PokerStars, Hold'em No Limit - $0.10/$0.25 - 6 players
Hand delivered by Upswing Poker

UTG: $29.85 (119 bb)
MP: $33.79 (135 bb)
CO: $34.70 (139 bb)
BU (Hero): $47.67 (191 bb)
SB: $23.87 (95 bb)
BB: $29.48 (118 bb)

Pre-Flop: ($0.35) Hero is BTN with Q♥ Q♦
2 players fold, CO raises to $0.62, Hero 3-bets to $2, 2 players fold, CO calls $1.38

Flop: ($4.35) 3♣ 7♠ 2♥ (2 players)
CO checks, Hero bets $2.80, CO calls $2.80

Turn: ($9.95) 8♠ (2 players)
CO checks, Hero checks

River: ($9.95) 5♥ (2 players)
CO checks, Hero checks

Villain is Tagish reg, Hand have nothing to do with ranges, gto and proapbly even logic, but villain was tanking on river! On more sirious note, we are deeper, not having that many natural bluffs on turn, villain proapbly 4bet jj, so not that many hands we target to valuebet, and sets we afraid of are endless

i follow what you mean, but the same things that make you weary of value betting are even more relevant to find him x/r you on the river. also this is micros, ive found you cant rule out TT/JJ we can get value from, i see plenty of strange deviations even from reggish stat players.
i think if i played QQ by x/x ,x/x turn and river on this run out id delete my hand history and never tell a soul

As minispoiler i only say hand is as interesting for hero as it is for villain with ANYTHING!

Super standard bet/fold on river.

Following to see what smarter people think.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I think we really need some stats on villain (vpip, RFI, 3bet, and crucially, aggression) to be able to comment on playing this exploitatively. Outside of any such considerations, this is clearly a bet on either turn or river.

here we go:21\15\8,5 agg 2.44 WTSD 21 W%SD 58% on 358 hands

Based on those, and the sample isn't huge, but large enough to be of some use, my guess is that villain's check and call ranges will tend to be more value heavy than average, and their betting range slightly bluff heavy than average. I'd also anticipate that they'd be slightly less likely to call a bet with a pure bluff catcher. On that basis, it may not be unreasonable to assume a bet on turn or river wouldn't get called by 50% of worse hands. It would still be a pretty exploitative line, not sure I'd take it or not, but it seems fine.

Sounds like you got yourself into a bit of a levelling war here.

I would just bet turn 7.50/8. If you check, def bet River.

If you want to x behind an overpair ott pick AA/KK with a flush blocker. x behind w QQ no flush blocker seems awful to me

what you think about flop sizing, are we making it bigger becouse of stacks, or bigger always?

Eh I mean you could size up a little but it's fine

I'd just say you'd want to size up turn a bit compared to flop then with this sizing

Lets say i bet flop around 3.3-3.5$, and turn is now ~12, i bet 9-10$ what i m doing now vs check shove? I mean... in retrospective i m not fan of using std 3bet sizes this deep with ranges i m using 100bb deep, becouse if i m using normal 100bb 3bet ranges pre that not include mid and small pp's i m preety much face up on a lot of uncoordianted low flops

Low/dry disconnected flops prefer larger flop sizings.

I don't think your sizing is bad, but I wouldn't go any smaller.

This hand makes me sad

1/3 pot flop

1/3-1/2 pot turn

1/2 pot river.

I'm going 3 streets with this hand, position and runout. I'm not sure why you check the turn...

In theory a slam dunk call, in practice maybe you're not super thrilled about some random 25nl reg shipping on you this deep. However you will be more incentivized to call with this specific hand, not having a spade

I mean you are right that you do want to size up a bit here, but it's mostly because of stack depth. Ranges aren't going to change that much, but they're certainly not going to change to include any additional smaller pocket pairs

However, you're not going to be "face up" otf. You should be betting your entire range in a spot like this otf (think about what the ranges of both players look like)

You're right that we want to go 3 streets here, but we want to be able to bet/bet/jam with this hand. When you go as small as you're suggesting, you really miss out on value, and those turn and river sizings can have a significant impact on your overall winrate (especially in a deeper spot like this)

same

This is full hand, what would you do as villain on river? I like 2 sizings, huge overbet or small blocking bet. No matter what villain do we are only calling?

PokerStars, Hold'em No Limit - $0.10/$0.25 - 6 players
Hand delivered by Upswing Poker

UTG: $29.85 (119 bb)
MP: $33.79 (135 bb)
CO: $34.70 (139 bb)
BU (Hero): $47.67 (191 bb)
SB: $23.87 (95 bb)
BB: $29.48 (118 bb)

Pre-Flop: ($0.35) Hero is BTN with Q♥ Q♦
2 players fold, CO raises to $0.62, Hero 3-bets to $2, 2 players fold, CO calls $1.38

Flop: ($4.35) 3♣ 7♠ 2♥ (2 players)
CO checks, Hero bets $2.80, CO calls $2.80

Turn: ($9.95) 8♠ (2 players)
CO checks, Hero checks

River: ($9.95) 5♥ (2 players)
CO checks, Hero checks

Total pot: $9.95 (Rake: $0.45)

Showdown:
BU (Hero) mucks Q♥ Q♦ (a pair of Queens)
(Equity - Pre-Flop: 81%, Flop: 9%, Turn: 5%, River: 0%)

CO shows 7♥ 7♣ (three of a kind, Sevens)
(Equity - Pre-Flop: 19%, Flop: 91%, Turn: 95%, River: 100%)

CO wins $9.50

I must say that i wasnt comfortable stacking of 1 pair 140bb deep, and actully i had plan to bet more favourable river, but villain tank banking then checking make me feel like he have nuts or air, so checked... but i agree hand is played in bizarre fashion

I’m not sure which one of you played this worse.

I don't think playing a large pot with QQ on this board and runout is +ev. Smaller bets keep the initiative, keep Villain's range wide, and we still get good value with a vulnerable hand on a decent but not great board.

Getting stacked here is atrocious.

I fail to see the "agish" part of V's "tagish" description anywhere here. +1 to the "this makes me sad" camp.

The board is rather favorable for us until the river, which is why we want to bet larger on both the flop and turn. Like the flop is really good, and the turn is less good, but it's still good enough that we're gonna be able to jam a fair amount of rivers with most of our overpairs

Interestingly enough, when we bet 33% otf, the EV is roughly equal to a 75% bet (though a tiny bit lower). ott it's a few bb difference, which is more substantial but still not super huge. However, on identical river cards, the EV disparity between the 33% tree and 75% tree becomes quite massive, regardless of the sizings chosen (with the 75% tree having the higher EV of course). This is why solvers want to bet large otf, because it maximizes our potential EV gain on later streets

I think not trying to pile chips in here with the top of our range on a fairly good board (flop and turn) is atrocious. Sounds like scared poker to me tbqh

Think it's definitely better to bet large on two streets when the board is favorable for us, and check when it isn't, than to bet small on two streets when the board is favorable for us, and then bet small again when it isn't

I disagree that the board is favorable. It's not a terrible board but our range doesn't love this flop. AK and AQ don't play this hand the same way making large bets on the flop and turn. We value own ourselves with that part of the top of our range betting big. So really the only hands that we have that like betting big here are over pairs which are vulnerable to suited connectors and sets. By betting big we give him the opportunity to play well against us. I prefer to not allow my opponents to play nearly perfectly against me.

Playing for stacks here feels bad and we're likely losing a big pot when it gets big. Small pot poker is underrated.

Actually, you are supposed to bet large a significant % of the time with both AK and AQ otf here. Villain has to call a number of Ax hands even vs a 75% pot bet, and even some Kxs. Additionally, villain also has to fold some 66-44 to a flop bet, so AK/AQ are in a funny spot where you can get worse hands to call, but also better hands to fold (assuming villain is actually somewhat competent)

AK/AQ does pretty much pure x ott, but there are plenty of other "bluffs" in our range that we can bet the turn with (mostly random broadway hands at a low frequency)

Yes, it is true that a decent chunk of villain's range is 87s/88/77/33/22 ott, however, villain's range also contains a number of hands that we can either continue to get value from (TT-88,55,44, and a few spade draws), or deny equity to (mainly Ax/Kx hands that called a flop bet)

Not sure where you get this idea that betting larger gives villain an opportunity to play perfectly vs us. Quite frankly, I feel very strongly that you have no clue how to perfectly play vs a 75% pot bet as CO

On this runout we're checking river if we bet big otf and ott. But there are a number of rivers where we are actually going to want to b/b/j with this hand

Small pot poker is for weaker hands, and this doesn't become a weaker hand until the river