villain in very tight 18/11/7 vpip, pfr, 3b over 1,3k hands

is it better to c/r turn ?
should we fold, call or raise river ?

Poker Stars, $0.05/$0.10 No Limit Omaha Cash, 6 Players

SB: $15.18 (151.8 bb)
BB: $10 (100 bb)
UTG: $26.31 (263.1 bb)
Hero (MP): $35.66 (356.6 bb)
CO: $37.46 (374.6 bb)
BTN: $28.26 (282.6 bb)

Preflop: Hero is MP with Kd Kc Ac Js
UTG folds, Hero raises to $0.35, CO folds, BTN raises to $1.20, 2 folds, Hero calls $0.85

Flop: ($2.55) Jc 7s Jh (2 players)
Hero checks, BTN bets $0.65, Hero calls $0.65

Turn: ($3.85) Th (2 players)
Hero checks, BTN bets $2.20, Hero calls $2.20

River: ($8.25) 9h (2 players)
Hero checks, BTN bets $5.20,

4bet preflop this deep and get as much money into the pot postflop as fast as you can

The c/c line is terrible and by the river he is unlikely turning QQ+ into a bluff with stats like this

You only have a bluffcatcher by a lot of rivers with this line almost regardless of the runout and this opponent doesn't bluff, so you're just putting yourself in a tricky spot nearly every time.

dislike four bet pre vs a nit

would just c/r the flop

Why? You're ahead of his 3bet range, oop, super deep with a hand that makes the nuts multiple ways and you want to build a pot for when you hit flops like this.

His 3bet range isn't nitty at all.

4bet seems pretty clear

i was also very tight so i don't think he would 3b me lightly, according to PPT AcKcKdJs is only a 51% favourite vs a 7% range... i suppose that's because we block the KKxx portion of that range more than the AAxx

that's not the reason why i didn't 3b though... i didn't think it was profitable to play a big pot this deep OOP vs a competent opponent and the 3b would turn my hand face up

Which is good enough to 4bet.....you want stacks in by the river when you make the nuts and you will rarely do that by just calling 3bets.

This opponent is not competent. He is a tight passive nit.

How would the 4bet turn your hand face up? You don't even have AA

You should be 4betting a lot of hands this deep.

A 4bet is far more profitable than a call. You are out of position and want to maintain the betting initiative postflop. You have an equity advantage. You want to get stacks in when you have an equity advantage, and the only way to do that this deep is put in a 4bet preflop. Otherwise there is no point in playing this deep. A tight passive nit is not going to run huge bluffs on you postflop and not going to put in 400bbs without a very strong hand so you can be aggressive and win a lot of 4bet pots when you don't make the nuts before the river.

So you're in a situation where the pot is huge when you make the nuts, and the pot is big and coming your way a lot when you don't because you are up against an opponent that won't go to the river without a very big hand. That is hugely profitable, but only if you have the stones to distribute your aggression across multiple streets, including preflop.

Conversely, a 4bet and check call line vs. a maniac would be better here, because you have a massive equity advantage and your opponent is going to run huge bluffs on you.

To those who like a 4bet - are we folding to 5bet? I think we are.

4bet no matter that villain is very tight, fold to 5bet. Also, think villain played relaly well and you played it terribly haha. I think flop raise is a must , he bet way too small so giving him a cheap card on somewhat connecting board is not great, that bet is just so small that it induces all kinds of bluffs too so we hve to go for value and inflating the pot even, he is deep too so yeah call is pretty bad, MUST raise. I kind of lost you after that, and that river raise is pretty bad imo, it workd but i dont see much reasoning in it. Well played villain tho.

I didn't raise the flop because at the time i thought i wouldn't get called often by AAxx and i considered the board to be very dry... but i agree that actually villain could think that he induced a bluff and call. Being OOP by c/c flop and checking turn risks giving him not just one but two free cards.

At the turn i lost myself too... i don't know why i c/c.

At the river i though that villain is not bluffing enough to be able to call but he was capable of folding a flush to a raise... i raised thinking that i can represent a slow played JTxx reliably.

i tryied to edit my post later but time expired, actually wanted to say that we do get a decent frequency of river folds against weaker opponents and his range, so i guess you did ok there, its good to certainly have this move in your arsenal after screwing up on previous streets so my point remains raise flop, no point slowplaying such small bet with this SPR value is lost, if he potted or close to pot, then call can be ok.

I give it a about 87% chance that villain has the nut boat so bluffing is probably not too good

i was certain that villains range at the river is mostly nut flushes because...

a)preflop tight 3b range that means far more suited AA than JT rundowns
b)we are blocking JTxx combos that want to 3b but we don't block hearts
c)there are 2 J's on the flop

I suppose the reason to put him on the nut full is because of his betting pattern but i underplayed my hand so maybe that encouraged him to bet more. Is it safe to assume that he never value bets a nut flush on a paired board? Despite being tight preflop he didn't seem very passive postflop, he had an aggression factor of 2.

Yes fold to 5bet you are basically isolating AA only vs. a 5bet

Some x % he folds you win outright
Roughly 2/7 of the time he 5bets
1-x-2/7 he calls and you win a lot by getting him to fold or making the nuts but those situations the pot is bigger than the other two

I don't dislike the 4bet because as you say it can lead in favourable situations for us postflop... but how did you came up with that number ?

The 7% is calculated by my tracker over 1,3k hands... lets assume this is accurate due to larger than average sample size and because he is a tight plo player i think its also safe to assume that this is a range consisting of the top 7% of hands. This is his 3b range vs a large variety of opening hands that are random to us... but if we take into consideration the specific hand we are holding according to PPT hand count calculation with dead cards AcKcKdJs that 7% range of hands drops down to 2,8%.

http://www.propokertools.com/simulat...7%25&s=generic

I'm new in plo so i'm not very familiar with ranges but it seems wrong to assume that because he 3bets 7% and he has AA 2% of the time (actually 1% because we hold an A) that we get 5b roughly 2/7 times.

Does anyone who is familiar with this type of calculations know how large does viallin's 3b range needs to be in order for him to have AA less often than not given the fact we hold AcKcKdJs?

Edit: Actually nevermind i think i have already answered my question... since AA combos drop down to 1,3% when we hold an ace and since villains 7% range drops down to 2,8% given the fact we hold AcKcKdJs we get 5b from AA (assuming he always 5bets AA and only AA) roughly 45% of the time... can anyone confirm this ?

As played, xr the turn is mandatory

Yes you are correct I forgot about your ace. I dont think your math is correct though if he has AA 1.3% of the time and 3bets a 7% range he 5bets aces 19% of the time not 45%. He never has AA 45% of the time if he always 3bets AA and also 3bets 7%

He 3bets 7% and roughly 2/7 times he has aces. You block an A so he has AA even less than 2/7 times suggesting an even more favorable 4bet

the way i understand it the 7% range represents the amount of combos he chooses to 3b with... because we hold AKKJ ourselves some of these combos are not possible and that means the combos he 3bets with in this specific spot are fewer.

why calculate how often he has AA by excluding only the A we block from all the possible AA combos (2%) and not the AKKJ from all of his 7% 3b range... unless im doing something wrong as i have shown in the link above by putting all the cards in our hand as dead in propokertools count calculator the 7% range becomes 2,8%... so we are blocking part of his AA range but we block an even bigger part of his KK range and because AA and KK are about 2/3 of his total 7% range, given our hand he still ends up with allot of AA when he 3bets us... to be precise 1,3:2,8=46%

also if you run a simulation of AcKcKdJs vs a 7% range you will get that our hand is only a 51% favourite... how would that outcome be possible if he only has AA 19% of the time ?

did i get something wrong ?

By running some more simulations in PPT you can see that we are crushing the non AA part of a 7% range (65% favourite) but we are crushed by AA (30% underdog)... that means that there should be about equal amount of AA and non AA combos in that range to end up a wash (51%:49%) vs our specific hand

i think you massively underestimate how often he has AA... my guess is that its about 40%

Deleted my posts for responses later. Need to think some more about this.

Ok I see what you are saying. Because we hold high side cards (including KK) we also block a large portion of his overall 3bet range? This is how I think you are thinking correct me if I'm wrong

Top 7% is 18942 hands

We hold AcKcJsKd

Top 7% now becomes only 7540 hands

AAxx is 5256 hands

We hold AcKcJsKd

AAxx is now only 2289 hands

2289/7540 = 30.36% of his 3betting range (instead of 27.7% in a vacuum)

Like I said, he has AA roughly 2/7 of the time here. My percentages were dumdum moves.

EDIT: The fact we contain high cards (and especially KK) in our hand that block a lot of his range is a very interesting side discussion. If we have low side cards (Ah8c7h6c for example) the AA part of his range falls to 2288/12355 or 18.51% of his 3bets

EDIT2: As well this is all assuming he's 3betting the top 7% of his raw equity hands.

yea that's exactly my thought process but according to PPT hand count calculations AAxx in the top 7% of hands when we hold AcKcJsKd is 3008 hands (AA is 6961 combos in a vacuum)... so its 3008/7540=40%

http://www.propokertools.com/simulat...3AAA&s=generic

It makes sense because if you oversimplify the example by assuming a villain that only 3bets with AA and KK (5% range) and we hold AKKx... how often does he have AA compared to KK? You don't need math to figure out that if he 3bets us its far more likely he has AA than KK in this spot (actually by doing the same calculations its 75%).

yeah but villain is three betting a very tight opponent who opened from ep so his three bet % in certainly lower than average as that is basically the worst scenario for a three bet.

I like it how OP asked about the river decision but everyone is focusing on earlier streets instead

its fine... if the discussion leads to some new insight and improved strategy its all good

what i got from this is that AKKx is a bad hand to 4bet vs a tight top heavy 3bet range and thats far more valuable than a river spot that comes up less often

You're overstating the case here, because villain doesn't 3bet every combo from AAJTdss to KK72r. His 3betting range pragmatically doesn't or shouldn't include the lowest bunch of these hands. I think 30% is a reasonable number.

You don't know how his 3b range is made up, but you know it includes good AA. I think the most important thing is to think that he has a middle wide range (7% is not nitty), and you block Aces. He has Aces less likely than the rest of his hands. You're assuming he 3bets all AA/KK, and in so doing you overestimate the amount of hands that contain AA/KK in his 3bet range, the amount of hands that we block in that range, and thus the amount of times those hands remain.

Ya but that doesn't matter, because he has nonAA/KK hands more often than both of them. We're not even particularly worried about AA here, because he is going to tell us he has it when he has it by 5betting.