played the river correctly.

There must've been some kind of subconscious reasoning to think he would bluff the river because most random loose players don't just bluff shove the river.

nice raise to get him off the chop but i think raise turn is better.

His thought process doesn't include credibly repping trips. It's probably something like "Welp, I can't win if I check"

I mean, his spr does make it inviting to ship busted draws. Also, we have a king and so does sb (most likely), so combinatoricaly busted draws predominate utg+1's range making it that much less likely were getting value from both players.

THe obvious downside is if utg+1 never ships his air, we miss the almost guaranteed value from sb's KQ. But if he does, huge upside. (especially if we can get sb off a chop)

/results oriented thinking

Wp sabr, you won the most money and played the hand in a way that makes yourself look brilliant. moar hands plz

Obviously that wasn't his thought process but we didn't know that until after this hand. Again, all we have to go off of is "random loose player who plays too many hands." We have no reason to assume this guy will ship his stack on a river bluff shove.

Correct.

Obv I'm going off incomplete information. I'm not saying he will always bluff, he's just so likely to have a busted draw, and bluff-catching has the highest potential for making me the most money due to SB also calling. Assuming they don't bluff is just wrong.

What would you say the bluffing frequency of a person with our read in this spot would be? 1 out of 2? 1 out of 3? From there we can do some math and figure out which play is more profitable.

you could only figure out the frequency that he needs to bluff

NH, WP.

I would have called river since there were a couple of more KQ combos than AK, besides the small risk of AA. Unlikely he is folding AK.

This hand is basically advanced button clicking.

It's two orbits of information. Experience is good and all and helps bridge some information gaps, but it seems pretty clear to me that fps lines are being taken over more reliable situational reads.

It's like at every decision point a passive line is taken with the assumption that we'll just out play everyone; we flat the turn on a drawy board vs ranges that are clearly behind ours with a complicated river decision looming ahead; then we check the river on a pretty weak guess compared to the alternative of guaranteed value; to cap it off we now make a raise with the sole purpose of folding out chops but ignore the potential major error of our sizing.

I'm not denying some of the logic, but when comparing it to the other options hero is outplaying himself.

How is this a reason for calling?

Think you should bet the river. Can't just assume that the shorstack has a busted draw. Sometimes he has some kind of pp or worse king. All of his weak showdown value hands will just take the showdown. Your missing a lot of value here from this range. Furthermore even IF he has a busted draw it doesn't mean he is going to just fire here, especially into a 3-way pot. I mean he did, good for you but alot of times he won't and you miss value from BOTH opponents because of it. Sb is rarely check with intention to fold, and if you don't get value from the shortstack sb is libel to call a decent bet with most of his kings as it's entirely conceivable that you have a busted draw yourself based on the action.


Also, on the river as played, I would be more concerned about getting some thin value from worse kings than blowing him off of a chop. You also save your money In the offchance you are behind. Would rather minclick it back to price him in and get thin value than this large siizing after he calls the shortstack.

It's pretty simple. I'm almost never getting called by worse in two spots. For that to happen SB must have KQ and UTG+1 also has to have a K. And there's a chance SB doesn't overcall with KQ if UTG+1 calls. Most people are suggesting betting something like $100.

Bluff catching potentially makes $410 from a bet and a call, with the added bonus of check-raising SB off a chop. It has to work less than 25% of the time as a $100 bet getting called by worse in one spot. It's not even close. I think it works way more often than that.

Why is this a bad assumption?

I think it's a lot closer than you think if SB pays off a big bet against us on the river with KQ, which he should since no one seems to have Jx and KQ seems like TPTK here. And if the limper stacks off with Kx then I think value betting big will be the more profitable play.

Its crazy that I love sabr's game because its the same lines I studied from online players.

If you drop all the reads and crap and just concentrate on analyzing the line you can see sabr line is standard passive line you balance to protect your draws and air in his checking range.

He is sb so most of his lines will be passive. He c/c turn just like you should c/c flop with a pair you flopped from the small blind. If you are way ahead you do the same thing on the next street. So your line looks like c/c,c/c, c/r. The last c/c or c/r is to get him to put in his stack with bluffs included. Instead of leading and telegraphing your hand.

Crazy how people do not and will not understand this guy. Since the majority of the players here are level one poker. 2 types of noob players. Zero level just plain fish, and level One; players who have read a poker book. They forget poker is still a game and its not all about value. You got BGP saying he is ok with never balancing his checking range which is terrible if you are not thinking how villains can adjust or accidentally adjust smh.

Having a value based game surrenders the view of poker being a game. It adds leaks to almost all parts of level 1 poker. Such as standard lines from passive to aggressive, recognizing your overall line before you take it, almost no abc player does, its reason why they take wrong lines such as check, check, c/c, lead river. That's a bad passive line unless its a bluff. C/c or c/r otr is better.

Not exploiting your villains tendencies. Loses you money. Its a reason why some peoples winrates are way lower. And like I said a big reason is people forgot poker is a game and gameflow strategy is a big part in exploitation.

Like playing the player is viable strat. But line vs line is a lost artform.


Add that with playing the player and you have a well balanced poker player.

+1

despite venice's solid arguments for flatting turn i still prefer a small raise. it depends on how much credit you give SB. he was described as TAG, but my instincts regarding most players at these stakes always have me believing a player will lean towards calling (it's the infamous "how many truly TAG live players actually exist?"). even if we take Jx hands out of his turn betting range because he likely would bet out OTF with them, there is more value in raising than calling turn IMO.

Would you c/r flop if you flopped TPTK out of the blinds otf 8o8?

I just don't see the reason for telegraphing your hand after playing passive oop to start the hand, waiting on street to c/r is more profitable.