So if you don't believe he's calling with 99/TT, then you basically believe you have to set-up to win, yes?

There are more ace-king combinations than AA or KK combinations, if that's what we think his range is.

i am a little late for the conversation and just read diagonally thru it, but i saw a lot of speculation about villains calling range, which lead to different types of planning by 2+2ers, due the incomplete info OT gave us.

OT has 800 hands on him and doesn't provide us VALUABLE information, specifically villains 3bet calling range in EP. With that information, planning the hand would be so much easier.

If OT assumes he has 800 hands on him, he should provide us the goods :P

Okay here's my thinking (RE and threads went over it already) if we assume he has UPs in his range (which could be there for sure) and AKs then why bet the flop? He won't call with worse, but he will only call (or raise) with better -- given the type of player he is. This is what I mean when I say that betting the flop allows the villain to play perfectly against us. Whereas, if we check the flop behind it opens his range for him to bet (or call our later street bets) with UPs and wiffed AK hands.

A similar situation would be if you had AQs OTB and 3bet a TAGs CO open. Flop comes Q73r. Another situation where checking behind is good for the same reasons.

I think an important thing to think about here is that the flop bet is not a value bet, unless we expect the villain to call with worse, which I don't think he will do here.

Continuing on this -- we have 47% equity against a range of AA/KK/AK on the flop, and 50% equity against the same range on the turn. Just illustrating what I just said... AK is as likely as AA/KK.

The thing is, even an 800 hand sample is pretty slim to evaluate that kind of thing. I play 3-bet pots with this guy almost never; we just share the fishies mostly. His fold to 3bet is 70%, but of course that includes folding to 3bets of his late position (presumably weaker) raises too.

So you've decided he's a super-nit. You're putting him on AA, KK, or AK, and since there are more AK's than AA or KK's, then basically checking the flop is an attempt to get him to bluff the turn. You're assuming that it's most likely that he has AK, but yet you want him to put money in the pot with AK-unimproved. If this guy is really such a nit, do you really think he's gonna bluff the turn a lot? I don't. If he's really such a nit, is he gonna call the turn with an unimproved AK? I don't think so.

If his most likely hand is AK, why let him get all five cards to hit his pair?

Your assertion, from that quote, is:

1. We rule out 99/TT (correctly or incorrectly) if we bet the flop and he calls; so
2. We have to set up to win.

I would assume we agree that if 99/TT is ruled out, that leaves his range as precisely KK/AA/AK, no? I mean, he'll show up with QQ or JJ once in a blue moon, too, but for obvious reasons those are highly unlikely.

I'm not making any statements about how we should play the hand here; just saying that we only 'have to set up to win' if his range is strictly KK/AA and he doesn't call our flop bet with AK either.

Fine. Widen his range to include UPs (which definitely could be in there). Betting the flop narrows his range right back down if he calls or raises.

What is the villain's plan for the turn if he calls with a UP and doesn't improve?? Hoping we don't fire again and c/f if we do? Remember what his perception of our range must be after we 3bet his EP raise preflop.

With that in mind what do you believe his 3b calling range is in EP?

I would say an overconfident AA,KK. He certainly wouldnt call a 3bet with MP2 still to act with AK or QQ knowing that probably 2 guys are going to see the flop, and he's folding everything else being a competent reg (he might shove AK here preflop).

With that in mind the only value we get from QQ by 3betting is if UTG+1 folds and MP2 shoves or calls. For that to be profitable we have to know that UTG+1 opens enough times EP that 3betting will be profitable in the long run here. If that's the case, i 3bet here all day expecting a fold by UTG+1 and a call or shove by MP2 with weaker holdings (dominated like lowers pairs, AQ, AJ, and ~55% vs 45% winners like AK) enough times to be profitable in the long run. Thus the rare times UTG+1 calls or shoves, unfortunately i will know that most certainly im beat (and laugh because i actually won :P).

I'm starting to get the feeling that villain has QQ too and we're all going to have a good laugh.

we have to understand, also, that the dynamics of the action are known as a squeeze play, independently of 3bet'ors card holding. The squeeze play puts a lot of pressure in the openraiser, this case UTG+1, because a player is still left to act, and this after the 3bet'or suggesting he is prepared to play for stacks. This will obviously reduce a competent open raiser to a thin calling/shove range. Therefore by squeezing we can, after 800 hands, have a decent understanding of UTG+1 3bet squeeze calling range, AA and KK.

What is UTG+1 open raise percentage in EP? if its under 2% i call for setmining purposes, if its higher i 3bet all day long.

Well, I was assuming that if you're ruling out TT and 99, you're also ruling out AK. I was wrong. He puts villain on a range of AA, KK, and AK. Personally, I think that range is awfully small, but that's the range he's going with.

By he I assume you mean me. You are not understanding my posts. I am not putting the villain on a range of exactly AA/KK, AK. I am saying that I believe this villain will not call a flop bet with 99/TT.

Did you not read any of the previous posts by RE or threads?

I think UTG+1 calling range to a flop CBet can be large. There are many non-believers out there. The obvious ones are stations. Next in line might be our villain, with an active 3 Agg factor. Sometimes bluffers spot bluffers. And villain will know that this flop hardly ever his our hand. So we "can" be CBetting air here...... just sayin'. We can be CBetting close to 100% of our range in villain's eyes, right?

I rarely want to stack off with an overpair...and I don't want to start here. With villain's turn lead after weakness, I become the station I always dreamed I would be.

I figure probably TT+ and AK, though AK may well shove. I could easily be wrong; that's just the feel I have for him, based on stats and minor observation. Whether the shorty's involvement would encourage him to call with lesser pairs, or to flat with AA/KK instead of reraising, I don't really know. It might.

-----------------

Let's continue the action... I don't think anyone will be surprised to hear that I called Villain's turn bet.

Pre Flop: ($0.75) Hero is BTN with Q Q
1 fold, UTG+1 raises to $1.75, 2 folds, MP2 calls $1.75, 1 fold, Hero raises to $6.25, 2 folds, UTG+1 calls $4.50, 1 fold

Flop: ($15) J 5 J (2 players)
UTG+1 checks, Hero checks

Turn: ($15) 8 (2 players)
UTG+1 bets $8.50, Hero calls $8.50

River: ($32) J (2 players)
UTG+1 bets $36.75 all in, Hero ???

---------------

So it comes down to the $36.75 question: Is anyone tempted to call?

I have not *seen* him bluff the river, but I've seen him shove a couple rivers before (and either show the winning hand or fold out his opponent). This hand is pretty unique so I'm skeptical it means anything.

we know he is a competent player, therefore we can assume he knows that we aint folding this river more then 50% of the time, hell, after all the line from preflop thru river, not even more then 30% of the time. We know also that villains knows that we are (a) calling far more times with a pair then with a draw at the turn (b) betting a draw at the flop. Thus villain maximizes value against our easily defined range by shoving the river.

Easy fold. Im god and i see AA. :P

and before you call me a weakling, considering the range i assign him, i wouldn't be in this spot in the first place.

Everything screams for you to get the hell out of this hand. The problem is that you called the turn, and nothing has changed on the river.

If you feel like folding now, it's an admission that calling on the turn was wrong. You should make that admission and fold it down. At this point I narrow his range down to AA about 97% of the time. The other 3% is Jx.

Actually, make that 15% Jx. Call it a hunch.

Eh I think you're beat on the river there.

I don't think I can call here, but I really think we got into trouble by 3betting preflop. I ran this by a poster who I respect and he came up with some good reasons for not 3betting preflop.

"I think 3b QQ pre in this spot puts us in a lot of trouble postflop, for these reasons:

1 - Villain can play the top of his range (KK+) perfectly and flat call, c/r most flops.

2 - Because of #1, we will basically have to stack off on all safe flops, whereas if we flat pre and keep the SS in the hand, villain is way more likely to play straightforward postflop. We can play QQ much better against his range. AK will not put in more money on non ace flops, but he wouldn't really call pre anyways if we flat. KK+ is gonna double and triple barrel almost always. Overpairs we beat will fire at least once on safe flops, but they won't necessarily set mine if we 3b to an amount that has been suggested.

3 - 3b is a bluff because it's not for value. Very few hands we beat are going to call a reasonably sized 3b. EVERY hand that crushes us will at least call if not raise a 3b.

4 - The pot is bloated, we have very little info about our opponent's hand (only that it's probably either TT+ and maybe only JJ+, and possibly AK) and we aren't prepared to stack off with a bet/bet/bet line, yet by SPR logic we should be stacking off.

Flat pre imo."

I'm folding.

not 3betting this preflop, if UTG+1 openraises with a wider range then QQ+,AK in EP, is losing his dead money and MP2's entire stack, which give enough signs of being a donk.

Would your plan, then, be to 3bet preflop (a larger amount, perhaps) and shut down if UTG+1 hangs around?

pretty much, unless i hit a monster of course.

How is this play any different from a bluff then?