2/4 (9 handed)
Effective $480 (120bb)

Hero (CO) is a reg, 50s male, who is dealt AJ
Villain 1 (BN) is 80ish and wearing orange overalls, as if he’s just knocked-off work as a mechanic. He’s drinking a lot of coffee but more chatty than your typical OMC. He's topped up his stack to 100bb 2-3 times in the last hour.
Villain 2 (HJ) is a more typical OMC who's check-folding a lot of flops.

V2 limps, Hero (CO) raises to $15 with AJ, V1 calls, V2 calls.

Flop ($51) A94 Hero bets $20, V1 calls, V2 folds.

Turn ($91) 4 Hero checks, V1 bets $100, Hero calls.

River ($291) 9 Hero checks, V1 AI for $345, Hero?

if we assume a guy who pots turn and pots river here would probably fast play a flush draw then we beat....

worse aces
a worse '3 pair' played like a maniac

we lose to unlikely but possible AK and AQ and all 4s and 9s



idk. without reads and history this is a total guess but given the evidence that he's 80 and has potted turn and 115% pot shoved river I think I call turn and fold river

Well played now fold. Having the Jc is a bad card to hero with.

Betting is totally fine, but I would lean towards a check on the flop. A high flops are actually boards that should be cbet less because your range of value hands needs less protection, i check back Ax somewhat often, but would probably usually bet AJ, but id check back because i also have the flush draw, so checking for pot control seems fine.

As played OTT i think its a pretty easy check call, and otr i think its a pretty easy fold. I think people bluff the river plenty, but not for this sizing after a slight overbet ott. I bet its 44/A9/99.

Yes, hard to find bluffs when I have J as well as A, cards that significantly reduce flush combos. But an old man isn’t likely to 3bet KQ and we can also give him at least K8+ and Q8+:, so there are some busted/fast-played draws. Can’t see him turning 22-33 into a bluff; most of the pool is taking showdown with 55-88. The question I found myself asking is whether he might overvalue Ax given I checked turn on a flush board. I mean, I would have bet my better Aces if I didn’t have NFD, so maybe Ax is a value bet in his mind on the river. Wasn't convinced it was a value-shove, however, but then again what other size could he use? Maybe 1/3 pot to get some thin value from TT-KK?

I don't mind a check on the flop, either, but decided on a smaller c-bet instead, since I did believe the old man in orange overalls came to play some poker and was ready and willing to call on the wide side. I considered the check on the turn to be consistent with my small flop c-bet strategy. Interesting that you believe the river bet is skewed to the nuts. Is V1 ever over-valuing a worse Ace given my check on the turn?

PRE - I'd probably raise bigger over the limp, to fold out the BTN and have position post-flop.

FLOP - With TPGK and the NFD, I think I bet full pot when OOP and multi-way.

TURN - Why are we checking? Keep betting. I probably over-bet pot.

RIVER - Yeesh. I dunno. If we think V is calling pre with all his AX, he might think any ace is the nuts on this board when we check turn and river. I'd like to know more about how he plays, but this is not an easy fold.

Yes, I don't mind a slightly larger bet preflop. Betting full pot on the flop doesn't make sense to me, though. We are only three-way and block flush draws and top pair. It's A94 so no real straight draws, we don't need to protect our equity --- we want either player to call wide here. Likewise, I don't understand what over-betting pot on the turn would achieve. What hands are we targeting? Yes, there's merit to a bet on the turn but 40-60% of the pot would be better in my view.

Initially I thought the river was a fold, because Villain shouldn't have many bluffs, but then I started to think about him overvaluing an Ace, like you said, especially as I'd checked the turn.

In respect of how Villain plays: unusually active for older player (I'd been at the table with him a few hours). Couldn't recall any unusual showdowns. He'd squeezed a few times and won preflop (once squeezing with 99 from the BB, a hand which was checked to the river, where he bet small on JxxxJ and got called by TT). There were a few spots where he'd bet and others folded, so not a lot of info. He had some cheek to him, though, that's for sure (needling other players, chatting a lot with floor staff etc.,).

I'm betting pot on flop and over-betting turn because we have TPGK and the nut flush draw, and I expect to get called by a lot of our opponents' worse 1P and worse flush draws.

The flop is A-9-4. I'm expecting V's to open raise or 3B pre with 99-KK, so there just aren't many hands that will call any bet here. 22, 33, and 55-88 are mostly folding, no matter how small we bet. Un-paired hands that aren't clubs are also mostly folding.

The hands that are likely to call a small bet will also likely call a big bet. If we get raised by 99, 44, A9, A4, AK, or AQ, we have enough equity to continue. If our draw bricks out, our hand is still strong enough that we can check-call on most rivers.

I definitely agree that we can continue against a raise. I also agree betting more is better because our hand is relatively strong. Not sure that I agree hands "that are likely to call a small bet will also likely call a big bet". Against some player types this strategy is valid but generally the older gents tend to call more if bets are smaller. In this 3way flop situation of CO v BN & HJ the ranges of BN and HJ are relatively weak. Given that we heavily block the only draw (I can't easily include 23s or 53s in their ranges), I think we should be targeting K9-97, 54s, K4s, Q4s, 22-TT as well as worse Aces and club draws.

Anyway, I'm curious to hear why you believe these relatively weak hands would call a larger, pot-sized bet on the flop.

Agree with above, I think older guys love a bargain. Betting small captures a lot of value that betting big won’t. Our hand wants to keep players in not push them out.

Maybe part of it is my image. No matter how tight I think I'm playing, I seem to get lots of loose action, lucky me.

On an ace-nine-high, two-tone flop, where our opponents shouldn't have many, if any 2P combos, I think most OMC's and semi-OMC's are going to over-fold no matter what size we bet, unless they have a good hand to bluff catch, or a good draw.

I'm only expecting to get called by better Ax, worse pairs that want to get sticky, some 2P or sets, and worse draws. But the FDFD is so obvious, I'm expecting my opponents who aren't on a draw to completely shut down if it comes in on the turn, so I want to get as much value as early as possible. And sometimes a big bet looks bluffy, and will get more calls, whereas a small bet looks stronger.

Plus, we started almost $500 effective, but there's only $50 in the pot on the flop. We probably have the best hand now, and will almost certainly have the best hand on a flush run-out. I'm expecting to barrel on a turn brick, and probably bet the river. If we make the flush on the river, I want to get stacks in. That starts with betting bigger on the flop.

Lastly, it seems like OMC's and many other bad low stakes players play too many trashy Ax combos. We're already losing to some Ax combos. We don't mind if some hands that can catch up to make 2P fold out on the flop.

I don't mind the big bet when we have AK or AQ without clubs since we can get further value on non-club turns. In this situation, when we block many good flush draws and there aren't other draws or robust middle pairs, I'm confident that a small bet of less than 50% pot has greater EV. If the flop was A98cc, for example, I'm favouring a larger bet, even with our flush draw blockers. Sure, sometimes a "big bet looks bluffy" but on this board, well, I don't believe it does, although the variables of table image etc., are harder to quantify. FWIW my image was probably TAGish.

I think if you're betting pot with AK/AQ no clubs, and 1/3 pot with AJcc, it's unbalanced.

Assuming we bet big with AK no clubs, and get called, I wouldn't assume V is on a draw. If we bet big with AJcc and get called, I wouldn't assume V doesn't have a worse draw.

If I had AK/AQ no clubs, I'd want to bet big for value and protection. I don't mind folding out hands that can catch up. If I have AJcc here, I want to bet big because I'm expecting to win if we make our hand, but also don't mind folding out hands that can catch up.

Plus, I'm greedy, and notice that many low-stakes players are fairly inelastic when it comes to calling or folding based on bet sizing. V1 may be old, but he doesn't sound like a nitty OMC, when he's topping off 2-3 times within the last hour. That sounds like a guy who doesn't like folding.

Yeah, I see your point, and against better regs I would've considered betting bigger for the sake of balance, although often I don't follow my own advice when I hit a flop this hard. Against older recs, like in this hand, I don't mind being exploitative. I guess the question is whether these OMCs, one nitty, the other looser, are relatively inelastic to sizing. I mean, I don't actually know, but it's a question I hope I think about at the table; I certainly try to note if opponents are aware of the bet-size/pot-size ratio (I find they're less aware of it on the turn, only think about it on the river if they're bluff-catching, and more aware of it on the flop because the math is easier and visually the pot is smaller).

Also for context much of my commentary on this hand is informed by my knowledge of the result:

Oof.

That's a spew from V1.

If we're going to end up checking one street, I prefer to just check flop, especially when we're OOP or in the middle and multi-way, which helps avoid c-betting too much, and avoids giving up the betting lead on a later street. So I'd have preferred checking flop and betting turn here, rather than betting flop and checking turn.

When we flop top pair, good kicker, and a strong draw to a nut or near-nutted hand, I like fast-playing it, knowing that even if we don't hit our draw, we can often check-call on a lot of brick rivers.

So, I wouldn't mind going bet-bet-check/evaluate, or check-bet-bet, but I don't like bet-check-check/evaluate/fold.

A theme I've been seeing in your posts is that you think average Vs are WAY more aggressive than they actually are. The average rec isn't 3-betting 99 or TT basically ever, and JJ/QQ are discounted. You need to really work on your mirror-imaging, imo.

Understood. And mostly agreed. I should have been more clear with what I was saying there.

I'd expect most V's to open 99+. The 3B range varies, but for many it starts around JJ or even QQ. So I'm not expecting the EP limper to have 99+, because I expect him to open 99+, and I'm not expecting the LP flatter to have JJ+, or maybe just not QQ+/AK, because I'm expecting him to 3B that range.

On a flop of A94, the strongest hands in EP's range might be some weak Ax, 9x or 44. Maybe LP has Ax, 99 or 44, but he probably doesn't have JJ+ or AK. Either might have some worse flush draw that will continue.

But it'll be hard to get much value from most of our opponents' ranges, when they'll likely fold all their PP's from 88 down, they aren't likely to have any PP's from 99 up, and they aren't continuing with many SC's that aren't the flush suit, when there are very few straight draws on this board that would connect with either opponents' range, assuming neither is getting here and continuing with some low SC that could make the wheel.

So my point was that our opponents' continue ranges are likely to be stronger hands or decent draws, allowing us to bet bigger, because they're just folding out most other hands, even if we bet small.

OK, that makes more sense, but is still over-estimating an unknown (except that he's not a stereotypical OMC') 80yo's 3-bet range, imo. I'd say its more like 1/4 of the JJ combos, half of the QQ/AK combos, and all of the KK/AA combos.

I think the main point is that he's NOT an OMC. Actually, that's pretty obvious since he's added to his tack multiple times in an hour. LOL.

Description as an OMC makes the river a turbo fold.

Oh, for sure, I could be over-estimating to some degree. I'm not looking to split hairs or try to nail down his range to the last combo. I was just explaining why I think we can bet bigger on this exact flop, where neither V is likely to continue with a weak hand.

This is similar to how I'd have ranged this OMC before the hand. The deciding factor for my river fold was that he's flatting AK sometimes and AQ most of the time, effectively expanding his value range. After the hand, well, I had to rethink the OMC designation entirely. He was certainly more aggressive than a regular OMC, and, as I mentioned, in another hand squeezed from the BB with 99 and bet small on the river 3way on a JxxxJ board. Anyway, I appreciate how you're taking posters to task on inconsistencies between how we describe villains (e.g. OMC, Loose-Passive, LAGs, etc.,) and how we range them. Part of what motivated me to post this hand was how a stereotypical profiling of a villain as an OMC led me to significantly misjudge his tendencies post-flop. The reality is that villain-descriptions are much like heuristics: they should serve a short-term purpose to help fit-together pieces of a puzzle, but too often they become hard-wired categories in our brains and create blind-spots that limit our ability to make good decisions.

Yes, genuine OMC's don't like making a scene of pulling big bills from their pockets and signaling for chip-runners: the public shame of losing and wastefully chasing losses is a powerful thing for some.

Interesting that you seem to be saying that we either check flop or bet big, which might seem contradictory but I don't believe it is. Essentially you're saying we polarise or under-represent. What I did was "range-bet" and therefore under-represent to trap on the turn and river. We are both looking for the best betting strategy for a strong v weak range scenario. In the end, while there are some differences in how either villain has been ranged, I believe there is a general consensus. If I had called the river, my line of B30-x/c-x/c might have been regarded as perfect, except, of course, well ... yeah. I wonder if I would have actually bet rather than checked a river, too, btw and further mangled a good situation.

54 , 44, 99, A9s, AK that the old man might play like Doyle teaches, + AQ.

I don't really see hands that you beat.

I think you can start calling it with AK.

I don't know if I'm saying we polarize or under-rep. Maybe I am. But I don't know.

When we're multi-way and sandwiched between opponents in front and behind, I'll usually start by checking flop as the PFR. I want to see what my opponents do before I act. I guess we could say that's under-repping.

If we're mostly checking, not betting, then when we do c-bet, the size should be bigger, which I guess is polarizing. But it's not random. We're betting bigger on certain flops, for logical reasons.

I think a lot of people would say we should bet small here, to get value from worse 1P or V's draws. But I look at the board and the pre-flop action, and think that neither V has very many hands in their range that are strong enough to call, but the ones that will call are fairly strong, or decent draws.

Like, 22, 33, and 55-88 are probably folding, even to a small bet. It's unlikely either V has TT-KK. Other than having worse flush draws, the strongest hands either V is likely to have would be 99, 44, A9, A4, Ax, or 9x. We're behind some of those hands, but we can catch up if we hit our draw or pair our kicker, and we can get value from the hands we're beating.

Maybe the BTN flat called with TT or JJ, but even if he did, he's not going to want to put a lot of money in. He might call one small bet, but probably fold to further aggression. Likewise, maybe the EP limper shows up with some random Ax or 9x, but if he's got 2P+, we'll probably hear from him on the flop.

I don't hate betting small on the flop. But I do think we need to continue barreling on turn and river, when it becomes less likely we're up against 99, 44, A9, A4, or 9x, and more likely we're up against worse Ax.

This is a very good point. Villain descriptions are just assumed reads. Once you actually see them do things, you should quickly move away from the generic description (unless it fits to a T) and instead generate an individual V profile.

In this particular case, we had just started that process by the time of this hand, but after the hand, we can almost classify his orange overalls as a tracksuit and a lot of gold jewelry.

Maybe we have discovered a new subspecies: OMB (Old Man Bling).