In an effort to have discussion about a non-pre flop spot with 8 limpers, I thought I'd post a recent hand from the east coast's 80/160 game from the comfort of my newly acquired hospital bed (rough weekend):



Game is 9 handed. We open UTG with KK and the BB calls. The BB is a TAGish pro / expert winning player. I have a lot of respect for his game.

Flop: 752

Check, we bet, BB raises, we call.

Turn: A

Check, we bet, BB raises, we call.

River: 9

Bet, we fold.

I still can't sleep at night after this fold. How badly did I muck this one up? Any and all feedback is welcome as usual.

J Lot

The inflection point is obviously the turn. Against super LAGs, I think you can bet to induce. Against loose/passives, you can bet for value because you'll get called often enough by worse hands and have a pretty clear fold on the river after being xr'd when a king or spade doesn't hit. But against experts... I think it's more important to show down and checking back the turn doesn't seem terrible to me.

As played, you're getting +9:1 and even if you can't have 77, I think KK probably falls within a call on the river v a tricky pro (assuming you'd have also bet the turn with 88-QQ containing a spade). It's close and the moral of this hand for me is to choose the line that gets to show down v an expert playing opponent.

I'd bet turn. If I was going to check turn, I'd do it with my weakest pairs preflop (88/99).

As played, folding river is probably a decent play from an exploitative sense (as really, how many people are double x/r bluffing in this spot?). If we're worried about being exploited, or think this dude can be induced into spew at any sort of reasonable frequency by our turn bet, we can potentially put a cry call in. But really, the river isn't huge EV in either direction, it's just absurdly frustrating when they do snap show the wacky bluff that got through when you were getting 9.25:1 (in the event you made an exploitative fold and were wrong).

What's your image like? I'm not folding this river FWIW.

I think you played it fine other than the river fold. If you are folding KK here that means you are also folding 88, TT, JJ, QQ and KK (assuming those all would bet the turn) as well as your bluffs. Your opponent was getting 8.25:1 on his river bet so you should be folding something around 11% of your hands from a game theory perspective.

Let's say your range after the turn action is something like A9s+, AJo+, 55, 77, 88, 99, TT, JJ, QQ, KK, AA, KsQx, KxQs. You could make an argument that we shouldn't be betting all of these on the turn or that we should be bet/folding some combos, but let's just use that for simplicity. That range is a total of 89 combos. If we fold just the KsQx and KxQs on the river that is already 6/89 or 6.7%. So we should probably only add 4 more combos of 88 to our folding range to get to 11%. Even if we never bet KsQx and KxQs on the turn, we still only want to fold about 9 combos, which would mean we fold all 6 combos of 88 and 3 of TT.

All the hands you list in the river analysis aren't necessarily bet/calling the turn. How are we playing non spade pairs/pocket pairs on the turn after the potential screw check?

Yea, I mentioned that. It was just meant to be a starting point for discussion. As for your question, I’d be inclined to check the smaller pocket pairs without a spade (eg 88/99 without spade).

OP's image is key. He's usually a tough lag, but if he's gone off the rails a bit, BB will notice. This is a live game w history between the two. Based on the description of his weekend and the villain, I don't think villain is counting on OP to make any hero folds. We may have even been behind after the flop x/r. After the turn x/r, I'm confident we are behind and the reason to peel turn is bc we have nut spade draw.

Even though we have an easy turn call as played, I don't mind checking back KsKx on that turn and betting worse pairs w spades. There are plenty of rivers we can raise w our hand and I don't see enough value to bet that turn, particularly against an expert w this line in his arsenal who has just x/r our UTG open. Villain is willing and able to exploit OP if he's betting too often when checked to. I think this hand illustrates an interesting and difficult spot, but the decisions should be dominated by the dynamics/meta between OP and villain when the hand was played. Based on those dynamics, villain's range should be value heavy w almost zero bluffs.

The river is a fold imo . . . OP should be sleeping fine. Even 8s6d got there. On the bright side, once OP completes 90 days of poker rehab, he will at least be able to scoop that chip. But something tells me he wont need poker rehab and will be scooping big pots again soon. gl

With or without a spade? Doesn't seem like enough check-back combos if you're looking to fold all unimproved rivers v an expert BB who's range will be considerably wider than hero who opened utg.

is this exploitable? i feel like it's correct. we're folding like 25% getting 9:1, but looking at villain's actions, we're counting on him betting a 9 on the river or c/r'ing a 7 or 5 on the turn? i understand the turn was standard for hero and villain if he's bluffing, but whatever this guy's doing with less than kk seems like a bigger mistake than folding kk's if he is.

Then if folding the river is a mistake, it's probably only in the magnitude of + or - $5.

Rest easy.

I might not bet the turn because the blind should have some equity vs your range, and have many suited aces in there. It takes some thought into how the big constructs his range against your raise from UTG. River I muddle through and guess whether my opponent over-bluffs or under-bluffs there. An optimal bluff seems to be a hand like a small over-pair with a spade. Like 10% of the time or some very low percentage you should 3-bet the turn, and bet the river. Your KsKx is a good 3-bet bluff candidate.

How big of a mistake can it be? Even though an ace might not be the ideal card to semi-bluff, he's getting 5.25:2 to xr and win immediately on the turn. And if we're folding over twice as many hands on the river than we should be (upper 25%?), villain's river bet can't possibly be the bigger mistake.

Where am I going wrong here? My guess is that I'm giving him more semi-bluffs than you guys.

check turn. if he checks the river after you've checked back the turn, bet river for value.

It's limit holdem. Pay the money and puke when you see a better hand.

And say, "wow, just wow"

If you want to fold Kings and call it a good play, go for no limit.

Fold rarely != Fold never. There's always a price to pay and always a strategy that involves some fold frequency. Yes, we should be calling a lot (in this case, at least 88% of the time, and I can't imagine any pair I bet turn with being a river fold), but your advice is incredibly simplistic.

The advice is simplistic because the solution is simple.

TAG usually has you beat, but some losers in there as well. And the pot got ballooned by hero getting check raised on turn with nut flush draw.

I suspect to be losing most of the time, but calling, losing 1 big bet I could have otherwise saved, but not at the cost for the whole pot, and going on to the next one.

To everyone who wants to bet the turn: what do you guys think an expert is CRing on this flop vs an utg range? We aren’t doing so hot.

So what if hero has KsQ here? Do we fold? Do we fold KsQ but call KsK? Aren't they the same hand versus opp. range? Or do we call everything because "it's limit"? Then what incentive does villain have to bluff? Then since he has no incentive to bluff, we have no incentive to call w/ pure bluffcatchers and now should snap fold. Folding KK is ridiculous against a competent opponent here, but see the circular direction overly-simplified statements can take a person?

"It's limit" is not an argument on how to mathematically formulate correct decisions. We don't call because it's limit, we call because we're exploitable if we fold this hand.

@ DeathDonkey, I think you may be right now that I'm re-thinking this spot, though I do think a player as described will barrel through this card w/ his strong hands at a reasonably high freq.

Kings beat 87 and 6-5 with a spade and low pairs with a spade.

KQ does not.

KQ is probably a fold.

I think he was probably beat and saved the money on the end, but losing a pot is a much larger mistake than losing a big bet.

I usually don't fold late in a hand in heads up situations with a pair. If I decide to continue past the flop, I'm usually calling bets on the end, unless it is a busted draw.

Tight, aggressive and sticky. I'm sure that is very exploitable

All I have to go off is the fact you've said "it's limit" to justify...well, everything so far. The dudes who make that kind of statement are also the ones I 7 bet flops against w/ overpairs because they're draw heavy.

You think an expert is defending 65o against a reasonable player's UTG open, then check raising it for value, then check raising it as a bluff? That's quite convoluted. Fact is, there's very little difference between KQ and KK on the river, if any.

In limit poker forms, I think you need to call the river light.

I believe you are getting 8.25 to 1 on a call on the end.

I believe that 1 in 8.25 hands the Big Blind may have defended with Q-5 off suit with Queen of spades , or 6-5, or 8-7 and spazzed a check raise as a variance play.

If you disagree with that logic, we agree to disagree.

Also, an alternate play would be to 3 bet the turn if the game is loose enough that people open under the gun with K-Q, K-J or K-10 of spades.

Since you have the king of spades, he can't be check raising the nuts on the turn, but if he had Q-J flush, would it be conceivable you raised K-10 of spades under the gun? If he just assumes you have pocket aces, you open yourself to four bet.

Against certain types of opponents a 3 bet on the turn makes many hands just call and check to you on the river, where you bet if improve, or check behind. I would like that play a lot better, though, if you opened from Cut off.

That's what I would do, but get your flamesuit on. Highly unpopular play. The biggest problem is an "expert" is going to be 4 betting sometimes.

Glad I am not called a moron for proposing that line!


Think the expert is more likely to 4 bet with a flush against an UTG raiser (as in the example stated) as opposed if you raised mid position or cutoff.

And if 4 bet, you have to 5 bet, to save the river bet or gain a bet. Same proposition as 3 betting.

Can't imagine an expert 6 betting there ever when you hold the nut card. Would have to have a real good read on you, like you held your cards too high.