Please, don't worry about leveling here. Let your hand go. This board is completely uncontestable, muck your hand. He also just pot commited himself with a bet, so he's calling even if he just has a draw.

You need to recognize good spots to barrel or re-bluff, and this one is just terrible.

not trying to be condescending, either, man. I think you might have just gotten carried away and were looking for an excuse to try to take the pot down. We all do it sometimes. But, this might be the worst spot ever to come over the top.

*edit* lol I actually felt palpable vicarious fear when I saw that you came over the top

Maybe he's got ace high, but maybe he's got a flush draw, ace-rag with a 4 or a 5 (low pair), or ace high. With a pair of crabs I'm playing to set mine and folding when it doesn't hit. About half the time, I'm gonna raise pre and Cbet boards that are not wet and don't contain an A or K----frequently I cbet those too....

I'm looking for other players to shove into me with an underpair to the board because they *think* they are good and I'm bluffing. I'm not going to do it myself unless I'm playing in my home game & the entertainment value makes it worth it....(meaning it isn't good poker IMO)..

Results pls....

All seriousness aside, the entertainment value of getting a friend to fold a Q here cannot possibly be understated. Then you call him a nit an ping him back 2% of the pot, just to rub it in. Give him the durrr shocked face for good measure.

/thread

I don't think I'm good at bluffing, I shoved because I thought his line was weak, and he was likely to have squadush there.

Let's go from preflop. He is loose, so let's say he is raising 88+, AJ+, broadways, 54s+, A2s-A5s. He is left with $163.
OTF. He doesn't c-bet into $126 pot on a very wet board against two opponents. Here I think we can take out 99, KK+ and all QX hands, as well as all two club hands and JT, and most likely he doesn't have 9X, TT, JJ, bcs on board like this i think he would c-bet 2nd pair.
OTT. He bets $48, leaving himself with $115. Such a small bet into pot this big on a board this wet - can it be a value bet? Is it bet-call or bet-fold? What hands V will bet-call here? Lets see his calling price - pot will be $339 for $115 almost 3:1. So he is calling with almost anything. 2 pair, set, 2nd pair, FD+pair, FD, probably not calling with OESD. Question is what of these hands will he bet for less than 40% of the pot into two opponents? We can discount 2p+ outright - it is just too much of a value loss + giving every draw on earth a chance to get there for cheep. The same goes for 9X, TT, JJ that he didn't bet otf, - he has to believe them to be the best hand, so no reason to bet so little. So this leaves us with FD+pair, FD, SD and complete air. If he has worse than a pair+FD, we are fine getting it in, whether he folds or not. If he has a FD it is ought to be a spade FD as he would have bet club FD otf. So if he has FD+pair it is either QXss or 9Xss. Let's discount QXss as he would have bet it otf. He may have 9Xss, making like 3 semi-reasonable card combinations J9, T9, 98, that he is not very likely to have because if you re-raise pre with such cards you are probably betting them when you hit 2nd pair. In all other cases he has either something that we are at least even money or complete air. Also 4 is actualy a good card to take a stab at the pot in a situation where no one has anything and the first one to bet wins, as no one has shown interest in the pot otf, and unless someone has two spades 4 doesn't really change much. On top of all this, when I went into tank, Villain held his remaining chips in a single stack in his fingers, showing he is ready to through them in, which didn't go well with his smallish bet, so I read this as weakness.

I would really appreciate if someone pointed me to a point I'm missing with all this analysis.

"I'm calling because he has a big hand and will stack off if I hit my set. Oh well, didn't hit my set, but he won't play for stacks- his hand isn't strong enough.".

Bottom line is that hero has to believe that he will win back at least $200 strange money (including current pot) everytime he flops a set. (including all the flopped set losses etc.)

With a current pot of around $88 or so, I think that might be fair to assume. Its prolly closer than many would think.

Calling the first 12 is meh. Also note that qouting stack odds is basically useless other than knowing that the money is there capable of obtaining. The conditions that must exist for us to obtain the money then becomes the real crux of the issue.

Will a strong hand check flop and bet <40% of the pot ott?

Sets may do something like that to induce someone to spazz.

You need to give him a realistic range here and most of the time I think he's calling and you're dead.

But if you construct a fair bet / call and bet / fold range and you calculate that he is betfolding wide you're ahead of 50% of his calling range, then shoving is correct.

From his position, yes, depending on what you mean by "strong." In terms of relative strength, everything is stronger than your hand.

OTT, he may be hoping that someone will bet for him. I think it's a huge mistake to discount a queen in his hand because he doesn't bet.

Now, w/2 fds & sds out there, and no action on the flop, he will bet there. He may have the q+ spades.

I see where you're coming from, with the shove, but I think you're likely to get looked up by such a wide variety of made hands + draws, that your throwing good money after questionable money.

How can you not bet a queen there? You have re-re-raised pre flop, the pot is slightly smaller then the effective stack sizes and there is 2 opponents with FD and a SD possible out where and you don't cbet top pair?

And fwiw I'm in ok shape vs. most draws.

I didn't read your whole analysis of his range. I think you are not giving him enough credit when you are including hands like (a5ss) in his preflop 3 betting range. I also got the feeling that he has a big hand, when he limps UTG with a speech and then 3 bet's. He probably has AQ, KQ, QJss, Q10ss, or a pocket.

Either way, his line on the flop is not as weak as you think. If he flops top pair, many villians will check with two players behind. I see it in 1/2 Live games all day long. So, when he bets 48 you should probably insta muck.

Its impressive that you have the balls to make this move with 33 but it isnt profitable. In the long run, you lose more often than you win in this spot. Your hand looks weak when you check back the flop. It doesnt take much to call your shove here.

Well he actually min raised UTG.

Probably I didn't lay enough reads on the Villain. He is very active and thinks he knows what he is doing. He straddles voluntarily and bets and raises post flop more often when he checks or calls. (btw what is the great difference between raising QTss and A5ss OOP?). He is LAG, he is not going to slowplay top pair, or anything in a big pot on a wet board. Why would he? He did cbet A9 into Td9d2x board heads up, why wouldn't him cbet in a bigger pot against more opponents? He is not dumb, and it is terribad for him not to cbet this board if he has a piece, cause there is about half a deck of bad cards he doesn't want to see. And turn lead is also terrible as it is so damn small, it even doesn't protect from draws as they are getting good direct odds to call.

This is well put.

Loose/gambley types are going to put pressure on your "best hand" when you miss, and conversely often not pay you off fully if you hit because they have nothing. You really would rather be set-mining against a no-foldem-nit with AA/KK, not some wide range.

So... preflop, UTG's "uh i meant to straddle" speech followed by the tight player's raise, should have been more than enough to convince you to muck 33 right then.

You don't close the action cold-calling the $11 and it seems likely UTG was going to reraise (as he did) and suck you in deeper/kill your implied odds.

And if tight player has the hand you really hope he does (AA/KK) he will reraise again and blow you off your $11 investment completely.

I think your reasoning on villain being weak has some merit, but flopped monsters also fit his line, hoping someone behind him "did something" on the flop.

So on that basis alone I'd rather make a bluff here with something that has a chance vs monsters (i.e. some sort of draw) than 33 which is often drawing to 2-outs or completely dead.

Also consider that the same reasoning you are applying to Villain being weak also applies to you -- in fact MORE so, because you declined to bet the flop even after two checks to you!

If he's at all a thinking player, why would he ever give you credit for a good hand? So for your bluff to work, he has to have a really pretty awful hand.

I think you will get looked up by just about any pair and by big draws. And you are crushed by pairs and not very far ahead of many draws.


But if you're interested in knowing the EV of shoving, it would be easy to simulate in Cardrunners EV -- give me the exact range you think villain is betting on the turn, and what range he is calling with when you shove. For more accuracy, also give me the other villain's folded range.

I don't think it is a good idea bcs even if i can break up his range(which would be hard, because he'd only bet some % of the time), this is not a situation that will likely arise often. Eg - 4 bet pre very aggressive opp plays like he is weak, I read his tells as he is weak.

I still disagree he could have slowplayed monsters there - he is cbeting with bad hands why wouldn't he cbet good one on a wet board, he appears savvy to me and is for sure aware of pot/stack sizes and commitment.

In the hand I was absolutly sure he had nothing and most of the time that I was thinking was me making myself to pull the trigger with 5th pair. After I showed he considered calling with Ahigh for a couple of minutes, flashed ace-rag of hearts and mucked. I've shown 33 for tons of table respect (and in this session all my later shoves were for value).

P.S. chalupa, thanks for reply.

Well... he didn't cbet this bad hand.

If you're "absolutely sure", then Poker is easy, except you played it wrong -- you should call his "nothing" and hope he bluffs off the rest of his stack at the river and you snap him off with your monster pair.

So... you didn't bluff, you made a value bet that didn't get called. I guess you should work on your value bet sizing.


I'm being a little smart-assy above, trying to point out how thin this all is.

I think it's clear that if he was seriously considering calling with a hand as bad as he had, that it was indeed a very dangerous spot to bluff. You would have been quickly called with any pocket pair or any AX that had made a pair.

I also suspect that a player this gambly would have shoved any draw he had at the turn into all the weakness, rather than being forced into a possibly awkward bet/call situation on the odds.

So that leaves basically only the no-pair no-draw hands that will fold when you shove... and again, vs those, you aren't even bluffing.

I guess you could argue that you are protecting from a "draw" since basically any hand has 4 outs to beat you and the stacks are getting shallow. And I guess he would have hero-called you with AK and you value-town him.



Again, if you relish getting yourself in this spot again in the future, this could all be simulated in CREV pretty easily. You should be able to come up with a reasonable betting range, and a calling range for your shove after he has bet the other opponent out of the hand. Use your reads if you wish to weight it towards airballs.

The simulation would also tell you whether it was better to shove and fold the (narrow) range that you can, or flat and let him bluff again (risking that he improves).

No problem, I know this was extra thin. And when I state I was absolutely sure this means I was as sure as it is possible at a poker table, I've had a feeling and could reasonably explain this feeling and tells were making me even more determined he was airballing there.

And wasn't him folding a good outcome? I mean I thought I'm good against his range (which, I felt, is mostly air) but can I realy call him and give him a chance to draw?



If you don't mind some math work, mby we can take his range from the flop and break it down?

As he has shown A-rag suited, I'd guess his pre range is realy wide like:
88+, AJ+, broadway, 54s+, A2s-A5s
Do you agree to this range?

Given history (he has cbet 2nd pair TK on a wet board previously) and dynamics (his overall high agression). He would c-bet made hands 9A and better and draws OESD or better? Do yoy agree that this assumptions are reasonable?

P.S. I'm not sure if he was actually considering calling with A-high, it might have been Hollywooding on his part, as his bet says it was likely his plan to bet/fold.

Ok, not quite sure what you meant by broadway and 54s+, but I used this if it looks right to you:

AA-88,AKs-ATs,A5s-A2s,KQs-KTs,QJs-QTs,JTs,T9s,98s,87s,76s,65s,54s,AKo-ATo,KQo-KTo,QJo-QTo,JTo

If you think Villain only bets the flop if he has a decent pair or draw, and never bets when he doesn't, then obviously at turn his is very likely to have nothing and your bluff is more likely to succeed.

But many LAG villains (myself included) will react much differently when an iso-raise works and gets HU than when it gets called in two spots.

On this Q95 board, if I'm Villain I would be more likely to bet (and feel good about giving up if raised) a complete airball like A2 or an almost-no-outer like 88 than I would something like A9 (that might bink an A and cooler someone) or something like JJ or TT that is likely ahead but can't stand any heat and wants to see a non-club non-ace turn.

Even with a hand as good as something like QT I may check. It's probably best, but not strong enough for me to bet and play for stacks on the flop. I really don't want to get semi-bluffed off it, and I don't want to lose the chance to pick up improvement if I'm behind (many cards at turn could greatly improve my hand, i.e. any Q, T, 8, J, spade).

So I might check QT on this board, and as played I would bet it at turn and obviously call your shove.

But again... your villain, so whatever assumptions you like. Your assumptions are easier to simulate as well.



Using the above range for Villain (and arbitrary AKo for other Villain who folded) in CREV...

Flop: Villain bets middle pair or better, OESD, and flushdraws. Villain checks everything else.

Turn: Villain shoves any OESD or flushdraw that he picked up at turn, and bets 48 with everything else.

Note that the assumptions have dramatically reduced "everything else" to airballs/no-draw and just a few one-pair hands, i.e. 88, A5s, A4s, 65s, 45s.


I think these play assumptions are too simplistic, but if you can find a hyper-aggressive villain that will predictably play like this, your lowly pocket 33 has 69% equity at the turn and should not fold.

Next comparing the EV of shoving vs calling and letting Villain bluff river...

Hero shoves. Villain calls with a pair. Hero is +111 EV at turn.
Hero calls. Villain shoves every river. Hero is +149 EV at turn.

Since none of his airballs have a real draw (or he would have shoved them) it appears it is better to let him continue to bluff at the river even though he might occasionally outdraw us.

Plus, if you've gone this far, wouldn't it be more fun to snap him off at river when that 5th overcard comes?

If you have some more realistic assumptions about play I could put them in and see how they fare.

About realsitic assumptions. If you check the flop with QTs(not necessary spades) and more draws open att, will you bet <40% of the pot, thus giving every draw a chance to draw for good odds? Or bet bigger?

Nailing my main thought - he is playing bet/fold because, if he was playing bet/call he would have bet a bigger, commiting amount, to charge us to outdraw him. Is this a realistic assumtion?

BTW what range do you think is realistic, if it includes hands as good as A2-A5 suited?

Again, he's your villain, but... no, I think this is unrealistic.

Putting myself in villain's shoes, I could show up with a good PP like JJ or TT quite easily.

Preflop, I 4-bet to isolate the tight 3-bettor (or fold if he 5-bets).

It didn't work and I took the flop 3-handed OOP on a wet board. I'm LAG and everyone is expecting me to cbet for them, so I disappoint them.

Also since I'm LAG I could have flopped a lot of draws here, so I believe opponents who flop well will be scared to check behind and trap me, i.e. if someone has TP+ they will bet it honestly on the flop.

Tighty checks behind and basically tells me his AK missed. You check behind which basically tells me you have nothing.

The turn is a baby card, so it's time to protect what I think is the best hand.


So... now we come to bet sizing. You are focusing on this a lot, thinking that villain didn't bet enough to protect from draws, so he doesn't have a hand to protect, and is just bet-folding. Against your villain maybe that's correct.


But if I'm a thinking villain, I'm not very worried about draws. Consider the preflop action... tighty has 3-bet after I raised and picked up stragglers, and you have cold called him.

Tighty should have big pairs and big aces. You have flatted so you don't have a monster pair, but could have a pp, or possibly some big suited ace yourself, but you are unlikely to have low suited connectors as it appears the pot is headed towards shorthanded and bloated... and SC don't do well there.

So at the turn, what am I worried about? All the flop weakness tells me nobody has flopped a club draw with a big ace. The turn brings a spade, but the only likely draw that adds is if someone has AK exactly.

Even if you did somehow end up with suited connectors here, I'm not really worried about you flatting with most of your range. I think since I've shown weakness on the flop you can't expect implied odds... and in fact (being LAG) I might have picked up a flushdraw myself that I'm betting, so a reasonable bet should put a lot of pressure on you, i.e. you can't call with 87 hoping to spike a straight and get my stack because you put me on QQQ... your outs aren't clean because I might make a flush. Or I have nothing and you don't get paid off when you hit.


So I make a reasonable bet at the turn... one that is more than enough to get someone off AK or a weak draw, but not so much that I'm committed if I have misread the situation and both opponents go to war.

Tighty folds, confirming my read about AK.

So now I just have to worry about you, and you shove. And after a few moments of replaying everything in my head, you look FOS.

The hands I'm only truly worried about or a couple of oddly played flop sets, or if I'm really having a bad day, a turned set. Other than that, I feel I'm ahead. You're trying to bluff me off my weakness, or you are semibluffing with a draw (nut spade draw mostly) that you know doesn't have the right implied odds. And I'm getting excellent pot odds. So I call. Boom.



But again... that's me. I'm pretty LAG but I wouldn't be 4-betting weak suited aces (burning money in my games) or offsuit-broadway hands. If I had raised one of those hands UTG and got that much action behind, I would have flatted and played ABC postflop in a multiway pot, trying to make a hand and get paid off.

So, as it played out, I would have far fewer complete airballs at the turn than your villain.

this entire hand is intellectual masturbation where OP attempts to reverse engineer an "i'm brilliant" move and wants us all to high five him. The shove isn't terrible if you have some unbelievable read on the better but if it is done based on a bunch of bad assumptions its a terribly ****ty move.

@chalupa
thanks for your responses.

Him folding a draw without odds to call is worse for you than if he calls- its not a terrible outcome, but him calling would've been better.

As for calling and giving him a chance to draw- its better to charge if you are certain you are ahead and he won't bluff at the pot. If you aren't certain or you think you may bluff, you have to balance your investment in calling or raising verses the chances he'll make a mistake against you in either scenario. Poker usually isn't so absolute and these are the kinds of decisions we have to learn to balance.

I think the largest issue with this hand is that you decided to play your pp for more than set value. This is absolutely fine (I do it all the time); however, if you are going to do this, it MUST be part of your thought process pre when you are considering whether or not to get involved. You have to consider the potential cost you will incur when you miss your set and decide to continue against villan's range, and you need to have a good idea of what conditions would need to occur for you to continue. If you don't do this work beforehand, you are going to end up in the world of optimistically putting money in the pot as conditions change, hoping to find a way to take down the pot, even though you should have given up long ago. This is how people lose money at poker. Winning poker means having a plan, knowing when to change it, and not letting yourself get sucked into desperate, unplanned attempts at taking down the pot.

My point earlier, and I wasn't trying to be snarky, is that you called for set value with every thin odds because you felt you were virtually assured to stack villain if you hit. Nowhere did I see rationale that there was also un-improved value to your hand, or that you felt you had good enough control over villain to make him fold in certain spots.

You only changed your assessment of the situation after missing your set, and now you are trying to convince us (and maybe yourself) that your action was based on solid poker hand reading rather than a desperate attempt to win money (which is the attitude that keeps casinos and winning poker players in business). It's hard to know the truth of it, but the latter is certainly more prevelent in this game. Your best protection against falling into these traps is having a realistic plan when you decide to call or fold pre.